Site Notices
10/24/2014 2:42:22 PM
Page:  / 10
Author
Message
GotGuns
Member
Offline
Posts: 2884
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 2:53:23 PM
[Last Edit: 11/13/2012 2:53:46 PM by GotGuns]
Wouldn't it be funny if the police department opened themselves up to a lawsuit for using excessive force to protect themselves from a lawsuit - both from the guy that got tazed and the insurance company for his house (assuming there was any damage to his house after they told forced him to stop protecting it).

Hopefully irony owns page 3.
"You know, Grady, some people think I'm overprepared, paranoid, maybe even a little crazy. But they never met any Precambrian life forms, did they?"-Burt Gummer
bcauz3y
I'm a Tactical penguin
Offline
Posts: 24894
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 2:54:09 PM

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Trempel:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.


Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

This one would probably hit a lawyers desk either way.
So you are right, but by being so, you are also obfuscating the truth.
-SKWhitlc
ClinchMtnman
Offline
Posts: 199
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 2:54:44 PM
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Trempel:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.


Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.


If his family tried that, i'd be on board with taseing them, totally.
iScream
Peace Activist
Offline
Posts: 4635
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 2:55:25 PM
Why are so many of you assuming the guy was going to be hurt because he was spraying water on his fence? I'm pretty damn sure I can figure out when it's too hot where I'm standing and stop spraying the water before I get burned.

And what comes out of a fire hydrant? I believe it's water and water can certainly keep burning embers from catching a fence on fire. The guy was not trying to put out the fire burning the house next door.

And before someone jumps in, of course I understand the tremendous difference in volume between a water hose and fire hydrant.
Does anyone know how to put a peace sign in your sig?
Riply21
Member
Offline
Posts: 3542
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 2:56:50 PM

Originally Posted By Assaulter:
Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.
Every year during fire season here we have a story about some one who saved there house with a garden hose and balls.

sturmjr
FBHO and FFSA
Online
Posts: 2471
Feedback: 100% (19)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:02:00 PM
Originally Posted By CrazyRayRay:
Anyone notice whats libs, and cophaters have in common?
They don't listen to the facts.






My first encounter with you. Join date is perfect. I expect nothing less. Good work.
Being an asshole is all part of my manly essence.
Trempel
Professional Russian
Offline
Posts: 1420
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:02:32 PM
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Trempel:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.


Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.


To me that's still better than a suit for excessive force and violation of civil rights. Besides, you can do everything 100% by the book and still get sued over nothing.
Durka-Durka
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 4079
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:10:25 PM
Originally Posted By CrazyRayRay:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.


When we all secede, you aren't allowed to come.
You can have yer jihad, wait till you've been ye-hawed.
Ridgerunner9876
Member
Offline
Posts: 9256
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:10:35 PM
Originally Posted By CrazyRayRay:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.


So, a cop is driving by and sees a man, up in his tree, with his chainsaw and his buddy holding the ladder. In your opinion, cop is within is duty to order the guy down from the tree and tase him if he doesn't comply? After all, he is a danger to himself and his friend.

This fucking attitude makes me want to puke.
jeffco55
Member
Offline
Posts: 7832
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:11:49 PM
Originally Posted By GotGuns:
Wouldn't it be funny if the police department opened themselves up to a lawsuit for using excessive force to protect themselves from a lawsuit - both from the guy that got tazed and the insurance company for his house (assuming there was any damage to his house after they told forced him to stop protecting it).

Hopefully irony owns page 3.


Not even irony can own with an edit.
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. - Thomas Sowell
guitarmonkey55
Offline
Posts: 551
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:18:28 PM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Originally Posted By CrazyRayRay:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.


So, a cop is driving by and sees a man, up in his tree, with his chainsaw and his buddy holding the ladder. In your opinion, cop is within is duty to order the guy down from the tree and tase him if he doesn't comply? After all, he is a danger to himself and his friend.

This fucking attitude makes me want to puke.


Incredible analogy.

searchin4shacks
Member
Offline
Posts: 773
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:20:02 PM
Originally Posted By Assaulter:
Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.


That's an interesting statement considering I saved my parents house from burning by doing just that several years ago.

