Yes, because everyone else could tell I wasn't being serious.

He wasn't interfering with anyone, there were no Fire personnel on scene. He was simply trying to prevent fire spread to his property while he was waiting for the FD to show up.

Ah, so he STILL IS a hall monitor.    

I understand that. However, the LEOs felt that his actions were somehow placing him in danger and he was non-compliant.
None of us were there to know exactly what degree of risk he was exposing himself to.

If he is on his own property then he should be allowed to do whatever he wants.  If he ends up crispy that will be by his own doing.  The officers/firefighters have no duty to save him if he doesn't heed their advice.

I suppose that depends on the State...



As dbrowne1 has already pointed out, at least in Virginia, you would be in the wrong and open to a lawsuit for excessive force and possibly responsible for damages resulting from your actions.  Dbrowne1 is a lawyer here and I assume he know's his area of expertise.





 

Be careful authoritian, that shit's gonna go to your head some day.

Article says he was spraying the fire.

Still taser???

He wasnt trying to run into a burning building, he was standing on his lawn spraying his yard to prevent spread.

There is but one fact to discuss in this matter:

Under the authority of what law do you act in this manner?

Please sir, point me to where I may read it.

DBrowne likes to talk about how the courts have repeatedly ruled that LE cannot be held legally responsible for failure to protect someone.
As a general rule, he is right, because we can't be everywhere someone is in danger in order to protect them.
To say that we wouldn't be held responsible if we let some guy were are WITH run back into a burning building, for instance...yeah, i don't believe for asecond  he is right, and I believe we are more than covered in using force to prevent that homeowner from doing so.

I get it that the situation would upset a homeowner. Its their house and their contents; they are emotionally connected to the situation. However, that attachment is affecting their judgement and rationality, and if they have to be removed from the scene, they will be.



I've already covered this.
None of us were there, we don't know first hand what degree of danger he was exposing himself to, but apparently the officers believed he was in danger. They told him to leave, he didn't.

At least the officer went home safely.







From the article, it does not sound like the man was doing anything that endangered himself or the officers.



My vote: bad tase


 

Damn you are scary sometimes.

Still waiting for him to cite a law that gives him the authority to use force to keep someone from putting themselves in danger.

What exactly do you find "scary".
The fact that we're going to prevent some guy from running back into his house is "scary" to you? If so, you need to get out more. Really.



I've already covered this.
We wont go to a scene unless the FD is on scene.
The FD controls a scene until they release it.
Someone who interfers with FD operations is going to be removed from that scene.
Your laws in TX may differ, so check your local laws.

So wheres that law that gives you the power to do that?

See above

I saw above.  You didn't quote a law or any legal authority or any semblance of anything legal.  Lets forget about TX, what about the law where you are?

Bullshit, but keep spewing it...



Man was on his own property. Property. Property was not yet on fire. Not a dangerous area yet, period.

BTW, the 'subject' is a human being, landowner and taxpayer. The bloody fuck you get this jackboot "subject" bullshit?



Which we've alreadt determined it wasn't.



First Responders needed to focus on the HOUSE ON FIRE, not the neighbor spraying his roof, idiot.



What part of outside, outdoors, etc. didn't you get here?



You must be trolling...

Again, I assume this must vary by state.  



Unless I'm mistaken, in Virginia you can't arrest/detain/TAZE me unless I'm failing to comply with a lawful command.  In this situation ordering me to leave my property would only be lawful if I were interfering with a crime scene, rescue operations, or inhibiting the Fire Dept.  Since none of those apply, you would be in the wrong to use force to gain compliance.





 

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit is it?



 

He used post 556 to call you out.  Make it good.  

Wasnt watching my post count!

Its on

Not only that, he also said:

Ignoring that the FD wasn't on the scene. So really his statements aren't on point at all.

 

You obviously believe being a cop makes you more qualified to judge when a guy trying to save his house from fire is in danger.  And your apparent disregard for the rights of a man on his own property, not putting anyone but himself in danger.  If he was even doing that.

We are not talking about running into a burning house in this thread.

But, would you taze another cop to keep him from going into a burning house to check for people?

I wonder what is more of a risk to your well-being, standing in your yard, squirting a fire with a hose, or being tazed by the police...

