firebuff08

The real question that needs to be asked is this, "Is it really MUTUAL AID? The definition of MUTUAL is "reciprocal", or to make it more simple, party one helps party two when party two needs help and party two helps party one when party one needs help and it is done on a more or less equal basis. So, my question is, does anyone know how often Mount Vernon responds Mutual Aid to Yonkers compared with how often Yonkers responds Mutual Aid to Mount Vernon? And if Mount Vernon does respond Mutual Aid to Yonkers, does it do so with a similar complement of equipment and manpower? and does it do so with similar frequency?
If there is NOT reciprocity, if it is all one way with Yonkers responding to Mount Vernon but never the other way around, then perhaps Yonkers should consider terminating any agreement it has to respond into Mount Vernon.
There is a growing problem across the country of understaffed departments counting too much on mutual aid plans for coverage and then not being able to fulfill their half of mutual aid when the other department really needs mutual aid.

The real question that needs to be asked is this, "Is it really MUTUAL AID? The definition of MUTUAL is "reciprocal", or to make it more simple, party one helps party two when party two needs help and party two helps party one when party one needs help and it is done on a more or less equal basis. So, my question is, does anyone know how often Mount Vernon responds Mutual Aid to Yonkers compared with how often Yonkers responds Mutual Aid to Mount Vernon? And if Mount Vernon does respond Mutual Aid to Yonkers, does it do so with a similar complement of equipment and manpower? and does it do so with similar frequency?
If there is NOT reciprocity, if it is all one way with Yonkers responding to Mount Vernon but never the other way around, then perhaps Yonkers should consider terminating any agreement it has to respond into Mount Vernon.
There is a growing problem across the country of understaffed departments counting too much on mutual aid plans for coverage and then not being able to fulfill their half of mutual aid when the other department really needs mutual aid.

The real question that needs to be asked is this, "Is it really MUTUAL AID? The definition of MUTUAL is "reciprocal", or to make it more simple, party one helps party two when party two needs help and party two helps party one when party one needs help and it is done on a more or less equal basis. So, my question is, does anyone know how often Mount Vernon responds Mutual Aid to Yonkers compared with how often Yonkers responds Mutual Aid to Mount Vernon? And if Mount Vernon does respond Mutual Aid to Yonkers, does it do so with a similar complement of equipment and manpower? and does it do so with similar frequency?
If there is NOT reciprocity, if it is all one way with Yonkers responding to Mount Vernon but never the other way around, then perhaps Yonkers should consider terminating any agreement it has to respond into Mount Vernon.
There is a growing problem across the country of understaffed departments counting too much on mutual aid plans for coverage and then not being able to fulfill their half of mutual aid when the other department really needs mutual aid.

The real question that needs to be asked is this, "Is it really MUTUAL AID? The definition of MUTUAL is "reciprocal", or to make it more simple, party one helps party two when party two needs help and party two helps party one when party one needs help and it is done on a more or less equal basis. So, my question is, does anyone know how often Mount Vernon responds Mutual Aid to Yonkers compared with how often Yonkers responds Mutual Aid to Mount Vernon? And if Mount Vernon does respond Mutual Aid to Yonkers, does it do so with a similar complement of equipment and manpower? and does it do so with similar frequency?
If there is NOT reciprocity, if it is all one way with Yonkers responding to Mount Vernon but never the other way around, then perhaps Yonkers should consider terminating any agreement it has to respond into Mount Vernon.
There is a growing problem across the country of understaffed departments counting too much on mutual aid plans for coverage and then not being able to fulfill their half of mutual aid when the other department really needs mutual aid.

The real question that needs to be asked is this, "Is it really MUTUAL AID? The definition of MUTUAL is "reciprocal", or to make it more simple, party one helps party two when party two needs help and party two helps party one when party one needs help and it is done on a more or less equal basis. So, my question is, does anyone know how often Mount Vernon responds Mutual Aid to Yonkers compared with how often Yonkers responds Mutual Aid to Mount Vernon? And if Mount Vernon does respond Mutual Aid to Yonkers, does it do so with a similar complement of equipment and manpower? and does it do so with similar frequency?
If there is NOT reciprocity, if it is all one way with Yonkers responding to Mount Vernon but never the other way around, then perhaps Yonkers should consider terminating any agreement it has to respond into Mount Vernon.
There is a growing problem across the country of understaffed departments counting too much on mutual aid plans for coverage and then not being able to fulfill their half of mutual aid when the other department really needs mutual aid.

