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: Standard of Care Requirements for Fire Investigators
Posted by: Chris Bloom, CJBFireConsultant (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2007 03:42AM
Guys,
Enough please. This is starting to get out of the discussion and debate mode. Each side has their own opinions and I think expressed them clearly. It is also clear that the two sides do not seem to agree.
One problem I had with the 921 document is that there are people for whatever reason writing sections which are (in broad terms) trying to redefine issues pertaining to law. How many times do you recall a definition stated in 921 is in direct conflict with a definition in the Engineering/Chemistry/Physics fields. Recall the old discussion of Vectors and Scalars for one? 921 is considered by the courts to be a standard of care, like it or not, we must all now live with that. However, using that standard of care, we are allowed to disagree with the document as long as we can justify why deviations take place. Deviations are not necessarily wrong or cause the investigator to be negligent, rather they just need to be documented.
921 has many holes in it, hence the number of proposed revisions. Each revision cycle it has gotten progressively better but it is still not a completely accurate document in it current form. I don't know if it ever will be. However, it is the best thing we have right now and as a whole, we are far better with it in our lives than without it.
Just my two cents and please, please, please, lets move onto another different issue.
Your friendly neighborhood site administrator
Enough please. This is starting to get out of the discussion and debate mode. Each side has their own opinions and I think expressed them clearly. It is also clear that the two sides do not seem to agree.
One problem I had with the 921 document is that there are people for whatever reason writing sections which are (in broad terms) trying to redefine issues pertaining to law. How many times do you recall a definition stated in 921 is in direct conflict with a definition in the Engineering/Chemistry/Physics fields. Recall the old discussion of Vectors and Scalars for one? 921 is considered by the courts to be a standard of care, like it or not, we must all now live with that. However, using that standard of care, we are allowed to disagree with the document as long as we can justify why deviations take place. Deviations are not necessarily wrong or cause the investigator to be negligent, rather they just need to be documented.
921 has many holes in it, hence the number of proposed revisions. Each revision cycle it has gotten progressively better but it is still not a completely accurate document in it current form. I don't know if it ever will be. However, it is the best thing we have right now and as a whole, we are far better with it in our lives than without it.
Just my two cents and please, please, please, lets move onto another different issue.
Your friendly neighborhood site administrator
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.