PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Cops Stop Ambulance On Way To Hospital And Fight With EMT


KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 12:29 PM
Cell phone video shows highway patrol grabbing paramedic by the throat

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, May 28, 2009

A scuffle between two highway patrol officers and an EMT was captured on video after the police pulled over an ambulance on route to the hospital with a patient on board.

The incident occurred on Highway 62 near Boley in Okfuskee County, Oklahoma.

The video begins with the patient’s son, Mr Kenyada Davis, explaining “Highway Patrol have pulled my mom’s ambulance over because he’s mad we didn’t pull over.”

The troopers were responding to a call of their own and were evidently annoyed that the ambulance did not yield and give way to them on the road.

“He’s trying to arrest the EMT taking my mother to the hospital.” Davis explains.

The video then shows one of the troopers pointing at the paramedic and yelling “You are under arrest, you are under arrest”.

As the patient begins to scream inside the ambulance, the EMT, Mr Maurice White, Jr., tries to explain that he is trying to get to the hospital.

As he raises a hand in gesture, one of the troopers is seen to grab Mr White in an attempt to put him in an arm lock and cuff him. Mr White resists and a scuffle breaks out. Mr White attempts to get back into the ambulance, at which point the trooper grabs him by the throat.

“I’m going to the hospital.” Mr White again says, while Mr Davis pleads “he’s a doctor”.

The troopers then relent and return to their vehicle.

Watch the video below:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KluItc365hU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KluItc365hU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Mr White has given a statement in which he explains how he told the trooper he had a patient in the ambulance and that they were on their way to the hospital.

“He ignored my statement, became even more belligerent, and demanded my partner come to his patrol car so he could write him a ticket,” White says. “I calmly told the officer that we were transporting a patient and we could continue this at the hospital.”

White also writes that the trooper told him they could continue on to the hospital, but that he would be under arrest once they arrived. White was not arrested, but states that the troopers told him he should be prepared to turn himself in if a warrant was issued.

Paul Franks, the driver of the ambulance, has also provided a written statement.

According to reports, the troopers have claimed that the paramedic assaulted one of them before the camera started rolling.

The district attorney in Okfuskee County is expected to take a look at the video and may file charges against Maurice White as soon as this week.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol have refused to comment on the video while it is still under review.

Thankfully the patient was treated at the hospital and was released later the same day.

http://static.ktul.com/documents/franksstatement_0509.pdf

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=10428746

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cops-stop-ambulance-on-way-to-hospital-and-fight-with-emt.html

Mr. Flopnuts
05-28-2009, 12:32 PM
Oh, no shit? More terrible cops? No, most cops are good. Totally. They're not power hungry, and mentally instable. Not at all. Nothing to see here.

I'm seriously losing my faith in law enforcement every, single day.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 12:35 PM
So who has right of way in an emergency situation? I guess the police do because they carry weapons?

Pitt Gorilla
05-28-2009, 12:37 PM
Good Lord. Pulling over an ambulance on the way to the hospital with a patient? Unreal.

On a related note, go buy a flip camera and carry it in your car. I wonder how much of this crap went unreported over the years because people didn't have any way to document the incidents.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 12:38 PM
More cops getting fired soon... Brilliant.

Radar Chief
05-28-2009, 12:58 PM
According to reports, the troopers have claimed that the paramedic assaulted one of them before the camera started rolling.

Why am I having troubles believing this one?
Considering how eager they were to wrestle the guy, hold him by the throat, if that had happened before the camera was rolling he would more than likely already be in that position instead of just standing there talking to them.

Pitt Gorilla
05-28-2009, 01:09 PM
Why am I having troubles believing this one?
Considering how eager they were to wrestle the guy, hold him by the throat, if that had happened before the camera was rolling he would more than likely already be dead.FYP (and I hate when people do that).

Brock
05-28-2009, 01:12 PM
Hey, it's all just part of the job. If you've never put on the star, you don't understand /Crazy Coffey

DJ's left nut
05-28-2009, 01:16 PM
Okay, the Moats thing I stuck up for the cops on.

They oughta be firing some MFers for this one.

That's completely inappropriate.

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 01:23 PM
Ambulance trumps cop car in an emergency. Either way...he's heading toward the hospital and those cops had to go some place else right? Apparently not.

shitgoose
05-28-2009, 01:26 PM
The hot light must have been on at Krispy Kreme

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 01:39 PM
The hot light must have been on at Krispy Kreme

ROFL. And love your avatar btw.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 01:42 PM
Not for nothing, but how the hell are those cops so stupid that they don't rip the camera out of the guy's hand and keep it?

Those guys deserving firing. No question about it. And I was one of the few that was up in the air on the beat down of the guy down in Alabama or wherever who sideswiped a cop.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 01:47 PM
are those cops so stupid that they don't rip the camera out of the guy's hand and keep it?

So it would have been ok if they had taken the phone?

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 01:47 PM
http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/blogs/Ambulance_Incident_Reports%5B1%5D.pdf

This is the statement from the EMT

Brock
05-28-2009, 01:48 PM
http://www.infowars.net/pictures/may2009/280509fight.jpg

Arsonist
05-28-2009, 01:56 PM
I'm a firefighter/EMT and all i know is that i wouldn't stop ever with a patient in the ambulance. If the cops got a problem they can follow me to the hospital and deal with me there.

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 02:14 PM
I'm a firefighter/EMT and all i know is that i wouldn't stop ever with a patient in the ambulance. If the cops got a problem they can follow me to the hospital and deal with me there.

I wouldn't either

Cannibal
05-28-2009, 03:07 PM
NObama is involved in this.

/MEMEMEME

banyon
05-28-2009, 03:14 PM
It sounds like 1 or 2 guys should get canned, but I'd like to hear what the cops or prosecutors have to say too.

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 03:44 PM
It sounds like 1 or 2 guys should get canned, but I'd like to hear what the cops or prosecutors have to say too.

According to one of the articles the DA is still trying to decided to charge the EMT. Which is amusing. I am sure it's a sticky situation for Max David Cook, the DA of the 24th District. However, if he doesn't charge the patrolmen with a felony, which is what the officers committed when they obstructed the EMT under OK Law ( http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/614797.html ), then he should be removed and disbarred. The Patrolmen also endangered the life of the medical passenger. No witness there belonging to the family is going to side with the officer.

banyon
05-28-2009, 03:46 PM
According to one of the articles the DA is still trying to decided to charge the EMT. Which is amusing. I am sure it's a sticky situation for Max David Cook, the DA of the 24th District. However, if he doesn't charge the patrolmen with a felony, which is what the officers committed when they obstructed the EMT under OK Law, then he should be removed and disbarred. The Patrolmen also endangered the life of the medical passenger. No witness there belonging to the family is going to side with the officer.

You think he should be removed and disbarred because you don't agree with his decision?

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 03:48 PM
You think he should be removed and disbarred because you don't agree with his decision?

There is nothing for him to decide. The patrolmen broke the law and they have video evidence of it. You being in your postion have a better understanding than I do, but the public should not tolerate public leaders, like a district attorney, that outright refuses to enforce the law.

banyon
05-28-2009, 03:59 PM
There is nothing for him to decide. The patrolmen broke the law and they have video evidence of it. You being in your postion have a better understanding than I do, but the public should not tolerate public leaders, like a district attorney, that outright refuses to enforce the law.

There are other remedies, like voting him out of office, or (at least in Kansas, and I bet in OK) impaneling a grand jury by petition and forcing him to prosecute the case.

He may believe (plausibly, AFAIK) that a jury would not convict either the patrolmen or the EMT's based on each of them trying to do their jobs. I haven't seen the video yet, but I don't know what set off the officer so much. If you're going to charge the troopers with battery or something, then you're going to have to overcome police immunity and prove criminal intent.
You have to believe that you can win the case in front of a jury, or what the point in proceeding?

Perhaps none of them (likely) have criminal records and this was just a misunderstanding that got out of control. It doesn't sound like anyone was hurt, is it necessary to try to ruin everyone's careers over it?

