BMW Fire: Armonk, NY 3/12/12 Posted On YouTube

[FF402 133]

Cameras everywhere, nowadays.

"BMW Fire: Armonk, NY 3/12/12"

[xfirefighter484x 234]

I always love the commentary from lay-people/civilians... Everyone is always a critic, and has some 'genius' thing to put out there.

[SIGNMAN 4]

Cameras everywhere, nowadays.

"BMW Fire: Armonk, NY 3/12/12"

NOT GOOD LOOKING.

[x4093k 654]

Close up video of it.. visit their website for more information & pictures.

Edited March 19, 2012 by x4093k

[EMT-7035 4]

Routine drill? Really? What agency has enough money to set fire to a BMW?

[helicopper 1,050]

1332120442' post='260858']

Routine drill? Really? What agency has enough money to set fire to a BMW?

It is Armonk after all. Beemers are like Chevys there.  <img src="http://www.emtbravo.net/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif" alt="" class="bbc_emoticon">

[99subi 121]

I always love the commentary from lay-people/civilians... Everyone is always a critic, and has some 'genius' thing to put out there.

Not for nothing it was a pretty sad showing by the fire dept. inadequate amount of FF's, inadequate PPE on the few who showed.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

Not for nothing it was a pretty sad showing by the fire dept. inadequate amount of FF's, inadequate PPE on the few who showed.

I was referring more to the fact "Why don't they call the Fire Department?" and some more of the asinine comments that got made. I am not referring to anything aimed at any FD, just that the average civilian is, well, stupid.

Where has common sense with society in general gone? Story for another day...

[99subi 121]

I was referring more to the fact "Why don't they call the Fire Department?" and some more of the asinine comments that got made. I am not referring to anything aimed at any FD, just that the average civilian is, well, stupid.

Where has common sense with society in general gone? Story for another day...

I think the term should be changed to uncommon sense. Seems more fitting for the times.

[newsbuff 286]

Just a great response from all involved.

Assuming the people recording had already called 911, a 6+ minute response time with just one firefighter Officer is just fantastic! And for that other guy to just jump on into the smoke and flames with his obvious department issued Dickies pants and shirt, which of course are both commonly accepted PPE. Just a great job all around.

Edited March 19, 2012 by newsbuff

[JetPhoto 626]

It's people like those commentators that makes you want to hunt them down and smack the with the stupid stick. Instead of all the criticism they should join a fire department and find out why it takes the time to do the things "that take so long"

5 minutes for an engine to get there is good. I don't know how far they had to travel to get there or what day of the week or time of day but 5 minutes is very acceptable.

Very unfortunate that they had 1 firefighter to be in gear to do the job but he did the job and I was glad to see him "on air".

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Stupid f'ing bystanders always have so much to say. So quick to make complaints about effort and time. Did one of them get a fire extinguisher from the store they were in and try to help out? Stupid cowards, hiding in a store front talking about something they know nothing about. IE: "Why is there only one fire department person?" The name is a firefighter idiot not a fire department person.

[EMT-7035 4]

The actual station is about 3 minutes away, so that's assuming a 2-minute response from page time, no one can complain about that.

[dwcfireman 656]

It's people like those commentators that makes you want to hunt them down and smack the with the stupid stick. Instead of all the criticism they should join a fire department and find out why it takes the time to do the things "that take so long"

A fun, and may I add legal, trick with these types of bystanders is to confiscate* their phones and cameras for "investigative purposes." This gives fire officers the chance to see the starting moments of the fire...and what you do with the pictures and videos is your prerogative.

*I do not have a specific law that points to confiscation of cell phones or cameras (I spent an hour searching for it). However, I have been part of investigations where we have taken cell phones for the pictures and videos. If you decide to attempt to confiscate a phone or camera, make sure a police officer is accompanying you as bystanders will become angry!

[INIT915 1,119]

A fun, and may I add legal, trick with these types of bystanders is to confiscate* their phones and cameras for "investigative purposes." This gives fire officers the chance to see the starting moments of the fire...and what you do with the pictures and videos is your prerogative.

*I do not have a specific law that points to confiscation of cell phones or cameras (I spent an hour searching for it). However, I have been part of investigations where we have taken cell phones for the pictures and videos. If you decide to attempt to confiscate a phone or camera, make sure a police officer is accompanying you as bystanders will become angry!

