• Cop has no qualified immunity in detention of... fireman

    From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 24 20:55:54 2025
    Only in California!

    Stupidest facts ever. There was a multi-vehicle collision on a
    California expressway. Firemen from the closest municipal fire
    department responded to assist with traumatic injuries; there was no
    fire. As they are trained to do, they used the firetruck to block
    traffic lanes so that firemen/paramedics could work safely in traffic
    lanes treating the injured. This makes sense, right?

    Well, not to CHP. Once again we see how far a once respected police
    agency has fallen since the days of Ponch and Jon. One patrol officer
    got the firemen to move some of the vehicles to partly reopen the
    highway, but the engineer (driver) of the remaining fire truck refused
    to move it as it was the sole barrier to the other firemen and injured.

    The other patrol officer seeing that the fireman wasn't complying with
    the first patrol officer "took charge" by taking that fireman into
    custody.

    The state law is unclear about who is in charge between firemen and
    police in this scenario, but I think the state legislature expected
    everybody to behave like adults and a law wasn't required. Now, CHP has concerns about secondary accidents 'cuz motorists get impatient and
    stupid, but regardless, if the injured are still on the pavement being
    treated, first duty appears to be protecting their lives and the firemen treating them.

    Right?

    CHP insisted on taking this to court to preserve qualified immunity for themselves because the fireman sued. Anyway, the ninth circuit upheld
    the district court that qualified immunity doesn't apply.

    I was actually impressed that the state appellate attorney found a way
    to make some arguments.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC4onWtwjfQ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BTR1701@21:1/5 to Adam H. Kerman on Tue Mar 25 00:55:26 2025
    On Mar 24, 2025 at 1:55:54 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Only in California!

    Stupidest facts ever. There was a multi-vehicle collision on a
    California expressway. Firemen from the closest municipal fire
    department responded to assist with traumatic injuries; there was no
    fire. As they are trained to do, they used the firetruck to block
    traffic lanes so that firemen/paramedics could work safely in traffic
    lanes treating the injured. This makes sense, right?

    Well, not to CHP. Once again we see how far a once respected police
    agency has fallen since the days of Ponch and Jon. One patrol officer
    got the firemen to move some of the vehicles to partly reopen the
    highway, but the engineer (driver) of the remaining fire truck refused
    to move it as it was the sole barrier to the other firemen and injured.

    The other patrol officer seeing that the fireman wasn't complying with
    the first patrol officer "took charge" by taking that fireman into
    custody.

    The state law is unclear about who is in charge between firemen and
    police in this scenario, but I think the state legislature expected
    everybody to behave like adults and a law wasn't required.

    I can't imagine why the reptiles in the state legislature would expect others to behave like adults when they themselves can't behave like adults.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)