He didn't follow normal regulations (if he's a veteran he knows what regulations there are) in saving his wife. Typically when you ignore those regulations and blow through intersections and evade police you're Gung-ho

I will say one thing, time is very important when administering treatment for a stroke and each moment that passes prior to administering tPA or some other thrombolytic agents. The faster the treatment, the less permanent damage such as paralysis, impaired speech and such. Given soon enough, there is frequently almost no impairment at all. If I was a few blocks from a hospital when my hubby or another loved one or even a stranger had what I believed to be a stroke, I would put them in the car and take my chances of a traffic ticket rather than waiting for the time it took to send an ambulance. And I would expect a police officer to hang out until the initial emergency was under control to issue me a ticket. I sure would not expect them to try and stop me from entering the hospital in the middle of it all.

Now that said, we really don't have anyone's description of the event except the couples. So until we know the hospitals side and the police officer's side we really don't have the whole picture. But medical emergencies should come prior to tickets for running a stop light especially when the destination ended up being an emergency room.

...and you would have been just as wrong to do so as he was.

And it still doesn't change the fact that we get to read a story that's extremely biased in his favour. We have no clue what really happened, we only know what he himself most likely wants people to think happened.

He didn't follow normal regulations (if he's a veteran he knows what regulations there are) in saving his wife. Typically when you ignore those regulations and blow through intersections and evade police you're Gung-ho

He didn't follow normal regulations (if he's a veteran he knows what regulations there are) in saving his wife. Typically when you ignore those regulations and blow through intersections and evade police you're Gung-ho

The rules are there for a reason.

Yes they are - to protect people. But when those same rules start hurting people - and I don't mean just inconveniencing them, but actually hurting - then it's time to break those rules. Wasn't there a country founded on similar principles, I'm a little hazy... (and I probably couldn't discuss it even so.)

Does he deserve the ticket? Yes. And I'm sure he agrees, it's part of the risk he was willing to take.

But I'm just glad this is a thread about a near-death experience rather than a too-late experience.

Yes they are - to protect people. But when those same rules start hurting people - and I don't mean just inconveniencing them, but actually hurting - then it's time to break those rules. Wasn't there a country founded on similar principles, I'm a little hazy... (and I probably couldn't discuss it even so.)

Does he deserve the ticket? Yes. And I'm sure he agrees, it's part of the risk he was willing to take.

But I'm just glad this is a thread about a near-death experience rather than a too-late experience.

Yes, this is ridiculous :angry:

The article mentioned that he paused at each red light, I'm assuming to check for traffic, so I'm further assuming that he only ran the red lights when he knew it was safe to go. He wasn't endangering anyone, he was still driving safely, just trying to save time. It doesn't sound like it was some Hollywood car chase where he blows through some gigantic New York intersection and cars screech to a halt and two of them flip over and explode in mid-air as he travels through......

Everything this guy did, though it technically broke policy, was absolutely warranted- he needed to get his wife medical attention, and he knew what he had to do in order for that to happen (namely, be there to inform medical staff of his wife's condition, rather than them wasting time trying to figure out what the problem was).

If he had followed "the rules", it could have been her that died and the doctors saying, "if only we had someone here to tell us of her condition before we tried a treatment that we knew would not have worked" :rolleyes:

If he had followed "the rules", it could have been her that died and the doctors saying, "if only we had someone here to tell us of her condition before we tried a treatment that we knew would not have worked" :rolleyes:

Actually, everything you said is a good reason to go by the rules rather than do what he did.

There are lots of fatal accidents where people have thought it was OK to run a red light and it turns out that it wasn't. High-speed accident = maybe 3 or more dead.

She would have gotten life support and medical attention sooner if he had played by the rules. An ambulance would have responded within the time it took him to get her to the hospital. At that point, they have life support equipment and people ready to use it. Once they were underway, the paramedics would have radioed ahead, and the emergency room would have been advised of her condition and prepared to receive her.

The rules are there because they work better than panicking or going cowboy does.

Woah, hold your horses!

First, whether or not you are guilty of committing a crime is not based on how admirable a person you generally are. It's not like war veterans get an almighty "Can never commit a crime ever again!"-card to flash to the police whenever they see them. Any such information is entirely irrelevant.

Second, how about we give the policeman the benefit of the doubt here; the article is completely onesided and clearly biased. If you want to assume the role of a judge, which you really have no right to do, you should at least know all the facts before passing judgement.

Third, why don't we just wait for an official verdict before we decide who was in the right on this one? You read one single article on the internet, and suddenly you are wishing bodily harm on someone you don't know anything about whatsoever.

Hospitals should have a video recording of the incident, if the assault happened on hospital property or around it, no?

Edit: Just had an interesting vision in my mind. Robert Picardo appearing "Please state the nature of hte medical emergency" "There's a cop that won't leave me alone".

Oh gee, regulations? Regulations? Nothing would ever get done in the army if everyone only ever followed regulations! Ask anyone who's served.

The fact is, on the pointy end of things you need to act and make decisions. Nobody died, so it was the right one in this case. Was it the safest option? No - but you don't always have that luxury, nor do you have the luxury of second-guessing yourself. His actions saved a life, he's a bloody hero, and we're quibbling about regulations?

I just hope you never have to make that kind of call...

If he happened to strike two pedestrians down when crossing the intersection would you call him a hero then?

Exaggerating a little, here? He wasn't driving at reckless speeds and didn't blow through intersections without looking. Calm down, we don't need any giant strawmen.

There are lots of fatal accidents where people have thought it was OK to run a red light and it turns out that it wasn't. High-speed accident = maybe 3 or more dead.

being an ass