Rick their is flexibility in the law and officers choice does play into a lot. For example every one is familiar with or should be with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper pulling and ambulance over then getting into a scuffle with the paramedic. Not to debate the things that happened during the events but one does have to look at the fall out from the events. For one it really egged the Oklahoma Highway patrol because yes he had the right to pull the ambulance over but just imagine how that looks to joe public.
2nd we look at their was an innocent party involved and that was the patient. It was over 100 degrees reportedly that day and the patient was sitting in an iron box basicly in which the ac unit are known for not being able to keep that size of a vehicle cool in the back anyway.
3rd was we look at though he had the right to pull the ambulance over he did not do it because of the infraction he did it because he perceived the paramedic had flipped him the bird. With that the stop was not initiated due to an infraction but instead was initiated out of anger.
as a law enforcement officer he had several different ways he could have approached this and one was to get the number of the ambulance and handle it internally. second was he could have stopped the ambulance determine where they were going and get the drivers id and met them at the hospital or nursing home what ever the final destination was.
Im not posting this in no way to state he was right or wrong because its not the point of my statement. My point is there are no set ground rules for how an officer handles a situation and each situation is unique. and an officer has to look at possible outcomes too. For example what if the trooper pulled the ambulance over and the patient passed away on the side of the road?
As a public servant was are obligated to enforce the law but how it gets enforced is up to the officer so long as the outcome satisfies the law. This is why even a warning is sufficient as it re-enforces the law.
2nd we look at their was an innocent party involved and that was the patient. It was over 100 degrees reportedly that day and the patient was sitting in an iron box basicly in which the ac unit are known for not being able to keep that size of a vehicle cool in the back anyway.
3rd was we look at though he had the right to pull the ambulance over he did not do it because of the infraction he did it because he perceived the paramedic had flipped him the bird. With that the stop was not initiated due to an infraction but instead was initiated out of anger.
as a law enforcement officer he had several different ways he could have approached this and one was to get the number of the ambulance and handle it internally. second was he could have stopped the ambulance determine where they were going and get the drivers id and met them at the hospital or nursing home what ever the final destination was.
Im not posting this in no way to state he was right or wrong because its not the point of my statement. My point is there are no set ground rules for how an officer handles a situation and each situation is unique. and an officer has to look at possible outcomes too. For example what if the trooper pulled the ambulance over and the patient passed away on the side of the road?
As a public servant was are obligated to enforce the law but how it gets enforced is up to the officer so long as the outcome satisfies the law. This is why even a warning is sufficient as it re-enforces the law.
