Thread: Okla. Troopers

  1. #226
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I can't wait until our self proclaimed LE expert chimes in with, " Well the trooper was a little bit wrong but that old lady was definitely the problem here!
    She wasn't?
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  2. #227
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    343

    Default

    The Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper involved in the confrontation on May 24 with the EMS crew from Creek Nation has been on administrative leave since June 1. OHP officials confirmed the information about Trooper Daniel Martin on Wednesday. An Oklahoma newspaper and a TV station have slightly conflicting reports about the nature of the leave with KOKI-TV reporting it is "voluntary".

    The confrontation was recorded on a cell phone camera by the son of the patient being transported in the ambulance. Dash-cam video was captured in a camera mounted in Trooper Martin's car. OHP continues to deny requests from news agencies for the video through the state's Open Records Act. An OHP spokesman did not tell Tulsa World reporter Manny Gamallo on Wednesday the reason for the denial. The prosecutor who looked into the matter and declined to press charges has urged OHP to release the video.

  3. #228
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Did you see the video?

    I would've tased her. She was annoying.
    I have a couple of problems with that reasoning Ken. My understanding of issuance of Tazers to LE is that it is a weapon of second last resort, with the firearm being last resort. It should be used when the person presents a danger to him or herself, another person or the LE officer. Being belligerant doesn't really fill the bill in this case. A presumably relatively young, healthy fir trooper using a tazer on a 72 year old small woman is nothing but bullying and cowardice. Sorry, but dealing with beligerant or verbally confrontational people is unfortunately just a part of LE. People like this guy, the clown in California, the guy in Oklahoma, the hero in Utah, the 4 Mounties in Canada are just adding fuel to the growing resentment against LE. Probably 99% of LE officers carry out their jobs in a professional and legal manner. These 1% are only going to drag the entire profession down. What if that woman had a pacemaker implanted. Would beligerance or annoying stand up as reasonable justification in a court of law?

  4. #229
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I have a couple of problems with that reasoning Ken. My understanding of issuance of Tazers to LE is that it is a weapon of second last resort, with the firearm being last resort. It should be used when the person presents a danger to him or herself, another person or the LE officer. Being belligerant doesn't really fill the bill in this case. A presumably relatively young, healthy fir trooper using a tazer on a 72 year old small woman is nothing but bullying and cowardice. Sorry, but dealing with beligerant or verbally confrontational people is unfortunately just a part of LE. People like this guy, the clown in California, the guy in Oklahoma, the hero in Utah, the 4 Mounties in Canada are just adding fuel to the growing resentment against LE. Probably 99% of LE officers carry out their jobs in a professional and legal manner. These 1% are only going to drag the entire profession down. What if that woman had a pacemaker implanted. Would beligerance or annoying stand up as reasonable justification in a court of law?
    If he had physically put her on the ground, do you think it would have been any less bullying? I mean, honestly, a "relatively young, healthy, fit trooper" physically putting a little old lady on the ground and restraining her?

    By the way, the reasoning he gave for tasering her was because she was trying to get into traffic to get into her vehicle after he ordered her not to (attempting to flee). So, she was endangering herself and the trooper by doing so. And who's to say she wouldn't have backed her truck right into him?

    I don't know if he's justified or not, but LEO's put up with enough crap and stupid people that I don't blame him one bit. I don't care how old she was, she was given an order by a LEO and refused that order, then attempted to flee. Just because she's 72 doesn't mean a damn thing. Hell, an 88 year old man just shot up a museum; it's not like the elderly can't be criminals and a threat to others.

