trauma74

I have the NY/Metro book from scannermaster. It is a great book. I know that by the time the book gets printed that much of the data is old, but it is still a great resource and it has info on FDNY & NYPD. As x635 mentioned earlier, it would be great if there was an online version.

I have been using Limewire for a few years. The only problem I have is with SpyWare. No viruses so far. If you use an older version of Limewire you will get less spyware. Go to www.oldversion.com and you can find older version of Limewire as well as other programs.

Click the link below to view some photos of our new First Response vehicle (fly car). http://chesterambulance.com/flycar.html

We put the cap on it. When put the truck in service and we had all the equipment secured in the rear part of the cab. We had to wait to get the funds to put the cap on it. We added the cap, grille guard, spray in bedliner and the extendobed.

EMT Peter Low passed away today at approximately 1500 hours after a long battle he had after having a stroke a few months ago. Pete was recognized time and time again for his endless dedication as a member of the Blooming Grove Volunteer Ambulance Corps. Pete truly defined the word "volunteer" in all its aspects. Pete is now in a much better place where he will no longer have any pain or suffering. Rest In Peace Brother

Servives for Peter Low are listed below: >Wake: Ferguson Funeral Home > Washingtonville, NY > >Hours: Thursday 7-9 PM > Friday 2-4 7-9 PM > >Mass: 10 AM at St. Mary's Church > Washingtonville, NY > >Burial: Veterans Cemetery on Craigville Road Goshen, NY

I know that both volunteer EMS & FD personnel in NJ use blue lights on their POVs. What are the specific laws regarding blue lights on POVs in NJ? I heard somewhere that part of the law in NJ was changed to permit "blue lighters" to go thru a stop sign and a red light when responding to a call. I also heard that it is now mandatory for other motorists to yield the right of way to "blue lighters". Also, what is the deal with FD, EMS & PD vehicles using red and blue lights in combination with each other? I have seen some FD, PD & EMS vehicles with red and blue lights together, but I have also seen just straight red used. What is the deal?

Thank you all for the information. I have relatives who ride in NJ. They just got a new bus in their VAC and I asked them why they did not get any blue lights on the bus. They told me it was not legal to have blue on their buses.

Any time any members of our Military are fired upon it should considered an act of war. Here is another story. This came to me from a friend of mine who is a Federal ICE agent. One night US Border Patrol Agents encountered a group of drug smugglers that had just come across the border from Mexico. These drug smugglers were escorted by none other then members of the Mexican Military. The Mexican soldiers acutally ended up in a gun fight with the Border Patrol Agents! If that is not an act of war, then what is???

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/DAFBBF1...9455DA39AD4.htm

That guy received a $10K from Trump and a free trip to Disney for his whole family.

About a half hour ago I sent out an email to 68 of my friends from my address book. Once it was sent I was immediately booted off of AOL and a message came up saying my account was suspended for a TOS violation.....they said I was spamming!!!!!! How the hell is sending an email to 68 friends spamming??? I had to go online thru internet Explorer and get Live Help. They lady was able to reset my account and give me a temporary password to log into my account. She was unable to tell me why I could not email all of my friends. She said that it was a TOS violation and anymore violations in the future could result in permanent suspension of my account!!!! WTF?!

I have not heard anything in a while about the badge issue. I did write a letter to my local State Senator about this issue. What bill are your refering to that is in the Assembly?

