CHP cuffs firefighter trying to rescue victims of a crash on a busy highway

OC for ME · Feb 6, 2014

Firefighter Jacob Gregoire, 36, was cuffed and held in a California Highway patrol squad car for 30 minutes after he refused to move his firetruck

Fire officials insist the 12 year veteran was following his training and parked the truck in a manner meant to shield all persons at the scene - including police - from busy traffic

The incident comes after multiple battles between police and fire crews in southern California

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...scue-victims-rollover-crash-busy-highway.html

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Feb/05/firefighter-chp-handcuffed-freeway/?#article-copy

He, the firefighter, was not arrested? maybe not in California, but in Missouri he would have been. The FF needs to sue that cop and his nitwit bosses. California needs to make "rescue" personnel on scene commanders, not cops. Cops are not trained to do a FF's job. When the FFs job is done, turn the scene over to the cops.

Fuller Malarkey · Feb 6, 2014

Officials: Dispute between CHP officer, firefighter an 'isolated incident'

http://www.cbs8.com/story/24637357/chp-handcuffs-firefighter-in-dispute-at-crash-scene

Isolated incident 88,694.

This will stimulate a rash on a party unable to respond. :lol:

Fuller Malarkey · Feb 6, 2014

It can be confusing, trying to discuss the ethical and moral implications involved when two separate public service entities collide. What differentiates the two in practical terms?

Firemen:

Volunteer firemen save family from electrical short in home furnace

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fi...-One-Dog-in-Early-Morning-Fire-223915811.html

Police:

No Knock Warrant Results In Deputy Shot, Police Set House on Fire to Flush Suspect

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22889724/fire-engulfs-wash-house-during-standoff-man

To recap:

Fireman: Will risk life to save citizen from burning house.

Police: Will burn house down with you in it, shoot you as you try to flee the flames.

Fireman:

Police:

Now the civics test:

Which should be interfering with the other?

Primus · Feb 6, 2014

Fuller Malarkey said:
It can be confusing, trying to discuss the ethical and moral implications involved when two separate public service entities collide. What differentiates the two in practical terms?

Firemen:

Volunteer firemen save family from electrical short in home furnace

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fi...-One-Dog-in-Early-Morning-Fire-223915811.html

Police:

No Knock Warrant Results In Deputy Shot, Police Set House on Fire to Flush Suspect

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22889724/fire-engulfs-wash-house-during-standoff-man

To recap:

Fireman: Will risk life to save citizen from burning house.

Police: Will burn house down with you in it, shoot you as you try to flee the flames.

Fireman:

View attachment 11238

Police:

View attachment 11239

Now the civics test:

Which should be interfering with the other?

Lol your finesse is great as always.

Why are there firefighters?

Police needs heroes too.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

OC for ME · Feb 6, 2014

Nightmare said:
Cuffed and stuffed sounds like arrest to me.

Evidently so, if you are a unknowing citizen. However, i suspect that there is case law that has determined otherwise. Officer safety comes to mind. I have witnessed citizens in my little town restrained by cops and then released when the cops had completed their task, whatever it may have been. I have been searching Missouri case law and have not yet found a case where a citizen sued for being physically restrained and claiming that he was falsely arrested.

Officer safety claims used to justify a physical restraint (cuffed) are the greatest threat to the safety of the citizen where no reasonable person would determine that the officer's safety was at risk. Point in fact, cuffing a FF for failure to comply with a cop's order, yet he was not arrested.

davidmcbeth · Feb 6, 2014

Fuller Malarkey said:
It can be confusing, trying to discuss the ethical and moral implications involved when two separate public service entities collide. What differentiates the two in practical terms?

Firemen:

Volunteer firemen save family from electrical short in home furnace

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fi...-One-Dog-in-Early-Morning-Fire-223915811.html

Police:

No Knock Warrant Results In Deputy Shot, Police Set House on Fire to Flush Suspect

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22889724/fire-engulfs-wash-house-during-standoff-man

To recap:

Fireman: Will risk life to save citizen from burning house.

Police: Will burn house down with you in it, shoot you as you try to flee the flames.

Fireman:

View attachment 11238

Police:

View attachment 11239

Now the civics test:

Which should be interfering with the other?

As part of prepping ... one should have enough fire supression devices or a plan to stop them from burning one out ... I see this tactic as using chemical weapons ... they really want to start playing this game?

onus · Feb 7, 2014

the police officer is guilty of violating CA pc 148(a)

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

OC for ME · Feb 7, 2014

Nightmare said:
Somewhere here is a statement that the arrestee citizen's perception determines arrest, if he submits to the cop's authority then he is arrested. Also there is vast discussion that the perception of force majure accomplishes arrest; bigboy command voice, uniform, clown car, gun, tactical positioning yadda yadda yadda.

