'Battle of the Badges' court date delayed

[Monty 35]

This was discussed in topics earlier NJ DC Arrested for not moving. truck and Fire Chief Arrested For Blocking Roadway. After hearing Chief Goldfelder this weekend, made me reconsider my thoughts somewhat on the matter. I wonder if he's been involved in this case?

Anyway, came across this today on the Daily Record

01/12/07 - Posted from the Daily Record newsroom

'Battle of the Badges' court date delayed

Deputy chief refused to move fire truck, despite order

BY ROB JENNINGS

DAILY RECORD

LINCOLN PARK -- The first municipal court hearing for a Rockaway Township deputy fire chief arrested after arguing with a state trooper at a Route 80 accident scene in November was postponed to Jan. 31 at his attorney's request.

Rockaway Township Deputy Fire Chief Robert Jenkins --charged with disobeying a state trooper and disorderly conduct in connection with the Nov. 26 dispute -- was originally due in court Wednesday, but attorney Peter Gilbreth had a conflict.

The cases against Jenkins and Rockaway Township firefighter Allen Bell -- a fellow volunteer who was issued two summonses, but was not taken into custody, after refusing a state trooper's order to move a firetruck that was blocking a highway lane --were transferred to Lincoln Park because Rockaway Township is providing their lawyers.

A separate conference call for Bell, who is represented by attorney Anthony Arbore, was also postponed to Jan. 31, Gilbreth said.

Both have pleaded innocent.

State police are standing by the charges and have defended the way Trooper Kevin Fritz handled the dispute.

Jenkins has said he was only trying to shield first responders at an accident scene from oncoming traffic when he ignored Fritz' order to move a firetruck.

A state police spokesman countered that there were no cones or flares by the fire truck to warn approaching motorists and that Fritz did the right thing in ordering it moved.

Rockaway Township Fire Chief Joe Mason, who is standing by his firefighters, said there wasn't enough time to put down the cones and that the truck's lights were flashing.

Bell, the truck's driver, was cited for disobeying a state trooper and for operating a vehicle without his driver's license, which he had left behind while changing at the fire station.

Mason said the so-called "Battle of the Badges" has prompting an outpouring of supportive e-mails from firefighters across the nation.

Rob Jennings can be reached at (973) 428-6667 or robjennings@gannett.com.

[vfd l18 0]

Doesn't NIMS give the fire chief, who would be the incident commander at the scene, authority over the police?

[nycemt728 49]

It would seem logical to assume the person most qualified would be the IC, in this case a fire scene=highest ranking FD officer, but two words in my answer are big ones; assume and logical. You can't assume that NIMS was being used, and not all things about incident scenes are logical. Add this to the traditional battle of the egos between PD and FD and you have the situation faced here. What you suggest is both possible and proably the correct protocol, I just hight doubt that it was 1. Followed, and/or 2. mattered.

[Guest]

The problem is in NJ they gave the power to the state Police they have ultimate authority on any state highway. The state police have been known for having a few power hungry hotheads who hate when FD and EMS rsepond on "their highway" The threaten arrest to anyone who who does not agree with them. They also do not want more than 1 engine at a car fire or 1 ambulance at an accident. Unless it is a fatality and the highway will have several lanes closed for the investigation. They have been known to try to order the Medivac not to land on their highway or they will arrest them, the problem is the State Police Fly 2 of NJ's medivacs and usually the pilot os of a higher rank than the ground trooper and is reminded of this via the radio and it shuts down rather quickly. definite battle of the badges and this was 2 hardheaded indivilduals (I know them both from working with them in the past unfortunately)

[Guest]

This is a really stupid arguement for the State Troopers to fight. All the DC did was do what's taught and protect the scene with a rig. No cones? No flares? Those two things would have made this situation better? Then, issuing a citation to the engine operator for not having his license with him? Must not have been enough real crime for this trooper to deal with. My hat goes off to the Fire DC for holding his ground and protecting his men.

I was recently behind a wreck on the Cross County (Fatal Motorcycle on 1/8?? in Mount Vernon). The WC Police shut the WHOLE rd., allowed the EMS and Fire workers to do thier jobs safely. So what that all of us on the road had to wait. I was late for something, but too bad. Accidents happen and everyone will just have to sit tight and allow responders to work as effeciantly and safely as possible.

I hope for a possitive outcome for the the fire commanders involved in this incident.

Edited January 25, 2007 by lfdR1

[Guest WolfEMT]

They have been known to try to order the Medivac not to land on their highway or they will arrest them, the problem is the State Police Fly 2 of NJ's medivacs and usually the pilot os of a higher rank than the ground trooper and is reminded of this via the radio and it shuts down rather quickly.