All I have to say about this is, WTF?! It looks like ICE is no longer able to deport immigrants with state felony drug convictions that would classify as a misdemeanor under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. I love it how the Supreme Court allows convicted FELONS to live amongst us. In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an immigrant who was deported to Mexico after being convicted of a crime that would be classified as a misdemeanor under federal law. The high court’s ruling could affect thousands of immigrants who have engaged in some sort of illegal behavior, by allowing immigration judges discretion when it comes to deciding whether or not they can remain in the United States. In this case, Jose Antonio Lopez, a 16-year permanent resident of the U.S., was convicted of aiding and abetting the possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in South Dakota. Under South Dakota state law, the crime is a felony. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, though, it is a misdemeanor, since it was Lopez’s first offense. A year after his conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings against him, prompting Lopez to file an application for cancellation of the removal as a long-time permanent resident pursuant to Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) section 240A(a). Under that provision, the Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is deportable from the U.S. if the alien: (1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years; (2) has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status; and (3) has not been convicted of any “aggravated felony.” Lopez’s application was denied, however, by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. He appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court held that Lopez’s South Dakota drug conviction was an “aggravated felony” for the purposes of determining that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal, even though his offense would have only qualified as a misdemeanor under federal law. Lopez then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained that the INA makes Lopez guilty of an aggravated felony if he has been convicted of illicit trafficking in a controlled substance including, but not limited to, a drug trafficking crime, as defined in section 924© of title 18. Lopez’s state conviction was for helping someone else possess cocaine in South Dakota, which state law treated as the equivalent of possessing the drug, a state felony. The high court added that mere possession is not, however, a felony under the federal CSA, although possessing more than what one person would have for himself will support conviction for the federal felony of possession with intent to distribute. Despite this federal misdemeanor treatment, the Government argued that possession’s “felonious character” as a state crime can turn it into an aggravated felony under the INA. There, illicit trafficking includes a drug trafficking crime as defined in Title 18, and that statute defines “drug trafficking crime” as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.” Since the Controlled Substances Act punishes possession, albeit as a misdemeanor, that is enough, says the Government, because the pertinent statute requires only that the offense be punishable, not that it be punishable as a federal felony. Thus, the Government contends, a prior conviction in state court will satisfy the felony element because the State treats possession that way. The Supreme Court, however, found a number of things wrong with the Government’s argument, the first being its “incoherence” with respect to any “commonsense” concept of “illicit trafficking,” which is the term ultimately being defined in this case. The Court explained that “trafficking” should be given its “everyday understanding” since it is not defined in the statute. “And ordinarily ‘trafficking’ means some sort of commercial dealing,” the Court said. Reading the statute the Government’s way, then, “would often turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language tells us not to expect, and that result makes us very wary of the Government’s position,” the Court stated. While Congress is free to define an aggravated felony of illicit trafficking in an unexpected way, the Court added, “Congress would need to tell us so, and there are good reasons to think it was doing no such thing here.” Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that conduct made a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the Controlled Substances Act does not constitute a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.” The case is Lopez v. Gonzales, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 05-547, December 5, 2006. =

All I have to say about this is, WTF?! It looks like ICE is no longer able to deport immigrants with state felony drug convictions that would classify as a misdemeanor under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. I love it how the Supreme Court allows convicted FELONS to live amongst us. In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an immigrant who was deported to Mexico after being convicted of a crime that would be classified as a misdemeanor under federal law. The high court’s ruling could affect thousands of immigrants who have engaged in some sort of illegal behavior, by allowing immigration judges discretion when it comes to deciding whether or not they can remain in the United States. In this case, Jose Antonio Lopez, a 16-year permanent resident of the U.S., was convicted of aiding and abetting the possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in South Dakota. Under South Dakota state law, the crime is a felony. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, though, it is a misdemeanor, since it was Lopez’s first offense. A year after his conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings against him, prompting Lopez to file an application for cancellation of the removal as a long-time permanent resident pursuant to Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) section 240A(a). Under that provision, the Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is deportable from the U.S. if the alien: (1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years; (2) has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status; and (3) has not been convicted of any “aggravated felony.” Lopez’s application was denied, however, by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. He appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court held that Lopez’s South Dakota drug conviction was an “aggravated felony” for the purposes of determining that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal, even though his offense would have only qualified as a misdemeanor under federal law. Lopez then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained that the INA makes Lopez guilty of an aggravated felony if he has been convicted of illicit trafficking in a controlled substance including, but not limited to, a drug trafficking crime, as defined in section 924© of title 18. Lopez’s state conviction was for helping someone else possess cocaine in South Dakota, which state law treated as the equivalent of possessing the drug, a state felony. The high court added that mere possession is not, however, a felony under the federal CSA, although possessing more than what one person would have for himself will support conviction for the federal felony of possession with intent to distribute. Despite this federal misdemeanor treatment, the Government argued that possession’s “felonious character” as a state crime can turn it into an aggravated felony under the INA. There, illicit trafficking includes a drug trafficking crime as defined in Title 18, and that statute defines “drug trafficking crime” as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.” Since the Controlled Substances Act punishes possession, albeit as a misdemeanor, that is enough, says the Government, because the pertinent statute requires only that the offense be punishable, not that it be punishable as a federal felony. Thus, the Government contends, a prior conviction in state court will satisfy the felony element because the State treats possession that way. The Supreme Court, however, found a number of things wrong with the Government’s argument, the first being its “incoherence” with respect to any “commonsense” concept of “illicit trafficking,” which is the term ultimately being defined in this case. The Court explained that “trafficking” should be given its “everyday understanding” since it is not defined in the statute. “And ordinarily ‘trafficking’ means some sort of commercial dealing,” the Court said. Reading the statute the Government’s way, then, “would often turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language tells us not to expect, and that result makes us very wary of the Government’s position,” the Court stated. While Congress is free to define an aggravated felony of illicit trafficking in an unexpected way, the Court added, “Congress would need to tell us so, and there are good reasons to think it was doing no such thing here.” Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that conduct made a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the Controlled Substances Act does not constitute a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.” The case is Lopez v. Gonzales, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 05-547, December 5, 2006. =

