The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Tucson Firefighter Refused To Respond To Giffords Shooting; Memo Questions "Political Bantering" And Delay
TUCSON, Ariz. - A veteran firefighter refused to respond to last month's deadly shooting spree that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wounded because he had different political views than his colleagues and "did not want to be part of it," according to internal city memos.
In this Jan. 8, 2011 file photo, emergency personnel work at the scene where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and others were shot outside a Safeway grocery store in Tucson, Ariz. Veteran firefighter Mark Ekstrum refused to respond to the deadly shooting spree because of "political bantering," and it may have delayed his unit's assignment to help, according to internal city memos. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)
Related
Mark Ekstrum's insubordination may have delayed his unit's response because firefighters had to stop at another station to pick up a replacement for him, the Arizona Daily Star reported.
While the crew was not among the first called to the supermarket where six people were killed and 13 others wounded, a memo from Ekstrum's supervisor said his actions caused "confusion and delay" during the emergency.
Ekstrum's team, which is specially trained to handle large medical emergencies, was dispatched to assist 90 minutes after the Jan. 8 shooting.
The 28-year veteran of the Tucson Fire Department retired two days later while his supervisors were still considering how to discipline him, according to the Star, which obtained the memos about the incident through a public records request.
Capt. Ben Williams wrote in a report that when Ekstrum first said he would not go on the call, "he mentioned something about `political bantering' and he did not want to be part of it."
Williams said in the report that he told the 56-year-old firefighter that he could not refuse a call for that reason and then talked to the firefighter privately in his office. He said Ekstrum "started to say something about how he had a much different political viewpoint than the rest of the crew and he was concerned."
Despite being told that was not acceptable, Williams said Ekstrum informed him he was going home "sick," so they answered the call without him.
Ekstrum's crew had been dispatched at 12:03 p.m., seven minutes after the last patient arrived at the hospital, said Joe Gulotta, an assistant fire chief. The team was responding as a support crew with a large delivery truck with tents, medical supplies, water and cots used to assist those who were not seriously injured.
Ekstrum declined to comment on the Star's story and refused to elaborate on any details of the memos when reached at his home Thursday by The Associated Press.
"I have nothing else to say about it," Ekstrum said.
But the Star said Ekstrum gave a statement Wednesday to the Fire Department saying he was distraught over the shootings and was "distracted to the point of not being able to perform my routine station duties to such an extent that I seriously doubted my ability to focus on an emergency call."
Ekstrum also said in the statement that he had no problem with Giffords and even voted for her in the last election.
___
Information from: Arizona Daily Star, http://www.azstarnet.com
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
In this Jan. 8, 2011 file photo, emergency personnel work at the scene where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and others were shot outside a Safeway grocery store in Tucson, Ariz. Veteran firefighter Mark Ekstrum refused to respond to the deadly shooting spree because of "political bantering," and it may have delayed his unit's assignment to help, according to internal city memos. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)
Related
- Arizona Daily Star: Firefighter refused call to Tucson shooting spr...
- Firefighters, Paramedics Describe Tucson Shooting Scene
- JEMS: Arizona EMT Recalls Tucson Shooting
- LawOfficer: Arizona Congresswoman Among Many Shot at Community Outr...
Mark Ekstrum's insubordination may have delayed his unit's response because firefighters had to stop at another station to pick up a replacement for him, the Arizona Daily Star reported.
While the crew was not among the first called to the supermarket where six people were killed and 13 others wounded, a memo from Ekstrum's supervisor said his actions caused "confusion and delay" during the emergency.
Ekstrum's team, which is specially trained to handle large medical emergencies, was dispatched to assist 90 minutes after the Jan. 8 shooting.
The 28-year veteran of the Tucson Fire Department retired two days later while his supervisors were still considering how to discipline him, according to the Star, which obtained the memos about the incident through a public records request.
Capt. Ben Williams wrote in a report that when Ekstrum first said he would not go on the call, "he mentioned something about `political bantering' and he did not want to be part of it."
Williams said in the report that he told the 56-year-old firefighter that he could not refuse a call for that reason and then talked to the firefighter privately in his office. He said Ekstrum "started to say something about how he had a much different political viewpoint than the rest of the crew and he was concerned."
Despite being told that was not acceptable, Williams said Ekstrum informed him he was going home "sick," so they answered the call without him.
Ekstrum's crew had been dispatched at 12:03 p.m., seven minutes after the last patient arrived at the hospital, said Joe Gulotta, an assistant fire chief. The team was responding as a support crew with a large delivery truck with tents, medical supplies, water and cots used to assist those who were not seriously injured.
Ekstrum declined to comment on the Star's story and refused to elaborate on any details of the memos when reached at his home Thursday by The Associated Press.
"I have nothing else to say about it," Ekstrum said.
But the Star said Ekstrum gave a statement Wednesday to the Fire Department saying he was distraught over the shootings and was "distracted to the point of not being able to perform my routine station duties to such an extent that I seriously doubted my ability to focus on an emergency call."
Ekstrum also said in the statement that he had no problem with Giffords and even voted for her in the last election.
