T. John

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

Feel free to shoot me a private message here and I will try to get you some more details, or at least get you in touch with the program coordinator. They are in the final staging of receiving final DHS/FEMA approval for the program which will make it more readily available. It has been rolled out in the metro region (Minneapolis/St. Paul area) and we are starting to move it into the more suburban communities.
I realize that benefit laws vary from state to state and even department to department. I agree with Dinosaur that this is something that should be lobbied for. I am sure that we all recognize that much of what we do today is governed by the way it was 100 years ago - we need to be brought into 2012 and look toward the future. The risks we face today have changed and the services we provide have increased.
Agency Cooperation
One thing I have noticed is that 3E (and similar multi-agency training programs) brings people together. While it may be training and a policy that, hopefully, we never have to put to use, it gets people in the same room working together. I was raised on the east coast and grew up in emergency services there, so I understand the silos and even, unfortunately, the turf wars that exist. To be frank, its time to get over it. These "hostile events" require cooperation and coordination. There isn't such a thing as "that's not my job" anymore. The public doesn't care and won't tolerate that excuse. The person that is bleeding inside an empty classroom and going into shock doesn't care; they want help. We are all trained to recognize and manage risk. It is part of our job and what we do. I have a very close working relationship with our local law enforcement here. The only reason that exists is because we work to make it be that way. In closing, agencies that begin to plan for these hostile events may find themselves developing a better day-to-day working relationships between each other. We, as emergency first responders, know that we are there to help support one another, regardless of what our badge or patch says.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

Feel free to shoot me a private message here and I will try to get you some more details, or at least get you in touch with the program coordinator. They are in the final staging of receiving final DHS/FEMA approval for the program which will make it more readily available. It has been rolled out in the metro region (Minneapolis/St. Paul area) and we are starting to move it into the more suburban communities.
I realize that benefit laws vary from state to state and even department to department. I agree with Dinosaur that this is something that should be lobbied for. I am sure that we all recognize that much of what we do today is governed by the way it was 100 years ago - we need to be brought into 2012 and look toward the future. The risks we face today have changed and the services we provide have increased.
Agency Cooperation
One thing I have noticed is that 3E (and similar multi-agency training programs) brings people together. While it may be training and a policy that, hopefully, we never have to put to use, it gets people in the same room working together. I was raised on the east coast and grew up in emergency services there, so I understand the silos and even, unfortunately, the turf wars that exist. To be frank, its time to get over it. These "hostile events" require cooperation and coordination. There isn't such a thing as "that's not my job" anymore. The public doesn't care and won't tolerate that excuse. The person that is bleeding inside an empty classroom and going into shock doesn't care; they want help. We are all trained to recognize and manage risk. It is part of our job and what we do. I have a very close working relationship with our local law enforcement here. The only reason that exists is because we work to make it be that way. In closing, agencies that begin to plan for these hostile events may find themselves developing a better day-to-day working relationships between each other. We, as emergency first responders, know that we are there to help support one another, regardless of what our badge or patch says.

Feel free to shoot me a private message here and I will try to get you some more details, or at least get you in touch with the program coordinator. They are in the final staging of receiving final DHS/FEMA approval for the program which will make it more readily available. It has been rolled out in the metro region (Minneapolis/St. Paul area) and we are starting to move it into the more suburban communities.
I realize that benefit laws vary from state to state and even department to department. I agree with Dinosaur that this is something that should be lobbied for. I am sure that we all recognize that much of what we do today is governed by the way it was 100 years ago - we need to be brought into 2012 and look toward the future. The risks we face today have changed and the services we provide have increased.
Agency Cooperation
One thing I have noticed is that 3E (and similar multi-agency training programs) brings people together. While it may be training and a policy that, hopefully, we never have to put to use, it gets people in the same room working together. I was raised on the east coast and grew up in emergency services there, so I understand the silos and even, unfortunately, the turf wars that exist. To be frank, its time to get over it. These "hostile events" require cooperation and coordination. There isn't such a thing as "that's not my job" anymore. The public doesn't care and won't tolerate that excuse. The person that is bleeding inside an empty classroom and going into shock doesn't care; they want help. We are all trained to recognize and manage risk. It is part of our job and what we do. I have a very close working relationship with our local law enforcement here. The only reason that exists is because we work to make it be that way. In closing, agencies that begin to plan for these hostile events may find themselves developing a better day-to-day working relationships between each other. We, as emergency first responders, know that we are there to help support one another, regardless of what our badge or patch says.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