I watched the show when it was on. I loved it. Wish they would have kept it on longer!

Rest In Peace Sir!

I LOVE THE CHRISTMAS THEME! GREAT JOB SETH!!!!!

12/24 1400-2200 (not too upset because I am getting triple time for last 1/2 of this shift) 12/25 1400-2200 (not too upset because I am getting triple time all for the whole shift) 12/31 1400-2200 (not too upset because I am getting triple time for last 1/2 of this shift) 1/1/07 have the day off and still getting paid for 8 hours! I LOVE CIVIL SERVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wish EVERYONE a Merry Christmas!

Thanks for the reminder. I have been attending for the past 4 years. I like the show, but they need to add more stuff for it to really be a MEGA Show!

Name: Doug Age: 30 Volunteer Experience: Joined Chester Volunteer Ambulance Corps in 1994 as a Driver. Became an EMT in 1996. Became Captain in 2002 and I am still serving in this position. Also, became member of Chester Fire Department Trout Brook Engine & Hose Company #3 in March of 1991 at age of 16. Served as Treasurer from 2002-2005. Appointed Department Communications Officer in 2003 and still serving in that position. Member of Rockland DMAT Team for past 3 years. Paid Experience: Worked as an ambulette driver & EMT for the former Elliott's Ambulance Service in Middletown, NY for 6 months. Worked for Empress EMS as an EMT from 1996-1998. I also dispatched for the last 9 months I worked there. Got hired as a Dispatcher for Village of Monroe PD in 1998 and worked there until 2000. Dispatched Monroe PD, Monroe FD, Monroe EMS and Harriman PD. In 2000 I transferred to Town of New Windsor PD. Still employed by New Windsor. Dispatch for New Windsor PD, New Windsor EMS, New Windsor FD & Vails Gate FD. In 2004 I worked as a Part Time Dispatcher for the Town of Woodbury PD. Training/Certifications: NYS EMT NAEMD APCO Dispatch NYSPIN/NCIC/E-Justice Basic Disaster Life Support CPR FireFighting Essentials NYS Haz/Mat Technician Auto Extrication Aircraft Fire/Rescue