  5. #230
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I have a couple of problems with that reasoning Ken. My understanding of issuance of Tazers to LE is that it is a weapon of second last resort, with the firearm being last resort. It should be used when the person presents a danger to him or herself, another person or the LE officer. Being belligerant doesn't really fill the bill in this case. A presumably relatively young, healthy fir trooper using a tazer on a 72 year old small woman is nothing but bullying and cowardice. Sorry, but dealing with beligerant or verbally confrontational people is unfortunately just a part of LE. People like this guy, the clown in California, the guy in Oklahoma, the hero in Utah, the 4 Mounties in Canada are just adding fuel to the growing resentment against LE. Probably 99% of LE officers carry out their jobs in a professional and legal manner. These 1% are only going to drag the entire profession down. What if that woman had a pacemaker implanted. Would beligerance or annoying stand up as reasonable justification in a court of law?
    Bryan, it was a joke.

    .
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  6. #231
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Bryan, it was a joke.

    .
    Sorry Ken I misunderstood. The Tazer is becoming increasingly controversial up here. One city cop used his several times on homless people" just to let them know not to sleep on "his" streets" The RCMP have already admitted their errors in the death of the Polish immigrant in Vancouver. Conflict resolution needs to be better understood and taught to LE in a lot of areas.

  7. #232
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    If he had physically put her on the ground, do you think it would have been any less bullying? I mean, honestly, a "relatively young, healthy, fit trooper" physically putting a little old lady on the ground and restraining her?

    By the way, the reasoning he gave for tasering her was because she was trying to get into traffic to get into her vehicle after he ordered her not to (attempting to flee). So, she was endangering herself and the trooper by doing so. And who's to say she wouldn't have backed her truck right into him?

    I don't know if he's justified or not, but LEO's put up with enough crap and stupid people that I don't blame him one bit. I don't care how old she was, she was given an order by a LEO and refused that order, then attempted to flee. Just because she's 72 doesn't mean a damn thing. Hell, an 88 year old man just shot up a museum; it's not like the elderly can't be criminals and a threat to others.
    Unfortunately Catch22, crap and stupid and/or beligerant people simply goes as part of the job in LE. I deplore the fact that this is happening, but it doesn't give carte blanche to use potentially deadly force in this situation IMO. Simply taking her by the shoulders and holding her back should have been sufficient. The guy in the museum was armed, no comparison whatsoever with this situation.

  8. #233
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Unfortunately Catch22, crap and stupid and/or beligerant people simply goes as part of the job in LE. I deplore the fact that this is happening, but it doesn't give carte blanche to use potentially deadly force in this situation IMO. Simply taking her by the shoulders and holding her back should have been sufficient. The guy in the museum was armed, no comparison whatsoever with this situation.
    So what is the true problem here? Is it that he used his taser on a subject that refused an order, broke away when he tried to restrain them, and then attempted to get into her vehicle and flee? Or is it because it was a 72 year old woman?

    If it's the prior, then I'd like to know what he was supposed to do. Maybe George or someone else with an LEO background can offer at what point it's appropriate to hit someone with a taser, as I don't know.

    If it's the latter, then I'd like to know what age we stop tazing. I have serious doubts that an officer is trained that "at age xx for males, and age xx for females, you cannot hit them with a taser." If this had been a 25 year old woman, would you be equally upset?

    I'm also wanting to know what you would have thought had he physically put her to the ground. If you've watched the video, you know that he attempted to restrain her by her arm and she broke away (she's a real feable, ain't she). I have a feeling that had he done anything to physically restrain her, he'd be in the hot seat.

    The question here should be was the tactic appropriate for the situation, not whether the tactic was appropriate for the age of the "victim". Of course it still remains had she followed his orders, she wouldn't have gotten hit with the taser.

  9. #234
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Maybe George or someone else with an LEO background can offer at what point it's appropriate to hit someone with a taser, as I don't know.
    Two things...

    1. I have never been trained on the Taser. I am not even sure I have ever seen one in person. I never comment on things I know nothing about.

    2. I refuse to participate in any conversation initiated by an anti-US maggot.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  10. #235
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Two things...

    1. I have never been trained on the Taser. I am not even sure I have ever seen one in person. I never comment on things I know nothing about.

