FFLieu

Truck Carrying Frozen Fruit Bars Gets Stuck Under Purchase Street Bridge

Snack time!

A newspaper called The Chief comes out on Thursdays. Usually, in the back, there are all the local civil service listings and exam announcements. If you're looking to go Federal, goto www.usajobs.gov. Also, the NYPD seems to always have an exam going; you can always take that to get your foot in the door.

It's very easy to Monday morning Quarterback, especially when it involves a situation that garnered much in the way of press coverage and its associated still and video documenation. I'm pretty familiar with that bridge as well as its surrounding environs, and I know that if I were the MPO on one of the responding units, I would be more than just hesitant to park a rather expensive piece of equipment that close to the river or on a rather precarious pier. (Let's face it: NYC doesn't really take care of its infrastructure all too well...) But, the situation begs the question: at the end of the day, did the job come to a successful end? The bridge didn't collapse and its servicability remains intact, and at the height of the evening rush, there wasn't too much in the way of lingering delays, which is a big plus, so I'd say that it was a good stop. Regardless of the methodology used, or even what, according to the textbook, would be the optimal methodology to use in the situation, the ends definitely justified the means yesterday.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if all this started when the former GPD Chief found out that he was the lowest paid Chief, and now that in his retirement, he is collecting a pension (potentially) all while serving as the current Police Chief of another, adjacent jurisdiction, doesn't that render the initial argument moot since he is probably now the highest paid Chief?

So after 5 very trying years, 2 government hiring freezes, mandatory eye surgery, and lots of "hurry up and wait," I finally got the phone call that I am being hired by the ATF. But, I'm being assigned to Atlanta, GA. That's pretty far away and definitely a place where the stereotypical NYC-type guy would stick out like a sore thumb. I'm a little scared, although my fiancée is more than happy to come with me, as she sees it as an adventure. I guess I'm posting to see what, if anything, everyone thinks about the city and its environs. Where are the good places to live? What is it truly like? I've done a little research by Googling some different topics related to Atlanta, but I found so many varying different degrees of information that I came away not knowing what was what. If anyone could help point me in the right direction, I would be more than appreciative.

I guess that could be said for just about everything. You gotta love how stupid some people are to think that they'll get away with shining something like a laser at an aircraft or even the body of a LEO. Someone did that a few years ago at Yankee Stadium. I can't remember if they were caught or not, but it's just absolutely crazy that someone would even consider doing something like that.

What's next? In-home uses for the same laser that they used when I had my PRK done 2 years ago? Like firearms, is there anyway to regulate the sale and use of lasers?

And having someone risking injury in the back of a moving rig while doing manual CPR (usually unbelted due to the fact that most so-called CPR seats are useless for that very purpose) is criminal. ... Back to the point of the thread, RLS to the ED if you have interventions in place and timewise earlier arrival won't make a difference IMHO constitutes negligent and potentially criminal conduct if something happens. Period.

How exactly would it be "criminal" if I were following the exact letter of the vehicle and traffic law (in my case, NJSA Title 39), yielding to every traffic control device, and operating my rig with the same due regard set forth within the context of those very laws? Clearly, I cannot be branded a criminal if I am within the scope of an already established - and constitutional - law.

I think it depends on the type of call and the time of day. Am I going to a fall-down-go-boom call at 3am when there's no one on the road or am I going to a CPR in progress during rush hour or at the height of the Saturday afternoon mall traffic? There needs to be a bit of a level of common sense when you use lights and sirens. Just because you may feel as if you need to go full-out, ba**s-to-the-wall in response, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe; you have to take into consideration other cars, pedestrians, and the like, because you might inadvertently cause another EMS call in addition to the one you're going to already. It's like I tell my people: if you get hurt on your way to the job, you're useless to the person who needs help.

I still don't understand how a civil service exam, designed to test an applicant's basic aptitudes, can be construed as discriminatory. As one poster said, according to the law, if too many minorities get a particular question wrong, then it is considered a discriminatory question. But isn't basic aptitude something that is taught (and hopefully learned) in school? Could it be that the school system in NYC is more to blame and not necessarily the fire department?

