Comments on: Cop Sought Birmingham Style Fire Hoses

By: Tam

Tam — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:24:32 +0000

Plus, if I might chime in, fire hoses on people who are protesting and alert with all their faculties about them causes one kind of impact. Fire hoses on a bunch of drunk people, the potential for injury and crowd trampeling is far greater.

By: Inthemiddle

Inthemiddle — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:46:00 +0000

Is there any reason for not using fire hoses, other than the specter of 1960s civil rights days in Birmingham, Alabama?

If fire hoses are to be banned for emotional reasons like these, that’s perfectly fine. I just want to know all the reasons against this practice. Really, is it any more or less risky than pepper spray?

EDITOR NOTE–The spector of Birmingham civil rights protests should be enough. The real gist of this posting was far from the merits of one spray over another. The issue as the GUARDIAN saw it was a cop making a private call to the fire station (not via dispatch) asking about fire hoses when official police spokesman adamently denied that fire hoses would ever be used and a captain or deputy chief was quoted as saying he would never authorize use of fire hoses.

Why the heck did the cop even check with fire and why didn’t he go through the chain of command? THAT is the issue. Imagine if fire department had honored the request. Would police brass hang the lieutenant or sergeant out to dry? (sorry, couldn’t resist that)

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:27:22 +0000

This discussion between John and Tam is disturbing. Tam’s right, the Guardian’s post properly sourced the material. He makes a mistake once in a while but he’s good at correcting mistakes when brought to his attention. Its not like this is his employment but he cares about getting it right. I appreciate having a ready forum on topics of the day and the fresh perspective the Guardian provides which is decidedly different from the daily paper. He also has sources the paper either chose not to cite or failed to locate with its superior resources. The disturbing part is a self proclaimed “content provider” more worried about the “stealing” of his content than using a dictionary.

By: Tam

Tam — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:25:36 +0000

“Stealing” is a pretty big word for someone who, perhaps, doesn’t have his own story straight. EVEN IF (and that may not be the case here) Guardian picked the story up from the Statesman, I think “stealing” would be an inflammatory and misdirected term, since once it’s published it’s impossible to steal it. As for “it takes resources to dig up and disseminate information…”. It surely does…and perhaps Guardian (the person, not the forum) is better connected than many “daily” “content providers”. Just maybe, the Guardian stands as such a “resource”. I don’t expect everyone involved in this little bit of business to come forward and candidly explain who knew what and when, and who told whom and when, or who wrote what and when. I do think someone who claims to be a “content provider” should be beyond such sensitive proclivities.

By: john

john — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:03:43 +0000

Who cares where the story came from!?!?! Uh, that’s a pretty basic tenent of journalism. I, for one, care where the story came from so I can decide how much credibility I should give it.

The Guardian attributed that QUOTE to the Statesman, but not the story, which is much more important.

When was the last time the Statesman actually used a Guardian scoop? That’s what I thought.

I like the Guardian, it serves a roll. But being a “content provider” myself, I’m sensative to one outlet stealing information from another outlet without credit. It takes resources to dig up and disseminate information. Only fair to give credit to those who do it.

By: Tam

Tam — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:42:32 +0000

Who cares where the story came from. Guardian stated “…the daily paper quoted spokeswoman…” How much more credit did you need? That, to those of us with enough snap to pick up on it means “the Statesman had the story before I did” or at least “before I posted it”. When was the last time the Statesman gave credit to the Guardian for getting the scoop on them? Yeah, I think not.

By: john

john — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 04:08:36 +0000

How about crediting this to The Statesman, which broke the story, instead of pretending it’s your own?

Oh yea, I forgot newspapers are dead, it’s all about “the blogosphere” now! Please.

By: Naomi

Naomi — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:32:21 +0000

Seems everyone has missed the boat with the, “We don’t do that” quote, including this blog’s author.

In emergency response training there is only ONE group who is in charge of security and crowd control – the police. When someone calls 911, no matter what the problem, a police officer is sent to the scene. Why? Because even if it is a fire, crowd control may be needed.

Usually, the police car drives by or stays nearby because in these suburban areas they aren’t needed much. However, in some inner cities the police have been very much needed to insure the safety of paramedics and firefighters just so they can do their job.

So the ‘We don’t do that” probably meant “We don’t work crowd control.” A firefighter’s job is to quelch fires and possibly offer emergency first aid, if they are also trained paramedics, but that is it. One day the BPD may own fire hoses themselves, in which case, we might see that tactic of crowd control used again.

By: Chester

Chester — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:36:24 +0000

Hey Rod and Razzbar, you remind me of alot of folks here in town, always criticizing but never suggesting solutions. try walking a mile in a cop’s shoes. Easy to point out the problem not so easy to be helpful with the solution.

By: Razzbar

Razzbar — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:58:37 +0000

Hey Rod, it’s not just 20-somethings they don’t like. Cops have a low opinion of everybody except those who have power over them.

Anyway, I expect this weekend might see an extra large crowd downtown, just to see if something will happen. And the cops will be expecting trouble, too. Funny things happen in crowds that expect trouble.