Sure as shit he wouldn't taze one of his fellow occifers if they were unlawfully beating on some civillian.

still waiting for that law...

officers show up on scene and ricky rescue gets killed, officers get fired and sued....not their choice, just how the story will go
and everyone who is ranting on the "he's on his own property"...doesn't matter, if first responders are present, they cannot let you kill yourself or do physical harm to yourself
dont like it....write your congressman, stop bitching on GD about it

your not going to stop a house fire from spreading with a water hose that flows less than 10gpm LOL....pissing in a hurricane
instead of dicking around, grab what you can and get out....

thats cute

Before writing my congressman, or more appropriately state legislature members, I would like to verify that a law currently exists that allows for such things to occur.  I mean, if the law isnt there, and I write them asking to have it repealed or changed, I would look like a bit of a fool wouldn't I?

You should try reading the rest of the thread ;)

Supreme Court says the police have no obligation to protect a citizen.

My house, my land. If I want to fight the fire creeping over the fence by dual-wielding fire extinguishers, I should be able to.

OK. Lock up every citizen in solitary then. We can't risk a citizen doing something that might lead to a lawsuit! It's for the children.

You might find the first few pages of this essay interesting and on point.

At first I thought 'good taze', but now, I'm not sure.  Don't know how hot the fire was and how close he was.

Police 'duty' to render aid to people

Chris

Wow.  Yeah, that would sort of piss me off.

Lets start here

195.15 Obstructing firefighting operations.
   A  person  is  guilty  of  obstructing firefighting operations when he
 intentionally and unreasonably obstructs the efforts of any:
   1. fireman in extinguishing a fire, or prevents or  dissuades  another
 from extinguishing or helping to extinguish a fire; or
   2.  fireman,  police officer or peace officer in performing his duties
 in circumstances involving an imminent danger created by  an  explosion,
 threat of explosion or the presence of toxic fumes or gases.
   Obstructing firefighting operations is a class A misdemeanor.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$PEN195.15$$@TXPEN0195.15+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=34476844+&TARGET=VIEW

or how about here

 § 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
   A  person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he
 intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration  of  law
 or  other  governmental  function  or  prevents or attempts to prevent a
 public servant  from  performing  an  official  function,  by  means  of
 intimidation,  physical  force  or  interference,  or  by  means  of any
 independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether  or  not
 physical  force  is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other
 telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a  county,
 city,  town,  village,  fire district or emergency medical service or by
 means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances  evincing  the
 actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.
   Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$PEN195.05$$@TXPEN0195.05+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=34476844+&TARGET=VIEW


If an officer perceives that your actions are placing you in harms way and they order you to do something else in order to not be in harms way, THAT is a lawful order.



No, I don't believe that...but if I perceive thata  guy is putting himself in danger and tell him to do something to mitigate that danger and he ignores that, that IS ignoring a lawful order.
That guy is endangering himself and anyone else who ultimately will have to go in and rescue him because he didn't have the sense to get out when it was safe to do so.
So yeah, that guy can expect to find himself ultimately charged.
I don't know any LEO who is gonna go into a burning building. We don't have the gear or the training to do so safely

Kind of removes some of the confusion over why no-knock raids occur at wrong addresses and why so many crimes go unsolved...



 

You'd be completely wrong, then, but then that's nothing new. I only litigate torts for a living and went to the oldest law school in America on an academic scholarship, so what the fuck would I know.

Please explain, with reference to specific causes of action and specific facts that would overcome soveriegn/qualified immunity, what duty is breached if a cop fails to stop someone from running into a burning building by his own choice.

How is anything being discussed here even close to "obstructing" any of these people? I don't think you actually know what the word "obstruct" means.

Without getting into the whole tazing issue and keeping your house from catching by using your garden hose argument, here is one example of why it might be a bad idea to be around a burning structure-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cH79ePz_l8&feature=related

Lets see on count one the fire department wasn't there so paragraph one doesn't apply.  And there was no explosion or threat thereof so two doesn't seem to fit.

law.berkeley.edu    

If my skin started to blister, I have enough sense to back up.  Or I could squirt myself.

Nor would shooting a garden hose to try to prevent the spread of a fire "obstruct" any of these people from doing their jobs. This is just further evidence that TC556 is grasping at officious nonsense as usual.

Bolt Hall is probably one of the Top 5 law schools in the country.

Don't shoot the messenger, read the essay, you might learn something.

Chris

Every bit of that is garbage.  

Post the law we should be asking Congress to change.

A garden hose can keep a roof wet enough to keep burning embers under control.  Especially when the fire department should be on the way.