helicopper

There are agencies all over the place that respond TO everything with lights and siren and FROM the scene to the hospital with EVERY patient with lights and siren. It is absurd, dangerous, and if you really think about it, illegal. It is pathetic and just goes to show how far we have to go before we have a real emergency services system around here.

If you're told to cancel by a competent authority (depending on your system, that may be a variety of players) then you should have cancelled! Why are you still responding in any mode if you've been told you're not needed and can clear? If you are acting with due regard and are involved in an accident, your liability will increase? Is that a typo? You will probably be indemnified if you're acting in good faith and with due regard. If you ignore response instructions (codes for response or other directions) you're probably going to bear some personal responsibility. As for other disciplines cancelling each other, that depends on the structure and sophistication of the system that the resources are operating in. We don't have a very sophisticated system and are still quite territorial so this doesn't work very well in our area. In other parts of the world, when a unit arrives and assesses the scene, they broadcast the assessment and may cancel some resources or request others and it works very well. At the very least, the ranking officer from a different service uses that assessment to determine what his/her agency will do/how they will respond. I still find it absurd that when the IC (that is the person on scene in command) requests a modified response, or that resources stage at a given location, these instructions are ignored because they're coming from a person in a different uniform. That's ridiculous. For EMS, there is no reason at all why a trained EMS professional (CFR, EMT, or medic) can't cancel ALS if the call is BLS or vice versa. To require an ALS response on every call is not practical or cost efficient (I know, there are lots of examples where this still happens around here). Sure there are going to be instances where a patient triaged to BLS changes status and would benefit from ALS but they are in the minority and easily captured by the system's QA/QI program as BNECHIS indicated. Medics can triage patients to BLS too. In many systems the BLS providers are entirely too reliant on the medics and won't cancel them even when other calls are holding and the one they're on is clearly BLS. Please do provide the citation on this elusive law that people often refer to when discussing who should be in charge or who's the ultimate authority. There are laws that require certain things of certain officials but there is nothing that I'm aware of that prohibits resources from cancelling each other - again that's a system issue.

Exactly!

If you're using lights and siren after being advised that you can respond "10-20" or "with caution" for a situation already assessed by emergency responders on scene, YES, you may have greater liability. There have been instances where this has happened around the country.

Is that 48 hours on then 96 hours off? Ouch - one bad storm and you're screwed. I think 24 is long enough. (Of course, this is from the guy who's stuck working five 8 hour tours a week!)

And I thought we wouldn't have time to fill this by gametime. Don't forget to transfer Bravo points for the boxes you select. 50 Bravo points per box!

Sorry, 27 was snagged already. You've got 56 and 84 though.

I'm taking boxes 1 and 92 - for obvious reasons!

Going by memory here... ESS 1 - Lower Manhattan ESS 2 - Upper Manhattan ESS 3 - Bronx ESS 4 - Bronx ESS 5 - Staten Island ESS 6 - Brooklyn ESS 7 - Brooklyn ESS 8 - Brooklyn ESS 9 - Queens ESS 10 - Queens ESS stands for Emergency Service Squad and each usually consists of 1-2 small trucks and the big truck. Special units may also be collocated with them such as the airbag unit that I believe comes out of squad 4. Some trucks run with a supervisor but there are at least 2 citywide ESU supervisors in the field, U4 and U5. Many specialty units (haz-mat, apprehension team, etc.) also operate within ESU but don't count toward the above staffing.