With a blazing fire not 15 feet from their house, I was able to keep it from burning long enough for the FD to get there and take care of business.

dbrowne1
Zero Force Member
Offline
Posts: 11764
Feedback: 100% (22)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:20:47 PM
Originally Posted By ghengiskhabb:
Fucked over laws and sue happy lawyers are the reason for this.


The officers them selves were put in a tough spot and had to taze him. To do otherwise would be disasterous for their career and the department as sue happy survivors will feast upon such an opportunity.



There is no duty for the police (or anyone else for that matter) to rescue him or save him. Or even warn him of the dangers to himself. That's without even getting into the fact that they're immune.

As a general rule, I'm always wary of total strangers who have the authority to totally ass-rape my life - runcible
Bama-Shooter
You do your thing. I'll do mine.
Instructor
Offline
Posts: 89962
Feedback: 100% (62)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:21:45 PM
Originally Posted By Trempel:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Trempel:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.


Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.


To me that's still better than a suit for excessive force and violation of civil rights. Besides, you can do everything 100% by the book and still get sued over nothing.


Ehhh, he's not getting any money for the tase.
American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

Constitutional carry is a right not a privilege.

Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
ske714
Member
Military
Online
Posts: 3551
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:22:06 PM
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By CrazyRayRay:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.


Well aren't you a good sheep.


Former hall monitor.
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
dbrowne1
Zero Force Member
Offline
Posts: 11765
Feedback: 100% (22)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:23:33 PM
Originally Posted By bg10:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By TinLeg:
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
How did he put the officers in danger, and why is he not allowed to choose to risk himself if he wants?

The guy wasn't some suicidal nutter, he knew the score and they yanked his decision from him.




The excuse goes somewhat like this:



"If the officers hadn't vigorously kept him from fighting the fire, they would have been obligated to follow him in and attempt to rescue him once he succumbed to the flames, as he obviously would have since he is not a professional. Thus, the homeowner's actions were putting officers in danger."


Yeah, I get that when the homeowners tries to run into the burning house (it happens) ,but this guy was standing in the yard spraying water on the neighbor's place and the fire department wasn't there. Sounds excessive.


until his ass gets killed fucking around with a garden hose, and the officers are sued for not making sure he was a safe distance from the fire.


That lawsuit would get tossed on motion, for the reasons I state above. Idiots voluntarily assuming the risk of obvious hazards like FIRE do not a lawsuit make.

Tazing someone under this sort of circumstance, on the other hand, is going to get you sued, deposed, and the county's wallet lightened.
As a general rule, I'm always wary of total strangers who have the authority to totally ass-rape my life - runcible
Durka-Durka
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 4080
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:24:47 PM
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks:
Originally Posted By Assaulter:
Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.


That's an interesting statement considering I saved my parents house from burning by doing just that several years ago.

With a blazing fire not 15 feet from their house, I was able to keep it from burning long enough for the FD to get there and take care of business.



I was hoping we'd get some real-world examples in here before the day ended. That's 2 so far. By some accounts you should've been tazed and left wriggling on the ground while your parent's house went up in flames along with every keepsake they've built in the past because after all, insurance can replace it.
You can have yer jihad, wait till you've been ye-hawed.
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 49461
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:24:49 PM
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
dbrowne1
Zero Force Member
Offline
Posts: 11766
Feedback: 100% (22)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:25:15 PM
[Last Edit: 11/13/2012 3:28:03 PM by dbrowne1]
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Trempel:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.


Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

This one would probably hit a lawyers desk either way.


One way results in a "Thank you for letting me review your case, I can't help you" letter. The other way results in a retainer for a 1983 case.

I can't repeat this enough times - if you're a cop, there are few circumstances where refraining or failing to act is going to result in a "good" lawsuit. You're immune, you made a discretionary governmental decision, you had no duty to do something in the first place, etc. On the other hand, doing too much or doing the wrong thing is going to get you zapped.
As a general rule, I'm always wary of total strangers who have the authority to totally ass-rape my life - runcible
Qweevox
In matters of principal stand like a rock
Online
Posts: 6061
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:25:48 PM
It's union thing.