There would be no legal grounds for confiscating those cells phones. If you did, you would open yourself up to both criminal and civil liability.

[newsbuff 286]

Stupid f'ing bystanders always have so much to say. So quick to make complaints about effort and time. Did one of them get a fire extinguisher from the store they were in and try to help out? Stupid cowards, hiding in a store front talking about something they know nothing about. IE: "Why is there only one fire department person?" The name is a firefighter idiot not a fire department person.

So what if one of those bystanders were using a water can and standing next to the car as that tire exploded... Well you didn't have any victims but now you do. If there is nobodies life in danger, leave the work to people with proper training.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

So what if one of those bystanders were using a water can and standing next to the car as that tire exploded... Well you didn't have any victims but now you do. If there is nobodies life in danger, leave the work to people with proper training.

Of course, but if the bystanders are saying that the people with training are not competent or not coming or not doing their job, then someone has to step up. Point is, unless you can do something better than someone, don't pretend like you can or criticize their efforts.

If the civilians using the extinguisher is risky, which I know it is, how about they run it over to one of the Police Officers to give them an additional attempt at suppression?

No matter what the case, people will always film things and will always have comments. I forget the source but I recently heard that in a 24 hour period, the average person is recorded by an "undetected camera" roughly 240 times each day.

Edited March 19, 2012 by PFDRes47cue

[jack10562 414]

We'll never know who these clowns heard commenting on the video are, but that doesn't really matter, they're just ignorant. Remove the audio and watch the action and see if there is anything worthwhile to learn from viewing that, by itself. Think about is there anything you would do, or do differently, if this was your call.

What IS important to remember, as already pointed out, is the fact that "cameras are everywhere" and whatever you do (or don't do) in public may be recorded on video and wind up out there on the Web for everyone to see.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I was referring more to the fact "Why don't they call the Fire Department?" and some more of the asinine comments that got made. I am not referring to anything aimed at any FD, just that the average civilian is, well, stupid.

Where has common sense with society in general gone? Story for another day...

Careful those are future town councilors!

Joking aside, if you don't think the lay public has running commentary like this on a daily basis, you're kidding yourself, they expect a top notch professional response in 30 seconds to "huge fires" like this. Just looking professional in the eyes of the public actually can hide the inadequacies of the system and at least not damage your reputation. While we may know the VFD guy in the t-shirt had nothing to work with and no gear, clearly his actions and catching the fire on his phone didn't instill much confidence.

The reality is that perception = reality to the public. Lesson learned here? Like playing golf, sometimes it isn't about winning or losing, it's how you look doing it.

Edited March 19, 2012 by antiquefirelt

[antiquefirelt 994]

It's people like those commentators that makes you want to hunt them down and smack the with the stupid stick.

Or in the real world, you could change the part that you have control over? Those kids are likely not stupid, but have no concept of fire and firefighting. Huh, who's fault might that be? Not to worry, the majority of us are in the same boat on educating the public.

Instead of all the criticism they should join a fire department and find out why it takes the time to do the things "that take so long"

And why don't most of us go into politics and straighten out this country or go to Wall Street and fix the financial crisis? FD's and firefighters tend to be too quick to blame everyone one else. Maybe a little introspection is in order? Maybe even make a Youtube video that injects factual info into that guys original video and make it an educational video about the woes of most VFD's in daytime hours?

5 minutes for an engine to get there is good. I don't know how far they had to travel to get there or what day of the week or time of day but 5 minutes is very acceptable.

To who? I think the public decides regardless of what reality is. While this may have been just a handful of kids to start, it's now out there along for all to see. Too bad that what many may know about their FD is what they'll learn from this source, which I'm betting has far more hits than most of our FD's static web pages. Edited March 19, 2012 by antiquefirelt

[antiquefirelt 994]

A fun, and may I add legal, trick with these types of bystanders is to confiscate* their phones and cameras for "investigative purposes." This gives fire officers the chance to see the starting moments of the fire...and what you do with the pictures and videos is your prerogative.

Otherwise known as how to make a bad situation worse. You think these guys could have a poorer outlook of the VFD? Confiscate the phone and see it become their mission to show the world. Some of you need a few more years for your skin to grow a little tougher...