    2. I refuse to participate in any conversation initiated by an anti-US maggot.
    Lets see now, I mentioned 2 Canadian instances of Tazer misuse, one of which resulted in a mans death. I mentioned 4 instances of american police overzealousness. So that makes me an anti US maggot? The "C", tubby, in RCMP stands for CANADA. Your just PO'd because once again your infallibility is shown to be exactly what it has been for a long time. Self induced and delusional.

  11. #236
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    So what is the true problem here? Is it that he used his taser on a subject that refused an order, broke away when he tried to restrain them, and then attempted to get into her vehicle and flee? Or is it because it was a 72 year old woman?

    If it's the prior, then I'd like to know what he was supposed to do. Maybe George or someone else with an LEO background can offer at what point it's appropriate to hit someone with a taser, as I don't know.

    If it's the latter, then I'd like to know what age we stop tazing. I have serious doubts that an officer is trained that "at age xx for males, and age xx for females, you cannot hit them with a taser." If this had been a 25 year old woman, would you be equally upset?

    I'm also wanting to know what you would have thought had he physically put her to the ground. If you've watched the video, you know that he attempted to restrain her by her arm and she broke away (she's a real feable, ain't she). I have a feeling that had he done anything to physically restrain her, he'd be in the hot seat.

    The question here should be was the tactic appropriate for the situation, not whether the tactic was appropriate for the age of the "victim". Of course it still remains had she followed his orders, she wouldn't have gotten hit with the taser.
    Well, from the news story, she couldn't have been trying to flee since after he wrote her the ticket, there was no need to get her to sign it under Texas law, same as the situation in Utah. Actually, I think the age in this situation has a lot of bearing since health issues may be far more prevalent at 72 than 25. Do you not think there would have been massive legal issues had she died? Also what legal reason did he give for using the TAZER. She was speeding, she stopped, he wrote a ticket, she got ornry, she dared him to Tazer her, he did. Legal basis here?

  12. #237
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,954

    Default

    Not sure if this was posted, too much static on the thread now, but Trooper Martin of the OHP (remember the thread?) is now on administrative leave.

  13. #238
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Well, from the news story, she couldn't have been trying to flee since after he wrote her the ticket, there was no need to get her to sign it under Texas law, same as the situation in Utah. Actually, I think the age in this situation has a lot of bearing since health issues may be far more prevalent at 72 than 25. Do you not think there would have been massive legal issues had she died? Also what legal reason did he give for using the TAZER. She was speeding, she stopped, he wrote a ticket, she got ornry, she dared him to Tazer her, he did. Legal basis here?
    For whatever reason, he didn't want her leaving. She attempted to get by him, get in the truck and leave. Not once, but twice. The first time he threw her back and tried to restrain her by her arm and she got away from him. That's not something your typical 72 year old with a list of health problems does.

    Then, she tried to get in the truck again, and got thrown back again. That time, he drew his taser and warned her at least twice. Then, when she refused his order, he hit her with the taser.

    If you take the age out of it, I would bet it wouldn't have even made the news! Just like the EMS incident, on the side of the road is not where it's decided whether or not an order is a lawful order. If you think it's unlawful, you obey the order, get hauled to the pokie, get out and contact a lawyer to sue the agency and/or officer. On the side of the road is NOT the place, and trying to leave (in other words, "flee") against the officers direct order is NOT a good idea when he tells you he's going to use the taser.

    As for the health problems, how many instances have their been where a taser has had a negative impact on a health issue? They're scarce, or tasers wouldn't even be utilized. These days, 40 year olds have heart conditions. Are we going to set the limit of using a taser only those between ages 18 and 39? No, because the next option is either a baton or a gun, which can cause even more damage.

    I guarantee you had used ANY other means, the media and any number of other people would be in awe that this big ol' officer had the audacity to use physical force against a 72 year old woman when the focus should be on the fact that this 72 year old woman failed to follow the direct order of an officer, could be guilty of assaulting him (if you'll notice, she struck at him when he tried to restrain her arm), and recieved just what he warned her he was going to do.

