INIT915

From a legal standpoint, the issue being addressed by the District Court Judge is one of "disparate impact." He (or the plaintiffs) don't have to show how or why the pass rates for minorities/non-minorities are so different (hell, they don't even have to understand why there is a disparity), rather, the plaintiff only has to show there is a statistical anomaly, and in the end the protected class can meet the minimum practical responsibilities of the job. The concept was developed (or more appropriately honed) in Griggs v. Duke Power, in the 1970's. As unfair as it seems (and I am one who does believe it is unfair), this Judge is unfortunately just following precedent. What needs to done is a ruling from a Court of Record (COR) essentially modifying existing precedent. Some of the SCOTUS argument in Ricci v. NH did that, so in this case NYC will have a leg to stand on that it didn't only a few years ago. The ironic thing is if he ruled for NYC, we would be calling him an "activist judge." While I disagree with this ruling, I don't envy the rock and the hard place this Judge is in, ruling between precedent and what is, in my personal opinion, the right thing to do. NYC's best avenue of regress here is an appellant argument, relying heavily on the Ricci decision.

The Judge did allow them to make the hires, and he gave them some options to do so. The City, finding all the options unfathomable choose to decline any hires while they consider an appeal of the original decision, and while they formulate a new test.

Capt. That was my point exactly, although admittedly mostly a hunch and from personal experiance, as I didn't have any data to work off of, but your research completely validates my hypothesis. From a "cost/benefit" perspective, many of us misprioritize.

Unfortunately, and as you will see as you have more time in the field, not every call we get is an emergency. In fact, quite a number of the calls made for "E"MS are not emergencies at all.

Your grammar aside, your way off base. As crimecop points out, there are lots of instances PD needs to get somewhere quickly, yet quietly. Using lights and sirens as you approach a scene may not be the best approach, whereas that is less of an issue for FD/EMS. You are however right, the public does abuse 911. That goes without saying. If you then transport that "stumped toe" RLS to the ER, you are just contributing to the problem.

Westchester aside, I'll tell you, once you fly out of Stewart, you'll never want to travel into LGA/JFK/Newark again! It is, in my opinion, the best hidden secret. From parking your car, to sitting at your gate in 10 minutes, every time!

2nd or 3rd? What about the 1st due? Given the frequency of false alarms, are the risks of RLS outweighed by the potential of an actual incident? Look at (most) law enforcement agencies. No responding units use RLS. The potential of a legitimate alarm is statistically insignificant (hypothesis here) when compared to sending 2, 3, 4+ units with RLS, creating a risk of accidents/incidents to the general public and to ourselves.

(Just playing Devil's Advocate here and bringing up an interesting, yet often overlooked loophole): Under what authority do you use Amber lights? This is somewhat of a trick question.

Capt. Does NRFD use amber lights to the side or rear?

Wow. I don't know what is worse, old-fashioned pyromaniacs or these greedy losers?

Well, the charge your thinking of would be Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, NYS PL 155.40, as the value of the theft exceeds $50,000. In reality, in a situation like this, when the actor had an arguable property right to the stolen vehicle, the more appropriate charge would be Unauthorized Use of A Vehicle in the Third Degree, NYS PL 165.05.

Maybe because there is no such thing as "Grand Theft Ambulance."

Those of us in Civil Service know that sometimes, being straddled with inept leadership merely because he or she was the "best test taker" or is an executive department "appointee", can be equally problematic, sometimes more so.

If they are not using RLS under the authority vested in them under the DOH ruling (as Chris has provided a link indicating they do), what authority do they use them? And since the accident happened on a Town Road (Warren St), and not wholly inside the confines of Heritage Hills, they weren't really on "private property" as you say, no?

This particular quote from the Mayor shows there is clearly more then meets the eye: A typical politicians answer. Never actually broaching the premise of the question.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/shots-fired-chicago-firefighters Goes to show sometimes even people who mean no harm present real dangers.

Not ours.

While I disagree with his comments completely, I don't think you'd be able to classify this has a hostile work environment. It seems to me from the article, the "volunteer film crews" would be capturing actions which take place in the public domain. (The only possible exception is if this is covered by a CBA, which I am willing to bet, it is not.) If anything, as long at the LFD firefighters continue doing their best (with what they have to work with), the Mayor will be the one with egg on his face if no incriminating video footage is captured.

Does anyone (particularly our communications oriented folks) know of any live audio feeds from Newark EMS (aka REMACS). "radioreference.com" has both Newark FD and PD, but I don't see REMACS, and a quick search of a few different sites doesn't turn anything up. Thanks in advance if anyone has a tip.

Curious to hear if it was operator error or some other issue. Those lines (at least in the video) seem so obvious, it's curious they would have been doing test/training so close. It looks as if they had a fairly large facility there with ample room to play.

What time was the accident?

I'm interested to know if the "waiting ambulance" was left running and unattended.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100731/NEWS02/7310359/Fake-bomb-brought-to-Hartsdale-Fire-headquarters

That's great. Are you going to be back on 9A in front of HHHS again? I miss grabbing munch there.

Ohbdow1, a couple more interesting quotes on the bill, (doesn't look like it the Democrats this time around): From the Congressman who "apologized" to BP recently: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/29/2010-07-29_congress_rejects_zadroga_911_health_and_compensation_act_as_gop_members_balk_at_.html#ixzz0vDxbsLks Edit: Adjusted links.