Pixiq

1 year ago

Don't know how it is in MA, but if it's anything like here, it wasn't his barn and it wasn't his property; the fire department OWN the scene until the situation is under control. This individual shouldn't have been on the scene at all. And obstructing or assaulting a firefighter is a felony.

Steve Sweigart

1 year ago

BS, Mike. The property owner owns the property, that's why he's called the property owner.

I'm not saying what he did was OK, but think how it might have looked from his vantage point. His barn is burning down and domeone he's never seen is standing on his property taking pictures of it. Did the person identify himself as working with the FD?

The photogropher isn't a "firefighter" so your comment about about a felony is irrelevant.

1 year ago

Steve,

Obviously I didn't mean 'own' in the legal sense that the FD acquire title to the property. But they do 'own' it in the sense of having absolute control over it; they can decide who does and doesn't get to be on the property, and they can do anything they need to do to it to mitigate the emergency. At least that's the law in NY; the property owner temporarily loses all rights to the property for the duration of the emergency.

And that's just common sense... if there's a fire, you've no time to argue with the occupants about whether or not they can or can't be on or in the property, or ask permission to do what you have to do to put the fire out. You take total control, you get all civilians the hell off the property, and you do your job.

And, "Mr. Pollett demanded that the photographer, whose identification card said he is with Uxbridge Fire/EMS, get off the property." so he damn well was a firefighter.

You don't tell a firefighter to get off your property when there's a fire. YOU get off your property when a firefighter tells you to, or you go to jail.

Mike

Freedom_Fighter

1 year ago

That is absolutely incorrect. The firefighter does not "own" your property in any sense. If you tell a firefighter to get off your property, they must abide by it. You are soveriegn and your land is yours. If there is a clear and present danger to others houses or forests or whatbeit, then they have a right to put it out to save other peoples rights and property, but if there is some plain clothes guy taking picture while standing on your property, you have every right to tell him to get off your property. If they can't take pictures from the road or some other public venue, then they are not allowed to take pictures while standing on your property. In any instance, he's taking pictures, not actually fighting the fire. If you are going to take pictures while on someone elses property, doesn't matter who it is, private citizen or government worker, you must have the property owners consent to even be on their property.

1 year ago

"That is absolutely incorrect. The firefighter does not "own" your property in any sense. If you tell a firefighter to get off your property, they must abide by it."

How many fires have you been to? Trust me, I know my business. Remember, I only know the law in NY; maybe the law IS different where you live, but I doubt the above can be true. In NY, if you tell a firefighter to get off your property nothing will happen, if you persist you WILL be arrested for felony interference with a firefighter in the performance of their duty.

"You are soveriegn and your land is yours"

Yes, But use your common sense. Say someone dumps a body on your property. What do you think will happen if you tell the cops to get off your property?

"if there is some plain clothes guy taking picture while standing on your property, you have every right to tell him to get off your property"

Bollocks. It doesn't make any difference how they are dressed; it's a fire scene and only people authorised by the fire chief will be on it, and they'll be carrying out their orders; the FD is a paramilitary organisation and we operate under a chain of command. If the Chief orders a safety officer or department photographer to document the fire, it WILL be documented. This is often done for training, and C&O and arson investigation. Trust me, I KNOW what I'm talking about.

"If you are going to take pictures while on someone elses property, doesn't matter who it is, private citizen or government worker, you must have the property owners consent to even be on their property."

Not if it's an emergency scene; the FD or PD control the scene and the property owner doesn't have any say in the matter. Not in NY, and probably not everywhere else. Trust me.

Mike

1 year ago

Mike,
I just called up and spoke to a fire chief friend of mine in upstate New York.

He has heard of the incident and I gave him the details from the article.
He states that unless there is eminent danger to a another property or land then when asked to leave a burning structure they have to comply.

If there is a house or land next door and there is a possibility of that house or land being consumed by the fire then they are duty bound to control the current structure to void damage to others.
But if this is a barn in the middle of 40 acres of dirt and the owner says let it burn, you can be sure that they will simply walk away.

As he put it, there is no requirement to risk the lives of good men and women if the owner does not wish them to fight the fire.

