INIT915

Actually, less liability then you might think. Courts have generally held that no "contract" exists between the public and emergency services for their action or inaction.

Great images. What I can't get over is the caviler attitude of the "victims" who put themselves in this position. Only complicated by two additional "victims" adding to the dangers faced by rescuers. It's a shame there is such a lack of personal responsibility and common sense.

Although I'll add, I do prefer the old, all-white, scheme.

That may be, I've never had a car painted. But the cost of doing all the new cars versus retrofitting all the old cars in addition to the new ones should be a considerable difference.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but they are most likely not spending any money to convert the existing fleet, rather, just apply the new scheme to the incoming fleet. They would have paid for the new cars one way or the other. Also, and helicopper can jump in here if I'm off base, but I'm not sure the County Executive is micro-managing right down to the decals on the news cars. If he is, well, these cars will become the least of the County's problems.

Just like in the recent thread on EMS in the county, there is little debate a problem exists. Who will finally play the role of a leader and start to take some action? Posts like this one, calling out some FD do nothing. Everyone is well aware of the problems. Some may have their heads in the sand, but they are aware. Instead of calling out this agency, offer some suggestions or solutions. Without offering something productive, this thread offers nothing.

Again, I would disagree with your interpretation. Using your DV example, I'm not sure why you suspect a dash cam would need to be turned off to avoid risking videotaping the aided party. The law clearly says capturing images outside the performance of your official duties. Now, imagine your same scenario, but this time, the cop uploads the video to his Facebook account because the person videotaped was good looking, or fall down drunk, or some other crazy situation. Then, clearly, that video is not being used for the furtherance of the performance of official duties. I think your reading too deep into this. Now, as for COPS film crews. First, most, if not all of that video was probably filmed in states without such statutes. Secondly, upon securing a waiver, this law would be a non-issue.

Food for thought? Does HIPPA apply to everyone who might be taking pictures? Think about it...

Actually, more likely, they used the bus as a shield as the had the President exit, so he would not be exposed. On another note, I'd hate to have been the advance guy on that Op.

Actually, read it closer. You can even take pictures of the victims/patients, if within the performance of your duties. So if you can articulate a legitimate use, i.e., QA/QI, relaying information to the ED, etc., you should still be covered. You'd be best covered in your agency by developing a policy covering when pictures are to be taken for official purposes. This act seems to target pictures being taken by responders for their own (ab)use.

I don't think salaries will be slashed, rather, limited in terms of further increases. And don't forget, this is not a clear cut issue. I suspect you have some union members being taxed to the point that they also are open to changes in the system. I don't think it's an all or nothing approach.

You say that, but then why, in 2011, are we still "discussing" it and not taking any action? Those "important names" are aware of the situation, the ones on this site, as well as the ones who are not.

I couldn't agree more, about everything you posted. My point was, and remains, these threads pop up every so often, usually addressing the fire service or EMS (and occasionally) law enforcement. Everyone agrees the problem exists. This thread will eventually end, and a few weeks from now, a reincarnation of it will surface, and the cycle repeats, and repeats, and repeats. Just do a quick search, I'll wait... What all the posts lack is a real plan of action. A legitimate grassroots effort to make some change. You can talk about contacting your elected officials. Good luck with that. Lots of lobbies have started there or tried that. Emergency services are not the power player in legislative affairs that others are. While there are a handfuls of fairly successful unions, that is about it. Who is going to come up with a REAL plan to actually get something started? I personally feel like the smart money will be on someone like BNechis, but someone needs to take the first concrete step. The problem has been identified. An array of potential solutions have been floated. Important stakeholders have been identified. My question. What's next?

Yes, a "normal" quality of life. Some of these stories making the news suggest something more then a normal quality of life. Whether you like it or not, reforming this system would actually benefit those in emergency services or legitimately need it.

This thread is like Déjà Vu. We've seen how many threads with the same information? 1. We identity the problem exists. Check. No secret there. I'm not sure anyone with a modicum of common sense would disagree. 2. A bunch of people offer legitimate suggestions (or sarcastic, yet pertinent jokes about it.) 3. The next day, nothing actually changes. I think a more productive thread would focus on how do we finally bring pressure to bear on the decision makers.

It doesn't help when some of these retirees provide the municipality with ammunition, specifically, living lives that might suggest they are not that disabled.

If we've learned nothing else, it is that the law and common sense are, on occasion, mutually exclusive.

That article was written in 1994. What was the outcome? Was the complaint founded or not? Edit, I mean 2004.

Wouldn't renters be indirectly affected as significant changes in the tax levy on the property owner would undoubtedly translate into rent increases?

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/One-town-35-chiefs-1370649.php

Agreed. What happened to a little personal responsibility?

With uncomplicated Taser usage, the Barbs can be (and are) removed by LE in the field. Many PD agencies don't even involve EMS in Taser actions, barring some other co-morbid factors.

Agreed. What everyone misses here, despite all the collective "legal knowledge" that is frequently brought to bear on this forum (heavy sarcastic emphasis), this decision was an 8-1 decision. Does anyone realize how rare that is, especially over the last decade? This means this wasn't a liberal/conservative ideological split. Rather, the Court nearly unanimously agreed on the facts of this case and the nexus to the Fourth Amendment.

You might not hear about it it, but its happening. SP hasn't had a class since 2008, and potentially won't until 2013 at the earliest.

Well, seeing as how three of the four Liberal Justices agreed in the opinion, I'm not sure what's upsetting your "inner liberal." (And I'm as Liberal as they come, so...) Also, the decision specifically asserts the cops did not "create their own PC."