If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Trying to extinguish a fire with a garden hose? That's a tazin'   (miamiherald.com) divider line 64
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

8553 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-13 11:16:13 AM
4 votes:

BronyMedic: At that point, Life Safety takes prevelance over saving property.


I'd bet the death risk from the Taser is higher than the death risk from spraying water on a burning fence.
2012-11-13 11:18:46 AM
3 votes:

BronyMedic: Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.


Police cannot be held liable for failure to act.

End of story.
2012-11-13 11:03:16 AM
3 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.


So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.
2012-11-13 01:54:03 PM
2 votes:
What law was this gentleman breaking in spraying a hose at a fire? Is my own personel safety on my own property (or residence) really the domain of law enfforcement? There are laws on the books about this sort of thing?

I'm not really sure that either the police or fire department has any legal right or obligation to insist that the individual involved cease his actions.

I can only hope that the police officer involved is charged with assult. Sounds like the recipient of the tasering is gearing up for a lawsuit, and rightly so. Hope he wins it.

I'm fairly certain that given a similiar situation I would have behaved as did the guy trying to fight the fire. In fact at the first attempt of law enforcement officers to prevent me from fighting the fire I would have pointed out to them that they are trespassing on private property and have asked them to leave.
2012-11-13 12:25:37 PM
2 votes:

BronyMedic: Theaetetus: That's simply incorrect.

[Citation Needed]

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it correct. Interagency ICS adoption since Katrina has made law enforcement agencies increasingly liable for not following their own policies and procedures. In addition, I've pointed out to you that Warren v. DC does not apply here, as the police are on scene and considered "in command" of the incident.


Unless you've got a link to some of those alleged federal laws you keep claiming exist, then we currently have one Supreme Court case standing for the proposition that the police do not have an affirmative duty to protect citizens from dangers they did not create, and... your vague handwaving and demands for more citations.
But sure, what the heck. I'll also cite Hartzler v. San Jose, DeShaney v. Winebago, and Balistreri. Unless the police have actually taken custody of someone or performed other actions that would give rise to a "special relationship" between the person and the police, the police have no duty to act to protect them. Simply being "on scene" does not give rise to that special relationship.
2012-11-13 12:03:42 PM
2 votes:
I don't see how this is a situation where an officer would have used a real gun. Which is, YoU kNoW, when the cops are supposed to use tasers.

And yeah, it's perectly fine for law enforcement to step onto your property and shoot you.
2012-11-13 11:18:13 AM
2 votes:

BronyMedic: According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.


1 kg of water at 10 degrees celsius consumes 6,300,000 calories before turning into steam. The resulting steam both carries off the excess heat energy through convection, and prevents the rapid spread of the fire by oxygen exclusion. Even a garden hose can effectively save your house from being consumed by a nearby fire, provided you're not trying to hold back a forest fire.

Lord forbid you don't quiver in fear until the authorities arrive.
2012-11-13 11:11:28 AM
2 votes:

BronyMedic: HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.

I get it. Take your hand off your cop hate dick for a moment, and use your damn head. I'm telling you this as a Firefighter, based on what is being said in the article.

According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.

Radiant heat from involved structures can overwhelm or kill someone quickly. Smoke inhalation can do the same. In addition, depending on the construction of the involved building, you have other issues such as collapse, or secondary explosion considerations from stored LNG/Propane in the direct thermal area. Why would you expect someone to wrestle with someone in immediately life threatening conditions, when you can use a taser, drop them, and drag them away far safer since they refuse to follow commands?


They aren't supposed to use tasers in this manner.

I get the safety issues. There is no sane person that likes living in a free society that thinks its a good idea to electrocute him for it.
2012-11-13 11:06:54 AM
2 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.


Yes, I can see how that completely justifies firing a potentially deadly weapon at him. How dare he try to save his own home! That bastard!
2012-11-13 10:17:53 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: And this is the heart of the matter. This right here. You honestly think we don't want people to fend for themselves sometimes?


Yes, it endangers your overtime.