The real question that needs to be asked is this, "Is it really MUTUAL AID? The definition of MUTUAL is "reciprocal", or to make it more simple, party one helps party two when party two needs help and party two helps party one when party one needs help and it is done on a more or less equal basis. So, my question is, does anyone know how often Mount Vernon responds Mutual Aid to Yonkers compared with how often Yonkers responds Mutual Aid to Mount Vernon? And if Mount Vernon does respond Mutual Aid to Yonkers, does it do so with a similar complement of equipment and manpower? and does it do so with similar frequency?
If there is NOT reciprocity, if it is all one way with Yonkers responding to Mount Vernon but never the other way around, then perhaps Yonkers should consider terminating any agreement it has to respond into Mount Vernon.
There is a growing problem across the country of understaffed departments counting too much on mutual aid plans for coverage and then not being able to fulfill their half of mutual aid when the other department really needs mutual aid.

Prior to the formation of the Peekskill Volunteer Ambulance Corps in 1964, Emergency Medical Transportation in Peekskill was provided by the Peekskill Fire Patrol which at that time operated with a walk-in rescue truck. Patients were loaded into the back of the rescue truck and transported on the squad bench. Even after the PCVAC was formed, and the Fire Patrol received a new apparatus, a pumper, Fire Patrol continued to be dispatched to accidents. It wasn't until a car pedestrian accident involving a relative of a Peekskill police officer that a new policy was implemented designating PCVAC as the Medical Response agency for Peekskill. In that accident, the victim was transported on a stretcher atop the hose bed of a pumper.
Back in the 60's and 70's, transporting more than one patient in a single rig was common. Anyone who worked on an ambulance back in those days will remember that most, if not all Cadillac ambulances came equipped to transport four patients on stretchers. One on the standard wheeled stretcher, one on a folding stretcher placed on the squad bench and two on folding stretchers hanging from the ceiling. The ambulances generally carried the three folding stretchers and the hooks that suspended the stretchers from brackets built into the ceiling of the ambulance. I can not ever recall using the hanging stretchers. I can only imagine what a struggle it would have been to lift a patient onto those hanging hooks! But many times we transported two patients on stretchers.

Prior to the formation of the Peekskill Volunteer Ambulance Corps in 1964, Emergency Medical Transportation in Peekskill was provided by the Peekskill Fire Patrol which at that time operated with a walk-in rescue truck. Patients were loaded into the back of the rescue truck and transported on the squad bench. Even after the PCVAC was formed, and the Fire Patrol received a new apparatus, a pumper, Fire Patrol continued to be dispatched to accidents. It wasn't until a car pedestrian accident involving a relative of a Peekskill police officer that a new policy was implemented designating PCVAC as the Medical Response agency for Peekskill. In that accident, the victim was transported on a stretcher atop the hose bed of a pumper.
Back in the 60's and 70's, transporting more than one patient in a single rig was common. Anyone who worked on an ambulance back in those days will remember that most, if not all Cadillac ambulances came equipped to transport four patients on stretchers. One on the standard wheeled stretcher, one on a folding stretcher placed on the squad bench and two on folding stretchers hanging from the ceiling. The ambulances generally carried the three folding stretchers and the hooks that suspended the stretchers from brackets built into the ceiling of the ambulance. I can not ever recall using the hanging stretchers. I can only imagine what a struggle it would have been to lift a patient onto those hanging hooks! But many times we transported two patients on stretchers.