So, you may want to talk with your chief, battalion commander, whoever, you have been misinformed.

http://firelawblog.com/2011/03/can-a-homeowner-whose-house-is-on-fire-re...

1 year ago

This is an interesting topic. This is interesting reading:

However, in NYS, the fire department is both empowered and required to investigate all suspicious fires. If a property owner with a structure on fire is attempting to refuse the services of the fire department, that in itself makes the fire highly suspicious, for obvious reasons. And the first step in investigating a suspicious fire is to put the damn fire out... at least that's how this subject was explained to me. This jives with the law:

"Every municipal corporation, the office of fire prevention and control, and any two or more municipal corporations jointly, are hereby authorized and empowered to investigate and to take such action as may be required to formulate task forces, teams, fire and/or police investigative units to... ascertain the cause of fires or explosions of suspicious origin within the municipality or participating municipalities...."

General Municipal Law 91-a

As for whether we stay inside a burning structure or go exterior, that's a decision for the Chief, in the first instance... 'risk nothing to save nothing'. And a fire department is under no obligation to put the fire out at any cost; they may decide it's better to let a fire burn than pollute watercourses with contaminated runoff, in certain circumstances. But again it's their call.

Mike

1 year ago

Mike,
Absent any other suspicious circumstances, a citizens saying "just let it burn" when his barn is on fire is not enough to warrant a suspicious fire.

This is akin to saying "I do not consent to a search of my vehicle" being grounds for a search by the police.

If he screams and calls 911 you show up then he is acting suspicious and requests you let it burn, fine, I can see that.

But if lightening strikes the barn, sets it ablaze and he just says, "it is an old structure and an eyesore, let the damned thing burn", then that is not suspicious.

It is a judgement call at the scene, it is far from black and white.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/bureaus/appeals_opinions/opinions/2006/informal/200...

1 year ago

Jim,

Here's the official word from the NYS AG. It discusses a slightly different circumstance, but the conclusions are general and are based on common, not statute, law:

"When policemen, firemen or other public officers are confronted with evidence which would lead a prudent and reasonable official to see a need to act to protect life or property, they are authorized to act on that information . . . .”).

While this privilege has most often been recognized with respect to law enforcement officers, it has been recognized to apply to firefighters as well. See Czerminski, 94 A.D.2d at 957"

Mike

Pete

1 year ago

Mike is correct. Laws may be similar in MA; in CT we 'own' the property as long as we are on it. We have staged firefighters in shifts, for days, took keep access to some property for investigative purposes.

1 year ago

You're nebulous concept of reality is both interesting and frightening.

If the photographer were not with the fire dept and was just a private citizen, he would still have the right to take pictures, the most he would be guilty of is tresspassing. If you are trespassing on property the owner has the right to tell you to leave, and if you refuse, they can call the police. You simply cannot attack someone even if they are trespassing, the very most you could possibly do is to detain them without force.

Guy Fawkes

1 year ago

"You simply cannot attack someone even if they are trespassing"

That VERY much depends on what state you are in. Texas has VERY strong property owners rights, trespass and the homeowner can shoot you dead and there won't be repercussions. Massachusetts is the complete opposite, if someone smashes their way into your house you have to prove that you made every effort to escape or you will get arrested. In Mass, the criminal owns your house, not you. I don't know what the firefighting laws in Mass are, my guess is you are not allowed to assault them when they are conducting their business whether you like it or not.

1 year ago

well ill just say, and i am not in anyway attempting to justify this sort of thing.

with watching your barn burn down and all, one can not imagine i do not think how this man felt. it was assault and battery for sure. this James Ahern, identified himself and all so then why did that man attack him? crazy situation all the way around for sure. but all this is speculation on my part, to decide anything i would need more information of what happen.

ill end here saying that i wish for the best for that man with losing the barn and all, seems he is going to need it!

@mike: that sure seems strange that he would just drive off like that, and all. you may very well be right and its not even his barn and all. and it sure is a FELONY, he could very well be in big shit depending on what judge he gets and all.

1 year ago

@steve:

i almost did the same thing, but before i posted i read the article, he did identify himself as working for the FD of that area, and the FD i do believe may legally tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property in a emergency situation! [just try with getting away with giving crap to firefighters while they are in the process of putting out your house fire!]

any employee of that Fire Dept is protected by the same law, its a Felony to assault that photographer! he is there in a official capacity!