Usually disbarment is reserved for attorneys acting unethically, cheating and swindling people. If the DA has no reprimands in his ethical file, I don't know why we should deprive the citizens of that community of their elected official for what is a matter within his discretion. Charging decisions, for good reason, are seen to be at the discretion of the prosecutor. For my own part, I would like to see more of the underlying facts before I jumped to that conclusion.

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 04:02 PM
There are other remedies, like voting him out of office, or (at least in Kansas, and I bet in OK) impaneling a grand jury by petition and forcing him to prosecute the case.

He may believe (plausibly, AFAIK) that a jury would not convict either the patrolmen or the EMT's based on each of them trying to do their jobs. I haven't seen the video yet, but I don't know what set off the officer so much. If you're going to charge the troopers with battery or something, then you're going to have to overcome police immunity and prove criminal intent.
You have to believe that you can win the case in front of a jury, or what the point in proceeding?

Perhaps none of them (likely) have criminal records and this was just a misunderstanding that got out of control. It doesn't sound like anyone was hurt, is it necessary to try to ruin everyone's careers over it?

Usually disbarment is reserved for attorneys acting unethically, cheating and swindling people. If the DA has no reprimands in his ethical file, I don't know why we should deprive the citizens of that community of their elected official for what is a matter within his discretion. Charging decisions, for good reason, are seen to be at the discretion of the prosecutor. For my own part, I would like to see more of the underlying facts before I jumped to that conclusion.

Here is the statement from the EMT. I don't really find a misunderstanding. As patrolmen they have to know the law. Common sense tells them there is an Ambulance with a patient in it. Either way once the patrol were instructed that there was a patient on board they had to know they were breaking their own state laws.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/...rts%5B1%5D.pdf (http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/...rts%5B1%5D.pdf)

The only way he wouldn't charge the officers is because it's politically motivated. He'd get a conviction. Of course all this is my opinion. If it is politically motivated then indeed it is unethical.

banyon
05-28-2009, 04:58 PM
Question Raised In Trooper, Paramedic Dispute
Posted: May 28, 2009 1:53 PM PDT
Updated: May 28, 2009 2:45 PM PDT

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10440200

OHP says before the home video was recording, the paramedic assaulted the state trooper.


Witness Diana Walkup says the paramedic never touched anyone until the patrolman grabbed his arm.By Dan Bewley and Terry Hood, The News On 6

UNDATED - There are more details about a confrontation earlier this week between an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper and a paramedic in Okfuskee County. The incident was caught on tape as the trooper accuses the ambulance driver of not pulling over when the patrol car was trying pass him. What does the law say about who has the right of way?

It was Sunday along Highway 62 in Paden. Kenyada Davis is behind the cell phone camera. His mother was being transported by Muscogee Creek Nation EMS to a hospital in Prague.

5/27/2009 Related story: Trooper, Paramedic Fight Caught on Tape

In a statement obtained by The News On 6, paramedic Maurice White said the patrol car came within three feet of the ambulance with its lights on, eventually passing while telling the driver over the emergency radio: "You should consider checking you rearview mirrors."

After taking care of the original call, the trooper waited for the ambulance and pulled it over. White says in his statement: "The officer got out of his vehicle in a state of rage."


A witness, who declined to go on camera, told The News On 6 the same story.

"He was yelling, screaming. He was irrational to me," said witness Diana Walkup.

OHP says before the home video was recording, the paramedic assaulted the state trooper. But, Diana Walkup says the paramedic never touched anyone until the patrolman grabbed his arm.

She says it was the trooper who was out of control.

"We thought, my God, is he going to pull a gun? That's really what we thought. We didn't know if he was fixing to pull a gun or what," said witness Diana Walkup.

So, who had the right of way? The Creek Nation admits the ambulance did not have on its lights and sirens, while the trooper had on his lights, but no sirens.

The News On 6 couldn't find anything that gives one emergency vehicle the right of way over another, but we did find one state law that says: "Every person who willfully delays...an emergency medical technician...in the performance of...care and treatment...is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Investigators aren't commenting, but Diana Walkup believes the trooper was out of line.

"I was horrified. I couldn't believe it. These gentlemen were trying to do their job and they were held up," said witness Diana Walkup.

The trooper's dash-cam video is in the custody of an assistant district attorney in Okfuskee County. She says it will not be released because it's part of the investigation.

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:00 PM
Public safety officials plan internal invesitgation into trooper, paramedic scuffle
By Associated Press
4:44 PM CDT, May 27, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Department of Public Safety officials say an investigation is planned into a scuffle between Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers and a paramedic.

Capt. Chris West said Wednesday the incident will be the focus of an internal administrative review. West did not immediately identify the troopers involved.

Sunday's scuffle occurred on Highway 62 near Paden in Okfuskee County after troopers and first responders in a Creek Nation ambulance argued over a close call on the road.

A woman was being treated in the back of the ambulance for heat exhaustion at the time.

OHP says one of the paramedics assaulted the trooper. Video of the incident shows troopers attempting to subdue the unidentified paramedic.

The Okfuskee County prosecutors are reviewing the footage to see if criminal charges should be filed against the paramedic.

http://www.kfsm.com/news/sns-ap-ok--highwaypatrol-altercation,0,2927744.story

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:02 PM
Having watched the video now, you can clearly see the EMT swinging his fist around in the trooper's face right before he grabs the guy's hand, (at 1:54) then the EMT shoves him away. And this is not even the aggression that the OHP refers to.

That would be the response of 99.9% of LEO's in that situation I would think, but I'd like to hear from dirk digler or Denver Chief.

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 05:16 PM
Having watched the video now, you can clearly see the EMT swinging his fist around in the trooper's face right before he grabs the guy's hand, (at 1:54) then the EMT shoves him away. And this is not even the aggression that the OHP refers to.

That would be the response of 99.9% of LEO's in that situation I would think, but I'd like to hear from dirk digler or Denver Chief.

Where in the heck do you see that? Those patrolmen had already violated the la regardless. Tailgating a vehicle and on. Just about everything they did was wrong. They committed a felony when they pulled them over. Definitely after they were informed a patient was on board.

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:19 PM
Where in the heck do you see that? Those patrolmen had already violated the la regardless. Tailgating a vehicle and on. Just about everything they did was wrong. They committed a felony when they pulled them over. Definitely after they were informed a patient was on board.

Did you read either of the two articles I posted? They allege some differing opinions.

The guy is waving his fist around about 2 inches in front of the trooper's face at 1:50. Start yelling at cops belligerently and try that and you see what happens. But again, the guy was already supposed to have assaulted one of the troopers before the cell phone cam but that was captured on the trooper's dash cam. if that's true, and the trooper's already been assaulted, how much more waving and agressive behavior should he be prepared to take? Does he have to be hit with a punch first?

Pants
05-28-2009, 05:25 PM
Having watched the video now, you can clearly see the EMT swinging his fist around in the trooper's face right before he grabs the guy's hand, (at 1:54) then the EMT shoves him away. And this is not even the aggression that the OHP refers to.

That would be the response of 99.9% of LEO's in that situation I would think, but I'd like to hear from dirk digler or Denver Chief.

You're joking right? He was just gesturing, lol. I mean, seriously? Swing?

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:27 PM
You're joking right? He was just gesturing, lol. I mean, seriously? Swing?

No, I don't mean he swung a punch at him. But he was aggressively "gesturing" about the same distance from the trooper's face. Like I said, don't try it. And this is a guy who was already supposed to have attacked one of them. and then when the trooper tries to get the hand out of his face, the guy shoves at him with his elbow at the trooper's neck, knocking him back. It doesn't help that the EMT is a pretty stout looking dude, which is relevant if you're trying to accuse the LEO's of battery.

BigMeatballDave
05-28-2009, 05:40 PM
Having watched the video now, you can clearly see the EMT swinging his fist around in the trooper's face right before he grabs the guy's hand, (at 1:54) then the EMT shoves him away. And this is not even the aggression that the OHP refers to.

That would be the response of 99.9% of LEO's in that situation I would think, but I'd like to hear from dirk digler or Denver Chief.WTF? Do you have a different video?