State sanctioned monopoly of coercive violence. Nanny-state spanking one of its children, for their own good, that's all.
The United States Constitution
(c) 1791.
All Rights Reserved.
usp4u
I'd buy that for a dollar!
Offline
Posts: 5822
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:27:27 PM
Sounds like a great way to cover an arson.....

"Well you see Mr. Insurance Adjuster, I tried to put it out and save my home so much that I got Tased."
Durka-Durka
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 4081
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:30:22 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.


It sucks when they're armed.
You can have yer jihad, wait till you've been ye-hawed.
bcauz3y
I'm a Tactical penguin
Offline
Posts: 24901
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:31:00 PM

Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Trempel:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.


Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

This one would probably hit a lawyers desk either way.


One way results in a "Thank you for letting me review your case, I can't help you" letter. The other way results in a retainer for a 1983 case.

I can't repeat this enough times - if you're a cop, there are few circumstances where refraining or failing to act is going to result in a "good" lawsuit. You're immune, you made a discretionary governmental decision, you had no duty to do something in the first place, etc. On the other hand, doing too much or doing the wrong thing is going to get you zapped.

Agree.

When in doubt, give me a November.
So you are right, but by being so, you are also obfuscating the truth.
-SKWhitlc
iScream
Peace Activist
Offline
Posts: 4638
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:31:07 PM
Originally Posted By usp4u:
Sounds like a great way to cover an arson.....

"Well you see Mr. Insurance Adjuster, I tried to put it out and save my home so much that I got Tased."


Except for the fact that his house wasn't on fire.
Does anyone know how to put a peace sign in your sig?
woodbutcher223308
Team Member
Offline
Posts: 9648
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:32:29 PM

Originally Posted By Trempel:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

Hhahahahhha.
South Of 80.

Re: Boating "A strangely common mallady among Arfcommers. You'd think we'd stop going fishing with our guns since we obviously know nothing about keeping them upright" . Mauser101
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 49465
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:33:39 PM
Originally Posted By Durka-Durka:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.


It sucks when they're armed.


I knew someone would try to twist my comment into something other than what I meant
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
jeffco55
Member
Offline
Posts: 7835
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:35:48 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.


oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. - Thomas Sowell
Durka-Durka
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 4082
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:36:01 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Durka-Durka:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.


It sucks when they're armed.


I knew someone would try to twist my comment into something other than what I meant


You should've been less passive-agressive about it ;)
You can have yer jihad, wait till you've been ye-hawed.
Grunteled
Offline
Posts: 18531
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:36:15 PM
Originally Posted By TinLeg:
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
How did he put the officers in danger, and why is he not allowed to choose to risk himself if he wants?

The guy wasn't some suicidal nutter, he knew the score and they yanked his decision from him.




The excuse goes somewhat like this:



"If the officers hadn't vigorously kept him from fighting the fire, they would have been obligated to follow him in and attempt to rescue him once he succumbed to the flames, as he obviously would have since he is not a professional. Thus, the homeowner's actions were putting officers in danger."



It's like you've done this before!
Goldenlight
Offline
Posts: 1728
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:37:22 PM

Originally Posted By Trempel:
Originally Posted By JonnyVain:

Originally Posted By Trempel:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.


http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/3/9/f591975a-3e5a-4232-aca3-4acd6cabed39.jpg


HE WAS SPRAYING THE OUTSIDE OF HIS HOUSE WITH A GARDEN HOSE.


Yeah, I got that. Fucking Captain Obvious.

I'll repeat it again, for the mentally slow. They should have let him back into it and let him burn. Should I draw a picture?

I'll repeat it again, for the mentally slow:

HE WAS SPRAYING THE OUTSIDE OF HIS HOUSE WITH A GARDEN HOSE.

Should I draw a picture?

He was OUTSIDE of his house, which was NOT burning, trying to protect his house from catching fire.

It was his NEIGHBOR'S house that was on fire.

You were too fucking LAZY to read the article, weren't you???

Fucking Captain Obvious.
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 49466
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:40:02 PM
[Last Edit: 11/13/2012 3:43:04 PM by tc556guy]
Originally Posted By jeffco55:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.


oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?


