Can't we all just get along?

[Guest]

Police Officer Arresting Firefighter

Now, whether or not that extra lane closure was necessary is a fair debate, this is a sad thing to watch. The only thing this accomplished was to set back police-fire relations in that community years.

[Guest DFFD227]

Wow...that police officer needs to get his priorities straight.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/w...d.bfaffbf3.html

St. Louis, MO - A battle between a police officer and a firefighter in the middle of an emergency call is costing the officer $18,000.

While responding to an emergency call on the interstate, Officer Todd Greeves wanted a fire truck moved to open up another lane of traffic but the Robertson Fire Protection District Captain wanted the truck there to protect emergency workers.

The police officer arrested the fire captain in the middle of efforts to move an injured driver from the interstate.

The whole incident was captured on dash cam video and the videotape is what led to the federal court jury's verdict, ordering the officer to pay $18,00

Officer Greeves' attorney says he's disappointed and that his client's conduct was not malicious in any way.

Missouri law grants firefighters the right to park their vehicles wherever they want, but Hazelwood, Missouri's police chief says he still believes police have the right to regulate traffic and have fire trucks moved.

[Dondestro 9]

not only was he trying to protect his guys and the injured.....but he was trying to protect the COPS too......comeon now

[SpartanML 0]

Can't we all just get along INDEED! This is ridiculous and downright absurd... sad part is this isn't the first time this has happened.

[JCESU 20]

Can't we all just get along INDEED! This is ridiculous and downright absurd... sad part is this isn't the first time this has happened.

Of course this is not the first time it has happened and it won't be the last. It wasn't an MVA with entrapment and it was off to the shoulder. The EMT's were off tending to the patient and seems they had it all under control. The ff who was arrested apparently had too much coffee. He couldn't even wait for the truck to come close to a stop (yup you called it). I understand and appreciate the idea of providing an extra layer of protection but you can't tell me that when guys decide to park fire trucks they are always in the right and its done safely. And in this situation and based on what I observed and can't say I disagree. Had the truck parked behind the radio car in the right lane I wouldn't have an issue with the traffic situation. And I also don't beleive that the ff was wishing the Officer a Merry Christmas. So now they can let a judge decide the fate and hopefully next time cooler heads prevail and safety for everyone ( the big picture) rather than ego will set the tone. Just out of curiousity-does anyone know what or if the driver (ff) was issued summonses?

As for ff's hating cops...thanks for the heads up, but, I keep that in mind while doing car stops for a myriad of reasons.

[Guest feraldan]

I can see the disagreement, I just can't see why it ended up with an arrest. The patient wasn't even out of the car yet! Wait till afterwards at least.

Who was technically in charge of the scene?

[firemoose827 324]

Of course this is not the first time it has happened and it won't be the last. It wasn't an MVA with entrapment and it was off to the shoulder. The EMT's were off tending to the patient and seems they had it all under control. The ff who was arrested apparently had too much coffee. He couldn't even wait for the truck to come close to a stop (yup you called it). I understand and appreciate the idea of providing an extra layer of protection but you can't tell me that when guys decide to park fire trucks they are always in the right and its done safely. And in this situation and based on what I observed and can't say I disagree. Had the truck parked behind the radio car in the right lane I wouldn't have an issue with the traffic situation. And I also don't beleive that the ff was wishing the Officer a Merry Christmas. So now they can let a judge decide the fate and hopefully next time cooler heads prevail and safety for everyone ( the big picture) rather than ego will set the tone. Just out of curiousity-does anyone know what or if the driver (ff) was issued summonses?

As for ff's hating cops...thanks for the heads up, but, I keep that in mind while doing car stops for a myriad of reasons.

You know, you talk about Ego here for the firefighters and yet the officer finds it necessary to arrest the Captain while carrying out his duties, why? Ddi he get desperate and just want to flaunt his power in front of everyone cause I didnt see anything wrong with this scene UNTILL the Police arrested him.

