Sounds like a coward and scumbag to me,plus an idiot.

Maybe he was just getting ahead on the power curve for the day when all civil servants (as is going on in Wisconsin) are being used as scapegoats for politician's and big business's actions. Of course I am kidding. This fellow doesn't sound that smart. But if the legislation in Wisconsin passes, you can very well bet there will be alot more homes burning to the ground and home schooled students, not only in Wisconsin, but other in other bankrupt states (like Arizona) looking for ways to save a buck.

Concerning the union busting in Wisconsin, the firefighters, state police, and local police are not included in losing their rights because they endorsed Gov. Walker in the last election.

So, he determines whether or not people get help in life-or-death crises based on their political views and/or party affiliations? Oh. My. God.

Looks like it's time to make refusal by emergency workers to respond to emergencies for any reason an imprisonable offense.

So, he determines whether or not people get help in life-or-death crises based on their political views and/or party affiliations? Oh. My. God.

But shouldn't that be their right, just as it is for pharmacists to dispense (in some cases) life-saving treatment due to their religious beliefs?

No, I'm being facetious here. It shouldn't be a right in EITHER case. Unfortunately, however, giving pharmacists the right is opening the door for police, firefighters and other emergency personnel to refuse to answer calls if they object to what they perceive as the victims' or patients' ideologies.

L O S E R ! ! !

I'm glad he quit.

I had to take care of a man who shot three girls and the mother. One of those girls died as I was taking care of her. My job wasn't to decide his innocense or guilt but to make sure he lived (he didn't but we tried).

If he was distracted he should of taken time off. One extra person could of meant one person living. He may have well killed someone by not going and I hope he realizes that.

I think for the first time me and bonos are seeing things in the same light... The world must be ending.

Bonos: "Unfortunately, however, giving pharmacists the right is opening the door for police, firefighters and other emergency personnel to refuse to answer calls if they object to what they perceive as the victims' or patients' ideologies."

That's making a bit of a stretch. If you're well enough to go to the pharmacy, you're obviously not in an emergency situation and are capable of going to a different pharmacy. Not that I've ever heard of a pharmicist turning away a customer with a "life threatening illness".

Man, words cannot express how much I'd like to see this firefire dumped off into the middle of the Sahara. Not much politics there, he should get along just fine.

That's making a bit of a stretch. If you're well enough to go to the pharmacy, you're obviously not in an emergency situation and are capable of going to a different pharmacy. Not that I've ever heard of a pharmicist turning away a customer with a "life threatening illness".

Aye, I just overlooked that part. I'm pretty sure most people are in agreement that they are happy that this man retired...

While it took him a while this medic did the right thing ... by quitting. There can be no justification for refusing to do your job as a medic. May his lame decision follow him for the rest of his miserable life.

Regardless of his politics, he had a job to do and refused to do it. He was right to quit or be terminated.

He was obviously a conservative, but I don't think that matters much here. It could have just as easily have been a liberal refusing to go to the aid of a conservative congressman and the scenario would be no different.

If you have a job as an emergency responder, you respond. PERIOD. If not, you should be fired.

Bruce, in theory I agree, it shouldn't matter who the prospective patient is, but in reality things are quite different. Granted this is a broad generalization, but I still think accurate.

Democrats care about their neighbors. Republicans try to figure out how to screw their neighbors without their knowing it. Or put it another way, I suspect you will find more compassion among Democrats than Republicans. As a life long Independent I find both parties objectionable at best, but over the last 5 decades I have observed this to be true not only in politics, but in people's personal lives. It can be seen in the way they speak and more importantly act.

As near as I can tell, the only people the Republicans have concern/compassion for are Wall Street/Big Business, or unwanted unborn children, who once they are born, are considered to have been saved and from that point forward are on their own.

All I can say is that his decision to refuse to respond to this call goes against everything he was hired to do. I must admit I am amazed at this individual's mentality. Hopefully this "first responder" is still an exception to the rule.

He was obviously a conservative,

Do you have any evidence of this because the article provides none.

I'm reminded of the New York case where the pregnant woman died from an asthma attack while the EMTs were on a coffee break in the same bakery!

Mr. Ekstrum's actions on the day of the shooting were reprehensible. However on further looking into other news sources I found out more info that while they do not excuse his actions it appears he was not actinig out of political hatefulness. Go to the following link if you are interested in digging deeper into his actions that day.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_68abdf02-1d37-5e14-9974-6eeff8a22210.html

From that article I copied the following for those who don't wish to read the whole article.
"He said in his statement that he voted for Giffords in the last election, and spoke with her early on in her tenure about a communication vehicle that TFD had for mass-casualty incidents. "She asked many pertinent and intelligent questions," Ekstrum said. "She has always impressed me as a person that was willing to listen."

In his 28 years with Tucson Fire, Ekstrum had positive reviews and was given "exceed standards" on most of his evaluations. Williams said in his memo that Ekstrum's work ethic and performance had been exemplary and professional.

In early 2010, Ekstrum used two weeks' vacation time to volunteer in Haiti and help the victims of the earthquake, according to his personnel file.

He was only reprimanded once, an oral reprimand in 1984 for backing his vehicle into an object, Gulotta said".

There is more to the story than this article on MSNBC would lead us to believe. He did the right thing by resigning, because he clearly had violated a public trust, but it seems he was not motivated by any animosity toward Gifford........

Do you have any evidence of this because the article provides none.

Evidence, Mike ? Judging from the article, it's obvious he refused to respond because of his political views.

Evidence, Mike ? Judging from the article, he refused to respond because of his political views.

Again, evidence. Show me where it states what those political views were... EVIDENCE.

Admittedly, incompetence flairs in every job venue. We've all seen it. Whether it be at the highest government levels (just think about that one "Curveball"); or down at Mickey Dee's where I can't even get my order of fries put in the bag. It happens.

This article is about ONE lax emergency responder and about taking responsibility for the job. Whether it's taking care of business, accounting for every single penny (my job, actually), weighing, measuring, cleaning, feeding, fighting, running, production, saving lives, etc., we all must be very careful and be responsible for our actions. Every industry has some dud workers. They're the ones who give all the rest of us the blackeye. Sadly, we will always have them, as management will not weed them out before their probation is over, or they have have their own demons that drag them down.