Feel free to shoot me a private message here and I will try to get you some more details, or at least get you in touch with the program coordinator. They are in the final staging of receiving final DHS/FEMA approval for the program which will make it more readily available. It has been rolled out in the metro region (Minneapolis/St. Paul area) and we are starting to move it into the more suburban communities.
I realize that benefit laws vary from state to state and even department to department. I agree with Dinosaur that this is something that should be lobbied for. I am sure that we all recognize that much of what we do today is governed by the way it was 100 years ago - we need to be brought into 2012 and look toward the future. The risks we face today have changed and the services we provide have increased.
Agency Cooperation
One thing I have noticed is that 3E (and similar multi-agency training programs) brings people together. While it may be training and a policy that, hopefully, we never have to put to use, it gets people in the same room working together. I was raised on the east coast and grew up in emergency services there, so I understand the silos and even, unfortunately, the turf wars that exist. To be frank, its time to get over it. These "hostile events" require cooperation and coordination. There isn't such a thing as "that's not my job" anymore. The public doesn't care and won't tolerate that excuse. The person that is bleeding inside an empty classroom and going into shock doesn't care; they want help. We are all trained to recognize and manage risk. It is part of our job and what we do. I have a very close working relationship with our local law enforcement here. The only reason that exists is because we work to make it be that way. In closing, agencies that begin to plan for these hostile events may find themselves developing a better day-to-day working relationships between each other. We, as emergency first responders, know that we are there to help support one another, regardless of what our badge or patch says.

T John, are there more resources out there to get more information about the 3 Echo program being rolled out in Minnesota?
I don't think that anyone can argue that a coordinated PD/FD/EMS response to these incidents is necessary, and I agree with you wholeheartedly T John that we do need to take a better look at how we respond to a hostile event. But there are a few factors, like them or not, that are going to hinder the type of aggressive coordinated response to these incidents we would all like to see.
No matter how necessary it is, no matter how much it will benefit the victims of a hostile incident, there is still one rather significant issue at hand that would need to be addressed before we can even consider placing non-sworn EMS providers in a hostile environment and task them with the extraction of wounded victims... LODI/LODD benefits for EMS responders. I understand this can vary from state to state, even agency to agency. I'm going based off my "local knowledge" of EMS systems in the Metro NY area.
There is a plethora of training programs to prepare EMS providers to work in a hostile/tactical environment. There is a plethora of high speed tactical medical equipment designed for EMS responders to operate in a tactical environment. We can supply EMS providers with ballistic protection and other specialized PPE to operate in the midst of a tactical assignment. The training and the equipment is readily available, and incorporating EMS into these types of responses is not an unrealistic or impossible venture.
Now try convincing a volunteer or even commercially paid EMS provider to don such equipment and go charging forward with PD into a potentially hostile environment. It is easy to have our judgment clouded by the thought of throwing on this high-speed equipment and go forth to render aid to our victims in the tactical theatre of operations. It sounds exciting, looks cool, has the CDI (chicks dig it) factor associated with it, and so on. But what if things go south, and now the EMS provider ends up a victim him/herself?
I know as an LEO, if I am seriously injured in the line of duty, I will have the financial security through a generous line of duty salary to pay my mortgage, my bills, etc. If I am killed during the scope of my employment as an LEO, my beneficiary will be well taken care of financially by my employer, union, and numerous police foundations. Now if I switch patches on my shirt and act in Paramedic mode, serious injury leads to basic workers compensation, and if I'm a volunteer who now can not work and provide for my family and pay my mortagage and bills, I have to hope the generous public will donate money to alleviate any financial strain I have endured as a result of a serious injury. Killed in the line of duty... maybe some donations for my family, but nothing guaranteed. Like it or not, these are issues that need to be raised first before we can expect any EMS provider to take on such a task. Anyone who says it's a selfish way to look at things or just doesn't care and is going to go charging in there anyway cause "it's the right thing to do", then go for it. When I was younger I had that mindset that I didn't care. As I've become more informed and a little more experienced, my mindset has changed a bit. It's not about being a coward, it's realizing that if we're going to take on this great responsibility, then take it on with addressing ALL of the variables and issues, not just the obvious issues of training and equipment. We are all adults who hopefully understand the dangers and magnitude of certain incidents and are therefore capable of making our own decisions about our fate, whether it's running into a burning house without PPE to effect a rescue, or entering an unsecured location that may contain a potential armed threat to render aid to the injured. Most times these are split second decisions made within a moments notice as an incident is rapidly unfolding in front of us; but if we're talking about a coordinated, pre-planned response, we need to look beyond the obvious operational and logistical issues.
And for those of you who are going to say, "well I can get injured or killed at the scene of an MVA as an EMT", you're right, you can get killed at an MVA, responding to a "fall down go boom", dealing with an intox in the back of the ambulance, and so on. That's why we take certain safeguards to make these scenes safe; road flares, blocking lanes of traffic, PD escorts, safe driving practices, etc. While we can't can't control every single variable at these "routine" incidents, we can control and mitigate the majority of them. Hostile scenes have so many variables that as Helicopper pointed out, it can take hours for a scene to be deemed safe. Is the shooter identified? Contained? In custody? Threat neutralized? Are there multiple shooters? Explosive/secondary devices? There are a lot of variables to process that typically require specialized PD resources (SWAT, bomb squads, aviation, etc.), and it may take time to mobilize such resources and then time for each resource to carry out its function. So I fully understand that anything can happen at any time, and that's why these issues of LODI/LODD benefits for EMS providers shouldn't just be limited to active shooter or hostile situations.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events.
Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims?
Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition).
There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online.
Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