The using the truck as a buffer is what ALL FIREFIGHTERS do everywhere cause we are tired of almost getting run over by speading rubberneckers. You officers should feel the same way when you make a stop and the cars are whizzing by only inches behind you, dont you? Well, in our training we use trucks to slow them down. And in this case, the captain was probably moving fast so that he could get the patient out of the road and than remove his truck from traffic. I know thats always a thought in my officers heads, clearing the roadway and not causing traffic hazards.

As far as jumping from the cab while moving....yah, its wrong and shouldnt happen, but what was the pt's injuries? What level of care was the captain? BLS? ALS? Again, as is always the case with the members here, you are all making Assumptions that cant be backed up with fact. The point being made here...Was the arrest necessary? Could the officer and Captain have had a chat after the pt was cleared?

Bottom line, I think Police, EMS, and fire should all train together more often, so we know the others procedures for different things, than needles stuff like this will be avoided. I find it rediculous that the members of this group are bickering back and forth, especially when the sweater I wear quite often says "Work Together Win Together".

And yes, I think that what Eng265 said was NOT called for. Brother, do not come on this site and say you "Hate" police, you embarrass the rest of us and make us look bad.

[ex-commish 490]

deleted

Don't label all cops for what was seen on here. This cop obviously had is priorities wrong and made a jerk of himself.

[Dondestro 9]

Didn't we have a thread on here a day or so ago of a engine gettnig hit by a suv while putting out a tire fire on a car carrier? It's for reasons like this why we block excessive amount of lanes off.....Also, haven't we all seen the videos of cops getting hit while on traffic stops by passing by motorists. Even a few killed. Oh well traffic gets backed up for 20 min isn't that a price worthy to pay so we are as safe as possible.

this is why we do it !!!!!!!!!!!

Edited February 18, 2008 by Chris192
spelling and grammatical mistakes

[billwiegelman 1]

As far as jumping from the cab while moving....yah, its wrong and shouldnt happen, but what was the pt's injuries? What level of care was the captain? BLS? ALS? Again, as is always the case with the members here, you are all making Assumptions that cant be backed up with fact. The point being made here...Was the arrest necessary? Could the officer and Captain have had a chat after the pt was cleared?

It should not matter what the condition the patient is in or what level of care the Captain is. In the video, the ambulance crew is already there rendering care. The Captain jumping out of the rig before it stops is careless, idiotic and should result in disciplinary action. There is NO reason for it, especially by a supervisor. As for the arrest, just plain ridiculous

[Guest EFFP411]

We've all seen this issue before, i can remember at least one instance where a state trooper threatened to put me in cuffs if i didnt open the lane i had closed. I simply told him i had orders from the chief to keep the lane closed for OUR safety. He then proceeded to argue with the chief for 20 minutes until his supervisor showed up and had a "chat" with him. It all comes down to safety versus traffic delays.... Which one do you think is more important???

Edited February 17, 2008 by EFFP411

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I don't understand why the officer had to flex his proverbial muscles while on scene. This isn't something that could be solved administratively? Save it for after the job and you'll spare everyone alot of unnessecary embarassment, and legal fees... If you have a problem with someone's conduct on a scene, bring it back to the bosses, don't make a jerk out of everyone who is there just to prove a point.

[jack10562 414]

Lets keep the comments on topic.

Any "side" attacking the other, will get this thread into the trash bin, pronto.

Thanks.

[Scottyk107 9]

It looks like a 4 lane divided highway with limited traffic at the time. I can see 5pm rush hour being a problem for holding up traffic but it looks like the impact was minimal. Like what was said the firefighters aren't always in the right but but deal with it AFTER. The patient shouldn't suffer with less care because of a dispute. I think it is insane that the police officer got fined though. What does that solve? Who does that money go to? Both jobs are hard enough taking money away is not going to help much if you ask me. Whats next having to pay for apparatus and patrol cars when there are accidents.