This person let his own demons (politics) get in the way of doing the right thing. (Just a side thought: How many other people in our government are doing the same thing?) He did the right thing by resigning. He recognized he could no longer do his job. Let someone who is ready, willing and able take his place. He will be the one who must deal with his own conscience on this one, and I would imagine that Giffords will recover long before he does.

There's some element to this story we're not getting.

Pathman-334830 at #1.18 - Thanks so much for the link to a much more informative article than the character assassination piece MSNBC put out here. One key point is that his crew was dispatched 90 minutes after the incident:

Crews at Tucson Fire's Station 6,10251 S. Wilmot Road, were dispatched at 12:03 p.m. Jan. 8, seven minutes after the last patient arrived at the hospital, said Joe Gulotta, an assistant fire chief. They responded as a support crew, in a non-emergency way with the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), a large delivery truck with tents, medical supplies, water and cots, used after the shootings to assist those who were not seriously injured.

While that doesn't condone his refusal to go it does indicate that his refusal to go did NOT put anyone in danger. Here is the link again, please read it before posting:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_68abdf02-1d37-5e14-9974-6eeff8a22210.html

I must agree with "Mike of the North", in that this is just an article, and is NOT a legal document. We know that often times what is in print, is not the 'whole story'. It is NOT a legal document. The 'facts' at some point will be clarified. Meanwhile, he looks like a villan. If indeed he did refuse to respond to the emergency call, he deserves everything that the courts dish out to him. If you cannot or will not respond to emergencies for such trival issues, you are a DANGER and a LIABILITY to your department, and of no value in emergency situations. What if your fellow fire fighter had different views than you, and was in danger in an emergency situation. Would you refuse to help him? Would you refuse to do your job, and assist your fellow fire fighter? Looks like it would be time for you to CHANGE PROFESSIONS!

HEY.........It's ARIZONA. He can come back to work when they pass those new laws that give hospitals and emergency workers and first responders the POWER to REFUSE lifesaving services to folks without an ID in hand.

The apologist for this scumbag that are trying to defend him quoting a local article should read the article themselves. He in fact refused to go on the call and then went home sick, the rest of the team went on the call without him. He should be stripped of his pension for dereliction of duty.

I doubt that the little girl belonged to any political party.

He should be terminated and not allowed to work in that field again. Just think if we all got to pick and choose because of personal reasons. As a former dental assistant I had to work on people I personally didn't like and I am sure they felt the same about me. I did my job professionally and treated them with respect.

Pathman, thank you for posting a much more informative article about this incident than MSNBC's. It's always better to have information than to speculate. Sounds like the man just wigged out. Maybe he was distraught becuase he was a Giffords supporter and he didn't like the way the rest of his squad was talking about her, not that that's any excuse, who knows. Good thing he has retired, since he no longer has what it takes to be an firefighter.

But jeez, Teabag Lobotomy, stripping him of his pension because he did not go on one call, which was not a first responder call, after 28 years of service? That seems harsh.

He was obviously a conservative,

Do you have any evidence of this because the article provides none.

The article provides no evidence? Did you actually read the article? He refused a call to respond to an event where a Democratic congresswoman was appearing, specifically mentioning politics at the time he refused. He mentioned having a different political view from the rest of his team. Only later, when asked to justify his actions, did he say he was "distracted."

The article provides no evidence? Did you actually read the article? He refused a call to respond to an event where a Democratic congresswoman was appearing, specifically mentioning politics at the time he refused. He mentioned having a different political view from the rest of his team. Only later, when asked to justify his actions, did he say he was "distracted."

No where did it mention he was a conservative or that congress woman Giffords political affiliation had anything to do with his decision. It also doesn't mention the political affiliation of his team. So again, for the cheap seats, Have any evidence?

Geesus, the man says he voted FOR Giffords. And the story, if you twits on the left so ready to bash anyone could read, speaks about his political differences with some people he worked with. This could mean conservative/liberal disagreement, or it could simply mean he had office politics on his mind.

Whatever the case he should have responded, and should still be dealt with as the event occurred before he retired. But there is absolutely ZERO evidence he didn't respond out of dislike for Giffords. Could you leftist fools please stop with your infantile games and learn to READ.

I doubt liberal democrats will cease until every bit of flesh is picked of the bones of the victims ... this so reminds me of watching the news of Mogadishu - as the "patriots" drug the bodies of slain soldiers up and down the streets and waved battle trophies for the cameras - the only difference, as I can see, are these people are dressed in suits - but the motive is still the same ... political currency ...

I think he is wrong and perhaps a coward who was happy to soak up his taxpayer paid wages and benefits but not willing to respond to a dangerous event, however, where did it say he was a conservative?? He said he didn't agree with her political views but maybe he is a liberal who disagreed with her moderate positions.

Intelligent soul - Funny, but I would say that democrats care mostly about power and control, and not at all about the individuals. They give handouts to the lower castes of society in order to keep them beholding to the democrats so they will keep them in power. While republicans want to cut red tape and corporate taxes to spur growth in the private sector so people can get REAL jobs (not the temporary census worker jobs the goverments has provided), the democrats prefer to take as much tax as they can and redistribute it as political favors in return for votes. Republicans see the private sector as the source of jobs, while democrats see the government as the provider of jobs.

I suspect if you could find data on the charitable giving of liberals and conservatives, you could quickly and easily figure out who really cares more about their fellow man.

As a public servant - firefighter, police, emt, - you leave your politics at home. Your job is to DO your job - regardless of who you agree with or support politically. This was gross negligenc of duty and cannot be accepted. And, for the clown who keeps asking "proof it was political," according to the article he said he didn't want to respond because his political views were different than those at the assembly. However, it should be noted, at that time I dont' think he knew the severity of the situation. Nevertheless, he has no right - in his job - to refuse to go.

This moron should be charged crimminally.

