Same thing happened a few years ago - I remember seeing the video on YouTube. Thought for sure this was just old news, but I guess (stupid) history repeats itself.
So then "civil servants" as you put it, are BETTER than non civil servants? They're afforded more leeway? Why would you draw a distinction? Indoctrination in your schooling was very effective.
Your quote : " unless the firefighter initiates an attack on a person while performing his duties, or does something that is truly reason for being detained."
Why would that not be applied to everyone?
The TIM training is a BIG push from the Feds. I am a trainer for it. Here in California the DOT and CHP will get it. Fire, EMS and Tow are also supposed to get it.Looked it up. Never heard of it til now and talked to my Sgt who also never heard of it. Just basic traffic management through the academy so don't know if that material was covered in class and we never got the official name of it.
I get why they park the way they do. That's not to say they are perfect on every response. I also don't understand what the officer was trying to accomplish either. If the fire department shuts down the roadway, so be it. We have to shut it down for hours at times for fatal accidents. It's part of our job. We just deal with it.
There are fine cops out there. But there are also a LOT of cops out there who went into law enforcement simply as a means of asserting authority over other people. Someone else in the thread in the nail on the head: many cops cannot psychologically deal with being told no.
How many times have we seen a bad cop do something absolutely idiotic because the cop wouldn't STFU for two seconds and LISTEN to the other party. It's as if as soon as there's any kind of standoff between them and someone else, their #1 priority becomes making sure everyone knows THEY make the rules and call the shots.
Obey and comply NOW, or else.
I am assuming you are trained in firefighting and rescue.
Sometimes when I console into a switch someone saavy in an office tells me "You know there is a GUI for that now?"
Even if lets say the fire truck SHOULD have been moved, arresting the firefighter/detaining him is not going to resolve that so I don't see the point.
Like I said, in every situation I've had where this has happened we've just had to deal with it. If it inconveniences people, so be it. The person in the crash is inconvenienced more.
America needs to redefine its concept of law enforcement. As it currently operates it's simply a business, and not so much operating for the greater good of anyone other than the officers and agencies it employees.
Firefighter wanted a huge buffer zone to protect the crew and victims. Cop wanted traffic lanes open to get traffic moving. Cops wins, at the scene at least, because he has badge, cuffs and gun.
Officers are trained to never take "no" for an answer. They are trained to increase the level of their response until they get what they want. Granted, it's a damn tough job, and I wouldn't want it, but I'm not sure society's best interests are always served by that kind of policy.
Then again, society is full of a$$hats who think they can do whatever they want without any responsibility for their actions. The average American is drunk on "rights" and can't even spell "responsibility." We get the kind of law enforcement we deserve.
If all the cops turned into pussies tomorrow, we'd all be bitching up a storm and crime would be rampant overnight. In the end, who you gonna call?
Are you truly that dense? Civil servants are doing the public a service. Be it cops, firefighters, paramedics, or whatever. I draw that distinction because if I, jo blow citizen insist that my actions are protecting XYZ person and the police officer needs to bow down to my authority, he is easily within his rights to disregard everything I say as I am not an authority figure on safety, I am just an ordinary citizen. With it being a firefighter, he should grant the leeway for the firefighter to do his job.
Additionally, while not a public servant, if a doctor were voluntarily assisting in a medical situation and the police officer demanded that he stop, and the persons identifies them-self as a doctor, to which the police officer replies by handcuffing the person, that would be seen by most as an abuse of force if the doctor was assisting someone who was not refusing their aid.
Point being, cops are not the supreme authority figure in all situations. When you are in the presence of other civil servants, you do what is necessary to move the situation forward. Handcuffing a civil servant who is doing his duty is not assisting and only slowing things down.
As for the whole civil servant thing, it is all about giving the benefit of the doubt. If he's a firefighter, you can certainly assume he's been trained. If he's a doctor, you can assume he's been trained. If he's a truck driver, you can't really assume he knows what he is doing.
Guess what's going to happen if that cops house is on fire....
Error 404
Fire Department not found
Lets first start with the concept of "no victim, no crime". The guy going 56 in a 55 in good conditions isn't hurting anybody. The guy who does a 'california rolling stop' at a stop sign at 3am when nobody else is around isn't hurting anybody. A busy intersection with many cars waiting is a different story. Stop with all of this petty shit just to write tickets. If someone isn't a threat to another then leave them alone. Don't pretend to smell MJ and search someones car, don't make them sit for an hour while you "investigate". . . just basic respect for other humans.