  14. #239
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    For whatever reason, he didn't want her leaving. She attempted to get by him, get in the truck and leave. Not once, but twice. The first time he threw her back and tried to restrain her by her arm and she got away from him. That's not something your typical 72 year old with a list of health problems does.

    Then, she tried to get in the truck again, and got thrown back again. That time, he drew his taser and warned her at least twice. Then, when she refused his order, he hit her with the taser.

    If you take the age out of it, I would bet it wouldn't have even made the news! Just like the EMS incident, on the side of the road is not where it's decided whether or not an order is a lawful order. If you think it's unlawful, you obey the order, get hauled to the pokie, get out and contact a lawyer to sue the agency and/or officer. On the side of the road is NOT the place, and trying to leave (in other words, "flee") against the officers direct order is NOT a good idea when he tells you he's going to use the taser.

    As for the health problems, how many instances have their been where a taser has had a negative impact on a health issue? They're scarce, or tasers wouldn't even be utilized. These days, 40 year olds have heart conditions. Are we going to set the limit of using a taser only those between ages 18 and 39? No, because the next option is either a baton or a gun, which can cause even more damage.

    I guarantee you had used ANY other means, the media and any number of other people would be in awe that this big ol' officer had the audacity to use physical force against a 72 year old woman when the focus should be on the fact that this 72 year old woman failed to follow the direct order of an officer, could be guilty of assaulting him (if you'll notice, she struck at him when he tried to restrain her arm), and recieved just what he warned her he was going to do.
    I watched the video several times and at no time did I ever hear the officer inform her she was under arrest. Why would it be necessary for her to "get over here" or listen to the rest of his ranting. She was definitely po'd but thats something that goes with the job. If he doesn't accept that, he has no business being a police officer. Want to bet that he's probably going to find himself in civil court, just imagine how that video will play to a jury. My point is, he could have handled it much more diplomatically and reasonably than he did.

  15. #240
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  16. #241
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,954

    Default

    http://www.news9.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3858033&h1=Investigation%2 0into%20Trooper's%20Actions%20Passed%20to%20Chief& vt1=v&at1=News&d1=154167&LaunchPageAdTag=News&acti vePane=info&rnd=69148420


    Turns out the letter to OHP from the prosecutor is pretty damning.

    He writes,

    "trooper martins handling of the situation was innappropiate from the outset "

    "I expect law enforcement officers to treat the public with respect. I do not think this can be said about trooper martins actions."

    "I trust that this matter will be dealt with appropiately by the oklahoma highway patrol and that this type of behaviour will be strongly discouraged"

  17. #242
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LVFD301 View Post
    http://www.news9.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3858033&h1=Investigation%2 0into%20Trooper's%20Actions%20Passed%20to%20Chief& vt1=v&at1=News&d1=154167&LaunchPageAdTag=News&acti vePane=info&rnd=69148420


    Turns out the letter to OHP from the prosecutor is pretty damning.

    He writes,

    "trooper martins handling of the situation was innappropiate from the outset "

    "I expect law enforcement officers to treat the public with respect. I do not think this can be said about trooper martins actions."

    "I trust that this matter will be dealt with appropiately by the oklahoma highway patrol and that this type of behaviour will be strongly discouraged"
    Two questions...

    1. Is the entire letter posted somewhere for review?

    2. Was there any mention of in internal investigation into the Medic's conduct?
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  18. #243
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henryetta, Ok
    Posts
    70

    Default

    OHP Trooper Investigation Closed

    OKLAHOMA CITY -- The investigation into an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper involved in a scuffle with a Creek Nation paramedic has been closed.

    OHP Capt. Chris West said Trooper Daniel Martin was put on paid administrative leave June 1 while the patrol's internal affairs investigate the May 24 incident. Martin has not yet been reinstated.