Prior to the formation of the Peekskill Volunteer Ambulance Corps in 1964, Emergency Medical Transportation in Peekskill was provided by the Peekskill Fire Patrol which at that time operated with a walk-in rescue truck. Patients were loaded into the back of the rescue truck and transported on the squad bench. Even after the PCVAC was formed, and the Fire Patrol received a new apparatus, a pumper, Fire Patrol continued to be dispatched to accidents. It wasn't until a car pedestrian accident involving a relative of a Peekskill police officer that a new policy was implemented designating PCVAC as the Medical Response agency for Peekskill. In that accident, the victim was transported on a stretcher atop the hose bed of a pumper.
Back in the 60's and 70's, transporting more than one patient in a single rig was common. Anyone who worked on an ambulance back in those days will remember that most, if not all Cadillac ambulances came equipped to transport four patients on stretchers. One on the standard wheeled stretcher, one on a folding stretcher placed on the squad bench and two on folding stretchers hanging from the ceiling. The ambulances generally carried the three folding stretchers and the hooks that suspended the stretchers from brackets built into the ceiling of the ambulance. I can not ever recall using the hanging stretchers. I can only imagine what a struggle it would have been to lift a patient onto those hanging hooks! But many times we transported two patients on stretchers.

Huge difference between an AM tower and and FM tower. With AM, the entire tower is the positive half of the transmission system, actually radiating the signal into the air. The other half (the negative half) consists of copper wires buried in the ground radiating out from the base of the tower. Each AM tower/antenna is of a specific height based on the frequency the station transmit on, thus a station at 1230 on the dial would have a tower/antenna of a different length than a station at 1420 on the dial. For FM, the tower is merely a support structure for the transmitting antenna. The FM transmitting antenna is mounted either on top of the tower or on the side of the tower near the top. The height of the tower for FM is determined solely by the coverage area the station has been granted by the FCC. That coverage is achieved by a combination of height and power....taller the tower, the lower the power output needed from the transmitter.
Towers do not last forever. They are made of steel and they rust over time. They do need to be replaced. There may be other reasons that the WFAS tower is being replaced. It may be they want to install a stronger tower that will support Cellular and Commercial two way antennas (additional revenue stream) while still functioning as an AM transmitting antenna.

I know Seth and in answer to your first question above, police officers need the ability to control a scene, including the proximity of any videographers that may be filming. When one of these would be Steve Spielbergs "crosses the line" and either gets too close or attempts to disrupt the officers in the performance of their duty than by all means at the very least they should be arrested and charged with interfering with a police officer. As far as the suspect and for the police too, there is not nor should there be any expectation of privacy when in a public space, such as a street corner, mall or movie theater, therefore if they are filmed either being arrested or arresting that video can be put out in the public realm without consent. If on the other hand a suspect is in their living room or on their front lawn, well then that's private property and a person has every right to expect what goes on there to remain private. The police though as public servants enjoy no such protection when on someone else's property, so Mrs. Jones has every right to film them arresting her husband in that living room or on the front lawn. And finally in answer to your last question, well I think we all know the answer to that one. Social media has indeed changed the game for all of us, public servant and civilian alike, and put us all under the harsh scrutiny of the public eye.
And while I understand that you did not call for the preventing of people of filming arrests, again it is disconcerting that the question was even asked because it belies a much bigger problem. We Americans have become desensitized to violence in our streets and in the world around us, and it is only natural that at some point we would also become desensitized to the curtailing our personal freedoms as a means of combatting that violence. On the surface yea sure the problem is dealt with, but at what cost? With each new restriction comes an acceptance of the loss of personal freedoms and it then becomes that much easier to take away more of them. We must be forever vigilant and protective of our First Amendment rights, including the right to film and share the police in action, for if we let them be curtailed we will not ever get them back.

I stare at your initial post and I wonder.... 'Is this Vladamir Putin typing this post?'.. I am seriously heated about this. Arrest people for recording the actions of the State... Hmmm what's next? Not allow people who disagree with the State to testify at trials? Maybe restrict peaceful protests? Maybe re-education camps so no one disagrees with the actions of the police?
All kidding aside, (and I wasn't kidding)... The people, the citizens, have a responsibility to make sure the officers of the State act accordingly to the rule of law and that they are not above the law... All too often we assume the police are always or almost always right. And now you want to remove a new tool in the fight against abuse of power, a tool against the ever teetering balance of security and liberty, a tool against bad officers of the State... But your choice would be to make it illegal to record the police? Well hell why don't you just drive down to D.C., enter the National Archives and rip up the Bill of Rghts?! This may be the most uneducated post I have ever seen. Am I being a bit harsh? Maybe. But I like my rights as an American. And I appreciate my duties as a citizen. And one of my duties is to make sure the police don't violate my fellow citizens rights.
Finally, the only officers who need to worry about being recorded are 'dirty' officers. If you do your job right, then don't worry about being on video. Actually embrace it. And if the police are going to place video cameras every where to see me and watch my actions , then fair is fair, I'll pull out my camera and make sure the State is following the rule of law when it makes arrests.
I'm sure there will be some, if not many, who disagree with me, especially in the law enforcement field. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.
Rant over and I'll try to avoid this post