This is the reason police aren't as respected as they once were. There is a lot of fear and animosity. Many cops have the "us vs them" mentality, which is scary!
There are fine cops out there. But there are also a LOT of cops out there who went into law enforcement simply as a means of asserting authority over other people. Someone else in the thread in the nail on the head: many cops cannot psychologically deal with being told no.
How many times have we seen a bad cop do something absolutely idiotic because the cop wouldn't STFU for two seconds and LISTEN to the other party. It's as if as soon as there's any kind of standoff between them and someone else, their #1 priority becomes making sure everyone knows THEY make the rules and call the shots.
Obey and comply NOW, or else.
Do cops have absolute authority over you? From where was this granted? I'm saying if they're not preventing your agression towards another non-consenting citizen then they've no right to initiate force against you.
I don't think so. Maybe a fine later, but the emergency comes first.
Also surprised no one mentioned that they called the passenger the 2nd driver.
Lazy driving habits? As long as you're paying attention and not causing accidents. . . .who cares?It could be argued that lazy driving habits (56 in a 55, rolling stops, etc.) do make our roads more dangerous. They sure don't make them any safer, so arguing that it should be okay is just plain stupid. Nobody *needs* to make rolling stops or go that 1 mph over the speed limit, so I can't agree with you on this one.
I do agree that law enforcement officers are driven to make arrests, write citations, and seize vehicles and assets to continue to fund their departments and their jobs. Given this need, respect for your fellow citizen often goes right out the window and "protect and serve" suffers.
Most cops feel good when they make an arrest, they've taken another "bad guy" off the streets. That doesn't mean that arresting that person did a damn thing positive for him, his family or society in general. The system they work within is set up for failure if you look at it from a societal point of view. We could argue all day on what would be in society's best interest, but without early education and a change of cultural views on rights vs responsibilities, I don't see our law enforcement issues changing anytime soon.
But you *must* acknowledge that at least some of what cops do does help society. We need some kind of law enforcement or there would be anarchy. If you have ideas on a better way to do thing then I am listening, but I'm not sure giving people who engage in bad behavior more slack is the answer.
Our basic flaw as humans is that we can't seem to voluntarily be good. If we could we wouldn't have to worry about policing ourselves nearly as much.
Then would the same not be true of ANY citizen, civil servant or not?I'm not exactly sure where I said anything of that sort. My point, as it has been this entire time, is that when working with a "brother or sister" in service, the benefit of the doubt comes into play. They're not just some blow hard trying to run the show when he has no idea what he is doing.
And my point regarding the aggression is that the ONLY reason a police officer should detain a firefighter is if he is assaulting someone or committing some other act that would be sensible to detain him. Not moving a truck because he is quite likely following protocol of some sort, completely idiotic. If he's assaulting someone, yeah, throw the cuffs on him and throw him in the back of the squad car.
Long story short, firefighters and police officers are both in a position of authority during an accident where both are required to be on the scene. Cooperation is necessary. Throwing cuffs on a firefighter for protecting his crew by obstructing traffic, it's probably their SOP. If I were a truck driver and did that and the police officer asked me to move my vehicle, then yes, I probably should as I've been instructed to do so by a person with the authority. But between a firefighter and a police officer? Nah, if the firefighter declines the police officer needs to back off and let him do his job and compensate accordingly.
The point is an order wasn't obeyed. the officer MUST be OBEYED at ALL TIMES. No exceptions. They cannot take no for an answer, EVER. It undermines their authority and cannot be allowed under any circumstances. EVER.
You realize I'm an LEO siding against the officer right? We are not all zombies playing robocop and to think all LEOs act that way is foolish.
If all the cops turned into pussies tomorrow, we'd all be bitching up a storm and crime would be rampant overnight. In the end, who you gonna call?
Out of interest, if you'd been present in an official capacity would you have called that officer over and told him not to do what he did?
You realize I'm an LEO siding against the officer right? We are not all zombies playing robocop and to think all LEOs act that way is foolish.
Out of interest, if you'd been present in an official capacity would you have called that officer over and told him not to do what he did?
Out of interest, if you'd been present in an official capacity would you have called that officer over and told him not to do what he did?
Then would the same not be true of ANY citizen, civil servant or not?