AFS1970

I read one report that mentioned 1.4 million attached to this bill for the Headstart pre-school program, which is interesting as a report came out just before Christmas saying that that program was a failure. Most of this pork gets added on as riders to the original bill, kind of like amendments, so I am not sure if it appears in the text of the actual bill or if you have to look elsewhere.

I read one article that also said NY was restricitng the number of magazines you could own to 2, although the article said it was unclear if it was 2 per person or 2 per gun. Amid all the proposals in CT this week there is actually one to ban all guns capable of firing more than one (1) round and all magazines capable of holding mor ethan one (1) round. I am not sure where all these disposable guns are going to come from, but apparently we will all now be held to the Barney Fife standard, you are allowed a single bullet whih must be carried in your shirt pocket not in your gun.

Date: 01/11/2013 Time: 23:40 District: SFRD Location: Canal St between S State St & Tresser Blvd Units: SFRD: E1,R1; SEMS: M1,M1,M901 (Supervisor); SPD: 24,1E31, 2B32, 2B41, 3A294, 3D56, 2A21, 4A48, 2C46, K9-6, 3C34, 1C297, 8S3(Sergeant), 8D (Lieutenant); CT State Police Frequency: Stamford Trunked Weather Conditions: Dark, Minor Rain Reporters: AFS1970 Description: Multiple calls for 2 car head on MVA with entrapment. SPD arrived and found 3 patients trapped in one car, Scene is close to I95 Exit 7 S/B requiring CSP to block ramp. FD arrived and began extrication. Due to limited access and two high traffic one way streets SPD had to assign several units for traffic control at different intersections to prevent traffic from feeding into the scene. Due to Stamford Hospital (135B) being on Trauma Diversion, SEMS had to transport patients to Norwalk Hospital (103A). SPD calling back CARS (Collision and Reconstruction Squad) for investigation.

From one online definition I found I assed the bold myself: Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim. The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on if that proverbial raise fist is a physical act or not. However if we extend the term of assault to the realm of the verbal, does this make the new standard for so called assault weapons one that is sufficiently loud? Why then would silencers be illegal?

Sadly I only got to see pictures of that Muster, and one certificate on the wall from Fairchester Hose Haulers. Out of curiosity doe the organization still exist?

Your selective quoting does nothing to bolster your point. If you actually read the thread you would be able to see that I was "a little more OK" with a plan that prevented the southern states from buying more population to ensure control of the United States House of Representatives than I was of a court decision to allow a march by a group that advocates the overthrough of our government through a suburban community, which in my opinion was only a ploy to draw attention to their permit fight in Chicago. So yes I will stand by that. I know you want to make the 3/5's rule all about racism, but that just was not the fact, it was about equal representation under the law, which it did it's best under the socioeconomic environment of the time to accomplish. For those of us living in the northeast (the area most of EMTBravo's members are in) it is the only reason that our votes even count when we elect our congress. For the record I am also OK with the Kansas Nebaska compromise which ensured that the number of states with legalized slavery did not overwhelm the number of states that did not have it. If you though ending slavery was the right thing to do, imagine if the congress responsible for sending the amendment to the states had been influenced by counting slaves in the majority of states as voting population, in which case the 13th amendment never would have made it off the house floor. I have already said that I do not agree with what WBC does, not how they do it. In Connecticut our state governemnt passed a law controlling while allowing protests at funerals. I believe but am not certain that this law was passed before WBC ever came to Connecticut and it does not single them out but places the same restrictions on anyone who chooses to protest at a funeral. It also does not specify military funderals, as was their original strategy. Thus it gives equal protection under the law. To the best of my knowledge the WBC has never butally attacked anyone, they stand outside with their viscious signs and spew their unwelcome words but contrary to what Justice Alito said, they never attacked any person. There is also no such thing as verbal assault, as assault requires a physical act. It is kind of like my mother used to tell me when I was a kid, sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you. The WBC has a hard uphill journey to make anyone side with their arguments but the idea that the West Webster Firefighters were fighting for idol worship is so laughable as to basically roll off my mind without even needing a reply. Since they claim that this is the status of the U.S. government to justify their protests of military fiunerals they really are just reaching for media attention when they apply that to non government volunteer firefighters or schoolchildren. But I said as much before. As for invoking the KKK, well they generally hate anyone who isn't them, and as such they have few if any allies. As a matter of fact they often hate each other and as such are an extremely fragmented movement made up of not one organization but a whole lot of smaller similar but hardly friendly organizations (Many years ago I did a report on them for history class, so some things may have changed). However I am confused by invoking them against the WBC, what would the status be of a hate group that hates other hate groups? Should there be a new designation of double hate greoup? Or are they no longer a hate group because now they hate the right people? I personally wouldn't be throwing my lot in with them. I do not think it is too bad we can't do what Britan does, you see starting around 1775 we fought a war so that we did not have to be British subjects any more. we started that effort with a doccument that contains the words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So if you want to be just like England, well take down that American flag, put the Union Jack back up and swear an oath to defend King and Country. Also remember to go to your government approved church on Sunday. I prefer to elect my leaders and have a voice in my government. By the way even the 3/5's rule gave us more votes than the utter and compleat lack of representation in parliment afforded the colonies which lead the Sons of Liberty to dump tea in Boston harbor, an act that in and of itself was illegal under British law. Now petitioning a branch of the government that has no authority to pass laws is shows an upsetting lack of knowledge of how our government works, yet despite the White House claiming it woulod address any petition that got enough signatures, this is simply not the case. The recent fools errand of asking permission to secede from the union has not been addressed but the petitions looking to remove the first amendment rights from WBC and the second amendment rights from the rest of us are being held aloft by the current administration as a sign that they really do respond to the people. As Napolean the Pig said "Some animals are more equal than other animals".