[OnTheWheel 43]

I would definitly have to agree with the placement of the rig, they were working on the shoulder and in the lane and appeared to be protected by only the police car. As you can see the traffic is definitly not slowing down and the rig was placed right. As far as the arrest, we as Police Officers are charged with public order, should our "orders" be disregarded by anyone it breaks down our public structure, especially by another emergency service provider. I agree with the fact that it should have been dealt with after the fact though, be it arrest after the fact or a reaming.

[BFD1054 1,552]

WOW, WOW & WOW! I know we all have jobs to do, but isnt there a proper place and time for everything?

First off, i want to say i have no problem with police officers what-so-ever. I do have a problem with how this incident was handled.

dondestro...i thought of the same thing, the Fairview incident from the other day. If not for the strategic placement of E174, who knows what injuries may have been suffered by those Fairview members, not to mention any EMS or PD on that scene? This is the exact reason why apparatus is used to block moving lanes of traffic, so that the scene becomes more secure for ALL agencies involved.

As for this incident in question...i'd have to say the P.O. was out of line. Again, im sure people will disagree with me and no, i was not there. But the engine was dispatched for whatever reason (i.e. standard procedure, BLS/ALS, extrication) and they responded and attempted to do their job. The Capt.'s main priority was obviously scene safety for ALL those on scene, as well as the patients well being (as he gloved-up and immediately went to the aid of the other responders). The P.O. had a hard-on for keeping the roadway open for whatever reason. There were still two lanes of traffic left open, so i dont see a problem. Whats more important, scene safety or to keep traffic flowing? The other 2 lanes were kept flowing and if anything, slowed the 2 open traffic lanes down a bit to further ensure scene safety.

I have to say, i like the FD Capt.'s compossure and how he handled the situation. I think that will help him in this case. He stood his ground and continued to tell his driver to not move the rig and his driver listened. The P.O. again tried to get the driver to move the rig at which time the FD Capt. had to stop what he was doing to talk to the P.O. and his driver. The Capt. then returns to patient care at which time the P.O. appears to grab his arm and place him under arrest. The FD Capt. seems pissed, but remains calm and goes along with the arrest.

Again, i wasnt there and i do not know the two agencies procedures, however, it seems cut and clear to me. The P.O. was out of line, but who knows?

[jloftus 28]

We went through this years ago with County PD, and for awhile we were not called to certain parkways, now when we respond we use at least one lane or more if we have to, our biggest danger is just getting out of the rig in any street or parkway, people just dont care. A couple of months ago a member from the rescue was slightly hit by a car, now someone please define slighty hit???

If the PD has a problem dont call us, then explain how they wouldnt need our resources, there's no excuse for not protecting our members, NONE.

Jloftus

Ladder2

[abaduck 123]

I would definitly have to agree with the placement of the rig, they were working on the shoulder and in the lane and appeared to be protected by only the police car. As you can see the traffic is definitly not slowing down and the rig was placed right.

True enough but... now I'm only a probie but it seems to me that the police car alone doesn't provide a great deal of protection in the rear, especially not when parked straight-on to the scene as it appears to be. Wouldn't the ideal apparatus placement be, one in the rear *behind* the police car, angled appropriately, and a *second* rig positioned as the 'offending' one was, straight-on in the lane adjacent to the operation?

As far as the arrest, we as Police Officers are charged with public order, should our "orders" be disregarded by anyone it breaks down our public structure, especially by another emergency service provider. I agree with the fact that it should have been dealt with after the fact though, be it arrest after the fact or a reaming.

As for "orders", the problem would seem to be that the cop was issuing "orders" without any lawful authority, since the FD were in command of the scene. That makes it an unlawful arrest, in my book, and the FFs would have been within their rights to resist. In fact if a cop had tried that back home in Scotland, they would have wound up on the back seat of their own car, wrapped in 50' of hose!

[JJB531 652]

I think it's time to delete this thread.... it's nothing but a Police bashing thread where individiuals are taking their turns pounding their chests talking about the same stuff that's been discussed on this site a thousand times... this thread is not the least bit constructive at all.

[BFD1054 1,552]

JJB, i have to disagree, sorry brother.

