helicopper

Excellent post! Agree or disagree, I like the way you presented your position!!!

They do random drills (some larger than others) and also random "deterrence patrols" where they show up just as you described. They're a big part of the city's counter-terrorism effort. If anybody was doing surveillance, they'd be hard pressed to figure out where or when these patrols are going to show up!

Actual decision of the court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...07-290#opinion1

Treated 26 firefighters? Was that 26 seen by rehab or was it more??? Thanks!

Medevac crews may triage to Regional Trauma Centers thereby passing St Francis and from Dutchess/Ulster the flight time to Albany may be the same (or very close) to Westchester. From the Dutchess County Airport for example the flight time to Albany would be about 35 minutes and to Westchester about 20 minutes. Obviously if you're talking northern Dutchess or Ulster that's going to be closer to the same difference. That may be why... Or it could be that WMC isn't validating their parking tickets at the helipad anymore!

I thought there used to be a law prohibiting a person from holding two jobs (and badges) in law enforcement. This isn't the first time I've heard of someone with two so I guess there's no problem with it. The argument that I heard was if one agency suspended you, you could still carry a gun with the other. But if you're able to get through the hiring process TWICE, you're probably not going to screw up like that.

That's one interpretation. But the Vehicle and Traffic Law is pretty clear. Those displaying blue/green lights are not authorized emergency vehicles, are not engaged in an emergency operation, and have no special permissions/authority. To call the lights "emergency warning devices" is not backed up by any regulation or legislation. You can try to "educate" the public that they should yield, and some might, but there's no requirement to do so. I don't think the whole problem is a lack of enforcement. That contributes to it but there's much, much more. Like the ambulance sitting at a red light with its emergency lights on "because there's a patient on board"; authorized emergency vehicles screaming to every job with lights and siren even when it probably isn't necessary and won't actually save any time; more and more vehicles with lights and/or sirens desensitizing the public to them (such as the "SPCA" [no offense]), and I'm sure others will come up with more. Another issue is the notion that the use of these lights actually saves time. If red/white lights and a siren don't save an appreciable amount of time in most cases, what makes you think a blue/green light will? More down side than up side in my opinion. Section 375-41 of the VTL...

Exposure of a person is a violation. It will not result in designation as a sex offender.

The guy between Sam 1 and Sam 3!!!

Why don't we post all the articles about every arrest? Because this one had a twist! She's arguing that she was violated and her religious beliefs ignored because she was processed like any other "person charged with a crime" (how's that Gamewell?). That's what made this unique. I don't envy the fact that any special interest group (including FASNY ) has so much power - they're all self centered and self serving! No charges have been dropped yet, I don't even know if the DA's had a chance to review the case yet. As for the Hasidic male allegedly fleeing the country after an assault... what does that have to do with his being Hasidic. Didn't the Hispanic marine flee to Mexico after killing his "girlfriend"? Didn't Steven Israel just flee to avoid his federal rap for fraud? None of this has to do with race or religion, it has to do with CRIMINALS (sorry Gamewell) fleeing their crimes!!! I bet you don't like it when all cops are generalized as lazy thieves or whatever else. Why make such generalizations now? Every group has bad apples; that doesn't make the whole group bad!

She is accused of a crime... hence accused criminal. Accused defendant is redundant. She is the accused and she is the defendant. If this is what we're worried about, sheesh! Yes, you're innocent until proven guilty - unless you're a cop!

OK, so you can google... What law did Congress make that infringes on the woman's religion in this case? She's not prohibited from the free exercise of her religion either. She was being processed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the agency that arrested her. She's not prohibited from wearing her wig, it just had to be off for a photograph or two. She also had to be fingerprinted to comply with the NYS Criminal Procedure Law (describes fingerprintable offenses) and Ramapo PD policy. Where's the Constitutional issue here?

Hey buck, thanks for the response! Why couldn't he be picked up from where you found him? That's the whole point of a hoist or long line anyway! Just so I understand the scene, where exactly was he? Got any major landmarks or better yet, coordinates?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the like or dislike of a group or religion. It seems as though you're drawing from a variety of different circumstances and conditions in your post. The NYPD has made modifications to the requirements of uniform and grooming to avoid discriminating against people due to religious requirements but that's for hiring not for arrest processing. During a search, you can look under head gear or require that someone show their full face for photographs. Anything that alters the appearance can and should be removed (wigs for example) so the picture is an accurate one. You can't shave a beard or cut dreadlocks for this purpose. Someone's religious beliefs don't trump reasonable procedures for processing of prisoners. Your statements that the cop was wrong may not be accurate either. If the Department has no prohibition against male officers fingerprinting female suspects (or vice versa) and requires accurate photos of a suspect, the Department may be at fault for not considering religious issues but not the officer if he was acting pursuant to existing policies. Also, what is the "injury" in this case? That's the standard for a lawsuit and if she was treated with respect except for the removal of the wig for a photograph and a male officer fingerprinting her, there may be no grounds for a lawsuit. How is this different than a male EMT/medic touching a female Hasidic patient? That's permissible, why isn't this? As for the 1st Amendment argument started several posts back... The search of a prisoner has nothing to do with the protections afforded by the 1st Amendment.

