Firefighter Refused to Respond to Tucson Shooting Rampage Because of Political Differences

No. The title of the story does but the actual article is quite nuanced. It doesn't talk about a finger-pointing situation at all. In fact it's pretty hard to work out what exactly was going on.

not really, in fact i just read the unedited and full article and this one was clearly edited to show it from a different perspective and one with a very clear attempt to make this a left right issue

I read them both too. I see them both as nuanced. From neither of them can I get any hooks for an argument. The only place is the title.

well we all cant read as deeply as each other i guess

innocent until proven guilty!

bullshit

If you care to provide reference to your bullshit, and a logical argument against it, I'll take you seriously.

The rest of the crew being tea cracked pots were gleefully saying that Rep Giffords and the 9 year old girl got what they deserved. And when they had the chance they would do the same to Ekstrum.

Hate, fear and class war fare?
You are blind if you don't see it here - right now - 24/7 by your socialist comrades at current.

I don't hate you, I don't fear you,
and there is never any reason to start a war.
there is a time for corporations and other gamblers to pay their fair share of taxes though

I agree with blueshound for a change. Surprise me bluedog.

Are you not reading the article? Are you not aware of the fact that emergency responders don't decide for themselves which calls they go out on and which ones they don't?

It doesn't matter what they were called out to do...even if it was to assist in decontamination of the area from biological products, or to use the trucks for crowd control, or whatever--he disobeyed an order, and, according to the article, that is grounds for termination.

They were preparing the INtent to Terminate documents when he retired. Coward to the end, I see, and unwilling or incompetent to take personal responsibility for his own actions.

again it seems like you and others are using a nonstory out of thin air to espouse some hate at the percieved 'other side' and it has no place in a forum for discussion of actual matters of import that affect all of humankind

I'm not defending his actions but with 28 years of service I seriously doubt he would let his political beliefs be his reason for not responding, there has to be more that has not yet been revealed and I for one will not pass judgement on so little information. You don't serve for 28 years and suddenly decide you are going to stop responding.

"WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS SAID..."

but lets criticize him anyway...

Who cares about facts, and truth and due process?

Lets all spew are personal vendettas!

He was the captain of what is, as a category, an emergency responder. They don't get to pick and choose which calls they want to go out on.

The excuse of all of the dead and wounded being transported already is not only cowardly and lame, it is a red herring, and is proof that they cannot think of a better way to explain his cowardly actions.

The rest of the crew being tea cracked pots were gleefully saying that Rep Giffords and the 9 year old girl got what they deserved. And when they had the chance they would do the same to Ekstrum.

Ekstrum was a good fire fighter for 28 years. So what was said by the rest of the crew is critically important. Have you ever heard the saying, "innocent until proven guilty?"

The argument that it was because of political discussions or differences is just another lame excuse. It is also a red herring, indicating he could not think of a better reason for not wanting to go out on the call. Unless his personnel policies for his position says he can refuse to go out on calls he doesn't like, or on calls that might make him uncomfortable politically, then he deserves to be terminated, and should not get his retirement or pension.

As I said to PoliticalAmazon I don't believe a firefighter who has responded to calls for 28 years would suddenly let his politics override his sense of Duty. There's a lot of pieces missing here.

Read the article again. You don't have any of the facts right.

The rest of the crew being tea cracked pots were gleefully saying that Rep Giffords and the 9 year old girl got what they deserved. And when they had the chance they would do the same to Ekstrum.

I'll tell you what it means. It means his superiors, who had more important things than Ekstrum's incompetence to get himself and his crew out on the call as directed. This was a horrible tragedy, with many implications. At the time Ekstrum was having his personal crisis over poliltical bantering, they didn't even know if there were more shooters out there, waiting to strike again. His crew had to go out without him, and I would bet that took attention from Ekstrum's superiors to deal with, too. Also, if they are used to having Ekstrum as their captain on calls, to go without him would be disruptive and confusing, as well.

Ekstrum's only concern was his own emotional crisis. He let down his crew, the Fire Department he worked for, and the Tucson residents, who depended on him to do his job as instructed to do it.

