abaduck

As I said in my response on the original thread, I'm not sorry I found out this poisonous crap was around, but I'm glad it's gone from here. Good call. Mike

No-one else has posted it, but it's in the public domain so I don't mind mentioning it here... http://www.townofmam...-09-08_pm154127 I guess we must be doing something right for once! Mike

You absolutely can take photos at GC, and I have: http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm Section 1050.9-3 The only organization around here who has an issue with photography is PATH, and their restrictions are so out of line as to be almost certainly unenforceable. Mike

I'm sure Barry will be along shortly to give an informed answer, as he's forgotten more than I'll ever know about the ISO system, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying that attendance records - how many guys show up to calls - play a part in the ISO rating. In other words, you can have all the fancy equipment etc., but if you don't get enough well-trained members responding, you won't get that rating. And I think I'm correct in saying there's a 'three for one' system; ISO requires three volunteers to respond to be counted the same as one career guy riding on the rig? And I'm pretty sure MA isn't a factor in ISO ratings. Barry? Mike

"There is nothing in this world so permanent as a temporary emergency." - RAH Mike

I believe this is the wrong approach; it throws the good out with the bad. This is a first responder forum, not a knitting circle; we're all type A personalities, we can handle a little conflict and rough exchanges - here or in the firehouse/precinct/whatever. If the behaviour of certain posters crosses the line, first warn, then delete the posts and ban the posters - long enough to cool off, or permanently if merited. That's the way I would handle it. This isn't criticism; I don't spent the time & effort Seth & the moderators do in running things around here. Just my opinion. Mike

Seth, fair enough - you know the geography and situation on the ground in TX, I don't. Maybe it's an idea for the future tho. In a way building next to brush is like building in a flood zone - you know sooner or later you'll get hit. Difference is, you *can* prepare for brush, IF you remove enough fuel. Mike

Well that was exactly my point. I'm not talking about preventing the wildfires, that's not possible or desirable; brush was built to burn in conditions like this, it's nature's way. My point was better environmental engineering, so that a brush fire can be left to burn unfought without endangering structures. If you have a big enough firebreak and suitable building materials that won't go up from embers landing on them, a brush fire doesn't need to result in lost structures. Mike

Surely the only way to deal with this is prevention; have codes requiring clear-cut firebreaks around structures, non-flammable roofs, and perhaps some degree of first-aid firefighting capability for every homeowner? These kinds of wildfires are part of nature in certain areas; they aren't news, they aren't unexpected, and it's kinda surprising that more isn't done to prepare for them. They'll always overwhelm any possible response; Let the brush burn, so long as humans engineer their environment so they don't threaten structures. Mike

I have to say, the only times I've visited the place are when it's been closed to the public and rented for private events (usually by UBS bank). So we didn't have to contend with the undesirable element in the crowds - but from the so-called 'service' we got from some of those running the refreshment concessions etc. it seems some of those same undesirables have got themselves on the payroll. Some of them were definitely on the make, trying to tell people they had to pay for stuff when everything was supposed to be free. They were very brazen - when they were read the riot act by the organizers they simply took the merchandise off the shelves or put up a 'closed' sign; if they weren't going to be allowed to run their little scam, people weren't going to be served. I don't know who's to blame but the place has turned into a complete dive, patronized and run by shady characters, and it deserves to die, in its present form.at least. Mike

Just to get the quote right Cap it was "Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always." The speaker was Patrick McGee – the IRA bomber who blew up the Grand Hotel in Brighton, in an attempt to assassinate Margaret Thatcher & her cabinet. Still, worth remembering. Mike

Nice to see someone getting their priorities straight; this IS an emergency services forum. Everyone went home. If anyone wants to discuss the finer points of Sharia law, or what the 'average Muslim' believes, there are numerous religious fora for that. Mike

Just one thing Cap... plenty of Muslims born here these days... Nation of Islam and their ilk? So that don't always apply. I have to say, I've never heard about Jews rioting at Playland because they can't get on certain rides with their hats & skullcaps. As for immigrants, I'm one of them. I still get my balls busted at times for the Scottish accent. But I'll tell you this, I'm American now. Not Scottish-American or some other damned hyphenated thing. American. I came here for a reason, maybe some others need to remember why they came here. And if I don't like the rules or system I'll do what any American does; b**** about it, and get involved in the political process and try to change it to how I think it should be. Mike

Chief, I see where you're coming from and yes lawyers can twist anything, but the key phrase there is from the OSHA reg: "...are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm..." What is the definition of 'likely' in this context? Greater than 50%, which would be 'more likely than not'? How likely is any one response, or series of responses, during severe storm or hurricane conditions, to cause death or serious harm? Depending on the conditions, the statistics, and the science, I suspect a prosecutor would have a hard time proving that a certain response was 'likely' to result in a problem. Mike