This is close to negligence, but due to 90 minute response after the incident it would be hard to prove. However there is a duty to act. Once you put that uniform on all people are equal, everyone gets your help. As an emergency responder he has a duty to treat. After he refused, ethically, he should and did resign. He will probably never work in emergency services again. The state should give him any money that he personally put into the retirement system and part ways. As far as I'm concerned he should have all medical certifications pulled by the state as well.

What the hell does he think his job is???? That story sounds really strange.

Pathman-

Thanks for the link that provides a fuller picture of this story. Too bad most of the mental midgets who are posting here did not bother to read the link. A few important points in the local article:

This was not an emergency response. They were being posted 7 minutes after the last victim had arrived at a hospital.

This man had 28 years service and in 28 years, only one reprimand and that for backing into something with a truck.

He spent two weeks of his vacation time volunteering in Haiti for earthquake relief.

He was distraught because of the shooting and felt he would not be effective.

He made an effort to apologize to the crew for his actions.

ALL THAT BEING SAID, orders are orders and there must be severe repercussions if you do not follow orders. He no longer has a job. We don't know how he would have responded if it had truly been an emergency, one hopes he would have been more professional. You see a lot in 28 years as a firefighter and he must have seen a lot in Haiti. Maybe he is just burnt out and needed to retire anyway. None of us have enough facts to justify some of the comments that have been posted.

MSNBC writes a lousy article. Hope we can all agree on that.

USMC, not only do I agree with you on that, I think that MSNBC has a habit of writing lousy articles. These seem to be meant to inflame passions, not provide useful facts to readers.

I hope there is one other thing we can agree with one another on too. It's that for anyone to have read the MSNBC article (as bad as it was) and come away with the conclusion that this firefighter didn't respond because he hated Giffords, or disliked her or her politics, then that person must be an idiot or a political hack. Or both.

Mike of the North

Again, evidence. Show me where it states what those political views were... EVIDENCE.

With sites like pipl.com, which will point you to his Face-book and link-in pages, etc. or even typing in his name into an advance google search, do some research on your own (you know, take some personal responsibility) and quit being a troll.

DRK, loss of pension too much? Be serious. Whether on a rescue call or a backup call, removal of one individual may be detrimental to the whole operation. To refuse to respond because of political views, inexcusable. This individual really did not have the right to pick and chose the calls to respond too. After 28 years of service? How many others were endangered by his attitude?

In fact, his chief, hiring practices and policies should be investagated. And loss of his pension should be just a small part of his punishment.

I wonder how many times this link is going to have to be posted before people stop replying with ignorant comments. This is simply terrible journalism from MSNBC as per usual. Do yourselves a favor and crosscheck MSNBC all the time. You will more accurately informed if you just do not swallow the first damn thing you read about something. If anyone should be fired or quit it should be the reporter of this innacurate and poorly constructed article. One is left with the impression that this guy is the personification of the polemic between political parties. It would appear as nothing could be farther from the truth. Never stop looking for the truth.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_68abdf02-1d37-5e14-9974-6eeff8a22210.html

I really can't believe there are people defending this asshat. I don't care if he has done 28 years of great service like in the article that was posted, this one thing wiped it out. Firefighters, police, doctors and nurses don't get to decide who they treat/respond to. If he refused to come to your aid for your believes, either during or after a disaster then I'm betting you'd want his pension revoked also. He's an embarrassment to the brotherhood & should lose his benefits. If not this could set a bad precedence. You don't get to retire (with full benefits) because disciplinary actions are going to happen, just to save your ass and wallet. If he felt that strongly he should of done his job and quit upon return. You think, just maybe, he changed his "reason" later because he relized how his 1st statement could and would be used against him? The 1st line of the posted article even states that politics was his reason. Of course he changed it up when he realized his motivations were going to bite him in the ass.

Mike the fact is if he refused to do his job he should of been fired, let go. That is what happens in the real world. It does not matter who was involved in the incident. The fire fighters were dispatched 90 minutes later. I would hope that all the victims were either in a helicopter or in the back of an ambulance headed for the hospital before they even got there. Maybe this firefighter was not ready to see crap loads of blood and carnage and did not have the emotional mind set to deal with it. Like most stories that MSN puts out they leave allot out so everyone can go ape $hit with speculation in these blogs. chill and wait for more to come out

USMC Vet - Thank you for being the voice of reason! I completely agree with you.

He would of shown signs and had a history of PTS then John if he couldn't handle the carnage.

Sweetness, I would think that none of these fire fighters or first responders had ever been called to something of this nature. The only place you find this is in war so I don't think you can speculate there was no history of PTS in this situation

Politics aside he refused a call. What if all firemen and medics started picking and choosing their calls? It's very scary and I don't sympathize with this guy one bit. Yes there's more to his story but this article was about his actions on that day and not a summary of his life's accomplishments.

What an absolute sack of crap !! He's a piss poor example of public service and should be deeply ashamed for the disgrace he has brought on himself and those who served with him.

Lolololoser !!!!!

One final thought: If I was his Chief, he'd be retiring with my foot up his a$$, this bum should have his A$$ kicked up to his elbows for such a disgraceful lack of a sense of duty!!

xrayspex you are more of a loser than this man was. He was a 28 year veteran of the department. He had an exemplary record before this. Had he been someone just sitting around waiting to collect his pension he would have been gone years ago. In fact he probably worked much harder than most of the people here. Both as a paramedic and then as an administrative officer I have seen something like this a few times. As an administrator it was my job to weed out firefighters who were experiencing burnout before they did go into meltdown mode. In some cases, counciling was enough. Sometimes they needed to retire. In 28 years this man has seen alot. While I very much respect the services of volunteers, by virtue of having as many calls they don't see as much as they do in a large department, so if some of the "first responders" commenting here are volunteers, they probaly don't understand either. I have, as a paramedic, responded to some pretty horrific calls, and the fire department I worked for had fewer calls than Tuscon. Maybe you should be criticizing this man's superiors for not recognizing the signs. I'm sure this man does feel shame for not being able to take this call.

Jeffor,

Exactly. Thank you.

