JJB531

Very true as well... as NJMedic pointed out, it does no good if a crew shows up to a job in record time and has absolutely no idea what they're doing. We wouldn't accept it if a plumber or electrician came to any of our homes to fix a problem and did a poor job, and as professionals we shouldn't just sit back and accept a poor performance from our co-workers. Should they be burnt at the stake in front of the whole town? No, obviously not. Individuals who are lacking in their skills or performance should be encouraged to seek help and counseling from more experienced providers. Agencies who are lacking in their performance should attempt to seek counseling from and model other agencies who "have their act together".

While I do agree with you that every agency, both paid and volunteer, have their issues, having bad days because of the inability to cover a single call without other circumstances (i.e. the EMS agency is already on a job and gets toned out for a second call) is simply unacceptable. Having a bad day in this field results in the potential for people to die. If I called 911 in my town, and it took 20 minutes for an ambulance to arrive, I would not be pleased if the agency was simply "having a bad day". The important thing is not that an FD or a VAC shows up for the call. The important thing is that an FD or VAC (or paid agency for that matter) shows up for the call in the TIMELY MANNER. It does no good if the FD shows up for the call and the house that was on fire is nothing more then a smoldering foundation, or that difficulty breather is now in cardiac arrest. I'm not trying to pick on you, so please don't take it personal. I just want to point out that there's alot more to consider then simply saying "as long as someone shows up well then everything is fine".