Thanks INIT915; looks like I was right on pretty much everything except the murder. The actual case is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia This discusses several other cases, from a 2nd amendment point of view: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html (To digress slightly, this makes an interesting trans-atlantic contrast. In the USA, the police can seldom be even civilly liable for failure to act. In the UK, in a case that has achieved some notoriety over there, a police officer has just started serving a (disgraceful) sentence of a year in prison, for 'perverting the course of justice'. Her 'crime'? Being lazy. Failing to arrest a man who was caught red-handed pretty obviously trying to break into a restaurant; the officer was in the middle of some trivial errand with some police paperwork, and elected to complete that instead, and was content to confiscate the burglary tools and warn the guy he would have gone to jail if she hadn't had something else to do. For that she's gone to jail.) Mike

I'll go out on a limb (unwise given forecast!) and take a stab at this: I don't think an insurance company would have any 'take' on this. So long as the homeowner took reasonable precautions and called 911 or made other efforts to communicate the emergency (if they were home at the time), what could they do apart from pay the loss? Sue the FD for inadequate response? There was a court case a few years ago... it went quite high, all the way to the SC? I think it was in DC. It concerned, IIRC, a multiple perp / multiple victim home invasion/rape/murder. At least one of the victims managed to phone 911, possibly more than once. The PD responded, at least once. They simply cruised past the property, or checked it out briefly, and reported nothing appeared amiss; they didn't try the door or attempt to enter, and they certainly didn't intervene to prevent the rapes and murders. A survivor (or was it the family of a victim?) attempted to sue the police on the grounds of inadequate response, failing to prevent death/injury/loss etc. They lost; the courts held that, while the PD had a general duty to prevent, detect, and combat crime, they did NOT owe any particular individual any particular duty or standard of response in any particular incident. In summary, while the PD may help you, or try to, you don't have any right to help, or legal expectation of help. I don't see any reason this legal approach wouldn't be extended to the FD. Disclaimers: IANAL. I may be wrong in some of the details, but I think I'm correct in general about the DC case above. Mike

I'd love him more if he wasn't trying to close so many FDNY companies, but that's just me... As for the storm, hopefully they'll make less of a hash of it than they did that last big blizzard... I'll admit he sounds as if he has his s*** together. Mike

Just doing what the boss says, Cap... I'm NOT saying Bad Box hasn't got a great point, one I'll try to remember, but I AM saying Seth posted just a few weeks ago in fairly trenchant terms about not criticizing (explicitly or implicitly) or picking apart scene photos or videos... Mike

This is a question not a criticism or monday morning quarterbacking! One of the first things I thought when I started playing the video and doing my sizeup was 'OK, that's quite a steep driveway. The gasoline is running is running down the hill. What happens if the brakes burn through and the whole damn car starts rolling down the hill?' What's the best tactic for that? Chock it if possible? Park a 'sacrificial' piece of apparatus in front of it so, if the worst happens, it doesn't end up in the house across the street? Mike

Riot policing, Brit style: a riot shield being used to carry a nice cup of tea :-) Mike

Crime Cop, Brit police have always been, and will always be, unarmed - or the vast majority of them will anyway. That's such a cherished tradition it won't change. From Brit LEOs I know, very few of them want to be routinely armed, and a lot would quit rather than be forced to accept a gun. It really is that ingrained. Having said that, these are NOT normal times. David Cameron wants the Met to be 'more aggressive' tonight, and make far more arrests. Quite right, but that makes them more vulnerable to ambush too. Remember PC Blakelock - the officer the local 'wildlife' killed and tried to decapitate the last time there were major riots in this area; that happened when he and his team were going in, trying to make arrests, and they ended up ambushed, outnumbered and separated. Every officer who is qualified to carry a firearm should be armed tonight. Mike

Right place right time... Life for arson boys and girls, remember that... and they've just arrested three for attempted murder of an LEO, I'm hearing. Mike

From the helicopter shots they were showing a few minutes ago there seems to be a risk of a conflagration in Croydon... a major unfought fire was auto exposing buildings across the street... so much radiant heat even the painted road markings were catching fire some distance away. The maximum penalty for arson in the UK is life. I hope a lot of these thugs get it. Mike

A third night of riots in progress, even worse now, with some very big fires. Click this link and hit the red 'LIVE NOW' button for live BBC coverage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14449675 Mike

sfrd18 has it mostly right; a very few officers are routinely armed - mostly VIP protection officers, officers on airport patrol, and all members of the specialized force which protects nuclear facilities. Otherwise, UK police don't normally carry firearms. There are specialized firearms squads, such as SO19, which can be called into firearms situations, and ARVs, as mentioned, which are cars with firearms in a safe, which can be opened on the orders of senior officers in response to a specific incident. And any firearms-qualified officer can be issued a weapon for a specific pre-planned operation - for instance, a squad of detectives acting on a tip-off and going to arrest a gang of armed bank robbers in the act would be the classic example. I'm no expert on UK policing but that's the situation as I understand it. Other than that, British officers are entirely unarmed, by tradition, with a heavy emphasis on 'policing by consent' and the rest of the Peelian principles. Mike