Discrimination in hiring is saying something on the examination announcement like "Minorities need not apply." However, questions on an exam and the related demographics of those who answered it, either successfully or not, is not discrimination in hiring. We all live in a society where it is too easy to sue, and even easier to cry racism, especially if those who feel slighted are a member of a protected class. Except being too litigious, and anything but moderate in the application of law, will lead to disasterous consequences. This is just another technique to pander to and to pacify a group whose sole existence is to further the concept that anything that goes against their beliefs is, and must be, racism. The sad reality of these rulings will be in several years when we see more instances of fire-related deaths because the newest crops of recruits may not have even been qualified for the job in the first place. It will lead to the watering down of the department, sadly, and it will have grave consequences on the public.

I'm sorry, but I am a firm believer in shared costs, meaning that everyone should pay at least something toward health insurance. If it costs me an extra $50 a check to subsidize my health insurance, and in the long run, I can alleviate some of the strain on my department and the taxpayers who support it, thereby potentially saving a job or jobs, then I am all for it. The private sector does it, and in this day and age, maybe the public sector should, too. We may have to foot some upfront costs, but in the long run, it might just be a better situation in the end.

Enough won't be enough, sadly, until people like us take a stand and remove our current crop of politicians from office. They simply do not care, but make the appearance that they do so that they can garner enough votes to assume office and then subsequently live off some lobbyist's dime. For a good year after 9/11, everyone flew the flag and uttered the words "never forget." But as we've gone forward, it's far too evident both in politics and in society that we as a people really have forgotten; all the flags are neatly tucked away and now we're slowly turning our backs on the people who need us today the way we needed them years ago. Frankly, it's a sin. Where are all the people who made impassioned speeches about how the nation will heal together as one? Where are all the politicians who said that they'd fight for every 9/11 responder who developed long-lasting effects from the conditions at ground zero? Oh yeah, that's right, they're too busy taking vacations on Memorial Day, skipping the wreath-laying at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers, and generally forgetting that it's people like us who put them where they are today. So let us "never forget" and remember this on Election Day for the next however many years it takes to change our elected officials.

A friend of mine from high school was killed by a drunk driver, so I have very strong feelings about DUI/DWI penalties. Namely, they're not strong enough.

Another former friend of mine was in a near fatal accident a couple of years ago while under the influence. All she received (aside from what are likely to be lifetime injuries) was a loss of her license for 6 months. She had to attend a drunk-driver class run by DMV, and she had to pay a whole bunch of insurance surcharges in addition to the DMV-imposed license restoration charges. All of it was for naught and she still, to this day, drives under the influence.

The more we slap people on the wrists for DUI/DWI related incidents, the more they become complacent to the law; thus, the cycle continues, perpetuating more victims like my friend who was killed. Anyone picked up for DUI/DWI should receive a mandatory jail sentence of 6 months for the first offense, a year for the second offense, two years for the third offense, and so on. Maybe then people will take it more seriously, as it won't just be a "driving offense" (like it is in NJ), it will be a criminal offense.

Taking the controversy surrounding the war out of the picture for a moment, how can a supposed "Christian" group desecrate the funeral of one of "God's Children?" Sounds a bit contradictory, if I may say. In life, no parent is supposed to bury his or her child, and for this poor soul to have to pay the legal costs for a group of people who chose to disrespect the funeral for a man who died as a member of the same military that formed so that these very people could have religious freedom is a slap in the face and smacks of the rather disgusting extreme-liberal turn that this country has taken since November 4, 2008.

They're all clowns, regardless of party. My theory of Dems and Reps is this: D= Depression and R=Recession. They're all self-serving people who pander to us - the voters - so that they can get elected, and then screw us the second they're seated in office. All I can say is that the true concept of having a government by and for the people of this great country has become muddied and obscured over the last 50 or so years because of the actions of these "career politicians."