A number of posters have really hit the nail on the head regarding Police Officer LODD's, and the reasoning for a lot of them. The FBI routinely interviews convicted Cop Killers. They are looking to answer the question, "Why did you kill this Police Officer? What made you do it?". The FBI reported that the majority of individuals interviewed responded, "Because the Officer gave me the opportunity", or "I felt like I could take advantage of the Officer", either because of the Officers poor use of tactics, or because the Officers general physical appearance (stature, build, uniform cleanliness and overall general appearance of the Officer being a "slob"). Regarding the Officers general appearance, not much can be done to correct that other then the individual Officer making time to exercise, eat right, clean/iron their uniforms, tuck in their shirts, give off a professional image/appearance, act professionally, etc. In regards to Police Officers utilizing poor tactics, this falls on the the individual Officer, the Law Enforcement Agency, and society and how society views Police Officers. Most Police Officers have to qualify with their service weapons twice a year to be qualified to carry a firearm within their official duties. I ask the question, is anyone really good at anything they do just twice a year? If an individual officer shoots just twice a year with their department, and does not take the time outiside of work to shoot on their own time, or to attend classes given by private or government agencies, they are doing themselves a grave disservice. When Police Officers shoot to qualify, they're shooting a nice silhouette paper target, utilizing proper stance, closing their non-dominant eye, lining up their sight picture... they're target shooting for score based on the number of shots the tower or range instructor informs them to discharge. In a real-life deadly physical force encounter, Police Officers are not shooting for score, they're shooting to survive. They're point shooting. They're utilizing a combat stance (which is your body's natural reaction to a threat), they're drawing the firearm, pointing it at the target, looking past their sights, and discharging their firearm at the threat to stop the threat. They're not lining up their sights. They're not closing their non-dominant eye. There's no range instructor telling them, "Gimme 2 shots on the tone". So why aren't we conducting monthly training at the range on point shooting? Why aren't we conducting monthly realistic, scenario based training utilizing airsoft or simmunitions to mimic real life encounters? The answers are obvious (manpower, money, overtime, etc.), but Police Officers are dying because of it. The 2 days of TARGET SHOOTING at the range is a disservice to Police Officers, and is not realistic or a feasible way to train for real-life deadly physical force encounters. In terms of how society is getting police officers killed... well, there are very few professions that are monday morning quarterbacked by the Average Joe citizen more then Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is criticized by the media, by the general population, and even by our Police Chiefs, Commissioners, Superintendants, etc., who have become more of a group of politicians who are more worried about their own general appearance in the eyes of the public, appeasing as many special interest groups as possible for their own personal political gain, rather then protecting and supporting the Officers they are suppoesd to represent. Hollywood has the Average Joe thinking that it's a piece of cake to shoot a gun out of a perpetrators hand. The Average Joe wants to know why we don't shoot people in the leg because that's what works in Hollywood. Until the average Joe sees an aggressive, determined perpetrator take five .223 rounds center mass and continue to fight, they won't understand why Police Officers utilize aggressive tactics against an armed adversary. Take a look at a just a few examples of recents incidents: ** A SWAT officer, while conducting a tactical entry to take a barricaded subject into custody, shoots and kills a perpetrator who was attempting to stab his bunker operator with a large kitchen knife. The perp struck the ballistic shield several times with the knife before the Officer discharged his weapon. Officer placed on adminstrative desk duty for 9 months, depsite the fact that the shooting was within department and NYS Criminal Procedure Law guidelines. ** 2 Police Officers respond to an EDP, where they are confronted with an individual in a parking lot weilding a metal chair. EDP advances and closes the distance on the Officers while attempting to strike the Officers with the metal chair. Officers retreat until they are finally cornered, forcing one Officer to fire a single shot center mass, eliminating the threat. Officers brought up on department charges for not utilizing appropriate concealment. The prosecuting attorney's arguement is that the Officers should have hid behind a bush to provide them concealment, thereby avoiding the need to shoot the subject. ** Pleasantville Police Officer, after being struck by a vehicle operated by an underage, intoxicated driver, clings onto the hood of the vehicle. Despite verbal commands to stop the vehicle, driver accelerates forcing the Officer to discharge his service weapon through the windshield eliminating the threat and preventing further injury to himself. Officer is dragged through the mud by the media, vigils held for the perp killed by this Officer. Over a week before the media reports on the serious injuries sustained by the Officer. ** A Massachusetts Police Officer, responding to a possible burglary call, encounters an unruly, uncooperate subject inside a private residence. Officer ends up effecting a disorderly conduct arrest, a lawful arrest based on the Massachusetts CPL/Penal Law, where his actions are called "stupid" by our Commander-in-Chief, without having all of the details of the encounter. Based on a few of these examples, I have made a couple of conclusions. Some of my conclusions are based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other Police Officers. The most dangerous conclusion I have come up with is that Police Officers are utilizing poor tactics and not being as aggressive as they should be in certain instances because of the fear of being dragged through the mud by the media, disciplined by their department, and placed on modified desk duty, even when their actions were appropriate and well within the legal guidelines for the use of deadly physical force. This "second-guessing" gives a perpetrator who has it in their mind that they want to injure/kill the police officer a chance to act upon their intentions. Police administrators will quite often administer disciplinary action upon a police officer based on the media coverage of an event and the public "outcry", no matter how justified the shooting may have been based on CPL and department guidelines. Officers are taken off the road and placed on desk duty for months, sometimes even years, to prevent the officer from being involved in another deadly physical force encounter, which may look unfavorably if the same officer is involved in numerous shooting incidents, even if they are all justified shootings. This reactive measure taken by Police Administrators in turn causes Police Officers to not take aggressive action when needed for fear of "ruining their careers" or being placed on desk duty. Once again, this "second-guessing" leads to perptrators taking advantage of Police Officers. Face it, Police Officers have pages and pages of rules and guidelines to abide by, whereas perpetrators don't play by the rules, which inherently gives the perpetrator the tactical advantage. Lastly, Law Enforcement tactics are not pretty. It involves handcuffing people, placing people face down in the dirt, ordering people out of vehicles at gunpoint, striking people with impact weapons, utilizing less lethal devices, chemical agents, and when necessary, deadly physical force. Proper tactics are not pretty, they don't look good in the eyes of the public, but they are necessary for Police Officers to go home at the end of their shift. The media doesn't understand this, society doesn't understand this, but our Police Administrators have to understand this, and have to support their Officers when their Officers actions are appropriate, no matter how it may look in the eyes of the untrained and uneducated. Sorry for the long post! Kinda got carried away but a very important topic that is filled with TONS of information! Stay safe!

Turned into a barricaded perp job... 2 perps in custody... firearm recovered.

The new REP's will be the same body style/design... but will have MDT capabilities to display jobs, unlike the precinct RMP's which only have access to NYSPIN/DMV functions.