BigMeatballDave
05-28-2009, 05:48 PM
No, I don't mean he swung a punch at him. But he was aggressively "gesturing" about the same distance from the trooper's face. Like I said, don't try it. And this is a guy who was already supposed to have attacked one of them. and then when the trooper tries to get the hand out of his face, the guy shoves at him with his elbow at the trooper's neck, knocking him back. It doesn't help that the EMT is a pretty stout looking dude, which is relevant if you're trying to accuse the LEO's of battery.You don't get it. They never should have pulled the Ambulance over to begin with. This Trooper is a fucking dirtbag. He had ZERO concern for the patient. I hope he's fired.

Fishpicker
05-28-2009, 05:49 PM
the guy that was aggressively gesturing was riding shotgun. he want even the one that was pulled over. the driver was pulled over and removed and then questioned. the second guy only waved a finger in the officers face.

are police officers allowed to choke-slam someone for correcting them? Answer yes and i will give you an aggressive e-gesture consisting of a single wagging finger.

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:52 PM
WTF? Do you have a different video?

Saying what you saw differently would help.

Pants
05-28-2009, 05:52 PM
No, I don't mean he swung a punch at him. But he was aggressively "gesturing" about the same distance from the trooper's face. Like I said, don't try it. And this is a guy who was already supposed to have attacked one of them. and then when the trooper tries to get the hand out of his face, the guy shoves at him with his elbow at the trooper's neck, knocking him back. It doesn't help that the EMT is a pretty stout looking dude, which is relevant if you're trying to accuse the LEO's of battery.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that the EMT tried to attack him prior to the start of the video, because had that happened, he wouldn't be just then coming out of the ambulance, but rather would be cuffed on the ground with bruised kidneys.

These cops were on a power trip. Another disturbing thing is that the cop accuses the EMT driver of preventing him from responding to a call, yet there they are - screaming at the EMTs not worrying about the call at all.

Thankfully there are witnesses, both related to the patient and not, so hopefully justice will be served.

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:53 PM
You don't get it. They never should have pulled the Ambulance over to begin with. This Trooper is a ****ing dirtbag. He had ZERO concern for the patient. I hope he's fired.

I'm not sure that they shouldn't have pulled the ambulance over. The local news station said they couldn't find any law giving the ambulance priority. If they were runnning with their lights and sirens off, then they needed to comply with regular traffic laws, AFAICT.

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:57 PM
the guy that was aggressively gesturing was riding shotgun. he want even the one that was pulled over. the driver was pulled over and removed and then questioned. the second guy only waved a finger in the officers face.

he is the same one that is alleged to have assaulted the officer earlier.

are police officers allowed to choke-slam someone for correcting them? Answer yes and i will give you an aggressive e-gesture consisting of a single wagging finger.

"choke-slam" seems a little much too. Restraint? Like I said if an officer has told you "you are under arrest" and you want to start getting up in his face and putting your hand in his face, then yes, police can use force in that situation. Whether the arrest is false or not is a separate issue, and based on just what we can see, might have merit.

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:58 PM
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that the EMT tried to attack him prior to the start of the video, because had that happened, he wouldn't be just then coming out of the ambulance, but rather would be cuffed on the ground with bruised kidneys.

These cops were on a power trip. Another disturbing thing is that the cop accuses the EMT driver of preventing him from responding to a call, yet there they are - screaming at the EMTs not worrying about the call at all.

Thankfully there are witnesses, both related to the patient and not, so hopefully justice will be served.

You've got your mind made up. I think the OHP will likely release the car dash video after the pent up public outrage and we might get a different picture. I don't kow why OHP spokespeople would say they caught the assault on video if they just made it up, that wouldn't make much sense.

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 05:59 PM
I'm not sure that they shouldn't have pulled the ambulance over. The local news station said they couldn't find any law giving the ambulance priority. If they were runnning with their lights and sirens off, then they needed to comply with regular traffic laws, AFAICT.

Like I said once they were informed of a patient on board, they committed a state felony. The should have immediately let them go and deal with it once the patient was surrendered.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:01 PM
Like I said once they were informed of a patient on board, they committed a state felony. The should have immediately let them go and deal with it once the patient was surrendered.

If she wasn't in critical condition, which she might not have been, given that their lights were off, and one of the troopers was assaulted before they understood the situation, then I think it could easily go the other way.

Pants
05-28-2009, 06:06 PM
You've got your mind made up. I think the OHP will likely release the car dash video after the pent up public outrage and we might get a different picture. I don't kow why OHP spokespeople would say they caught the assault on video if they just made it up, that wouldn't make much sense.

I hope they do release it.

Fishpicker
05-28-2009, 06:12 PM
he is the same one that is alleged to have assaulted the officer earlier.

but he didn't.

you can tell. the alleged assailant makes his first appearance in the back window of the ambulance. the cops are not en-garde until he reappears 10-20 seconds later. the officer that tried to apprehend him was just covering for his partner (standing in the middle of the road with the driver).

orange
05-28-2009, 06:13 PM
If she wasn't in critical condition, which she might not have been, given that their lights were off, and one of the troopers was assaulted before they understood the situation, then I think it could easily go the other way.

Not specifically to this post, but all your posts...

Which video were you watching? In the one posted here, the patient starts SCREAMING and the paramedic tries to go in to take care of her and is grabbed by the cops and subdued. WTF?!

orange
05-28-2009, 06:14 PM
I hope they do release it.

FOIA

BigMeatballDave
05-28-2009, 06:18 PM
he is the same one that is alleged to have assaulted the officer earlier.

As Metrolike already mentiond, this seems highly unlikely. Don't you think the EMT would have been arrested?

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:23 PM
As Metrolike already mentiond, this seems highly unlikely. Don't you think the EMT would have been arrested?

Why did you think they were telling him he was under arrest in the first place?

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:23 PM
FOIA

ongoing investigation

Garcia Bronco
05-28-2009, 06:24 PM
You guys need to read the emt's statement.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:27 PM
Not specifically to this post, but all your posts...

Which video were you watching? In the one posted here, the patient starts SCREAMING and the paramedic tries to go in to take care of her and is grabbed by the cops and subdued. WTF?!

The patient starts screaming when the trooper says he is under arrest and they start struggling. He doesn't go back to help the patient, at least wrt to the time index I am talking about (@1:45-1:55) in the video. Let's make sure we are talking about the same video segment.

Are you saying you didn't see the things I said happened in my post or that you interpreted them differently?

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:32 PM
but he didn't.

you can tell. the alleged assailant makes his first appearance in the back window of the ambulance. the cops are not en-garde until he reappears 10-20 seconds later. the officer that tried to apprehend him was just covering for his partner (standing in the middle of the road with the driver).

How do you know that he didn't come out of the ambulance prior to that? He seemed to be coming in and out of it to me.

Why would he tell the camera guy "yall don't need to get involved" if nothing had happened yet? Why would the guy with the camera feel the need to videotape it if all it was was a traffic stop up to that point? I think it's pretty easy to infer that something could have happened before the camera starts. Did it? I don't know. But it's certainly possible, and like I said, it seems like really bad strategy for the OHP to say they caught it on tape when they didn't.

orange
05-28-2009, 06:34 PM
The patient starts screaming when the trooper says he is under arrest and they start struggling. He doesn't go back to help the patient, at least wrt to the time index I am talking about (@1:45-1:55) in the video. Let's make sure we are talking about the same video segment.

Are you saying you didn't see the things I said happened in my post or that you interpreted them differently?

I'm saying "he didn't go back to help the patient" as you say because he was restrained from doing so. I'm also saying I saw nothing in that exchange that could be interpreted as the paramedic threatening any of the officers as you suggested in a previous post, but that the entire physical melee was initiated by the officers.

Yes, I am talking about that time mark (1:45). The officer is trying to put the paramedic's arm behind his back, the pm says "let go of my arm" and pushes off, the patient screams, the pm instantly - probably reflexively - starts to run into the van and is grabbed by the officers setting off the whole wrestling match.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:35 PM
You guys need to read the emt's statement.

I did.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:36 PM
I'm saying "he didn't go back to help the patient" as you say because he was restrained from doing so. I'm also saying I saw nothing in that exchange that could be interpreted as the paramedic threatening any of the officers as you suggested in a previous post, but that the entire physical melee was initiated by the officers.

