Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: It's a paradigm
Posted by: Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2007 09:10PM
If proving I am not arguementative means I must give up my right to a different opinion and walk in lock step as I am told please leave me with the good group.
I wish you and others would completely quit stating something is fact unless you can provide documentation to support what you say. You say, “many state and federal appeals courts it is clearly and unequivocally the “standard of care” in our industry.” As I heard in a commercial, “Show me the beef.” That is nothing more than you interpreting the wording used by the court to meet your own agenda. I have not found a case where the court has been asked to rule on the standard of care for fire investigation. Give me one court or appellate court that has used the exact term “standard of care” in making a decision. I am not looking for “benchmark” or “gold standard”. Standard of care is a well defined legal term with specific meaning. I have cited case in this discussion that the court did not feel that way about the document. From the way you and others talk there should be hundreds of cases to cite but where are they?
You say NAFI has adopted it as their standard of care for their organization and yes this is true but leave me ask you how many people are members of NAFI and how many people voted in favor of it being the standard of care for the association. Can you show me one state or federal agency that has used the words standard of care and adopted the document in that respect for there organization. I know of none. So what do we have after 15 years of existence coming out in favor of the document being classified as the standard of care for fire investigators?
Do you remember the movie Patton when the first battle between Patton and Rommel was taking place, as Patton’s forces were getting the upper hand Patton made the comment “I read your book you SOB” talking about him reading Rommel’s book on tactics. Well Pat, I know you, John, and some of the others with your opinion and I have a good idea of the direction you all are heading. Your comments, “ If you and the others do not have an ulterior motive why do you need the word “Standard” to be the accepted terminology and why does this wording make such a difference to you? When Steve made his suggestion about identifying the document as a Paradigm you said in your post to his comment, “Yeah, what he said.” I thought you were agreeing to his comment with your statement. Your comments seem to be for one purpose and that is to have the person agree this is the standard of care for their investigation and to go after them personally for not following every section of the document.
Your comment, “The purpose of 921 is to guide the ill-trained, un-trained, unethical, unscientific, unqualified, misinformed, argumentative, quarrelsome, or incompetent. Those who will not be guided will have to watch out for the “921 death squads,” fully supported by the appellate courts” gives me a good prospective as to your objectives. Thank goodness the appellate courts seem to be going in different directions. I did not know NFPA 921 was the Holy Grail with no errors and those involved in its development are so much greater than the rest of us poor souls conducting day to day fire investigations. Based on your statement I would say it is your opinion that if one agrees that 921 is the standard of care for fire investigations they are in the upper group but for those of us that believe in independent thinking and evaluating all data in order to make a decision we are in the ill-trained, un-trained, unethical, unscientific, unqualified, misinformed, argumentative, quarrelsome, or incompetent group of investigators. I wonder how many of this group is out here and if your comment was intended to make me feel ashamed for being associated with them it did not work. I also see if your opinion does not agree with them then they are one of the following, ill-trained, un-trained, unethical, unscientific, unqualified, misinformed, argumentative, quarrelsome, or incompetent. Glad to see you rate me so highly.
The last thing is I do not like big brother telling me what to do. I believe I have sufficient intelligence to look at all sides of a point objectively and reach my own conclusion.
I wish you and others would completely quit stating something is fact unless you can provide documentation to support what you say. You say, “many state and federal appeals courts it is clearly and unequivocally the “standard of care” in our industry.” As I heard in a commercial, “Show me the beef.” That is nothing more than you interpreting the wording used by the court to meet your own agenda. I have not found a case where the court has been asked to rule on the standard of care for fire investigation. Give me one court or appellate court that has used the exact term “standard of care” in making a decision. I am not looking for “benchmark” or “gold standard”. Standard of care is a well defined legal term with specific meaning. I have cited case in this discussion that the court did not feel that way about the document. From the way you and others talk there should be hundreds of cases to cite but where are they?
You say NAFI has adopted it as their standard of care for their organization and yes this is true but leave me ask you how many people are members of NAFI and how many people voted in favor of it being the standard of care for the association. Can you show me one state or federal agency that has used the words standard of care and adopted the document in that respect for there organization. I know of none. So what do we have after 15 years of existence coming out in favor of the document being classified as the standard of care for fire investigators?
Do you remember the movie Patton when the first battle between Patton and Rommel was taking place, as Patton’s forces were getting the upper hand Patton made the comment “I read your book you SOB” talking about him reading Rommel’s book on tactics. Well Pat, I know you, John, and some of the others with your opinion and I have a good idea of the direction you all are heading. Your comments, “ If you and the others do not have an ulterior motive why do you need the word “Standard” to be the accepted terminology and why does this wording make such a difference to you? When Steve made his suggestion about identifying the document as a Paradigm you said in your post to his comment, “Yeah, what he said.” I thought you were agreeing to his comment with your statement. Your comments seem to be for one purpose and that is to have the person agree this is the standard of care for their investigation and to go after them personally for not following every section of the document.
Your comment, “The purpose of 921 is to guide the ill-trained, un-trained, unethical, unscientific, unqualified, misinformed, argumentative, quarrelsome, or incompetent. Those who will not be guided will have to watch out for the “921 death squads,” fully supported by the appellate courts” gives me a good prospective as to your objectives. Thank goodness the appellate courts seem to be going in different directions. I did not know NFPA 921 was the Holy Grail with no errors and those involved in its development are so much greater than the rest of us poor souls conducting day to day fire investigations. Based on your statement I would say it is your opinion that if one agrees that 921 is the standard of care for fire investigations they are in the upper group but for those of us that believe in independent thinking and evaluating all data in order to make a decision we are in the ill-trained, un-trained, unethical, unscientific, unqualified, misinformed, argumentative, quarrelsome, or incompetent group of investigators. I wonder how many of this group is out here and if your comment was intended to make me feel ashamed for being associated with them it did not work. I also see if your opinion does not agree with them then they are one of the following, ill-trained, un-trained, unethical, unscientific, unqualified, misinformed, argumentative, quarrelsome, or incompetent. Glad to see you rate me so highly.
The last thing is I do not like big brother telling me what to do. I believe I have sufficient intelligence to look at all sides of a point objectively and reach my own conclusion.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.