There was an episode of COPS many years back where bystanders were treating a gunshot victim -- pressure on the wound with a towel, seemed to be working and the victim was alert. Then the Officers showed up and made them stop. By the time EMTs arrived he had essentially bled out and they said there was nothing they could do.

I imagine these Officers were doing the right thing by make sure the amateurs were restrained and everyone waited for the professionals?
2012-11-13 09:32:34 PM
1 votes:
To BronyMedic....

In this case it sounds like the first responders were morally, if not legaly in the wrong. I have strong dubts about the legality of the actions taken by the first responders in this case.

It's terrifying that you claim to be a first responder yourself. Your attitude and disrespect of the general public leaves me saddened. I have to say that after reading this thread from start to finish I will think twice about contacting the authorities for anything lest I encounter a "first responder" as unthinking, unfeeling, and officous as yourself and the officers presented in this article.
2012-11-13 08:48:42 PM
1 votes:
I haven't read the entire thread, just the first third or so, and I've never sprayed water in the vicinity of a structural fire. I certainly make no claims at expertise nor special brilliance. But, somehow, I feel pretty confident I can figure out when I'm too hot.
2012-11-13 05:52:58 PM
1 votes:

shooosh: You don't need a college degree and a mask to put out flames with water.


Actually, you do need equipment and a fair amount of training. The fact that you do not know that does not negate the reality. Go to your nearest fire house. Sit down with one of the Captains or LT's and ask him to tell you a few stories. Ask him to show you the truck and ask about how many gallons per minute of foam it can put out. You will change your opinion pretty quickly on the idea that a guy with a garden hose can fight a fire.
2012-11-13 05:48:41 PM
1 votes:

shooosh: MycroftHolmes: will never convince you that the cop was not power tripping. I will never convince you that you don't always know better and that there are times when it is best to cede control of the situation to other people. I only hope that if you are ever in a truly dire situation, you stupid, ego centric disregard for authority only jeopardizes you, and not people around you. I know you think you are very special and that no one should ever be the boss of you, I only hope this attitude only bites you in the ass, and doesn't take down the people trying to help you as well.

Riggghhhht. Cuz us dum hicks don't know water puts out fire. We need professionals to decide that water puts out fire. I bet real money you got an Obamaphone too. Sucker.


This sentence pretty much proves my point. Fire is not that simple, and at very intense or high temperatures, does not act in very intuitive or predictable ways. Derrrr spray water on it does not really cover best or safe practices for fire fighting (most services do not use straight water anymore). The volume of water needed to be delivered to effectively fight a structure fire cannot be delivered from a garden hose.

I am far from socialist in my leanings. But I do believe in letting the professionals do their job
2012-11-13 04:55:12 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.



I highly doubt you are a fireman.

1) A fireman would applaud an individual trying to soak his fence to keep a fire from spreading.

2) A fireman would know that this man, on his own property, was not in any danger. How exactly would a collapsing structure hurt him when he's on a different piece of property, behind a fence.

3) A fireman would know that soaking the fence with a garden hose would be enough to stop the fire from spreading to the fence, or at least slow it down enough to where the fire on the fence wouldn't spread to the house before the firemen arrived.

You just really seem like an idiot.
2012-11-13 03:59:31 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter?....lots of words justifying total inaction from anyone at the scene.


Yes, fine, you've had training, you have the proper equipment, you have all the right liability protection. SO WHAT. I appreciate the job emergency services does, but seriously, go fark yourself if you're going to tell average American's to not do whatever they can (safely) to protect property/life in the case of a disaster. Would you really tell these people to just sit there and wait for the fire department if it were a major disaster that emergency services couldn't handle? It was his own property, and unless the guy was incapable of self-preservation he should have been allowed to do whatever he could.
2012-11-13 03:33:34 PM
1 votes:

asmodeusazarak: I gotta say the posts from some first responders in this thread make me suddenly terrified for my freedoms and the domicile I once felt secure that my tax dollars helped to make safe. Authority is great and all, but don't let it go to your head and become a jerk. Clearly there are some major ego issues going on.


