Officer Crawls Under Bus to Comfort Trapped Woman

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Officer Crawls Under Bus to Comfort Woman Pinned Under Wheel: ‘I’ll Stay Until We Get You Out’

For nearly 10 minutes on Monday, Officer Kevin Peck laid underneath a bus holding the hand of a young woman suffering from severe injuries after being hit by and pinned under the city bus.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/officer-crawls-under-bus-to-comfort-woman-pinned-under-wheel-ill-stay-until-we-get-you-out/

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/17/officer-crawls-under-bus-to-comfort-trapped-woman/

Job Well Done.

[OoO 24]

Sounds like the officer did a great thing for the woman, but in terms of safety for himself this sounds like a horrible idea.

[E112 12]

Get the job done first, safety second.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Get the job done first, safety second.

Ummm.....No. My safety, my crews safety, safety of the victim, safety of bystanders.

I implore you to reconsider that statement.

Sounds like the officer did a great thing for the woman, but in terms of safety for himself this sounds like a horrible idea.

I agree totally.

Edited December 18, 2011 by SRS131EMTFF

[helicopper 1,050]

It's not the first time that a cop or firefighter has done something heroic for a victim of a tragic accident. Anyone remember Bridget Gurney? Cops, firefighters, and a trauma doc (if I remember correctly) all put themselves in grave danger to rescue her.

Our jobs are not without risk. We're just expected to manage the risk. If you want a safe job, go work at... ya know, I can't think of a job that is wholly without some risk.

The officer in question obviously calculated the risk to himself and did the job anyway. His risk analysis was obviously accurate because he didn't get hurt himself. Kudos to him on a job well done!

Peck responds to a lot of accidents in the course of his duties, but said this one was different.

“At times, the job can become mundane. Then, every once in a while, something touches you more than the others. It reminds you why you became a police officer,” he said.

“All across the country, officers do things like this every day,” he added.

“It’s part of the job.”

Nicely said too!

[Bnechis 3,961]

Get the job done first, safety second.

Based on your statement you clearly do not understand the job.

You need to go back and relearn the basics.

If a member gets hurt the job stops and all efforts tend to be refocust on the injured rescuer and the original patient suffers.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The officer in question obviously calculated the risk to himself and did the job anyway. His risk analysis was obviously accurate because he didn't get hurt himself.

Just because he did not get hurt does not mean his risk analysis was acurate, he may have just been lucky and next time he wont.

My biggest concern is does the person doing the risk analysis have the training & experience to perform it? I find it common that many responders do not have the training in the hazards of rescue incidents to make this assessment.

In this case, is the bus off, in park, break set, & chocked so it can not move? Does it have a kneeling feature? Air suspension? And does the officer know that the responders will safeguard him with proper stabilization before lifting it? (think about the recent incident in NYC where ESU dropped a car on the patient, in part because cribbing was not in place).

[JJB531 652]

While I think the "get the job done first, safety second" statement is absolutely ludicrous, I think what's even more ludicrous is how individuals on here have to nitpick this officers actions as if he did something so egregiously dangerous, instead of applauding him for his actions on a job well done.

[huzzie59 75]

While I think the "get the job done first, safety second" statement is absolutely ludicrous, I think what's even more ludicrous is how individuals on here have to nitpick this officers actions as if he did something so egregiously dangerous, instead of applauding him for his actions on a job well done.

DITTO!

[Bnechis 3,961]

I think what's even more ludicrous is how individuals on here have to nitpick this officers actions as if he did something so egregiously dangerous

Since I am the only one who questioned the risk assessment, instead of saying "individuals on here" you can just say me.

At numerious heavy extrication courses, it is tought to never go under a bus until it is properly cribbed. I have witnessed busses in the shops drop unexpectantly.

I dont think this is nitpicking, I thnk this is a forum to learn from others actions, both the good and the bad. If no one questions, what is routinly tought as an unsafe action then many readers here might consider this the proper action at an incident.

So here is a question for all responders:

Does your initial training, inserves training or at least your policies/procedures instruct you in the hazards of the following type of incidents:

1)heavy trucks/busses

2)trains

3)Trenches & collapses

4)building collapse

5) machinery extrications, including elevators

6) hazmat

Now I know which of these are covered in the carreer fire acadamy, but how many are covered in police training and EMS training?

[JJB531 652]

Since I am the only one who questioned the risk assessment, instead of saying "individuals on here" you can just say me.

At numerious heavy extrication courses, it is tought to never go under a bus until it is properly cribbed. I have witnessed busses in the shops drop unexpectantly.

