helicopper

Isn't it already against the law to subdivide a private residence into a multi-family occupancy? Aren't there already regulations on the number of persons who can occupy a certain size building? Maybe code enforcement should be more aggressive and penalties increased to deter this kind of activity before the fire starts. I applaud the effort to hold those responsible for the building where these firefighters were killed and injured accountable for their conduct and I think criminal charges are right on target. Hopefully the jury sees the light and convicts them of all the charges including manslaughter. Maybe that will start the trend moving in the right direction for a change.

True, but the focus of this forum is to discuss the public safety implications. No matter how you look at it, times are tough and nothing is safe!

So what did you do to correct her ignorance? Or did you just sit at your table brooding with your partner giving her dirty looks for not knowing what you really are?

Date: 02/02/09 Time: 0843 - 1012 Location: Route 448 in area of Rockefeller Preserve Frequency: multiple Units Operating: Mt Pleasant PD, Sleepy Hollow PD, Pleasantville PD, County Police, State Police aviation Description Of Incident: Large search for burglary suspect who fled from police and jumped fence into Rockefeller Preserve. Second suspect in custody at scene. Ground units canvassing and maintaining perimeter, K9 (bloodhound) conducting track, SP aviation searching by air. Writer: Chris192

Thank you guys for stating what should be mandatory core training in EMS programs. No injury/illness/complaint = No patient. No patient = No RMA. As for the MCI scenario, red/yellow tags, transported by ambulance - definitely a PCR candidate. Green tags complaining of some minor injury, transported by EMS or some other mechanism = PCR or other documentation in accordance with agency policy; Green tags because they were there but no complaint/no injury = no PCR. "If you can get up, get up and follow me off the bus/train/plane" does not a patient make! alsff makes another excellent point about the need to properly size-up a job and request the right resources earlier rather than later. If you've got eight candidates for transport on a backboard, you better get at least four ambulances coming. The longer you wait, the longer the patient(s) wait and the longer the whole job takes. If two of the eight RMA later you can always release an ambulance or go to one patient/one ambulance transports. Manage the scene or it will manage you!

The savings is probably in overtime. They take the five guys and deploy them to stations where there are staffing shortages that would otherwise have to be filled with OT and you're going to see a savings over time. 30 BLS ambulance tours? Per day? Per week? That's a huge hit on an already drained system. How're they going to do that?

And most people have no idea what courtesy is let alone a courtesy light. It's even more confusing in Connecticut where the police use red and blue lights. No, BFD you're safe. I'm about to become really unpopular... Sorry for stating a very unpopular opinion but the whole era of "courtesy lights" should be over. We should adopt the federal standards for warning lights - red and blue for law enforcement ONLY and red and white for all other emergency vehicles. This way when ever you see the combination of red and blue you know it's law enforcement. And as long as I'm going to cause this thread to become 100 posts long with the rebuttals to my viewpoint, we should eliminate the use of warning lights on privately owned unmarked vehicles. That will make it much harder to impersonate a police offier and much easier to get caught if you do. OK, let's hear the case for the "courtesy" light...

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/Road_signs_warn_of_zombies You gotta love this one... Not exactly the message that I would post if I could hack into them but it is amusing.

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Roc...qA.cspx?rss=509 Tragic. What's going on upstate lately???

I agree that research is valuable and mulitiple sources provide more insight than a single source BUT my comment was directed at your statement about not "having the time or the patience to read the statute" yourself. How can you possibly know if you're getting reasonable input from other sources if you don't know what the law actually says? This site is a great tool for discussion but it is not intended to serve as legal advice whether you're reading the posts of police officers, lawyers, or even judges. My only point is don't rely solely on the internet as your source of info on the law. And not to tarnish the shining dispositions of my law enforcement brethren but we can, occasionally, be wrong! And nine out of ten times nothing would probably happen. But that one time, he gets t-boned or hits someone or gets stopped and then all of a sudden we're reading about some moron who killed or got killed or got arrested because of his own ignorance and his department's apathy. That video is absurd - there are more lights on that personal vehicle than on some actual emergency vehicles. Where's that guys chief or captain? Why is he permitted to flagrantly violate the law by his agency? See, it's not just the individual, it's the agency too. How many agencies actually require training before issuing a blue/green light permit (if they actually issue one at all)? How many agencies inspect the member's vehicle to insure that it is legal before issuing a permit? Can anyone say vicarious liability? It's only a matter of time before something REALLY bad happens!

Just an opinion, if you're going to do something that is governed by a statute, it is probably in your best interest to do some research on the subject and at the very least read the applicable section as it appears in the law, not from a random website (this one included) to insure that you're getting the complete picture and accurate/up-to-date information.

Well that's finally some good news!!!

Good question. The VTL section doesn't describe such devices nor is it specifically addressed in the CRR (also quoted in this thread) so my answer is I don't know. It may be subject to different intrepretation so I would seek an answer from the State clarifying the issue.