In these types of threads, it is very clear that there are major egos and authority issues involved. people who interfere with or obstruct emergency operation, or refuse to cede control of a situation that they are not trained or equipped to deal with, endanger people and property with their egos. You do not know better how to fight a fire than a fire fighter. You do not know how to treat an injured person better than a paramedic. Swallow your ego, and take direction from people whose job it is to manage those types of emergencies.
2012-11-13 03:00:33 PM
1 votes:
NOBODY, ASIDE FROM PERHAPS THE PERSON HOLDING THOSE AND UNDER THE MOST UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENTS IMAGINABLE, IS GOING TO GET KILLED BY SOMEBODY HOSING DOWN A FENCE NEXT TO A HOUSE ON FIRE. Stop that.
2012-11-13 02:53:18 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: The proximity of the two houses

Oh, Bunner? I expect a goddamn apology from you. Right now.


Coincidences abound.

They helped nobody.

They protected nobody.

They tripped over their dicks. Then, thankfully, your crew showed up.
2012-11-13 02:46:23 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.


If there is anything that annoys the sh*t out of me more than officious gits who scream at you that you should do nothing because "you haven't had the training", its officious gits who scream at you that only they can function because "we've had the training" (even if they haven't shown up, yet). All y'all git over yourselves and let the rest of us be. It doesn't take "the training" to spray water on your grass, even with a bunch of cops standing around yelling at you.
2012-11-13 02:43:08 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: I_Hate_Iowa: If his neighbor's house was on fire and he was spraying his fence with his hose, doesn't that mean he was farther away from the fire than the fence, with the fence also acting as a sort of heat shield? And I don't know about him, but when I've tried to get in near fires and it got too hot, I backed away. I'm guessing he could gauge whether he felt safe enough to continue, and would have moved away if he thought he was risking his personal safety over his property.

This article doesn't give enough information, to be honest. It'd be nice to know the spacing of the houses and fence, and the general design of the area. Since he was treated for smoke inhalation, we can safely assume that he was close enough to inhale nasty things, which is too close without protective gear. (House fire smoke is very, very nasty.)

However, the portion I've bolded is because I wanted to point out a situation called "Tunnel Vision". It's what happens when you focus on the immediate task infront of you, without worrying about the grand picture of things. It kills people, even trained responders who are taught to recognize when it's occuring and to "back down" psychologically from it and assess the whole picture.

There are cases of people who were so focused on defending a part of their property that they never noticed the rest was fully engulphed in flames.

"After they tased me, about three of them picked me up and brought me out here and planted me on my face and handcuffed me," Jensen said.

From there, he was placed in a squad car, where he said he started having breathing problems.

"I just had surgery a couple of weeks prior. I was begging them for oxygen," Jensen said.


No breathing problems before having his entire body shocked. Can't say I'm surprised with the aftermath. Shortness of breath is one symptom of being tazed.

Read more: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/taser-victim-claims-police-overr eacted#ixzz2C7hvJgdY
2012-11-13 02:23:27 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.


So, to save him from the obviously very dangerous situation they decided to render him immobile and dazed in the very spot he was standing.

This is moronic. Defend the idea that he needed to get the fark out of there? Fine. But this is stupid.
2012-11-13 02:00:16 PM
1 votes:
(Is this Weeners jump to Godwin's Law ?)

In the 1930's the cops who tasered this guy would have been the first to sign up with the SS. Not trying to be funny/ironic/hyperbolic/etc - the same mindset that put Jews in gas chambers, tasers people for no reason.
2012-11-13 01:56:26 PM
1 votes:
I gotta say the posts from some first responders in this thread make me suddenly terrified for my freedoms and the domicile I once felt secure that my tax dollars helped to make safe. Authority is great and all, but don't let it go to your head and become a jerk. Clearly there are some major ego issues going on.
2012-11-13 01:30:53 PM
1 votes:

pdee: Let the guy gamble with Darwin or let the cops taze people for their own safety?

Ill take my chances with Darwin thank you very much.


This guy being so focused on saving PROPERTY obviously didn't recognize the danger that he was in. He wasn't necessarily being stupid just ignorant of the facts around him. Basic target fixation on the problem and not seeing a bigger problem developing around you.