This proposal was brought forward by the County Executive as a cost saving measure, not the DPS Commissioner to encroach on Fire/EMS (unless there was some secret closed door meeting between the two in order to effect a takeover). How are police agencies always trying to encroach on the duties of fire and EMS guys? Where in Westchester County are police agencies attempting to take over the duties of a Firefighter? I can remember a time in this county when a lot of Fire Departments didn't handle rescue work, especially on the County Parkways when the County Police had their own ESU unit equipped with a set of Jaws, since a lot of the local FD's were not equipped with extrication equipment. Same goes for the Town of Mount Pleasant PD, who was carrying a set of Jaws long before any of the local FD's were. Same in NYC, when ESU handled all of the rescue work because the FD was just way too busy handling Fires, whereas now you have the two agencies fighting over rescue work at times. So now when Fire Departments began to purchase rescue equipment and handle rescue and extrication work, were they encroaching on the local PD's and their "already established" handling of motor vehicle extrication? What about Fire Departments who never handled EMS first response? Now that a majority of departments, especially paid departments, run some form of EMS first response, does that mean that they are encroaching on EMS? So was this a "self-preservation" (as you put it) measure by Fire Departments since the number of fires have been reduced dramatically with the inception of building codes, sprinkler systems, etc.? I personally have no problem with FD's handling rescue work, as I think in a lot of Westcheser communities, it's more feasible just based on manpower alone. The city of Yonkers may only have 6, 8, maybe 10 ESU cops working any given shift, whereas there may be 50 firefighters (these are not factual numbers as I honestly don't know what the City of Yonkers staffing levels are, but merely just a guess). And I personally don't have a problem with FD's performing EMS first response. Generally FD's do have better response times then EMS, and it's in the best interest of the patient to receive appropriate medical care in a timely manner, and most FD's do a good job of providing BLS level care until EMS arrives. But to make a blanket statement that PD's are always trying to takeover FD/EMS is, IMHO, is not necessarily the truth, and looking at the history of emergency services, PD's could make the same blanket statements. Perhaps you could provide some factual information or better explain your position on PD's taking over the responsibilities of FD or EMS? AS A DISCLAIMER, I AM NOT AGAINST FIRE DEPARTMENTS DOING THE WORK THAT THEY DO! I AM MERELY PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE HERE TO RESPOND TO LUCIFERS POST, SO DON'T JUMP DOWN MY THROAT!!!

BNechis brings up a lot of good points, and is along the lines of my personal feelings about a PSO/dual-role agency. I think that you can take a police officer and make them a decent firefighter, just as well you can take a firefighter and make them a decent police officer. But if my house is burning down, I don't want a decent firefighter showing up to save my personal belongings or myself for that matter if I'm trapped inside! I want a d**m good firefighter showing up! And vice versa for the firefighter trained as a police officer. I think that these systems can work operationally, but now you have to find individuals who can wear both hats, be proficient and meet the standards set forth by the respective field, and personally I don't think that's an easy task. I know with my career as a police officer, there's certain aspects of the field that I am good at, and other parts where I might step back and let someone else handle. As an example, I know some police officers who can stop a car and find a bundle of heroin or a kilo of cocaine with little effort, while others couldn't find drugs if someone handed it to them. But that same police officer who might not be in tune with narcotics enforcement, might be extremely proficient in tactics, firearm control, and apprehension, and would probably be the one you want going through the door to apprehend a perp. With so many specialties in each field, it's difficult to not only master what is expected of you as a police officer or firefighter, but to master another field that has very little in common with the other.

My link

A paramedic drawing blood in the course of a DWI investigation could very well be called into court to testify as to the methods/procedures used to obtain the blood sample. The collection of a blood sample is the collection of evidence that will be used to prosecute an individual... no different then a Crime Scene Investigator being called to testify on the collection of fingerprints or other evidence from a crime scene.

I understand what you're saying when it comes to the more rural areas of NYS... being a NYC/Westchester guy I tend to forget that there's more to NY then just the Metro NYC area! It could be very well possible that someone doesn't mind using a vacation day for the benefit of the public, but we are here to discuss the bill, and this stipulation in this bill could be a factor in whether or not someone decides to take advantage of what this bill has to offer. Yes it's none of our business what one particular individual decides to do with their own accrued time, but it is everyone's business who volunteers the stipulations that are set forth in this bill, and that is open to discussion, hence the reason I brought it up.

Thanks Chris192... so from reading it we can gather that if an individual chooses to respond to an emergency instead of going to work, the employer will have the right to deduct the time missed from work out of someone's vacation or sick time (if sick time is even accrued by the employee). If the employee (Volunteer firefighter or EMS provider) doesn't have any accrued time, they are entitled up to 3 hours in a 12 month period (which in reality works out to 1 or 2 jobs) in a 12 month period and/or they are permitted to leave work to respond to an emergency 2 times a year (assuming that the volunteer works in the same town/village that they volunteer). Realistically, how much of an effect is this bill going to have? For somone who doesn't work in the town they volunteer in, they won't be able to respond to calls during work hours so that part of the bill won't come into play, and after one or two calls they've burnt up the 3 hours allotted to them before their employer can start tapping into their accrued time. Tapping into accrued sick or vacation time means you can forget that family vacation or don't bother calling in sick when you are doubled over on the toilet because you no longer have the time to take. It's a nice gesture by the State government, and it definetly may save someones job at some point, but I don't think in the long run the benefits offered by this bill are going to be felt by many people.

