abaduck

Members
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    579

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by abaduck

  1. Posted · Edited by abaduck

    Just to play devil's advocate for a minute...

    You arrive at my burning house/shed/barn and I tell you the cause of the fire was me; I started it. There's the cause, no investigation necessary. I tell you that you shouldn't endanger yourselves or your equipment to fight a fire on an empty structure. You can call the PD to have me charged with arson but I have an affirmative defense that it's my property and I have the right to destroy it.

    I don't think they would have an affirmative defence to:

    § 204-e. Unauthorized destruction of property. No individual or

    corporation having a possessory or proprietary interest in a building or

    motor vehicle within the meaning of section 150.05 of the penal law

    shall ignite a fire or cause an explosion in such building or motor

    vehicle without the prior written permission of the chief of the local

    department or fire company with the responsibility to respond to a fire

    call, or the chief's designee.

    As has already been cited.

    As for what the alleged homeowner tells the Chief... ok, how do you know that's the homeowner? How do you know it isn't a neighbour or some other enemy of the homeowner who has set the place up? Where would the FD be when they get sued from arsehole to breakfast time, and their defence is 'well some guy came up to us and told us to let it burn...'??!!

    Also, the very fact of confessing to arson would cause me to doubt the mental competence of the alleged homeowner.

    No, I think we're still fully in the realm of exigent circumstances, where a 'prudent and reasonable' person would see a need to act first and ask questions later.

    No harm in playing devil's advocate; I do the same myself on occasions. And get in trouble when I'm taken seriously! rolleyes.gif

    Mike

  2. Posted

    post-4072-0-59610600-1302307900.jpg

    You are correct, what a waste of government money to maintain any antiques (like this 125 year old antique).

    Wait. History is important. I really wish My dept had not gotten rid of some of those wonderful pieces of history that all we have left is some pictures.

    Since everyone has jumped on DFVAC as being a governmental agency, has anyone considered that they maybe a private not for profit corporation and not an arm of government.

    Oh that's a low blow Barry; difference is the gov already own that antique! rolleyes.gif

    If they're a not for profit, fine - but unless they can make a case that it's part of their business, they should go right ahead and form another non-profit dedicated to preserving old ambulances...

    Mike

  3. Posted

    Thanks to those who responded, especially Helicopper; useful thread!

    My starting point is that, regardless of common law (cited in AG report in linked thread), the one thing in statute law that I remember is that the Chief is empowered, and *required*, to attempt to determine, or cause to be determined (e.g. by calling C&O) the cause of any suspicious fire. I remember that from training.

    It seems to me that ANY fire where the property owner, or someone who claims to be the owner, is attempting to exclude the FD and prevent suppression, is rendered suspicious *by that very act*. So an investigation is *mandatory* as per statute law. And the first step in investigation is... put the damn fire out!

    Does that sound reasonable to everyone?

    Mike

  4. Posted

    ALS is spot on. This isn't a matter for the board, most especially in the present economic climate.

    If members felt that strongly about it, they could have had a whip-round or formed a charitable trust to acquire the vehicle privately. That this didn't happen suggests a lack of enthusiasm amongst the membership.

    I'm all for preserving history, and I put my money where my mouth is; I have an entire garage and basement full of ancient computers saved from scrapyards. But I don't expect to be supported by taxpayer dollars.

    Mike

    helicopper and EMSer like this

  5. Posted

    Hope a resident legal eagle can put me right here:

    There's a working structure fire. For the sake of argument, let's say it's an isolated structure; there are no threatened exposures.

    Under what circumstances, if any, can the owner of the property say: "Let it burn. I don't want it put out, get the hell of my property!"?

    I would assume that the owner has no right to direct the Chief in that manner; you don't know if it's arson, you don't know if it's a fire deliberately set to destroy evidence or cover up a serious crime. You only have the word of the owner that there's no-one in the structure.

    What does the law say? With a cite of the law, if possible.

    Thanks

    Mike

  6. Posted

    The design specifications may support driving 85 MPH but the actual paving is only safe to about 35 right now. After they repave again THIS year we'll talk. :angry:

    How can you say that about the incredible drivers that NYS produces? All that classroom training, practical experience, and comprehensive testing they go through. And don't forget the re-testing and continuing education to make sure they know the current laws.

    Hah. I'm sure I've posted about the 'seven minute rule' before....

