Firefighter resigns

[Firebug030]

Firefighter charged in fatal accident resigns

MANATEE Co., Fla -- A firefighter charged with leaving the scene of a fatal Thanksgiving hit-and-run accident quit this week rather than face being fired.

Fire Chief Bob Dodge said Thursday that Lt. Robert Briesacher would have been fired for conduct unbecoming an officer after an internal affairs investigation was completed next week.

"We want our firefighters to be pillars of the community," Dodge said. "We don't want our firefighters not to be trusted in the community."
Briesacher, 30, a Braden River firefighter, was charged with leaving the scene of a fatal accident about eight hours after he hit and killed a pedestrian on Morgan Johnson Road, the Florida Highway Patrol said.

He was released on $1,000 bail a few hours after his arrest on Thanksgiving. He had been suspended with pay pending the investigation.

State troopers said Briesacher could be charged with manslaughter because he told officers that he left the accident scene because he had been drinking alcohol.
John Lakin, Briesacher's lawyer, said prosecutor Bruce Lee hasn't discussed with him whether he will file any more charges. Lakin said he is investigating whether Briesacher is the one who hit William Mathers, 49.

Lee did not return calls seeking comment.

"It's a very dangerous, windy road that is very dark at night," Lakin said.

Lakin wouldn't comment on Briesacher's comments to the police about the crash or his drinking. He said Briesacher decided to quit on his own.

Court records show Briesacher was on probation for three months after leaving a July 15, 1998, accident in Manatee County, and that he had failed to report another accident in 1993.

Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle records show he has been in eight accidents.
He has been cited for careless driving three times, as recently as 1999. And Briesacher has been ticketed twice, in 1993 and 1999, for having an open container of alcohol in his car.

When Briesacher was hired in 1998, the fire department checked his driving record for the previous three years and hired him anyway.

The fire chief at the time, Henry Sheffield, was demoted nine months ago to fire marshal for, among other things, giving promotions to firefighters without the fire board's approval.

Story from http://www.heraldtribune.com/

[E229Lt]

Accepting a resignation with charges pending?????????

[ARFF26]

Hmmmm, bit of a pattern here?

[RspctFrmCalgary]

ohhhh cdevoe ...... yooooohooooooo cdevoe!! Are ya reading this beer boy?? Read this very very carefully! This article has your name written all over it!! Much as you irritate the S**T out of most of us, we wouldn't want you to die or go to jail would we?? You're our pet beer boy sheeeesssh! Read it cdevoe, and read it again! Maybe it will sink in what we've all been trying to tell you.

[rcrompm46]

As always something happens that is not related to being a firefighter comes up with "Firefighter is charged with". And it is not just firefighters, other professions have the same problem. You don't see "computer programmer charged with" or "garbage man charged with".

Everybody has to realize what you do "Off Duty" or away from the firehouse affects everyone. Your family, your profession, and organizations you belong too.

[Firegod343]

This tragedy sort of puts an exclamation point on the Beer Ban Thread. Everything we do in our private lives reflect how we are viewed in our professional lives. Yes, I want to know if a teacher in my kids school is a sexual predator, or a cop in my town is corrupt. For citizens it's the "Jerry Springer" effect, but for us in the field, it's the ability to realize that we need to keep far away from the edge of the cliff, because the closer we get, the more likely we'll fall off.

cdevoe,,,,,you listening to this???

Perhaps this OFF-DUTY firefighter thought he was sober enough to make it home without hurting anyone.

Perhaps he thought that he had not reached his limit, and was still capable of functioning.

Definitely, he was wrong.

FG

[CALFFBOU]

Originally posted by rcrompm46
As always something happens that is not
related to being a firefighter comes up with
"Firefighter is charged with". And it is not
just firefighters, other professions have
the same problem. You don't see "computer
programmer charged with" or "garbage man
charged with".

Everybody has to realize what you do "Off Duty"
or away from the firehouse affects everyone.
Your family, your profession, and organizations
you belong too.

WOW! AWESOME POSTING. YOU GET MY THUMBS UP!
GOOD POINT. I WONDER IF CDEVOE WAS READING
IT...BOU

[cdevoe]

This guy obviously had other problems. He had been on probation once before. Multiple traffic incidents. You get the feeling hwe shouldn't have been allowed on the road at all, sober or otherwise.

Now, I'm not condoning what he did, but Ican certainly understand it. We are seeing more and more people leaving the scene of these accidents if they have had anything at all to drink. If you are sober you have nothing to fear, they just right the incident off as unfortunate. Anyone who has the least little bit of alcohol in their system gets run through the ringer.

Some day society will wake up and realize it isn't the drinking, it is all the bad a lousy drivers we just turn loose on the highways.

