abaduck

No reason the site owner can't stir a little sh!t from time to time I'll say this much; in my (fairly limited) experience thus far in the fire service, I've observed one thing; cops generally get to a working fire before we do - and they go in and do everything that needs to be done, and sometimes more than they really should be doing - and all kudos for them for doing it. Would anyone in their right minds consider this 'competition'? If we're not all here to serve our communities in the best way we know how, we're in the wrong jobs. I'm pretty sure I've read of municipalities which have taken consolidation of services to the logical extreme, and have everyone cross-trained as cops, firefighters, and EMTs. Maybe that's taking it a bit too far, but if you don't have a *real good* insight into the respective jobs (and I for one don't) it's not such a great idea to pontificate about it... Mike

Ding. They're not (IMHO) a church, or a cult; they're a business. They've made a good bit of money from suing people who interfere with their free speech, or subject them to unwarranted arrest etc. It's no coincidence that she's a lawyer; that's part of their business plan... Mike

I agree 100% with the SC. But maybe there's a way around this. These toerags like to picket funerals, so... maybe the municipalities could consider leasing the relevant areas - streets, sidewalks etc. - to the family, for the day, for a peppercorn rent. Suddenly it's not a public place anymore, you don't have the same 1st amendment rights, and trespassers can be ejected with as much force as is necessary, and prosecuted to boot... Just thinking out loud... Mike

I don't disagree at all - motive and means for sure. Especially someone like Madoff who could have bought a fleet of private jets and bribed himself into a lot of countries. That's a huge factor - when setting bail, after someone has been arrested and charged. You can't restrict someone's movements on suspicion. I agree with the suggestion that some easily provable minor charge probably could & should have been brought, while getting evidence for more serious charges. It also seems to me that this would be a genuinely useful case to have considered material witness proceedings... Mike

Bro, I didn't speak as to citizens vs. non-citizens; I spoke as to native-born citizens vs. foreign-born citizens. You said she should have been treated differently because she was a citizen who had ties to overseas. If you want to treat her differently, you want to treat *me* differently. I find *that* insulting. That's what got me riled. Maybe more riled than the remark deserved, but it's a sensitive issue for me. Mike

Look, a previous poster said "Anyone facing charges of this nature who has ties to a foreign nation wouldn't ordinarily be left so "free" top do so" That got me a bit riled, since I fall into exactly that category. I'm sensitive to the issue of citizens being treated differently because of their origins or ancestry - which is why I brought up the AJA case, as the most egregious example of that. INIT915 seems to be suggesting (if I got that wrong I'm sorry bro) she should have been somehow detained or restricted from travel prior to her being arrested or charged, purely because (unlike most citizens) she had 'ties' to a foreign country. That's bad and wrong; treat all citizens the same, whether they have ties to a foreign country or not. Put her under surveillance by all means; that's a totally legitimate investigative tactic - and an investigation was certainly warranted. But if she gets on a plane... what? She gets on the plane, there's nothing you can do. If you had evidence to arrest her she would be under arrest already and nowhere near a plane. I have three young kids myself; I purposely didn't speak as to the nature of the incident because I don't think I could do so coherently. Mike

I can see where you're coming from, but evidently there was a problem with getting the DA to approve charges and issue a warrant. Once she's arrested & charged there can be any bail conditions necessary. Until then she's as free as you or I; she is an American citizen. I'm British born so I too have dual citizenship. I'm not some kind of second-class American citizen because of that and I certainly won't accept being treated differently because I have 'ties to overseas'; that's the kind of attitude that got thousands of loyal American citizens with ties to Japan stripped of their rights and locked up in prison camps in the last war. Mike

Don't know if this has been seen before but I laughed.... Mike

Thanks Barry... well I don't know quite how to read that... in plain English, you're not performing an 'emergency rescue' unless you have a known (by observation or information) victim to rescue, are you? A search is a search; it doesn't become an 'emergency rescue' unless you locate a victim! So I'd say that was pretty equivalent to my 'confirmed'. I don't know what the lawyers would make of it; fortunately I'm a fireman, not a lawyer. Mike