He's a piece of $h*t and if I ever meet him, I'll (as a 6'1",215 lb. combat veteran, the last few months of my last deployment performed with multiple hernias) be more than happy to tell him so!!

F**k the politics,if you're a firefighter or other public servant and fail to do your job , you're a G*D DAMN LOSER, especially if politics were behind your failure to honor your commitment !!!! There is no "burnout" excuse, we've all done things we're tired of, but if you take a job, then you damn well should be willing to do it!!

Ms. Giffords was already gone. The other victims were already gone. They were called out to clean up the blood and gore. Just because he was talking politics before the call, or at least the captain said he had,(especially since he may have made the comments days before this call) doesn't mean these comments had anything to do with his refusal to take this call. Maybe you are a combat veteran but that doesn't qualify you to judge this man. Firefighters are not given the training that combat soldiers are and are not trained to deal with death. That comes on the job. A public servant who can't do the job needs to be gone. He retired, which exactly what he should have done, or be let go if he hadn't. To threaten assault and battery, I believe is not acceptable.

dragonmaster,

good post. there is so little information in the story that I don't know how anyone can make much of a comment. Personally, I read it as he had major differences with the other members of the crew, no comment on what the differences were, and that is why he did not respond.

Based on what was in the story states, he could be a conservative and the other members were far left and he felt threatened by the others incendiary remarks.

Oh, the irony. You posted this:

good post. there is so little information in the story that I don't know how anyone can make much of a comment.

Followed by this:

Based on what was in the story states, he could be a conservative and the other members were far left and he felt threatened by the others incendiary remarks.

Everyone knows firefighters are a known hot-bed of far-left activism. </sarcasm>

Scott, you say it so well with your

Everyone knows firefighters are a known hot-bed of far-left activism. </sarcasm>

comment. We know very little about this situation, yet everyone is willing to fill in the ideologicalblanks. Thanks for the explanation mark.

Guys, what you fail to realize is this person took an oath to protect and serve. There weren't any stipulations as to who you help or what calls you answer based on what political party you support. A call comes in, you go....PERIOD. If they have a problem with that, then find another line of work.

I agree, hopefully he is an exception to the rule. I have several friends that are firefighters and also serve as first responders. Since this is the first time I've seen or heard about this incident I haven't had an opportunity to talk to them, but I'm sure they would never refuse to respond to a call because of the political association of the victim.

"Unfortunately, however, giving pharmacists the right is opening the door for police, firefighters and other emergency personnel to refuse to answer calls if they object to what they perceive as the victims' or patients' ideologies."

Bonos-the major difference between a pharmacist choosing whether or not to dispense a drug based on his/her political/moral/religious ideologies and a firefighter/police officer's decision to answer an emergency call based on the same criteria is that the people whose lives might be saved are paying the salaries of the firefighter and police officer-they are called PUBLIC SERVANTS. They are paid (via tax dollars) to PROTECT AND SERVE the PUBLIC who pays them. Period. No debate should ever take place about ideologies. A pharmacist is an employee of a company in the private sector, and if one pharmacist refuses to dispense a medication, there are usually several other pharmacies in an area that will do it. If a police officer or firefighter refuses to answer an emergency call, who else can you call for assistance?

While I know that you and I agree on the principals involved here, I think that making the comparison of a firefighter to a pharmacist is not very effective.

I think this is a turning point. Politics today is getting so crazy I wouldn't be surprised if this was not just the tip of an impending iceberg.

Americans need to wake up from their partisan "dream" and wake up to AMERICA, not some new world order smacking of fascism.

Our WWII generation is dying off and what is remaining is not what they imagined for us.

Scott, you say it so well with your

Everyone knows firefighters are a known hot-bed of far-left activism. </sarcasm>

comment. We know very little about this situation, yet everyone is willing to fill in the ideologicalblanks. Thanks for the explanation mark.

You are the one that made the assumption about his "far-left" colleagues. You are a hypocrite.

Scott,'

Read all my posts, I believe you have misinterpreted what I said. To simplify, there is no information in the article that would indicate what the political leanings of this person is, yet there are people that injected their own bias in their comments.

Sorry you did not catch this. My comment was directed to those that assumed he was a conservative.

The gentleman wanted to be a test case. Pharmacists can refuse to dispense treatment--no matter how necessary--if it contradicts their "religious or moral beliefs." Physicians and nurses can refuse to provide treatment--no matter how necessary--if it contradicts their "religious or moral beliefs." Both can also refuse to refer patients to someone who will provide the treatment.

Recently, there was a bus driver who refused to let a woman off a bus because she was heading to a facility that provides abortions.

It isn't going to be long before police and fire-fighters refuse to respond to calls that would require them to defend others whose views they don't agree with or save the lives of people whom they do not want to interact with. This might be the first case--but it isn't likely to be the last.

When those who provide health care--who should be the ones to provide care regardless of their own views to whomever needs it--are allowed by law to refuse, then the door is left wide open for others. Teachers can refuse to teach, public servants can refuse to assist, etc.

If a person has a religious objection to providing contraceptives--and it would be part of that person's job to provide contraceptives if s/he becomes a pharmacist--wouldn't it make more sense not to become a pharmacist, or a doctor who provides OB/GYN care, etc.? However, the conservative fundamentalist evangelicals are all flocking to pharmacy schools, med schools (particularly OB/GYN), teaching, and all sorts of key public service positions. Why? So that they can refuse to provide care and control access.

While this particular person resigned, which means that he'll have trouble bringing a lawsuit, there will be a case very soon. The far-right which proclaims to be religious (I have my doubts) want to set things up so that they can get government money to use for themselves and their fellows, but no one else (even though everyone must contribute). This is just another in a long line of incidents.

beanathome

you really know how to grease a slippery sloop with the best of them. are you related to the brothers grimm??

beanathome: the differences between pharmacists and emergency responders is huge. The police and fire departments aren't providing needed help that CAN be referred to somewhere else, they are providing critical, immediate, lifesaving help and there is a difference. You don't go to the pharmacy for a medical emergency, you go to doctors and it will become necessary to hospitals for make provisions for anyone who is allowed to refuse treatment based on religious beliefs - with is a very slippery slope. Anyone joining the police and fire depts. have to agree to treat anyone regardless of personnel opinions or they will have to find work somewhere else. Refusing to treat someone for religious reasons is as ignorant and unreasonable as refusing to treat someone because of their race. Its one thing when its not life-threatening, but doctors take an oath to treat everyone, not just who they like, if they are going to treat anyone. This is especially critical for emergency responders and ER's. I am a passionate believer and protector of the US Constitution, but there is nothing in the First Amendment that would excuse an emergency provider from rendering aid until equal or advanced treatment is available.