And as far as being fined for breaking the law, that's fine by me (no pun intended), so long as the law is constitutional; sadly, in this case, it appears, to me, at least, that the clause regarding fines does not fall in line with the tenets of the US Constitution.

and I do not have express written concent to say it, so I will quote it and it goes for both Career and Volly "QTIP" . Have fun and learn something on here but dont let it ruin one minute of your day.

I agree, but I think the whole QTIP thing is a bit overused. Sure, there are some who take things to a degree higher than what was originally intended, but you'll find that everywhere. But, there are some who hide behind it. It's like cursing someone off and then when they get mad, saying "oh, QTIP." Just because QTIP is something that you see all over internet message boards such as this doesn't necessarily mean that it's a catch-all for statements made in poor taste.

This is what I don't understand. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 83% of the population is currently insured in some way, shape, or form. The bill passes and as a result, we, the American Taxpayer, are forced to spend $938 Billion in a recession economy so that we can increase the insurance roles by only 12 percent. Ahh, Marxism at its best, saying nothing regarding the unconstitutionality of heavily fining those who choose not to carry insurance. Beginning in 2014, those not carrying insurance will be fined $95 a year or 0.5 percent of a household’s income, whichever is greater; in 2015, it will be $495 or 1 percent of income; in 2016, it will be $750 or 2 percent of income (with a maximum of $2,250 for a family). The penalty would be adjusted for inflation after 2016.

Anyone want to jump on the bandwagon with me and make this clown a 1-term President?

At the risk of getting a few malicious negatives (like the ones I got when someone actually looked me up and then negatively rated a thread that I had started LAST YEAR), not that I care too much anyway, I'd like to come out and say that I think the whole membership rating system is nothing more than a popularity contest that contributes nothing to the board. The whole point to the board is to debate the issues; if you agree and would be inclined to rate a post or thread positive, you don't have to say anything other than "I agree." Conversely, if you disagree, and would be inclined to rate it negatively, then it just seems better to debate the issue.

Hey now, Webster's Dictionary has a well known union bias, and is an anti-volunteer rag.

The same can be said, or at least construed, about certain other entities that are a tad bit closer to home.

It might not be the best motto out there, or the flashiest, but it might just serve some kind of purpose in perhaps mobilizing ordinary townsfolk into joining the department that maybe they didn't know was volunteer.

Hello.

Im from Florida. I'm in the military. I'm also part of a volunteer fire company. I was wondering can I get my own VFF badge without having to worry about the laws and what not ? I'll really appreciate the input.

Thanks.

I'm sure the MPs on your base have a few extras lying around. Be sure to let them know about "not wanting to worry about the laws." Maybe they can hook ya up.

There's nothing wrong with an out-of-the-box solution to an exigent problem, especially in light of a situation such as this one, in which "time is life" so-to-speak. While it's not the most conventional method, and probably shouldn't be done in a majority of the situations, it was appropriate, especially since the patient is alive today. A CPR save is no small feat given the best of situations in which there are little or no complications; take what happened in the snow storm and then couple it with the favorable outcome, and everyone involved deserves a hats off.

1) Can you show which post or posts have been claiming that any department (by name, type or community) is inferior?

2) Cheif Flynn asked about coverage and found out that some depts go to Lake george and later on found that they go for 4 days. Again, does this claim they are providing shoddy service? If they are covering there districts then the only question is do they tell the taxpayers that this is something the dept spends there tax money on?

3) Do you really need to go to every fire to know if a dept is doing a good job? Or can you listen to 60 Control toning them out for the 3rd time for any available driver, or see here that it took 5 departments to respond to a 1 line fire? Or look at there state fire training records (which are available to every MTO) and see that there are depts that are not even meeting the minimum standards that the law requires. Or looking at the ISO ratings that show how many depts are scoring 20% on an open book test (at last count i think it was 32 depts in Westchester that were ISO 9 or Partial 9).

1.) See KCRD's post from 11:11 this morning. He says it, using the word inferior. I raised that issue back at him.

2.) See KCRD's post from 11:11 this morning. Again, he uses the word inferior. I substituted the word shoddy in this instance.