Terribly sad news to hear. While I didn't know Kevin personally, I know he graduated from Peekskill High School in the same class as my eldest daughter. So that means he was still a young man. And I did know his father, Owen from my days as Board Chairman of the Peekskill Volunteer Ambulance Corps and as a Peekskill City Councilman. Now as a Fire Commissioner in Connecticut I can appreciate the hurt the Bristol Family and the Peekskill Fire Department are experiencing on the loss ot Kevin, since my department lost a veteran firefighter of similar age under similar circumstances just a few months ago. My sincerest condolences to the Bristol family, the Peekskill Fire Department and the entire Peekskill Community. May Kevin rest in Peace.
Ed Creem, Commissioner
South Fire District, Middletown, CT

Terribly sad news to hear. While I didn't know Kevin personally, I know he graduated from Peekskill High School in the same class as my eldest daughter. So that means he was still a young man. And I did know his father, Owen from my days as Board Chairman of the Peekskill Volunteer Ambulance Corps and as a Peekskill City Councilman. Now as a Fire Commissioner in Connecticut I can appreciate the hurt the Bristol Family and the Peekskill Fire Department are experiencing on the loss ot Kevin, since my department lost a veteran firefighter of similar age under similar circumstances just a few months ago. My sincerest condolences to the Bristol family, the Peekskill Fire Department and the entire Peekskill Community. May Kevin rest in Peace.
Ed Creem, Commissioner
South Fire District, Middletown, CT

The thread had nothing to do with volunteers with blue lights originally. There are definitely a ton of volunteers with too many blue lights. Although there are a ton of them as well that are completely against using them. Personally, i drive to a call with traffic. It's a lot easier to point out who you are if you're driving with a blue light opposed to not having one at all.

The bigger question should be WHY does a Town/Village of just over 10,000 people covering a mere 3 square miles need three fire stations and all the apparatus Mt. Kisco has? The answer of course is because thats the way it has always been. A single station with two engines and a Ladder Company should be more than sufficient. The fire district where I reside in CT is 24 square miles with a population nearly twice that of Mt. Kisco. One station, two engines, a quint, a brush truck and a rarely used rescue. Within the district are one of the largest manufacturing plants in the state, the two largest power generating plants. a state mental hospital campus, a college campus, several schools, banquet halls, stores, restaurants and apartment complexes. Like most departments in Central CT, automatic mutual aid is dispatched on all working fires. Works very well without ripping off the taxpayers.

The bigger question should be WHY does a Town/Village of just over 10,000 people covering a mere 3 square miles need three fire stations and all the apparatus Mt. Kisco has? The answer of course is because thats the way it has always been. A single station with two engines and a Ladder Company should be more than sufficient. The fire district where I reside in CT is 24 square miles with a population nearly twice that of Mt. Kisco. One station, two engines, a quint, a brush truck and a rarely used rescue. Within the district are one of the largest manufacturing plants in the state, the two largest power generating plants. a state mental hospital campus, a college campus, several schools, banquet halls, stores, restaurants and apartment complexes. Like most departments in Central CT, automatic mutual aid is dispatched on all working fires. Works very well without ripping off the taxpayers.