    "We didn't want to rush ourselves on the investigation," Capt. West said. "We want to make sure there was a thorough and comprehensive investigation."

    West said the investigation did not focus on whether Martin broke the law, but rather focused on whether he violated OHP policies and procedures. Martin's wife was in the trooper's car at the time of the incident, but West said that does not violate OHP policy. The matter has now been handed over to OHP Chief Van Guillotte for review.

    A confrontation occurred after Martin pulled over the ambulance, which was taking a woman to the hospital in Prague. The trooper said he was upset that the ambulance did not yield as he responded to an emergency call.

    "I believe this will play out into the end and I just think we should allow the investigation to take its course and go with that," Trooper Martin said.

    Martin and paramedic Maurice White Jr. scuffled after the traffic stop, but White wasn't arrested. Prosecutors said they don't intend to charge either man.

    The Highway Patrol has refused to release video from the trooper's dashboard camera.

    Apparently, when the open records act was passed in Okla, there was a provision that excluded audio and video from the public safety departments.

    Matt

  19. #244
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henryetta, Ok
    Posts
    70

    Default

    TULSA, OK -- EMT Maurice White says he is, in a way, glad that the scuffle with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper happened because it means problems will be addressed and dealt with. He also tells The News On 6 he is looking for accountability from the OHP.

    "This situation can never happen again," said Maurice White.

    Maurice White doesn't want to see anyone else in the position he was in at the business end of a choke-hold from Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Martin.

    But, White thinks it will happen again to someone else unless some questions are answered.

    "Whatever we have to make sure that that never occurs again and that some definitive light is shed on the problems with the OHP, we will go forward and do it whatever that takes," said Maurice White.

    White says even when flattened against his ambulance, he was worried about the patient in the back. It was a woman suffering from possible heat exhaustion that he and his partner were taking to a hospital.

    "The word that comes to mind is absolute torture for a mother to be strapped to a gurney with an IV, an EKG and oxygen cannot move and she is hearing her family members scream outside that had to be torture. She did not deserve that," said Maurice White.

    Nor does he feel he or his partner, Paul Franks, deserved the treatment they received from Trooper Martin.

    "Never in my lifetime have I seen that kind of focused rage before," said Maurice White. "If a trooper behaves that way with a fellow professional and a professional who is transporting a patient with chest pain how does that trooper handle other situations?"

    White also wants to see OHP's dashcam video. It is the video the patrol has refused to release after first saying it showed the paramedics starting the scuffle.

    06/11/2009 Related Story: Why Won't OHP Release Dashcam Video?

    "The dashcam video will show his state of rage when he exited his vehicle to speak to my driver. It will show his total disregard for the patient when he was informed we were transporting a patient and when it was asked if we could take this up at the hospital, it will show his total disregard. And, it will show a trooper at that moment who was totally out of control," said Maurice White.

    White told The News On 6 he holds the OHP in the highest regard and says they generally are epitome of professionalism when it comes to police work.

    White's lawyer, Richard O'CarrolL told The News On 6 that he will get the dashcam video, but it will take a lawsuit to do so which means there could be a civil lawsuit in the future.

  20. #245
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,678

    Default

    White says even when flattened against his ambulance, he was worried about the patient in the back. It was a woman suffering from possible heat exhaustion that he and his partner were taking to a hospital.
    I have to ask. If you are so worried about your patient in the back of the ambulance (with no L&S), why would you get out of the back of the ambulance and leave her?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  21. #246
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I have to ask. If you are so worried about your patient in the back of the ambulance (with no L&S), why would you get out of the back of the ambulance and leave her?
    C'mon, you know better than that. How long is he supposed to sit there while his patient is denied hospital care? And no siren is, under most circumstances, appropriate when dealing with a cardiac patient, and running lights only is not allowed under Oklahoma law.