It is at that point the officers need to step in because he is no longer in a position to make a rational decision. One of the articles mentioned he was super agitated, angry, and screaming. So, for everyone screaming about the use of a taser, would you have rather wrestled with this guy in close proximity of a fire or just incapacitate him and pull him to safety?
2012-11-13 01:25:17 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Riiiiiiiight. We're all in one gigantic conspiracy to cover eachother's ass.


I was thinking more "corner store gentlemen's club", but hey, how else I have gotten to see that stupid ass pic you hotlinked? : )

BronyMedic:
Thank you. I think I've heard the stupidest thing on FARK since tabbing over to politics

Yeah, of course it is. Evar!11 Woo. *sigh* Do you know what a strawman is? Can you get yours off of my lawn?

BronyMedic: You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to be nice to them. But if you're told to GTFO of the way


Seig heil, daddy-o.

BronyMedic: And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops


Did you read where I types HORSE SH*T, up there? Or did he endanger them by them having to drag his ass to the curb after he was incapacitated for watering his fence on his private property? God, how do you folks ever mange such a difficult job?

BTW, it's spelled "belligerent". It looks better on the incident report if you seem literate.

BronyMedic: You're going to be roughed up.


Well, that's a convenient ideology. I think you need a new hat, brah.
2012-11-13 01:19:45 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.

I get it. Take your hand off your cop hate dick for a moment, and use your damn head. I'm telling you this as a Firefighter, based on what is being said in the article.

According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.

Radiant heat from involved structures can overwhelm or kill someone quickly. Smoke inhalation can do the same. In addition, depending on the construction of the involved building, you have other issues such as collapse, or secondary explosion considerations from stored LNG/Propane in the direct thermal area. Why would you expect someone to wrestle with someone in immediately life threatening conditions, when you can use a taser, drop them, and drag them away far safer since they refuse to follow commands?

Cops don't have turn-out gear, dude. Most of the departments spring for 50-50 polyester mixes for uniforms since it's cheap as shiat. You do know what that fabric does when exposed to moderately high temperatures, right?


I dont question any thing you have posted.

My question is hat is safer and best for society.

Let the guy gamble with Darwin or let the cops taze people for their own safety?

Ill take my chances with Darwin thank you very much.
2012-11-13 01:07:19 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: They knocked a guy to his knees for refusing to follow a lawful order


Yeah, about that.

and being beligerant with

That' not even funny.

the people trying to keep him from getting himself, and potentially others hurt in the process.

Apparently they didn't try too hard. This stinks. And you know it and they know it like all public sector and LEO, you guys would back each other up for throwing a cripple down a flight of stairs if they managed to not sufficiently kiss your ass. And that is NOT service, that is NOT protection, and that is NOT helpful. That's bored bullies looking for sufficient room to wave their dicks. If I have to move to a communist country to make my own decisions about whether or not I'm allowed to assess personal risk in the defense of my property, perhaps I'm already in one. *sigh* And trying to open the museum of not getting it on my front lawn like it's some sort of moral obligation for me to pay the cover charge isn't gonna make me go in and buy a cup of kool aid.
2012-11-13 12:53:16 PM
1 votes:
They should have warned him of the danger, and left it at that. Its a free country, and a person has the right to expose themselves to risks to protect their property. Once the fire dept arrives and starts to fight the fire, then use force if he interferes, but that is it. Yes there is a risk, yes he may need to be rescued, but there is also the possibility that his actions could reduce the risk of the fire spreading, thereby reducing the risk to others. Basically, the police start issuing orders, he ignores then, bam contempt of cop, taser deployed, it wasn't because the cops really cared about the potential liability either way.
2012-11-13 12:48:25 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: It's called Sudden In Custody Death Syndrome.


I have never found making up dime store log entry labels to be either an effective remedy or an excuse for cheap behavior. If you need to do all that cause it's "the way it is", you have my sympathies, but not my respect. I wont pretend you care if you don't. They knocked a guy to his knees for squirting water on his fence when the house next door was on fire. That's not America. Hell, man, that's not even Cuba. I think that it's time to review the who works for whom aspect of public service. YMMV.
2012-11-13 12:32:43 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Theaetetus: And additionally, I'd be surprised if the homeowner even had standing to bring suit under such laws governing command polices between different departments.