What law are you referencing that makes rear lighting systems legal if they're part of your brake/tail lights? Just cause you've gotten away with it or because tow trucks/HELP trucks are doing it doesn't make it legal. THe section posted is correct. Insofar as the VTL is concerned, emergency vehicles are the only vehicles authorized to display red/white lights - and it doesn't specify which direction they face. With regard to the HELP trucks, it is possible that DOT got special dispensation for them to use rear facing red lights but someone with firsthand info will have to confirm that. This is the law, as previously cited in part, in its entirety. This should eliminate some of the confusion and erroneous interpretations. Section 375 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (subdivision 41): Multiple rear facing blue lights are authorized on police vehicles. Don't confuse the limitation on volunteer FF vehicles having only one light. See the bold type in the law cited above. Do as I say, not as I do attitudes of law enforcement? If the PD enforced the VTL on the use of warning lights on volunteer FF and EMS vehicles, there would be A LOT of tickets getting written. I see violations on volunteer vehicles almost every day; do you really want strict enforcement and narrow interpretation of these laws? You speak of setting an example and obeying the law ourselves and yet this thread is chock full of people saying that they're violating the VTL and getting away with it. Turn signals are covered by a different section of the law. Not just custom, this is a forum rule. If someone talks about a law, provide a citation so others can read the actual text and be properly informed. This thread is a prime example of why this rule was enacted in the first place. There are entirely too many improper interpretations and flat-out wrong assertions about what the law is.

Or the kid who used to steal humvees and jeeps from the National Guard and park them near his house in Harlem.

Yet another budget nightmare - this one over just $100,000. http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/outdoor...,5768631.column

I'm trying to find out how many PD's in Westchester County have night vision goggles or other NV technology available to them and who in the department has access to it (patrol, SWAT, supervisors, etc.). If you don't want to post it here or can't post it here, please PM me. Thanks in advance! Chris

I don't understand his rationale for closing it. Where are we supposed to lodge detainees or combatants in the absence of Gitmo? Are they going to be brought to the US from Iraq or Afghanistan and lodged in a US prison? That's absurd! The whole recidivism argument may be a weak one but we still have to fight the war on terror. It seems to me that he's eliminating our only option for incarcerating and interrogating terror suspects with nothing to fill the void - or am I missing something?

Bill, that was in no way a 'dis on you! I was just commenting on the lack of anything "haz-mat" in any of the pictures. I'm GLAD it wasn't a haz-mat job and I'm glad that the outcome was positive. Great photos!

Date: 01/22/09 Time: 1130 am Location: East Broadway (Chinatown) Frequency: numerous Units Operating: NYPD, FDNY, FDNY EMS Command, Voluntary EMS Agencies, OCME Description Of Incident: Delivery van jumped curb striking group of preschool children on sidewalk. One DOA at scene, one DOA at hospital, several others injured (one critically). Unclear if driver was in vehicle at time of accident or left vehicle in reverse upon exiting. Driver taken to 5th PCT, alcohol test negative, no charges filed ATT. Investigation ongoing. Writer: Chris192 What a freakin' nightmare!

Couldn't have been much of a haz-mat given the pictures...

I'm usually very skeptical of articles/stories written about incidents by participants in the incident because they generally lack objectivity and aren't willing to describe weaknesses but this one is excellent!

Is this documented anywhere credible? Can you post references to the information? Not saying you're wrong, it would just be nice for others to be able to read up on the subject.

Yes, there are two sides to every story but 1. court(s) have already heard both sides of the story and ruled against him and issued judgements requiring him to pay the aggrieved clients and 2. he had an opportunity to present his side of the story or at least defend himself to the reporter but he just walked away when queried. No, there is no fireman vs. cop thing. The whole issue is his use of his official position to promote his business which almost all the clients interviewed stated. That is pretty shady.

State Policy on Certification for Persons with Criminal Convictions http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/ems/policy/02-02.htm From Part 800... 800.16 SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION Any certification issued pursuant to this Part may be suspended for a fixed period, revoked or annulled, or the certificate holder may be censured, reprimanded, or fined in accordance with section 12 of the Public Health Law, after a hearing conducted pursuant to section 12-a of the Public Health Law, the department determines that the certificate holder: (a) has failed to comply with the requirements of section 800.15 of this Part; (b.) has been found guilty of either fraud, deceit, incompetence, patient abuse, theft, or dishonesty in the performance of the certificant's duties and practice; © has been found guilty of fraud or deceit in the procuring of certification; (d) has been convicted of any crime or crimes related to murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual abuse, theft, robbery, drug abuse or sale of drugs unless the department finds that such conviction or charges do not demonstrate a present risk or danger to patients; (e) has provided patient care or driven an ambulance or other emergency medical services response vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any other drug affecting physical coordination or intellectual functions; (f) has knowingly aided or abetted another in practice as an emergency medical technician who is not certified as such; or (g) has held him or herself out as being certified at a higher level than actually certified, or has used skills restricted to individuals holding a higher level of certification.