You didn't see him shove the officer's hand back with his elbow to the officer's throat, pushing the officer back a foot or three? Actualy watching it again, I think he might've knocked him down.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:39 PM
We're having a discussion FishP, no need to start neg repping me because you think you were treated unfairly in the past.

I've been falsely arrested too, but I'm still trying to look at this objectively.

orange
05-28-2009, 06:40 PM
You didn't see him shove the officer's hand back with his elbow to the officer's throat, pushing the officer back a foot or three? Actualy watching it again, I think he might've knocked him down.

WHILE THE PATIENT IS SCREAMING AND HE IS TRYING TO GET TO HER.

What isn't clear about that?

Try watching it with the sound on.

Look specifically at 1:52. The officer has grabbed the pm's arm and the patient starts screaming. The push-off happens AFTER this point.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:43 PM
WHILE THE PATIENT IS SCREAMING AND HE IS TRYING TO GET TO HER.

What isn't clear about that?

Try watching it with the sound on.

So, he could've just decked the officer to get to the patient then?

stlchiefs
05-28-2009, 06:44 PM
So the cops had such an important call that they were responding to that they had the time to pull an ambulance with a patient in it over and then spend several minutes arguing with the occupants? Sounds like it was definitely a serious call.

Then "before the camera was on" an EMT assaulted an officer, but when the camera was rolling this EMT was not handcuffed? Interesting that this officer who was supposedly was assaulted was such a hothead when the video was rolling that he put an EMT on duty in a choke, but didn't bother to cuff him when he was previously assaulted?

Sounds like a case of TPS to me.

orange
05-28-2009, 06:45 PM
So, he could've just decked the officer to get to the patient then?

Umm, YES!

Do you know anything about the rights and duties of medical professionals?

stlchiefs
05-28-2009, 06:48 PM
Umm, YES!

Do you know anything about the rights and duties of medical professionals?

Hippocratic Oath: protect the patient, screw the pig.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:49 PM
WHILE THE PATIENT IS SCREAMING AND HE IS TRYING TO GET TO HER.

What isn't clear about that?

Try watching it with the sound on.

Look specifically at 1:52. The officer has grabbed the pm's arm and the patient starts screaming. The push-off happens AFTER this point.

Yeah, that's after the guy is waving his fist around about 2 inches in the officer's face while approaching him after he's been told he's under arrest.

Look, my early opinion is that these officers should have used more restraint, but it also looks like there were a couple of tempers running too high here.

Based on just this video, I'm not sure what charge everyone wants to charge the troopers with. Could they have used a bit more discretion? Yes, but they are allowed some margin of judgment and safety when responding to physical threats. They don't have to respond equal force to equal force. If the video is the whole story, then it would be difficult to convict the troopers of assaulting the EMT. I mean, it's not like you're going to get a jury of people all hostile to LEO's who think the government is out to get them.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:50 PM
Umm, YES!

Do you know anything about the rights and duties of medical professionals?

Could he have stabbed him? How about shot him? I don't think carte-blanche assault rights go with treating people medically.

It sounded to me like the woman was screaming in response to her freaking out at the officer's decision to arrest the EMT. Was it health-related for sure?

They're talking about charging the EMT. I don't think that's warranted either based on the video only. Tempers flared and no one was injured it appears, I'm not sure why people are so hot to make sure someone is charged with a crime.

orange
05-28-2009, 06:52 PM
It sounded to me like the woman was screaming in response to her freaking out at the officer's decision to arrest the EMT. Was it health-related for sure?

How the hell is the pm supposed to know this? He has a patient - that patient is screaming. His presumption MUST BE that it's health-related.

All of his training and experience point to this.

stlchiefs
05-28-2009, 06:52 PM
So, he could've just decked the officer to get to the patient then?

I'm not seeing what you're seeing at all. I see an officer point at or possibly even poke the EMT in the chest as he's talking to him. At almost the exact same time the EMT motions with his hand near his own eyes/face. With the EMTs hand in the error, the copy aggressively grabs it and begins to force his hand behind his back. The sound is hard to hear, but I am not able to ever hear the cop tell the EMT to put his hands behind his back, step back, put his hands down, etc. before he aggressively grabs him and tries to force his arm.

Not to mention the cops were in the wrong from the beginning by pulling over an ambulance in transport. Even if they were mistaken because the ambulance didn't have lights for sirens on, the second they found this out they should have backed off and let them proceed.

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:54 PM
How the hell is the pm supposed to know this? He has a patient - that patient is screaming. His presumption MUST BE that it's health-related.

All of his training and experience point to this.


Fair enough. Once he's under arrest though, his privilege to execute those duties may have expired.

So what's your explanation for why the trooper was telling him he was under arrest?

orange
05-28-2009, 06:56 PM
Fair enough. Once he's under arrest though, his privilege to execute those duties may have expired.

So what's your explanation for why the trooper was telling him he was under arrest?

No telling really. What's your explanation for the fact that when it was all over, they didn't take him in?

May that arrest have been a bit unwarranted, perhaps?

orange
05-28-2009, 06:57 PM
What's your explanation for the fact the officers repeatedly wouldn't answer the pm's question about who to contact to charge officer 606 with assault? (per the pm's written statement)

banyon
05-28-2009, 06:59 PM
No telling really. What's your explanation for the fact that when it was all over, they didn't take him in?

May that arrest have been a bit unwarranted, perhaps?

It's hard to tell, but it sounds like his superior officer got involved and ordered him otherwise, perhaps to avoid the controversy and to get the woman to the hospital. It's pretty important to know what happened to cause the trooper to tell him he was under arrest to tell if it was unwarranted or not.

orange
05-28-2009, 06:59 PM
What's your explanation fot the fact that the witnesses say there was no assault by the pm?

banyon
05-28-2009, 07:00 PM
What's your explanation for the fact the officers repeatedly wouldn't answer the pm's question about who to contact to charge officer 606 with assault? (per the pm's written statement)

You mean when he was yelling at them while the other dude was scuffling? I guess because they had higher priorities at the time than explaining administrative procedure, but that's just a guess.

orange
05-28-2009, 07:00 PM
It's hard to tell, but it sounds like his superior officer got involved and ordered him otherwise, perhaps to avoid the controversy and to get the woman to the hospital. It's pretty important to know what happened to cause the trooper to tell him he was under arrest to tell if it was unwarranted or not.

This - the "not taking him in" part - was AFTER they got to the hospital. You need to read the pm's statement.

banyon
05-28-2009, 07:01 PM
What's your explanation fot the fact that the witnesses say there was no assault by the pm?

i don't know, but I know that the video would likely trump their recollections (assuming they were even in a position to view the alleged incident).

banyon
05-28-2009, 07:02 PM
This - the "not taking him in" part - was AFTER they got to the hospital. You need to read the pm's statement.

I did read it as I already stated in this thread. They clearly also chose not to take him into custody on scene as well.

orange
05-28-2009, 07:05 PM
I did read it as I already stated in this thread. They clearly also chose not to take him into custody on scene as well.

So you read it, then. What about the (admittedly unverified) claim that officer 606 said he was prepared to draw his gun? Was there anything in what you've seen to warrant deadly force?

Or is 606 an arrogant hothead?

Or perhaps it's the 800 lb. gorilla in the room we've all been ignoring?

banyon
05-28-2009, 07:09 PM
So you read it, then. What about the (admittedly unverified) claim that officer 606 said he was prepared to draw his gun? Was there anything in what you've seen to warrant deadly force?

Or is 606 an arrogant hothead?

Or perhaps it's the 800 lb. gorilla in the room we've all been ignoring?

I think I've already agreed that the trooper should've restrained himself better. The question is whether or not his conduct rises to the level of a criminal offense.

It almost definitely merits intra-office disciplinary measures, but I got into this discussion because people were arguing that it's just beyond obvious that the trooper committed unspecified criminal offenses and that if the DA doesn't file it right away, he should be disbarred. I am pointing out that it's not quite that simple.

Saul Good
05-28-2009, 07:09 PM
Banyon, how is it that you don't think a jury would convict the police when you are the only one in this entire thread who doesn't think that they are the ones in the wrong (based on the evidence available)?

