INIT915

Actually, if you read this, I think you have the issue completely wrong. The reason they asked for a 2/3 vote was to PREVENT the GOP from adding amendments, not to add them themselves, so your logic seems backwards: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/video_weiner_blows_up_on_house_floor_LxaxZr2srZVP2zlK2cONmJ If this article is wrong, can you provide us with a source that backs up your position?

Thanks for providing more details on the incident. To a certain extent, I don't really see the connection to our original debate over combined PD/FD agencies. Most, if not all of the "drama" outlined in the article isn't unique to that agency. Allegations of corruption, mismanagement. I can guarantee that I can find a dozen analogous cases in the matter of a few minutes. I mean, if we consider all the wildfires that get "out of control", especially in areas with progressive or respected FD's, I just fail to see the connection. Using this logic, what does it say about major "single-function" FD's such as those in LA or other metropolitan areas that encounter major wildfires with frequency. A quick check of Wikipedia reveals quite a few "public safety" style systems. Checking out some of their pages shows some communities seem happy with their set-up, which I believe supports my original (and rather simplistic) point that such a system "could" work.

So the rest of us can get caught up on the incident in question, can you direct us to a good source? Not an opinion editorial, but rather some official report or something along those lines. I found this Link, from residents in that community, and they seem to indicate that: A quick google search for actual reports doesn't lead to anything too useful.

Hey Chris, Unfortunately the online databases I have access to do not archive cases this old. I am using the hard copy of McKinney's. I could try to scan it and upload it as a pdf. The ironic part is we don't really need to use that case, as Arson 3rd has a built in affirmative defense (See PL 150.10 Subd. 2) The question that seems to be taking shape on this thread is more of a "how would the FD know in advance" that the homeowner was exercising such a right. That is a more complex question that would be best served by advance notification on part of the would-be pyromaniac.

People v. Kalbfeld, 1924, 124 Misc. 200, 207 N.Y.S. 744

You really have yourself all worked up needlessly. Nowhere did I say that the members in this video were well-cross trained. Reread my post for a minute.... I'll wait... My point was, is it possible to have a successful system? I think it is, you can disagree, but your very poor attitude, and childish remarks really takes away from any meaningful discussion. I'd expect more from you, generally your posts are more substantive and have more to offer. Edit: Corrected misspelled word.

While your post is difficult to follow, I would offer that a homeowner who chooses to "arson his own property" can do just that (under certain circumstances).

With all due respect to those "grieving", how are you making the connection between that incident and this thread? And, a little bit disingenuously I might add, as you posted several posts before invoking this. And on an entirely different note, is it really that arduous to envision a "public safety concept" with cross-trained members. I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I don't really think firefighting or law enforcement are of such an academic or unique nature that with motivated and determined employees, both positions could not be mastered. To assume otherwise really discredits members of both professions, in my personal opinion.

From the NYS Attorney General's Office http://www.ag.ny.gov/bureaus/appeals_opinions/opinions/2006/informal/2006-4.pdf

While I agree with your points, I wouldn't go as far to say "all" academies in NYS are the same. With anything, there is variation in quality.

http://www.bainbridgecity.com/department/?fDD=8-0

You can misplace a King, and you really shouldn't just "shove" anything in. There are some (perhaps even an increasing number who question the old adage of ETI being the "gold standard.") The King is a 'better' alternative to an OPA, but not completely without pitfalls. The King also has some contraindications.

As happens all to often here on EMTBravo, false and misleading legal "opinions" are being given out by those who do not actually know what they're talking about. In NYS, failure to consent to a Chemical Test CAN be used against you, as long as the totality of the circumstances support the Officer's request that you submit such a sample. And it is it's own charge, albeit not a serious charge. In NYS, you are deemed to have given consent when you choose to operate the motor vehicle, and subsequently, you must actively refuse to consent at that point which can be used against you, first at you DMV Refusal Hearing, which are fairly straightforward, then at any subsequent trial. The only burden on a police officer here in NYS is you must read the "DWI Warning" verbatim, which outlines the consequences for refusing. And in NYS, if the DWI involves a PIAA, we can obtain a Court Order, 24 hours a day, by phone to the "Superior Court duty judge" for the jurisdiction. All we have to do is articulate over the phone our basis, and he grants a verbal order, which means, if it takes strapping the guy down to get his blood, so be it.

Date: 07-14-10 Time: 1020 Hrs Location: Payless Shoes - Cortlandt Town Center Frequency: Units Operating: NYSP Weather Conditions: Cloudy Description Of Incident: Armed robbery of a retail establishment. Writer: INIT915

Can you offer us data on a case where a paramedic faced legal action over a case such as the one we're discussing? And I agree, drawing blood is not helping the patient, as much as it's helping every other member of society that this patient put at risk.