I agree! Do away with all the so called "courtesy lights" and then lights will only be on authorized and emergency vehicles.

She can say a lot of things. Lawsuits get filed every day - for you to assert that she has a Constitutional basis for such a lawsuit is simply wrong. Your statement about an infringement of her Constitutional rights, specifically the 1st Amendment, is what I'm questioning. On what do you base that statement? Can you back it up with more than "done, done, and back"?

Again, where/how does the the 1st Amendment come into play here? As for removing religious headgear - during a search this may have to be done for safety reasons and to properly photograph a suspect it may also need to be done for a few minutes. The suspect is not paraded around without it nor is he/she prevented from putting it back on after the search/processing. Again, what's the issue? The biggest complaint in the article seems to be that a male police officer fingerprinted her. To that I say, tough! You don't get to pick your arresting officer. Don't do a felony or fingerprintable misdemeanor and the issue won't arise.

Just out of curiosity, what part of the 1st Amendment has to do with the processing of prisoners?

The question about health and productivity is a good one! The articles do nothing to point out that adding more personnel would actually save money and reduce overtime. It's a typical one way view of the top OT earners - it simply makes it look like these guys/girls are getting rich at the taxpayers expense. Same a corporate executive? Are you kidding me? A mid-level "executive" probably makes in the neighborhood of $150,000 for a 35 hour work week. Depending on the nature of the business there may be commissions, profit sharing, pensions, 401-K, car/travel, etc. that is NOT counted in that salary. A high level executive probably makes 10 times that! This is an hourly rate of $82.42 - what public servant is making that? A cop or firefighter has to work more than 1000 hours of OT to match that executives base pay. That's not the same thing! Most PD/FD salaries are in the range of 30-40 per hour, less than HALF what that private sector executive is making. I'm not complaining about my pay; I chose this job and the salary/benefits that come with it. I also chose the risks associated with it, the requirement to work nights/weekends/holidays while that executive is off with his family, the shorter life expectancy associated with the profession, the potential health problems, etc. etc. etc. Unless there is some abuse of the system, like no-show OT or other problems of the past, why is this even newsworthy?

Some people seem to be fixated on the horses now operated by the PD - what that has to do with the pitiful treatment of the FD is beyond me. The PD commissioner secured funds (not TAX funds but donations and grants) to get the horses and use existing cops for them. It's not like the PD is living large at the expense of the FD. Both departments are understaffed, underpaid, and underequipped.

Hey, we're not greedy! The State Police are closer and could be to North Highlands faster than us. It's time that this part of the country start thinking about resources available to them that are standard in other parts of the country!

Should have called a helicopter and hoisted him out - then nobody would have had to hike two miles!!! Seriously though, the State Police are right across the river in Newburgh with two hoist equipped helicopters and of course Westchester is available for mutual aid! [/shameless plug]

The one in my ears!! For years I used a Littman Cardiology 2 (yes, I know it's not made anymore) with great success!

I don't disagree with the decision to require PPE during an extrication; I just wonder if the best time to communicate that requirement was during an extrication call? Had the chief previously notified this provider that they would not be allowed to operate without PPE in such conditions? As is so often said, the time to exchange business cards or discuss problems is not during the call, it's in pre-planning, drills, and training. Couldn't the Chief have provided the paramedic with an FD set of turnout gear so the patient would get the care he required on this particular call in a timely fashion and follow-up after the fact with agency as he did? With regard to law enforcement and PPE in a "hot zone", are we now going to refer to every accident scene as a "hot zone"? You know there is an odor of gas at every gas station too, does that mean people will need PPE to fill up their cars (along with a second mortgage but that's a separate thread)? I'll be the first to harp on the need to properly equip all first responders but not every accident scene is a haz-mat nor is it a "hot zone" so what are we using for that determination? Unfortunately, the age old question of who's in "control" of the scene arises again here... Can't we all agree that there is a shared responsibility for command and control? The FD has fire/rescue duties and law enforcement has investigative/evidentiary duties; each is of significant importance.

He sure is on a roll! That's a good one!