I hope his fellow firefighters shun him, both for causing disruption in the middle of such a horrible tragedy, but for bringing shame and dishonor on the firefighters of Tucson and elsewhere.

The rest of the crew being tea cracked pots were gleefully saying that Rep Giffords and the 9 year old girl got what they deserved. And when they had the chance they would do the same to Ekstrum.

Was he actually rooting for Loughner? That's what his actions say.

I'd say so.

If that is the case, I stand corrected and have a different view of this guy's actions.

The big unknown is what were the other fire fighters in his crew saying to him? He was a registered Democrat for some 20 years or so. A Democratic Representative was possibly assassinated.

Imagine this scenario:

The rest of the crew being tea cracked pots were gleefully saying that Rep Giffords and the 9 year old girl got what they deserved. And when they had the chance they would do the same to Ekstrum.

Good point. Easy for him to claim he voted for Giffords, but his actions speak otherwise.

I don't care what he said his political party affiliation is, or anything else.

His actions are what count, and when innocent Tucson civilians were slaughtered, his actions supported Loughner.

I disagree. An emergency services worker is not granted with the right to decide which orders to accept and which not to accept. If they are assigned to an event, they must report.

The articles indicate to refuse to report to an event is a termination infraction. Therefore, until a full investigation was completed, Mr. Eskram didn't have the right to simply retire.

If he didn't want to follow the rules and policies of his job, he should have quit before his unwillingness to do as ordered might result in the death of innocent people.

As a human you are granted the right to decide what you do and don't do.

I'm not saying that he's right or he's wrong...nor am I saying that there aren't consequences for our actions, but we always have a choice.

I disagree as well, his job isn't to decide which calls he's comfortable going to, but to respond to the situation at hand.

I understand why many don't agree and that's fine, but I do think there are some people making some snap (and harsh) judgments before having all the information.

I can't help but think of the responders to 911 and if they knew then what they know now would they have made the same decisions even if it was their 'duty' to do so. Some likely would, but there is probably a group who have suffered greatly as a result who wouldn't be so quick to respond and I wouldn't blame them at all.

I know that it's not the same set of circumstances, but it all still comes down to choices. I make mine...you make yours and we handle the rewards or consequences.

Wrong. Prior service has little bearing if you commit a known terminable offense.

Again..you're free to feel that way. I don't...not in this instance.

you really seem adamant on increasing the arguments on this non issue. agenda ?

With choice comes consequences.

If he was unfit for duty, he should have resigned before. he didn't. He liked all the perks of being a firefighter, and accepted them all. Yet when it came time to do his part of the employment quid pro quo deal, he decided not to?

I bet there will be a full-blown inquiry. One of the things they need to look at is if he was involved in any of the Loughner craziness. I can't understand why else he would refuse to do as ordered, especially when the citizens of Tucson needed him and his men so badly.

We are all making posts based on what we know at this moment. That is what one does on message boards.

Some opiions may need fine-tuning later on. You may call some harsh, yet you don't add the opposite reality---that some of them are too soft and coddling.

That is a valid point.

Though it seems that many (myself included at times) are quick to think the worst. In this instance I have a difficult time throwing someone under the bus who has 28 years of service under their belt. Granted I don't know his record of service, but I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if and until all of the facts are revealed. I would hope that someone would grant me the same courtesy.

If he refused to respond due solely to political differences with his crew over the incident then he needs to go.
Let's pose another question. If public employees strike or otherwise refuse to work despite having differences of opinion with their boss over policy should they be fired? Let's assume that there are no violations of labor or criminal law but the work stoppage results from what may happen in the future.

Your insight comes from being deaf, dumb and blind.

Your analogy is completely off the topic and factually irrelevant.

You do not know what the other crew members were saying to him.

There are methods of managing "crews" that failed before this firefighter took sick leave.

He went home sick. Is this admirable? Certainly not.

Does he deserve to be fired after 28 years of service? Certainly not.

I think there is a legal principle stated simply: "innocent until proven guilty." How can you bigots jump to conclusions without knowing the facts, not being present at the time of the occurrence, and incapable of rational thought?