Sounds to me that the overwhelming majority would be sympathetic to the DA were he to charge the officers.

banyon
05-28-2009, 07:14 PM
Banyon, how is it that you don't think a jury would convict the police when you are the only one in this entire thread who doesn't think that they are the ones in the wrong (based on the evidence available)?

Sounds to me that the overwhelming majority would be sympathetic to the DA were he to charge the officers.

He might well have grounds to file the charges, but like I said it's pretty premature to say that if the DA doesn't, he should be disbarred.

I generally like most of the posters in this thread, but given that it started out as a PrisonPlanet post and that most have probably admitted libertarian leanings, I don't know that this thread is any kind of demographic sampling (nor could we probably get one in this forum).

Also, what if the OHP video shows the EMT attacking one of the troopers? That would certainly shift things around, wouldn't it?

Saul Good
05-28-2009, 07:22 PM
He might well have grounds to file the charges, but like I said it's pretty premature to say that if the DA doesn't, he should be disbarred.

I generally like most of the posters in this thread, but given that it started out as a PrisonPlanet post and that most have probably admitted libertarian leanings, I don't know that this thread is any kind of demographic sampling (nor could we probably get one in this forum).

Also, what if the OHP video shows the EMT attacking one of the troopers? That would certainly shift things around, wouldn't it?
I don't disagree with anything that you say in this post. I just think that the LEOs need to be the ones to diffuse a situation rather than throw gasoline on the fire. Clearly they failed to do so in this situation. They were neither serving nor protecting. It is clear to me that they were doing more to make their community less safe than they were to make it more safe.

Additionally, I would like to know why their lights were on in the first place. Did some emergency cause them to turn them on in the first place? If so, why did they abdicate their duty to deal with the original situation. If not, why were they abusing their power prior to this incident by using their flashers in a non-emergency situation?

Mr. Flopnuts
05-28-2009, 07:52 PM
I don't think criminal charges should be filed against the cops, but they should be fired immediately.

Pitt Gorilla
05-28-2009, 08:15 PM
Did you read either of the two articles I posted? They allege some differing opinions.

The guy is waving his fist around about 2 inches in front of the trooper's face at 1:50. Start yelling at cops belligerently and try that and you see what happens. But again, the guy was already supposed to have assaulted one of the troopers before the cell phone cam but that was captured on the trooper's dash cam. if that's true, and the trooper's already been assaulted, how much more waving and agressive behavior should he be prepared to take? Does he have to be hit with a punch first?Why was the ambulance stopped in the first place?

banyon
05-28-2009, 08:22 PM
Why was the ambulance stopped in the first place?

I would assume for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Oklahoma's statute looks like this:

§47-11-405. 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, or of a police vehicle properly and lawfully making use of an audible signal or red flashing lights, the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right of way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer.
B. This section shall not be construed to require a peace officer operating a police vehicle properly and lawfully in response to a crime in progress to use audible signals nor shall this section operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the road or highway.
Added by Laws 1961, p. 379, § 11-405, eff. Sept. 1, 1961. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 322, § 4, emerg. eff. May 29, 1997.


http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/osstatuestitle.html

also:

§47-12-218. Emergency vehicles - Flashing lights.
A. Every authorized emergency vehicle shall, in addition to any other equipment and distinctive markings required by this title, be equipped with flashing red or blue lights or a combination of flashing red and blue lights. The lights shall be visible at five hundred (500) feet in normal sunlight.
B. A law enforcement vehicle when used as an authorized emergency vehicle may but need not be equipped with alternately-flashing red or blue lights specified herein. An unmarked vehicle used as a law enforcement vehicle for routine traffic enforcement shall be equipped with the following combination of lights:
1. Three flashing red, blue, or a combination of red and blue lights emitting the flashing lights to the front of the vehicle;
2. Two flashing white lights emitting the flashing white lights to the front of the vehicle;
3. Flashing red, blue, white or any combination of red, blue or white lights placed at and emitting the flashing lights from the four corners of the vehicle so that they are visible for three hundred sixty (360) degrees; and
4. One flashing red, blue, amber, or any combination of red, blue, or amber lights emitting the flashing light to the rear of the vehicle.
C. The use of the signal equipment described herein shall impose upon drivers of other vehicles the obligation to yield right-of-way and stop for authorized emergency vehicles, as prescribed in Section 11-405 of this title.

petegz28
05-28-2009, 08:49 PM
Why am I having troubles believing this one?
Considering how eager they were to wrestle the guy, hold him by the throat, if that had happened before the camera was rolling he would more than likely already be in that position instead of just standing there talking to them.

No shit. Amazing the cops are always "assaulted" before the camera was roling. But do you think had they been "assaulted" that we would have had footage of them standing around talking? FUCK NO!

This is bullshit and these mother fuckers should be fired!

petegz28
05-28-2009, 08:51 PM
He might well have grounds to file the charges, but like I said it's pretty premature to say that if the DA doesn't, he should be disbarred.

I generally like most of the posters in this thread, but given that it started out as a PrisonPlanet post and that most have probably admitted libertarian leanings, I don't know that this thread is any kind of demographic sampling (nor could we probably get one in this forum).

Also, what if the OHP video shows the EMT attacking one of the troopers? That would certainly shift things around, wouldn't it?

So they were assaulted prior to the video footage yet the video footage shows the Officers standing around and talking to one EMY while the other EMT is in the ambulance?

That will fly as far as a brick over a rainbow

banyon
05-28-2009, 08:53 PM
So they were assaulted prior to the video footage yet the video footage shows the Officers standing around and talking to one EMY while the other EMT is in the ambulance?

That's will fly as far as a brick over a rainbow

It could fly very far, if the OHP video confirms it. Otherwise like others have said, looks like the cop should be suspended or fired, and criminal charges seem premature.

Pitt Gorilla
05-28-2009, 08:55 PM
I would assume for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Oklahoma's statute looks like this:

§47-11-405. 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, or of a police vehicle properly and lawfully making use of an audible signal or red flashing lights, the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right of way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer.
B. This section shall not be construed to require a peace officer operating a police vehicle properly and lawfully in response to a crime in progress to use audible signals nor shall this section operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the road or highway.
Added by Laws 1961, p. 379, § 11-405, eff. Sept. 1, 1961. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 322, § 4, emerg. eff. May 29, 1997.


http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/osstatuestitle.html

also:

§47-12-218. Emergency vehicles - Flashing lights.
A. Every authorized emergency vehicle shall, in addition to any other equipment and distinctive markings required by this title, be equipped with flashing red or blue lights or a combination of flashing red and blue lights. The lights shall be visible at five hundred (500) feet in normal sunlight.
B. A law enforcement vehicle when used as an authorized emergency vehicle may but need not be equipped with alternately-flashing red or blue lights specified herein. An unmarked vehicle used as a law enforcement vehicle for routine traffic enforcement shall be equipped with the following combination of lights:
1. Three flashing red, blue, or a combination of red and blue lights emitting the flashing lights to the front of the vehicle;
2. Two flashing white lights emitting the flashing white lights to the front of the vehicle;
3. Flashing red, blue, white or any combination of red, blue or white lights placed at and emitting the flashing lights from the four corners of the vehicle so that they are visible for three hundred sixty (360) degrees; and
4. One flashing red, blue, amber, or any combination of red, blue, or amber lights emitting the flashing light to the rear of the vehicle.
C. The use of the signal equipment described herein shall impose upon drivers of other vehicles the obligation to yield right-of-way and stop for authorized emergency vehicles, as prescribed in Section 11-405 of this title.OR they could have thought, "Hmm. That ambulance isn't yielding. I mean, we're not really going anywhere important (else they wouldn't have stopped the damn ambulance), and we have time to be dicks to these guys, BUT perhaps it really is an emergency. I mean, they aren't yielding, they are certainly headed towards a hospital, maybe there really is an emergency. I think my dumb ass will defer to the possibility that they are trying to save a life. I mean, I can either get my law enforcement jollies and threaten these guys OR I can step off my highhorse for a minute on the possibility that there really is a medical problem here (what with it being a freaking ambulance and all)."

petegz28
05-28-2009, 08:57 PM
It could fly very far, if the OHP video confirms it. Otherwise like others have said, looks like the cop should be suspended or fired, and criminal charges seem premature.