Free Ride???? Because he's a civil servant? (You have insulted thousands who do a fantastic job every single day, not just emergency responders. They pay their own salaries with their taxes, too. Who get the job done without compensation because its important but agencies are broke and other taxpayers say no more) Every other firefighter in Tucson, and the whole country, responds to burning buildings, major accidents, hazardous materials incidents, shootings, explosions, etc., they are the people who save the lives of millions with medical emergencies every year regardless of the risks and are the first on the scene for any WMD/NBC incidents (ie anthrax). The emergency responders who were first at the towers knew they would probably die, but then went up anyway because people needed help, some are now dying from their exposure to toxins and other deadly material. So, tell me, how is this a FREE ride???? I am constantly amazed at how some in the general public, especially those who are sympathetic with the party of 'NO' can be so ignorant or insensitive or just plain jealous of the fact they don't have the heart or ability to be a firefighter, police officer or other 'abused' government employee. Try just using your house without 'civil servants'; turning on water, electricity, etc; driving to work on roads, with traffic lights, etc; sending your children to school where teachers work till late in the night preping, grading, who use their own money to pay for supplies, etc etc etc etc You are not credible.

Doesn't seem like this has much to do with his duties as a first responder...

Ekstrum was part of a team trained to handle major medical emergencies. The unit was not part of the first group of emergency responders and was only dispatched to the scene about 90 minutes after the gunfire broke out, the newspaper reported.

90 minutes... It is my understanding that the whole thing lasted a matter of seconds... by the time he was dispatched I would sure hope anyone in need of medical attention already received it.

We're not certain what hos motivation was or what his conflicts were with his crew but we do know that 90 minutes after this event there were all kinds of political misconceptions flying around the national media, I can only imagine it was much more intense locally.

But lets call a spade a spade, he didn't refuse an emergency call, that was already handled.

But lets call a spade a spade, he didn't refuse an emergency call, that was already handled.

That's a "fact" that is not established. It didn't say that it was 90 minutes after the incident when the firefighters received the call. It said that it took 90 minutes before the firefighters got there.

This kind of reminds me of a local cop who pulled over a young couple who happened to be on their way to have an abortion. They told him this and he attempted to divert them. If I remember right he was severely reprimanded for interjecting his personal beliefs.

It said that it took 90 minutes before the firefighters got there.

No, it said explicitly they were dispatched 90 minutes after the shooting. Nothing about taking 90 minutes arrive. I even made it easy for you and pasted it into my comment.

"Pharmacists can refuse to dispense treatment--no matter how necessary--if it contradicts their "religious or moral beliefs." Physicians and nurses can refuse to provide treatment--no matter how necessary--if it contradicts their "religious or moral beliefs." Both can also refuse to refer patients to someone who will provide the treatment."

Maybe there should be a test that is administered, before becoming a pharmacist or a first responders. "Will your religious or moral beliefs keep you from doing your @!$%#ing job?" If you answered "yes", then you have chosen the wrong occupation.

@Cynthia

Thank you for your service to the public. I, too, am appalled at the lack of understanding of "govt. jobs"! It seems so unfair that somehow (gee, wonder how it happened) government workers suddenly have become the cause and response to our country's economic problems. (ie Wisc. and Ohio). Somehow the general public seems to believe that ya'll make tons of money and don't work for it. I'm so sorry. I honestly don't mind paying my taxes because I want those services provided by the public sector....fire, police, teachers, roads, safe drugs and food (for now), etc. I think it is quite disingenious to b%&*% and moan about paying taxes yet you have no problem using the services and no, they can't be done better and cheaper by the private sector (see Haliburton and Iraq). All the private sector wants is to make more money.

@Mike

Apparently, you have had the good fortune to never witness a situation with several serious injuries. You don't clear that kind of carnage in a few minutes, I'm sure the reason his unit was called was because they needed help-which makes what he did all the more reprehensible. I am in the medical field, and I apparently have the right to refuse someone treatment, however, that would never occur to me. I don't care how drunk, drugged up, dirty, mean, obnoxious or whatever a patient is, I am bound by my own morals to treat that person. This man was in the wrong job and it's a good thing he realized that before he hurt another person.

Here's a link to a much more informative news article about this incident. It notes that Ekstrum is a 28 year veteran which leads me to assume that this was not the first time he was called to duty as a first responder and that he was not taking the free ride as a civil servant.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_68abdf02-1d37-5e14-9974-6eeff8a22210.html

In his 28 years with Tucson Fire, Ekstrum had positive reviews and was given "exceed standards" on most of his evaluations. Williams said in his memo that Ekstrum's work ethic and performance had been exemplary and professional.

In early 2010, Ekstrum used two weeks' vacation time to volunteer in Haiti and help the victims of the earthquake, according to his personnel file.

He was only reprimanded once, an oral reprimand in 1984 for backing his vehicle into an object, Gulotta said.

When anyone in the health profession refuses medical care to anyone else, because the other's of a different political, religious or racial background ... that person is UN-professional ... and had and has no business in the field ... what a shame that he had sufficient time in, to retire out.

Refusing to provide medical aide to any human, let alone a "fellow" citizen ... is not using the principles that the USA is supposed to be built upon. He smeared every firefighter and first responder and health professional.

Using the designation of Mr. very loosely, I can only hope that Mr. Mark Ekstrum, was truely sufferring with some similar or greater, personal/family trajedy separate from this National trajedy. If not so, I'd be shocked if he could walk down the street in the light of day ... or rub shoulders with anyone that is not of a similar ilk.

