nycemt728

Not 100% but the inspector and employee were rummaging through equipment in the back together... not an ambulance and no patient so no medical assistance necessary but could he have been playing AAA? Sure, but if he wasn't my original question still remains. I agree they can inspect anytime anywhere, that is clear, but no one has provided a law that specifically empowers them to pull over a vehicle on the road. As best I can tell it would appear to a grey area that is open to their interpretation.

So today I passed a new Ford Interceptor with lights on pulled off to the side of the road. When I got a closer look, it said State EMS. The inspector was in the process of checking a commercial agency's supervisor/first response vehicle. My questions is this, what authority if any do they have to pull over a vehicle? Inspect, by all means, but is there legal precedent for the DOH to pull over a vehicle? I have always of inspectors doing their work in ER bays or ambulance stations/bases. I'm assuming most people would pull over out of courtesy, but are they required to do so? Was this simply because there can't be a patient in a response vehicle?

Definitely still around as it is still actively marketed in dealers. What happens though if the local municipality does not/no longer uses the receivers, are the owners SOL?

There are certain situations during prisoner transport where stopping may be risk. And as for authorization, they are law enforcement officers with peace officer status in NYS...

From todays Daily News. Anyone have any comments on this? It seems odd. The 411 on 911 Iselin, N.J.: Before anyone blames EMS for taking too long to respond to the tragic fire in the Rockaways, they should understand that firefighters are dispatched 10 minutes before EMS. That is to enable the firefighters to arrive and a) determine if it’s a fire and determine if there is a need for additional resources. Screaming, “Where’s EMS!” will not get EMS there in an instant. All it does is bring negative attention and danger to the EMS crew responding to the scene. And if the firefighters were that concerned, why didn’t they bring the children to the ambulance at their staging area? Marcella Rivera, FDNY EMT Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/april-25-horses-pineda-chelsea-clinton-article-1.1768173#ixzz2zw6FRzDJ

The moment you stop learning and analyzing is the day you should retire.

Multiple unconfirmed reports it's cancelled. NYT, NBC with Fox and CBS attributing quotes to the mayor. Still nothing on NYC or NYRR website yet.

Alot of visveral, and justified opinions here. Some questions/thoughts to ponder, and I by no means have made up my mind. - Does the marathon pay for the OT? If so, then it would be incumbant on the Commissioner to tell the mayor he can not handle the request? If he didn't, why? - Could the closures/traffic control be manned with fewer offlicers and or on duty local precinct officers and supplimented with other agencies such as CERT, Boy Scouts etc? - Could EMS involvement be scaled back due to the large number of volunteers and the use of private ambulances? - Does anyone have any evidence that resources are actually being diverted from legitimate recovery work as opposed to just being streched thin? - The city can't actually cancel the marathon per-se as it does not run it, it can only withdraw the permit and or staffing. - Does a million dollar donation from NYRR make up for not cancelling or postponing? That money could be put to good use, or is it blood money so to speak? It's a interesting question, with both sides having very impassioned arguements.

So there is a small, but perhaps growing movement to postpone the marathon until Sandy recovery can get further along. There are suggestions that city resources allocated to the event should instead be dedicated to recovery. Mayor Bloomberg said that lots of small buisnesses depend on the some 47000 participants. Opponents claim its cold to think about sports when people have no homes. Thoughts?

Now that's the first logical, non emotion driven response to this whole situatation. If this argument is correct, then members would have more of an arugment for keeping the helmets. If not, then clearly no one here has a grasp of economics. If we take that 5 year estimate on the low end, it costs money to do that, more so then if the department waits a few more years to implement a replacement cycle. If the department argument is that the 5 year mark is for member safety, then they pay a premium for that safety by replacing them so often. That being said, even though the department took the the responsibility of issuing uniform/equipment and therefore owns what it issues, it needs to be able to recoup some of the money associated with its chosen replacement timeline. Would it be nice if they were to give the old helmets to members when they replace them, the city is by no means obligated to do so. Members simply expecting to take what they want just because it was assigned to them is just as insulting to me tax payer as the their being insulted that the city wants them to pay for it. A side note about uniform allowances: Definitely not a perfect system! I am sick of all public service agencies with allowances not enforcing proper uniform replacement rules. There should be no reason I should see veteran memebers with worn leather, gunked up boots, or ill fitting shirts on a regular basis. I realize uniform allowances are seen as a perk, but there must be a middle ground between a little extra cash every year and looking professional.

Yes they offer ALS in NYC, but as stated, each division is different. Some divisions will turf off to the private(s) or as a last resort call 911.

While I admit there might be some rural areas where waiting for pd backup might be an issue, it really is not an issue for EMS because if you need pd, you're not entering the scene. As an EMT, one of the greatest deterrents I have is not looking like a police officer and not being visibly armed. There is a calming effect on those in need that might be otherwise unwiling to speak to law enforcement, add the gun and you automatically resemble law enforcement, and waste valuable time and trust attempting to explain that you are not. Can it save a life? Unquestionably, but it can equally (and I think more likely) put you in danger. Since the law is simply repealing a ban, it doesn't provide any sort of law enforcement training that I would hope that ANYONE who is going to be in the position to use a weapon in the course of one's duty should have.

It's got nothing tto do with the city or how the memorial was designed, some people are just disprespectful period. I've been there twice, for the large amount of staff they have there, they seem to be doing an awful lot of nothing, no interpretation, no enforcement.. After the first incident with the school kids, there was an editorial from a retired Dep. Chief who summarized a sentiment I have heard before. This should be in the hands of the National Park Service, who run not only the Flight 92 National Memorial but as the chief mentioned World War II in the Pacific National Monument, (more commonly known as USS Arizona or Pearl Harbor). He was quite right in saying that the NPS does not tolerate any nonsense in running these sights and mantains a respecful and quiet atmosphere in deference to those lost.

http://www.broadjam.com/artists/songs.php?artistID=16489&mediaID=109800 Cool song, thanks Ray!

Yes, url's would have satisfied me. Since you assumed a great deal about me, I'll assume that the articles don't exist or you simply don't wish to provide them because they don't support your claim. I'm not sure what you are upset about, because if you took a second and re-read what I had written you'll see that I said that I thought that most of the newspaper articles spent of their time highlighting the deceased criminal activities as opposed to trashing the officers. As for the rest of your statement, it's offbase and rather insulting. I NEVER glorified any criminal, and I most definitely did not demonize any police officers. I never referred to the cops as cowboys, I never referred to the perp as innocent or defended her actions in any way. I agree with Helicopper and the others, she most definitely set in motion the events that ultimately led to her death. I barely referred to the incident at all because quite frankly I don't have any issue with it. Personally, her actions are dispicible and anyone who resists should be taken down....with as much force as needed to ensure the arrest and everyone's safety. My issue is soley with statements such as she got what she deserved, or i'm glad she died. Those sort of statements do not serve anyone, anytime. Let me make it clear b/c apparently it has not been thus far, I was always and continue to refer to comments made post incident...not on scene, I am not saying treat a perp to a happy meal in the hopes they'll stop committing crimes and obey orders. Far from it, if anyone remembers the Sgt that was unfortunately filmed a month ago in Harlem, I think that was great and some folks need to be told in such a manner. And since someone felt the need to bring it up, I do have friends and family serving as officers, I respect what they do and hope they are safe each and every time they put on the uniform.