If he is interfering or doing something to place himself in harm then yes, we are pretty much obligated to do something.
Once the fire dept rolls up, its their scene. It might be the homeowners house, but the FD owns the scene and if we are called there at the request of FD, we'd have to deal with this guy if he was interfering.

And before someone says I didn't read the article, I did.
The only reason we'd be at a fire scene would be if we either rolled up on it or were called there by the FD
How the officers came to be at this scene without the FD on scene, we don't know.
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
Grunteled
Offline
Posts: 18532
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:41:25 PM
Originally Posted By CrazyRayRay:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.


Jesus tapdancing Christ, Pull his burnt corpse out of the ruble of his lawn?
Grunteled
Offline
Posts: 18533
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:43:04 PM
Originally Posted By iScream:
Why are so many of you assuming the guy was going to be hurt because he was spraying water on his fence? I'm pretty damn sure I can figure out when it's too hot where I'm standing and stop spraying the water before I get burned.

And what comes out of a fire hydrant? I believe it's water and water can certainly keep burning embers from catching a fence on fire. The guy was not trying to put out the fire burning the house next door.

And before someone jumps in, of course I understand the tremendous difference in volume between a water hose and fire hydrant.


There you go with that FAGOT READING SHIT!
SmilingBandit
Damn these electric sex pants!
Military
Offline
Posts: 24417
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:43:19 PM
Originally Posted By TinLeg:
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
How did he put the officers in danger, and why is he not allowed to choose to risk himself if he wants?

The guy wasn't some suicidal nutter, he knew the score and they yanked his decision from him.




The excuse goes somewhat like this:



"If the officers hadn't vigorously kept him from fighting the fire, they would have been obligated to follow him in and attempt to rescue him once he succumbed to the flames, as he obviously would have since he is not a professional. Thus, the homeowner's actions were putting officers in danger."


Exactly where is this obligation documented?
"Upon further review, we have determined that the string itself is not a machinegun" -BATFE
SmilingBandit
Damn these electric sex pants!
Military
Offline
Posts: 24418
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:45:54 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By jeffco55:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.


oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?


If he is interfering or doing something to place himself in harm then yes, we are pretty much obligated to do something.
Once the fire dept rolls up, its their scene. It might be the homeowners house, but the FD owns the scene and if we are called there at the request of FD, we'd have to deal with this guy if he was interfering.

And before someone says I didn't read the article, I did.
The only reason we'd be at a fire scene would be if we either rolled up on it or were called there by the FD
How the officers came to be at this scene without the FD on scene, we don't know.

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.
"Upon further review, we have determined that the string itself is not a machinegun" -BATFE
dbrowne1
Zero Force Member
Offline
Posts: 11767
Feedback: 100% (22)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:48:50 PM
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By jeffco55:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.


oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?


If he is interfering or doing something to place himself in harm then yes, we are pretty much obligated to do something.
Once the fire dept rolls up, its their scene. It might be the homeowners house, but the FD owns the scene and if we are called there at the request of FD, we'd have to deal with this guy if he was interfering.

And before someone says I didn't read the article, I did.
The only reason we'd be at a fire scene would be if we either rolled up on it or were called there by the FD
How the officers came to be at this scene without the FD on scene, we don't know.

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.


I could kill a forest printing cases that say there is no duty sounding in tort to rescue someone if you had no part in creating the peril, but all that paper might make a fire hazard.
As a general rule, I'm always wary of total strangers who have the authority to totally ass-rape my life - runcible
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 49468
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:49:39 PM
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.


We have a general requirement to maintain public order. if soemone is going to be obviously placing themselves in harms way, we can't allow them to , for example, run back into a burning building.

Our response to fires is as I stated. Unless FD requests us, we don't go.
We respond to a lot more EMS calls than FD structure fires just because of the nature of the calls.
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
dbrowne1
Zero Force Member
Offline
Posts: 11768
Feedback: 100% (22)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:53:58 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.


We have a general requirement to maintain public order. if soemone is going to be obviously placing themselves in harms way, we can't allow them to , for example, run back into a burning building.