Perception? No perception in Missouri: submitting to a cops authority is defined as a arrest in MO. I've cited the statute so many times.

Me: Am I being detained?
Cop: Yes.
Me: I do not consent to any blah blah or blah blah, I also invoke my 5A.
Cop: Why, you're not under arrest.
Me: Yes I am. Look it up.

Primus · Feb 7, 2014

OC for ME said:
Perception? No perception in Missouri: submitting to a cops authority is defined as a arrest in MO. I've cited the statute so many times.

Me: Am I being detained?
Cop: Yes.
Me: I do not consent to any blah blah or blah blah, I also invoke my 5A.
Cop: Why, you're not under arrest.
Me: Yes I am. Look it up.

So there is no detention?

Let me ask this... any stop is an arrest do they need PC for every stop?

Not saying I don't believe you, genuinely curious.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 7, 2014

Primus said:
So there is no detention?
Let me ask this... any stop is an arrest do they need PC for every stop?
Not saying I don't believe you, genuinely curious.

Any arrest or any detention is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Courts have devised the "you're merely being detained, not arrested" ploy because they realize that there are way too many people who don't know they have the right to remain silent when questioned.

Imagine what it would be like if the practice of remaining silent was near universal---
An officer "detains" someone, merely to ask a few questions because he is reasonably suspicious that criminal activity is afoot. The person asserts his right to remain silent and to make no statements to the officer.

Now what????
Right then, right there, with the evidence at hand and no more, Officer Friendly must make a decision on if he has probable cause to make an arrest.

The whole idea of "detainment" is predicated on the knowledge that most people will NOT assert their right to remain silent. There is either probable cause to arrest or the purpose of the detention is to find probable cause post hoc.

TL;DR... If more people would learn to KYBMS then the whole idea of "detention" would be a fairly moot subject.

OC for ME · Feb 7, 2014

Primus said:
So there is no detention?

Let me ask this... any stop is an arrest do they need PC for every stop?

Not saying I don't believe you, genuinely curious.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I believe there is no detention in MO based only on the wording of the statute that defines a arrest in MO. I also have cited, many times, the statute that authorizes a cop to arrest even for a infraction (non crime) here in MO. This means a cop could arrest me if my plate lights were out.

Essentially, as the law is written, RAS is all a cop needs to perform a arrest. Cuffing me "for my safety".....cough cough BS cough cough.....meets the requirements of the definition of a arrest.

My stead fast contention is that when a citizen is cuffed he is arrested. I know of no cop that agrees with me. I then point them to the statute here in MO. I know of no cop that would arrest me for a blown plate light. Cops are regular folks with a good dose of common sense, and "get it" where stupid laws are concerned.

However, I never get a response from any cop who is not a cop in MO regarding our statute because every state may be different. You are the first cop who has asked a serious question on this issue. +1 to you Sir.

I am confident that a MO cop would protest my assertion if I were to be "detained" and understandably so. But, under the law he would be wrong in his understanding and there is not a darn thing I can do about it.

OC for ME · Feb 7, 2014

fallschirmjäger said:
any arrest or any detention is a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment. The courts have devised the "you're merely being detained, not arrested" ploy because they realize that there are way too many people who don't know they have the right to remain silent when questioned.

Imagine what it would be like if the practice of remaining silent was near universal---
an officer "detains" someone, merely to ask a few questions because he is reasonably suspicious that criminal activity is afoot. The person asserts his right to remain silent and to make no statements to the officer.

Now what????
Right then, right there, with the evidence at hand and no more, officer friendly must make a decision on if he has probable cause to make an arrest.

The whole idea of "detainment" is predicated on the knowledge that most people will not assert their right to remain silent. There is either probable cause to arrest or the purpose of the detention is to find probable cause post hoc.

Tl;dr... If more people would learn to kybms then the whole idea of "detention" would be a fairly moot subject.

qft

Primus · Feb 7, 2014

OC for ME said:
I believe there is no detention in MO based only on the wording of the statute that defines a arrest in MO. I also have cited, many times, the statute that authorizes a cop to arrest even for a infraction (non crime) here in MO. This means a cop could arrest me if my plate lights were out.