Possibly. But the department would also be willing to settle rather quickly as well because of the negative publicity, and the risk of dragging out into a civil liability trial. The fact of the matter is, as they were in control of the scene and told the guy to GTFO and he refused, not only did he refuse a lawful order from the cops, he also endangered his own life doing so. While he didn't run into a burning building, he did get in the danger area - going from the article's limited information - of radiant heat exposure, smoke, and explosion/collapse. As pointed out here beforehand, he was treated for smoke inhalation.


I'd suggest the opposite - because they told the guy to GTFO and he refused and therefore refused an order of questionable legality from the cops (;P), their position would be that he brought the danger on himself and they'd never settle. Furthermore, with a clear standing problem like the one I suggested, they'd just move for dismissal under rule 12 at summary judgement, and wouldn't ever have to worry about a trial.
2012-11-13 12:25:45 PM
1 votes:
I can't imagine the frame of mind a human being would have to be in to torture a man into submission for trying to protect his home.

Did we start recruiting officers from Bosnian Serb Forces?
2012-11-13 12:20:07 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Repeating that over and over doesn't make it correct. Interagency ICS adoption since Katrina has made law enforcement agencies increasingly liable for not following their own policies and procedures. In addition, I've pointed out to you that Warren v. DC does not apply here, as the police are on scene and considered "in command" of the incident.


Congratulations, America. You have CEOs making foreign policy, insurance adjusters determining the value of your well being, cops mugging people and lawyers putting out fires. Heading for a cliff? Hell, if your parachute isn't open yet, I'd cancel lunch.
2012-11-13 12:18:28 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Would you like to directly quote where I said water burns? Oh wait. I never did.

What I did say, that given a "typical" housing profile common in urban settings of a zero-lot or small lot structure seperated by 6-12 feet of space and next to a fully involved structure was that that small amount of water from a garden hose EVAPORATES quickly given radiant and convective heat. It's the reason high flow hand lines are typically used to protect the adjacent structures.


No, you didn't. Actually, you were talking about spraying the ground (presumably at the grass fire?) and how that wouldn't protect a fence from radiant heat. I was the one who mentioned spraying the fence, and I was also the one who mentioned evaporation. Scrolling up in this thread will prove that.

I linked a firefighting textbook you could openly download from a torrent if you so chose.

And commit copyright infringement? I think not. :P

Theaetetus: Why not? They had no duty to act to save the homeowner's butt, which is what you were claiming.

Which is in direct violation to the almost universal adoption of Incident Command Policies as mandated by the federal government since 2001... The laws have been changing since Katrina, and the courts are increasingly willing to award judgements based on incident command policies adopted by departments.


And as I said above:
which alleged federal laws are these that govern use and structure of state police powers? Because that's potentially a huge constitutional problem, if they exist as you claim

Now, if you're talking about a state law, that's different. But you're clearly stressing "federal" over and over.

And additionally, I'd be surprised if the homeowner even had standing to bring suit under such laws governing command polices between different departments.
2012-11-13 12:12:36 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.


And there's a reason why standing and watering your wooden fence on your own property when a fire is approaching it is not only somewhat useful, not an endangerment but legal. Is the point to fight the fire or yell "NO, ME! I GET TO!!11"?

Cause this whole thing is dogsh*t and the guy knows it and the cop knows it and the DA is going to likely concur and real heroes HELP people, not take them out at the knees for trying to keep their house from catching fire.

What if he had a heart condition? He'd be dead. Would that be OK? Is that "serving and protecting", too? Would that have been dandy and justifiable since it would have ended this GREAT DANGER he was putting people in?

No. F*cking. Sale. And you can skip the "No, see, it works like THIS and you can't possibly comprehend!" pose.
2012-11-13 12:07:49 PM
1 votes:

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Here is a good rule of thumb. During an emergency obey the orders of the first responders. They didn't tase him because he was trying to save his fence, they tased him because he wouldn't leave the area.