I dont think this is nitpicking, I thnk this is a forum to learn from others actions, both the good and the bad. If no one questions, what is routinly tought as an unsafe action then many readers here might consider this the proper action at an incident.

So here is a question for all responders:

Does your initial training, inserves training or at least your policies/procedures instruct you in the hazards of the following type of incidents:

1)heavy trucks/busses

2)trains

3)Trenches & collapses

4)building collapse

5) machinery extrications, including elevators

6) hazmat

Now I know which of these are covered in the carreer fire acadamy, but how many are covered in police training and EMS training?

BNechis, I respect your experience and seemingly endless knowledge regarding policies, procedures, and emergency service operations, so this is absolutely nothing personal on my part, plus you weren't the only one to questionably comment his actions, but...

I agree with your statement that this forum is an educational "tool", and I have always been a big advocate of EMTBravo being an invaluable resource to learn from others. But you're initial post was not educational per-se, it was basically defamatory, full of statements that questioned this officers actions. Where is the educational value in asking rhetorical questions? It's one thing to give the officer his kudos for getting the job done, without any injury to himself, as well as further injury to the aided, and then educating the rest of us on some of the safety measures we should ensure we take at these incidents. That's educational. Ignoring the good job that was done, and posing several "well did he do this" and "did he do that" questions does not come across as educational. Maybe in the future, we can ensure that news reporters ask the first responder if the bus was put in park first and emergency brake applied before so we can further evaluate if a proper hazard analysis was conducted.

Emergency service courses teach lots of techniques, with a major emphasis on safety, and rightfully so. And based on certain situations, while the textbook scenario is ideally what we should follow, sometimes we, as first responders, make concessions after doing a risk vs. benefit analysis and do things at times that the textbook doesn't advocate. See, I didn't see you question, for educational value of course, when an off-duty FDNY firefighter ran into an structure fire to conduct a rescue of an occupant without the proper PPE. No one questioned it; we simply commended him on a job well done, and rightfully so. But I did see you start posting questions and comments when a similiar topic was posted here regarding a police officer who did the exact same thing, with the exact same positive outcome. What about the rope rescue FDNY conducted back in 1991 in Times Square where a firefighter was lowered with a rescue rope that was anchored off to other firefighters and violated numerous safety measures. Should we sit here and point out everything that was done questionably for eduational value, or commend them for a job well done in the face of the dangers that they faced? I am not in any way knocking the FDNY member who conducted this rescue, I think what he did was amazing, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for his actions that day. The list goes on and on of incidents where emergency service providers have taken part in rescues that did not necessarily follow the textbook. When we can follow the textbook, we definitely should. Safety guidelines are meant to protect our victims, and more importantly, to protect us. But, unless something was done that was so egregious, so unnecessary, so stupid as to endanger our other first responders, our victim, or ourselves, let's give credit where credit is due for doing a good job, while also educating the rest of us on how the textbook says we should do it.

In regards to awareness level training for Police Officers and EMS providers related to technical rescue and hazardous materials... there pretty much is none. I'm a big advocate for training, especially awareness level training for front line responders so they can adequately identify and potentially mitigate certain hazards at such incidents, but for whatever reason, this type of training is simply not conducted in this area. Part of the problem is a lack of interest from these groups to receive the training, and part of the problem is the fact that PD and EMS are typically "shut-out" from any type of training related to technical rescue and/or hazardous materials.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Kudos to the Officer for doing all possible to calm and comfort the trapped victim.

[helicopper 1,050]

Sometimes, and it may just be once in a career, emergency workers are confronted with a situation that isn't "in the book" so they can't "go by the book". Officer Peck wasn't under the bus as a "rescue technician", he was under the bus as a HUMAN BEING giving comfort and support to another injured and frightened woman.

When the crane toppled and pinned Bridget Gurney in NYC, there was a monster response and the FD/PD/MD did the same thing Officer Peck did. They put their lives at risk to save her. If I recall correctly there were no guarantees that they wouldn't be killed or injured in a secondary collapse. We've all heard stories like it and it is one of the most compelling characteristics about our profession. In the face of obvious, and sometimes not so obvious, danger, we do something compassionate and caring for a total stranger.

Hopefully the first arriving rescue units insured that the bus was off, in park, wheels chocked and placed cribbing to protect them both.

I don't commend Officer Peck as a rescue technician and I'm glad the FD arrived promptly to extricate the victim; I commend him for doing something selfless and compassionate. We're reminded daily of all the negative things people in our profession do. This is a nice reminder about the positive things.

[Bnechis 3,961]

BNechis, I respect your experience and seemingly endless knowledge regarding policies, procedures, and emergency service operations, so this is absolutely nothing personal on my part, plus you weren't the only one to questionably comment his actions, but...