←

No offense, but I find that a little odd. Why would a NJSP Trooper threaten to arrest a member of his own agency?

[Guest]

This is a really stupid arguement for the State Troopers to fight.  All the DC did was do what's taught and protect the scene with a rig.  No cones?  No flares?  Those two things would have made this situation better?  Then, issuing a citation to the engine operator for not having his license with him?  Must not have been enough real crime for this trooper to deal with.  My hat goes off to the Fire DC for holding his ground and protecting his men.

I was recently behind a wreck on the Cross County (Fatal Motorcycle on 1/8?? in Mount Vernon).  The WC Police shut the WHOLE rd., allowed the EMS and Fire workers to do thier jobs safely.  So what that all of us on the road had to wait.  I was late for something, but too bad.  Accidents happen and everyone will just have to sit tight and allow responders to work as effeciantly and safely as possible. 

I hope for a possitive outcome for the the fire commanders involved in this incident.

←

Just a few observations about some of your comments. Its unlikely, at least as far as i have experienced, that police will close down an entire roadway - especially a major artery - for an MVA. The only reason the cross county was closed that day was probably due to the fact that it was a fatal MVA and accident reconstruction needed to be done. Of course, it may be permissible to close a roadway if you have a serious, non fatal, incident - but i've been on rollovers without closures and have had traffic safely directed around the scene. Additionally, its important to note that police officers often will cite someone with a long list of violations. If im not mistaken its far easier, in terms of the law, to initially cite someone than it is to tack on chargers after the fact and is thus up to the judge to determine if the charges stand or drop. While i haven't followed this case and am unfamiliar with NJ law, i would caution jumping to conclusions and putting all the blame on the police.

Edited January 25, 2007 by 66Alpha1

[Guest]

Just a few observations about some of your comments. Its unlikely, at least as far as i have experienced, that police will close down an entire roadway - especially a major artery - for an MVA. The only reason the cross county was closed that day was probably due to the fact that it was a fatal MVA and accident reconstruction needed to be done. Of course, it may be permissible to close a roadway if you have a serious, non fatal, incident - but i've been on rollovers without closures and have had traffic safely directed around the scene. Additionally, its important to note that police officers often will cite someone with a long list of violations. If im not mistaken its far easier, in terms of the law, to initially cite someone than it is to tack on chargers after the fact and is thus up to the judge to determine if the charges stand or drop. While i haven't followed this case and am unfamiliar with NJ law, i would caution jumping to conclusions and putting all the blame on the police.

←

Alpha, you're missing the point. Of course they don't want to close the whole road, but in this case they needed too and they did. People can and WILL wait. Scene safety is priority #1 and thats all there is too it.

[Guest]

I'm not advocating lackluster scene safety. All i'm saying is that not every incident requires a road closure to allow the emergency services to operate safely. Likewise, i'm not going to say that a road closure was merited or not merited, i wasn't o/s and you only get so much from reading the paper. It just appears to me as though people are already throwing down a verdict - and given that none of us were there and the trial hasn't even begun, it seems a bit unfair.

Edited January 25, 2007 by 66Alpha1

[Guest]

When the State trooper on the ground threatened to arrest the medevac pilot. He (the ground trooper) had no clue that the State Police flew Medevacs. obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree. This has happened on more than one occasion. not as much recently but in the past (not so long ago)it did. We all have idots who work for us and we know they can cause problems when they interact with others. Rumors are out their in the state police about the case being dropped at the last minute in court.

[Guest TOYBUFF911]

Let me get this right. Rollover= person out of car, no life hazzard, with Ems on scene operating safely, NO ROAD CLOSURE. Fd chief pulls up with his crews starts closing road. Hello the fd is not needed, take your men and let them go home and await a real emergency. The chief, if experienced should of evaluated that scene in about 2 seconds. Common sense, no life hazzard no need for fd, so cancel your men or hold them at the closest entrance ramp until determined if needed. Those of you, who believe that fd is in charge of a scene like this are mistaken. The police are in charge and the proper resources were deployed and the task was accomplished. The chief had an ego and so did the cop and the chief will always lose. Sorry just my thoughts. Please lets not turn this into a what if session.

[mlfcemt093 0]

Just an observation....I find interesting all the opinions of the publics services represented refering to the posts of every 1 who lists their ocupation and age. I see a point to all sides, fire,ems,police.