I know that many Counties have had great success with "Centralized" Dispatch, but sometimes it can be a bad thing. I am going to speak from my own experiences from up here in Orange County. In the late 1990s Orange County started looking into getting a 911 system in place for all residents of the County. At the time, the Town of Woodbury had their own 911 system in place for their residents. All 911 calls were answered by Woodbury PD. The County has this grand scheme that they would make a 911 Center that would handle all the 911 calls and also dispatch for every single agency in the County. They has meetings with PDs, FDs and VAC's who already had their own dispatch centers in place. There was no way that any of these agencies were going to give up their own dispatch in favor of a "Central" dispatch. Prior to the 911 Center, all PDs that did not have their own dispatch were dispatched by the OC Sheriffs Office (339), FDs were dispatched by KEE315 and the VACs were dispatched by a private answering service (Cullens Answering Service aka 510). With the exception of the VACs, PD and FD dispatch was run very well. Orange County hired a Commission of Emergency Communications. Her name was Virginia Panzarella and she was a retired telephone company supervisor. She had NO experience in the Public Safety field (unless you count being married to a State Trooper). From the begining it was said that she was going to cater to NYSP. NYSP basically demanded that they get "Polled" for all calls in any Towns in the County (Villages were not included for some reason). Due to the fact that NYSP does not use 10 codes, the County decided to abolish the use of 10 codes when the 911 Center went live. Many members of the 911 Committee had more then 20 years in the dispatching field and most of them were forced off the committee because they did not agree with the hiring of Panzarella and they did not agree with the NYSP getting polled for calls. The next cluster **** with the 911 Center was the 800 band radio system. NYCOMCO came in and told the County that their EDACS 800 system was the best thing around. It would provide the PDs with privacy because it could not be monitored with any scanner currently on the market. Before all the details were explained, the County jumped up and said they wanted EDACS. After they signed the contract for this 800 system, NYCOMCO came in and said "OH, By the way, if you want 90% coverage on 800 around the county you will have to find 10 more tower sites and build towers for a total cost of $300,000. The County said no way and now there is only coverage for about 1/2 the County on 800. Next came the choices for Supervisors for 911. They hired people who had never been dispatchers before. One guy was a NYC Dept of Homeless Services Police Sgt whos only experience with radios was listening to his radio at work and his scanner at his house. Another guy was a vacuum cleaner salesmen. I know two former 911 dispatchers who scored 100% on the Supervisors test. One was fired on bogus charges and the other one was forced out the door. Since the inception of the 911 Center here in OC, there has been so many problems. Unprofessional Supervisors who hang up on you when you call to complain. I had one Supervisor tell me that I did not like the services being provided by the 911 Center I could find someone else to dispatch for my agency. I am not saying that all counties with centralized dispatch are bad, but you should be careful what you wish for!!!

Below I will describe a problem that Chester VAC had with DMV registrations: A few years ago when we got our first Fly Car, I went to DMV to register it. I kindly asked the clerk if we could have "Official" plates for it. The clerk said "yes, no problem". At the time it was my understanding that because we receive a large portion of our budget from the Town of Chester, that we would be considered a "Political Subdivision". The Official Plates were issued to us and we never had a problem. Official plates never expire and it would just make things easier by not having to re-register the Fly Car every year. Back in June, we purchased a new Fly Car. I went to DMV and transferred the Official plates from the old vehicle to the new one. This plate number was on our Affirmation of Compliance paperwork that we filed with the NYS DOH to have the truck certified as an Emergency Ambulance Service Vehicle. A few months ago, Orange County EMS Coordinator Michael Walton made mention in his monthly newsletter that the State was auditing agencies that have Official plates on any of their vehicles. Quite some time had passed and nothing was mention to us, so I figured we were still eligible to have these plates on our vehicle. Last month, I sent in the Agency Recertification paperwork to renew our operating certificate. Last Friday I received a certified letter from Dana Jonas from the NYS DOH. This letter explained there has been an audit going on and that Chester VAC is not eligible to have Official Plates on any of the vehicles we own. The letter directed us to go to DMV, turn in the plates and reregister our Fly Car with regular passenger or commercial plates. This letter also stated that volunteer EMS agencies are exempt from having to pay fees for registration. As far back as I can remember, every year we filled out the DMV ambulance registration forms and there was no charge for this. In fact I had sent in our registration renewals the same day I received the letter. This past Tuesday, one of my former Line Officers went to DMV with letter in hand and this is where the problem began. First, DMV personnel looked at him like he had two heads when he presented the letter from the NYS DOH. Numerous telephone calls were made to Albany because nobody at the DMV Office in Goshen had a clue about any of this (good job by the DMV officials in Albany to not pass this info along to all of the local offices). Second, we were told that because Chester VAC is Incorporated that we are not exempt from DMV fees (even know we have been exempt for at least the 12 years that I have been a member) and that we would have to pay full price just like any other business to register our vehicle. We were told that we are considered a "For Hire" ambulance service. We told DMV personnel that we are the "Chester Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc. and that we are not "FOR HIRE". The personnel argued with us and stated multiple times that we are "FOR HIRE" because we bill for our services and that we are not exempt from DMV fees. Third, we asked for regular passenger plates and we were told because the vehicle is over a certain weight and because we are "for hire" that we have to get Commercial plates for the truck. So, 3 hours(yes, 3 hours!) and $110 later we had our truck reregistered. I want everyone to be aware of what transpired here. Even if you do not have Official Plates on any of your vehicles you may run into a problem when you go to reregister your ambulances/fly cars or register a new ambulance/fly car for the first time. I hope that the NYS DOH will look into this matter before it gets too far out of hand with DMV doing things the wrong way. If anyone has any questions or would like further information about this please feel free to email me or call me at 845-806-7111. Thank you. Douglas S. DiBlasi - Captain Chester Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc.

