Man Accused Of Running Down Milwaukee...

Man Accused Of Running Down Milwaukee Firefighter Charged

There are 17 comments on the WISN.com story from Feb 13, 2010, titled Man Accused Of Running Down Milwaukee Firefighter Charged. In it, WISN.com reports that:

Chris Younger, of Pewaukee, has been charged with one count of recklessly endangering safety in the second degree.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WISN.com.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#1 Feb 14, 2010
a tale of two dunces:

1) a fire fighter dumb enough to step in the path of a car for no good reason,

and,

2) a motorist too dumb to utilize his creator endowed right to remain silent.
Henry

Milwaukee, WI

#2 Feb 14, 2010
Once again someone commenting on something they know nothng about. The frefighter was struck whle operating on the scene of a car accident. The street was closed with cones and blocked by a fire engine. The idiot who ran him over thought he was too important to have to stop because he needed to get to McDonalds a few blocks past the orginal accident and got irritated that he had to wait or take a detour. When he started through the scene, another firefighter tried to get the driver to stop and before he could alert anyone the driver struck a firefighter putting him up on the hood and sending him to the hosptal. The way too important motorist then sped away and was later tracked down and is currently being charged wth a felony. So no, the firefighter was not DUMB for stepping in the path of a car (because he didn't), he was doing his job helping another person injured n the orginal car accident (seems like a good reason to be in the street to me). I hope the guy gets the book thrown at hm and rots in jail.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#3 Feb 14, 2010
Henry wrote:
Once again someone commenting on something they know nothing about. The firefighter was struck while operating on the scene of a car accident. The street was closed with cones and blocked by a fire engine. The idiot who ran him over thought he was too important to have to stop because he needed to get to McDonald's a few blocks past the original accident and got irritated that he had to wait or take a detour. When he started through the scene, another firefighter tried to get the driver to stop and before he could alert anyone the driver struck a firefighter putting him up on the hood and sending him to the hospital. The way too important motorist then sped away and was later tracked down and is currently being charged wth a felony. So no, the firefighter was not DUMB for stepping in the path of a car (because he didn't), he was doing his job helping another person injured n the original car accident (seems like a good reason to be in the street to me). I hope the guy gets the book thrown at hm and rots in jail.
So, you're saying the firefighter stepped in front of a moving car in order to create a criminal offense against the driver. Were you there? Are you a witness that the firefighter created a criminal offense?

Off the record, do you think that the firefighters policy manual has a provision in it where it says that firefighters should step in front of moving vehicles in order to create criminal offenses against citizens? If no, then the firefighter violated his policy manual and should be disciplined.
billy

Milwaukee, WI

#6 Feb 15, 2010
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Firefighters said they told Younger to stop his vehicle, but Younger told one firefighter "I'm going through here." Younger pulled forward and struck firefighter Terry Saugstad in the knee. He then backed up and drove off as other firefighters jumped out of the way."
Yeah, basically the fireman put his body in the path of the motorist's car because the fireman assumed that the motorist wouldn't pull forward when the firemen attempted to illegally detain the motorist by using his own body as a barracade.
If the fireman put himself in harms way trying to play police hostatge negotiator, then the charges against the motorist should be reduced to a misdemeanor disordly conduct in exchange for the motorist not pushing charges and civil suit against the fireman for illegal arrest/detention.
If the fire department had the road shut down, it is illegal for someone to procede through the closed road, so your theory of the firefighter illegally detaining someone does not hold water.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#7 Feb 16, 2010
billy wrote:
<quoted text>
If the fire department had the road shut down, it is illegal for someone to procede through the closed road, so your theory of the firefighter illegally detaining someone does not hold water.
In Wisconsin, an arrest for a misdemeanor can only be accomplished legally by a police officer or a shopkeeper.

The road might have been closed, but that doesn't give a firefighter special arrest powers beyond that of a citizen.

The firefighter had the authority to call police and report the motorist for violating the law in regards to the road being closed, the firefighter did not have the authority to detain a man for a simple traffic infraction or misdemeanor criminal offense.