Steve Sweigart

1 year ago

Hey Hal, Thanks for the clarification.

The biggest point of my comment was in regards to Mike's original comment regarding the FD "owning" your property.

It's like you read often on here, if there is no interference going on(usually with the police), then there should not be a problem.

One MAJOR concern I have, is how several folks fall back onto "it's the law." Just because something is the law DOESN'T make it right.

It's like many things that end up being made into law, they are great guidelines, and it might be best to follow them, but arresting you for not following common sense is wrong, plain & simple.

Sounds like a case of "temporary insanity" or potential jury nullification time, if and when this comes to trial. A sincere apology by the homeowner to the photographer should suffice.

Rail Car Fan

1 year ago

Steve

I read very carefully "Mike Ross's" first post in which he said..

"The fire department OWNS the SCENE until the situation is under control."

And continued on in his second post to "YOU" by clarifying his above statement by saying..

"Obviously I didn't mean 'own' in the legal sense that the FD acquire title to the property. But they do 'own' it in the sense of having absolute control over it for the duration of the emergency."

"YOU" said in your post as a reply to "Hal"..

"The biggest point of my comment was in regards to Mike's original comment regarding the FD "owning" your property."

Please read the first part of my post here. At NO time did Mike say the Fire Dept "OWNED" the property! He said.. "They OWNED the SCENE!"

Sorry Steve, but in this case YOU obviously didn't correctly read what "Mike" said, nor did you read the linked article.. for if you had you would have read the following, ie:

"A property owner (competent or otherwise) does NOT have a similar right to refuse firefighters the right to enter a property to look for the source of smoke, to investigate an alarm, or EXTINGUISH A FIRE!"

At the very end of the article the author of the article asked the question..

"Should the authority of the fire department be limited".. and answered it by saying .."for now the law does not recognize such an exception".

Rail Car Fan

Chris

1 year ago

While I agree that this man should never have attacked the photographer/firefighter this story seems like it might be missing some important details...

Chuck De La Rosa

1 year ago

This is an interesting case. Mr. Ahern identified himself as being with the dept, however there is nothing to indicate that he is actually a fire fighter. He appears to be a contractor shooting the training photos. The fact that he was taking photos indicates that he was not acting in the capacity as a firefighter. Nor did these photos have anything to do with an official investigation. It was for training purposes. So it may very well be that the property owner had every right to ask him to leave. However, Mr. Ahern did not leave, and that apparently angered the owner. Was he right for tackling him? That's a tough one. Its seems to me to be a case of excessive force. But we clearly don't have the full story. One thing's for certain, a photographer has to have permission to be on anyone's property. Mr. Ahern didn't have that permission. I am not convinced that simply working for the FD automatically gives him that permission unless he's there to facilitate an investigation. He also refused to press charges, so either he understood the owner's disposition and felt for him, or there is something missing here that Mr. Ahern didn't want to deal with in pursuing those charges.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Something tells me that the owner will apologize the photographer and the FD will drop the matter.

1 year ago

Did you read the article linked to in the OP ?

"“This isn't a circus,” he yelled before telling the photographer he wanted his film.

When Mr. Ahern refused, continuing to walk toward the street, the man tackled him.
"

He was walking toward the street, but refusing to give him the 'film'.

Chuck De La Rosa

1 year ago

Ahh, yes, I misread the line about the "film". Thanks for catching that. Most of what I said is still applicable though. Even if the owner had the right to confiscate the memory card (and he doesn't), tackling Mr. Ahern was wrong. However, what we don't know is the full exchange between the men. Words can have a dramatic effect on one's demeanor.

1 year ago

The words exchanged are irrelevant they cannot be used as justification for a physical altercation.

'Judge you'll have to forgive me for beating my wife, but she said something that put me in a particularly bad demeanor'

1 year ago

SteelToad, those words you speak of are legally called "fighting words" and in many states they are still on the books and enforced.
So yes it is possible for a person to claim that they were so riled up after another person uttered a set of words that they were temporarily unable to control themselves.

As for this case, most lkely not the case, the guy was upset that his barn was burning and the tog was probably saying something along the lines of how cool it looked, I have made that mistake in the past without thinking of the owners grief. You get lost in the moment, it happens.