3.) Who appointed you, JFlynn, or your respective "boys" the judges and juries with respect to how a department other than your own is doing? Don't you think that's the business of each other departments' Chiefs, Board of Fire Commissioners, Members, and most importantly, residents themselves? Unless you or a loved one lives in a district that you know provides inferior service (again, KCRD's word), why is there the constant gripe about what the volunteers do, their staffing issues, their response times, and all the other bullcrap? I've met paid guys who are worth their salt and I've met volunteers who are worth their salt. Conversely, I've met some paid guys who are pretty useless and I've met some volunteers who are pretty useless. That said, no one can paint the opposing side with a broad brush. And that includes coming on here and demanding to know answers to questions that have been killed ten times over in the past. How would you like it if I listened to 60 one day when you were getting slammed and I came on here to raise questions about YOUR department? I'm pretty sure it would piss you off. And I'm pretty sure it would piss you off if I came on here every third day to talk smack - in general - about your "brothers." We all put the wet stuff on the red stuff, we're all "brothers;" who gives a flying crap what side of the line we're on, and who gives a flying crap about a parade? Don't you think department leadership is responsible enough to maybe perhaps CANCEL their participation in the particular parade if it came to light that their immediate jurisdiction was left short? Nobody ever mentioned that, now did they?

("give me facts," "I want specifics,")

Since when is asking for facts or specifics arrogance? If you make a claim about the service you provide or qualification you have, you should also be able to back up that claim with facts. An attorney has to provide facts to back up the things they say in court. They cant just tell the jury "he's innocent because I say so" Also, this thread was started with no particular department being singled out, but a few have taken offense. Why is that? Others provided answers and it was left at that.

"thanks for what you do, but I have a question regarding x issue"),

Why should someone be thanked for providing an inferior service (career or vollie)? Should a chief say to a taxpayer " you should thank us, we made a great stop and saved the foundation"

If I came up in your face and consistently asked for the above, I'm willing to bet that you'd tell me exactly where I could go. And who are you to say that anyone other than yourself or members of your own department are providing an inferior service? Are you at every other fire that occurs, critiquing them in the instant moment, or do you rely solely on what you read in an effort to call another department's response and service shoddy? See? This is the exact core of the problem that I raised. Unless you're at every single instance of a fire, which is impossible, then you cannot beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt say that anyone other than yourself provided any kind of service, good or bad.

Can we at least agree that there are issues (like response times, staffing levels, and other things) that need to be addressed?

There may be issues, but that's not totally my beef. Ever hear of the phrase, "it's not really what you say, but how you say it?" When a person consistently comes online to hammer the same general topics over and over and over and over again, all with a perceived arrogance within the tone of the questions posed ("give me facts," "I want specifics," "I want to know," "I want, I want, I want, give me, give me, give me," etc. and not "thanks for what you do, but I have a question regarding x issue"), it is going to rankle feathers. Yes, I made a couple of "snide" remarks, mainly because this baby crap-on-the-vollies-because-they're-not-truly-part-of-the-brotherhood stuff that has proliferated on here ad-nauseum needs to stop. Every last post of his is nit-picky on the part of the volunteers and after reading it day in and day out, I finally said something. As a volunteer, I take great pride in what I do and I have an awful lot of respect for the people who volunteer in their community, doing so not for a paycheck, but because they want to help their fellow neighbor. Now, just like how I would probably encounter the crapstorm of a lifetime if I came on here and consistently had something nit-picky to say about career guys - for instance maybe saying something like how career fire fighters sit around all day watching TV, doing nothing except waiting for the next job to come in (which, for the record is NOT my belief) - I think it should work the other way, too. QTIPs generally only go so far until they start invading the brain, at which time they usually become rather irritating.

As for the rest, you know why I picked up on the undercurrents of volunteerism; a majority of your posts have to do with issues or supposed issues that are only resident within the volunteer system. (Response times, staffing levels, and the implications that a regionalized and consolidated - and no doubt career - department would better serve those in the Northern areas of Westchester county [the volunteer districts], to name a few.) While you didn't explicitly use the word "volunteer," you didn't have to; anyone who has ever read any of your past posts and then read this thread knows exactly what you were getting at.