    Trying to get the show back on the road is patient advocacy AND patient care.

    Statter is reporting that the trooper was recently returned from the war and may be suffering from PTSD. In which case, I sympathize with him and would rather see him treated than punished. But I don't want him on the roads with a badge and a gun until he has got it back together.
    Last edited by NewHampshireFF; 06-12-2009 at 09:41 AM.

  22. #247
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NewHampshireFF View Post
    and running lights only is not allowed under Oklahoma law.
    Has anyone ever been cited for just running with lights?

    I hear this from time to time and it always makes me wonder what that means.

    Has anyone successfully won a lawsuit where the emergency vehicle was only using lights in a state where sirens were always required?

    Is there one big switch that turns on lights and sirens in the vehicles in those states?

    Enquiring minds want to know.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  23. #248
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Has anyone ever been cited for just running with lights?
    Obviously I have no idea if anyone has been cited for this in OK. I wouldn't think that emergency vehicles are often stopped by LEOs, but apparently...

    I am sure I would have heard of any examples in my area, but running lights only is allowed in NH.

    There was some bloviating, earlier in this thread, about how people need to just shut up and follow the law. Well:

    Title 47. Motor Vehicles Chapter 11 - Rules of the Road Article
    Article 4 - Right Of Way
    Section 11-405 - Operation Of Vehicles On Approach Of Authorized Emergency Vehicles

    A. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle making use of audible and visual signals meeting the requirements of Section 12-218 of this act

    I hear this from time to time and it always makes me wonder what that means.

    Has anyone successfully won a lawsuit where the emergency vehicle was only using lights in a state where sirens were always required?
    Absolutely.

    Here, for example:

    Martin v. Town of Hamden, 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1972, *5-6 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003) (“Although the decision to engage in pursuit is discretionary, once a pursuit has begun, an officer must abide by certain rules”; holding that because emergency statute did not relieve police officer from duty to drive with due care regarding safety of persons and property, lawsuit against officer for failure to use audible warning as required by emergency response statute was not barred by statutory immunity)

    Or here:

    OWLING GREEN, Ky. (AP) -- The family of a Western Kentucky University student killed a wreck with a Bowling Green police officer have reached a $1 million settlement with the city.

    Allison "Ali" Carter, 20, of Evansville, Ind., died when her vehicle was hit in the side by a police cruiser driven by officer David Hall in April 2006. Carter was a sophomore at Western Kentucky when she died.

    The Carter's attorney, H. Phillip Grossman of Louisville, said the settlement helped the family find out what happened when their daughter was killed.

    Kentucky State Police say Hall had the right of way while driving 47 mph in a 35 mph zone without his lights or sirens on. City police say Hall was trying to catch a hit and run driver.


    And for our cousins across the pond:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...999-siren.html

    There are dozens of examples readily available on google, to satisfy your enquiring mind.

    Is there one big switch that turns on lights and sirens in the vehicles in those states?
    No, because you can run lights only AT THE SCENE for visibility purposes, even if you can't while en route.

  24. #249
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I have to ask. If you are so worried about your patient in the back of the ambulance (with no L&S), why would you get out of the back of the ambulance and leave her?
    I asked the same question. No response except to wrongfully explain that it was not patient abandonment.

    I disagree.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  25. #250
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I asked the same question. No response except to wrongfully explain that it was not patient abandonment.

    I disagree.
    Abandoment requires DISCOUNTINUING care, not interupting it for another valid purpose.

    Like exploring why the hell your ambulance isn't moving.

    Back to basic class for you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Okla. City newspaper article
    By chiefengineer11 in forum Public Information & Media Relations
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 01:27 PM
  2. State Troopers And Other Funnies
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-10-2004, 01:39 PM
  3. Are they Storm Troopers?
    By Adze39 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 04-09-2004, 11:37 PM
  4. Open query for Okla State FPST students/grads...
    By MrFreeze in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-21-2003, 04:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register