Non-religious, not a Tusconian, not an American Citizen, not a Human Being ... what does he hold himself to be ... ? It was better that he did not respond to the scene ... he would not have truely assisted anyone. He will hopefully live in a personal hell, of his own making. I envy him not.

when a persons political views puts the life another person in jepordy there is no room for that person in american society let alone as a piblic servant... hopefully Extrum will not be able to get health care when he needs it

He was a fire fighter not a first responder. I believe he's main purpose is to put out fires. I do not believe there were any fires to put out so why were they called and why 90 minutes later? there is not much a fire fighter can do with a person that is shot. That person needs a ambulance and a hospital right now not 90 minutes later. A first responder is also helpless with gun shot victims. All they can do is comfort and hope the ambulance gets there quickly with the EMT's who are trained at a much higher level then a first responder or a fire fighter.

At least Mike can read...no wonder this incident is so successfully used to decieve the sleeping giant...people really are this stupid...I had been holding out hope...but it is quickly fading

A first responder is also helpless with gun shot victims.

Do you mean that if someone is shot in the arm that a first responder can't tend to the wound? You really want us to believe that?

Realist --

"I would hope that had he not resigned, that the rest of the force would have in protest of having such an self-serving, mis-directed individual on their team."

I would hope that the rest of the force would have the professionalism to protest in a manner which would still allow them to serve as they are specially trained, rather than depriving more people of their services. Stooping to his level is beneath the dignity of those caring, responsible individuals who give of themselves so freely, in most cases without regard for their own safety and well-being.

John: A firefighter IS a first responder. They are the definition of first responders. I'm not sure where you are from or if you watch any news/television, but firefighters today are also the EMTS, paramedics, hazmat, tactical rescue (trench collapse, water rescues, highrise rescues like window washers), WMD/NBC. If you had only paid attention during the coverage of the tower attacks you would know this was true. Perhaps some areas still have separate medical response, but I can't imagine there are many. They fight fires, respond to accidents and other medical emergencies like heart attacks, go into confined, unstable spaces for rescues, enter white waters to pull people out of cars or from roofs, they mitigate hazardous incidents, are first in when non-explosive WMD/NBC incidents are suspected (anthrax), etc etc etc It's fire departments who make of the FEMA Task Forces that were called up immediately after Katrina hit for rescue ops, they also were rescue/recovery in Oklahoma, California earthquakes and other disasters. PLEASE make sure you know what you are stating as fact are in fact FACTS. Thank you.

Yes Cynthia, there are many cities and towns where a private ambulance service provides the medical service, and more every day. Also, just because a firefighter is called a "first responder" does not mean they provide medical first response. The firefighter involved here did what he should have done. He quit. If he hadn't the responsible thing to do would have been to fire him. However, my understanding from the article and talking to someone involved, His unit was called out to hose down the scene AFTER the victims had been attended to, therefore he did NOT as some have insinuated refuse to help a victim in need. Unfortunately there are many firefighters out there who have Post- Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Because they feel they have to be "super human" every day they keep it to themselves and don't seek help until they snap. When that happens they just can't take one more call. This usually happens to those who have to respond to really horrible accident calls, shootings, murders, etc. over and over again This man served his community for 28 years honorably before this happened and did the honorable thing by leaving the department.

read the definition for first responder' it doesn't matter how many emergency crews were dispatched. If he chose to not go on a call that came to him at his firehouse then he failed to live up to his duty. If he made justifying statements using politics then he not only failed his duty, but stepped into the realm of negligence and dereliction. There is no honor in that.

A free man can chose to do what he wants in this country .If this is not the case please let me know.

This is me letting you know. If you're in the military you deploy when ordered, and if you're in EMS you respond when called.

...this is just a weird story all-around, though. Clearly something strange is going on here, and honestly it sounds like the situation has been resolved appropriately, so it's probably not worth getting worked up over.

Jack: That free man took an oath when he joined the fire dept. So he was not free to do what he wanted. He broke his oath.

jack..................anyone who refuses to help people who are seriously injured is not honorable, he is a coward, a traitor, and his name should be drug thru the mud

jack 306624, Yes this is a free country: however, when you pin on a badge & swear an oath it means ALL AMERICANS, not the ones you only like!! Don't give me this I have the right to choose bs, save that for the SMALL MINDED!! I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt & Dwight Eisenhower would have thought of this guy DUCKING HIS DUTY!!!

He was free to choose his line of work. He chose his profession. Freedom also means living with your choices. He chose a position of trust. Not only did tax dollars pay him every day he went out and saved someones life,they paid him every day he didnt have to. They did that so that when the time came,he would be there ready to spring into action. When the time came this time around,he chose not to. Its not his decision who he helps or not,he either helps anyone in need or should have chose another line of work. If he had decided to open a resturant and refused to serve someone whose politics he did not like,thats his right. Its a free country. However,he was paid by tax dollars to do a very important job and trusted to do it to the best of his ability. When the time came,he refused,and then he retired. He should not be allowed to retire. He should be disciplined and fired. He chose not to do the job,why should he get the rewards for it.

The story says he renounced because he was going to be disciplined. He knew exactly what he did. What kind of public servant is this?...I hope he never faces the need to receive help and another fireman that feels and thinks like him leaves him stood up.

Jack -

What if you were in the middle of having brain surgery and the surgeon decided to go have a beer and watch a little b-ball and let you die on the table. When asked why he did that and responded "Hey, its a free country,"- tell me you'd be fine with that? You have no idea as to the definition of political freedom.

jack, you don't know jack about the situation but wanting to make it what your small mind dreams. This man refused to do his job. Enough said.

MIKE A if you were in the military, and ordered to level your weapon against American citizens, would you?

Um, what? How is that even slightly comparable to responding to a 911?

Anyways, I don't have enough information to answer that question. Give me some context, I'll give it a shot.

Corsair: Please stay on topic. Your question is a non-sequiter.

Yes, the firefighter was free to refuse to go on the job. The fire chief is then free to fire his azz for not doing his job. See? It IS a free country.