We regularly work alongside state and federal agencies at wildland fires. We have renamed all of our trucks to be typed according to the NIMS standard.
In ICS, especially in large scale, multi-jurisdictional incidents, it is important that the right resources are ordered. If you order a tanker and you really want the one with wheels, it better be clear in the order. The entire purpose of NIMS typing is to standardize resources and capabilities. It may go against "tradition." As an IC, if I order a specific resource, I want to make sure I get what was ordered. There is a difference between a Type II and III engine, for instance. The same for a tender or tanker.

I grew up in CT, volunteering in an organization that was governed by a set of bylaws and where Chief Officers were elected by the membership. I will defer my comments about this type of structure and focus on where I am now.
I took a full-time Fire Chief's position with a combination/on-call Department in Minnesota. We have forty on-call (part-time) "employees". As a City department, all hiring (and firing) goes through Council. The Fire Chief is a department head, same as the Police Chief and other senior staff. I report directly to the City Administrator who in turn reports to the Council as a whole.
All city employees are governed by City policy. While many fire departments "back in the day" used to be governed by bylaws, this is, largely, a thing of the past. Since the fire department is a City department and funded by tax dollars, it is operated just like any other City department. In fact, the League of Minnesota Cities has issued a number of white papers on the topic of "who's is in charge" that addresses the topics of hiring, promotions, firing, command and leadership. In short, any fire department in Minnesota that is funded through tax dollars is considered a public (City) entity. As such, the department must follow all applicable human resource laws. "Voting" on membership or hiring/firing, provisions that are typically found in traditional "by-laws", is thus discouraged - if not illegal. Ultimately, the Fire Chief (and the "city") is in charge.
The City Council hired me and they are the only ones that can change that. I just sat through a neighboring Department's officer selection interviews with another outside Chief. This is an on-call Department similar to ours. Promotions are done objectively, often with an outside or third party assisting. We don't "vote" on employment matters including hiring, promotions, disciplinary matters or even firing.
I do think that the answer to this question rests partly in the structure of your organization. Aside from the fact that we all ultimately "work" for the community, if officers or members are chosen by popular vote, I would argue they ultimately work for the membership. Hiring and promotional processes need to be blind and objective. While I am a firefighter first, I still have responsibilities of being a Fire Chief. Chief Officers need to know they can make decisions - even unpopular ones. Personally, I was hired by the City Council to serve the community and to lead my organization.
Link:
Fire Department Bylaws - Who's in Charge (League of Minnesota Cities)

