• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cop handcuffs on-duty firefighter for not moving truck

The firefighter was NOT CONTROLLING TRAFFIC, he was blocking an ambulance and the crash scene, using his 20,000 pound fire engine which no car could damage.

You do realize they do this to protect the ambulances? what do you think a squad car can stop a car going 70mph down the highway smashing into a cruiser, that cruiser will just smash into the ambulance and hurt even more people if not kill some, meanwhile a fire truck would just absorb a car on the path of the accident.

I never argued..... why a firetruck would be there nick... all I said was there is more to the story then meets the eye.... Please understand that i'm not against you
 
I'm sorry if I offended you

You didn't offend me....

All I'm pointing out is that I have read a detailed account of what happened. Hell, I have even read the Fire Chiefs response to the incident (hes really pissed) and the chief of police (who isn't too happy either) about what occurred.

The last I read about what happened to the cop is that he is facing disciplinary action.

The most ironic part about this story was that engine was there to shield the cops too from oncoming traffic to boot.
 
I never argued..... why a firetruck would be there nick... all I said was there is more to the story then meets the eye.... Please understand that i'm not against you

I don't think there is anything more to it than this:

Cop: Move the truck

Firefighter: I cant

Cop: Get in the ****ing truck and move it NOW..

Firefighter: NO

Cop: (cuffs come out) Now you're going to jail....

It's pretty simple - I have seen that "talk" thousands of times and have even been arrested for questioning a cop. That that is usually how cops work.... "do what the **** I tell you to do or you're going to jail" -- You see that's why these punk cops don't like to be filmed - because they usually arrest people for no reason at all.
 
You didn't offend me....

All I'm pointing out is that I have read a detailed account of what happened. Hell, I have even read the Fire Chiefs response to the incident (hes really pissed) and the chief of police (who isn't too happy either) about what occurred.

The last I read about what happened to the cop is that he is facing disciplinary action.

The most ironic part about this story was that engine was there to shield the cops too from oncoming traffic to boot.

You keep saying all this, and I'm not doubting you read it somewhere. How about letting the rest of us read it for ourselves. Screw the Fire Chief, he's sticking up for his own, the thin red line if you will. I've seen no pictures of the scene other than what the filmed report shows. The danger of oncoming traffic may have been non-existent by the time the firefighter was asked to move his truck by the officer.
 
You keep saying all this, and I'm not doubting you read it somewhere. How about letting the rest of us read it for ourselves. Screw the Fire Chief, he's sticking up for his own, the thin red line if you will. I've seen no pictures of the scene other than what the filmed report shows. The danger of oncoming traffic may have been non-existent by the time the firefighter was asked to move his truck by the officer.

Lets just use simple logic here. Why the hell would a fireman refuse to move his truck if there was no danger involved for no reason?

It's quite obvious the fireman was just trying to help and the cop just wanted to assert his "power" by deciding himself there was no danger present.

But like I also said the fireman didn't even have permission to move the truck and before he could even get the permission he was arrested or rather detained for 30 minutes.

Hell, If I was the fireman you know what I would have said? Sure, I'll move the ****ing truck but if anyone here gets further hurt, or dies because some drunken fool plows into this ambulance and these victims - its all on you buddy.
 
I don't want to talk about this story anymore.... It's boring and I want to talk about something less remedial than this.

So as they say on "Shark Tank": "I'm Out!"
 
The fire department has the right of way and can leave the truck where it is.

How can the officer possibly justify this action?

The police officer may well have a different spin of the "He said, she said, and who said "no" first and why" story than the fire fighter. This could well have been a mutual respect / disrespect macho thing.
 
It would be ironic if the firefighter was on his way to stifle a raging fire...engulfing the police station...
 
Not so. This was CHP's scene and their purview, the accident's victims belonged to the EMTs. The two agencies are supposed to cooperate by policy. The FD fellow was swinging his dick around and refusing to cooperate with the agency who had control of the traffic.

I'm thinking you're wrong, my friend
 
He wasn't cuffed for doing his job, he was cuffed for obstructing others from doing their jobs.

All evidence points to the officer being at fault, so I highly doubt that.
 
Here is a very good article about the incident:

Police Officer Arrests Firefighter At Accident Scene In California : The Two-Way : NPR

I must point out that the article indicates that the CHP has jurisdiction on the scene, once they claim it. The article also says it was unclear whether they had done so. Regardless, however, the cop should at least have waited until after the incident was over before arresting any responder. It is not like the truck got moved any quicker because of the arrest, and he could have waited to prove his point about jurisdiction.
 
Back
Top Bottom