helicopper

In an effort to control their budget, the City of Costa Mesa recently eliminated their police aviation unit and is now in the process of disbanding their fire department to enter into a contractual agreement with the county for those services (County FD's are very common in CA and there is no comparison to any County services in NY). These are just two of the many cuts that Costa Mesa is implementing and some of the political types have jumped on the band wagon to demonize public workers and pensions. They are also looking at the possibility of doing away with their PD in favor of a regional joint police authority with other communities, something that has already taken place elsewhere in CA.

The guidance from OMH applies to in-patient restraint within Pysch facilities. I don't believe that it has any bearing on EMS operations as we're not governed by OMH and once we accept a patient they're not an in-patient anymore. I've heard a great many things from jail-house and locker-room lawyers andthey can be incorrect as often as they are correct. I do know that I've got many "PRN" orders for things over the years and have no doubt that the order was valid. Are there any current CIC's (Guy) who can speak to this issue?

... including four police officers. http://www.cnn.com/2...rss_igoogle_cnn# Insane! They're averaging 8 homicides per DAY so far this year.

Thanks, I read most of the stories but missed the Post.

The policy statement also states: It is attached in it's entirety. 11-01.pdf

http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php/topic/33560-police-say-syringes-will-help-stop-drunk-driving/page__p__192166__hl__%2Bdwi+%2Bblood+%2Bdraw__fromsearch__1#entry192166 This is one thread and I'm pretty sure that there have been others as well.

It was not a "miracle". It is a testimony to the training of the NYPD crews and the deployment of the right equipment to do the job. We train to operate in the dark, we train to operate in confined areas, we train to operate in adverse conditions and the NYPD does all that and MORE. As I said in my earlier post, this rescue was performed after a risk assessment determined it was feasible and that other options were not immediately available. Considering that the cadets were admitted for the treatment of hypothermia, I'd say it was necessary. Besides, the US Army, the State Police, the NYPD, and others determined that it was necessary at the time so that's good enough for me.

The New York National Guard unit's are not 24/7 operations.

The Westchester County helicopter was requested for illumination but declined the mission because of wind conditions. The Bell 407 is a great helicopter but with the wind (40+ knots) coming over a ridgeline it was not a good environment for a light helicopter like that to attempt a rescue. State Police helicopters (based less than 5 miles away at Stewart) are also hoist equipped and they have three different airframes to choose from, Bell 407 (not a good choice), Bell 430 (twin engine medium duty aircraft), and a Huey (which may or may not be hoist equipped). The NYPD Air-Sea Rescue aircraft will go virtually anywhere because of their agreement with the US Coast Guard and capabilities of their personnel an aircraft. I'm not sure what you mean by "rigged for the mission intended" but the NYSP aircraft do have hoist capabilities. It is interesting that they were just doing hoist training last week but didn't complete this mission. There must have been some reason for that which we're not aware of. According to the NYPD, they used a horse collar for the two cadets and the ESU member that was lowered to them wears a hoist/rappel harness. The collar cinches around the victim so it is very difficult to slip out. It sounds like the State Police were there and provided illumination for the NYPD. The weather at Stewart Airport just a few miles north of the incident had sustained winds of 15-25 knots with gusts to 35-45 knots so it was absolutely an incredible feat to hover at the mountain where winds are notoriously faster and more turbulent. Kudos to the NYPD, this was a rescue that not alot of other agencies could have successfully pulled off. Why this was done and a ground rescue was not performed - the NYPD rescued these recruits after midnight, more than six hours after they became trapped on the cliff and after other measures failed or were deemed too risky to attempt. Conditions were bad and the use of a helicopter was determined to be the best option to expeditiously resolve the incident. The NYPD doesn't just "do" these types of rescues. They (management, pilot and crew, ESU members) measure the potential risk, the availability of other options, and the capabilities of crew and equipment. After that risk assessment the hoist rescue was chosen as the option of choice. WIth that said, I'm satisfied that it was the best option given the circumstances. Finally, where does it say that these cadets were rappelling or were attached to ropes? It says they were "separated from their squad" during a training exercise. There's no mention of ropes at all.