Thank you. I did not take it personnally.

But you're initial post was not educational per-se, it was basically defamatory, full of statements that questioned this officers actions. Where is the educational value in asking rhetorical questions? It's one thing to give the officer his kudos for getting the job done, without any injury to himself, as well as further injury to the aided, and then educating the rest of us on some of the safety measures we should ensure we take at these incidents. That's educational. Ignoring the good job that was done, and posing several "well did he do this" and "did he do that" questions does not come across as educational.

You are correct, I should have 1st given him credit. My questions were not ment to take away from what the specific officer did or did not do. My comments were ment to be general about that type of incident and not that specific incident.

Emergency service courses teach lots of techniques, with a major emphasis on safety, and rightfully so. And based on certain situations, while the textbook scenario is ideally what we should follow, sometimes we, as first responders, make concessions after doing a risk vs. benefit analysis and do things at times that the textbook doesn't advocate.

The problem is way to many responders either do not do a risk vs. benefit analysis or do not have the training &/or experience in the risks to make a proper risk assessment. We see this in so many of the death and injury cases of members that its shocking.

See, I didn't see you question, for educational value of course, when an off-duty FDNY firefighter ran into an structure fire to conduct a rescue of an occupant without the proper PPE. No one questioned it; we simply commended him on a job well done, and rightfully so. But I did see you start posting questions and comments when a similiar topic was posted here regarding a police officer who did the exact same thing, with the exact same positive outcome.

Yes, I did not question when a firefighter who had the training & experience to do a risk assessment of entry into a fire. And yes I questioned the PO who is not trained who did the same. As a medic, I worked an incident where a PO was killed when his partner vented a fire. The techniques used changed the fire conditions which cost the partner his life.

On the same note, I would have a problem with an on or off duty FF tangling with an armed perp. Is it heroic...maybe. But I would not question the actions of an offduty PO doing the same, as they are trained to do so.

What about the rope rescue FDNY conducted back in 1991 in Times Square where a firefighter was lowered with a rescue rope that was anchored off to other firefighters and violated numerous safety measures.

Almost everything done was inline with there training & SOP's. The primary "violation" was the "1 use only" rule, which the entire rope industry felt it was an overkill rule, set up based on a previous FDNY incident. Note: after that incident the NFPA standard was changed to allow it.

In regards to awareness level training for Police Officers and EMS providers related to technical rescue and hazardous materials... there pretty much is none. I'm a big advocate for training, especially awareness level training for front line responders so they can adequately identify and potentially mitigate certain hazards at such incidents, but for whatever reason, this type of training is simply not conducted in this area. Part of the problem is a lack of interest from these groups to receive the training, and part of the problem is the fact that PD and EMS are typically "shut-out" from any type of training related to technical rescue and/or hazardous materials.

While PD & EMS should not be shut out (and while it is common in the hands on classes because of space, there is no excuse for it in awareness classes).

Some of these classes are legally mandated for anyone who responds to these incidents. It is sad that many PD & EMS bosses do not provide it/make it available to their workers.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Sometimes, and it may just be once in a career, emergency workers are confronted with a situation that isn't "in the book" so they can't "go by the book". Officer Peck wasn't under the bus as a "rescue technician", he was under the bus as a HUMAN BEING giving comfort and support to another injured and frightened woman.

When the crane toppled and pinned Bridget Gurney in NYC, there was a monster response and the FD/PD/MD did the same thing Officer Peck did. They put their lives at risk to save her. If I recall correctly there were no guarantees that they wouldn't be killed or injured in a secondary collapse. We've all heard stories like it and it is one of the most compelling characteristics about our profession. In the face of obvious, and sometimes not so obvious, danger, we do something compassionate and caring for a total stranger.

Hopefully the first arriving rescue units insured that the bus was off, in park, wheels chocked and placed cribbing to protect them both.

I don't commend Officer Peck as a rescue technician and I'm glad the FD arrived promptly to extricate the victim; I commend him for doing something selfless and compassionate. We're reminded daily of all the negative things people in our profession do. This is a nice reminder about the positive things.

I agree completely, sometimes we have to take the people or the humanity out of the job for the sake our own sanity. This piece should remind us that our patient regardless of their situation is a real person who is probably scared to a degree they have never experienced fear before.

Would I have done the same thing and crawled under the bus? Without a doubt. However I might have at least ensured it was parked with the e-brake and off. Would I have second guessed myself and my decision as they were further stabilized and extricating the patient? Maybe, hopefully I would be helping to assess and package her throughout this. Would I get my @$$ chewed out by the OIC or my C/O? You bet. Its their job to make sure everything runs smoothly. However when push comes to shove, we all engage in activities in this profession that are very dangerous, we can not control the risks but we can certainly do our best to mitigate them while still maintaining the best service possible.

