Disgusting and shameful!
Posted on 10/04/2007 9:07:05 AM PDT by raccoonradio
Ch 7 in Boston was prevented from reporting this due to a judge's order however the story was reported on 3 other Boston stations (Channels 4, 5, and 25). The Ch 25 report was quoting a story from a newspaper's site.
Again, firefighters are heroes--at least one comment on the Herald's site was from a woman who kissed her husband on his way to work in '05 and never saw him again, as he was killed in the line of duty. It happens way too often.But if this is indeed true, it is very tragic.
The questions also abound: Should the Herald and other sources report on this, even if it causes pain for the still-grieving families? And should the judge bar one TV station from reporting on it?
Jessica Heslam of the Herald writes the following in her Herald Messenger Blog:
--- by Jessica Heslam: While a judge yesterday banned WHDH-TV (ch. 7) from airing a report on the autopsies of two Boston firefighters, several other Boston media outlets reported on the findings.
The Herald reported the results online last night, saying that toxicology tests showed that one of the firefighters was legally drunk at the fire while the other had traces of illegal drugs in his bloodstream.
At 11 p.m. last night, WHDH-TV (ch. 7) led its newscast saying it had those details but was blocked by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Merita Hopkins from reporting on it. Reporter Byron Barnett did the story, which focused on yesterday’s court proceedings. The station said viewers had a right to know about the autopsies and planned to appeal the judge’s decision.
Citing an online newspaper report, FOX 25 led its Wednesday’s 10 p.m. newscast with the details of the autopsy results.
WCVB-TV (ch. 5) also reported the details of the autopsy results, while WBZ-TV (ch. 4) reported that there were questions about them.
Judge Hopkins, who trampled on the Constitution in blocking Channel 7 from reporting the information, certainly has some questions to answer today . . .
The judicial contempt for the law is a bigger story than the fact that a couple of firefighters died while impaired.
Disgusting and shameful!
The facts are the facts, unpleasant though they may be.
If a fireman is that drunk on the job, it bespeaks a failure of the command structure of the Boston Fire Department. This is a problem that must be remedied. The first step in that process is the desire to remedy the problem. Stories like this provide ample incentive.
As for the fireman with the marijuana and cocaine in his system, he was not necessarily impaired, because the tests used are extremely sensitive. He could have been completely unaffected at the time of his death.
These two men died a heroes’ death, and to dishonor them by airing dirty laundry like this, when they’re no longer here to defend themselves, is the lowest of the low. It serves no purpose.
Kudos to the writers or the Editorial staff at the Boston Herald for stating this correctly. 0.08% is the legal alcohol limit for motorists. So often news organizations leave off the "for motorists" bit at the end, leading to a public perception that there is a general legal limit for blood alcohol content.
What "heroism?" These two men were in positions of trust, and both betrayed that trust by acting like juveniles. Their deaths can probably be directly attributed to the fact that they were operating in a reduced capacity.
We wouldn't be rushing to defend a brain surgeon who happened to show up at the OR one day with a coupla scotches under his belt. Or an air-traffic controller who kept a 3-finger bag hidden in the seat cushions. Firefighting is a dangerous job on its best day; the public can't afford to be paying men who don't take the responsibilities seriously.
I will sound uncompassionate but it deserves to be said...
In the cities and liberal pockets these unionized, so called public servants, are above the laws that are written for the rest of us. The blue code supercedes logic and common sense. I’ll bet that close to half of the firefighters have blood alcohol levels above .08% at some time while they’re on the clock. The ones with higher levels are more likely to die when the bells sounds.
I had a firefighter admit to me that sure they drink on the job. If they didnt have a few in them, they would do some more of the crazier rescues they do.
I'd call being burned to death while fighting a fire, in order to protect the public, heroism. If you want to dimish these men in death, because they weren't perfect, I just have to marvel at your lack of empathy.
I'd call being burned to death because you were drunk, hungover, or stoned while doing your job, one step from criminally negligent.
If you want to dimish these men in death, because they weren't perfect, I just have to marvel at your lack of empathy.
"Drunk on the job" is not just imperfect. And I'd have to marvel at your misplaced compassion.
A BAC of 0.27 is "drunk on his ass" drunk. If the guy really was that drunk, he was a serious danger to other firefighters -- and for all we know, he may have been part of the problem in this case.
It's a very sad story -- but it's not "dishonorable" to expose a fellow whose apparent lack of self-discipline rendered him a danger to others.
Actually, it does serve a purpose in that it demonstrates what can occur when a firefighter shows up at a scene drunk. It also reveals to the public that there may be a drinking problem in firehouses in Boston and other cities across the nation.
Finally, the nation needs people to be fire fighters, police officers and military personal however, we need them to do their jobs while they are sober and not stinking drunk.
If the dirty laundry isn’t aired, the problem may never be corrected.
Would you want to fight a fire if your co-workers were intoxicated?
The story is tragic, but only the truth can help prevent a reoccurance. It would (and could be worse) if it comes out that the intoxication of their brother firefighters contributed to their deaths.
“These two men died a heroes’ death, and to dishonor them by airing dirty laundry like this, when they’re no longer here to defend themselves, is the lowest of the low. It serves no purpose”
No longer here to defend themselves, what are they going to say-— “No, that’s not my body you’re doing an autopsy on”?
Serves no purpose? If the public welfare is being defended by persons with substance abuse problems, I think the identification of the problem is indeed in the public interest. I don’t want policemen, firefighters, airport screeners, air traffic controllers, etc. on the job in an incapacitated state.
Look all around you, misplaced compassion has all but stopped human evolution dead in its tracks.
So if a couple of drunks wonder out and walk across an interstate they are hero's if they make it to the other side. LOL
The article itself mentions substance abuse testing and enforcement. Perhaps this knowledge could have been used to step up these programs, rather than to torment new widows and newly fatherless children. But no, had to go for the headlines, no matter what the cost or how ugly. And you guys are cheering it on. Nice going. You'd better hope nothing embarassing crops up in the news media following your own eventual demise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.