Chief (or anyone else who cares to comment), just a quick one... reason I didn't go for interior attack was maintaining 2 in 2 out, as I said. I was under the impression that that rule could only be set aside for a confirmed life safety situation, not just a potential one? I guess I got that wrong? (otherwise you could violate 2 in 2 out on every undermanned fire call: as as soon as our guys go in, there IS a confirmed life safety situation - us!) Thanks. Mike

Good point, Chief - that's one thing I forgot to say; the moment you establish there's no victim, whether by information, search, or report of unsurvivable conditions inside the house, that's when it becomes exterior. That's why I said the first two FFs 'take a look' inside; maybe they'll be able to do a partial search, maybe it'll be straight back out and 'forget it!'. But they have to try; only the garage is fully involved initially, and IIRC by code there's supposed to be a good wall and a steel door between the garage and the living side? (Edit having watched again; I thought the 'red glow on the A-side soffit' was actually the colour of the paint, still not sure one way or the other. But I did notice from certain angles what seems to be a significant volume of fire on the C-side that I hadn't noticed the first time around. Maybe it's even worse than it looks... just as well I said the officer is doing a 360!) Mike

I'm just a firefighter, never had any command experience, but I'll take a stab. Transmit the 10-75, retone, request a FAST. Officer is now IC, conducts a quick 360. Needs water, and if we really have no idea on occupants, needs search. 2 FFs: take a look inside, assess conditions, see extent to which fire has spread to main part of house. Close door from house to garage if intact and not already closed. Conduct primary search if possible. Reports on conditions inside from this team will be critical. Officer + 3rd FF: establish a water supply and start knocking it down through the garage door, depending on reports from the search team; last thing you want to do is push the fire toward the interior of the house, any potential victims, and your search team! Absent any info on the occupants the primary must be done, but until it's completed you don't have the resources to mount an interior attack (2 in 2 out). If & when you have more manpower it would be easier; could take a line in the front door for interior attack and to protect the search team. Am I thinking of at least some of the right things? Mike

Perhaps negligence was the wrong term, I didn't use it in a strict legal sense. Read 'incompetent' or 'liable'. I believe you're correct in most jurisdictions at least. My suggestion was it might be worth considering extending some version of this concept to firefighters who use their best efforts; rather than indemnifying them in the event of a lawsuit, make the lawsuit harder or impossible to bring in the first place. I'm not saying it's the right approach, but it might be worthy of debate. My answer to a lawyer would be the same as to anyone else; I'm a member of a paramilitary organisation, I have a chain of command which I'm obliged to respect. I'm happy to talk to you about personal matters. If you want to ask about FD matters, you have to talk to the Chief. If he authorises me to talk to you, I'll talk to you. If he doesn't, I won't. If I talked to a lawyer or a journalist or a loss adjuster or anyone else about internal department matters, or details about what happened during a fire, without orders from the Chief, I'd be up on charges - and quite right too! Mike

I'd say that's reasonably well-trained. I'm still fairly new to the fire service, and the day I stop learning they can put me in a box! Thanks Chief, that's all I really wanted; some opinions on if it was reasonable to treat two firefighters performing the same task differently, just because one was career and one was volunteer. It's certainly not going to happen at my department, and I respectfully suggest it's extremely unlikely to happen at any department; if an 18 year old is the only Chief they can scrape up, then they must be pretty much a one-man department, and they've got FAR bigger issues to confront than debating indemnification! Again I can't relate to that; we don't do parades, except in our own district. If departments do do that, I suppose they must arrange for cover with their neighbours. Chief, I've not attacked anything you've said, and I resent the accusation. I simply declined politely to take the debate in the direction you seemed to wish, and confined my interest to a particular question which, as it happens, related to my own department - it being a combo department. And it brings out the essence of the debate: should you treat career and volunteer firefighters in a combo department the same with respect to the issue at hand? If you argue that you should, that provides a basis for arguing the case in departments which are exclusively career, or exclusively volunteer. If you consider that 'unreasonable' or 'attacking' then I suggest... qtip :-) Mike

