In the cell phone video at this link: http://www.newson6.com/Global/category.asp?C=121535&clipId=3801638&autostart=true

At exactly 00:27,the camera turns toward the OHP unit and a passenger is clearly seen in the front passenger seat. It is especially apparent as the videographer walks around the passenger side of the vehicle & we can see the person through the passenger window.

In the OHP dashcam video, at exactly 13:57:06, you can hear the female state, "What happened?"

In White's written statement found here: http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/0905/ambulanceincidentreports.pdf

he states that the reason the ambulance even pulled over for the trooper was that White saw the passenger in the OHP unit and thought perhaps that passenger needed medical assistance.

The OHP has -from the getgo- readily admitted it was Martin's wife in the OHP unit.

And, lastly, on page 4 of White's lawsuit against Martin here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/y22emtlawsuit.pdf
it is stated repeatedly that Martin in fact picked up the female at the location where he stopped (where we hear her say "What happened"), questioning whether he was running Code for an emergency at all.

So, without question, there was a passenger in the vehicle.

In no way shape or form am I suggesting that there is anything wrong with having his wife in the vehicle for a ride-along, since it appears it was done according to OHP policies. In fact, I commend her for keeping her cool during a rather hairy situation. Been there, done that; I know what it feels like.

But please don't accuse the lawyers of lying about this particular minuscule portion of the whole debacle, since evidence & statements (long before attorneys got involved) show there to be a passenger.

I expect that ride-alongs are permitted for OHP. We have ride-alongs in EMS. Our EMS ride-alongs face many of the same dangers that OHP ride-alongs do.

Perhaps Anonymous would benefit from a ride with EMS to experience the many distractions that might prevent the driver of an ambulance from pulling over immediately.

Immediately is an interesting word. It suggests that the driver should not consider anything except getting out of the way, but what if there are pedestrians on the side of the road? Animals? You hit a medium sized dog in a car and you may be deflected back in front of the trooper. What if a car in front of you is slowing down and pulling over faster than you can slow down and pull over safely in a much larger ambulance? Does Anonymous believe that unsafe driving is required in order to pull over immediately?

Anonymous suggests that immediate be interpreted literally, but that would be irresponsible. While we should be as aware as possible of our surroundings and notice lights and sirens approaching instantly, there are many distractions when driving an ambulance. Several of these distractions combined will make it unlikely that even Anonymous would have been able to pull over immediately, no matter how much Anonymous may have tried.

To pull over immediately might have been reckless. I suspect that reckless driving is a more serious violation of the Oklahoma motor vehicle code than failure to yield.

The driver of the ambulance is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the ambulance and the other drivers on the road. Sudden, or immediate, changes in direction are a bad idea. It appeared to me as if Paul Franks pulled to the side as soon as it was safe after he became aware of the trooper. I did not see anything in the video to contradict that.

I have been on ride-alongs and I must say they give a whole new insight into what an officer really does/goes through on a shift. I am in favor of them.

I give kudos to his wife for following ride-along protocol and keeping her cool, even when things went south. Been there, done that; know how it feels.

Someone got schooled here. Why does it not surprise me that anon chose to post as such. *cough*

Just saying.