    Whenever I drive here, I remind myself I'm surrounded by drivers, most of whom have passed a test. A test that lasts seven minutes on average, and has a 98% pass rate.

    (Back home in the UK, test lasts 45 minutes and less than 50% of those who take it, pass. And not because they're lousy drivers; because it's a real test!)

    Mike

  8. Posted

    To answer it simply..no its not enough...how many fires are they truly going to? And the core business of the fire service is FIRE PREVENTION...not Fire Suppression. The Elks are going to deliver the same community "benefits" that the fire and ems services should. Fire safety, fire prevention, injury prevention..and I could go on and on.

    Sorry Tom, you're right of course and I could have phrased it better: - I read it as the guy complaining because they weren't running enough bingo nights, cooking enough chili, cleaning enough ditches, or whatever other non-fire activity he considered 'helping the community' - that's the point I was trying to make. NOT that they should only be interested in responding to working fires!

    Mike

  9. Posted

    Hrrumph... not saying anything about the money or management sides of the story, but:

    "They do fight fires, I have to give them credit for that. When they're called, they go. But they haven't done anything that benefits the community. Nothing. All they want to do is fight fires."

    Isn't that enough? I call that concentrating on your core business.... if you want to 'benefit your community', go join the Elks...

    Mike

  11. Posted

    How did he get off with only 16 years?

    From another site:

    "The amended charge of manslaughter reflected that Burke had acted under influence of extreme emotional disturbance."

    In common language, it appears the prosecution accepted that he was genuinely as crazy as a bedbug and not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. It's hard, but it happens. Given the circumstances of the crime I'm sure they would have tried for murder if they felt they had the slightest chance of making it stick.

    Mike

    PFDRes47cue likes this

  14. Posted · Edited by abaduck

    Pockets...

    R pants:

    Bailout system

    L pants:

    Structural gloves (hate those glove keepers, seen guys fighting to get their gloves out of those)

    Colt CSAR tool (gravity knife, one-handed operation)

    Wire cutters (large blades, bit like miniature tin snips, spring-loaded to the open position, again one-handed operation)

    Small mole grips.

    R coat:

    Medic gloves

    L coat:

    Extrication gloves, if MVA.

    That's it. Anything else I need is in my hand or grabbed off a rig for a specific purpose. Door chocks etc. on helmet band; I like Tom's idea but haven't tried it yet.

    Often less is more. And don't put anything your life may depend on in your coat pockets; have you tried getting them out when wearing a pack & gloves?

    Lights... I do like having two lights, a Survivor in the usual place, and a small LED helmet light - on a rubber band, which will rip off if badly hung up. Not a fan of light boxes when working interior, except to put in a doorway to mark an exit. If it's going good you might see them, but won't see much WITH them! Agree with Tom the Vulcan is the best of them I've seen.

    Mike

  16. Posted

    Different departments use different terminology. In our department there's one Chief, who has 1st and 2nd Deputy Chiefs to support him: 2231, 2232, 2233. Captains & Lieutenants below them.

    In the normal course of events, when a Chief finishes their term, the 1st Deputy will move up a slot and serve their term as Chief. That's the command structure we have, and it has nothing to do with 'ex-Chiefs'; in our department it's the precise opposite, 'Deputy Chief' means 'former Captain, future Chief' - and I think people who post disparaging comments about 'Deputy Chiefs' should pause (before giving unintentional offense) to consider that this term doesn't mean the same thing in every department.

    Mike

  17. Posted

    60 control does nothing untill advised by the plants fire brigade and/or security. The fire brigade handels everything onsite, with their apparatus and firefighters. If help is needed, they would contact 60-control. Buchanan would be the first due deprtment.

    It's not in my district and it isn't really my business, but I'm curious. What district are they in? Who would be the AHJ over Indian Point? I seem to recall (correct me if I'm wrong), the last fire they had, the responding FD apparatus being ?held at the gate? until it was decided whether or not they would be *permitted* on-site. That sounds a queer way to run an incident scene, to say the least; you don't say 'no' to a Chief.

    Not criticizing, just trying to understand.

    Mike

  18. Posted

    1. There's no evidence a full meltdown has happened or is likely. I don't think it's likely.

    2. Radiation is a lesser evil than many others: it can be easily detected, and the precautions are well-known; time, distance, shielding.