Having thought about this some more, let me play devil's advocate for a minute here. Why should we, NY taxpayers who are already saddled with some of the highest taxes in the nation, pay more to subsidize fire training in other parts of the country? If you look at how they whacked up counter-terrorism funding, the formula was absurd - North Dakota received more per capita than we did here in New York (no disrespect to North Dakota). This formula is a little bit better but still doesn't guarantee that those who need the training will receive it. Everyone argues about the unbelievable growth of governments that is not always reflected in the services received by the constituents. The use of the requested funds for overtime and backfill results in major expenses and the return on the investment cited is not always realized. For example, if Department X sends five members to a 5 day course on overtime and also has to pay five members to backfill their positions at home (also on overtime), they're eating up a massive chunk of the funding. In this example, this single weeklong course costs $20,000 for just the members of Department X. If all 30 people in the class are in the same situation, the cost of that one course is $120,000. A better mechanism for course funding needs to be established rather than the "all overtime all the time" that exists today. Furthermore, why should a state like Florida or California - or even New York for that matter - that have well established training programs for the fire service receive more funds. Perhaps all that is needed is a gap analysis to determine what training is lacking, what services are needed (not what classes are more fun to take) and what agencies need that training and focus the funding there. Perhaps some regionalization of these courses is in order as well. Might we better served by 2-3 strategically located courses on a given topic for those who require it instead of 10-12 courses for anyone who's remotely interested? Again, I'm playing devil's advocate here - don't kill the messenger!!!

It would be a good time to hit up a certain senator from NY with an especially high public profile right now to sponsor such a bill. Maybe she and another Senator on the campaign trail will co-sponsor it! Better yet, get Schumer to do it since he's the only Senator from NY actually in Washington these days.

Congrats, Rob! Now get off the computer and go get some advertisers!!!!

On site scoring is generally available only in a few places around the state for each testing cycle. Check the Bureau of EMS website for locations available for your test site. Otherwise, it will be offered where you take your course with the regular testing (6-8 weeks or longer for results). Your instructor should also be able to tell you more about it.

Hey, hijack your own hijacked thread! :angry:

You have quite a memory, I have absolutely no recollection of the Hutch job and a fuzzy one at best about Butterfield. LED, you're right - I missed the sarcasm. I'll have to download the sarcasm update for my computer! JCESU, you're also right. This was a good discussion.

Yeah, and the guy wearing SHORTS (hopefully) with them! Try that today!

Date: 01-28-2008 Time: approximately 10 AM Location: Urban Avenue (Central City section of NO) Departments: NOPD Description: Female police officer shot and killed with her own weapon attempting to arrest a rape suspect. Officer fought with suspect for SEVEN minutes before being overpowered and shot. Suspect in custody Links: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326148,00.html http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/1655480/ Writer: Chris192 RIP!

It may be a courtesy to your patient too and you should be an advocate for their appropriate and timely care. If the hospital is on diversion because of no critical care beds and you bring them there anyway (knowing that they're a potential critical care admission) you're not acting in their best interest. If the hospital is on diversion because their CT scanner is down and they're a trauma patient, again not in their best interest. They may end up in a hallway for hours (days?) or require an additional transport to a facility that can handle their needs. ALSfirefighter and ckroll are right on the mark. Educate your patient, make a phone call, find out what the real deal is and then you and your patient can make a more informed decision about where to go and why (or why not). You'll get far less attitude if you actually communicate with the ER staff about what's going on than if you just roll in with a patient. And for many of the 'regular' EMS agencies that transport to HVHC, it can be a 10-20 minute ride there (Cold Spring/Putnam Valley/Eastern Yorktown/Somers/Croton).

Hello pot, this is kettle! You're a geek!

"Just doing his job"? Since when does just doing your job allow you to break the law? The charge is trespass - meaning that the reporter entered someone else's property (in this case the school district) without permission. How would you like it if the press entered your home or business without permission? The school district is well within its rights to have the trespassers prosecuted regardless of who they may be or why they were there. These are two cases of reporters breaking the law (obstructing and trespassing, respectively) in the furtherance of their news gathering. Contrary to what you may think from my posts in this thread, I'm all for the media doing their job but they can't break the law to do it. The first amendment does not give the press the authority to break any laws in the exercise of their trade. There is a common ground - there are countless reporters and photographers out there doing their jobs without being arrested - and in most places there is a rapport between the media and the police so I would have to say these are isolated incidents. Moose, sure this can be done and they don't even have to be the PIO. The IC can have ANYONE escort the media in and out of the scene to facilitate their newsgathering. The key is not to challenge the police officer(s) on the perimeter and ignore their order to remain outside an established police line. Obviously, it's not better to let children play in a playground that's contaminated. The reporter took a calculated risk entering private property without permission to obtain the soil sample; it had nothing to do with police tape. You don't have police tape around your yard, do you? You don't need police tape to establish the boundaries of your property and people don't have any right to trespass upon your property without permission. In reality, the reporter probably got more ink and air time by being arrested in his quest to report this story.

