The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Volunteer Fire Chief Suspended over YouTube Response Videos
A fire chief in this small town was suspended in 2007 over posting his personal car responses to emergencies on YouTube. In the wake of the video postings, the entire department was actually locked out from responding and mutual aid covered the town for one week. The social media aspect of liability is a hot topic today in the fire service. Many here have debated the "freedom of speech" aspect of their videos. What do you guys think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QffHLMvaoqg&feature=related
In my opinion, when we are acting as a member of any department, paid, call or volunteer, everything is property of the town. I have known some department's to create social media policies, that clearly spell out everything you do, everything to photograph or video is property of the town and can't be released. This includes the newer helmet camera. Which in reality does reduce the town's overall liability from potential lawsuits.
I looked further and found a longer version of the original response video, it was about 9 minutes long. The call was for a medical emergency, child injured, actually mutual aid to another town. The video is for the most part uneventful, but one poster in the YouTube comments was quick to point out these comments...
Ed20298 says: The author comments about how this video isn't interesting, but it is you just have to look. Speed of travel is interesting. There's a section of I-95 that a measure mile is completed in 39 seconds, translation 92 mph. Plus on this video there is a 5.8 mile section of this video that is completed in 4 m 55 s. Average speed: 71mph, and its visable that there's slowing down for corners. With that said 75-80 is obtained during sections of this travel. Thats criminal speed in a "personal vehicle"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qOMHvpmbQo
So from simply a liability reduction standpoint, did the town manager see a different view of liability when a future accident happens. Lawyers and their team are paid alot of money to do research to support a case. Would an accident case with recorded video evidence of pre-exisiting driving habits be liability?
Just curious... Whats FFN's take on this matter?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
And while we're talking about "social media", this was in the newspaper today.
It should have a chilling effect on the nameless flamethrowers.
http://www.qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=497100
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
How many videos are there that show (or offer significant evidence) that he speeds?
Are some here weakly extrapolating based on rather limited information/evidence?
So a Chief talking on the radio while responding is neither allowed nor considered acceptable?
One incident of speeding?
One incident of crossing the white line (which, of course no one here as ever done, even in their own vehicle)? Was he speeding at the time he crossed the white line?
Stopping, or the lack thereof? Clear line of sight on approach? Time of day? Weather conditions? Traffic? What do the department SOP's/State Motor Vehicle Regs say with regard to this?
Art, considering that you present yourself as ChiefReason you seem to be a 'bit' unreasonable here, in my opinion. Rather than call for calm and reason you seem all to ready to hang this chief for what appears to be one incident of speeding. Are you really that 'sin' free?
Also, I've checked dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com and cambridge.org. none of them seem to have heard of 'penchance'. Can you offer a source that confirms it as a word?
-
-
"Penchant"...
And I'm not hanging anybody.
And I am being reasonable in my assumptions.
If he wants to post his response videos, then he needs to do a better job of setting a "good" example.
And when you talk about ONE video, how many needs to be posted?
I remember ONE video with a helmet cam that YOU were all over, among others.
But, that's "different"?
I don't think so.
-
-
Oh and let's not forget Jason Browne.
He only posted ONE video and it cost him his job.
And few saw very little that was "derogatory".
Videos and pictures are in the "eyes of the beholder".
And I am not beholding to anyone.
And when we get ONE complaint, even if it's the first time, on a firefighter's driving, we deal with it.
It falls under "if it applies, apply it; if not, then disregard".
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Peterson on
-
I was quick to my responce and after hearing he was responding to mutual aid in next town I think he did ok, maybe a little faster in some places then I would have, but I was not there. So the only thing I might actually comment on was him posting the video, was responce by town council over kill....you bet. I do know one thing, I am sure he was doing what he thought was right at the time.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
Of course it's penchant. (I thought I already established that.)
Of course you're hanging him. ("Fire him" means "hang him".)
Of course your assumptions are reasonable. (I assume he was speeding, too. Firing him is unreasonable.)
Of course he needs to do a better job of setting a "good example". (He'll better be able to do that when he's not hanged/fired).
Of course we're talking about ONE video. (That's all we have, and we need more than that to hang/fire a guy.
Of course you were directing your comments about the helmet cam to Jack. (I'm not among those who had a problem with it).
Of course it really is "different". (I don't think Jack supported hanging/firing the guy).
-
-
Art,
Who's Jason Browne?
Also, I'm not understanding your writing when you're saying you're not "beholding to anyone". What does that mean?
I agree we should deal with a first-time complaint about a firefighter's driving. How do you deal with it?
-
-
Are assumptions ever reasonable? Or are they always subjective?
Which video helmet/cam are we talking about?
"Different"? Dunno, not without something I can hang my hat on.
Art, your writing (lately) suggests some attempt (intentional or otherwise) of Haiku. I'm not sure you can pull it off. How about just saying what it is you want to say.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
Ed20298 says: The author comments about how this video isn't interesting, but it is you just have to look. Speed of travel is interesting. There's a section of I-95 that a measure mile is completed in 39 seconds, translation 92 mph. Plus on this video there is a 5.8 mile section of this video that is completed in 4 m 55 s. Average speed: 71mph, and its visable that there's slowing down for corners. With that said 75-80 is obtained during sections of this travel. Thats criminal speed in a "personal vehicle"
This is a fascinating response which takes scrutiny to a whole new level. Food for thought.
However, the shutting down of the FD is far too harsh. It achieves nothing and if anything could potentially compromise community safety.
This case clearly highlights the need for SOP's on these sort of issues to ensure it is clear what the expectations are...
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Jackpot we have a winner!!!
The focus of drving and speeds may or may not be a factor in the disciplinary action. (Looks a bit fast at times but I can honestly say I have pushed the envelope on certain calls) but regardless of that aspect, the solution to the fire service's recent problem with the freedom of speech issue and social media.
When operating in an official capacity as a responder, regardless of rank, title or status of pay, you actually have no freedom of speech. You are representing an organization, representing your boss, (yes fire chief's have bosses too) and many feel that our PERSONAL rights over throw our professional one's.
Policies and procedures will clearly identify, parameters for which a person working for an organization is expected to operate within.
-
-
FETC,
If we have a winner, I sure hope that doesn't mean we have to stop arguing.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
