The recent firing of a Florida EMT following comments about women’s right to vote has led to widespread and varied reactions.
Here’s what we know: In January, a fire crew responded to a call for a 67-year-old woman having medical issues. The woman’s daughter made the call for help from a different location after talking to her mother on the phone and becoming concerned about her status. The mother had a long medical history.
After arriving at the scene, and apparently in the presence of the patient, the lieutenant of the crew commented that the daughter had been “flipping out” regarding her mother’s condition, and then said to the female engineer, “This is a society — you guys started voting, everything got weaker.”
| HOT TOPIC: First responders and their rights of speech: A primer
The comments were recorded on a home security camera, and the daughter later provided the video to fire department officials, which led to an investigation and the eventual firing of the officer.
Was this a fair outcome? On the surface, it does seem disproportionate. However, the reporting of the incident and follow-up lack context. What was the intention of the statement? How did the female crewmember on the scene perceive it — as a joke or provocation that she might respond to, or as something she (sadly) was just accustomed to? Did this officer have a history of other inappropriate behavior? The incident resulted in a months-long investigation. What was discovered during this investigation? None of this information has been made public.
Key takeaways
Even with this limited knowledge, there are several important takeaways from this incident.
Public complaint: The first is that the complaint against the officer was made by a member of the public, not by the female crewmember. The woman who filed the complaint stated, “I was legitimately seeking to help my mother who already had two strokes and a heart attack …. He didn’t know her past medical history and was rude for no reason and was rude to a colleague for no reason and was making irrational connections to political views about why I called in care for my mom.”
During a call: The officer’s comments were made while on an emergency call, in the home of a member of the community, possibly in the presence of a patient. Making such statements in this context is clearly inappropriate and was obviously offensive to the family member, regardless of what the person’s intention might have been.
Caught on camera: These comments were recorded. It doesn’t matter that the officer probably didn’t know he was being recorded. These days, emergency responders should assume they are being recorded at all times when they are out in public, and especially on emergency calls. The officer should have known this and behaved accordingly.
The message: What about the content of what was said? Relationships matter when people say provocative things — what may be funny between two people might be offensive when said in the presence of a third. Officers have a higher level of responsibility and accountability for managing these kinds of interactions. If the officer really believes what he said, that’s a problem for him as a team member and leader. But saying it, especially during an emergency response, was just stupid, in addition to being inappropriate and unprofessional.
Final thoughts
One firefighter commented online, “I mean, if the general public could hear 90% of the conversations we have and statements we make, we’d all be in prison, a mental health institution, or dead.” True enough. That is good reason to keep such conversations confined to the privacy of the fire station and to only have them with people you know well and with whom you have a relationship of mutual trust — in other words, never in public. Unfortunately, one Florida fire officer learned this the hard way.
