dwcfireman

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

This may be a dumb question, but why on God's Green Earth would anyone want to camoflage or otherwise make it more difficult to find a hydrant that happens to be placed in front of their property? Saying nothing of the fact that most likely, the hydrant was there before the homeowner purchased the property (so if it was that much of an eyesore, then why purchase the property at all), but in most cases (or at least in my own case), the close physical proximity of the hydrant to the residence is actually an insurance benefit.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Having a heavy background in chemistry and physics, I don't agree with the fact that a fire that has been extinguished cannot re-kindle. You can put the fire out, but if enough heat persists, and the fuel and oxygen is there, something as simple as a light breeze can "re-kindle" that fire.
From you're thorough explanation, however, I do agree that #3 is a good bet. I've done enough surround-and-drowns to know that sometimes the fire can be too stubborn.

Let's take a step back and look at what science has to say...The father's actions are justifably correct. Primal instinct (don't forget that we humans are still animals) is to protect your home and family no matter the circumstance. A close relative of ours, the gorilla, is even deadlier than we are. Then again, the gorilla has no laws to abide by.
I'm not saying this particular father was right, but I'm not going to say he was wrong. So now I'm going to ask what your instinct would be (DO NOT answer this question publicly. Please keep this in your own head.) What would you do with the molestor? Let him go? Beat him up a little? Kick the living snot out of him? Shove a double barrel shotgun down his throat and pull the trigger? Just because the human mind is much more advanced and capable of several dimentions of thought doesn't mean that someone will pause long enough to choose the action that society has deemed acceptable. Again, we are animals, and what ever you decide to do is the right thing to do at the moment. This case isn't pre-meditated murder, nor is it really any type of murder case. The father simply secured his role as the alpha male and protected his home and family. If you can't grasp this concept, highly I suggest watching the History Channel and Discovery Channel.

It's extremely sad to see that this is the way that youth culture is going. I take personal shame as this strikes close to my home. The sad reality is now kids can get away with anything, and you CANNOT retaliate. And I will never say that it's because kids are getting smarter. THEY'RE NOT! It's because they're getting more manipulative, thus you can't discipline them the way they need to be. Heck, if I ever acted out like these kids did my father would have beat my @$$ to a bloody pulp!

Let's take a step back and look at what science has to say...The father's actions are justifably correct. Primal instinct (don't forget that we humans are still animals) is to protect your home and family no matter the circumstance. A close relative of ours, the gorilla, is even deadlier than we are. Then again, the gorilla has no laws to abide by.
I'm not saying this particular father was right, but I'm not going to say he was wrong. So now I'm going to ask what your instinct would be (DO NOT answer this question publicly. Please keep this in your own head.) What would you do with the molestor? Let him go? Beat him up a little? Kick the living snot out of him? Shove a double barrel shotgun down his throat and pull the trigger? Just because the human mind is much more advanced and capable of several dimentions of thought doesn't mean that someone will pause long enough to choose the action that society has deemed acceptable. Again, we are animals, and what ever you decide to do is the right thing to do at the moment. This case isn't pre-meditated murder, nor is it really any type of murder case. The father simply secured his role as the alpha male and protected his home and family. If you can't grasp this concept, highly I suggest watching the History Channel and Discovery Channel.

I'm glad you brought this up....Cirrus' CAPS ballistic parachute actually penatrates the skin of the aircraft when deployed. And, to make it more interesting/fun, Cirrus aircraft are all composite materials. Therefore, when the parachute deploys, now you have shards of carbon fiber and other composite materials everywhere. COMPOSITE SHARDS ARE EXTREMELY SHARP!!!!!!
Another thing, too, and the training videos usually cover this, but if the parachute is deployed it can be flattened to the ground by spraying a wide fog stream on the chute itself (spraying from the top of the canopy towards the aircraft). The weight of the water will lay down the chute and prevent a wind gust from dragging the plane and everyone around it away.