I'll give you that if the OHP video shows otherwise then ok. But I find it to proably be a 1 in 100000000000000 shot that they cops are all just standing around talking after they were assaulted. I don't know about criminal charges though they clearly assaulted the black EMT. That being said it is definitely conduct unbecoming and they should all be tossed out on their ass.

Mr. Flopnuts
05-28-2009, 08:59 PM
No way their actions warrant criminal charges. Regardless of the circumstances, the EMT is also responsible to maintain his composure regardless of the situation. His fingers poked the cops face on more than one occasion.

Regardless, the situation should have NEVER occurred in the first place. Both officers should be fired immediately.

banyon
05-28-2009, 09:00 PM
OR they could have thought, "Hmm. That ambulance isn't yielding. I mean, we're not really going anywhere important (else they wouldn't have stopped the damn ambulance), and we have time to be dicks to these guys, BUT perhaps it really is an emergency. I mean, they aren't yielding, they are certainly headed towards a hospital, maybe there really is an emergency. I think my dumb ass will defer to the possibility that they are trying to save a life. I mean, I can either get my law enforcement jollies and threaten these guys OR I can step off my highhorse for a minute on the possibility that there really is a medical problem here (what with it being a freaking ambulance and all)."

An alternate explanation would be that units were requested to respond to a scene and then en route they got a call that the urgency level had dropped, or that given the Ambulance situation, the original call didn't need these trooper's help anymore. I don't know that that happened, but i have seen it in cases I have had.

macdawg
05-28-2009, 09:11 PM
I don't think criminal charges should be filed against the cops, but they should be fired immediately.

I very strongly agree those cops should be fired immediately.

petegz28
05-28-2009, 09:13 PM
I very strongly agree those cops should be fired immediately.

Yep. It isn't like this was some kids that didn't pull over. It was an amublance with a patient on the way to the hospital. And if the OHP was on such an important call why did they stop and make a deal out of this?

banyon
05-28-2009, 09:21 PM
Yep. It isn't like this was some kids that didn't pull over. It was an amublance with a patient on the way to the hospital. And if the OHP was on such an important call why did they stop and make a deal out of this?

see my last post

petegz28
05-28-2009, 09:35 PM
see my last post

K well again, if the OHP level of urgency had dropped then the Ambulance should be given the right of way. Either way the OHP needlessly detained an ambulance with a patient in it. They could have followed the ambulance to the hospital. The jeopardized the life of the patient as far as I am concerned and for no good reason at all. This whole thing stinks and the cops are going to have one hell of a time justifying their actions, imo.

banyon
05-28-2009, 09:41 PM
K well again, if the OHP level of urgency had dropped then the Ambulance should be given the right of way. Either way the OHP needlessly detained an ambulance with a patient in it. They could have followed the ambulance to the hospital. The jeopardized the life of the patient as far as I am concerned and for no good reason at all. This whole thing stinks and the cops are going to have one hell of a time justifying their actions, imo.

Why, if they didn't have their lights on?

petegz28
05-28-2009, 09:50 PM
Why, if they didn't have their lights on?

Once the situation was identified they could easily have told the amublance to carry on and they would follow. There was absolutely no reason at all for this confrontation to take place the way it did. And you know this.

banyon
05-28-2009, 10:00 PM
Once the situation was identified they could easily have told the amublance to carry on and they would follow. There was absolutely no reason at all for this confrontation to take place the way it did. And you know this.

You're assuming the assault didn't occur and that the patient was in critical condition (which is unlikely given the non-lighted situation).

petegz28
05-28-2009, 10:03 PM
You're assuming the assault didn't occur and that the patient was in critical condition (which is unlikely given the non-lighted situation).

Dude, I have been around enough cops to know that had an assault against and officer occured people would not be standing around talking. Mother fuckers would have been on the ground. The patient was in an ambulance. Enough said on that.

banyon
05-28-2009, 10:04 PM
Dude, I have been around enough cops to know that had an assault against and officer occured people would not be standing around talking. Mother ****ers would have been on the ground. The patient was in an ambulance. Enough said on that.

Well it's hard to argue with that logic or lack thereof.

petegz28
05-28-2009, 10:06 PM
Well it's hard to argue with that logic or lack thereof.

K, you give me one instance of where a cop was assualted and after the assult he was standing there talking to the people who assaulted him with no one in handcuffs? And I think the act of choking by the one cop shows there would not have been tea and cookies after said assault.

Radar Chief
05-29-2009, 05:19 AM
100.

banyon
05-29-2009, 08:11 AM
100.

Where's the PBJ guy?

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 08:16 AM
I also agree had the EMT assaulted the police officer a first time there would not have been a second time. Maybe the EMT does deserve some charges as well, but the OHP committed a felony once they were blatantly informed there was a patient on board. The EMT informed them they committed a felony and it was too much for the the OHP officers to mentally handle.

banyon
05-29-2009, 08:23 AM
I also agree had the EMT assaulted the police officer a first time there would not have been a second time. Maybe the EMT does deserve some charges as well, but the OHP committed a felony once they were blatantly informed there was a patient on board. The EMT informed them they committed a felony and it was too much for the the OHP officers to mentally handle.

What felony are you referring to here?

orange
05-29-2009, 08:32 AM
The word "felony" has been bandied about in this thread - but I think it's a misdemeanor to interfere with an EMT according to some post here.

MagicHef
05-29-2009, 08:34 AM
I believe it's a misdemeanor to delay an EMT, a felony to assault an EMT.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 08:37 AM
What felony are you referring to here?

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/614797.html

I posted this yesterday on the first page of this thread. Oklahoma bill 1360. http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/HB/HB1360_hflr.rtf

I was mistaken....it's not obstruction. It's assault. Which can be the same thing, but the bill clearly defines assault.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 08:38 AM
So obviously the first encounter that is not in the OP video is being claimed as assault by the EMT.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 08:39 AM
This bill was also signed into law within the past 30 days or so.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 08:43 AM
So obviously the first encounter that is not in the OP video is being claimed as assault by the EMT.

No, the OHP is claiming they were assaulted by the EMT prior to the video starting.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 08:47 AM
No, the OHP is claiming they were assaulted by the EMT prior to the video starting.

In the EMT's statement, the OHP grabbed him, which is assaulting an EMT in the course of duty. The OHP had no reason to grab. Had no reason to want to arrest them, and subsequently should be arrested and charged. Please read the EMT's statement. I doubt he's lying or fabricating facts when his statement is proven in the video above.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 08:48 AM
So when I have my family over for Thanksgiving or X-mas dinner and we say a prayer before the meal, how many people are allowed to say "Amen" before I get fined?

Wrong thread. LOL. I did that the other day

petegz28
05-29-2009, 08:49 AM
In the EMT's statement, the OHP grabbed him, which is assaulting an EMT in the course of duty. The OHP had no reason to grab. Had no reason to want to arrest them, and subsequently should be arrested and charged. Please read the EMT's statement. I doubt he's lying or fabricating facts when his statement is proven in the video above.

The OHP is claiming the EMT assaulted the OHP prior to the video starting. Please read the OP. LMAO

I am trying to agree with you. You just misstated the situation.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 08:55 AM
The OHP is claiming the EMT assaulted the OHP prior to the video starting. Please read the OP. LMAO

I am trying to agree with you. You just misstated the situation.

I did not.

You have to read the statement made by the EMT. The OHP wanted to arrest the EMT for telling them they had a patient on board while OHP was trying to give the driver of the ambulance the "what for". Once the officer touched the EMT, which is what happened next, the officers committed a felony.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 08:58 AM
I did not.

You have to read the statement made by the EMT. The OHP wanted to arrest the EMT for telling them they had a patient on board while OHP was trying to give the driver of the ambulance the "what for". Once the officer touched the EMT, which is what happened next, the officers committed a felony.

From the OP

According to reports, the troopers have claimed that the paramedic assaulted one of them before the camera started rolling.


