Man Tazed After Refusing To Stop Putting Out Fire

[lxskllr]

Originally Posted by FirNaTine

Umm, what exact experience/training do you have with firefighting and the dangers associated with it?

The basic concept of putting fires out is simple, but as with everything else "The devil is in the details."

I will go with one basic tenet of all emergency services, life above property. If he was exposing himself to sufficient smoke to require treatment, he was in a position of risking LIFE for PROPERTY. But he was not just risking his life. He was also risking MY LIFE, or MY BROTHER'S/SISTER'S life.

Don't get it?

If he had been incapacitated by the smoke, what next? Oh yeah, the FIREFIGHTERS would have had to go in and rescue him.

When all along, he had the means to be in a position of safety.

Think he had the exits available if he became endangered, and that's not an issue? I'm sure he is intimately familiar with say the symptoms of cyanide poisoning, and when he needed to remove himself from that environment prior to incapacitation.

And if I need to explain why cyanide symptoms would be an issue....

Originally Posted by FirNaTine

I am well aware he was outside. What exactly does him being outside have anything to do with what I wrote?

That stops him from being in danger how?

Please explain in detail as I lack the required PhD...

The PhD comment was hyperbole. It really doesn't take that much education, and it doesn't even require a full complement of common sense. Just a little bit will get you through.

[FirNaTine]

Originally Posted by lxskllr

The PhD comment was hyperbole. It really doesn't take that much education, and it doesn't even require a full complement of common sense. Just a little bit will get you through.

Really, so you can only "Go in ," or "Exit" from a structure? Interesting...


Those terms wouldn't apply to to entering a toxic atmosphere in a small area separating two houses? You can't go in or exit from there?

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally Posted by Broheim

clear escape routes are not guaranteed to remain clear.

the smoke and heat will disorientate you.

as little as 2-3 breaths of smoke from a house fire can render you unconscious.

fire extinguisher are very ineffective in the hands of untrained people.

water from a standard gardenhose is surprisingly ineffective at putting out decent sized fires, can you make the split second decision in the heat of the moment which tool and technique is appropriate for putting out a particular fire?

I could keep going on with facts, I've had actual training in firefighting in the danish army, but instead I'll just leave you with this question:

hundreds of people die each year trying to combat fires in their homes, do you feel like adding to the statistic?

Oh please, you would have us flee in terror from even the smallest of fires. You simply need to use common sense when it comes to fires. Were the actions of this individual so dangerous to the public that he needed to be Tazed?

[Paratus]

Originally Posted by PlasmaBomb

It's not quite that simple or gentle, watch -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmjSUlKoMXE

Explaination: You were correct in that the water will sink to the bottom, however in a pan it won't then just cause the grease to overflow. The pan will be hot (well in excess of 100 C or 212 F if the pan has spontaneously ignited), so the water will instantly vaporize, forming steam and which then rapidly rises, pulling the oil up into the air with it, which dramatically increases the boiling oils surface area. The oil then vaporizes and ignites creating a nice big fireball.

Same problem can happen if any surface is hot enough. Just metals are good at conducting the heat of the flames.

Localized boiling can also rapidly spread the flames, even before the water has time to hit the surface.

Reminds me of a story from the summer of my freshmen year of college. I was working at an Italian place as a cook. They had recently hired a dumbass who that particular day was supposed to clean the fryers. Instead he ignored the boss and heated up the old oil.

When the boss found it 30 minutes later he told him to dump the oil and clean the fryers. So dumbass opens the valve and dumps the hot oil into a large basin. He then fills a bucket of water up and goes to fill the fryer to clean it.

Well he left the valve open and all the water dumped into the basin. It dropped below the hot oil and exploded. Hot oil and boiling water spewed all over the kitchen. We all scrambled to get the hell out of there.

Dumbass was gone two weeks later.

[tcsenter]

This falls under the category of job protection for the public safety unions. You know, "let the professionals handle it, you don't know what you're doing." (i.e. it makes us look bad and threatens our jobs)

[CZroe]

Who WROTE that? It's unreadable. My God.

[SparkyJJO]

Everyone blames the lawyers for stupid suits and settlements, but where's the blame on the judges who even hear and grant such ludicrous stuff? It takes both bad lawyers and bad judges to get where we are (and a heavy dose of personal irresponsibility and a few others things).

[JTsyo]

He was tazered while standing in a puddle of water.

haha looks like a sharp lawyer this guy has.

While I usually side with LEO on these stories, in this case, I say let the man protect his house.

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally Posted by JTsyo

haha looks like a sharp lawyer this guy has.

While I usually side with LEO on these stories, in this case, I say let the man protect his house.

Being tazed while being in a puddle means nothing. It's a completely useless observation, like saying he was wearing a pink shirt when he was tazed.

[JTsyo]

Originally Posted by NikolaeVarius

Being tazed while being in a puddle means nothing. It's a completely useless observation, like saying he was wearing a pink shirt when he was tazed.

That's why I pointed it out.