From a different article:

"Paramedics rushed Dan Jensen to the hospital after he was incapacitated. Authorities said he suffered smoke inhalation."

He wasn't just standing there spraying his fence, he was endangering himself.

If anyone wants to argue which is worse, tased or dead, I am all ears.


"Forseth said officers made a "split-second decision" about the type of force to use. Officer Daniel Sosa-Jones was a few feet away - maybe arm's length - from Dan Jensen."
Link

I'd say the smoke inhalation line was probably bullshiat unless they treated the cop standing next to him as well. The ambulance took him to the hospital for being tazed. 

"After they tased me, about three of them picked me up and brought me out here and planted me on my face and handcuffed me," Jensen said.

From there, he was placed in a squad car, where he said he started having breathing problems.

"I just had surgery a couple of weeks prior. I was begging them for oxygen," Jensen said.


No breathing problems before having his entire body shocked. Can't say I'm surprised with the aftermath.
Read more: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/taser-victim-claims-police-overr eacted#ixzz2C7hvJgdY
2012-11-13 12:06:20 PM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: Lunaville: Elroyone: I agree that the police needed to intervene for his safety, but tasering the man was extreme.

This thread is going to make me blow a fuse and my brain is going to burn down.
The adult with the gardening hose does not require parenting from the police nor was it appropriate to spank him with electricity.

So, you would not fault the firefighters for sitting back and watching the man burn to death?


You know, let me pull this card out: my uncle was a firefighter ... in the seventies ... when half the fancy equipment Brony is carrying on about hadn't been invented yet and he and the other firefighters let us (their children) ride in the back of the vehicle to the emergency events. This was before seatbelts. We jostled around back with first aid supplies zinging around unsecured. He took us along to some hellacious fires: one where lightening struck the home, traveled through the T.V and killed the little boy the same age as my brother; one that consisted of the remains of a crashed small aircraft with shoes, and belts, and flesh hanging from tree limbs, and more.

The risk of this man bursting into flames might be real, but it is overblown. You all are acting like the man doused himself in plenty of gasoline before approaching the fire. Furthermore, if you are so concerned that he may catch afire, for the love of Nelly spinning on a stick, use one of those hook things (I can't remember the proper name.) rescuers used to use to drag the lake for drowning victims. Just toss that thing over there a few times, until you get his pant leg or shirt and drag him back.

And do you know what happens when there is a fire in a place where there is no fire department of any sort? Because I've been in that situation also. If the garden hose will reach, woot! Otherwise, a bucket line is set up with everyone on hand, including children, who is strong enough to pass a bucket. And the group just keeps going until the fire burns the given structure down or it is put out. (I had boy cousins who set the neighbors field on fire during a drought one summer.)
2012-11-13 12:04:35 PM
1 votes:

Police said they can sympathize with the stress Jensen was under. But they said he put himself and officers in danger when he refused to back down from fighting the fire.

H O R S E


S H * T .
2012-11-13 11:57:33 AM
1 votes:

BattleAxe: Will I get tazed if I decide to use my own fire extinguisher on a small fire at my home?


Clearly, because you're in the
th05.deviantart.net
2012-11-13 11:55:25 AM
1 votes:
Guy is on his own property using his own hose and his own water to spray a fire endangering his property. At what point is this illegal? If he's not doing something illegal while on his own property, then do police have jurisdiction to tell him to vacate?

Since when did it become required that we all take some kind of firemen training course to protect our homes? If I have a kitchen fire, do I need to vacate and call 911 or am I allowed to put it out on my own? Will I get tazed if I decide to use my own fire extinguisher on a small fire at my home? I suppose a bucket brigade would be considered terrorist organization.

Land of the free - my ass.
2012-11-13 11:55:21 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: Yes, I understand that those two are not the same group. Still not sure what h is point is. Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops. Which is dumb.

Nope, I'm saying that cops have no duty to rescue people from a hazard that they didn't create, and cannot be held liable for failing to do so, contrary to what Brony was claiming.

So, you are missing the whole point about endangering other first responders, who will place themselves in harms way to rescue people in the danger zone.


And you're missing the whole point about Brony being wrong about:

BronyMedic: Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.

