Fiery fracas over firing

[Fancy]

I'm absolutely GOBSMACKED that anyone can have any empathy or an iota of support for this turnip .

You are misunderstanding - no empathy here. I'm talking from a legal point of view.

[normaM]

Because you asked a few times why ppl thought he didn't OWN a vehicle

[MAPearce]

Because you asked a few times why ppl thought he didn't OWN a vehicle

At 100k plus per year , I'd hope his Lexus was just in the shop ..

[Fancy]

Because you asked a few times why ppl thought he didn't OWN a vehicle

I get it - but not having a personal vehicle at a venue doesn't mean not owning one. So people jump to conclusions right or wrong.

[MAPearce]

So people jump to conclusions right or wrong.

The man was impaired while driving a FIRE DEPARTMENT vehicle .

That's more than a " leap of faith " Fancy ..

Turfing the turnip was the right thing to do AND I hope the judge feels the same way .

[polelady]

WELL, WELL, WELL lots of comments... here goes another WILD thought to throw in the pile for discussion..
Perhaps he was on call,,,, yes had his pager with him .. and that is why he had the company truck... so IF A MAJOR FIRE
breaks out he has to respond to or get his *bleep* to the fire hall.... NOW...
If that was the case and who only knows.. ???? I would not want him to be driving a 60 ft fire truck with a blood level over the legal limit.... oh well something looks and smells rotten in the wood pile... there is usually more to the story.. than the media tells us at times... !!!!

[TreeGuy]

WELL, WELL, WELL lots of comments... here goes another WILD thought to throw in the pile for discussion..
Perhaps he was on call,,,, yes had his pager with him .. and that is why he had the company truck... so IF A MAJOR FIRE
breaks out he has to respond to or get his *bleep* to the fire hall.... NOW...
If that was the case and who only knows.. ???? I would not want him to be driving a 60 ft fire truck with a blood level over the legal limit.... oh well something looks and smells rotten in the wood pile... there is usually more to the story.. than the media tells us at times... !!!!

If he was actually on call then he made even a poorer choice drinking alcohol.

He wouldn't go to the Firehall if he had the Chiefs truck, he would go directly to the scene and set up command, thats what they do.

An Assistant Fire Chief does not drive fire apparatus. The Firemen (Firepeople? What do we call them these days?) are the ones driving the apparatus and operating them on scene. Chiefs (white helmets) and Officers (red helmets) are the ones in charge of the scene.

[vegas1500]

He probably does own his own vehicle, if married his wife would have a vehicle.

If he owned his own vehicle then why did he choose to take the Chiefs vehicle for a night out on the town?

#makespoordecisions

#suckitup

I agree that was a very poor decision. He was paid out vacation and overtime but lost every other benefit (i.e. medical/dental etc.) and was not given adequate notice. Remains to be seen what exactly was in the contract.

Doesn’t need adequate notice if fired with cause....at best give him 2weeks and send him packing. I also believe that even if he wasn’t drinking he is not allowed to use the company vehicle for personal use. Some companies wil fire for that alone.

[Fancy]

The man was impaired while driving a FIRE DEPARTMENT vehicle .

That's more than a " leap of faith " Fancy ..

I never said anything about a leap of faith - I have no idea what you are talking about and why you would quote my statement:

So people jump to conclusions right or wrong.

when referring to whether he owned a vehicle or not. The guy should not have been driving while under the influence (that's a given) nor using a company vehicle for personal purposes (as I stated before). Talk about posters nitpicking without knowing what they are nitpicking about.

[Fancy]

Doesn’t need adequate notice if fired with cause....at best give him 2weeks and send him packing. I also believe that even if he wasn’t drinking he is not allowed to use the company vehicle for personal use. Some companies wil fire for that alone.

As stated earlier, one side says it was with just cause but the lawsuit states otherwise. According to media reports he wasn't allowed to use the company vehicle for personal purposes. I don't understand why he would do that to start with.

[Fancy]

WELL, WELL, WELL lots of comments... here goes another WILD thought to throw in the pile for discussion..
Perhaps he was on call,,,, yes had his pager with him .. and that is why he had the company truck... so IF A MAJOR FIRE
breaks out he has to respond to or get his *bleep* to the fire hall.... NOW...
If that was the case and who only knows.. ???? I would not want him to be driving a 60 ft fire truck with a blood level over the legal limit.... oh well something looks and smells rotten in the wood pile... there is usually more to the story.. than the media tells us at times... !!!!

He said he was off duty so I can't imagine him not disclosing being on call and all media outlets not reporting it.

[normaM]

for the love of god, Fancy you kept asking why ppl thought he didn't have a vehicle
I Pointed out why
And then, you do the usual
shakes head
honest.. next time you start talking about the LEGAL aspects
Is this a Courtroom? No, people are voicing their opinions
Hey there is an opening in SUITS

[Fancy]

for the love of god, Fancy you kept asking why ppl thought he didn't have a vehicle

No, I haven't kept asking - I read the article too don't forget. I just get a kick out of the assumptions.

honest.. next time you start talking about the LEGAL aspects Is this a Courtroom? No, people are voicing their opinions

Really???? Wow - and I just thought this was a discussion forum. Now I am shaking my head.

[ferri]

Don't start making this personal please. Thanks!

[Fancy]

Obviously public servants should be held to a much higher standard.

Should public servants be held to a higher standard? Or should they be subject to the contracts they sign and the laws we have in place?