I watched it last night and I came away very impressed with the training, dedication and skill of Coast Guard Rescue Crews. Many of the crew members on the two rescue choppers, including the women pilots, appeared to be very young (at least the seemed young to an old man like myself!!), but certainly confident of their own abilitities and those of their fellow crew members. There must be a very high level of trust among members of a Rescue Helicopter crew, especially on the part of the rescue swimmers. I can't imagine going into the Atlantic at the height of a hurricane with 30 foot waves and swimming repeatedly to the life rafts and then back to the location of the rescue basket while holding onto a rescued party from the HMS Bounty. Under those conditions it must have been exhausting. Amazing how quickly they were able to put the documentary together.

At 2.2 square miles, the entire town of Pelham (the two villages combined) would not even qualify to have an engine company if it were part of any large City in the United States. Why in the name of god are there two fire departments covering this tiny spot on the map with a population of just over 12,000? My daughter lives in Glen Ridge, NJ, a wealthy Borough of 7,500 covering 1.3 square miles. It has NO fire department. The Borough contracts with neighboring Montclair, NJ for fire protection. Montclair has a fulltime paid department operating out of 3 stations. Response times to alarms in Glen Ridge are 3 minutes or less. There is absolutely no reason other than turf protection why Pelham and Pelham Manor can not contract with a neighboring department for protection. At the very least, they should combine the two fire departments into one. Operate out of a single station. Get rid of excess equipment and administration. Even combined they wouldn't do enough call volume to be considered a half busy department.
Having lived in Westchester for 20 years, though, it wouldn't surprise me if they went the other way... creating a third fire department in that tiny spot on the map!!

At 2.2 square miles, the entire town of Pelham (the two villages combined) would not even qualify to have an engine company if it were part of any large City in the United States. Why in the name of god are there two fire departments covering this tiny spot on the map with a population of just over 12,000? My daughter lives in Glen Ridge, NJ, a wealthy Borough of 7,500 covering 1.3 square miles. It has NO fire department. The Borough contracts with neighboring Montclair, NJ for fire protection. Montclair has a fulltime paid department operating out of 3 stations. Response times to alarms in Glen Ridge are 3 minutes or less. There is absolutely no reason other than turf protection why Pelham and Pelham Manor can not contract with a neighboring department for protection. At the very least, they should combine the two fire departments into one. Operate out of a single station. Get rid of excess equipment and administration. Even combined they wouldn't do enough call volume to be considered a half busy department.
Having lived in Westchester for 20 years, though, it wouldn't surprise me if they went the other way... creating a third fire department in that tiny spot on the map!!

The Chief should have taken it one step further. Moving his vehicle as the trooper requested would have created an unsafe situation for the fire personnel. When there is a medical or fire call and there is an armed gunman, do firefighters and EMS personnel enter the scene before the police secure it. NO! Same should apply on the highway. Passing traffic is just as dangerous as someone with a gun. The moment the trooper said he was going to arrest the Chief, all fire and rescue personnel should have been ordered off the highway and returned to quarters by the Chief since the scene would no longer be secure. Any patients they were working on should have been told they were being ordered off the highway and the State Police would be taking over patient care. I hope the Chief is serious about not responding to the highway in the future until the troopers all get the message about safety. If the big hats want to dictate how the scene will be run, let them run it by themselves. Remember, it is the taxpayers in the North Merrick Fire District that pay for the fire dept, not the state police and not the out of town motorists passing through on the parkway, so I am sure the Chief will not be pissing off very many local residents.

With certain exceptions as defined by law, ALL records maintained by ALL government agencies belong to the PUBLIC and NOT to the government agencies. The government agencies are merely the custodians. This fact is one of the most difficult for government employees and even most members of the public to comprehend.
In the case of an arrest, all police agenices must maintain in some form a record that is available within a reasonable period of time after the arrest, to the public and the media. That record must contain the name, age and address of the person arrested, the charges lodged against that person, the amount of any bond, whether the person was released or is being held and when that person is scheduled to appear in court. While the case remains under investigation, the police are NOT required to disclose any pertinent facts of the case.
By law, anyone should be able to walk into any police station and request the above information without making a formal FOI request, but in most cases, law enforcement does NOT follow the law. They will hassle you and you may be forced to make a formal request. Here in CT where I reside, the state FOI Commission has on several occasions used interns to go out to police departments and other town offices and request to see documents that by law belong to the public, including the aforementioned arrest reports. The results have been dismal. In most cases police and other government officials failed to uphold the law and denied access to information. Of course they were then hauled in for a hearing before the FOI Commission, ordered to release the information, ordered to have all their members attend FOI training and to implement SOP that is compliant with FOI.
Without Freedom of Information, we can not have a free society and we can not be a free people as is guanteed by the US and State constitutions.