Thanks for playing the bigot card. The absurdity of your implication that it is bigots who are criticizing the leader of a fire crew for refusing to respond to a multiple-shooting incident because of discomfort over diffierences in political opinions is patently absurd.

If you can provide proof that the policies governing his performance of his duties includes the option to not perform his duties if he feels uncomfortable with the political opinions of those with whom he will have to work, then please post the proof.

Otherwise, based on the standard practices and policies of companies and organizations such as this Fire Department, he refused to perform his duties and, instead, fraudulently walked out after launching an impromptu "sick-leave" excuse.

The fact that his wife was able to drag him back to apologize later indicates he wasn't sick.

Why do firefighters seem to spend so much time hosing down the sidewalk? I remember watching this daily occurrence when I lived next to the station for a year. Huge high pressure fire hoses to wash down their driveway and sidewalks. They'd even use them to water the grass when the sprinklers weren't cutting it in the heat of summer.

I mean maintainence and upkeep are important, but couldn't they knit blankets for the homeless or something when they have nothing better to do? Seems like a waste of taxpayer water and payroll if you ask me.

IMO, it depends on what the policies for their positions require. Usually, a worker has to, at the beginning of employment, sign acknowledging they have been informed of the policies and agree to follow them or suffer the repercussions. If that has been accomplished, then they need to do what they agreed to...or be willing to suffer the repercussions.

A worker can't just blow off what they've agreed to do as a condition of their unemployment (unless there were extenuating circumstances, such as being ordered to do an illegal act, or because of fear for one's own safety outside of the job description), and then retire with pension and benefits.

There were extenuating circumstances. Learn to read.

Your insight comes from being deaf, dumb and blind.

Your analogy is completely off the topic and factually irrelevant.

You do not know what the other crew members were saying to him.

There are methods of managing "crews" that failed before this firefighter took sick leave.

He went home sick. Is this admirable? Certainly not.

Does he deserve to be fired after 28 years of service? Certainly not.

I think there is a legal principle stated simply: "innocent until proven guilty." How can you bigots jump to conclusions without knowing the facts, not being present at the time of the occurrence, and incapable of rational thought?

He quit. He quit. HE QUIT.

That depends, if his difference of opinion with his boss had to do with him being underpaid, overworked, without reasonable benefits, or unfair treatment then yes, I would support this guys decision.

This does not seem to be a case of this guy being mistreated in any way shape or form. He is/was a firefighter. His job is to respond to emergencies whether or not his department is the first to respond or if he and his department are on the cleanup. It is part of his job, regardless of which political party was involved and/or victimized. If he had an issue of being given subpar equipment then he would have a reason not to go. Having a political opinion that is different from your crew is not a valid reason not to go.

Ok, first off, point out what those extenuating circumstances were/are. Yes, we know that they are there, but such vague language doesn't really shed any light on whether the extenuating circumstances were actually something note worthy, or if they were just random things that really didn't have anything to do with jack.

Second, don't copy/paste your response to two different comments. It is redundant and it makes you look like a lazy asshole.

By the way, in what way is my analogy completely off topic?

No I do not know what the other crew members were saying to him, do you? At any rate, if what they were saying to him was enough to bother him this much I severely doubt that it was something that happened overnight. It was something that he could have taken steps to deal with or at the very least he could have taken his problems to someone higher up than himself.

Yes, there are methods of managing "crews" that failed before this firefighter took "sick leave." So, what is your point?

The funny thing is, he didn't really go home sick. He first stated that he could not go because of political differences or disagreements between himself and the crew and then said he was sick after he was told that was not a valid reason.

And after 28 years of service, one would think that this guy would have enough salt to know that this is not the moment to pull this kind of crap or deal with these kinds of issues. If you have issues you deal with them before there is a situation that you have to respond to, not during.

Thanks for the insight, and the protection/rescues. +^'d

Sorry, I don't buy it.

The Captain, and every one of his superiors, all the way to the top, should have been investigated and, if appropriate, disciplined, with termination as necessary, for allowing this situation to get to the point it did.

