abaduck

You win some, you loose some. A couple of weeks ago my voice line was dead as a dodo, but broadband was working fine. So I lost ability to call 911 on normal voice line, but was still able to use internet telephony. As for location, the whole point is that it's portable - you could be making an internet telephone call from home, work, the side of the road, an airport - anywhere you have mobile broadband. And you could be connected through or via a proxy or VPN connection, even through an overseas location. It's impossible to reliably determine the physical location of anyone on the internet, so the best way for the dispatcher to find out where you are is to ask!

There's no such thing as a 'dangerous road' unless you get to real extreme examples with structural defects; I was raised in Scotland, learning to drive on roads that make Rt 9 (and the Bear Mtn road!) look like the I-95. They weren't 'dangerous', they were just tricky and demanded your full attention. In fact, to a degree, the more 'dangerous-appearing' the road, the better and safer people tend to drive; the Specter of Obvious Imminent Death as the price for any mistake does tend to concentrate the mind! It IS down to dangerous drivers, and the cure isn't to try to fix the road to lowest common denominator, it's to fund LE properly, detect the dangerous drivers, and remove them from the driving population by taking their licenses away. Oh and introduce a *real* driving test - a tough one - for those who have lost their licenses for dangerous driving and want to get them back. That will make things safer for all drivers on all roads, not just the 'dangerous' roads.

PFDRes47cue, you were lucky not to end up in jail. OK OK slight exaggeration there, but there IS a new law in the UK which can be interpreted as making it illegal to take photographs of police if such photos could be 'of use to terrorists'. It's a VERY controversial topic in the UK at the moment, and some elements in the police there are already pretty hostile to photographers.

Well that's that then; I'm glad you were able to conduct such a comprehensive investigation into the accident - all the way from NH too! That's saved the FDNY a bunch of work. And I hope no-one ever pronounces summary judgment on YOU in such a fashion. Don't ruin a great safety point by blaming the crews before the investigation is finished, ok?

Disable Javascript. Right-clicks work perfectly :-) Mike

I wonder if there's a generational and/or cultural factor going on here? I'm a bit older than you, and I was born and raised in Scotland. And I can assure you there was hardly a kid in the school without a penknife or clasp knife in his pocket (and yes, it was mostly - but certainly not exclusively - the boys who carried them). They were never regarded or used as weapons, so I think to dismiss my position as 'ridiculous' is based on ignorance. It simply was never an issue. It wouldn't surprise me at all if carrying a knife as an everyday object was, and still is, common in the USA - especially outside the cities. Rural areas, farm kids. As for the rule... I frankly don't know; I haven't read the rule and neither have you. If the rule is being interpreted to define that knife as a 'weapon', then (in my view) the rule is being interpreted wrongly, perhaps by an over-zealous administrator. If (as you would say in your view) the interpretation is correct, then it doesn't deserve punishment. "That's technically against the rules, don't do it again. If you really need to keep the knife in the car, ask - and we can give you dispensation to do so". Reasonable proportionate response?

You're right, I misplaced the start and beginning of your argument. I apologise. I'm snipping most of this quote to get to the meat... Now, that's where we do differ. You seem to assume the definition of 'weapon' is as obvious and unarguable as the sun rising every morning, and dismiss my position contemptuously as a fantasy world. Some knives ARE weapons. Most are not. Most are tools. Size has nothing to do with it. To me, a system of logic which insists that a knife/fork/spoon camping set is clearly and obviously a weapon is incomprehensible. We won't agree, but can you see (however dimly) where I'm coming from?

I can't believe this is still going on. I'm hearing weapon weapon weapon this weapon that... A Swiss Army knife is NOT a weapon. A Leatherman is NOT a weapon. A set of camping cutlery is NOT a bloody weapon! None of the kids in the cases under discussion had a weapon! Why do you guys (and there are several of you doing it) persist in (seemingly unthinkingly) classifying ordinary everyday tools carried by millions of Americans as weapons? The only time I *don't* have a knife in my pocket is when I'm going through airport security, and said knife is not and never has been a weapon - here on planet Earth or anywhere else, whatever jayhalsey may say And I've been carrying it since I was 8 or 9. The problem here seems to be one of definition. I agree with everyone here that kids should not be taking weapons to school. Where we disagree is on the definition of 'weapon'. I won't be part of the nanny state and I don't believe in wrapping kids in cotton wool, and I think there's far too much of that these days. I believe in teaching kids early to respect and safely use sharp knives, rather than metaphorically keeping them in kindergarten. My kids school has the same philosophy; my eldest is six and he's already preparing food with sharp knives at school and at home (it's a Montessori school and they start teaching them cooking and cleaning as young as three! )