[grumpyff 1,159]

Stupid f'ing bystanders always have so much to say. So quick to make complaints about effort and time. Did one of them get a fire extinguisher from the store they were in and try to help out? Stupid cowards, hiding in a store front talking about something they know nothing about. IE: "Why is there only one fire department person?" The name is a firefighter idiot not a fire department person.

Work in emergency services long enough and you will hear this repeatedly. The public always thinks they know better. Here is a clip from Southland:

Edited March 19, 2012 by grumpyff

[BBBMF 158]

Besides the silly commentary from the hoohoo's taking the video; granted the PD kept the situation in check, nobody, should be getting anywhere near a burning car. The gases being given off by a vehicle and dumpster fires are worse to breathe than some residential house fires. There's also too many components ready to let go in cars, too many things that will blow up in your face to get even remotely close without full bunker gear! If it takes out another car, oh well, it is just a car! and will be replaced. eyes aren't replaced when something blows up in your face!

I may have swept the car from the other side as well just to push anything burning on the ground away from the other cars. Not a major problem but obviously if the car was fully engulfed, pushing at it from the other side may be a good idea.

[ny10570 745]

A fun, and may I add legal, trick with these types of bystanders is to confiscate* their phones and cameras for "investigative purposes." This gives fire officers the chance to see the starting moments of the fire...and what you do with the pictures and videos is your prerogative.

*I do not have a specific law that points to confiscation of cell phones or cameras (I spent an hour searching for it). However, I have been part of investigations where we have taken cell phones for the pictures and videos. If you decide to attempt to confiscate a phone or camera, make sure a police officer is accompanying you as bystanders will become angry!

Out of several dumb posts this one takes the cake. The members of this site LOVE photos and videos of fire scenes. Who do you think takes the overwhelming majority of pre arrival footage? So good, lets further the erosion of our rights to what end? So we can stop the recording of a few ill-informed observations of the general public?

And those comment! What a bunch a a-holes. What about their observations was so wrong. It took at least 6 minutes for the FD to arrive from less than 2 miles away. While not a bad response time by Westchester standards, still a long time to wait when your home is on fire. At this point is anyone still surprised people don't understand how little fire protection they have. They see a big firehouse full of vehicles and expect them to show up. Then they went on to mock the lack of PPE and firefighters. The very same things that members here have critiqued. We preach PPE, using the reach of the hose, and proper angles of attack because of the dangers inherent in car fires.

Speaking of the dangers of car fires, frequent poster and volunteer officer PFDRes47cue wants to slam them for staying back and waiting for the fire department to handle it. The nerve of these "cowards" recognizing a hazardous situation and waiting for the "professionals" to handle it. Why do we, cops and firefighters both, feel the pressing need to risk our safety just to dump $40 worth of dry chem into the grill of a car? The car is total loss. Open the car and trunk if possible, then step back and wait for a hose line.

[helicopper 1,050]

A fun, and may I add legal, trick with these types of bystanders is to confiscate* their phones and cameras for "investigative purposes." This gives fire officers the chance to see the starting moments of the fire...and what you do with the pictures and videos is your prerogative.

*I do not have a specific law that points to confiscation of cell phones or cameras (I spent an hour searching for it). However, I have been part of investigations where we have taken cell phones for the pictures and videos. If you decide to attempt to confiscate a phone or camera, make sure a police officer is accompanying you as bystanders will become angry!

A better way of expressing this may be unprofessional and illegal. You spent hours looking for it (the law) unsuccessfully because it doesn't exist.

Perhaps a better tact would be to "ask" the junior journalists to view their footage so the officers get to view this all important video/imagery. Engaging in "trickery" (your word, not mine) to deceive the public just makes us look bad and engender a climate of distrust. Instead of getting a bunch of people with videos that may be useful we will wind up with a bunch of people walking away with their cell phones in their pockets because of this deceipt.

There would be no legal grounds for confiscating those cells phones. If you did, you would open yourself up to both criminal and civil liability.

Thank you!

[xfirefighter484x 234]

Stupid f'ing bystanders always have so much to say. So quick to make complaints about effort and time. Did one of them get a fire extinguisher from the store they were in and try to help out? Stupid cowards, hiding in a store front talking about something they know nothing about. IE: "Why is there only one fire department person?" The name is a firefighter idiot not a fire department person.