I am not for bashing of any individual, group or agency. However, i do not feel that this is a bash fest against LEO's at all. Some people are border-line bashing, mostly venting. But many of us have just simply looked over the video and are stating our opinions. I think it is quite a positive topic, or at least has been thus far.

[JJB531 652]

JJB, i have to disagree, sorry brother.

I am not for bashing of any individual, group or agency. However, i do not feel that this is a bash fest against LEO's at all. Some people are border-line bashing, mostly venting. But many of us have just simply looked over the video and are stating our opinions. I think it is quite a positive topic, or at least has been thus far.

So far in this thread, I have read....

#1 - I hate police

#2 - Firefighters are within their rights to resist (basically promoting physical resistance against police officers)

#3 - The cop was issuing orders without lawful authority. (Not true, LEO has full lawful authority to request that the truck be moved)

#4 - If a cop had tried that back home in Scotland, he would have wound up in the back seat of their own car wrapped up in 50' of fire hose

Sure sounds like cop bashing to me....

Someone also stated that Firefighters were in command of the scene.... they were? They showed up after everyone else was already there. It was pretty clear from the video there was no pin, no fire... so why are they in command?

Someone else also stated that "if PD has a problem with us, don't call us". A lot of times PD DOESN'T request fire... fire is automatically dispatched or there have been occasions where they have self-dispatched themselves. PD's handle minor accidents on the parkways every single day. I'm not saying that scene safety isn't important, and obviously the safety of people at the scene is paramount. Not only does more apparatus sometimes distract drivers and create additional confusion, but the more unnecessary personnel you have wandering around a scene, the greater the chance someone can get hit by a passing vehicle.

[INIT915 1,119]

Well, I am in Law Enforcement with no ties to Fire and even I believe that Officer was out of line.

[INIT915 1,119]

As for "orders", the problem would seem to be that the cop was issuing "orders" without any lawful authority, since the FD were in command of the scene. That makes it an unlawful arrest, in my book, and the FFs would have been within their rights to resist. In fact if a cop had tried that back home in Scotland, they would have wound up on the back seat of their own car, wrapped in 50' of hose!

Interesting that ANYONE on this site would advocate or even imply that resisting would be a good idea. NYS Law clearly states resisting arrest, even if an unlawful arrest, is still illegal. Therefore, if this occurred in New York and the Capt resisted, even if he was later acquitted of the charge for which he was arrested, he could (and would most likely) still have been convicted of Resisting Arrest and any lesser included charges related to the resisting (i.e. OGA or Assault 2nd (Felony) if the Officer was injured.)

And who had the Lawful Authority is not clear in this case. Depending on the State Law of the State where this occurred, perhaps the Officer was in charge of the scene. Without knowing the specifics of the locality where this occurred, we don't know who had the lawful authority.

[INIT915 1,119]

To satisfy my own curiousity, I did a little research:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 300

Model Traffic Ordinance

Section 300.075

Authority of police and fire department officials.

300.075. 1. It shall be the duty of the officers of the police department or such officers as are assigned by the chief of police to enforce all traffic laws of the city and all of the state vehicle laws applicable to traffic in the city.

2. Officers of the police department or such officers as are assigned by the chief of police are hereby authorized to direct all traffic by voice, hand, or signal in conformance with traffic laws; provided that, in the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to safeguard pedestrians, officers of the police department may direct traffic as conditions may require notwithstanding the provisions of the traffic laws.

3. Officers of the fire department, when at the scene of an incident, may direct or assist the police in directing traffic thereat or in the immediate vicinity.

(L. 1965 p. 445 § 14, A.L. 2002 H.B. 1270 and H.B. 2032)

[Guest]

Thank goodness in Connecticut the ranking Fire Officer, even if it is just a senior firefighter, has statutory authority at any scene the FD is called to. We cover a section of I-84, and have a great working relationship with the CSP. We always send an engine out whenever our ambulance goes on the highway, just to act as a traffic barrier. We also have a great relationship with our local PD, so usually no issues there, either. This is a common problem everywhere, though........

[abaduck 123]

Whoa there, wait a minute. Three of the four comments you consider police-bashing were made by me. So let's deal with this.