    3. I think it's well-nigh certain that there are many first responders displaying exceptional courage in Japan at this very moment; kudos to them.

    Mike

  19. Posted

    Coming up later this month (March 19 to be exact) the moon will make its closest approach to Earth (called lunar perigee) in 18 years. A new or full moon at 90% or greater of its closest perigee to Earth has been named a "SuperMoon" by astrologer Richard Nolle.

    Can this Super Moon contribute to extreme weather?

    Extreme super moon 2011

    No. Pure unadulterated BS. Geology prof. Erik Klemetti does a good job of debunking this: http://bigthink.com/ideas/31585

    Mike

  21. Posted

    Phew. A few points to make here.

    I think you may have missed my point or I missed yours but I was saying that NY has a history of earthquakes, in-fact one that occurred several years ago was equal in magnitude to the twin towers falling on 9/11 only one came up and the other came down (two very different occurrences when looking at a seismograph). These obviously do pose a threat.

    Yes, earthquakes do sometimes happen in the north-east USA. Some are strong enough to feel. Some, although not in recent history, have been stronger. The chances of one happening strong enough to cause significant damage are vanishingly small.

    I was not saying that earthquakes don't happen, they do, but it is the tsunami that was in question. You can have earthquakes, even earthquakes out at sea that do not form tsunamis, it all depends on the depth in the crust relative to the mantel that the earthquake occurs.

    Whether or not a submarine earthquake is tsunamigenic depends primarily on the magnitude, the orientation of the fault plane, and the direction of the movement; a dip-slip or overthrust quake is much more likely to produce a significant tsunami than a strike-slip quake.

    There are the risk of super-tsunamis, just like there is the risk of the super tornado, super hurricane, super volcano. There is a much greater risk of the Super-volcano under Yellowstone (yes it is real and yes it is a major when, not if) blowing its lid then tsunami affecting the East Coast.

    I'd totally argue with that. First, the mantle plume responsible for Yellowstone moves (or more accurately, the North American plate moves relative to the hotspot), so there's no guarantee that the next big eruption will be at Yellowstone; it may be at a new location. Second, VEI 8+ eruptions on that plume have a return period of something like 600,000 - 700,000 years; that's enough for several ice age cycles, and there's evidence that ice ages and the accompanying changes in sea levels are themselves tsunamigenic; they result in unstable continental shelves. So the smart money has to be on the tsunami.

    The super-tsunami you describe actually can not be reliably or accurately described by seismology, instead it falls into the field of study of volcanology, a much more fledgling and developing science.

    Whoa. They're both parts of geology, and volcanology is pretty good these days; we're much, MUCH better at predicting eruptions than earthquakes!

    While the conclusions are no less valid, the fact of the mater is we are not be to accurately study these so called super storms, while we can use models to predict, they are rarely, if ever accurate of what the true effects would be. One final point, if you are concerned about this, then you should be doubly concerned with the melting and degradation of continental ice sheets because if a large enough chunk of ice breaks off and falls into the ocean creating your 200ft tsunami wave. The rate that the climate is shifting and warming up is significantly higher than the rate that the Canary Islands are exploding since humans came along.

    I'm not going to touch that with a bargepole!

    Mike

  23. Posted · Edited by abaduck

    I read a book about 2 years ago that talked about that very subject Barry. A volcanic event that caused a part of the island to split,fall into the ocean and cause a 200 ft Tsunami that would hit the east coast. The scientific community is split on this from what I remember.

    Probably 'Apocalypse' by Bill McGuire. Definitely worth reading.

    Yes, definitely split about the precise mechanism. The flank of the volcano has failed before and will fail again; the doubt is whether or not it can fail as a single large 'chunk' with the catastrophic consequences described. There *have* been large submarine slides before, unrelated to earthquakes, which have caused devastating tsunami. Hawai'i has seen this type of event on several occasions in the past million years, and only a few thousand years ago a tsunami devastated much of north-east Scotland following the 'Storegga slide' off the coast of Norway.

    In general, humans have a false sense of security about their place on this planet. We (as a species) have never experienced a truly devastating geological event; the last 'big one' was the Toba VEI 8 eruption, 70,000 years ago. But the geological record clearly shows our planet is capable of producing them. Events like this tsunami are a *small* reminder.

    Mike (qualified geologist!)