That's simply incorrect.
2012-11-13 11:54:19 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.


it's getting to a point where every overzealous tazermonkey with a badge story that i see leaves me thinking 'well, at least they didn't drive over him with their tank'.


the funny thing is, if the guy was standing too close to the fire, is flopping around on the ground in the exact same place with thousands of volts flowing thru him really supposed to be an improvement?

"Let me hurt you so you don't hurt yourself" is a helluva philosophy.
2012-11-13 11:52:56 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes:
The reason why, as a policy, first responders do not allow untrained and unequipped individuals to fight fires is that it creates a situation that places other first responders at risk. Containing a fully involved structure fire that is vacant is handled differently than a structure fire with individuals in it. Having the police keep individuals out of the danger zone, so that firefighters can stay out of the danger zone unnecessarily is entirely appropriate.


1) At no time did he go into or approach the "fully involved structure", so discussions of how you contain one with individuals in it is irrelevant.
2)
i.qkme.me
2012-11-13 11:47:20 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: Yes, I understand that those two are not the same group. Still not sure what h is point is. Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops. Which is dumb.


Nope, I'm saying that cops have no duty to rescue people from a hazard that they didn't create, and cannot be held liable for failing to do so, contrary to what Brony was claiming.
2012-11-13 11:44:43 AM
1 votes:

Elroyone: I agree that the police needed to intervene for his safety, but tasering the man was extreme.


This thread is going to make me blow a fuse and my brain is going to burn down.
The adult with the gardening hose does not require parenting from the police nor was it appropriate to spank him with electricity.
2012-11-13 11:36:09 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: JesusJuice: We get it, you're a firefighter. Nobody gives a shiat. He shouldn't have been tased for spraying a hose on his own property.

Of course he shouldn't have been. He was tased, FTFA, for repeatedly disregarding the orders of officers to get back away from an involved structure, and for endangering more lives than his own.


Whose lives did he endanger given that the cops didn't have to act and the firemen weren't there yet?
2012-11-13 11:35:41 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: kindms: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.

yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc. Would have taken all of about 30 seconds and could have been done from afar and as mentioned in the article they could have turned off the water.

Instead of that they made some comment about letting the insurance take care of it and then lit him up with a taser.

They did that, he returned to the fire. He was obviously pretty worked up (I would be too). At that point physical restraint was probably necesary, and the taser is the safest (for all inviolved) options.

I love naive idiots 'Well, they should have just asked nicely and everything would have been great, because everyone is rational all the time'.

Sorry, the police were right in this one. You don't let bystanders jack with a fire, as they would be putting other people at risk.


Again with this nonsense. Other people need not approach. Other people can stand back at a safe distance and let a grown man make his own decisions for himself while they make their own decisions for themselves.
2012-11-13 11:35:37 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops.


They aren't obligated to, and would face no repercussions for letting him spray his hose, contrary to the "BUT DEY'D A GOT SUED" line.
2012-11-13 11:32:03 AM
1 votes:
Pinellas Park, Florida, Dan Jensen, Huge Fire
Bright idea, put it out, Big ol' garden hose
Cops say just move away, the firemen are on their way
The minutes slowly pass, Damn it, man, this blows
See neighbor's burning lawn, how long will this go on
Flames leap, ain't no lie, the smoke is filling up the sky
Waiting here is obscene, grab the hose, hear a scream
"Hit 'em! Take him down!" Beechwood Terrace Goodbye!
...

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
And our flashers turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
And we'll tase those that fight it 

sorry for mangling rhyme and meter
2012-11-13 11:30:21 AM
1 votes:

jtown: I'll bet he listens next time.


Nice snapshot of the attitude that has lead police to abuse so many with their new toys.
2012-11-13 11:27:24 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: Elroyone: Just some questions here:

If they successfully got him to stop once, why not a second time?
If he was removed the first time, how did he evade police to start a second time?
Why didn't they just put cuffs on him?

I agree that the police needed to intervene for his safety, but tasering the man was extreme.

OK, so your stance is that they should have physically taken him down. What if it is shown that statistically, tasers are safer than physically subduing someone?