Well it does have to be that way, because we should never decide to make an example of a group by restricting their rights. This is the first step towards tyrany and once we accept it we will probably accept such attacks against lots more groups, until one day we find ourselves in such a restricted group and we are crying out for someone to stand up for our rights. This is an area where we can not afford to become complacent. The GLBT community is not the same as an ethnic minority, but EMTBravo is not the place to discuss that. However since you list that as a good reason to fight the Westboro Baptist Church, have you also signed the petition to lable the Roman Catholic Church as a "hate group"? After all the petition uses the same claims againt the RCC. I guess it must be hatefulness that causes them to be the foremost charitable organization in the world. I don't think WBC will become violent but mainly because I think they lack the guts to do something violent. I am not condoning violence but it is a pretty big step from cowardly holding signs outside a funeral to attacking a real live person who can fight back. Plus WBC seems to be all about getting media attention and if you think they are viewed negatively now, imagine how much more negatively they would be viewed if they acted violently. In addition to a good legal team, they also seem to have a pretty good marketing team, and they certainly do not want to jeapordize the small amount of good will shown to them by others. The Sothern Poverty Law Center is only steps away from being a hate group themselves. I do not consider anything from them to be valid as a primary source.

Fire Police are not taken seriously by even their own departments, or even sometimes their own members. I was at a conference with a guy who was an officer in his department's Fire Police. He told me when he tried to modernize the position a little bit he had members who said they were going to quit if they had to wear reflective vests and stand up while doing fire police. He had members who would respond in the POV, park along side the road with a single magnetic light on the roof, open the trunk, get out the lawn chair, and procede to sit by the side of the road and read the paper. I hope he was exagerating to make the point, but in the back of my mind I know he probably wasn't. The prevailing wisddom (or lack thereof) that says it is a good thing for folks that can't quite make it as Firefighters to do is simply bizarre, as you are saying that while someone can not do most of a job, you still want them to get up at all times of day in all types of conditions and respond to a variety of incidents, but that it is OK to have those who can't do any of that do this.

Yes the First Amendment does work both ways, even speech we find disagreable is protected in the public forum. As for the petitions, I find they show a disturbing lack of basic civics knowledge, as the White House has no authority to do any of the things that these petitions call for. No matter if it is declaring a church a hate group, "allowing" secession of a state, or deporting Piers Morgan. Anyone who starts one of these shows that they slept through school and has no clue about the seperation of powers. They mau be a church full of nutjobs, but they are a church, just like the Universal Life Church can keep you from being drafted and the Moonies can marry hundreds of people at once. Trust me it is not a church that I would ever attend, I'm not even 100% certain they pray to the same God that I do, although they say they do. How about the IRS status of a certain gentleman (and I use the title carefully) who uses the title of Reverend, yet has never actually been pastor of a church, who was only ordained years after his adoption of the title, and who came to prominence leading a false crusade against first responders that included at least one Volunteer Firefighter and I believe several Police Officers. He is usually there within days to protest any death at the hands of the police, but didn't show up in Newtown (thankfully) because the deaths did not meet his special exclusive criteria. Yet his business is still considered a church. I agree that their free speech comes in part from the soldiers who's deaths they malign. Their rights, just like yours and mine were (and still are) hard won by generations of those who rose to defend them. From the farmers and shopkeepers who answered the call at Lexington & Concord to every current member of our military. I for one am thankful of those rights, but they are not mine to limit, they are mine to share in. However hating someone does not make them hateful, it makes us hateful. There are groups I hate, like religions that claim to be peaceful but kill thoushands of innocent people who did nothing more than show up for work on a Tuesday morning, while calling America "The Great Satan". Why is everyone affraid to name this religion as a hate group? Oh yeah because we might offend someone who hates us. This is not only what makes us interesting, it is what makes us free, and it is what makes us the best country in the world to live in, even when we don't like everything that happend here.