Chief, We appear to be still at cross-purposes; you're talking generalities, I'm talking specifics. 'What is an "ex-chief"?' - I can't see how that, for instance, is relevant to my question. As for the rest, I'm just a firefighter, I don't speak for my department on a public forum. Suffice it to say I have full confidence in my Chiefs & Officers, and none of them would ever order an unqualified member into an IDLH environment. Let's make the question even more specific, shall we? I, and one of my career colleagues, both interior qualified and well-trained (career academy in his case, 250 hours+ at FTC in mine) are ordered to perform a primary search. We fail to locate a civilian. The civilian is subsequently found, deceased, on secondary. A relative finds a smartass lawyer and proceeds to sue my career colleague & I for negligence in failing to find their relative. Chief, should the department, and the municipality, handle our cases differently, and indemnify us to different degrees? Why? If you look back to the first post, that's the issue. That's the question. Mike

Chief, You misunderstand, hopefully not intentionally. When I said 'We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command' I was referring to operating at a specific incident, perhaps one leading to litigation... By 'same duties' I mean myself and one of my career colleagues 'performing the same fireground assignment, working as a team'. By 'under the same command', I mean 'following the same orders from a superior officer on the fireground'. I trust that clarifies my point, and my question, which remains unanswered: if the actions of the team on the fireground lead, for whatever reason, to litigation, why should the career FF be treated differently to the volunteer when it comes to issues such as indemnification? It wasn't in any sense a general comment about hiring, training, or promotion, and I regret you mistakenly took it at such; your 'debunking' was unnecessary and doesn't contribute to this debate and I apologise if my meaning was unclear. Mike

LoHud are reporting a civilian fatality, as per the Chief: http://www.lohud.com/article/20110221/NEWS02/102210343 Mike

Oh aye, we know all about 'let's get the bastards': Mike

And the question I still have is, if I and one of my career colleagues are both found negligent in the same incident, doing the same job, what should happen then? Do you pay the award for one, and let the other hang out to dry? Which, and why? I know there are 'good Samaritan' shield laws in some jurisdictions, which mean someone who offers assistance in a medical emergency can't be sued if they try in good faith but get it wrong. Maybe that's a model for your answer: don't indemnify firefighters, shield them so they can't be sued easily. Could be arguments on both sides for that one, but it's a start. And if any lawyer ever asks me about something that happened at a fire, I'll do the same as I'd do if it was a journalist, or anyone else: "We have a chain of command here. I'm just a firefighter, I don't speak for my department. Anything like that, you have to go speak to the Chief." Mike

Chief, I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command. Mike

"His office first claimed his email account had been hacked - which didn't really explain the topless photo of himself flexing his biceps in a mirror." So a liar (and a very stupid one) too. I've seem slime mold with more honor, integrity, and backbone.

Interesting. I have no problem *reading* a text message at a red light, and sometimes will en route to a call if I need to confirm the address; you don't usually have time to *compose* a text message so that's self-limiting! And additional laws shouldn't be needed; in the UK you can write up anything that needs it under catch-all 'careless driving' or 'reckless driving' charges, depending on the seriousness. If fatal, 'death by careless' or 'death by reckless' are available, with 'manslaughter' for the very worst cases. Passing specific laws against texting is just a feel-good exercise IMHO.

Maybe I'm too old-fashioned or just don't get it, but I can't understand how *anyone* would ever think it's *possible* to text and drive, never mind a good idea...

...but still a lot slower than 32ft per second per second... The correct answer to all this is, identify the issue during inspection & pre-planning, and give the occupants appropriate advice. If I worked in that back office I'd want a bailout ladder. And if this was in my district we would know all about this structure...

I'll bite. Tower ladder? Or think outside the box a little... maybe a roof ladder, with the hooks over the sill to provide enough support to prevent the butt sinking? Or, who gives a damn about the butt sinking if you need to effect a rescue... let the damn thing sink until it finds solid ground, then adjust the extension of the fly section as required? Or... does anyone still carry a pompier ladder? Floors are thin and made of...?