Firemen reprimanded for disturbing a disturbing gay sex act in park

Whew!

 

So are they allowed to get it on in this park or what? In the US, you aren't allowed to fuck in public places.

 

Maybe it lost something in translation, or maybe m just retarded, but I have no idea what the hell happened. I know it involved a group of wad gobblins snoodling in a park, and a group of firemen watching them, and hosing them down (pissing on them, or squirting with a hose, or chasing them out of the village with their torches?) bah, i hope my check comes today, so i can buy my PS3, and not have to read the sober forum

 

No, that's right. And it happened in a special park for people who suffer from downs apparently.

 

Yeah, it's the same here. 'Dogging' is only permitted for doggies.

 

LOL I heart you nursey.

 

That's what I had hoped. I don't think the fireman did anything wrong.

 

I know I am harping on the same one-string violin again, but the reason rescue personnel aren't supposed to do things like that is because if members of the general public, including disease-spreading public nuisances, don't feel they can trust rescue personnel COMPLETELY and without reservation, they are more hesitant to call on them, which unfortunately leads to a delay in getting assistance in emergency situations, and a even a brief hesitation before calling can be the critical difference between rescuers getting there in time to prevent major damage/loss of life, or not.

Were the disease vectors wrong for having sex in a public park? Absolutely. Were the firemen also wrong for using firehouse equipment to alarm and humiliate the disease vectors? Also, absolutely.

I understand why the firemen were disciplined. It doesn't mean I think people should be sucking cock and taking it in the ass in parks. It just means that I understand, and also agree with, the idea that firemen must not break the absolute trust of the public. They should go back to the firehouse and call the police, in a situation like that where no one is (directly) being harmed.

 

I'm picking up what you're putting down.

Had the firefighters been you or I though (not working for the city), I don't think we should have gotten in any trouble if we 'spotlighted' them with a spotlight.

 

Right. And we wouldn't. If people want to drive around in trucks shining their own privately-owned lights into public bushes, they can. The firefighters were disciplined by the fire department because they were being naughty firefighters and breaking the rules of being a firefighter.

 

I completely understand you're position Lola. It reminds me of so many conversations with my wife where I have pointed out an angle that is valid even if it does not make the case I would like to show. Just because she can be oblivious to other perspectives than her own. She accuses me of taking someone else’s side. Not the case I have to explain that it's only logical to see someone else’s perspective weather or not you agree with their over all position. And this is one of those cases.

It comes down to the weight of the evidence and what is known by reading the article. Like when O.J. Simpson’s lawyer told the jury *who were already sympathetic to the accused*. "If the glove didn't fit you must acquit". He played on their emotions they did not look logically at the scenario. Obviously they were tight fitting gloves in the first place which is what you would want. They had been soaked in blood and then placed in a forensics bag to dry he was wearing a rubber surgical glove and forcibly spreading his fingers. They never saw this because they did not want to. They simply needed an excuse and they got what they wanted.

In this scenario it seems you are making a valid yet trivial point. The only way it would be valid is if the fire fighters were going out of their way on a joy ride to harass the public in a park. Unless I read incorrectly they were not. All that is needed here is a verbal reprimand and the violators in the park should still be prosecuted.

Some how the public has been conditioned to believe that justice means that if any slightly perceivable event occurs that is questionable in any manner while uncovering a crime then all charges are null and void.

 

I'm glad that you're able to look at differing perspectives, but I fear you're still missing the point. Rescue services are not supposed to act as law enforcement, for reasons of public safety.

Furthermore, the violators in the park *can't* legally be prosecuted, because what they were doing was a misdemeanor and not a felony, and since they were not apprehended by law enforcement now it's hearsay. A confession of a misdemeanor is not prosecutable.

You've mentioned that you've smoked pot on this board. Do you think that admission makes you prosecutable? Do you think it should?

The firemen are not being prosecuted in a court of law, they are being disciplined by their employer for violating policy. The fines may be excessive, or they may not... frankly, to me it sounds like they're excessive, and they're probably being "made an example of".

 

They didn't act as law enforcement. They shone a light on the bushes where the four dog orgy was happening. And were reported by one of the group and subsequently reprimanded for 'homophobic behaviour' - not for attempting to enforce the law.

 

I was presuming that they shone the light in the bushes in order to rout out or otherwise dismay the people engaging in "activity". So maybe that can't be interpreted as an act of law enforcement, but any action that compromises any public sector's willingness to trust in the fire department is subject to censure by the department's leadership. You may think it's stupid, but if a anyone fails to report a fire in the early stages because he's afraid of discriminatory treatment and then the fire spreads and someone's kids end up dying, there's the consequences.

You don't have to acknowledge or agree with that point.

 

For that matter, if they WEREN'T acting on some notion of upholding the law, what they did was even less defensible.

 

What a crock & wonder if full story isn't told in that report as I can't see what the firies did wrong to upset the 4 little dears .... yes I know deers don't like being caught in the spotlights but these dears arn't the 4 leg type, the political correctness fairies have struck a new level of stupidity, if any ppl want to bonk in public it's the risk of being discovered they take so buck up guys you got caught so try being a bit more descrete.
I myself have taken several ladies out doors & although the thrill of could be caught takes thing to a higher level were not even close to being caught.

 

And what about just human curiosity to see, perhaps, where strange, beastial noises were coming from as the Chain O' Sodom was being performed by the rampant doggers that lurked in nearby, darkened bushes? Maybe they thought there was a distressed cat stuck up a tree!

 

You can flip this all over the place with scenarios of what their duty is. The firefighters could have been looking to assist someone in danger as was previously mentioned in the thread.

Point is there should have been a wink -n- nod reprimand by the fire chief publicly. And then a question and answer session by the chief later with the accused. Then either an ass chewing or a pat on the back depending on the outcome.

 

I dunno, I kind of take that whole "public trust" thing seriously. But to each his own.

 

I agree with what you are saying as far as the public trust thing goes. I just don't think the firemen breached it by stopping, lighting up the bush in the dark park and then continuing on their way, leaving the shamed, shitty condom droppers to continue with their grotty practice unchallenged.