What, exactly, is the point of trying to make a kid keep a keychain Swiss Army knife (for instance) locked in a car, when they can go to the cookery classroom and pick up a fish knife or a meat cleaver? Or a chisel from woodwork? Or any bloody classroom in the school and pick up scissors? If you decide you want to have a rule against students having anything that could be a POTENTIAL weapon then I'm sorry you can't - such a rule is incompatible with educating humans once they get past pre-K. Unenforceable. Canute Syndrome. Actual weapons - things designed to hurt and kill - are a small class which can be described and controlled. Potential weapons can't. You seem to favour an authoritarian viewpoint - you want to have strict rules that make no sense, and you're big on enforcing them; everything is a 'weapon' to you, even if not designed or used as such. I'm sorry, we don't seem to inhabit the same universe, and I really can't understand your point of view. I prefer freedom.

That looks interesting, educational, and fun - almost makes me wish I was young enough to join in!

So they took your money clip. But as I said, certainly if you were on an international flight, you could go to the airside duty-free store and buy glass bottles of high-proof spirit and take them on the plane. Hell, you can buy them ON the plane on most international flights. You think that's not a weapon? Take off the cap, stick a rag in the neck, and if it's high enough proof it's an effective improvised incendiary. Break it, hold it by the neck, and... well you're an LEO, you must have been to enough bar fights to know the damage a broken bottle can do. Yet you can buy them airside at that same airport where they confiscated a tiny nailfile. Why does it happen then? Taking the file is security theater, being seen to be doing something. Selling the booze is economics; airports make a fortune from it. Can't interfere with that! It's the same story with schools - some schools at least, it's shock horror call the SWAT team if a kid has a penknife or a camping cutlery set - errrr excuse me do you think the school isn't already full of far more dangerous potential weapons? Or do kids in high school still have to ask the teacher to cut the paper because they can't be trusted with scissors? It's ONLY about paranoia, authoritarianism and control freakery. That kind of thing MUST be refused and resisted. I say again, the emperor has no clothes.

My fist CAN be a weapon. So can my car. So can a sock and a pocketfull of loose change. So can a baseball bat. So can a pen. So can a glass bottle. So can most of the items in a woodwork, metalwork, or chemistry classroom. None of the items I mentioned in my previous post are designed as weapons, all are designed as tools. Humans are tool-users; schools are full of tools. Ban things *designed as* weapons from the premises - well, except for swords and guns if there's a fencing or shooting club, where they're used safely - and leave the rest alone. With, of course, the severest punishment for misusing *anything* as a weapon, except in proven self-defence. The emperor has no clothes. This is the same thinking that won't let me take a tiny keychain Swiss Army knife through airport security, but will sell me glass bottles of high-proof spirit immediately before boarding the flight. mstrang1 gets it.

Common sense is what's needed. So the school wants to ban weapons? Fair enough. A flick knife is a weapon. A butterfly knife is a weapon. A belt buckle knife is a weapon. A knuckle duster is a weapon. A Glock is a weapon. Tire irons, utility knives, leathermen, multi-tools, camp cutlery, screwdrivers... they're not weapons, they're tools. If some people don't understand that, educate them. These kids that have been in the news recently have no case to answer. But there seem to be some control freaks, or people with 'issues', managing some schools these days. Don't fight them - ignore them. Don't co-operate. Don't comply. Refuse to be suspended. Get on with your work quietly. You can only be a victim of bullying of this kind if you consent to it. Don't. That's my 2 cents anyway.

I actually looked into this a couple of years ago, but decided I had enough on my plate - do 90% of applicants really fail the background check???

There aren't words to describe how idiotic this attitude and this decision is. I've carried a knife every day of my life since I was about 8, and so will my kids. Mike

This seems to have been something airlines have tightened down on in the last couple of years. I've been unfortunate enough to have to return to Scotland several times in the last few years, due to death and serious illness in the family. I always flew Continental (since they were the only airline flying nonstop from New York to Scotland), and they would waive the advance purchase requirement for cheap tickets in such situations. Technically, you were supposed to obtain a note from a doctor or hospital confirming the situation, but in practice they usually waived that too. That changed about two years ago; they scrapped the waiving of advance purchase, and simply gave a flat 10% discount on the fare - which usually meant a pretty small discount on a very high fare. Given that that's the best they're willing to do for close family, I wouldn't hold my breath on getting any help at all for LODD. Those high-priced last minute seats are often the *only* ones on the airplane that they make a profit on! A tip I've found helpful: when traveling last-minute, it can be much cheaper to book a short break vacation, including a cheap hotel room. You then just don't bother using the hotel room if you don't need it! I've done that more than once; the short break was considerably cheaper than the cheapest flight-only deal I could find.