So, basically the bill only applies to certain Volunteers depending on their employment? Does anyone have a link to the bill as it has been proposed? I have read similiar bills from other states, and other states have a lot of restrictions on their Volunteer Protection law. In various states volunteers who are career firefighters or law enforcement officers are not covered. Volunteers who work for a business that employs less then a certain number of people are not covered. There are strict limitations in other states regarding how many hours a volunteer is permitted to be absent. And in a majority of states an employer is permitted to withhold a Volunteers pay for the time they are not at work. I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't afford to lose a days pay. I'm just curious if NYS implies any of these stipulations within the bill.

Is that a serious question? Why do you send multiple engines, a ladder truck, and chiefs car to an AFA? I would assume because there is the potential for a fire and you want to have adequate personnel and equipment to handle the worst case scenario, which totally makes sense. Its no different in a pursuit. If the pursuit turns into a foot pursuit or worse, a gun battle, you want adequate resources to deal with the threat.

Not a cut and dry question to answer. As in all branches of emergency services, whether it be police, fire, or EMS, we are always evaluating risk vs. benefit. The "validity" of a high speed pursuit by law enforcement depends on a number of variables. First, why are we chasing this individual. Perpetrators who have committed violent offenses should be pursued. IMHO the risk of having a violent individual on the street is greater then the risk of pursuing this individual to bring them into custody. Perpetrators who have committed violent offenses against a law enforcement officer should be pursued to the next galaxy if need be. Personally, if a perpetrator commits a violent offense against a LEO, there is absolutely no reason why that individual should not be pursued. Should law enforcement engage in a high speed pursuit for an individual who stole a pack of gum from the local bodega... probably not. Sometimes LEO's don't know why someone is running from them. You go to stop a vehicle for a simple traffic infraction and next thing you know the vehicle takes off. Could be that the driver just butchered his/her whole family, or something as simple as the driver just doesn't have a license. You have to weigh environmental and geographical factors. Are road conditions poor because or rain or snow? Are we pursuing individuals through school zones or residential neighborhoods in the middle of the day where there is a higher likelihood of a non-participant being injured by a fleeing perpetrator? Or are we pursing someone in the middle of the night on an empty highway where the likelihood of a non-participant being injured in considerably less? How aggressive is the indivual being pursued. Are they driving with such recklessness that they are placing non-participants at a significanly increased risk of injury? Or are they maintaining a reasonable speed and not blatantly disobeying traffic control devices? Do we know the ID of the person being pursued? If we do, and the offense we're chasing them for is a non-violent offense, might be more feasible to terminate the pursuit and pick them up at a later time at their residence, place of employment, etc. Personally, I'm all for pursing violators, no matter how petty the offense, as long as there is no blatent danger to the public based on some of the factors I mentioned. Someone who has no problem fleeing law enforcement to evade arrest is more then enough reason for me to pursue a vehicle. It always amazes me though, for example after reading the thread about the Phillies fan who was tasered, that the individual who started the thread felt the police used excessive force in deploying the taser. When, as a society, are we going to start placing the blame where it belongs? Not on the police officer who engaged in a pursuit or deployed a device such as the taser to apprehend a criminal who was knowingly fleeing law enforcement, but on the individual who committed a crime and then chose to recklessly flee law enforcement to evade capture? Why is it my fault if some moron decides to run from me, crashes, and kills himself? I didn't tell him to run. I didn't make him to run. I'm sorry, but if you want to take that chance and run from the police, you deserve everything you have coming to you, and if you kill yourself in the process... oh well, that's on you.

Who is questioning you? Chris192 merely stated that in the town of Mt. Pleasant there are three EMS agencies, you asked who the third was, and I provided an answer not realizing he was referring to Graham Hills.

Valhalla is the third EMS district in the Town of Mount Pleasant.

We can debate this back and forth and turn this into a FD vs. PD rant all we want... which I personally believe will be pointless and won't prove anything. The simple fact is that Police Officers are not experts on Fire Suppression and Firefighters are not experts on Law Enforcement tactics. If you read my last post, I clearly stated: "I understand what you are saying though, that a Police Officer or civilian running into a burning building can cause an increased risk for firefighters attempting to rescue a now incapacitated PO/Civilian. As a human being, I know I couldn't just stand there and watch without making an attempt." Why do these topics such as these always turn into a "don't step foot in my sandbox" mentality?