I think all of us here can agree that while this is "feel good" piece, we all have or will be faced with a situation very similar to this one.

Edited December 19, 2011 by SRS131EMTFF

[Bull McCaffrey 162]

While I may not have several thousand posts or hundreds of popularity points, I've been around this place long enough to know that had this been a FF under that bus this incident would be a non issue. Being that it was a PO cast in a positive light by the media, his actions are scrutinized and criticized by the "brothers" on here.

There is an inherent disdain for cops on this site, especially when it comes to them performing any sort of rescue work. It is plainly obvious to see. How come there is zero criticism on the part of FD using spreaders to lift the bus? Wasn't too long ago when ESU was crucified by many on here for attempting and failing a lift with spreaders. Granted these guys used cribbing and took their time but nonetheless the majority on here condemned that technique as a whole... When cops were doing it.

With that being said, good job to the PO who put himself in harms way to comfort a fellow human being and FD for safely extricating the victim. Hopefully she makes a full recovery.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Bull McCaffrey

[JJB531 652]

Thank you. I did not take it personnally.

You're welcome.

You are correct, I should have 1st given him credit. My questions were not ment to take away from what the specific officer did or did not do. My comments were ment to be general about that type of incident and not that specific incident.

Understood.

The problem is way to many responders either do not do a risk vs. benefit analysis or do not have the training &/or experience in the risks to make a proper risk assessment. We see this in so many of the death and injury cases of members that its shocking.

I agree 100% with you on this point. Unfortunately, a lot of times the dangers associated with these types of incidents are indeed overlooked; including certain hazards which may be obvious to trained/experienced responders, but not so obvious to the untrained/nexperienced.

Yes, I did not question when a firefighter who had the training & experience to do a risk assessment of entry into a fire. And yes I questioned the PO who is not trained who did the same. As a medic, I worked an incident where a PO was killed when his partner vented a fire. The techniques used changed the fire conditions which cost the partner his life.

Having the training and experience is absolutely beneficial to conducting a risk assessment, but there was nothing stated that this individual conducted a risk assessment before running into the fire, we are going off assumption because of his training as a firefighter; the same way nothing was stated in the media about this particular incident as to whether or not the Officer conducted a risk assessment, and we don't know his level of training or experience with these types of incidents.

On the same note, I would have a problem with an on or off duty FF tangling with an armed perp. Is it heroic...maybe. But I would not question the actions of an offduty PO doing the same, as they are trained to do so.

Did you have a problem with the FDNY members in Staten Island who utilized a deck gun as a crowd control technique to assist NYPD officers who were being overcome by an unruly crowd, a crowd that could have easily directed their aggression towards the FD members had their technique failed to control those individuals? I don't think anyone had a problem with it, and as a police officer I am undoubtedly grateful for them and their actions. I don't recall seeing you question them or their actions for getting involved in a police matter. They did what any of us would hopefully do for one another... in the end we all have to look out for eachother.

Almost everything done was inline with there training & SOP's. The primary "violation" was the "1 use only" rule, which the entire rope industry felt it was an overkill rule, set up based on a previous FDNY incident. Note: after that incident the NFPA standard was changed to allow it.

No safety/belay line? No bombproof anchor? No victim harness? Utilizing life safety rope on a 2 person load in direct vicinty of a fire floor where the rope could melt? Are these all within their SOP's and training? I don't know, I'm honestly asking. I would find it hard to believe that any of this would be routinely acceptable. It was deemed acceptable because of the exigent circumstances surrounding the incident, they adapted to the incident, and knowing the risk they were taking, they ended up conducting a memorable rescue with efficiency and professionalism. I remember a big deal was made about the "1 use only" violation, and with the change in the standard, this obviously wasn't really as big of an issue as it was made out to be back then.

While PD & EMS should not be shut out (and while it is common in the hands on classes because of space, there is no excuse for it in awareness classes).

Agreed there should be no excuse for it in awareness classes, but considering most of the courses are offered through the New York State Office of FIRE Prevention and Control, most Police Officers and EMS Providers automatically feel shunned from these programs, and instead try to seek out the training from venues that cater to their individual fields of employment. These awareness level programs (Water, Tech Rescue, HazMat) should be mandatory for every emergency service provider.

Some of these classes are legally mandated for anyone who responds to these incidents. It is sad that many PD & EMS bosses do not provide it/make it available to their workers.

Undoubtedly agreed.