Safer for who? If I resist police and get injured, it's on me. If I get tasered while covered in water and end up injured, it's on them.
2012-11-13 11:26:00 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: fnordfocus: Police cannot be held liable for failure to act.

If they are in command of the scene, yes they can. The police have a duty to act once they are on scene and in command.


If he was busy hosing down his fence, then the police clearly weren't in command, and therefore could not be held liable for failure to act.
Plus, no, they still don't have a duty to act, even if they're "on scene and in command".

Now, once they tazed the guy and left him rolling on the ground next to a structure on fire, then they had a duty to rescue him... but not until, since they had not created the danger.
2012-11-13 11:25:46 AM
1 votes:
Another day, another asshole cop tasing an unarmed citizen. The cop could have restrained the man but no, that would take actual work.
2012-11-13 11:25:25 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: 1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?

Of course, the cops have no duty to rescue, so really, it's not his actions that put them at risk but their own. They could have just stood back and kept the crowd away.

Fire fighters do not operate that way. You just allowed a situation to change from containing a fully involved structure fire into a rescue operation which places firefighters at greater risk. Fire and rescue guys will not just sit back and watch a man burn to death, even if it was his own choice.


These two are not alike
2012-11-13 11:22:28 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Theaetetus: BronyMedic: ... Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.

BronyMedic: According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.

... which you just said would be just fine, since he's putting out the small grass fire leading up to his freaking fence. Or are you saying that that earlier BronyMedic is wrong?

/facepalm.

The problem is not the grass on fire by his fence. You can spray water on the ground all day long with a garden hose, and the radiant heat will catch that wood on fire without even having to touch it with a flame.


And if you spray water on the wood, it will get no hotter than 212 degrees F until the water has evaporated, well under its flashpoint. I thought you firefighters were supposed to be trained at this stuff.

Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.

Not according to the Supreme Court.
2012-11-13 11:18:43 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.

Just trying to figure this out. He was already told to stay away from the danger zone. Are you arguing that
1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?
2) Force was justified, but it should not have been a taser?

I honestly don't understand your stance, other than 'pigs r dum'


I'll make it easy: Police should not be allowed to carry tasers.
2012-11-13 11:17:59 AM
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: I love naive idiots 'Well, they should have just asked nicely and everything would have been great, because everyone is rational all the time'.


Yes, the rational actors here are the people that electrocuted a man with a hose for trying to preserve his property.
2012-11-13 11:15:57 AM
1 votes:

CapeFearCadaver: BronyMedic: Firefighter

Weren't you EMT last week?


From his profile:

Pediatric Flight Team Paramedic for local hospital in Memphis, PRN 911 Paramedic, and volunteer Rescue Technician. I've been doing this for about 8 years now, and love it - I was actually lucky enough to start in High School with the local Fire Department in my home town. Highly encourage anyone who lives near a volunteer department to do so.

I'd guess he does the volunteer firefighter thing. Most of the ones we have around here are adrenaline junkies that (fortunately for the rest of us) get their rocks off using the whole helping people thing as their rationale.

/I love em for it, too
2012-11-13 11:14:24 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: ... Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.


BronyMedic: According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.


... which you just said would be just fine, since he's putting out the small grass fire leading up to his freaking fence. Or are you saying that that earlier BronyMedic is wrong?
2012-11-13 11:09:43 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Firefighter


Weren't you EMT last week?
2012-11-13 11:08:57 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.


Also do YOU take orders from the Police when it comes to battling fires ? Somehow I highly doubt the fire Dept looks to the police for suggestions on how to attack a fire or asses one.
2012-11-13 11:07:48 AM
1 votes:

kindms: yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc.


Because Officers don't consider civilians to be human, except sometimes for close family members.
2012-11-13 11:06:18 AM
1 votes:
If people put out their own fires, there would be less overtime for firefighters and Police.

Can't allow that to happen.
2012-11-13 11:05:37 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.


yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc. Would have taken all of about 30 seconds and could have been done from afar and as mentioned in the article they could have turned off the water.

Instead of that they made some comment about letting the insurance take care of it and then lit him up with a taser.
 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report