INIT915

Well said.

Some of their conclusions make little sense. How do they find that the power company was the only one who knew high winds were coming? Was this fact kept out of the news and somehow a secret from the FD? That makes no sense at all. And some of their points seem obvious. Given the call volume, why are they surprised that response times were long and 911 call centers were overwhelmed? I hope they didn't waste a lot of money on this "investigation."

Date: 10-08-10 Time: 1821 Hours Location: I-84 Frequency: Units Operating: CSP, Danbury PD Description Of Incident: Shots fired during traffic stop. Suspect DOA. Suspect vehicle reportedly a File 1. Writer: INIT915 http://www.newstimes.com/policereports/article/Police-confirm-I-84-shooting-near-Exit-5-Danbury-694051.php http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/hc-danbury-highway-shooting-1009-20101008,0,3956178.story

Date: 10/06/10 Time: 615p-930p Location: TSP Northbound (Original Location) Frequency: Multiple Units Operating: NYSP - Multiple Patrols [15 Units], BCI [2 Units], K9 [2 Units] WCPD - Aviation Air 2, Bloodhound PCSO - Multiple Patrols Carmel PD - Mutliple Patrols, Detectives, K9 Weather Conditions: Clear Description Of Incident: Vehicle pursuit starting at TSP and Route 6 for VTL violation (120mph/55mph zone). During pursuit, vehicle crashed into another vehicle north of Bryant Pond Rd. Foot pursuit initiated and suspect lost in the woods. Large perimeter established, and subsequently located, and in custody. Reporters: INIT915 (O/S), Helicopper (O/S) Writer: INIT915 Added info: Putnam Valley VAC and Mahopac Falls FD Ambulance on S/B in Quarters.

His indignation doesn't actually change the fact that that how the residents in Obion County have arranged their fire protection. I still don't think anyone is suggesting this is how it should be done, but the case remains it is. It's also interesting he actually faults South Fulton who could just refund everyone's $75 and tell the County residents to go take a hike.

Forgetting to pay $75 and choosing not to pay $75 are two very different things. It appears after not mailing back in the form, or as you say, forgetting to do so, the city takes the initiative and follows up with phone calls to confirm they are not participating. Seems to me like the City has done it's due diligence. From the article:

And to bring back Chris's point, this fire didn't occur inside the city limits. It was a suburb that relied on the city FD for contacted responses. Would Peekskill FD just randomly respond to a house fire in a neighboring village, even if that village had no fire service? No, I bet they wouldn't, unless the homeowner had made rearrangements and entered into a contract that said, "I know I don't live in Peekskill, but here is $75, and if my house ever catches fire, please come out here!" In this case, the homeowner opted not to engage the FD in a contact of sorts, yet, still expected the service that his neighbor received, except for free.

Well, wherever this incident occurred (and in many more places just like it), the citizens and leaders decided that this is how their system would be set up. Whether we like it or not. As I previously alluded, it makes little sense to me, but, you know what, it doesn't have to make sense to me. I don't live in one of these communities. If I did, I (and no doubt many on this board), would undoubtedly fight hard to change it, and implement some sort of organized fire response, funded by taxes, but, as I said, these communities choose to allow EACH AND EVERY homeowner to decide on their own what was best. In this sad case, the homeowner decided to bet against fate and assume the risks, knowingly and intentionally. I'm sure he is kicking himself now, but the fact remains, he opted to pocket the $75, versus buying "insurance." I'm usually a fairly sympathetic guy, but, this homeowner made an ill-fated decision. One his neighbor was wise to avoid making.

It seems many of these posts are addressing the "system" as is relates to this issue of fire protection. I think we can ALL agree that this subscription style of fire protection seems crazy, and ideally the county or township where these setups are prevalent would address them. Maybe take the initiative to establish proper fire protection, funded by taxes, as is the case in much of the country. What makes this specific case different, is despite our distaste for this subscription program, it is what they have in place right now. It defies logic that anyone would pay if the FD would come out regardless. My point is, the underlying premise of this inane response program is fundamentally flawed, fatally so, however, it was the program in place when select homeowners decide to "roll the dice," and save $75 playing the odds that they would never need assistance. It goes against all our morals and ethics to stand by and watch something like this, but that is just putting our values on residents and lawmakers of other parts of the country.