[ny10570 745]

While I may not have several thousand posts or hundreds of popularity points, I've been around this place long enough to know that had this been a FF under that bus this incident would be a non issue. Being that it was a PO cast in a positive light by the media, his actions are scrutinized and criticized by the "brothers" on here.

Fire catches just as much flack when their tactics are questioned. I've seen FDNY, Boston, and just about every FD in Westchester take their lumps from EMTBravo. Some people have even stopped posting scene photos because they were tired of the conversations that resulted.

[jack10562 414]

Some people have even stopped posting scene photos because they were tired of the conversations that resulted.

Unfortunate, but true. We've had numerous (former) contributing photographers who got fed up and no longer post their work due to all the negativity and nit picking.

At one point we even tried eliminating public comment on incident photo threads in an effort to lure them back.

It was precisely those types of photos being published that EMTBravo flourished on, back in the day.

Back on topic, Great Job, even with the calculated risks taken!

[OnTheWheel 43]

Great job by the Officer. I should buy a crystal ball, I saw where this post was ending up from the first post.

Edited December 19, 2011 by OnTheWheel

[ex-commish 490]

The officer made a decision to put the victims life first...his second. You can tear apart his decision all you want but at the end of the day it was his decision and a heroic on at that. His actions resulted in a positive outcome. I believe anyone of us would have done the same thing and I am sure his actions will leave a lasting impression on the victim.

[AMISHFF 26]

I must agree with Bull. Personalizing a situation and as simple as what the officer did was probbly the best thing that could of been done. This allowed trained rescuers to focus on the task in hand without the screaming and hurry up factor, which can become very stressfull to some. Tactics, I am notgoing to comment on, because I do not agree with what was done. NYPD was destroyed and are still being destroyed for the incident that occurred there. Airbags or simple bottle jacks are the prefered method for such a lift. It is sad to see the deterioration of law enforcement participation on this site and everyone seems to put there head in the sand when it is brought up. Looking back years ago you could be in Japan and log onto this site and know what is happening in the area. We rarely see anything out of Yonkers or Mount Vernon anymore and you know there are jobs because they are on news 12 and lohud every day. I hope all our brothers and everyone stays safe this holiday season.

[Bnechis 3,961]

No safety/belay line?

Correct, they train for this evolution without it.

No bombproof anchor?

I do not know what the "policy" is but I know that the Rescue companies have trained before and after that incident to do it without a bombproof anchor.

No victim harness?

They do not use a victim harness

Utilizing life safety rope on a 2 person load in direct vicinty of a fire floor where the rope could melt?

I do not believe its listed in the SOP. But its been some time since I looked at that one from FDNY.

Are these all within their SOP's and training? I don't know, I'm honestly asking. I would find it hard to believe that any of this would be routinely acceptable.

As listed above, they trained for that evolution and performed it like they trained for it. The lack of safeties is based on the need for speed. If it takes more than a minute or 2 to set up and get down to the victim, they will most likely jump.

This is not how many depts do it. But its how FDNY has for decades.

[velcroMedic1987 330]

While I may not have several thousand posts or hundreds of popularity points, I've been around this place long enough to know that had this been a FF under that bus this incident would be a non issue. Being that it was a PO cast in a positive light by the media, his actions are scrutinized and criticized by the "brothers" on here.

There is an inherent disdain for cops on this site, especially when it comes to them performing any sort of rescue work. It is plainly obvious to see. How come there is zero criticism on the part of FD using spreaders to lift the bus? Wasn't too long ago when ESU was crucified by many on here for attempting and failing a lift with spreaders. Granted these guys used cribbing and took their time but nonetheless the majority on here condemned that technique as a whole... When cops were doing it.

With that being said, good job to the PO who put himself in harms way to comfort a fellow human being and FD for safely extricating the victim. Hopefully she makes a full recovery.

There is definitely an attitude toward the cops! It's a shame too. Some of the best discussions on this site come from those damn cops.

There is also no more "brotherhood". Just a lot of lip service by self serving egomaniacs who'll just as soon atab you in the back as help you out. This isn't just the fire service either. It's all the emergency services. Everybody's in it for themselves.

[calhobs 110]

Sometimes with all our training we do forget the human side of our jobs. Just showing up to that I am not feeling well call, and telling the person they are going to be ok or to the medical call where someone is taking thier last breaths and holding there hand as they pass or that trauma call where that person is all alone in that car pinned and your there comforting them talking to them and being with them letting them know you are thier for them or doing what officer Peck did. This is when we are the real heros, This is where and when we make a real change in peoples lives. This is what those people will remember of us for the rest of thier lives.

GREAT JOB OFFICER PECK