khas143

Father, son ticketed for speeding within minutes of each other (Original publication: July 29, 2007) Talk about keeping it in the family. A state police trooper patrolling Interstate 684 issued two speeding tickets yesterday in the span of nine minutes - one to a father and the other to the man's son. The first stop happened at 2:03 p.m. on 684 in the town of Southeast in Putnam County. Trooper Thomas Coubertier pulled over Teodoro Diaz, 43, of New Britain, Conn., for driving 84 miles per hour in a 65 zone. After ticketing Diaz in his 2003 Subaru, Coubertier headed south on 684 to continue speed enforcement, police said. At 2:12 p.m., on 684 in the Westchester County town of North Salem, Coubertier clocked another driver speeding, this time at 88 miles per hour. The driver was Luis Diaz, 23, also of New Britain, also behind the wheel of a 2003 Subaru. He was also issued a speeding ticket. Yes, police confirmed, the son had taken over driving duties from the father after the first ticket.

Personally, I would rather pay the money than have to put my name, shield, dept. down on any piece of paper. I will pay the money and see my movie in peace.

A friend of mine was in the caravan of NYPD vehicles heading to New Orleans when they got stopped by the VSP. And, despite emails that denied it.... he says it was true and I believe him over a stupid email chain. That being said, the sad part is that if the same NYPD caravan was heading north and saw a Virginia State Trooper getting his a** kicked I would bet they would stop and take care of business. This is despite the utter disrespect they had showed. We became cops/brothers and that is what makes us better than the few as**holes there are out there that make us all look like s***.

Despite run numbers it really all depends what is in their union contract. It may not be right but if it is legal, what are they to do?

They are PEACE OFFICERS (per the NYS CPL) and are required to go to the standard 40 hour peace officer course (80 if they have firearms). They are NOT POLICE OFFICERS!

In 2003, a hotline was issued with a "blue" request for Playland. This was due to a miscommunication between playland and communications. The original request was for additional cars from patrol and Rye not a county-wide response. (aka... somebody over-reacted and pushed the big red button). This was the first time that the "new" (at the time) mutual aid plan was activated. I am pretty sure that even then there was a 3 tiered mutual aid response plan (blue, yellow, red). I can assure you that the "Red" request by New Rochelle was the 1st one in the county.

Quick question, why does it say City of Peekskill Police on the Box?

Ohhh.. poor baby... 24 hours of OT ... my heart bleeds for ya!!!! With all that OT you can take them to the car wash!!!!

This issue is not limited to the fire service either. Police Departments all over the state and county duplicate resources all the time. Is is neccisary to have 30 individual SWAT (SRT or whatever you call it) teams within every jurisdicition or would it be more financially prudent to have a county-wide team that is on duty 24/7 and could respond to any location in the county. (much quicker than calling in your own staff from say dutchess). This is not to say that individual cities do not justify their own teams but does Town A who has 15 cops really need to have a team? The reason, as X635 stated is that everybody wants their own little "exciting" team, ladder, rescue, etc. This is, in my opinion, a waste of tax-payer money and everybody knows it. There have been several studies done that have stated that county taxpayers could save tens of millions of dollars a year by combining resources (both P.D. and F.d). But lets face it, politics will NEVER let that happen.

Can someone answer me this question? Why is it that when as a P.O. you call for an ambulance the entire damn fire department shows up. If I needed F.D. I would have called for it. I don't need an engine, ladder, and rescue to assist EMS in dealing with a bad case of allstateitis.

Greenburgh officer involved in dominatrix case fired By BILL HUGHES THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: February 16, 2007) GREENBURGH - The police officer accused of having a tryst in the woods with a dominatrix was ordered fired by the Town of Greenburgh's Board of Police Commissioners in a decision released after business hours today. Erik Ward, who was acquitted of the criminal charge of official misconduct in Town Court in December, was found guilty today of three out of seven departmental charges stemming from his interaction with Gina Pane, a professional dominatrix who was arrested on a marijuana possession charge in January 2006. The day after her arrest, Ward met Pane at the parking lot of the Doral Arrowwood Resort and Country Club, drove off for about 20 minutes then returned and dropped her off. Ward maintains that he was trying to develop Pane as a confidential informant in order to arrest her marijuana supplier. Pane testified that she and Ward drove off to a secluded spot and that he masturbated while she squatted on a tree branch and defecated to satisfy his sexual fetish. Ward was found guilty of failing to comply with departmental procedures governing confidential informants, failing to properly report his contact with Pane to his superior officer and conduct which brings discredit upon the department. Ward, who joined the Police Department in May 2000, has been suspended from his $81,954 per year job since February.