[preslove]

It's amazing what lengths braindead pieces of shit like Dud will go to defend abuses of authority by LEO.

[Exterous]

Originally Posted by lxskllr

It really doesn't take that much education, and it doesn't even require a full complement of common sense. Just a little bit will get you through.

Originally Posted by SarcasticDwarf

You simply need to use common sense when it comes to fires.

You two have significantly more faith in the amount of common sense people have than I do

[Apple Of Sodom]

Can someone please tell us what law he was breaking? You don't have to listen to cops just because they are cops. If I am outside doing a BBQ in my grill and a cop comes and tells me I need to flip my steak, can he tase me if I don't?

Firefighting sure is hard.

Is the thing on fire?
1) Yes -
a) make it wet
b) repeat
2) No
a) Good job!

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally Posted by Broheim

this.

if you don't believe me, In 1977 Milo Stephens Jr. tried to commit suicide by jumping in front of a subway train, failed, sued the transit authority for personal injury and won a $650,000 settlement.

also if you don't have any training in firefighting just leave it the fuck alone, you have no idea what you're doing.

There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there. And there are a lot of reasons they are won.

Regardless of this man's intent, he could have been someone who lost his footing. They sued because the motorman had enough time to stop and did not. Take out his intention - someone falls on the track for whatever reason and the person operating the subway doesn't stop. That doesn't seem so frivolous.

Same thing with McDonald's coffee lady. Has anyone seen pictures of her lap? It is gag inducing. The reason she won is because McDonald's had been overheating their coffee to keep it fresher longer (hot = fresh to consumers) and had been warned several times that their coffee was too hot. It wasn't as if some lady just spilled coffee on herself and got a booboo. The coffee was near boiling AND McDonald's had been warned about this practice several times. She finally gets 3rd degree burns to her vagina and requires reconstructive surgery and asks only for medical bills. McDonald's says no. Then a jury awards her a ton of money, not because she is stupid, but because McDonald's knew about the threat of injury and never did anything about it.

[SphinxnihpS]

Half of the replies in this thread make me sad@#@# I think moment makes me saddest@#@#

[oldsmoboat]

[Broheim]

Originally Posted by Apple Of Sodom

There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there. And there are a lot of reasons they are won.

Regardless of this man's intent, he could have been someone who lost his footing. They sued because the motorman had enough time to stop and did not. Take out his intention - someone falls on the track for whatever reason and the person operating the subway doesn't stop. That doesn't seem so frivolous.

Same thing with McDonald's coffee lady. Has anyone seen pictures of her lap? It is gag inducing. The reason she won is because McDonald's had been overheating their coffee to keep it fresher longer (hot = fresh to consumers) and had been warned several times that their coffee was too hot. It wasn't as if some lady just spilled coffee on herself and got a booboo. The coffee was near boiling AND McDonald's had been warned about this practice several times. She finally gets 3rd degree burns to her vagina and requires reconstructive surgery and asks only for medical bills. McDonald's says no. Then a jury awards her a ton of money, not because she is stupid, but because McDonald's knew about the threat of injury and never did anything about it.

I was gonna stay out of this armchair discussion but damnit if that remark didn't pull me back in.

so what you're saying is we should get rid of murder and voluntary manslaughter because clearly intent means nothing, you know what, let's get rid of all laws against crimes that require intent, everything is a fucking accident and it's all the other guy's fault!

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally Posted by Broheim

I was gonna stay out of this armchair discussion but damnit if that remark didn't pull me back in.

so what you're saying is we should get rid of murder and voluntary manslaughter because clearly intent means nothing, you know what, let's get rid of all laws against crimes that require intent, everything is a fucking accident and it's all the other guy's fault!

But the coffee was too hot...

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally Posted by Broheim

I was gonna stay out of this armchair discussion but damnit if that remark didn't pull me back in.

so what you're saying is we should get rid of murder and voluntary manslaughter because clearly intent means nothing, you know what, let's get rid of all laws against crimes that require intent, everything is a fucking accident and it's all the other guy's fault!

That isn't what I said. What I said is the operator didn't know what the guys intention was and failed to stop when the said he had time to stop.

If someone suicidal walk into a roadway and a motorist speeds up hitting him with his car intentionally, how would you classify that?

If someone is suicidal and I pull the trigger it is not considered a suicide.

In this case they said the motorman had the time to stop and failed to do so.

[Broheim]

Originally Posted by Apple Of Sodom

That isn't what I said. What I said is the operator didn't know what the guys intention was and failed to stop when the said he had time to stop.

If someone suicidal walk into a roadway and a motorist speeds up hitting him with his car intentionally, how would you classify that?

If someone is suicidal and I pull the trigger it is not considered a suicide.

In this case they said the motorman had the time to stop and failed to do so.

both of those examples requires intent on the part of the driver/shooter

did the motorman display intent?

[ch33zw1z]

Fire these cops, so the department can hire two more imbeciles.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by oldsmoboat

Fire the cops

Indeed,what a bunch of idiots....... THIS POOR GUY SHOULD SUE FOR EVERY DIME!!!!!!!