Agreed. This is one of those emergencies of our own making.

It appears from the story that the homeowner declined to opt-in to the program. He knew the risks. He gambled and lost. Not really sure what the problem is here. While it's sad, it was foreseeable. I'm sure a lot of people would love to get fire protection from a City FD for $75. When this topic had been discussed in the past, it seemed obvious to me that folks living in these "zones" know aboyt the program and their obligations to join. I have to agree with the mayor in the article, who would ever pay for car insurance if they could just start paying after a crash, yet reap the benefits at the cost of those who properly pre-planned.

Although the article doesn't answer all the questions I can think of, in general, the approach closely mirrors a topic that has been addressed here on the board several times over, the undeniable overuse of RLS. Can anyone in ES say, with a straight face, that there isn't a problem and a better way to do things? (Notice I say overuse, not abuse. There is a difference.)

A couple of clarifications. 1. The plea can work wither way. Either the DA proposes it, or the defense asks for it. Then both sides generally come to an agreement beforepresenting it to the judge for approval. 2. By law, in this case all sentences would have to be concurrent, with the exception of the original grand larceny for stealing the car. The Penal Law (70.25-02) demands that all sentences be concurrent for multiple acts arising from the same incident. 3. The maximum sentence for Assault 1st is 25 years. (NYS PL 70.02-03[a])

Really besides the point. Whether they wrote it or reprinted it, if it was truly a "left wing liberal media conspiracy", (which I don't actually believe in), then Fox wouldn't be putting the story forward.

I don't disagree that LE can catch a bad rap from the media. But pulling the old "liberal media" line just cause we don't like a story diminishes the effect when a story truly is slanted. In this case, whether we like it or not, cheating is wrong, and the mere fact that the media is reporting what the DOJ has already found to be a fact doesn't do anyone any justice by blaming them. We risk sounding like some of the pathetic politicians who get in the habit of blaming the press for merely reporting unflattering stories.

This conflicts with documentation provided by our Union.

Date: 09/29/10 Time: 1100 Hrs Location: Route 17 Frequency: Mutliple Units Operating: NYSP, SCSO, Multiple Special Units and Local PD's, EMS Weather Conditions: Clear Description Of Incident: Trooper dragged by vehicle during traffic stop, fired one round, striking vehicle operator. Reporters/Writer: INIT915 http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100929/NEWS/100929699

Just out of curiosity why would the story have a liberal slant? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/27/justice-ig-finds-cheating-fbi-agents-test-knowledge-surveillance-rules/ -- From FOX news, and I am not sure anyone (ever in the history of time) has mistaken them for a liberal media organization.

I have to agree with BNechis here. As an Orange County resident myself, it behooves the county and region as a whole to mitigate the problems Newburgh faces. For two reasons, those problems inevitably move to the outskirts and suburbs, and second is, a reputation like that can impact the county as a whole in terms of effects on property values and other associated criteria.

I am most definitely no expert on marine/police operations, but aren't they allowed to do these "safety inspections", to ascertain all required USCG mandated equipment is aboard? If that's the case, and these aren't "stops" as we think of traffic stops, then I'm not sure what the issue is? Edit: Remove images

So that would leave 1 Engine, 1 Ladder, and 1 Chief in service per tour?

It wasn't physical assault in the legal sense, it was a physical assault by definition. And it's not going to be dropped from Harassment to Dis Con, because that's not a "drop", as they are identical level crimes. You drop an Assault 3rd to Dis Con, but not a Harassment. What will happen is, he will be given an ACD, or Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, wherein if he stays out of trouble for the prescribed period of time, the charge is dismissed. The only reason he couldn't get an ACD is if he has had one previously. You only get to have one.

Does Newburgh even have 12 guys per shift?

Why? It's long established solid legal foundation that these seizures rest upon?

While I agree with you in principal, I think this is unwise and unfair law, 40 years of Court decisions say otherwise. NYC has to fight this the right way, seek a judicial decision which says the reasons these laws were adopted 40+ years ago is no longer an issue.