[Guest]

Let me get this right. Rollover= person out of car, no life hazzard, with Ems on scene operating safely, NO ROAD CLOSURE.  Fd chief pulls up with his crews starts closing road. Hello the fd is not needed, take your men and let them go home and await a real emergency. The chief, if experienced should of evaluated that scene in about 2 seconds. Common sense, no life hazzard no need for fd, so cancel your men or hold them at the closest entrance ramp until determined if needed. Those of you, who believe that fd is in charge of a scene like this are mistaken. The police are in charge and the proper resources were deployed and the task was accomplished. The chief had an ego and so did the cop and the chief will always lose. Sorry just my thoughts. Please lets not turn this into a what if session.

←

While I respect your assesment of the situation, I still believe that you are making assumptions.

Do we know that no one was trapped? Are we sure that EMS needed no assistance? If a medivac is needed then fire HAS TO be on scene. Did the fire chief close the whole road or did he block traffic from the scene and the lane next to it? It would be wrong if he just came up and closed off the whole rd. but no blocking the accident on one lane for working.

[Guest]

While I respect your assesment of the situation, I still believe that you are making assumptions.

Do we know that no one was trapped?  Are we sure that EMS needed no assistance?  If a medivac is needed then fire HAS TO be on scene.  Did the fire chief close the whole road or did he block traffic from the scene and the lane next to it?  It would be wrong if he just came up and closed off the whole rd. but no blocking the accident on one lane for working.

←

From the orginal articles:

The actual accident occurred around 8:45 p.m., when a westbound Nissan Maxima lost control, winding up on its roof in a wooded area about 30 feet off the highway. Its driver was already out of the car by the time state police arrived, complaining of pain but showing no obvious injuries. The driver later was treated and released at St. Clare’s/Dover General Hospital, police said.

"There was no extraction necessary and no fire involved. We asked them to move and they didn't comply." Della Fave said. "We never called for fire apparatus; we only called for first-aid,"

State police called for a first aid squad, but not the fire department. However, both ambulance and fire crews were dispatched to the scene.

According to Maj. Matthew Walker, North Jersey commander of the state police, the trooper determined that the blocked lane was a danger to passing vehicles -- particularly because there were no cones or flares placed east of the truck to warn approaching drivers that the lane was blocked and to ease traffic to the left.

Edited January 26, 2007 by 66Alpha1

[helicopper 1,050]

Doesn't NIMS give the fire chief, who would be the incident commander at the scene, authority over the police?

←

Nothing in NIMS or ICS gives anyone authority "over" another department/agency/discipline. The whole point of NIMS and ICS is to communicate, collaborate, and fix the damn problem so everyone can go home! This whole incident seems to center on poor communications (face to face - not radios), big egos and attitudes, and lack of compromise. Had they actually tried to see each other's side of the issue it probably would have worked out without any major conflict.

According to the original thread, the accident was 30 feet off the roadway and nobody (vehicles, victims or responders) was in a travel lane of the highway. The FD showed up and shut down the right lane. If everyone was off 30 feet off the road, was that necessary? Of course, that can (and will) be debated!

Must not have been enough real crime for this trooper to deal with. My hat goes off to the Fire DC for holding his ground and protecting his men.

Sorry, but I'm keeping my hat on and not applauding either the trooper or the chief for allowing the incident to escalate as far as it did.

Do we know that no one was trapped? Are we sure that EMS needed no assistance? If a medivac is needed then fire HAS TO be on scene.

According to the article, and it seems that there are two different stories being discussed, it was a single car rollover, all occupants were out of the vehicle and one was complaining of back pain. Sounds pretty clear to me - you need EMS for someone with back pain. If the FD goes with EMS, fine but that's not the point.

Perhaps by SOP the FD is needed on the scene of a medevac but I've seen plenty of medevac operations all over the country where the helicopter lands and takes off without a fire department.

I think the whole point is that these two individuals didn't recognize each other as professionals, communicate and resolve the problem - both sides say it degenerated to a shouting match.

You know, that strictly from a NIMS/ICS perspective, the trooper was the IC and unless/until command was transferred to the fire chief he wasn't "in charge". I know this is going to spark some major controversy but that's the way ICS is supposed to work - and in other parts of the country it works very well. To avoid a police/fire conflict, if it were a DOT or Thruway Authority supervisor on the scene first they would have been IC. Why does this always have to be a debate about "who's in charge"?

Both police and fire have authority at the scene of an accident and I'll always say that neither is more in charge than the other. They have different responsibilities but the first is always safety so they should be able to work things out!

Now, on the subject of highway safety - a question. If you have a dual response to a highway job (one department eastbound and one westbound - or north/south), and the accident is on only the westbound side, why does apparatus stop eastbound? This means that you've either stopped in the left lane or on the shoulder and you've got to cross lanes of traffic in BOTH directions. How is that safe?