There is actually a big difference between a Police Officer running into a burning building and a Firefighter running into a Hostage Situation. The difference is TIME. In a house fire, minutes, even seconds, matter. There is an imminent threat to life, and someone, whether it be a Firefighter, Police Officer, or civilian, needs to act quickly in order to effect a rescue, otherwise trapped people will likely perish. In a hostage situation, minutes matter also, but more often in the opposite manner. Typically time is on the side of Law Enforcement, not against us. Hostage takers generally use their hostages as a bargaining chip, therefore they are not so fast to lose that leverage by killing a hostage. Law Enforcement uses time to their advantage to "wear down" a hostage taker through negotiations and other tactics, while attempting to bring a peaceful resolve to the incident. Even Law Enforcement doesn't just rush into a hostage incident, they will utilize other means before effecting an entry. I understand what you are saying though, that a Police Officer or civilian running into a burning building can cause an increased risk for firefighters attempting to rescue a now incapacitated PO/Civilian. As a human being, I know I couldn't just stand there and watch without making an attempt.

I agree that there is no inference in the story as to FD or EMS thinking they can do a better job then the PD, but if you or a loved one were trapped in a house fire, would you not want the first Police Officer on scene to attempt to effect a rescue before FD gets there? While dangerous, especially for an untrained and unequipped Police Officer (considering they have no Fire-related experience), it becomes a point of human nature as well as the general character traits of First Responders to save lives. I don't know too many Police Officers who would just stand there and watch a house burn down while waiting for FD, knowing that someone was trapped inside, without trying to perform some type of rescue. Once FD arrives on scene, I don't think any Police Officer would go charging into a burning building past all the firefighters. Therefore, once PD is involved in a pursuit, for safety reasons, ideally non-LEO's should really let the PD handle it. While terminating a pursuit is a priority because of the potential for injuries to Police Officers and especially innocent civilians, Police Officers generally will gauge the risk/benefit in terms of whether to continue a pursuit based on the reason for the pursuit, traffic conditions, neighborhood conditions (pedestrians, school zones, etc.), aggressiveness of the individual being pursued, etc. When an individual gets involved in a pursuit who is not familiar with the PD's tactics and/or if the PD has already made concessions to terminate the pursuit via spike strips or other means, can in turn end up endangering the lives of the Police Officers involved because now you have "thrown a wrench" in whatever tactics the PD had intended to employ to end the pursuit. Obviously pursuits are unpredictable because you never know when a suspect is going to crash or bail-out on foot, but PD's do attempt to "control" the outcome of a pursuit as best they can. Is it worth a Police Officer running into a burning house to effect a rescue knowing the danger associated with such actions? I think so. Is it worth a non-LEO getting involved in a police pursuit when the individual is being pursued for a non-violent offense? IMHO, probably not. His heart was in the right place, and I do not fault him at all for his actions, because as I said before, it's human nature and that inner drive to help taking over your actions.

Agreed. Professional courtesty means absolutely nothing in most parts of Virginia. Look at the NYPD motorcade that was pulled over for speeding by the Virginia State Police on their return trip home from New Orleans after assisting with the Hurrican Katrina response. Utterly ridiculous.

I don't think that the fact that there is no longer a Medevac located at WMC equates to the consideration of a field amputation being a "waste of time". You're not going to fly a Physician to a scene if it's 10 minutes from the hospital. While I don't know of any written understanding between any EMS agencies in this area and a Medical facility to provide such a service, I'm sure that if it came down to it, you could contact Westchester Medical Center or another Trauma Center to see if it could be arranged, but definetly a good question.

I believe they are in a hiring freeze after they lost Mt. Vernon, but you can check their website for employment opportunities. I believe its www.empressems.com.

For anyone who hasn't heard of the Patriot Guard, check them out on Youtube. They are a group of bikers, the majority of whom are veterans, who ride all over the country to the funerals of fallen servicemen and women. They organized a peaceful counter protest at this man's sons funeral, forming a wall of american flags between these hate mongers and the family. Definetly worth checking it out if you haven't seen it.

I don't know if I can see a benefit to prehospital 12 lead EKG's in this area. I am generally a fan of proactive procedures, but in my experiences with prehospital 12 leads, the ER docs may take a glance at them but still perform their own 12 lead and base their treatment modalities off of their EKG. A 12 lead is a great diagnostic tool, but I have never altered a course of treatment based on a 12 lead after a "routine" EKG. Has anyone changed their course of treatment based specifically on a 12 lead finding? If so, what were the circumstances? I don't agree with BLS providers doing 12 leads only because why delay transport for a suspected MI to do a 12 lead only to administer oxygen and aspirin, which the BLS provider should be doing anyway if they suspect an MI. And getting an accurate reading is quite difficult to do in a moving ambulance without a great deal of artifact.

It is protocol in a number of systems across the U.S., especially proactive systems down south and out west.