x635, I must compliment you on your efforts with trying to get things done on a County level. Up here in Orange County we will never have luck with County-wide anything. At a County EMS meeting last year I mentioned that maybe the County should have a Special Ops Team made of up the various Volunteer & Paid EMS services around the County. The job of this team would be to provide Rehab to FDs, Tactical EMS to any PD agency in the County and to support any EMS agency for any MCI or large scale events. I got nothing but nasty looks and some people looked at me like I had two heads. I guess it is taboo to talk about anything County-wide up here. Questions about liability and insurance came out along with a bunch of dumb comments. One agency did not like this idea because if an incident happened during the daytime hours in the middle of the week they might not be able to get an ambulance to a call if "people are playing around with this team!" I asked the Orange County EMS Coordinator about the County getting an MCI Trailer. You will be able to figure out the answer to this question when I say that I applied for an MCI Trailer grant thru a local Senator and he gave us the grant. We are now going to be "one up" on the County. Once our trailer arrives it will be available to ANYONE in the surrounding Counties/States if needed. Our Fly Car is ready to pull it and we have our Garmin c330 GPS unit ready for a location.

Every time you look at a PD/FD or EMS related magazine you see many articles about interoperability. Along with these articles you see a wide assortment of devices that can be deployed in the field for interoperabilty. These devices can range anywhere from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars. It is quite obvious to me that the companies manufactoring this devices are capitalizing on the big inter-ops push coming from the Federal Government. I will be the first to admit that I am an avid radio buff and I have been in favor of these devices for a long time. I think that these tour bus style mobile command centers are awesome and I would love to see a few more of these around. I have been a PD/FD/EMS dispatcher for 9 years in addition to holding the position of Communications Officer for my FD and my VAC. I have learned that many people in the Public Safety field have no clue about communications in general. With that being said, these same people have no clue about interoperability. Most dispatch consoles have the ability to cross patch different frequencies together as well as the ability to simulcast on multiple frequencies at the same time. Some dispatchers do not know the full capabilities of their consoles and they fail to properly link two agencies together. I have seen and heard of incidents where main dispatch frequencies for multiple agencies were patched together creating havoc over the air. All of the radio happy people out in the field felt the need talk non-stop. The ICs at these incidents should have never let this happen and they really should be ashamed of their actions. Is is really necessary for everyone to talk to each other at every scene? The answer to this is an obvious "NO". At the majority of incidents the ICs of the various agencies working on the scene should really be the only ones communicating with each other. Interop Communications between the various ICs should be done on fireground or tac channels and not on main dispatch channels. Long before 9/11 and the Interop push from the Feds the PD, FD & EMS in my Town were interoperating. This was accomplished by the FD Chiefs getting VHF mobile and portable radios to talk to PD & EMS and by EMS Line Officers having UHF portable and mobile radios in their vehicles. For the one in a thousand chance that all of the PD officers on the scene needed to talk all of the firefighters or EMS personnel on the scene, this would be easily accomplished thru the use of a few RICK or Pyramid in-vehicle repeaters. This solution is pretty inexpensive compared to purchasing an expensive device to perform these functions. I know that some of you will say that our system works well for when all of the agencies from a single Town are working together, but we also have the ability to communicate with all of our neighboring agencies if needed.