1 year ago

Could you please cite some states and the laws where this actually is legal. I'd be interested to read more.

Black Bellamy

1 year ago

"The words exchanged cannot be used as A SOLE justification for a physical altercation."

FTFY

Chuck wasn't claiming the words alone were a justification for anything. Hypothetically if I meet you somewhere public and say to you "I'm going to beat your head in with that camera of yours until brain squirts out of your ears like a ripe jelly donut", and a fight results, you better believe that speech will be material in the criminal case to follow.

1 year ago

I am sure there are places where you may be right, the owner may have rights as to put it out or let it burn! having said that!

I live right now where they have had restrictions on water use [for so many years back, i really dont remember], and because of drought conditions and fire hazards, because of this condition. A house fire down here in just about anywhere, in the south florida area poses a threat to others in a few different ways!

and I also was born and raised in NYC/Brooklyn, so as to living close to others as to also pose a threat. for most of my life I have only lived in areas where it in fact would pose a extreme threat to others!

as far as the jurisdiction of the fire dept, I believe in all cases I have known about, not only the FD would show, but also the local police! So if anyone had anything to say to any person that was there with the FD, they would also be saying it to the COPS!

and most of us here know what position a COP would take when the attempt was made to TELL the COP to leave my property and "give me your film before you leave", they would have laughed and/or arrested us!

I speak for no one else here, and this is from my life experiences!

Ryan French

1 year ago

It's the fire department's scene. They can decide who is permitted to be on the property or not. Just because the photographer wasn't a firefighter, doesn't mean he wasn't acting in an official capacity. For example, some public information officers for fire departments in my area are not firefighters, but that doesn't mean they don't serve an official purpose. Also crime scene technicians in my area are not sworn law enforcement officers. Bottom line, the owner was being a hot head and tackled a fire department employee, who was walking off property. It would have been different if the photog was with the media or a fire buff. But the attack is unnecessary regardless.

Chris J.

1 year ago

I think that the relevant point here is not who "owned" the scene, but the fact that the photographer was asked to leave and WAS ATTEMPTING TO COMPLY when he was attacked anyway. I don't care who owned the scene, attacking him as he was complying with the request to leave the property was clearly stepping over the line. It's like the cops who yell "Freeze!" AS they're shooting someone then claim they gave them a chance to surrender.

1 year ago

I do not think anyone is arguing that the attack was out of line. The guy was an ass. The tog was leaving, the guy assaulted him. Pretty cut and dry there.

I think right now we are arguing the statement made that when there is a fire you do not have the right to tell them to let it burn if it is your property.

I have already stated the law above, no amount of "I feel's" or "I think's" will change it.

1 year ago

Jim, you said you had been told that, if a 'homeowner' asks us to leave a burning structure, we have to comply.

OK, so an alleged homeowner tells the Chief to get off the property... OK, how do you know that's the homeowner? How do you know it isn't a neighbour or some other enemy of the homeowner who has set the place up? Where would the FD be when they get sued from arsehole to breakfast time, and their defence is 'well some guy came up to us and told us to let it burn...'??!!

Also, the very fact of confessing to arson, if he claims he started it, or of wanting his property destroyed, if he doesn't admit arson, would cause me to doubt the mental competence of the alleged homeowner.

No, I think we're still fully in the realm of exigent circumstances, where a 'prudent and reasonable person' (which is the wording used in law) would see a need to act first and ask questions later.

Mike

1 year ago

Mike: you bring up another very good point to add to the way i think, there are so many things going against anyone even thinking that they can and even may instruct the FD, "let it burn down"! even if it were possible, it would be a very rare case where i think even common law would prevail! Its 2011 we are talking about, not 1911!

and of course there would be insurance coverage, i hadnt even thought of that. it would go like this, headlines would be!
"insurance company sues FD for failing to put fire out", even though they were instructed to leave property! They had a duty to extinguish fire, and failed to do so! how would anyone here that would be sitting on that jury, rule? for the defendant or plaintiff?
the insurance company would have a good case i think, and there is no way the FD would know even if there was insurance on that structure, let alone any other that may get damaged cause of that fire!