___
Information from: Arizona Daily Star, http://www.azstarnet.com
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
That's B.S. Gregory was pointing out that you were using inaccurate information as the basis for the opinion you posted.
That doesn't exactly make your opinion credible.
As for when FF Ekstrum should have gone home, you don't know enough about the situation to make an informed judgement. He went home when he felt he needed to do so.
He, not any of us, was the best judge of that.
You are entitled to your opinion. Gregory - and any other FFN member - is entitled to point out when you base that opinion on something other than the facts.
-
Permalink Reply by 55 TRUCK on
-
Truth is none of us know this guy we know nothing about his carreer as a fireman. Hell for all we know he could have the Medal of Valor and some other fruit salad to go with it. But that doesn't matter cause he didn't want to go set up tents hours after a shooting. Who cares, no one will remember this guy come next month or next year. Hell he could walk up to you on the street and you wouldn't know him from Adam.
Here's a thought, perhaps he just said. " I have no desire to set up tents or anything else, I've got the time I'm gonna retire." Here's another thought for ya. The only opinions that matter are the opionions of his crew.
-
Permalink Reply by DUST on
-
There is one call, in particular, that I went on years ago that still disturbs me but I don't ever regret going on it. I think not going to this call may haunt him more that going on it would have....
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
You don't give a crap about my opinion but you respect my opinion, a conundrum to say the least. I don't remember disrespecting your opinion, I give you your due, you can think and say what you want. I don't think I was inflating anything, except maybe your temper, which I did not intend to do. What does 8 years in the marines have to do with bullets or me knowing that it was in jest? Again I don't think I did anything to disrespect you or your opinion, but you have confused me.
-
Permalink Reply by Al Williams on
-
Stop the BS Ben, you two can make all the excuses you want for the guy and make a big deal out of a little misinformation but the fact still remains misinformation or not, he chose to retire 2 days after his statement of "political bantering, etc." followed by sudden illness rather than stay and defend himself. Or is that still not enough information? Maybe after 28 years he earned the right to just walkout on his crew. All the guys I've ever seen retire gave notice.
Looks like the "boys club" crosses state lines.
-
-
What B.S. was that, Al???
I called B.S. and gave you a specific example of what I was talking about.
The circumstances under which FF Ekstrum retired are well known. Repeating them changes nothing about the fact that he didn't refuse to go on a call when "the bullets were flying", because the shooting was long over, the perp was in custody, and the patients had all been transported. He made a difficult decision at the time and he made another difficult decision to retire. He had the right to do both, given the circumstances.
He wasn't in the Marines, Al, he was a firefighter.
As for "boys club", please be specific. WTH is that supposed to mean?
-
-
The "boys club". I've seen it before. It's persons who selectively fail to acknowledge the wrong doings of others while commenting, passing judgment and offering opinions on others. Turning a blind eye, not seeing the truth for what it is for the sake of false comradery without integrity.
I have read many topics on this site which receive comments, but I've never read post such as for example: "are you sure there was a fire, after all you weren't there".
When the cop arrested the Fire Captain for not moving his apparatus out of the road not one time did I read a post from a FF that said the Captain was wrong. We were all in the corner of the Fire Captain, not the cop. Not being selective but because from what we read he did nothing wrong. If you are a good fire officer you will not be afraid to make the tough call, even if it's against your own.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Al,
We got it, you disagree with what the guy did.
Just a thought; based solely on your interpretation of what happened (and clearly there are few facts to base a real judgment on) you think he was in the wrong. Fine.
You're judging a man based on rather loose and flimsy *evidence* (he did refuse to respond, the REASON is not clear why), not unlike judging a person based on their religion, color of their skin or country of origin. In other words, you are prejudging the man based solely on one thing. I think that may be interpreted as prejudice.
You don't have to agree with what he did, you're entitled to your opinion. But based on what you wrote, "are you sure there was a fire, after all you weren't there", and about the Captain that was arrested for not moving his rig, I think what we all did was extend the benefit of the doubt. And I think that FF Ekstrum deserves that same courtesy. But, since I was only a Seabee and not a marine, my thoughts here may mean nothing to you. All the same, I'll respect you (and your opinion) even if I don't agree with you. Stay safe.
-
-
Al, apparently what you're saying is that your term "boys club" is your personal, made-up term for something that doesn't exist except in your imagination.
You talk about "wrongding", but there wasn't any demonstrable wrongdoing here except apparently in your own mind.
Regardless of how much notice FF Ekstrum gave, he was eligible to retire instead of staying at work to fight the controversy. He took an option to which he was entitled. He doesn't have to justify it to you or anyone else.
As for "a little misinformation" - you've based your responses here on a lot more mistaken information than just "a little". What you're used to and what your experience is really doesn't matter. Unless you were present and know what happened, you really don't have enough information to make the strong statements you did and expect them to be credible.
When you start making statements like that "boys club" crap about people that you don't even know, that doesn't do anything to add to your credibility.
The bottom line is that FF Ekstrum was eligible to retire and he took an option to which he was entitled. None of us have enough information to condemn him for it while maintaining any pretense of credibility, accuracy, or fairness.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
