helicopper

Unfortunately it does.

Here we are just nine days into the new year and already we've suffered at least four (4) line of duty deaths (3 FD, 1 PD). Come on people, let this be the year we bring these numbers down!!!

I have actually read the proceedings of the case and am not so quick to assert that these officers were "definitely wrong and in violation of policy". A jury should be asked to render judgement not based upon the sentence or "merely" the facts but rather the totality of the circumstances and ALL OF THE FACTS. I don't know what reports you've been reading but it must be vastly different than the reports that I have been reading. At issue is whether or not the jury even heard all of the facts or only those that supported the prosecutors case. "Just because they shot scum"? Really? They were pursuing a suspected drug or human trafficker who was attempting to elude them after illegally entering this country and actually fought with one of them before escaping back over the border. At the time of the incident, it wasn't even KNOWN that he had been wounded in the gunfire. Many countries actually have their borders protected by the military. We have chosen to have ours protected by law enforcement. We have further limited their resources, their personnel, and virtually handcuffed them with politically correct policies that do nothing to protect us but rather the people illegally entering. Now we take two of these law enforcement officers and charge them with federal CRIMES for what, even by your analysis, was perhaps a violation of CBP policy. No violation of such policy results in incarceration for 11 or 12 YEARS. This case screams political grandstanding and it is done at the expense of two law enforcement officers and their families. That's a big problem!

Considering that Clinton pardoned a group of TERRORISTS at the end of his second term, I'd have to say that violent crimes can and are occasionally handled by presidential pardon. Given that these guys were federal law enforcement officers just doing their jobs when some absolutely insane power-hungry over zealous deputy US attorney pulled the rug out from under them, this case OUGHT to be reviewed by the President. I'll be very disappointed if these guys stay in jail! Thanks to all who sent something in!

As someone else already mentioned, this would only apply to the Cross County, Saw Mill River, and Hutchison River Parkways. All the other stuff that the county does (Parks, Grasslands, Airport, College, Office Buildings, etc.) is county funded.

EMS agency X (doesn't matter if VAC or VFD) is the designated service provider for Town X which has a population of say 20,000 people and an annual call volume of about 1500 calls. This fictional agency has some difficulty getting out on first calls for service but almost always relies on mutual aid for subsequent or simultaneous calls despite having a second and third ambulance in its inventory. My question is this: does this agency have any obligation to cover its own calls or is its reliance on mutual aid acceptable? Is there no limit to the expectation that its neighbors - all volunteer agencies - will continue to provide primary EMS within their borders?

Congrats and thanks for adding to the discussions! And for heavens sake, QTIP!!!!

Congrats and thanks for adding to the discussions!

Just don't call it Street Survival 'cause they patented that name...

What about workplace accidents? Electrical hazards, trip/fall hazards, spills and such. Sounds pretty simple but the simplest stuff is often the first overlooked.

Perhaps Reno911 got it from CBP?

Perhaps I'm being more obtuse than usual. I'm not referring to the obligation of an individual to the service. I'm referring to the service having an obligation to the municipality(ies) that it "serves". No, a PD with 10 cars may not put them all out on the road at a given time but they have duty shifts and staffing levels. There are times that the call volume and staffing are not in harmony but that is a different situation. My concern, and the reason for bringing up this issue, is to discuss whether or not an agency has an obligation to respond to calls in its service area. Even with the three ambulances in Agency X, there could be instances of 4-5 calls and an absolute need for mutual aid. What about two calls in an hour? What is the minimum standard that an agency must meet? It just boggles my mind that there are agencies out there that routinely and as a matter of course fail to respond and are not being called on it.

Are you saying that an agency that receives 911 calls from the dispatch center is not assuming a responsibility to respond? I'm less concerned with legal issues and fraud than I am with people (municipal officials, taxpayers, etc.) holding their feet to the fire to either provide the service they exist for, give it up and shut down, or fix the problems so they can cover their calls without an undue burden on their neighbors. If you could elaborate on your definition of "roster"-ing its ambulance, I'd appreciate it. Thanks and stay safe!

Are there any studies identifying the actual cost of the LOSAP programs to Fire and EMS?

Do any of the departments that have LOSAP have any data on whether or not it has actually helped their recruitment and retention? Is it working as intended?

