jack10562

Indeed! A Very nice Rig! One great feature that I am glad to see going into more of these vehicles is the Incident Command Board. These can be an invaluable resource, even when used at minor alarms.

okay...I'll bite.... he had tourettes ?

I just got done watching "Batman Begins" on my TiVO using Amazon unbox video download, and now I cant wait to see this new movie!!!

BUT...this joker was driving to QUEENS....from Thornwood.. Thats like 35 miles!!! His intent was to take the dog home ...running alongside him.... for 35 MILES???? Lock him up!

LOL... that was funny. Can we go 4-for-4?

The kids will probably be given Y/O status and have their records sealed. Nothing terribly wrong with that, if it was indeed accidental. However Mom and Dad will likely have to foot the bill to replace the destroyed playground equipment.

Seems as if they have a "person of interest" in custody, and are continuing their investigation... It appears to be involving someone with "multiple issues" . Update

That's not entirely true. The accident scene itself is a restricted area. The PD / FD / EMS agency has control of the scene, and access by the public is excluded. Those patients Inside the emergency vehicle are in a secluded area, and have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Their privacy has been infringed once the picture was taken even without publishing the photo. In the event you did not see my comments in another thread, there is case law stating otherwise: http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopi...st&p=142558

Wow. Rookies get a Take-Home Squad car? Cool!

Okay... Let's review: And then I'm done. You are on your own. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking photos to record an event, I do it all the time, just be very careful you don't "cross the line" and potentially become involved in a court case that can be easily avoided in the first place.

The issue goes beyond individual safety, and gets into subject sensitivity. There are legal and privacy concerns, where you as a photographer might infringe on a subject individual's rights. Taking photos in public is generally a protected activity, but there is a line drawn where publishing certain photos can be considered as an "unreasonable intrusion" if the individual subjects are identifiable and in a location where they should enjoy "a reasonable expectation of privacy". People sue anyone for anything, don't go and get yourself into court over a couple of "great shots" that capture "raw emotion" when you don't have the subject's explicit permission to publish those.

Please do reply. I'd also like to hear more information and/or proof you have to back up that statement.

Let's hope that maybe they're adding (towers?) or frequencies to the sites so they can handle more traffic???

That ID number is not listed in Radio Reference, so maybe it's something "new". When I get a chance I'll have to try and switch my scanner settings over to ID Search mode, and maybe I'll hear something. Or.....it's the channel used when two units talk direct,( I-Call ) off the trunk system??? and you're picking it up??

Moot point. It doesn't matter. It could be construed an an unreasonable intrusion, and the publisher could be held liable for same. People sue at "the drop of a hat", and there are tons of lawyers in the wings, ready to take their cases. I for one, would not want to have to be the one to defend myself from this type of action. You can't win.

No, it is NOT alright for the papers to publish these types of photos. The media are responsible for following the same laws that protect rights to privacy. Once inside the ambulance, the patients are no longer in public.

The shot of the patients inside the ambulance is definitely an invasion of privacy, Brian, you really ought to consider removing this one picture from your public album, unless permission was obtained to publish that.

Good RANT. Well put.

Alcohol was involved Updated from lohud http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...ONTPAGECAROUSEL

...And this merger will undoubtedly lead to consumer price reductions..... yeah, right....

I hope they catch the arsonist(s) who set this fire. Totally senseless destruction. http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...EWS03/807140359

Anyone have any update on a fire in Tarrytown? ( i was outside) I just heard a bunch of M/A being assigned and Batt12 signed on

Turns out the "victim" was riding on the running board outside the vehicle, and fell off. http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...UPDATE/80713004

10-4-K Thanks!

firemn23, That type of incident would certainly be allowed to be posted and discussed, since it is outside the scope of what we're trying to accomplish. What we're looking to minimize here are stories posted so and so was arrested or whatever, and that trumpet he/she was a volunteer fireman, off duty cop, or whatever, and where their occupation has absolutely NOTHING to do with what they are up against. It has nothing to do with being a democracy or dictatorship limiting free speech, so I don't know where THAT came from....? :huh: