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 WestPhilly on
-
I did.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
From the outside looking in (things are run very differently over here), my view of the situation, with the information we have:
The Chief appears to have been suspended for willfully disobeying a directive from his senior management. What would be the Chiefs reaction if one of the firefighters under him did the same thing, disobeyed a valid, lawful instruction? Would he take action of just ignore it? I would hope that he would take some action.
Management standing down the whole FD because one of it's staff was doing the wrong thing? Ridiculous, such an action shows very poor management - can they not work with/control one employee?
The Chiefs driving.
..Driving lights and sirens in a personal vehicle; doesn't happen here, lights and sirens not permited for personal vehicles. But, if they are allowed by his state law and organisation, he can use them. But while doing so, the vehicle comes is part of the department, he is representing it. Any video then come under the organisation rules.
..Keeping the siren going the whole time? Maybe his state law requires that? If not I don't see the need for most of his highway driving. On the minor road, at the speed he was traveling probably yes, use it.
..The high speed? What does his state law require/allow? Was the speed really necessary? Yes the call was urgent, but that sort of speed is dangerous. Speeding can too easily make you another problem instead of the solution. We aren't allowed to exceed the speed limit by more than 20 km/h (12.5 mph) - the law allowes us to but the fire service doesn't.
FETC. Is that the sort of response you were seeking? I'm not saying you have to agree with it of course!
-
Permalink Reply by Norm Tindell on
-
Oh, please don't make me watch it again! I promise to wax the floors and wash the apparatus instead!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Meadows on
-
I can agree with a lot of what you are saying. Thank you for clarifying that capt. And I can agree with you that if (and it appears since he was warned about putting videos on youtube he did) violate the SOP/SOG of his dept. he should be suspended or termanated. I can also agree that 92 MPH is too fast to go on the interstate. That said it doesn't say in the article if he was on I-95 when he was going 71. I don't know the policy in Maine as far as speed, I do know from driving OTR in a truck that the car speed limit in most places is 70. So that would not be excessive. I know here in KY if you are in your personal auto (or fire truck because this would constitute not driving with due reguard) and you go 92 MPH in a 70 you get a ticket and rightly so. Plus our Chief would have a few choice words for you back at the station. I'd like to hear from some people in Maine concerning the speed issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Rusty Mancini on
-
FETC, He was warned. Yes it could turn ugly for the town, videos can be powerful evidence for, or against you.
If I was a betting man, I would say it's about the liability, and the manager was covering his x ss and the towns. One wrong decision while responding cold be very costly for both. It's too easy for an attorney in these times, all he has to do is go to you tube for his research, and then you're done! These videos are archives for the vultures.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Goodall had every right to post his videos.
His employer had every right to tell him not to.
Goodall had every right to ignore his employer.
And his employer has every right to fire him...and should.
With regards to his driving?
The video speaks for itself.
He is an accident waiting to happen and the fire department would be stuck with the tab.
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Peterson on
-
I have to admit that I didn't watch the whole video, but my big question is what is he responding to...seams like he was way out of responce area, I mean if 9 min to somewhere in POV isn't beyond responce range i don't know what.
On a side note he needs a new radio, did you hear the audio, it stinks!
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Wayne - It was a medical call with a child (trauma), mutual aid, direct to the scene in nearby town.
As far as local laws, highway speed limit is 65. Some of the side roads signage was posted at 45. At the top of the entrance ramp to the highway, you can see a small mile marker sign and another go by 39 seconds later in the very first mile.
Tony - Yes thanks for the reply and it is what I was looking for. Not looking to argue right or wrong. It was used as a tool to spark dialogue in class for Leadership by Example, Followship and Public Preception.
-
-
FETC:
I can only add that it was poor leadership that hired/appointed Goodall as chief.
You don't develop those types of driving habits over night.
Leadership should have confiscated or at least banned Goodall from outfitting his "personal" vehicle with lights and sirens.
Leadership should have taken swift, harsh action as soon as the first video that could identify their fire department showed up on YouTube.
Goodall showed a lack of leadership and irresponsibility by posting videos on YouTube that clearly showed his penchance for violating traffic codes.
Yeah; good examples of a lack of leadership by city "leaders" and fire department "leaders".