With respect, I think you're being a bit nitpicky on not much evidence: 1. So, the FAST are out and about and doing their own sizeup. Isn't that exactly what they're supposed to be doing? 2. *A* Chief is doing it. We don't know if they were the only Chief with the FAST, or if they were acting as FAST leader. We don't know what the liaison arrangements with Montrose were. 3. From the photo they don't appear to be in an IDLH atmosphere - the fire at the top of the stair is probably sucking in a fair gale of fresh air, it looks pretty clear to me. Looks like they ducked about 3-4ft into the hallway to confirm the stair was unusable for access or egress. Could it have all turned to excrement fast? Yes, there could have been collapse/flashover/backdraft/you-name-it. Should they have been on air? Maybe, I'm not experienced enough to question the judgment of a FAST Chief.

You're dead right tanker - I didn't look close enough. When you look closely it's the chimney that went, not the whole D side. You can still see the ladder standing if you look close enough. My point about the attic backdraft stands tho!

Maybe we're both a bit right bro. If you look at the video frame by frame, about 4 seconds in you can see a major smoke 'event' from the attic - at which point the D side wall hasn't moved. THEN the wall collapses. After the collapse you can see the D side is involved in fire from the basement to the ridgepole - balloon frame as I said. So we have an attic charged with very hot smoke and low O2, fire running up inside the D side wall - providing an ignition source and weakening it - pull a ceiling or open a trapdoor introducing fresh air and BANG: a backdraft, an overpressure in a confined space, and the weakest point - the fire-weakened D side wall - collapses. That's my theory anyway. Maybe it would have collapsed anyway, but it sure looks like a backdraft giving it a shove!

Definitely a backdraft by my reading; watch the smoke coming from the attic vent immediately above the door. There's a strong puff of smoke immediately prior to the collapse - and from all round the eaves too. I read that as overpressure in the attic; perhaps someone pulled a ceiling or opened a trapdoor on a charged attic and it blew. Balloon frame construction too, from the way the wall went down as a single panel? Perhaps someone with more experience can check my thinking!

25 years seems a little excessive. There are lots of trees in Yonkers, and plenty of rope. Thanks to this POS I had to deal with the 'daddy are you going to die too?' today, so I'm feeling especially vindictive. But assuming the law has its way, I don't think it's a matter of 'cost effective', bro - in this case I'd say it's good value for money. And a huge hoo-rah for YPD - well played! And the same to Seth and staff for the way they handled the situation.

OK that's sorted the afternoon for me and my kids! (also got to go downtown and pick up the gear for the T2T run on Sunday!)

Now perhaps one of our LEO members can comment on the following; I have heard that Westchester in almost all cases will issue a restricted carry permit - target & hunting only, for instance. I have further heard - is this true?? - that carrying in violation of this permit (i.e. carrying when not hunting or going to the range) is not a criminal matter at all, it's an administrative violation at worst, and there's no penalty - the only possible sanction is taking away your license. The reason for this being, that as the law is written in NY, there is no wording in the law which provided for restrictions on when you can carry; the law only provides for licenses to carry, and licenses to possess but not carry. True or false? Mike

I agree, from a different perspective. Dammit, there is (I think I'm correct in saying) a law against adultery in NY... if they decided to enforce THAT one, they would have to hire enough cops to wipe out unemployment overnight. This isn't about blue lights, this is about laws that are pretty much obsolete and pretty much totally disregarded - which I personally don't like: it lowers respect for the law in general, and it allows the possibility of 'getting' someone on a seldom-enforced technicality when it suits someone to do so. I wish politicians would spend more time repealing obsolete or unnecessary laws and less time making yet more laws. Bad laws are bad law. Less law is good law. (and I come from a country where until as recently as 1976 it was still a legal requirement for every cab driver to carry a bale of hay for the horse...)

Thanks for that Barry, just what I was looking for: http://www.corestore.org/ Mike