I just got an E-Mail about a new petition on the Whte House site asking for the Roman Catholic Church to be declared a Hate Group due to their views on same sex marriage. This is exactly what I thinking when I stated replying here. Once we think it is OK to do this to one church then we have to at least passively admit that it is possible to do this to all churches. Welcome to the slipery slope folks.

Date: 01/04/2013 Time: 01:49 District: Turn of River Location: 88 Barnes Rd Units: E9, E5, E3, E62, T3, T45, R1, U4 (Stamford DC), U6 (Safety), U69, C611 (TRFD Chief) C411 (BFD Chief), C612 (TRFD Asst. Chief), V614 (TRFD Captain), FM108, FM660 Frequency: Stamford Trunked Weather Conditions: 30 Degrees, Overcast. Reporters: AFS1970 Description: Initially reported as a fire in the closet of an occupied residence. E9 arrived and reported smoke showing from a bedroom window and streching a line. V614 arrived and established command (Very shortly transferred to C612). Fire knocked down by 02:00. Recall holding E9, E62 & T45 per C612 at 02:11. FM660 & FM108 responding for investigation. FM660 Requested CT State Police Fire Marshals Office for assistance.

I did not see barriers at very many stops when I was in London, so I would say they are not system wide, or at least were not a year ago. As for the barriers at the Times Square End of the shuttle line, they are not there to keep people off the tracks, they are there because that is a curved track section and the safety platforms which extend to keep people from falling between the car and the platform are only in certain spots. Union station has similar platforms with no fences. However I took a facinating tour once of stations and platforms that were no longer used, one was at South Ferry, where the platform was built with archways at the locations of car doors in addition to the curved tracks. The only problem was after WWII the train cars got bigger and different models had doors in different places. This meant that the archways did not line up and the parts of the trains ended up to far away from the platforms to enter and exit safely. It is already crowded and difficult to get onto some subways, with people trying to push their way in both directions at once. I suppose we could do all sorts of mazes and funnels to regulate the sheep, but that would simply lead to "Coconut Grove" style subway trains. I was going to say the same thing. Mayor Bloomberg should become an advocate for train control.

I am glad it works well for the communities that use it, but there are a couple of things to remember. First of all if your only motivation is to save money, then response times, crime rates, fire loss do not matter. I would be interested to see what insurance rates are for these towns. Way back when this would have been easier, but I am a firm believer that allied professions progress away from eash other in a sort of V patern. The more they progress, the further apart they get. In puyblic safety this generally is due to increased duties and specialized training. Look at all the jobs that have been "civilianized" over the years, how do they compare to the way those jobs were in the years before they were changed TO SAVE MONEY? Can a police officer be an EMT, sure, as long as you decide not to handle police calls at the same time as EMS calls. Maybe your call volume allows that, maybe it doesn't. In CT police officers require a minimum of 40 hours refresher training every 3 years, EMT's require 24 hours. Sop departments need to realize that they will be paying to tripple their EMS hour and increase the police hours by roughly half. That does not even bring in firefighter training. Just in my city career firefighters are mandated to take a 12 week program, I think the state academy is longer than that now. So this would require taking all 260 or so police officers off the road for 12 weeks. Police training is somewhere above 50o hours, I think around 540. SO that is about 13 weeks. It seems to me that just based on training , consolidation like this would not be cost effective, even with manpower reductions. If it pays for itself, it probably takes a few years to do so.