In fact, the firefighter may have not only violated the law by attempting to arrest the motorist, he may have violated his department policy manual as well.
billy

Milwaukee, WI

#8 Feb 16, 2010
you keep on saying "detaining" or "arresting". That's not what he was doing, in fact it's perfectly legal and within a firefighters right to close the road and turn traffic around. I wasn't there but have enough common sense to understand what the situation was. The firefighter was attempting to keep the motorist from passing through a closed road which he had the legal authority to close.

I'm also betting that someone was pounding on the guys window AFTER his partner was struck, although I certainly can't confirm it. But telling someone to get out of the vehicle after that vehicle has hit an emergency responder is in my opinion, perfectly fine. Why not attempt a "citizens arrest."

Oh yeah, and he wasn't charged with a misdemeanor, he was charged with a felony.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#9 Feb 16, 2010
billy wrote:
The firefighter was attempting to keep the motorist from passing through a closed road which he had the legal authority to close.
In other words, in fact, your words, the firefighter was "detaining" that motorist when all the firefighter had to do was write down the motorists license plate number and the cops would have done all the detention necessary.

I'll take a huge leap and guess that the founding fathers of this country never said anything states granting firefighters arrest powers. Regardless, if the firefighters were blocking off the street to protect the motorist from harm and the motorist suffered no harm, firefighters did their duty execpt where a firefighter may have violated his department's policy manual by subjectin himself to harm while attempting to illegally detain or arrest a citizen.
billy

Milwaukee, WI

#10 Feb 16, 2010
First off, I highly doubt there is any policy written on the issue of "detaining" someone in reference to traffic control situations when it comes to a fire department's policy. Secondly, there was no "detaining" done on the part of the fire department. If they shut down the road or block parts of it off, which again, they have every legal right to do, there are almost always alternative means to get where you want to go. Turn around, go around the closed area, or in the rare occurence when the whole road is shut down, the police are usually present and someone will have to wait. Further more, I would assume that most if not all fire departments most likely have policy and procedure that requires department members to either thoroughly block the scene or shut down the road completely.
Firefighters block the scene to not only protect the motorist, but to also protect themselves. I'm not quite understanding as to why you are even arguing against the firefighter. If this idiot proceded through the scene and struck the firefighter while he was doing his job, there shouldn't even be a question about it. On the other hand, I would certainly hope he wouldn't put himself in front of a moving vehicle with the hopes of the moron stopping, but we really don't have a clear picture of exactly what happened either way. Your argument is based upon the assumption that the firefighter was hit trying to stop the vehicle by using his body as a barracade. While I can't prove it at this point, I HIGHLY doubt that's what happened, just as you go out on your limb to assume that the founding fathers weren't thinking about firefighters and arresting powers.
Egh, I'm tired of arguing about something this dumb, keep stirring the pot my friend...and try not to drive through an emergency scene, thanks...

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#11 Feb 16, 2010
billy wrote:
1) First off, I highly doubt there is any policy written on the issue of "detaining" someone in reference to traffic control situations when it comes to a fire department's policy.

2) Secondly, there was no "detaining" done on the part of the fire department. If they shut down the road or block parts of it off, which again, they have every legal right to do, there are almost always alternative means to get where you want to go.

3) Firefighters block the scene to not only protect the motorist, but to also protect themselves.

4) I'm not quite understanding as to why you are even arguing against the firefighter. If this idiot proceded through the scene and struck the firefighter while he was doing his job, there shouldn't even be a question about it.

5) On the other hand, I would certainly hope he wouldn't put himself in front of a moving vehicle with the hopes of the moron stopping, but we really don't have a clear picture of exactly what happened either way. Your argument is based upon the assumption that the firefighter was hit trying to stop the vehicle by using his body as a barracade.

While I can't prove it at this point, I HIGHLY doubt that's what happened, just as you go out on your limb to assume that the founding fathers weren't thinking about firefighters and arresting powers.

Egh, I'm tired of arguing about something this dumb, keep stirring the pot my friend...and try not to drive through an emergency scene, thanks...
1) Yeah, most metropolitan cities with lawyers and liabilty insurance know that firemen detaining people is not the same as police with arrest powers detaining people, otherwise their firemen would be policemen driving a fire truck.

2) Detainng people is detaining people, if the fire department is going to close down a road, they should close down the whole road and ask the police department to escort people around the blocked road.

3) Evidently, in this case, the motorist was only endangered by the firemen that committed road rage against him.