IA Post Just curious, was the fire in the cab what caused the driver to miss the ramp or was the accident the cause of the fire? Knuckleheads need to know!!!

Thanks!

Kudos to all who are discussing this issue and not simply trying to defend positions based on emotion and tradition. Semper fi! A couple of questions though... DFD, you use for your example eight (8) individuals who exceed training and fitness standards and are the eight most active members of your department. What about everyone else? How true are your statements when those eight at are their regular jobs? There must be a degradation in response time and level of service when those eight are unable to respond. If memory serves, 36 FF plus an IC are required for the response in non-staffed departments for ISO ratings - your example only addresses 25% of that required response. What about the rest? If the volunteer agency contracts with a commercial service for coverage but employs none of its own "career personnel" will it be eligible? If there are no timelines does that mean the retired member who volunteered for 20 years in the 60's and 70's can realize this benefit today? And with all due respect Barry, if you call a rerun of a Board of Legislators meeting fascinating, you really need to get out more!!! This has been a point of contention on this site for some time. It is very difficult to compare apples with apples when these examples are like apples and oranges but, putting some of the info on this site to the question... If a volunteer department costs $ 800,000 to operate but the insurance costs to the community are $ 12 million and the career department costs $ 6 million but the insurance costs in their community are only $ 7 million, the difference is only a $200,000 per year. Now factor in the certainty of knowing that when you call a response will occur within a prescribed amount of time and the responders will all have a standard minimum of training and be supervised by a trained and experienced supervisor and the costs aren't so dramatic are they? Mind you I'm not advocating a change to career departments or the elimination of them. I'm just looking at the fiscal impact on a community as a whole not just a single budget line. Now it may be possible to reduce the insurance costs in an all volunteer community by requiring mandatory minimum training, complying with ISO and NFPA standards, and other measures to improve the fire protection in that district but when these subjects are brought up the response is often (not always but often, not everywhere but we've heard it) we can't do that because we're volunteers. As for the 'vacation' comment, I believe that referenced the media reports of some fire departments sending members and their spouses on "training" trips to the Bahamas and Mexico and the like. If I remember correctly, the Attorney General's office found fault with that practice. Finally, the LOSAP funding report that was referenced can be found at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fdreform/index.htm. It's great to have reasonable discussions about an issue without grenades being lobbed at each other!

It's the trade name for the commonly used cotton tipped swab... Sorry, couldn't resist. Here it means "quit taking it personally".

Yes, and countless thousands continue to be poured into this archaic and inefficient system instead of using the funds - from all the various sources - to actually improve the way we do things. It is a shame! It isn't that you ignored it, it was a shell game of misdirection. Don't look at my left hand fleecing the County to benefit my little fiefdom, look at my right hand waving this huge public safety issue about not knowing which McDonalds your wife/daughter/father/mother/son/cousin needs help in.

See, we can agree to disagree!

The local government gets the fine and the state gets all the surcharges. The County PD actually gets nothing for the tickets they write.

Umm, forgive me for stating the obvious but almost every volunteer FD has vehicles for the use of their chiefs. I don't know what benefit the FD receives when this vehicle is parked at the Chief's full-time job three counties away from the FD - a job from which he can not leave to respond - or at the shopping mall miles from their primary response area but perhaps we should refrain from personally directed slaps at other members and stick to the topic at hand. It isn't excess spending if the vehicle is budgeted for with the rationale that the "on-call" response of chief's actually saves money by avoiding the necessity to have more chiefs on duty at any given time. If you'd like to discuss the issue of personally assigned vehicles, I'll be happy to start a new thread on the topic. "The strength of our society is the ability to debate an issue without fighting with each other". - Anonymous Any future posts in this thread that are personally directed at another member in violation of EMTBravo rules will be removed.

No. Only the parkway patrols.

If this FAILS to pass, the parkway patrols may become an issue. The three options as I see it are: 1. County continues to patrol them at our own expense (like what Nassau and Suffolk do/used to do), 2. State Police will take over responsibility for the roads, or the least likely 3. locals will be expected to patrol the roads going through their community. I really don't see that happening though as they are state highways. They will not put 35 more troopers down here, they've said that already so you can expect to see even longer delays for a trooper as they're stretched too thin already!!! We shall see!