I am a member of a number of forums, newsgroups, blogs and other interactive online resources. Today, I typically browse to see what the current discussions are about but rarely contribute as I just don't have the time. I do, however, enjoy the commentary and what people have to say.
Compared to every site I visit, this forum has the highest number and most frequent posts concerning censorship, banning, what is appropriate/what is not and consistent reminding of the forum rules. Granted, I haven't run a statistical analysis but this is my observation.
I realize rules are rules and the administration has made a strong effort to maintain a professional tone on this forum. Having worked in the technology/online field for over 12 years, I understand the complexities of running a site such as this.
I applaud the administration for obviously devoting considerable time to this site. I do, however, want to encourage everyone to let the discussions flow. There will be times when there are disagreements, in-accurate information, hurt feelings (QTIP) and heated conversations. Don't forget, however, that this is the Internet. Unless it's a .gov or .edu address, don't rely on the information you read online as "source material". Take it for what it is worth.
And, please, common sense should dictate what is posted and how you read it.
Just my opinion.

One of the most frequently overlooked requirements is the ability of a member to actually swim. I am a strong believer that anyone operating on/near/in the water in an official capacity should be able to pass an annual swim test including boat operators. We developed two versions. The basic swim test is designed for anyone operating in an "operational" capacity including dive tenders, boat operators, etc. The advanced swim test (the IADRS version which NFPA adopted) is given to anyone operating at the technician level (swiftwater or SCUBA). The physical requirements required of members participating on a water rescue team are very different than many other tasks first responders encounter.
Boat operators also need to go through proper training for the vessels that they will be operating - especially in a rescue mode. Rescue boat operations are extremely dangerous and personnel need to have the proper training/equipment to do the job. Just as no one should be driving a fire truck without the proper training, no one should be operating a boat without the proper training (regardless of size, design or horsepower). Just having a USCG safety certificate does not constitute proper training of a marine rescue boat (any recreational boater in CT is required to have one).
I would also stress that Department's need to evaluate their specific capabilities. Just because you may have a boat and cold water suits doesn't necessarily make a water rescue team or marine unit. I see many Departments using the "ice commander" suits as a one-type-fits-all suit - they have very specific limitations and people need to be aware of them. If you are calling for mutual aid, be specific in what you need and know what you are getting.

It all depends on what you plan on doing with it. You need to make sure you have a "plan" if you are going to make the investment with the technology. Will it be integrating with CAD/dispatch? GPS enabled? Security considerations also need to be taken into consideration. Just mounting a computer in a truck with no software or shortcuts is not very useful. You also need to make sure you have someone keeping the computer updated/current. You also need to consider the type of computer and the use it will get. A Panasonic Toughbook (or similiar) will cost $4,000 plus. The newer CF30 computers also have an integrated modem (Gobi). I would also check with your State to see if you can get on a State contract (Verizon, AT&T, etc.)
Before you select a Wireless carrier, I would check the signal strength in your rig. I would be sure to mount an external antenna given the amount of material that will be surrounding the cab of the truck/computer.

It all depends on what you plan on doing with it. You need to make sure you have a "plan" if you are going to make the investment with the technology. Will it be integrating with CAD/dispatch? GPS enabled? Security considerations also need to be taken into consideration. Just mounting a computer in a truck with no software or shortcuts is not very useful. You also need to make sure you have someone keeping the computer updated/current. You also need to consider the type of computer and the use it will get. A Panasonic Toughbook (or similiar) will cost $4,000 plus. The newer CF30 computers also have an integrated modem (Gobi). I would also check with your State to see if you can get on a State contract (Verizon, AT&T, etc.)
Before you select a Wireless carrier, I would check the signal strength in your rig. I would be sure to mount an external antenna given the amount of material that will be surrounding the cab of the truck/computer.