4) The motorist didn't strike a firefighter "doing his job" or the story would have read, "motorist strikes firefighter, knocking a firehose out of the firefigher's hands."

5) Yeah, if the firefighter hit by the car was participating in some sort of "road rage" instead of putting out a fire, then the fireman needs to get fired or at least suffer some sort of disciplinary action.
Henry

Milwaukee, WI

#12 Feb 16, 2010
so with that logic shooting a cop assigned to the vice squad while robbing a store is OK to, because after all he isn't assigned to robbery/detective bureau and technically wasn't doing his job. You have to be kidding me. You do realize firefighters in the city of milwaukee do much more than put out fires.
Where in drivers education did you learn that running over anyone with a car was legal??
billy

New Berlin, WI

#13 Feb 17, 2010
Richard,

I normally don't get into pissing matches with people, I try to use logic and common sense. But your last post pretty much gives me the sense that you don't have either.

The firefighter being on the scene of an emergency call IS "doing his job." It ends right there... Just because he didn't have a hose in his hand doesn't mean he isn't doing something else, like EMS, extrication, TRAFFIC CONTROL, looking out for his crew etc.

Seriously, I truly think you know all of this, your just picking a fight you knew would draw criticism, and I guess I was the sucker, but no more. If you really think the firefighters were out of line, do everyone else a favor and get your head examined, perhaps a lobotomy would be in line. Otherwise, have a nice life.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#14 Feb 18, 2010
Henry wrote:
Where in drivers education did you learn that running over anyone with a car was legal??
where in driver's education did you learn it was ok to put your body in harm's way as a means of illegally detaining another person?

Regardless, a fireman isn't any different than a person in the park and rec department that paints park benches. Do you think a person in the park and rec department has a right to create a crime just because it looks like someone is goint to sit on a freshly painted park bench?

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#15 Feb 18, 2010
billy wrote:
Richard,
The firefighter being on the scene of an emergency call IS "doing his job." It ends right there...
And, a motorist who didn't happen to see a fireman stepping infront of his car is motorist who is innocent of a felony, it ends right there. A motorist can't help what a motorist can't see. All the motorist can say at that time is, "ooooopsie, my bad...maybe".

Evidently, what ever reason the firemen wanted to block off the street wasn't dangerous or the motorist would have had a damaged care. I'm beginning to think that firemen are closing off entire streets because they want pay raises and are frustrated and want to take this frustration out on the public by exceeding their authority.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#16 Feb 18, 2010
Henry wrote:
so with that logic shooting a cop assigned to the vice squad while robbing a store is OK to, because after all he isn't assigned to robbery/detective bureau and technically wasn't doing his job.
No dunce, a firewoman isn't a policeman.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#17 Feb 18, 2010
Henry wrote:
I hope the guy gets the book thrown at hm and rots in jail.
Why would the motorist rot in jail because a person chose to put themselves in harms way. Wisconsin law states that pedestrians only have the right of way IN a crosswalk and may not use the crosswalk as a means to cause a traffic collision. Therefore, if the fireman wasn't in a crosswalk and without the right of way attempted to cause the traffic collision, the fireman might have been guilty of a crime himself. Another good reason for motorists to never give any statements until legal representation is available.
billy

Milwaukee, WI

#18 Feb 19, 2010
Richard,

I think you should go consult with a local policeman, ask a local attorney, or perhaps just read up on Wisconsin State statutes...think you'll find the answer there.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#19 Feb 20, 2010
billy wrote:
Richard,
I think you should go consult with a local policeman, ask a local attorney, or perhaps just read up on Wisconsin State statutes...think you'll find the answer there.
I could probably charge a consultation fee to police officers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pewaukee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wangard withdraws indefinitely from downtown El... May 3 EGMC 1
Review: Camco Management Inc (Jun '08) Apr 27 MariaRamos 49
Andy Smith Apr '17 barnstormer 1
The Olkwitz Family (Jan '06) Mar '17 Leviguy 112
CDC Helps Milwaukee Residents Learn More and Fe... Feb '17 Porter Novelli 1
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin... (Oct '10) Jan '17 Ronnie Kodex 2,237
News Chinese citizen working for Rockwell charged wi... (May '16) May '16 Moe 1

Pewaukee Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pewaukee Mortgages