So far in this thread, I have read....

#2 - Firefighters are within their rights to resist (basically promoting physical resistance against police officers)

I'm NOT saying it would be the right thing to do in this situation, or any specific situation, but surely a citizen has the right to resist any unlawful arrest? I don't see what your objection to this would be; very few cops would ever make an unlawful arrest, but there's always the odd bad cop (or outright psycho - like the cop I read about elsewhere who ordered a fire truck moved *at gunpoint*) - just as there are some crazy firefighters out there.

#3 - The cop was issuing orders without lawful authority. (Not true, LEO has full lawful authority to request that the truck be moved)

Request, sure. But authority to *require* it to be moved? I've read elsewhere that he unequivocally did NOT. If I'm misinformed about the situation in Missouri I'll happily wind my neck in WRT this particular case, but certainly in most jurisdictions I would be right. And a 'request' to move the truck backed-up by threat of arrest is not a 'request'!

#4 - If a cop had tried that back home in Scotland, he would have wound up in the back seat of their own car wrapped up in 50' of fire hose

You must have missed the smiley on the end of that post. Seriously, it wouldn't happen in Scotland because recent legislation there makes it crystal clear that the ranking fire officer is ALWAYS in charge of the scene. If a police officer did get out of line they would be reminded of that fact, but I don't seen the actual use of hose as being necessary or appropriate!

Trust me, I'm no cop-basher - if I hadn't emigrated to the USA I would in fact probably be a cop back home right now; my application had been accepted before we found out we had to move over here. So let's have some mutual respect, and not be afraid to point out when *anyone* is out of line, cop or firefighter.

[JJB531 652]

A citizen DOES NOT have the right to resist ANY arrest... whether unlawful or not. That's why he have a court system. Subjects of an unlawful arrest will either be found not guilty in court or the prosecutors office will decline to prosecute the case based on the fact that the arrest was unlawful.

To suggest that citizens have the right to resist a lawful authority just because they feel the arrest is unlawful is absolutely ridiculous. You know how many times "street lawyers" think they are so well versed in the law and claim that an arrest is a false or unlawful without having the slightest clue what they are talking about. Suggestions like that are what get law enforcement officers hurt.

[abaduck 123]

Interesting that ANYONE on this site would advocate or even imply that resisting would be a good idea. NYS Law clearly states resisting arrest, even if an unlawful arrest, is still illegal. Therefore, if this occurred in New York and the Capt resisted, even if he was later acquitted of the charge for which he was arrested, he could (and would most likely) still have been convicted of Resisting Arrest and any lesser included charges related to the resisting (i.e. OGA or Assault 2nd (Felony) if the Officer was injured.)

Wow. That's... astonishing. I had no idea that was the case. So even in the most egregious case of a cop assaulting someone for no reason, in the course of a totally unwarranted arrest, they're not supposed to resist? That's a real eye-opener. You lear something every day. In the UK, if the arrest is lawful, resisting will get you charged with assault on the police. If it's unlawful, the cop will get charged with assault, and false imprisonment, and the victim won't be charged, because it's lawful to use reasonable force to resist assault.

I clearly withdraw my suggestion that anyone is within their rights to resist unlawful arrest, in NYS at any rate!!

[INIT915 1,119]

Wow. That's... astonishing. I had no idea that was the case. So even in the most egregious case of a cop assaulting someone for no reason, in the course of a totally unwarranted arrest, they're not supposed to resist? That's a real eye-opener. You lear something every day. In the UK, if the arrest is lawful, resisting will get you charged with assault on the police. If it's unlawful, the cop will get charged with assault, and false imprisonment, and the victim won't be charged, because it's lawful to use reasonable force to resist assault.

I clearly withdraw my suggestion that anyone is within their rights to resist unlawful arrest, in NYS at any rate!!

Please refer to New York State Penal Law Section 35.27 regarding this:

§ 35.27 Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.

A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether

authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a

police officer or peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the

latter is a police officer or peace officer.