There's no reason to have superiors if they are not in charge of what goes on by their subordinates.

It sounds like Tuscon Fire holds itself unaccountable for the danger it put its citizens in by allowing a captain to fraudulently claim he was "sick" when, in fact, he was simply incompetent.

The fact that his wife could walk him back a short time later so he could make an apology indicates he wasn't sick.

I work with our local CalFire organization on events, and know a few retired firefighters, and I would be quite surprised if they would consider this incident and the way it was handled as being okay.

In fact, I think it harms the reputation of all firefighters.

In the heat of the moment, Captain Williams was the top of the chain of command and he made a good decision to leave F/F Ekstrom and stop by another station on the way to the call to pick up another firefighter. Done and done with no point in investigating everyone above that level.

Further, I feel/hope most folks are bright enough to realize that firefighters, while being mostly exceptional people (In my mind anyway, I may be biased), are in fact fallible human beings who sometimes make mistakes in spite of rigorous, ongoing training throughout their careers. As for anyone who would throw all firefighters under the bus because of one firefighters bad judgment on one call in 28 years...well...maybe they should just come run with me every morning for a few months. We'll talk it out.

Ah ha!

You are a pyromaniac.

No wonder you are so irrational.

Thank you, Almibry. It was an honor to serve the public. I wish my 24 years hadn't gone by so fast but I am happy to have made it to geezer-hood, almost unscathed. Many never made it to retirement but they are honored at the firefighters memorial in Sacramento.

Thanks for some common sense and rationality!

So he got reprimanded and that's the end of the story, if there was a story to begin with.

He could have refused to show up because he would have rather been playing golf. Like I said, it's a moot point.

Don't expect reason and logic to convince the haters that they are wrong.

I'm not really saying that they are wrong, or at they are haters, I just don't see the big deal is.

If there was a fire and he was a first responder and refused not to go because he was a republican and the fire was at a Democrat Congresswoman's home with children and puppies in the home then yeah, that would be a different story.

If you are a provider of public safety services and you are ordered to report to an incident, there is no excuse (aside of natural disaster blocking access) for not reporting.

Firefighters in an urban environment are often first-responders because they provide services besides putting out fires. They serve as rescue assists and can provide emergency medical care, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

It's not the job of the captain to decide whether or not the presence of him and his crew are needed at an incident to which they've been ordered to respond.

WRONG. He refused to do as ordered and as required, when ordered to report to the scene of a shooting incident. In a public-safety service organization, that is cause for termination.

He got a bad-boy write-up and was allowed to retire, presumably with full pension and benefits.

That's just plain wrong, and no one should be surprised if the firefighters in Tuscon take a "me-first-who-cares-about-you" attitude in the future when ordered to report to an emergency incident.

You seem to be out for blood.

The real issue is that YOU just want the firefighter to be punished. You just are upset that he got to keep his benefits, is that about the extent of it?

Agreed but that is not the case.

you really seem to speak like you know more facts than the non-story supplies, and the venemous way you leap to keep up the debate makes me feel you have a hidden agenda, such as simply using a false story as a flash point to attack and assail your percieved 'other side'

LOL this has been a problem on current since the beginning.

Here's a clue: LEARN TO USE LOGIC WHEN READING.

It's not his privilege to say which calls he will respond to and which ones he won't. That is such an absurd concept, it leaves me breathless.

Also, if you've listened to dispatchers, they give the basics but not the entire full story of what is going on.

This captain's personal incompetencies do not take precedence over the orders to report to the scene of an event.

He should have been forced through a complete investigation and, if found to have performed in a manner requiring termination, he should have been terminated.

I bet the citizens of Tucson are wondering today, if they have to call for help, what if the personnel ordered to respond just don't feel like doing it?

It doesn't matter. What if his unit was supposed to be their first.

Does he really think some people are worth saving and some are not?

YES! It is his privilege...in fact his right...it comes with being human.

And when he doesn't want to do what he was hired to do, he's free to quit.

That decision can only be based on full disclosure of all events within this particular scenario coupled with his 28 years of service.

I'm not saying that there aren't consequences, but he does always have a choice.