This is what I am trying to tell you. The assualt being alleged prior to the video is coming from the OHP and blaming the EMT. If you read the thread you will also see I call BS on that allegation.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 09:03 AM
From the OP




This is what I am trying to tell you. The assualt being alleged prior to the video is coming from the OHP and blaming the EMT. If you read the thread you will also see I call BS on that allegation.

Read the statement from the EMT and get back to me. Which you haven't done yet. I know what the article above said. The officers also calimed the driver gave them the bird. Which isn't a reason to pull them over to begin with. Everything the OHP did was wrong from the get go.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 09:05 AM
Here. Let me help you

http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/blogs/Ambulance_Incident_Reports%5B1%5D.pdf


He details the so called assault.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 09:14 AM
Everything the OHP did was wrong from the get go.

I agree. You seem to think I don't. But I do.

banyon
05-29-2009, 09:45 AM
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/614797.html

I posted this yesterday on the first page of this thread. Oklahoma bill 1360. http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/HB/HB1360_hflr.rtf

I was mistaken....it's not obstruction. It's assault. Which can be the same thing, but the bill clearly defines assault.

If it's assault, then for the reasons I've already stated, it's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 09:51 AM
If it's assault, then for the reasons I've already stated, it's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

We'll obvioulsy have to see the full dash mounted video. But I believe the EMT's statement as written. Simply because of the language he uses, the fact that in video he is acting rationally. Where the OHP is not only irrational in the video, but ridculous in their assertions to begin with.

Radar Chief
05-29-2009, 10:23 AM
We'll obvioulsy have to see the full dash mounted video. But I believe the EMT's statement as written. Simply because of the language he uses, the fact that in video he is acting rationally. Where the OHP is not only irrational in the video, but ridculous in their assertions to begin with.

Same as I see it. Unless the in car video system stored some ground breaking evidence, I find the EMT to be believable, I don’t find the OHP officers to be believable.

MagicHef
06-14-2009, 11:09 AM
Well, here it is:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T4G37Ouy164&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T4G37Ouy164&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

banyon
06-14-2009, 11:29 AM
Watching the dash video, I think there are 2 new things that are relevant.

1) The EMT clearly did not "assault" the trooper as the OHP claimed initially.

2) The EMT clearly interfered with the trooper's legal stop of the ambulance and disobeyed a lawful order to get back in the vehicle. He even tried to prevent the driver from talking to the trooper. As such, the officer was attempting to effect an arrest for obstruction, and even though he was a total d*ck about it, he was within his right to do it at the time.

3) the Trooper used pitiful discretion and should be reprimanded with a suspension or firing.

FAX
06-14-2009, 09:27 PM
A police officer once pull me over for expired temporary tags. As it happened, I actually had the new tag in the car so I asked him for a screwdriver. That way, he and I could correct the problem right there on the spot. He became very confused at that point, told me to go home, and drove off without giving me a ticket. Funny police officer.

I'm tired of law enforcement officers behaving so belligerently toward our citizens. I guess the whole "protect and serve" deal is just paint on a car door. As punishment for this particular example of abuse, I think that the "OHP" should be forced to change their initials to "OHO" for three months. That way, peeps could call them "Ohos".

FAX

BigMeatballDave
06-15-2009, 10:15 AM
Well, here it is:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T4G37Ouy164&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T4G37Ouy164&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>That pig clearly does not know how to do his job. I hope he's fired.

BigMeatballDave
06-15-2009, 10:20 AM
2) The EMT clearly interfered with the trooper's legal stop of the ambulance and disobeyed a lawful order to get back in the vehicle. He even tried to prevent the driver from talking to the trooper. As such, the officer was attempting to effect an arrest for obstruction, and even though he was a total d*ck about it, he was within his right to do it at the time.

.None of this matters because that stupid cop never should have pulled them over. The EMT CLEARLY stated there was a patient on board. That is where this incedent should've ended.

CoMoChief
06-15-2009, 12:00 PM
A police officer once pull me over for expired temporary tags. As it happened, I actually had the new tag in the car so I asked him for a screwdriver. That way, he and I could correct the problem right there on the spot. He became very confused at that point, told me to go home, and drove off without giving me a ticket. Funny police officer.

I'm tired of law enforcement officers behaving so belligerently toward our citizens. I guess the whole "protect and serve" deal is just paint on a car door. As punishment for this particular example of abuse, I think that the "OHP" should be forced to change their initials to "OHO" for three months. That way, peeps could call them "Ohos".

FAX

I had almost the exact same incident. I recently purchased my Jeep and I had temp tags taped on my back window. Well the tape didn't stick and I didn't have anymore tape at my house so I went to the local Walgreen's thats just around the corner.

Just my luck a MU cop pulled me over. I have the the tag with the worn off tape right beside me and I got pulled over literally at the corner in front of Walgreen's, and the cop wanted to argue with me and bitch about how I didn't have the tag on, AFTER I had told him what I was doing. He didn't give me a ticket, just kinda walked away and told me to "Go fuckin get your real plates so we don't have this problem"

Garcia Bronco
06-15-2009, 12:38 PM
Watching the dash video, I think there are 2 new things that are relevant.

1) The EMT clearly did not "assault" the trooper as the OHP claimed initially.

2) The EMT clearly interfered with the trooper's legal stop of the ambulance and disobeyed a lawful order to get back in the vehicle. He even tried to prevent the driver from talking to the trooper. As such, the officer was attempting to effect an arrest for obstruction, and even though he was a total d*ck about it, he was within his right to do it at the time.

3) the Trooper used pitiful discretion and should be reprimanded with a suspension or firing.

2) The EMT is in charge of the transport with a patient. It's the same at my company on our ground transportation. We are mostly air and that changes the dynamic on an aircraft. It wasn't a legal stop to begin with, and once the trooper was made a aware of the patient on board it was diffenately an unlawful detainment. The patrol officer should be fired and charged accordingly with Oklahoma law.

FAX
06-15-2009, 03:36 PM
The problem, as I see it, is this; after a time, some law enforcement officers begin to confuse respect for the badge they wear with respect for themselves as individuals.

When a situation begins to become confusing to them, or doesn't conform to their prior expectations, they sometimes have difficulty working out what to do. In this particular case, the copper's expectation was to berate the driver and the driver alone. When that plan fell apart, he had nowhere to go other than to continue to assert authority ... not because there were laws to uphold, but because his personal authority over the situation had been challenged in a way he didn't expect.

When the individuals charged with upholding the law begin to feel they ARE the law, you have a real problem ... and we do. Thank God for dashboard cameras.

FAX

orange
06-15-2009, 03:42 PM
When the individuals charged with upholding the law begin to feel they ARE the law, you have a real problem ... and we do. Thank God for dashboard cameras.

FAX


Little cameras are changing the world. The next Big Revolution and it's already underway. Rodney King was Paul Revere II.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-15-2009, 03:44 PM
When the individuals charged with upholding the law begin to feel they ARE the law, you have a real problem ... and we do. Thank God for dashboard cameras.

FAX

Well sometimes the dashboard cameras are "shut off" or "malfunction" really it was the cellphone camera that brought this to light.

banyon
06-15-2009, 04:51 PM
2) The EMT is in charge of the transport with a patient. It's the same at my company on our ground transportation. We are mostly air and that changes the dynamic on an aircraft. It wasn't a legal stop to begin with, and once the trooper was made a aware of the patient on board it was diffenately an unlawful detainment. The patrol officer should be fired and charged accordingly with Oklahoma law.

I gave the legal basis for the stop in post 82.

Nor is it clear anyone was unlawfully detained. The Ambulance was running without lights apparently in a non-emergency situation. None of the EMTs ever stated it was an emergency.

banyon
06-15-2009, 04:52 PM
The problem, as I see it, is this; after a time, some law enforcement officers begin to confuse respect for the badge they wear with respect for themselves as individuals.

When a situation begins to become confusing to them, or doesn't conform to their prior expectations, they sometimes have difficulty working out what to do. In this particular case, the copper's expectation was to berate the driver and the driver alone. When that plan fell apart, he had nowhere to go other than to continue to assert authority ... not because there were laws to uphold, but because his personal authority over the situation had been challenged in a way he didn't expect.