[AnIndustrialFF]

RspctFrmCalgary:

I apologize. I have not yet read the 'beer ban' thread and when I read your post I thought " that's got to be a misunderstanding."

--After reading cdevoe's reply, I realize it is not.

**beer related sig-line removed in disgust**

[cdevoe]

Do yourself a favor. Go to the NHTSA site, specifically http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ Go in and run the your own queires, don't read the canned reports. Look at fatalities vs BAC. Then look at Fatalities vs Age. Graph the results using Excel, Lotus, etc. Next look at the results of the BAC and alcohol related stuff. Realize that an accident that inlvolves alcohol is defined as one where the driver, a passenger or a pedestrian had been drinking. Next notice that they only have data for about 1/3 of the accidents. They essentially make up the numbers for the other 2/3.

I'm not saying fall down drunks should drive. What I say is this. If highway safety is the prime concern then we need to attack the real problem. Keep in mind that DWi laws have become harsher and harsher. Number of alcohol related deaths on the highways are down, yet overall the number of deaths reamins constant. Why is that?

[EastKyFF]

Do what?

cdevoe, if I read your post correctly, you have concluded that drunks would not wreck if they were better drivers in the first place.

You seem to subscribe to the old philosophy, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t."

[PAVolunteer]

Originally posted by cdevoe
Now, I'm not condoning what he did, but Ican certainly understand it. We are seeing more and more people leaving the scene of these accidents if they have had anything at all to drink. If you are sober you have nothing to fear, they just right the incident off as unfortunate. Anyone who has the least little bit of alcohol in their system gets run through the ringer

Translation: If cdevoe was on his way in to the firehouse for the big one, after finishing off his 3 to 4 beers, and ran down little old Mrs. Jones on his way, he would haul *** out of there to keep from getting caught."

This has got to be a joke.

Where in the world can you just run someone down and have it be written off as "unfortunate" if alcohol is not involved.

Someone, please make it stop!

Stay Safe

[cdevoe]

Where in the world can you just run someone down and have it be written off as "unfortunate" if alcohol is not involved.

Please tell me you are kidding. No one can be that blind. It happens all the time. Kid runs out between parked cars, gets hit and killed. I've yet to see charges filled when the driver was sober. Rarely are charges filed in any MVA that involves a fatality where alcohol is not involved.

Do a WEB search, I found several where no charges were filed. There were also a few where charges were filed. Watch the news. Pay attention to the fatal accidents. Unless you have 2 people racing or total negligence and irresponsible behavior you will see no charges.

There was one around here recently, town of Corinth I believe. 18 year old kid driving too fast, lost it, hit a tree and killed the passenger. He was charged with excessive speed. I laugh at that, any single car accident should automatically carry a charge of excessive speed. There are thousands of these. Just look around a little, listen, observe, and learn.

[PAVolunteer]

Maybe the Mayberry/Mayfield fire and police departments just write these things off as unfortunate, but in the rest of the free world, there are full investigations into fatal accidents. If the accident warrants charges, they are filed. It is hardly written off as "unfortunate."

HELLO!!! EARTH TO CDEVOE!!! Multiple people are charged every day with involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, etc. if it is found that they were speeding, talking on a cell phone, driving recklessly, etc. Grab a freakin' clue before you attempt to make rational statements.

Anyone who would say they "understand" why someone would leave the scene of a fatal accident because they were drinking clearly has problems. Have you done this? This certainly opens the door now, doesn't it?

As you have shown over and over and over and over and over and over again, your perception of reality has been incredibly warped by your beer goggles. Ya, leave the scene of a fatal accident and see where it gets you. While you're at it, have another one.

Wow, what a train wreck.

Stay Safe

[cdevoe]

cdevoe, if I read your post correctly, you have concluded that drunks would not wreck if they were better drivers in the first place.

What you can conclude is that less of them would wreck. I think if you take the spin off it, and do a full investigation you will find that many times there are other things that caused the wreck. To often we take the easy way out. Person was drunk, that is why they crashed, end of story. Most wrecks are caused by a lack of attetntion or excessive speed. Most fatals are caused by younger drivers, less than 30 years old. Combing the alcohol with inexperience, and then allowing millions of poor drivers on the roads does nothing to help the situation.

Multiple people are charged every day with involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, etc. if it is found that they were speeding, talking on a cell phone, driving recklessly, etc

Why should it be limited to just those few things. How about the jerk that falls asleep. How about the idiot that just drifts into the wrong lane. Why not charge every person responsible for a fatal crash with manslaughter? Why be selective?

I know for a fact that there was an accident in this area several years ago where 2 boys, 17 and 1 were killed. They were the only children in the family. It was on the Thruway. The guy in the other lane fell asleeep, crossed the median, and hit these kids head on. No charges were ever filed. Another one, some dope was trying to get a penny out of his cigarette lighter and mowed down a 14 year old girl, killing here. No charges.