When I was an active Volunteer I was on the perifary of the Fire Police. In my department based on historical documents I found there was a large contingent including Captains and Lieutenants. By the time I came around the title did not exist in the By-Laws (I fixed that) and there was one member, who met the description posted above as being too old/unfit/unsafe to do interior firefighting, we vaguely had a second younger member for a bit but he quit. I understand there is a second member now. That being said, the Chief resisted all attempts at running the state 8 hour training class, despite the fact that I could teach it. There was a general resistance to establishing an SOP for Fire Police. Our department was not alone. When I took the old basic class, it was taught in a department that did not have active fire police, but an instructor from that department. He lectured for quite a while before letting us in on the fact that there were no fire police in that town. He also canceled the practical because it was raining and that was never rescheduled. I will be the first to say that that training was not taken seriously, we would not stand for that in firefighter training would we? Would you take FF1 from someone who was not an active firefighter? Then accept that you didn't need the practical because the weather was bad on class day? I am pretty sure that this wouldn't be accepted in police training either. Due to the fact that I have limited experience in this area, I have been tasked with writing a class on traffic control for private security. I know most of the material will come from the 3 versions of the fire police class I have, plus a couple of others I have found on line. However when I told my training boss that I was estimating it at a 16 hour course, he flipped out and said he wanted a 2-4 hour course. Because nobody will pay to send employees to a longer class. The more I think of it, the more I see but still disagree with his point. Even in the volunteer sector, trying to convince anyone that we need more training for a position most bosses laugh at is an uphill battle to say the least.

Nothing we do is 100% safe but then again neiother is riding on a bent and broken scap of metal that is probably less that 2 square feet on the side of a garbage truck, with no harness while tearing up the road with no lights, sirens or right of way, yet that workplace safety issue is always ignored. Now I would wonder what safety precautions are taken during some of these Santa runs, only because I know from having to set up an antique for kids rides at a fair that adding and documenting the safety precautions were the big thing in the mind of our insurance carrier. So is Santa wearing a harness with a fall arrest system? Are his spotters? With all those sirens how are the driver & spotter communicating? I have never been a part of a Santa run like this, but would hate to see the tradition go. However it would be nice to see what commonly used safety precautions we could enhance this, just so that we do not have to run over Santa in front of a bunch of kids.

I am neither a Nazi nor a slave owner. The ruling in the Skokie affair was just used as an example of how even groups that most people find hateful do in fact have constitutional rights. While I do think the SCOTUS ruled correctly in that matter, I do not like the way in which that case was brought about. It was theater for its own sake on the part of the NSPA. I would have preferred that they had pushed their original plan, which I think had equal constitutional issues (although I am certainly no legal expert) but they chose to go for the route that would alarm and inflame the most people and bring them the media coverage. I think this is terrible and even can dilute whatever message you are trying to send out. Think about WBC, they started by protesting soldier's funerals because they thought the war was unjust and they thought that the deaths were divine retribution for decisions our government had made. Now I don't agree with it, but I can see how they equate soldiers with the government. However if anyone can tell me what the kids killed in Sandy Hook had to do with various laws and court rulings that WBC disagrees with I would love to hear it, because it makes no sense to me. At this point they are just going anywhere they can get in front of a camera and as a result have muddied whatever their original stand was. As for the 3/5's compromise, I am a little more OK with that one because I understand what it protected against. It was not about saying that blacks were less than whites, as some suggest. First we have to understand that slavery was a hotly debated topic at the founding of our country. The northern states were basically against it and the southern states were basically for it, although they were even in that pre-industrial age in a slightly different economic environment. However after the southern states won on the slavery issue, they wanted their slaves to count as full citizens, thus giving the south a larger population and ensuring their control of the House of Representatives. The delegates from the northern states did not want to count the non voting slaves at all, arguing that if they south insisted on slaves being property why should they count any more than cattle or horses. Counting slaves as population would have encouraged importing more slaves as a political control measure. The compromise actually came in not in the fraction but how the fraction was applied. Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for representation hurt the south, but counting them that way for taxation hurt the north. Some say it actually protected the integrity of the census in that it prevented artificially increasing population just before an official count.