Sounds like your main issue is the size of the perimeter. OK, let's look at this objectively (because I frankly don't care if it's 10 feet or 1000 feet - the fire chief asks for it and he/she gets it!): A three story building is on fire creating an immediate hazard/potential collapse area of about 60 feet (1.5x the height of the structure guestimated at 40 feet for simplicity - you fire types chime in here if that is off). Operating apparatus and fire personnel are occupying the next 100 feet (again a conservative estimate because we don't know where the hydrants were or exactly where apparatus was placed. EMS, the Red Cross, and staged fire apparatus occupy the next 100 feet. Using these conservative numbers, you wind up with an area of about 260 feet. Depending on where the intersections in Paterson are, this could easily be 1 1/2 blocks. The picture below shows how this would measure from the actual scene. Depending on where this reporter's "interaction" with the cop took place, it's not unreasonable. Of course, she could have simply walked around the corner and approached another police officer if she was having problems with the first one. Do these street closures seem unreasonable? Bear in mind it is impractical to close a street in the middle of a block. Good questions - a press pass will not permit you within the perimeter at a crime scene, it may facilitate better access than your average bystander, but that's up to the boss at the scene. Sounds like she didn't have any kind of rapport or relationship with the cop in question; again she could have walked around the block to another cop and tried again rather than forcing his hand by crossing the barrier. I'd like someone to answer the liability question.

The current reports are that he was taking police action to stop an assault or some other kind of disturbance. As such, his actions were official in the capacity of a police officer and his death is therefore in the line of duty. *** THIS IS BASED SOLELY ON MEDIA ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT *** I have no firsthand knowledge about the incident or ongoing investigation. RIP, Chris. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your families (the Ridleys and the MVPD)!

Exactly what "training" does the media receive in operating at a fire or crime scene? Perimeters are established for a number of reasons, safety being first and foremost. Iraq and Afghanistan are both sovereign nations - if you want to shoot pictures there and can find a commercial flight to get there, be my guest. Otherwise, I guess you're there as a guest of the US military or state department and they too have rules about access and conduct while in a combat zone. I'm not sure what your point is about those countries - although you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to sue if you get hurt there. "Implied assumption of risk"? Really, is that right up until the time that they're injured and sue the municipality/PD/FD? Your implied assumption of risk is NOT the same as a police officer or firefighter - that stretch is ludicrous. Who is deciding that the police methods are questionable? Who determines that is the reason for a two block perimeter around a protest (or a fire)? Media helicopters are observing things just fine without worrying about crime scene tape so if you're so concerned about abuses of power, just ride along with them! Perimeters are hardly established by a single person or at a whim. They are established by police supervisors (at crime scenes) or by the police at the behest of the fire chief (at fire scenes). Two blocks is hardly an extreme radius at a multiple alarm fire. Your perspective is obviously slanted toward the media. If this is an isolated incident, I'd suggest that there may have been more to the contact between the reporter and police officer than the article reveals. If this is a pattern of behavior excluding the media from incident scenes then I would suggest that the aggreived parties pursue appropriate action with the jurisdiction and PD administration. As for the patently absurd example of placing crime scene tape at someone's door and then arresting them when they exit - there is no legal basis for an action like that and as JCESU said, it would not be considered "reasonable".

Is the County's "Technical Rescue Team" qualified for low and high angle rescue? Is it possible for them to train with EMS providers since odds are they'll be working along side them someday? What other departments are qualified (that is to say trained, equipped, and recently exercised) in low/high angle rescue?

My point is that there is training for low angle rescue, it may take a couple of days to learn the fundamentals, and EMS is in the dark on it. Sorry but I don't care who you are, you're not putting me in a harness and tying me to the end of the rope and saying "walk" down that embankment/hill/whatever. What happens if something goes wrong and I have absolutely no idea what to do? Recipe for problems, I'd say! EMS should be trained if they're going to perform in that environment and EVERY district in EVERY county has embankments that cars launch themselves off of so low angle rescue is a great place to start!