Bullshit vague "public order" excuse is bullshit. If they're not interfering with the fire department's operations or otherwise committing a crime, using force to prevent a merely unwise act is not legal.
As a general rule, I'm always wary of total strangers who have the authority to totally ass-rape my life - runcible
Trempel
Professional Russian
Offline
Posts: 1423
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:54:27 PM
Originally Posted By Grunteled:
Originally Posted By iScream:
Why are so many of you assuming the guy was going to be hurt because he was spraying water on his fence? I'm pretty damn sure I can figure out when it's too hot where I'm standing and stop spraying the water before I get burned.

And what comes out of a fire hydrant? I believe it's water and water can certainly keep burning embers from catching a fence on fire. The guy was not trying to put out the fire burning the house next door.

And before someone jumps in, of course I understand the tremendous difference in volume between a water hose and fire hydrant.


There you go with that FAGOT READING SHIT!


Having been close to a structural fire on a couple of occasions, those things get pretty warm at some distance, not to mention smoke, falling debris hazards, etc. Running towards that without PPE and with a garden hose, it's a pretty good assumption that the guy may put himself at higher risk for injury. Still, it is his own ass, and he should decide on whether he wants to risk it or not.
guitarmonkey55
Offline
Posts: 552
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:55:11 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.


We have a general requirement to maintain public order. if soemone is going to be obviously placing themselves in harms way, we can't allow them to , for example, run back into a burning building.

Our response to fires is as I stated. Unless FD requests us, we don't go.
We respond to a lot more EMS calls than FD structure fires just because of the nature of the calls.


Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Some sort of legal source to back that one up?

If I am on my own property, I will do as I please and you will not decide to forcefully pursue MY safety.
SmilingBandit
Damn these electric sex pants!
Military
Offline
Posts: 24420
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:55:28 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.


We have a general requirement to maintain public order. if soemone is going to be obviously placing themselves in harms way, we can't allow them to , for example, run back into a burning building.

Our response to fires is as I stated. Unless FD requests us, we don't go.
We respond to a lot more EMS calls than FD structure fires just because of the nature of the calls.


A general requirement to maintain public order is your basis for using force on a person that would dare take personal responsibility for the safety of his home.

So how far does your willingness to force people to make good decisions go?
"Upon further review, we have determined that the string itself is not a machinegun" -BATFE
scotchymcdrinkerbean
Alcohol is my anti-drug
Offline
Posts: 15030
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:55:52 PM
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By jeffco55:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.


oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?


If he is interfering or doing something to place himself in harm then yes, we are pretty much obligated to do something.
Once the fire dept rolls up, its their scene. It might be the homeowners house, but the FD owns the scene and if we are called there at the request of FD, we'd have to deal with this guy if he was interfering.

And before someone says I didn't read the article, I did.
The only reason we'd be at a fire scene would be if we either rolled up on it or were called there by the FD
How the officers came to be at this scene without the FD on scene, we don't know.

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.


I could kill a forest printing cases that say there is no duty sounding in tort to rescue someone if you had no part in creating the peril, but all that paper might make a fire hazard.


And then I would have to tase you.

Of course, I don't have a taser, so you're gonna need to come down here and I'll see what I can do with an extension cord or something.



"Don't worry guys! Step back, I got this. I have been drinking antifreeze and hitting myself with a hammer since 3 am, and I think I am finally on the right wave length to comm. with the OP."
74nova
mototard
Member
Offline
Posts: 2279
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:58:21 PM
Originally Posted By TheNamelessOne:

Originally Posted By Durka-Durka:
Originally Posted By Assaulter:
Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.


Tell that to the firefighters who were using some in Colorado Springs this summer.

yeah his house wasn't on fire yet. he was spraying his shit down so it wouldn't spread.

he's gonna hit the jackpot now.


Didn't read or didn't comprehend.
He was spraying the fire according to the article, not his house.

I think using a taser was stupid, also we only have his side of the story.
Article says he could almost touch the fire. He might have been panicking and acting the fool.
Trying to put out a house fire with a garden house is just plain stupid and dangerous.
He doesn't sound like the brightest bulb.

But still, tasing him???