Essentially, as the law is written, RAS is all a cop needs to perform a arrest. Cuffing me "for my safety".....cough cough BS cough cough.....meets the requirements of the definition of a arrest.

My stead fast contention is that when a citizen is cuffed he is arrested. I know of no cop that agrees with me. I then point them to the statute here in MO. I know of no cop that would arrest me for a blown plate light. Cops are regular folks with a good dose of common sense, and "get it" where stupid laws are concerned.

However, I never get a response from any cop who is not a cop in MO regarding our statute because every state may be different. You are the first cop who has asked a serious question on this issue. +1 to you Sir.

I am confident that a MO cop would protest my assertion if I were to be "detained" and understandably so. But, under the law he would be wrong in his understanding and there is not a darn thing I can do about it.

Your first paragraph states you believe there is no detention according to the wording of statute. But then you third paragraph says you believe once you are cuffed for any reason you are arrested.

Detained and cuffed are not the same. You can be detained without being cuffed bit can't be cuffed without being detained.

Do you have a link to the relevant statute? I'm curious as to its wording. Is there case law or anything else they use as a basis for what constitutes levels of detention or what constitutes an arrest.

Also do you have the relevant statute that authorizes arrest for anything? Our MGLs are set up where it'll tell you right in it or refer to another statute that gives you arrest powers for that specific chapter and section.

I appreciate the +1. I am sincerely interested in other states laws and law in general. Actually planning on eventually getting the pesky JD. I also appreciate you taking the time and explaining what you have so far.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

ConditionThree · Feb 7, 2014

Still looking for relevance of story to open carry of a firearm.

If you want to kvetch about police abuse of power, I am sure you can find them if you take the time to Google them.

OC for ME · Feb 8, 2014

Arrest. 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.

Clearly, a physical restraint is a arrest. Me submitting to the cop's authority (detention?) is a arrest. Unambiguous.

Powers of arrest, arrest without warrant on suspicion persons violating any law of state including infractions, misdemeanors and ordinances, exception--power of municipal officer in unincorporated area.

544.216. Any sheriff or deputy sheriff, any member of the Missouri state highway patrol, and any county or municipal law enforcement officer in this state, except those officers of a political subdivision or municipality having a population of less than two thousand persons or which does not have at least four full-time nonelected peace officers unless such subdivision or municipality has elected to come under and is operating pursuant to the provisions of sections 590.100 to 590.150, may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or has violated any ordinance over which such officer has jurisdiction. Peace officers of a municipality shall have arrest powers, as described in this section, upon lands which are leased or owned by the municipality in an unincorporated area. Ordinances enacted by a municipality, owning or leasing lands outside its boundaries, may be enforced by peace officers of the municipality upon such owned or leased lands. The power of arrest authorized by this section is in addition to all other powers conferred upon law enforcement officers, and shall not be construed so as to limit or restrict any other power of a law enforcement officer.

Reasonable grounds is RAS in my view.

What MA defines as a arrest may be different and it seems, based on the context of your post, that it is different. In MO I am arrested when I am detained, as my little story clearly illustrates. Further more, if I refuse to submit to the authority of the cop I am confident that violent physical force will be used to compel my submission.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 8, 2014

Primus said:
So there is no detention?

Let me ask this... any stop is an arrest do they need PC for every stop?

Not saying I don't believe you, genuinely curious.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Yes! That is one reason why Terry vs. Ohio was a bad decision it invented RAS.

OC for ME · Feb 10, 2014

Primus said:
<snip. Detained and cuffed are not the same. You can be detained without being cuffed bit can't be cuffed without being detained. <snip>

Your experiences, and MA laws, do not apply in MO. I've provided the statutes. I will longer entertain your refusal to accept that a detainment, cuffed or not, is a arrest in MO. Get cuffed, you are arrested, everybody knows this no matter where you live.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 10, 2014

OC for ME said:
Your experiences, and MA laws, do not apply in MO. I've provided the statutes. I will longer entertain your refusal to accept that a detainment, cuffed or not, is a arrest in MO. Get cuffed, you are arrested, everybody knows this no matter where you live.

+1 Only statist cops would think a person not free to go anywhere isn't "arrested", when the state does does it.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 10, 2014

That...and it Doesn't Matter if it's an "arrest" or not. It is a seizure, and an illegal seizure is actionable in civil court.

OC for ME · Feb 10, 2014

Getting from a civil action to charging the offending cop with a crime related to the unlawful restraint of a citizen is my goal.

CHP cuffs firefighter trying to rescue victims of a crash on a busy highway

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member