Posted on 02/17/2008 2:39:24 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
The cot was two feet away from the next lane, the fire truck parked exactly where he should have to protect the accident scene. The patient was being extricated out the driver side door onto the cot. The men caring for him cannot also be watching our for traffic. The safety of any emergency worker is paramount here....NOT the convience of the other drivers on the road.
Emergencies happen, drivers are responsible for their own driving - if that can’t see that HUGE firetruck up the road in front of them they deserve a ticket.
In other words....you are absolutley right driftdriver! AND I am assuming you don’t drift around while driving on the roads! (snicker)
“The men caring for him cannot also be watching our for traffic. The safety of any emergency worker is paramount here....NOT the convience of the other drivers on the road.”
I totally agree, keep that extra lane closed until the driver is removed. Then you can open the second lane if there is no further activity.
“In other words....you are absolutley right driftdriver! AND I am assuming you don’t drift around while driving on the roads! (snicker)”
Well sometimes but not when a firetruck is in front of me. Its actually drift diver as in scuba diving. I like the lazy kind of diving where I let the current pull me along while I look at all the pretty fishes.
Ah, that’s it. I was wondering about the name. Thanks.
About 15 years ago Florida State troopers arrested and charged a physician who was providing emergency treatment to several accident victims. He was charged with interfering with emergency crews. He was actually convicted because the law stated that FHP is in charge at accident scenes and all persons must follow their directions.
That’s when I ceased stopping at accident scenes in all states.
How?
So I'm saying "hello" and firing a shot across your bow at the same time.
No, you're being a jerk by playing the old "I've been around longer than you so I win" argument.
Get over yourself......'n00b'. I've been around A LOT longer than you, so by your logic, I win.
And fw998 has a legit point. There are, and alway have been a lot of anti-authoritarian types here who absolutley hate anybody they perceive as a threat. Every "bad cop" story is another opportunity to bash police in general.
IMO this cop should have been fired, but that doesn't change my opinion of police in general. But then again I'm not prone to making insane sweeping generalizations.
You win this thread!
How?
Signup date less than 3 months ago.
So I'm saying "hello" and firing a shot across your bow at the same time.
No, you're being a jerk by playing the old "I've been around longer than you so I win" argument.
Incorrect on both counts.
Get over yourself......'n00b'.
It wasn't a matter of ego. See my final set of comments below for details.
I've been around A LOT longer than you, so by your logic, I win.
No, because that wasn't my logic. For that matter, it wasn't logic at all. It was a strawman argument which *you* came up with.
And fw998 has a legit point. There are, and alway have been a lot of anti-authoritarian types here who absolutley hate anybody they perceive as a threat. Every "bad cop" story is another opportunity to bash police in general.
And there are both rabid libertarians as well as rabid JBT-supporters on FR. As a result, the "good cop/bad cop" threads often generate a lot more heat than light (although they are tame compared to the crevo threads). And given freedomwarrior998's first remark (post 10) "Why? Did they get your dope?"; his red herring /strawman in post 18 "Let's bash all EMTs"; and his comment in 40 "I interjected that the typical Cop Bashers need to rethink their logic."; I'd say he was being a bit too contentious on this topic for a n00b...
Others on the thread (post 67) expressed this same sentiment.
Nice try, though.
IMO this cop should have been fired, but that doesn't change my opinion of police in general. But then again I'm not prone to making insane sweeping generalizations.
That's good to hear (see post 54). Is there any particular reason you felt compelled to point that out? I had neither pinged you, nor suggested that you were in the habit of doing so.
Thank you for making my point and completely invalidating the rest of your post.
Here's a clue sparky; sign up date has nothing, in any way, to do with the substance of one's post. Pointing it out is but a not-so-subtle way of trying to invalidate an argument. It has no place on this forum.
"IMO" means "in my opinion". I was merely registering an opinion on the topic at hand. Which is, you know, the whole point of a thread here on FR.
Here's another clue, n00b. I don't need permission to reply to any post on any particular thread. If you don't want people reading your posts, take it to FReepmail.
*Snerk*
I wasn't trying to invalidate the argument -- as you would have realized if you had finished reading my post.
I was warning against putting gasoline on the fire -- because although the substance of one's points is independent of tenure, an awareness of the 'flavor' of different threads DOES depend on how long you've been around.
Cheers!
Yup. The only thing is, when you did it, you included a personal remark about yourself.
Quoting from your post #145:
"IMO this cop should have been fired, but that doesn't change my opinion of police in general. But then again I'm not prone to making insane sweeping generalizations."
To which I replied:
That's good to hear (see post 54). Is there any particular reason you felt compelled to point that out? I had neither pinged you, nor suggested that you were in the habit of doing so.
See--you brought in the phrase "insane sweeping generalizations" about yourself when nobody else had mentioned it.
In other words, your remark about "insane generalizations" was a non sequitur if you were commenting on the substance of the previous conversation between freedomwarrior998 and myself.
If you were commenting about other people on the thread, it would've been less confusing to either cite their posts by number, quote them, and include them in the "reply" as a courtesy ping.
Here's another clue, n00b. I don't need permission to reply to any post on any particular thread.
I never suggested you needed permission: but you do need lessons in coherence, and perhaps in civility. I only replied to you since you came in the middle of the thread with a bunch of red herrings and strawmen.
If you don't want people reading your posts, take it to FReepmail.
I never said or hinted anything about that--but you seem to be developing a chip on your shoulder. Perhaps a hot bath would be soothing.
Cheers!
Thank you folks...points well made...especially that the dept heads, Federal judge and jury found the cop was wrong...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.