Yes it is the law of the land and I do respect it, although I still disagree with it. In my opinion it was a piece of feel good legislation that played on emotional response of the community and was never fully thought out. We have seen certain political issues crop up after this recent tragedy in much the same manner. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Nazis could march in Skokie, although after the case they never actually held the march there. That was a very controversial decision at it's time, and has probably had the greatest impact on what WBC does and where they do it. One of the most brilliant things our founding fathers did was craft a document that encompasses things that they probably could never have envisioned. WBC falls into this area. I find what they do at funerals disgusting, and I especially find the way they have expanded their protests from a war protest to now protesting any funeral that may bring them some media coverage, to be morally void. I am pretty certain this site will filter out what I would like to call them for that. I do not believe that God hates America, I do not believe that what they do is kind to the families, or sensitive to the community, but it is constitutionally protected. If it were me and I was in the sad position you describe, I would hope that I could focus instead on the outpouring of support that is evident from all the groups other than WBC that will be there. We have posted at work a copy of the Connecticut State Statute the prohibits protesting at funerals. This law sets distance limits and restricts certain noise levels. In effect it allows the protests but does it's best to shield the families from any further distress. I remember when this law was being debated, it was before WBC had ever come to CT, but they had been in the news for their protests in other states. However the laws carefully avoids mentioning any specific group or even any specific kind of protest.

Well in that scenario, what if both men are attacked? What makes the white victim more of a victim than the black victim? That is exactly where the class warfare comes into it, because two victims are not treated the same way. The very notion of a protected class is abhorrent to a classless society. I discovered once in a workplace case that hostility is not legally hostile unless you are in one of those protected classes, so the degrees of equality are very real. I am not saying that the victims rights are subservient to the perpetrator. However since the attack was already against the law, there are already charges to bring. The fact that a victim is targeted for any reason by a criminal has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law, as the criminal does not speak for the law. Hate crimes legislation makes certain victims more equal under the law, which is just a little too much like Animal Farm for me.

I do not agree with the WBC but I also have never agreed with the designation of any group as a hate group. I do not agree with the class warefare inherant in the hate crimes legislation. Guess what it is already illegal to assault and murder people, the hate crimes bill made some victims just a little bit more important than other victims, which goes against the constitutional concepts of equality that we hold dear in this country. Labeling a group, even as repulsive a group as WBC as a hate group will begin to erode the freedoms of religion that have been a major part of our contry since before it was a country. Anyone remember why the Pilgrims came here? We need to stringly guard against the lableing of any church as less of a church than any other church. As for keeping them out of an area, well I would not do that unless I was asked to by the owner of the property, but I would see nothing wrong with having twice as many people line up in between WBC and whatever event they were trying to protest. I would never tell them not to speak, but I might try to speak louder than them or block their signs from the view of the families. I can tell you that the Patriot Riders are good, but they can notbe everywhere at once. There were many allied groups standing along side of them at one event in my town. I think the key is to respond to WBC's peaceful excercise of their rights with a peaceful excercise our our own rights, the key word being peaceful. Lets not forget that there are religous groups that preach a much more hateful and violent message than WBC and we still allow them to go about their bussiness. Further discussion of that would probably get me kicked off of the internet, let alone this site, so I will stop there.

I have heard of departments that think it is too expensive to run these checks. Just prior to leaving my old VFD I found out that the State Police in CT will run these checks for free for VFD's. Yet there was still a reluctance to do this. As for accepting members from other departments, I have mixed feelings on this, because you never really know both sides of the story. I have seen people from other departments come in and do very well and I have seen them come in and quickly make you realize why they are former members of another agency. However allot of it boils down to the relationship between departments, if any. I remember getting a call from an officer in the next town over, he had a member who had been through 2 or 3 companies in that town and when he was turned down for membership in one announced that he was moving to our town anyway and would join our department. Well he did show up and apply but before he moved. We turned him down until he lived in the area, he went right to another department in our town and was accepted. He did not last very long there. I can think of another member who was in our department and had a few problems while on probation, which ultimately lead to him being kicked out. He had family in two other local departments and despite always maintaining he would never join them went right to one of them and applied. I got a call from an officer there about him, and after discussing what we could was assured that they would not let him in based on his being a problem for us. Well later in the month they accepted him for membership. Worse of all was one of our officers (working privately) accepted him into a training class to finish the training he had dropped out of costing our department allot of money. While the article talks about career departments with low standards, I have found that most career departments have decent hiring standards. I have long been a proponent of adapting those standards to the volunteer service. If something would disqualify you from a career service then it should probably disqualify you from the volunteer service. I can only think of a few exceptions, but in general the same standards should apply.