As for an order to shoot citizens, if it's an unlawful order, then yes, he can choose to disobey. It's always been this way. But that has nothing to do with this case. There was no unlawful order given to go do his duty. It's either do your duty and quit/get fired.

TS Roy, MIKE A made the comparison.

I think when most people hear 'ordered to deploy' they don't interpret it as 'ordered to go shoot innocent Americans.' But that's just me.

Anyways, there's clearly no comparison between randomly killing people and responding to a 9/11 call with medical aid. Right?

corsair

Where did Mike A make that comparison? I checked back on his comments, and I didn't see anything about firing on fellow Americans. Are you trying to compare this firefighter's actions to the quelling of a riot? I hope not. I know for many of us the shootings of students at Kent State will come to mind, and we don't need that argument at this time. It's irrelevant to this topic.

As to when he was called to the scene, it says in the article that his team was called 90 minutes after the shootings occurred. This guy has no sane reason for refusing the 911 call.

Corsair -

At Kent State some student set fire to the ROTC building. Where is your source for "burned half the town of Kent to the ground"?

Corsair

I like how each continuing post you made - you managed to make yourself look more ignorant.....

But the answer to your question is a simple one and of course you knew the answer all along...

If a military unit is deployed to Wisconsin and you are ordered to shoot.......

You can refuse - simple enough.

Of course you will be brought up on charges and you will have to answer for your decision!

Seems like what happened here.....responder refused to go on call .....now he is unemployed!

I'm not sure if there are potential criminal charges that could be brought for a first responder who fails to go on a call.....

Post 5.2." When your in the military you deploy when ordered. When your in EMS you repond when called", MIKE A.

How does this statement apply to Wisconsin? It doesn't. Nothing about this topic has anything to do with the political fight going on in Wisconsin today.

As far as Kent State, how old are you? Are you old enough to remember that horrible day? Or are you one of those who believes the students deserved being killed? Either way, I'd say you don't have a real understanding of what our nation was going through during that era.

I've read a few of your other posts. You are a Troll. Please go worship Beck and leave the rest of us alone.

I'd like to remind all of you upset about your tax dollars paying this ex-firefighter and all firefighters...they pay the same percentages as all of you, so they are paying part of their own salaries. If you think about it, they pay more than you do since its taxed again when its paid back as payroll.....So, stop the taxpayer bs, it doesn't fly.

corsair - Kent State and the shooting in Tucson are two completely different matters. I am old enough to remember Kent State vividly and there is no comparison!

The firefighter was part of a team trained to handle major medical emergencies. They weren't called out until 90 minutes after the shootings so they were not the "first responders" at this scene. I am sure you would be outraged if it had been your wife/girlfriend/daughter/sig. other who was one of the wounded. More than once I have assisted someone in distress/danger and have never yet worried about their politics, race, etc. and hope I never have to do it again and if so, I hope I don’t stop to consider their politics, race, etc. If I do then it is time for me to checkout as I am no longer the person I always thought and believed I was. I know I would never be able to face myself in the mirror again.

The article says he quit because of possible disciplinary action so he must have felt he was wrong. Quitting or resigning may or may not have any effect on disciplinary action, we would need to no more on the firefighter’s contract. Quitting or retiring also has no effect on whether he can sue or not either. If he was being harassed on a continuing basis because of political beliefs it is illegal but there better be an extensive paperwork trail to verify his claims. Even if there is paperwork he stated then it was a political scenario so I would think he is out of luck.

Secondly, in the military you take an oath to defend the country against enemies "foreign and domestic". While it is true someone in the military may refuse an order they believe unlawful they had better understand what they are doing and have sound ground to stand on. I have done this successfully (as an enlisted man) and don’t recommend it to anyone. It’s not for the faint of heart I can tell you that.

Forget the military. Forget firefighters. In the private sector if you refuse to do your job, you are likely to be fired. It's good that bad apples like this are weeded out.

corsair .. is there any way you can look dumber

Agreed, but I will add this is why America (states - feds) are in the financial shape they are in. Stop the retirement padding, double dipping and factions that are self serving. America needs to look at the retirement criteria of all state / federal employees and make sure they are consistent with the public sector. What will end up happening is that to the benefit of a few many many lose their retirements. Retirements are earned, this person earned termination not a free ride. Retirement before the age of 59 (yes I'm being generous) should never be allowed regardless of years on the payroll. This should include all state and federal employees and once on the retirement payroll you should not be allowed to take another state or federal job. Retirement programs will bankrupt America if we do not get smart about them.

Does this mean elected officals Walker was representive and the county executive and now governor each of the jobs was about 5-10 years so unlike the private sector he will be able to draw 3 pensions from 3 different sections of government unlike the private sector you may have to work 10-15 years at the same job to get a pension, If you want to apply this concept then why are congress persons able to get a federal pension after winning one term. Think how much money will and is going to that group + I think they get health care too.

Really, you're going to sum up this man's life and career by an article written in about 5 minutes by a for profit news company. They took no time to look into his past service as a firefighter. They simply took a bad decision, made it a headline to get people to click and read.

The man shouldn't have his retirement stripped. He served as a firefighter for 28 years; that's what his retirement is based on - NOT on his refusal to respond as a secondary support unit to the Safeway shooting.

The most disparaging aspect of this is his reasoning for not wanting to go regardless of the time frame. I work in medicine in radiology. I've taken everything from plain films to doing MRIs on people who were prisoners, drunk drivers or simply drunk, a**holes, as well as your average unassuming patient. You do your job because the bottom line regardless of the patient IS patient care.

It's the same for this gentleman. You do your job and you do it well regardless of who the patient is.

THIS MAN....should have his retirement STRIPPED from him! This right here is EXACTLY why America is falling! DISGRACEFUL!

What a ridiculous comment.

Sometimes a really bad decision is worth a really bad consequence Skup.

I guess the silver lining to this is that he is no longer an active member of the fire department, so he can't do it again.

@upstateny-2098796

Not sure how your state handles pensions, but here where I live the state employees pay into pensions just like a corporate employee pays into a 401K. The state and local governments pay in a percent into the pensions, just like companies pay a matching percent into their employees 401K.