You wouldn't have to if people were smart and stayed home in the snow.

New York State law states that any device "capable" of picking up police frequencies is illegal (except in certain situations). I have seen several people charged with a misdemeanor as a result of having a scanner in their vehicle.

With all do respect ArrowXT; I find it offense to call another members post ignorant. While the wording may not have been ideal that is not the issue here. The issue is that fact that this persons actions not only endangered the life of his family, other motorists, and the Police Officer it is also embarrassing to Emergency Services as a whole (unfortunately, and in this case volunteers in particular ---Note the title of the aritcle). Education and Training on all levels (career and volunteer) could hopefully prevent situations like this from occurring but there are always those few bad apples that no amount of training can help. (A little common sense does wonders!) The question is how do we teach members of Emergency Services how to understand that making a call does mean that they can risk the life of others. In other words, we need to teach them that end does not necessarily justify the means.

Don't get too excited.... at the last quarterly drawing for Gate times JetBlue got several times but they decided not to act on them.

There was a video camera present to record the execution. In total, there were only 7 observers to his death. Hope that tape goes on the net one day.

The major problem is NO BALLS!!!!

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PUSHING A VEHICLE THROUGH AN INTERSECTION!!! I have never heard of such a thing. If you are operating a fire or ems vehicle (authorized emergency vehicle) you are required to have both your lights and sirens on. Because of that fact, your failure to do so will constitute operation as a civilian vehicle. I would never suggest that any emergency vehicle operator respond to a "Code 3" (or whatever your department calls it) call without lights and sirens. If a vehicle that is in front of you runs a red light to get out of your way that is THEIR FAULT, not the operator of the emergency vehicles. It is the responsibility of the operator not to break any vehicle and traffic laws without due care, however, you are not responsible for the actions of a vehicle that runs a red light. You are responsible for your actions (i.e. -- going through a red light and a vehicle striking you). The fact of the matter is everybody will sue because that is the nature of our society. Hopefully, there will be some sort of civil penalty for frivilouse lawsuity but that is another topic altogether. Stay safe..

They are there to improve aim. Apparently, someone has figured out that the particular spot on the urinal where the flies are placed is the spot which will create the least amount of "splash" thereby keeping the urinals and bathrooms cleaner. What I want to know is who figured this out?

Just curious but why was it locked... and why is it going to be re-locked?

Are you saying that it would be impossible to get an unbiased jury that would be able to judge the case based on the facts presented? Are you saying the news media has not given an unbiased report of the facts associated with this case? I can't believe that you would think such a thing.... I am in shock, awe, and dismay of your pessimism Chris192...

I have had the opportunity to work both sides of the fence on this one and you make a good point 66Alpha... It is great to be able to consult with the PD asset on scene but given the particular situation discussed in this thread I would think it would be important to discuss (aka training) legal issues in depth since there were no PD assets on scene (as is the case in most college EMS environments)... I volleyed as an EMT when I was in college and to be honest, if I was confronted with a situation such as this it would have taken a lot of ba**s to go against the organization (administration) that oversaw the VAC on campus. Sorry for the side note but even though it appears that the EMT's did nothing wrong this is a huge problem with having an EMS program in a college environment... There is obviously an appearance of authority by a security department that legally does not have as much "say" as the EMT's on the ambulance.

Section 135.05 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person. Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful. A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or b. any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement. A couple of issues here.... first, there is (in my opinion) a very definitive line between strongly suggesting that a patient go to the hospital and unlawful imprisonment... it still sounds to me like the patient was "convinced" to go. (to what extent it took to "convince" the patient may never be known) Second.... the law states that the person who "Restrains" the victim (patient) must have knowledge that the restraint is unlawful. This brings about a question of the state of mind of the EMS crew on the call and a secondary question of training. What were the EMT's told about the legal authority of the security guards on campus? What kind of legal aspects training are EMT's (CFR's, EMT-P's) getting during their training courses? In my experience this varies greatly with the course provider and may be something that should be stressed more given the liability aspects involved.

Well if the person was "blackmailed" into going to the hospital by security guards that is not your concern. As an EMS provider if the patient wants to go to the hospital (despite the reason) you should provide transport. It sounds to me like the issue the patient has is with security. Sounds like on the EMS side of things, there is no liability. On a side note, these sort of things tend to happen with private security who owe their allegiance to school administration.

The Westchester County Deputy Sheriff's are Peace Officers and have been for over 10 years. They currently are required to take an initial 80 hour course. Prior to that the Sheriff's were Police Officers and went to a part-time Police Academy to get their certification