No, that's not "Obstruction." Let's face a few facts. This law hasn't changed anything significantly. Paramedics have been allowed to draw blood for DWI arrests for quite sometime, but until now, a Physician had to be present. This law only takes away that requirement. Very few agencies down this way would really need it, as we don't have a lack of hospitals with physicians on-site. I can speak from both sides of this, having played both roles, paramedic and law enforcement. There are lots of "what ifs", none of which are that realistic. Worried about the defendant recognizing you later? Let me tell you, they don't even recognize the arresting officers, think they'll recognize an EMS provider who they interacted with for three minutes? And worried about liability for a "bad stick"? If that's the case, you probably don't take a very aggressive approach in general, as lots of "liability" issues can arise. The only time this type of scenario would really come into play is, as a result of some extraordinary circumstances, the defendant could not be transported to a facility where a doctor is present. In reality, you can look at it from the perspective of taking an active role in strengthening the case against a drunk driver, which is something anyone in emergency services should be on board with. And lets face it, it would rank right up there with actions that may not be mandated, but are part of the greater good. Even law enforcement takes actions that benefit EMS, although they are under no requirement to do so, it's just everybody working together towards a common goal.

We should car pool, I can get there in waaaaay under 30 minutes.

Date: 06-24-10 Time: 1757 Hrs Location: Northbound tracks, Town of Woodbury (Parallel to I-87) Units Operating: Woodbury FD, MTA PD, NYSP, OC Haz-Mat Team Weather Conditions: Rain/Wind Description Of Incident: Northbound commuter train has struck debris on the tracks, puncturing the diesel fuel tanks. 1757hrs-Woodbury FD dispatched; report of a train engine that struck debris on the tracks and is now spilling Diesel Fuel. 1800hrs-Woodbury Car-1 on the scene. Orange 911 paging out for a Haz-Mat officer to call in, incident in Woodbury. 1826hrs-Haz-Mat 36-213 en-route. 2013hrs-As per Woodbury Car-2, all units in service. Writer: INIT915, BFD1054

I love it! Yet again, members with only a passing knowledge of the events, and in this case based completely on misinformation, hijack the thread, and, as we now see, cannot even gather the basic confirmation before posting. Thanks fireguy43 for the correct version of events. I dare to say, I recently recall a roughly 24-hour period on this site where I literally only saw a handful of new topics or comments, and I and others, believe its antics like this. Feel free to post anything you want. Want a topic on manpower, start one! But to hijack threads, and in retrospect, using unreliable data, is really getting old.

While not commenting on the specifics of this particular NYS legislation, as I'm indifferent to it, everyone should be aware, New York Courts recognize an exception to "at-will" known as the "Implied Contract Exception". Two other common exceptions, known colloquially as "Public Policy Exception" and "Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing" are not recognized under current NYS Labor Law, nor through existing case law here. Again, this is not a reflection on the current topic, just a clarification on your skewed interpretation of current New York civil practice. And a further clarification, every state is an "at-will" state, so New York isn't actually "one of several", it's more like "one of every". The only quasi-exception is in Montana where they have a complicated law called the Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA). I'm not going to go into explaining it here, but if your truly interested in why Montana is different, check out an article written by Don Robinson in the 1996 edition of the Montana Law Review. One last additional point, "at will" does not supersede federal statutes such as ADA, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or any other statute governing workplace discrimination.

As usual, Capt. Nechis with a well articulated, fact-based response. Thank you Capt.

Wow, alleging money laundering and grand larceny? Pretty serious charges. Any offer of proof???

As a member for several years of CRP, I am acutely aware of the situation.

What potentially makes those examples different is any level of physical resistance offered or any altercation that ensued while trying to take the suspect into custody. Very different from innocently sitting in your car while on a traffic stop, while some other motorist strikes the officer with his/her car.

Well, I for one say continue the "back patting." Knowing some of the guys from Mohegan, I don't believe for one second the change was made in order to clear a larger profit. I think the membership of Mohegan realized the time had come to augment their volunteer staffing and a logical choice was made to contract out to one of several local commercial agencies that have experience in contracting VAC's. I think to imply the decision was based on revenue is preposterous. I think Mohegan realized too many calls were going uncovered too much of the time, and they stepped up to the plate to address it. Now, to ask a legitimate (albeit inevitably controversial question), any talk of working the VAC into the existing career network at Mohegan. One of the reasons it makes sense is, there is already framework in place for some of the concerns that would be raised if starting a civil service program from the ground up. For instance, they already pay salary, benefits, etc to the career staff. So, would adding in either combination FF/EMT's, or start hiring straight EMT's off a competitive civil service list be a feasible option for the multiple entities that make up Mohegan, the VFAVAC, the District, and the Fire Company??