As agencies, we can certainly learn from each other, however I think it is more important to look at the rationale for the decisions. Just based on my work in Dispatch I would say we have many more Burglar Alarms than we do Fire Alarms, so this became a recognized problem for the police allot earlier. I do not know if the false alarm rates are similar but I am thinking that they are. Our CAD system allows us to set a priority for each type of call so that in addition to the incident type there are priorities which further organize calls. On the police side this is very valuable as there are often multiple pending calls. On the fire side this is usually not an issue except when it gets unusually busy. So it would be relatively easy to say that certain priorities got certain response levels. In essence this is what we do with run cards. I think we also need to look and see if we really have a problem to fix before we try to fix it. When I took my initial EMD training there was allot of talk about accident prevention and response levels. This discussion almost entirely depended on national statistics but then focused on a few sensational events. At least one of the events did not involve responding to any incident so no such policy would have prevented the tragedy. However when applied to my city, even combining all the police, fire & EMS units on the road, we have a very good record on motor vehicle accidents. So it could be argued that we don't have a problem to fix. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be more safe, but we should be sensible about it.

This brings up a sore point for me, that alarm companies rarely have actual information that is useful to either dispatchers or responders in making such a decision. After an experience in my old VFD when a large and seemingly reputable alarm company canceled a call, so the 1st due engine downgraded the response only to arrive and be met with the statement from the homeowner, "it was only a small fire" I am extremely suspicious of anything I get from them. When working in dispatch and an alarm company calls to cancel either a burglar or fire alarm (including CO) I have started asking for 3 things. #1 the name of the keyholder who canceled the alarm. You would be amazed at the number of times the alarm company has only a first name or only a last name yet accepted a cancellation from Bob or Mr. Smith. #2 is that keyholder on premises or not. Especially in a city where many residents work out of town, knowing that the homeowner is in NYC in an office building means that he really is not qualified to cancel any alarms in CT right now. #3 What set off the alarm / reason for cancellation. I would say that 8 or 9 times out of 10 the only reason is that they got the password. Sometimes we are lucky enough to get, it was probably the cleaning lady (from that out of town keyholder). So how does this factor into silent dispatch for the FD, well you are going to a fire alarm I just sent you to. All of a sudden I call the responding Chief and say that the alarm company is trying to cancel. Now in my city we never cancel fire alarms but will downgrade to a single engine, but that decision is being made on faulty information most of the time. So what would you do? Would you turn off the lights and siren? Then you get there to a fire because some guy reached on his cell phone while vacationing across the country knew the password was teddy bear. Now same scenario and I relay to you that the alarm company is trying to cancel based on an off site keyholder who can give no cause for the alarm. Now you have some info (or at least a confirmed lack of it) to work with. Maybe even the lucky third option. The alarm company is trying to cancel, homeowner is home and reports accidental activation due to steam from a shower. Now we have enough credible info to work with, all the switches go off some units head back to the barn and we reduce the risk to the public, our people and even our equipment.

I am not familiar with the difference in NY for career and vlunteer training, but is there a way to get credit for various training equivilent to the career academy or would you really have to go as a chief? MIght not be a bad idea for some Chief's I can think of to go to an academy, but I can also think of allot of folks with a ton of experience and training but never having been to a single formal academy.

CAD systems can do allot of interesting things, but I have found that with the 3 I have worked with, there are often functions that are designed for one service that end up getting adapted for another service. The best example was on an old system we no longer use, there was a unit status called Transport, it updated the location of a call to reflect a unit was enroute to a 2nd location (there was also a way to arrive them there). This was designed for EMS, and the icon was an ambuolance going towards a hospital, however we ended up also using it to track prisoner transports from scene to jail which was essentially the same thing. Our current CAD system is set up for multiple fire districts to each have their own protocol. Sadly this does not extend to the police side of things, although I have put that in as a request for the next upgrade. This allows for a different response to a high rise as opposed to a low rise (as long as you identify all those buildings. We even have a different response set up for limited access highways on some incident types. We can do this for EMS too, but only use that in one small section of town. THe police would benefit greatly in my opinion if they could designate target hazards to have a different protocol. Maybe a missing person at a school or a disturbance at a government building or an alarm at a bank or a jewelry store might warrant a different response than other calls at other locations. One thing we try to do when loading information is typing the date we added it in, so that eveyone sees CURRENT AS OF and a date so that anything that is not updated is known to possibly be out f date.

Here are a couple of related patches. THe first is for a Red Cross Disaster Team. I think it is kind of a busy looking design with all the disasters clumped together. The second is the old CD logo, polain and simple, but now out of date.