BigeasySnow
Fat, promiscuous and pasty!
Offline
Posts: 25229
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:58:22 PM
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By BigeasySnow:


Didn't CrazyRayRay start a thread with really insane personal shit? I could be wrong but I'm getting the impression that he's either mentally ill or a huge troll. I'll try to dig up the thread.




I must have been thinking of another poster with "crazy" and then his name. Different guy. This one didn't start an emo thread, and is a corrections officer in IL, so I'm sure he's not mentally ill, at least not to a degree that would preclude working at that job.

My apologies to CrazyRayRay, sorry for the mistaken identity. And I'm thinking you're maybe not even a troll, just an absolutely rabid statist to rival Dave_A. Don't tase me bro.
Look, if I can't put everyone into little boxes and then blindly apply my feelings about those boxes to the people I put in them, how am I supposed to know who I can look down on? -- Snips
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 49472
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:58:46 PM
[Last Edit: 11/13/2012 4:05:47 PM by tc556guy]
Originally Posted By guitarmonkey55:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Some sort of legal source to back that one up?

If I am on my own property, I will do as I please and you will not decide to forcefully pursue MY safety.


No, not wrong.
We wont allow you to run back into a burning building.
I'm not about to follow you into the building, but you can bet we WILL use physical force to prevent you from doing so.
You will NOT "do as you please"

Originally Posted By Badseed:
How was this a law enforcement matter?

Traffic control is the only reason for them to be anywhere near the site.



Traffic control is generally what the fire police are there for.

We only get called to the scene for that if there are problems the fire police can't handle
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
callgood
HR? I'm showing 53 employees...... Fire 4.
Offline
Posts: 32465
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:59:13 PM
[Last Edit: 11/13/2012 4:04:34 PM by callgood]
Originally Posted By Badseed:

Originally Posted By callgood:
Originally Posted By bg10:


no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.


If Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) established the police have no duty to protect individuals, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals, what's the beef?


That ruling is specific to criminal acts

Edit:

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.


Well, then.

GIVE HIM ANOTHER JOLT!
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10
AZBADBOY
Online
Posts: 1458
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:59:14 PM
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Well, it was a good tase.

See, if he had been allowed to pick up the garden hose and spray water everywhere, given that water is a good conductor, he could have endangered the officers by getting water near them, potentially causing them to shock themselves when they tased him.

Why can't you folks see the bigger picture here?
Am I the only one that finds it funny you're concerned with the guy getting "shocked" so they Taser him instead Without anyone of us being their at that very moment in time there's no way of knowing just how big the fire was or how possible it might have been to make a difference with a garden hose. Water can and will put out a fire, even in small amounts
BigeasySnow
Fat, promiscuous and pasty!
Offline
Posts: 25230
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 3:59:55 PM
Originally Posted By ske714:
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By CrazyRayRay:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.


Well aren't you a good sheep.


Former hall monitor.


Lol! Current prison guard, actually!
Look, if I can't put everyone into little boxes and then blindly apply my feelings about those boxes to the people I put in them, how am I supposed to know who I can look down on? -- Snips
AZBADBOY
Online
Posts: 1459
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 4:00:43 PM
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Well, it was a good tase.

See, if he had been allowed to pick up the garden hose and spray water everywhere, given that water is a good conductor, he could have endangered the officers by getting water near them, potentially causing them to shock themselves when they tased him.

Why can't you folks see the bigger picture here?
Am I the only one that finds it funny you're concerned with the guy getting "shocked" so they Taser him instead Without anyone of us being their at that very moment in time there's no way of knowing just how big the fire was or how possible it might have been to make a difference with a garden hose. Water can and will put out a fire, even in small amounts And if the guy was indeed spraying down his own house so it doesn't burst into flames all the better reason to do so.
mototard
Member
Offline
Posts: 2280
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/13/2012 4:02:23 PM
Originally Posted By Badseed:
How was this a law enforcement matter?

Traffic control is the only reason for them to be anywhere near the site.


BS!
I've responded to many a fires and I've always beat the hose draggers there.

Yes cops block off the street, make sure the home is vacant and remove anyone that is in danger of getting in the way.
Heck I've woken up neighbors and had them exit their house and move their vehicles.
Page:  / 10