Do a study, do some research, find out just how many fatal accident actually have charges of manslaughter. Further break it down between alcohol involved and non alcohol involved. It will be an eye opening experience.

[Firegod343]

cdevoe,

As we all know, anybody can pull up a study or article on the web to support their position......you have proven that.

But unfortunately many of us have been around long enough to do real life evaluation. My fire District has a long two-lane highway running right through it. We even have a 180 degree hairpin curve that the neighboring departments call "The Death Turn". We get more than our fair share of fatality or major accidents.

If we have an accident after dark, we almost bank on the fact that alcohol is involved in some way. Even during the day time, there is almost a 50/50 chance that alcohol is involved. Am I saying that it was caused by alcohol? After seeing women, men, young and old as the intoxicated cause, I would have to say without a doubt, alcohol was a contributing factor.


FG

[cdevoe]

Tell you what, here is the National Highway Safty Administraition site

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/2.pdf

Takes you right o heir pub on alcohol.

Since 1990 we have seen a 25% decrease in alcohol related fatals.

From Table 3
1990 Total 39,836, 40% had a BAC greater that 0.1%
2000 Total 37,409, 31% had a BAC greater that 0.1%
This is for any person, occupant or non-occupant. So if I run over a drunk in the road that gets counted. This represents a 23% drop.

So essentially, the number of alcohol deaths are down, but overall the amount remains essentially the same.

[Bones42]

Most wrecks are caused by a lack of attetntion or excessive speed.

Doesn't drinking lead to poor judgement, loss of rational thought, slower reactions, forgetfullness, lack of reasoning, increased boldness? I believe these are statements from your favorite WebMD site.

I know for a fact that there was an accident in this area several years ago

Looking at your views towards drinking and driving, I am pretty sure those around you would simply "write off a death as unfortunate." Most of the rest of the civilized world would disagree.

[Firegod343]

cdevoe,

You're proving my point.....

since 1990, many things have changed, including the amount of people on the road, the fact that the speed limit has been raised up from the old 55 mph, and a whole host of other things. None of these things can be factered into the small snippets you place here....

Once again, it's those of us who have been in the trenches for years, (23 in my case) who can tell you there is only one trend that is constant, and that is alcohol. It is even more of a tell tale in fatalities then the non-use of seatbelts.

I am not blowing off the NHTSA information....just know that the information reflects criteria that may or may not give an accurate reporting. Often, the criteria is designed to bring the information to a pre-determined outcome. Why?, well numbers help in justifying future grants and funding.

Hey bud, with the rep you have on these boards, you may want to lay off any discussion having to do with alcohol....otherwise nobody will ever take you seriously again. This ex-brother in the hit-and-run needs to plead guilty and spend some time in the can.


FG

[PAVolunteer]

Originally posted by cdevoe
Why should it be limited to just those few things. How about the jerk that falls asleep. How about the idiot that just drifts into the wrong lane. Why not charge every person responsible for a fatal crash with manslaughter? Why be selective?

It's not limited to those few things - that is why the "etc." is on there, or don't you know what that means? As for the selective, it shouldn't be. If you willingly engage in anything which could limit your ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, then you should be charged and punished. This includes: talking on a cell phone, driving w/out the proper amount of rest, driving too fast, eating, drinking, smoking, and yes ... consuming alcohol. Many states have more severe penalties for vehicular homicide when alcohol is involved. Why is this, do you ask? Let's see, maybe it is because (from http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/2.pdf):

Midnight to 3 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays proved to be the deadliest 3-hour periods throughout 2000, with 1,271 and 1,218 fatal crashes, respectively. - [Crashes ; 2000 ]

Hmm ... that's a weird time frame. When do the bars close again?

Forty percent of fatal crashes involved alcohol. For fatal crashes occurring from midnight to 3 a.m., 77 percent involved alcohol. - [Crashes ; 2000 ]

... another shocker.

Originally posted by cdevoe
Do a study, do some research, find out just how many fatal accident actually have charges of manslaughter. Further break it down between alcohol involved and non alcohol involved. It will be an eye opening experience.

Did I do a study? No. Did I spend about five minutes searching for vehicular homicide/manslaughter cases where alcohol was not involved. Yes. What did I find? Too many examples to post on here.

You will find examples of whatever you want to find. Whenever someone is killed and no one goes to jail, you will find one where someone was intoxicated and they got off on a technicality.

The bottom line is, people are not dying on our highways and being written off as "unfortunate."

Furthermore, even if people were getting "get out of jail free cards" when alcohol was not involved, your attitude that drunks should not have to go to jail then either is disgusting.

Stay Safe