First, judges and police in Mexico are targeted for assassination if they make any attempt to do their jobs. That's not caught in a cross-fire, it's assassination plain and simple. Second, dozens of civilians with no ties to the cartels are being killed in this ongoing rampage; their only crime is living in this areas.

What is the source of that quoted material? I don't believe that an order to restrain a person should that become necessary is illegal. What makes you think that?

If you're negligent the municipal indemnification generally won't apply which is why I asked the question. Negligence is one of the things that trumps indemnification and puts the individual on the hook themself. As someone already noted this is why doctors and nurses carry their own malpractice (read negligence) insurance. I don't believe that Good Samaritan laws apply to emergency responders, just civilians but someone will have to confirm that for us. If a lawyer asks you at a deposition what you did or what your orders were at a fire, you'll be compelled to answer. We know how well the defense "I was only following orders" works out.

It isn't getting any better, in fact it's just plain scary! Be safe!

I will have to look it up but I'm pretty sure that research by DOJ has shown no real relationship between officer fatalities and the 1 officer/2 officer car issue. In fact, if I remember correctly, the opposite was true and complacency by two officer units resulted in a higher incidence of injuries. One officer units have immediately accessible to them shotguns and patrol rifles; most jobs have them installed in the car not in the trunk. Outer vest carriers have long been a staple of police uniforms and I'm not aware of any local jobs that prohibit them (although I have heard the same rhetoric in the past).

Thanks for posting this Bullseye.

Weather advisories are issued based upon forecast weather conditions not people's driving ability. They do issue them upstate and elsewhere, they just don't make a big deal about them. See the attached from the NWS on when they're issued and why. criteria.pdf

This is the exact reason I've stayed out of this discussion but upon re-re-re-reading the article, it would protect the volunteers where negligence is alleged. The question that I still have is what happens if they're found to be negligent? Is the municipality going to pay the award or does their indemnification stop with such a finding?

http://www.foxnews.c...governor-warns/# The part of this that disturbs me is that they're calling this negotiating. How is this not threatening the workers and their unions?

I think this has been looked at and there is no corollary between crime prevention/deterrence and permitted weapons. Try checking the DOJ website for reports on the subject, I'm pretty sure they've done them.

I think that's an administrative issue - there's no Penal Law charge for me to arrest you for but the issuing authority can revoke your permit after a civil proceeding if you violate a provision for its issuance. INIT, that sound right to you?

<BR><BR>I've heard people saying that too but there's nothing in the law that says that about schools. See below for exemptions for police and peace officers and school buildings (there's nothing at all about 1000 feet and weapons - just drugs).<BR><BR> <BR><BR>The federal statute that would apply to Post Offices is not as clear but there is still an exception for law enforcement. The exception may only be for on-duty police officers but that is subject to interpretation.<BR><BR>

If you have to pass through screening with magnetometers or hand-held wands, concealed will be known.

Not sure what you mean by "federal restrictions" but a police officer can carry his gun anywhere in NYS. Now there is an issue that he/she can be denied entry to private property (if off-duty, obviously on-duty cops can go whereever they have to) by the owner if he/she is armed. This has been a long-standing at the Staples Center in LA where they deny access to off-duty LAPD if they're armed. They don't want anyone in the facility with a weapon even if they're a cop. I don't see how the Indiana Senate can compel a property owner to allow someone onto their property with a weapon if they don't want them there. Public property may be a different story but I'd have to see the text of the law to try to figure it out.

Is this proposed bill a state law or a federal law? In NYS, a firearm can already be carried in public places - with the exception being schools. On private property it will remain the owner's prerogative to decide whether or not to admit someone carrying a weapon.

Please cite the law to which you're referring. Of course weapons and drugs (legal/otherwise) and alcohol don't mix but that is not a NYS statute.