With certain exceptions as defined by law, ALL records maintained by ALL government agencies belong to the PUBLIC and NOT to the government agencies. The government agencies are merely the custodians. This fact is one of the most difficult for government employees and even most members of the public to comprehend.
In the case of an arrest, all police agenices must maintain in some form a record that is available within a reasonable period of time after the arrest, to the public and the media. That record must contain the name, age and address of the person arrested, the charges lodged against that person, the amount of any bond, whether the person was released or is being held and when that person is scheduled to appear in court. While the case remains under investigation, the police are NOT required to disclose any pertinent facts of the case.
By law, anyone should be able to walk into any police station and request the above information without making a formal FOI request, but in most cases, law enforcement does NOT follow the law. They will hassle you and you may be forced to make a formal request. Here in CT where I reside, the state FOI Commission has on several occasions used interns to go out to police departments and other town offices and request to see documents that by law belong to the public, including the aforementioned arrest reports. The results have been dismal. In most cases police and other government officials failed to uphold the law and denied access to information. Of course they were then hauled in for a hearing before the FOI Commission, ordered to release the information, ordered to have all their members attend FOI training and to implement SOP that is compliant with FOI.
Without Freedom of Information, we can not have a free society and we can not be a free people as is guanteed by the US and State constitutions.

With certain exceptions as defined by law, ALL records maintained by ALL government agencies belong to the PUBLIC and NOT to the government agencies. The government agencies are merely the custodians. This fact is one of the most difficult for government employees and even most members of the public to comprehend.
In the case of an arrest, all police agenices must maintain in some form a record that is available within a reasonable period of time after the arrest, to the public and the media. That record must contain the name, age and address of the person arrested, the charges lodged against that person, the amount of any bond, whether the person was released or is being held and when that person is scheduled to appear in court. While the case remains under investigation, the police are NOT required to disclose any pertinent facts of the case.
By law, anyone should be able to walk into any police station and request the above information without making a formal FOI request, but in most cases, law enforcement does NOT follow the law. They will hassle you and you may be forced to make a formal request. Here in CT where I reside, the state FOI Commission has on several occasions used interns to go out to police departments and other town offices and request to see documents that by law belong to the public, including the aforementioned arrest reports. The results have been dismal. In most cases police and other government officials failed to uphold the law and denied access to information. Of course they were then hauled in for a hearing before the FOI Commission, ordered to release the information, ordered to have all their members attend FOI training and to implement SOP that is compliant with FOI.
Without Freedom of Information, we can not have a free society and we can not be a free people as is guanteed by the US and State constitutions.

I am deeply saddened tonight to learn of the passing of Dawn.
My earliest rememberances of Dawn go back to 1966 when I joined PCVAC. Dawn had joined a year earlier, shortly after PCVAC was organized. When I joined, Dawn was in charge of Roster. At that time, we tried to have a duty crew, 24/7 and Dawn spent a lot of time every day, on the phone making sure the shifts were filled. Because of my work schedule (evenings at WLNA Radio) I was called often by Dawn to fill open daytime shifts, in addition to my regularly scheduled shifts.
Over the years, when I served as Treasurer and later as President and Board Chairman, Dawn was always there, serving in some capacity in addition to being an active EMT. After moving to Connecticut in 1985, I had only infrequent contact with PCVAC, but a few years ago, I was in Peekskill for a few hours and I stopped at PCVAC HQ on Main Street and guess who was there....Dawn. I spent a couple of hours chatting with her about the old days and about how the corps has grown. Since then I have stayed in contact with her via facebook.
Her record of 45 years of service to PCVAC is nothing short of amazing. I am sure it is a record that will never be matched. Today it is almost impossible to find people with Dawn's volunteer spirit. I am sure she is in heaven with "Ma" Wessells and all of the other PCVAC oldtimers who have passed on.
God Bless You, Dawn.