I do recurrent training on these airbags every year as part of my ARFF recertification, and they're quite impressive. just want to bring up a few points for everyone:
1) They operate in the same fashion as airbags in cars.
2) Aircraft manufacturers are starting to move towards 3-point harness style seatbelts. Cirrus Aircraft has been doing this for years, and the rest of the industry is starting to follow suit. Newer aircraft will have these belts, however, there is a lot of older planes out there that are still airworthy, and there is no mandate to retrofit them with harness style seat belts or airbags.
3) Airbags on the harness style belts are installed on the 2 shoulder straps, whereas airbags retorfitted to "car" style seatbelts have 1 bag on the shoulder strap.
Another thing to be weary of is ballistic parachute deployment systems. All Cirrus aircraft are equipped with this system, and many planes are retrofitted the parachutes. You can go to the website http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx to learn more about this system.
Cirrus also has it's website, http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachute#products, where you can view many of the new safety systems that aircraft manufacturers are using.

BRS Ballistic Parachutes makes parachute deployment system (Ballistic parachute system) that can be installed new or retrofitted into older aircraft. Currently they provide units for Cessna and Cirrus. They have a website for first responders:
http://brsparachutes.com/first_responders.aspx
In Cessna’s, when activated, the parachute is deployed by a rocket and blows out the rear window. An un-deployed rocket can be dangerous if disturbed or found at a crash site.
They also have a guide for emergency responders
http://brsparachutes.com/files/brsparachutes/files/First%20Responders.pdf

I do recurrent training on these airbags every year as part of my ARFF recertification, and they're quite impressive. just want to bring up a few points for everyone:
1) They operate in the same fashion as airbags in cars.
2) Aircraft manufacturers are starting to move towards 3-point harness style seatbelts. Cirrus Aircraft has been doing this for years, and the rest of the industry is starting to follow suit. Newer aircraft will have these belts, however, there is a lot of older planes out there that are still airworthy, and there is no mandate to retrofit them with harness style seat belts or airbags.
3) Airbags on the harness style belts are installed on the 2 shoulder straps, whereas airbags retorfitted to "car" style seatbelts have 1 bag on the shoulder strap.
Another thing to be weary of is ballistic parachute deployment systems. All Cirrus aircraft are equipped with this system, and many planes are retrofitted the parachutes. You can go to the website http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx to learn more about this system.
Cirrus also has it's website, http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachute#products, where you can view many of the new safety systems that aircraft manufacturers are using.

I do recurrent training on these airbags every year as part of my ARFF recertification, and they're quite impressive. just want to bring up a few points for everyone:
1) They operate in the same fashion as airbags in cars.
2) Aircraft manufacturers are starting to move towards 3-point harness style seatbelts. Cirrus Aircraft has been doing this for years, and the rest of the industry is starting to follow suit. Newer aircraft will have these belts, however, there is a lot of older planes out there that are still airworthy, and there is no mandate to retrofit them with harness style seat belts or airbags.
3) Airbags on the harness style belts are installed on the 2 shoulder straps, whereas airbags retorfitted to "car" style seatbelts have 1 bag on the shoulder strap.
Another thing to be weary of is ballistic parachute deployment systems. All Cirrus aircraft are equipped with this system, and many planes are retrofitted the parachutes. You can go to the website http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx to learn more about this system.
Cirrus also has it's website, http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachute#products, where you can view many of the new safety systems that aircraft manufacturers are using.

I served 8 years between the VA & NY National Guard.... I am very Proud to see that my son has joined the United States Army!

WAAAAAY TOO MANY guys on that roof given the volume of fire and the amount of time it was burning.
If it was a wood trussed roof, which it looks like it very well could be, there should be NO people on the roof.
We fire service people have been arguing against lightweight wood trusses for many years now. Let's not prove our argument correct by losing two or three companies through a roof that we know will only last 20 minutes.
Going defensive when encountering a worker in this type of building is not due to a lack of courage, it is the proof that we are right and the building trades are wrong.

Taken from the Valley Breeze Newsparper in RI: http://www.valleybreeze.com/2012/05/02/cl/what-is-a-firefighter-worth
(*)

Give that lady a podium and have her read that on national television.

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.

This I can definitely identify with this. I know firefighters with the Rochester FD, and they used the Quint/Midi system for years.
And to everybody...Thank you. All of your answers are making it a little clearer for me.
On another note...Meet my first love. Q560 from Honeoye Falls, NY (30 minutes south of Rochester). She's the last RD Murray off the line, and I've put out more fires using this beast than any other piece of apparatus.
**This is not the reason I brought up this topic. Before I moved to Westchester I was the Lieutenant on this bad@$, and it exceeds the standard for being a quint, hence being QUINT 560. I raised the question because I've never heard the term "quint" used as an apparatus designator in Westchester.