Work in emergency services long enough and you will hear this repeatedly. The public always thinks they know better. Here is a clip from Southland:

Love it!

[dwcfireman 656]

There would be no legal grounds for confiscating those cells phones. If you did, you would open yourself up to both criminal and civil liability.

So, even for actual investigation concerns, I cannot take a cell phone for the pictures or videos? I'm just asking because I have been told by many fire investigators and well experienced officers that it is legal to do so (I've even witnessed it). The pictures and videos were considered evidence in those case.

I'm not trying to start an argument. If there is something I don't know, I just want to know the answer.

Edited March 19, 2012 by dwcfireman

[INIT915 1,119]

So, even for actual investigation concerns, I cannot take a cell phone for the pictures or videos? I'm just asking because I have been told by many fire investigators and well experienced officers that it is legal to do so (I've even witnessed it). The pictures and videos were considered evidence in those case.

I'm not trying to start an argument. If there is something I don't know, I just want to know the answer.

The short answer is, no. There could be very limited exceptions, all of which would involve consent or Search Warrants. These "experienced officers" you're working with are committing larceny. And, if they're actually taking it from a person, they're committing a felony larceny. To go one step further, if they are using force or threats to take them, they are committing a robbery, which is classified as a violent felony here in New York.

You can always ask a witness for their video if you think it could aid in your investigation, but you can't force them to turn it over without a judicial decree. And, taking the phone just because you don't like what a bystander is saying/doing will never give rise to the probable cause required to obtain a Search Warrant. As a backdoor way to get it, you could Subpoena the recordings with a Subpoena Duces Tecum, however in that case, they only need to provide you with a copy of what they recorded, not the actual phone.

Additionally, taking all phones from all witnesses or bystanders just because they "might" have seen something is impermissible and violates the Forth Amendment. There is a ton of caselaw on that. Feel free to LexisNexis it and you can spend days reading the cases.

[dwcfireman 656]

The short answer is, no. There could be very limited exceptions, all of which would involve consent or Search Warrants. These "experienced officers" you're working with are committing larceny. And, if they're actually taking it from a person, they're committing a felony larceny. To go one step further, if they are using force or threats to take them, they are committing a robbery, which is classified as a violent felony here in New York.

You can always ask a witness for their video if you think it could aid in your investigation, but you can't force them to turn it over without a judicial decree. And, taking the phone just because you don't like what a bystander is saying/doing will never give rise to the probable cause required to obtain a Search Warrant. As a backdoor way to get it, you could Subpoena the recordings with a Subpoena Duces Tecum, however in that case, they only need to provide you with a copy of what they recorded, not the actual phone.

Additionally, taking all phones from all witnesses or bystanders just because they "might" have seen something is impermissible and violates the Forth Amendment. There is a ton of caselaw on that. Feel free to LexisNexis it and you can spend days reading the cases.

Very interesting....I'll take a look. Thank you!

[grumpyff 1,159]

So, even for actual investigation concerns, I cannot take a cell phone for the pictures or videos? I'm just asking because I have been told by many fire investigators and well experienced officers that it is legal to do so (I've even witnessed it). The pictures and videos were considered evidence in those case.

I'm not trying to start an argument. If there is something I don't know, I just want to know the answer.

You can ask, but the owner of the phone has no legal obligation to give them to you. I was involved with an arrest at work, where we had reason to believe a cellphone of one perp held evidence (photos). Since the person was already under arrest we vouchered the phone for investigatory purposes, and convinced an Assistant District Attorney to apply for a search warrant. The ADA agreed, and a search warrant was obtained. That is the only way you can get evidence like that. Any good defense attorney will fight any evidence (photos/video from a cell phone, etc.) obtained in any questionable manor to be excluded from a trial if an arrest is made. Defense attorneys do this all the time, even with evidence where there is no question it was involved and how it was recovered.

You can not just take something from someone, there has to be a reason. For example at work, if we stop someone with a PBA card, we have been told that we, as a representative of the PBA may not confiscate these cards any more. It opens us up to complaints of larceny, even though the cards are marked by the PBA that they may be taken at any time.