A rudder-less ship comes to mind.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Armstrong on
-
I watched the videos and I am not sure as to the breaking of the speed laws.I'm not versed in dipicting from a video as to distance versus time as there are no pictures of the speedometer or odometer in the video to compare these to.So are we actually jumping to conclusions or was FETC's analysis true to fact I don't know.What are the rules for this area as far as speed responding to an emergency.Every place is different over in the USA.Here it can be 80 kph(50mph) and switch to 90 km in the middle of a stretch of road and 400 series highways are 100 kph.(60mph) which are similar to your interstates.And I have been on a stretch of your I-75 and doing 70 mph in the slow lane and got passed by a funeral procession like I was travelling in reverse.
As far as calling this guy a whacker.What right do you have unless you know all the rules of every jurisdition in every county of every state he may have been following every law except maybe the rolling stop at the stop sign.And maybe it is his SOG that dictates that when his pager goes he is to have his lights and sirens going for the duration of his travel or the state law may say that a light and siren response is required,I don't know do you?If he has sirens in his car it's not just cause he wanted them it's because they are required but it may just be an assumption on my part.I think that if more rules were broken that the chick from town council would have brought that up instead of just the fact that he was told not to post the videos and he did anyway.And for the guy that says he should be charged for impersinating a police officer holy cow.Let me set something straight for ya.When you are responding to a call and I don't know if you noticed or not but the siren would be great cause did you see how close the trees were to the side of the road there is also the danger of an animal running out in front of you (not sure if you've ever hit a deer or seen someone else hit a deer but it can really make a mess) that would scare them off and maybe being an officer he has to respond irregardless of his location and these tools are needed or required by law.
Yes he was wrong for disobeying the direct order for posting them on you tube and for that he should have been dealt with.Was he dealt with accordingly not for me to decide but yes he should have got some sort of disipline but to shut down your whole station is totally ludicris and in itself may have posed a lawsuit against the town if something would have happened during that week.That was a bit on the extreme side.Makes me wonder if the chick from town council was power tripping that day.
I'm sure I'll get alot of feedback from this but oh well just my opinion?
-
-
Thanks Art, I never said anything was handled perfectly on either side. The fact that they closed down the department is a concern for the people who fund an organization, built on trust and potentially ruined by that preception alone.
Richard - Respectfully disagree... Stop putting words into my mouth. The speeds were calculated and posted on YouTube by someone else not me. I do know that if you go 60 mph on a roadway it takes you 60 seconds to travel a full mile. Now if it was done in 39 seconds, seems alot faster than 60. I do not live in this state, but most states the rules of the road apply and when you have an accident, if you are speeding, busting red lights or stop signs you are on the hook, regardless of your lights, sirens, etc.
But if you read all the other responses, the possible driving infractions in this video are not the topic of this discussion. It happens to be what some have focused on, it again is a social media issue that has opened a pandoras box to allow others, the public, our bosses, to see how we handle ourselves both professionally and sometimes not so much with concern to liability.
Not to defend the town manager for her actions, but if the head person is not following orders, and potentially operating recklessly, how can anyone previeve that the subordinates are any different?
It was probably looked into, and then decided to re-open with someone else as acting chief during his suspension. That may seem extreme to some, but we are not privi to any and all the underlying issues either.
-
-
I didn't realize you did not make the distance vs time theory I apologize but that wasn't what I was getting at anyway.I read a couple guys call him a whackeer for speeding FETC and There really is no proof that he was driving crazy by the video other than how fast the yellow lines were going by and they didn't look like they were going by really that fast.it just gets to me when everyone jumps on a guy and starts calling him a whacker when there is absolutly no proof.I did not see the youtube thing where the time vs distance thing was discussed but like you said that was not the point of the thread so I will not look any further into it cause I'm not a police reconstructor so I don't have the knowledge but I just wanted to get across to the people who always the first thing out of their keyboard is "this guy is a whacker" has to stop without proof that he actually did break a law or that why he has to use lights and sirens is he thinkin he's cool or something when it may very well be an sog or a law in his state or county.
Yes it is the topic of how the town council shut down a whole department because of a video being posted and that like I said is probably a bigger chance of a lawsuit than an officer rolling a dash cam responding to a call and posting it on you tube.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