When the individuals charged with upholding the law begin to feel they ARE the law, you have a real problem ... and we do. Thank God for dashboard cameras.

FAX

I agree, but if anything, this attitude has probably improved over time as society has been more focused on police abuses.

Psychologically, though, the occupation tends to draw a type of individual and soemtimes you can't tell who needs to be weeded out until something like this happens. It's a difficult job (when done well), not everyone is cut out for it.

BigMeatballDave
06-15-2009, 11:25 PM
I gave the legal basis for the stop in post 82.

Nor is it clear anyone was unlawfully detained. The Ambulance was running without lights apparently in a non-emergency situation. None of the EMTs ever stated it was an emergency.This is debatable. However, when the EMT informed the Trooper of a patient on board, he should've stopped his actions.

Guru
06-16-2009, 12:37 AM
That is incredulous. You should never pull over an ambulance transporting a patient. They had radio contact and could have waited to do all of this at the hospital.

Speaking of high speed police officers...
When my son and I were in St. Louis last week, we witnessed an officer traveling at a very excessive speed in a high traffic intersection. When he passed us you could feel the car move. It concerned me greatly since, at least here in Topeka, Ks, police always slow down when coming to an intersection before they pass through it. Safety first. This St Louis cop showed no concern for his safety or those around him when passing through this intersection at all.

BigRedChief
06-16-2009, 06:48 AM
This is debatable. However, when the EMT informed the Trooper of a patient on board, he should've stopped his actions.
Isn't their laws about this?

BigMeatballDave
06-16-2009, 07:27 AM
Isn't their laws about this?I would think so. The trooper should have radioed the ambulance to see if they were transporting.

banyon
06-16-2009, 08:20 AM
This is debatable. However, when the EMT informed the Trooper of a patient on board, he should've stopped his actions.

ok. debate away. What is your argument?

banyon
06-16-2009, 08:21 AM
I would think so. The trooper should have radioed the ambulance to see if they were transporting.

I'm not sure the radios actually work that way.

Usually our local KHP units have a different dispatch and frequency than even our local PD.

Garcia Bronco
06-16-2009, 09:55 AM
I gave the legal basis for the stop in post 82.

Nor is it clear anyone was unlawfully detained. The Ambulance was running without lights apparently in a non-emergency situation. None of the EMTs ever stated it was an emergency.

They had a patient on board that needed to go the hospital. Once the officer was notifed that there was a patient on board it is his legal and moral duty to withdraw until such a time that his, the patrolman's, matter can be resumed. Oklahoma law defines impeding an EMT in the course of duty as a felony. The patrolman clearly did this.

Garcia Bronco
06-16-2009, 10:00 AM
That is incredulous. You should never pull over an ambulance transporting a patient. They had radio contact and could have waited to do all of this at the hospital.

Speaking of high speed police officers...
When my son and I were in St. Louis last week, we witnessed an officer traveling at a very excessive speed in a high traffic intersection. When he passed us you could feel the car move. It concerned me greatly since, at least here in Topeka, Ks, police always slow down when coming to an intersection before they pass through it. Safety first. This St Louis cop showed no concern for his safety or those around him when passing through this intersection at all.

My Dad, God rest his Soul, was a police officer for 25 years. He gave tickets for all kinds of vehicle infractions. Yet I have never seen a man put more illegally keep cars, nor drive like a maniac than him and his police buddies. I remember he had a plymouth valrie(sp) that had to have a rope tied to the passenger door so it would stay closed on left-hand turns.

ClevelandBronco
06-16-2009, 10:11 AM
My Dad, God rest his Soul, was a police officer for 25 years. He gave tickets for all kinds of vehicle infractions. Yet I have never seen a man put more illegally keep cars, nor drive like a maniac than him and his police buddies. I remember he had a plymouth valrie(sp) that had to have a rope tied to the passenger door so it would stay closed on left-hand turns.

That's nothing. I had a Dodge van that had a rope tied to the gas pedal because it would only go down. I had to pull it up.

Garcia Bronco
06-16-2009, 10:33 AM
That's nothing. I had a Dodge van that had a rope tied to the gas pedal because it would only go down. I had to pull it up.

I had a 77 plymouth (In 1996) that had a gas peddle that would stick. Notice the common thread? :)

ClevelandBronco
06-16-2009, 10:39 AM
I had a 77 plymouth (In 1996) that had a gas peddle that would stick. Notice the common thread? :)

Lee Iacocca?

BTW: That Dodge van was a '75.

banyon
06-16-2009, 11:06 AM
They had a patient on board that needed to go the hospital. Once the officer was notifed that there was a patient on board it is his legal and moral duty to withdraw until such a time that his, the patrolman's, matter can be resumed. Oklahoma law defines impeding an EMT in the course of duty as a felony. The patrolman clearly did this.

what is the source of the law that you refer to here? does it define"impeding"? does it apply in non-emergency situations? would the trooper also have been prevented from stopping and detaining the EMT if the driver had been drinking? why would that be different according to the statute?

also it appears that you have dropped your objection to the stop itself as the statute i ciited explicitly authorized it.

Garcia Bronco
06-16-2009, 12:48 PM
what is the source of the law that you refer to here? does it define"impeding"? does it apply in non-emergency situations? would the trooper also have been prevented from stopping and detaining the EMT if the driver had been drinking? why would that be different according to the statute?

also it appears that you have dropped your objection to the stop itself as the statute i ciited explicitly authorized it.

Oh they shouldn't have stopped them period, and I wouldn't have stopped for them had I been the driver, but the law in question was passed before the incident going into effect immediately. You can find an article on it below. The officer clearly impeded the EMT by assaulting him.


http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/614797.html

banyon
06-16-2009, 04:33 PM
Oh they shouldn't have stopped them period, and I wouldn't have stopped for them had I been the driver, but the law in question was passed before the incident going into effect immediately. You can find an article on it below. The officer clearly impeded the EMT by assaulting him.


http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/614797.html

Your article link talks about assault and not "impeding". And the "assault" is sketchy for the reasons I listed earlier.

In fact, this seems to be the statute.

§21-650.3. Delaying, obstructing or interfering with emergency medical technician or other emergency medical care provider - Punishment.
Every person who willfully delays, obstructs or in any way interferes with an emergency medical technician or other emergency medical care provider in the performance of or attempt to perform emergency medical care and treatment or in going to or returning from the scene of a medical emergency, upon conviction, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Added by Laws 1990, c. 320, § 1, emerg. eff. May 30, 1990

Proving that crime would require you to prove they were providing emergency care, which is tough to argue as they were running without lights or sirens.



Do you have an argument why the fail to yield statute i cited doesn't apply?

banyon
06-16-2009, 04:44 PM
[Trooper vs. EMT: No Charges, Case Dropped
posted 06/05/09 4:48 pm

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0609/629440.html

Paden - No charges will be filed following a scuffle between an Oklahoma trooper and an EMT.

The pair went head to head after the ambulance was stopped for "failure to yield" on May 24. The ambulance was taking a patient to the hospital at the time. And a family member recorded the fight on his cell phone. But so far, the trooper's dash-cam video has not been released.

The EMT's attorney says it was a case of road rage by the trooper. But the trooper says the paramedic made an obscene gesture at him and assaulted him first.


However, after interviewing witnesses, the reports, and the videos, the Okfuskee County District Attorney's Office will not charge the EMT or the trooper, and the case will be dropped.

DA Max Cook says, "After careful consideration off all fact and circumstance, it does not appear it would be appropriate to file charges against (Maurice) White or any other person involved. Although, I do not condone their actions, I do not believe that filing charges at this time would serve the best interests of the public or interests of justice. It has been my experience that emergency service providers generally work well together, and it was disappointing to see a situation where that clearly did not happen."

He went on to say that it is my hope that emergency responders, especially the Oklahoma Highway patrol, will use this incident to open dialogue about ways to forge a good relationship with their partner agencies."

Richard O'Carroll, White's attorney, confirmed Maurice is aware of the decision and is disappointed.

Cook has closed further review of this matter, but is requesting the trooper's dash-cam video in response to the public's interest.