Retirement is not a free ride for them and most won't be eligible to draw Social Security - only Medicare.

I agree that nationally all plans need to be reviewed. Especially since administrating of these retirement plans is usually left up to whoever the establishment is at the time. I can tell you from personal experience some of them couldn't care less about what they're choices will do to a man's retirement 30 years from now.

Would anyone know how the congressional pension/retirement plans are setup?

Why should he be stripped of what he earned in the past????? He is NOT trying to keep the job that he could no longer perform, he quit.

Yes it is sad that he did not respond to a call, but as a man who's life has been saved by a first responder, I would much rather have 3 guys who's head and heart were ready than 4 guys that had one not sure about his job.

As I read the story, he realized that his political views would interfere with his job and he resigned from it. I give him credit for doing the right thing in that regard.

Yes he must be disciplined in some way.

One word: Prison!

On what charge?

If we start sending people to prison for bad decisions it's going to get awfully crowded in there...

If you work for the public and it's the public you need to take care of, regardless of any citizens politics. He should be fired and all of his commendations and stripped from him. What a coward.

The libs are filled with idle threats. I dare them to charge this person. I dare you, cowards. All talk.

I love the liberal angst. I smell a reckoning in 2012...so long Barry.

He's now retired after 28 years of honorable service, what sort license do you think he needs that you think he should be denied for this one bad choice, ridiculous, his fire fighter days are already OVER!

Did you bother to read the story before commenting? His days are over already. Under your rush to judgement you hold this man to a standard you set, would you be able to live up to that standard? Then you are never allowed to feel bad about your job for ANY reason or able to resign from that job. Lest not forget he is human, not a machine. He did the right thing by resigning from a job that he felt he could not perform. Probably till that call, he thought he could.

Would you want a man who really did not want to be there holding your life in his hands?

he deserves no pension along with the politicians that double and triple dip

The shooter also had the "courage of his convictions". I don't give bonus points for that.

the ball is in your court Ricky.........you going to atempt to return the ball or just concede the match?

"courage of his convictions???"

While the article is sketchy, the impression is given that he indicated strong disagreement with the political views of those at the gathering.

How in the HELL does that translate to "convictions?" One can only extrapolate that your opinion is that if you disagree with someone politically, they should die. I don't want to live in a world where killing all who disagree with you is considered acceptable. Like the law they are proposing in (some state) that says its ok to kill abortion providers. Sick b@$t@rds!

Do any of you right-wing nutcases ever read that bible you are always thumping? Check out the story of the good Samaritan. It is presumably included there as an example to follow.

You attempted to cover your bigotry by saying he should have gone anyway. But you respect his impulse not to. A world where people want to let you die but are grudgingly doing their job because they have to is a vile world.

Ricky walks off the court and forfeits the match. .

Or making little rocks out of big rocks in some federal prison! I have been in medicine for over 35 years....and you treat all comers. I have taken xrays on shooting victims who are being interview by the police and they name the shooter...the next room I walk into to take xrays is the shooter! I still take the xrays and do my job. I might not like the fact that they shot at someone, but I still do my job to the best of my ability and let the court system handle the rest. There is no room for politics when you accept a position like a first responder, fire fighter, police officer, etc. I hope they strip him of his retirement and his credentials - he doesn't deserve either one!

Really? Never? I don't know, I'm sure I could think up a dozen or more situations where it could be a problem. You know, like if the call was for a family member or a friend. But let's look at it a different way (since I have the benefit of doing some additional research and not relying on MSNBC's article alone): Maybe he was a hero for not taking the call because he was emotionally vested in the situation. His emotions, which should never enter the job, but more importantly, should NEVER be brought to the field, would have compromised the situation.

First responders are there for the public and are paid for their service for the community. Our taxes pay for them to take care of us. I don't care what his politics are, he should have put them side and responded to the scene. Gifford wasn't a terrorist, or that crazed shooter that killed the nine year old. He is sitting in a jail and was given his rights.

That first responder was cowardly, unamerican and no hero, regardless of his convictions. Yeah, he has convictions, big whoopee do, and I'm sure he aired his "convictions" many times among his co-workers. That should have sent a red flag to the rest of the staff and his bosses.

He picked the wrong line of work. He wasn't a hero for not taking the call. A nine year old died. How did his convictions work into that?

I love how people jump to conclusions based on their own political bias. We have no idea of if he is left or right. Other articles say he is a registered Independent after 17 years as a Democrat and he says he voted for Gabby. So the circumstantial evidence points against him being a "right-leaning man". Nevertheless, I'm not jumping to conclusions as there is NO EVIDENCE of his political views which caused his unethical and unprofessional behavior.

So he voted for Gabby and didn't respond....

And those who had different political viewpoints then him and probably didn't vote for Gabby did?

Sounds like a line of defense he may want to pass on!

btw- if you have read other articles where "he says he voted for Gabby".....how would that be "jumping to conclusions"......and if the articles says he was a "registered independent" after 17 years as a democrat.....isn't that "evidence of his political views"?

thanks for the additional information - it does however cloud the issue for me on why he did refuse to respond.....if it wasn't political what else could it be......guess we'll get that answer somewhere down the road.....this won't remain silent forever!..

Rush ..Hannity.. and that bunch on Fox will put him on camera as a hero

andy55

please indicate where there is any mention of the political beliefs of anyone in this article. what appears to be happening is that some here would like to make a political statement with no facts to support them.

jrl, please read the article. Where is does not state specifics it does in fact state there were political differences which caused this mans (and I use that word loosely) rather poor decision.

Would jazz up my day I'm sure, give a little spice to it.

Where do the people who aren't on either side and are borderline anarchists go to wait it out? I'll let the crazies cut down the population and come back when the dust settles.

I guess people dying isn't dire enough for you.

Wow, a nine year old was murdered. Sadly, she'll never be able to make choices in her life.

That's dire, when people are shot at, wounded and killed. There isn't any excuse for that First Responder to refuse to take the call. He's not an American.