Officer Ed

He wouldn't be any worse than the clown we have in the white house now.

IS it just me or does that yellow stripe look a little too much like it should say "DO NOT CROSS" on it?

I was not aware of the animosity between some regular FFs and volunteer FFs until I began to read these forums. Perhaps things are different "back east", but out here in the wild west, volunteer firefighters are required to have the exact same training and certifications that the full-timers do.
We don't have volunteer firefighters in the metropolitan areas, but only in rural parts of the state. Without them, those areas would be completely without fire protection and first-responder medical care. I consider volunteers who give up so much of their time - and even put their lives on the line for the public - to be true heroes.
We also have reserve police officers who attend the same police academies and get the same continuing training as regular officers. They do the same job...they just don't get paid and they don't do it full time.
Now, having said the above, what I see as the only real difference between the volunteers and the full-timers like me (at least here in the west), is that we full-timers do this 10 hours a day, every day....and the volunteers do it maybe a couple of times a month. When you're doing a job every day, you're BOUND to be better at it than someone who only does it occasionally. But I think we should support the idea of the volunteers getting as much training as possible because when the fecal matter hits the air-movement device, we're both in the business of serving and protecting the public.

I was not aware of the animosity between some regular FFs and volunteer FFs until I began to read these forums. Perhaps things are different "back east", but out here in the wild west, volunteer firefighters are required to have the exact same training and certifications that the full-timers do.
We don't have volunteer firefighters in the metropolitan areas, but only in rural parts of the state. Without them, those areas would be completely without fire protection and first-responder medical care. I consider volunteers who give up so much of their time - and even put their lives on the line for the public - to be true heroes.
We also have reserve police officers who attend the same police academies and get the same continuing training as regular officers. They do the same job...they just don't get paid and they don't do it full time.
Now, having said the above, what I see as the only real difference between the volunteers and the full-timers like me (at least here in the west), is that we full-timers do this 10 hours a day, every day....and the volunteers do it maybe a couple of times a month. When you're doing a job every day, you're BOUND to be better at it than someone who only does it occasionally. But I think we should support the idea of the volunteers getting as much training as possible because when the fecal matter hits the air-movement device, we're both in the business of serving and protecting the public.

I was not aware of the animosity between some regular FFs and volunteer FFs until I began to read these forums. Perhaps things are different "back east", but out here in the wild west, volunteer firefighters are required to have the exact same training and certifications that the full-timers do.
We don't have volunteer firefighters in the metropolitan areas, but only in rural parts of the state. Without them, those areas would be completely without fire protection and first-responder medical care. I consider volunteers who give up so much of their time - and even put their lives on the line for the public - to be true heroes.
We also have reserve police officers who attend the same police academies and get the same continuing training as regular officers. They do the same job...they just don't get paid and they don't do it full time.
Now, having said the above, what I see as the only real difference between the volunteers and the full-timers like me (at least here in the west), is that we full-timers do this 10 hours a day, every day....and the volunteers do it maybe a couple of times a month. When you're doing a job every day, you're BOUND to be better at it than someone who only does it occasionally. But I think we should support the idea of the volunteers getting as much training as possible because when the fecal matter hits the air-movement device, we're both in the business of serving and protecting the public.

I was not aware of the animosity between some regular FFs and volunteer FFs until I began to read these forums. Perhaps things are different "back east", but out here in the wild west, volunteer firefighters are required to have the exact same training and certifications that the full-timers do.
We don't have volunteer firefighters in the metropolitan areas, but only in rural parts of the state. Without them, those areas would be completely without fire protection and first-responder medical care. I consider volunteers who give up so much of their time - and even put their lives on the line for the public - to be true heroes.
We also have reserve police officers who attend the same police academies and get the same continuing training as regular officers. They do the same job...they just don't get paid and they don't do it full time.
Now, having said the above, what I see as the only real difference between the volunteers and the full-timers like me (at least here in the west), is that we full-timers do this 10 hours a day, every day....and the volunteers do it maybe a couple of times a month. When you're doing a job every day, you're BOUND to be better at it than someone who only does it occasionally. But I think we should support the idea of the volunteers getting as much training as possible because when the fecal matter hits the air-movement device, we're both in the business of serving and protecting the public.

I was not aware of the animosity between some regular FFs and volunteer FFs until I began to read these forums. Perhaps things are different "back east", but out here in the wild west, volunteer firefighters are required to have the exact same training and certifications that the full-timers do.
We don't have volunteer firefighters in the metropolitan areas, but only in rural parts of the state. Without them, those areas would be completely without fire protection and first-responder medical care. I consider volunteers who give up so much of their time - and even put their lives on the line for the public - to be true heroes.
We also have reserve police officers who attend the same police academies and get the same continuing training as regular officers. They do the same job...they just don't get paid and they don't do it full time.
Now, having said the above, what I see as the only real difference between the volunteers and the full-timers like me (at least here in the west), is that we full-timers do this 10 hours a day, every day....and the volunteers do it maybe a couple of times a month. When you're doing a job every day, you're BOUND to be better at it than someone who only does it occasionally. But I think we should support the idea of the volunteers getting as much training as possible because when the fecal matter hits the air-movement device, we're both in the business of serving and protecting the public.

Even before this event and the recent charter change, the EOC had one seat for the 5 volunteer fire department's and one seat for the city fire department. The EOC under several directors has never taken the other districts seriously and it has lead to some interesting storm responses. Now to be fair, when asked to send someone into the EOC, the VFD's didn't always take it seriously either, it is rare that I see an actual chief officer there with the rest.
The fact remains that this being the first major drill under the new spirit of cooperation, it is questionable why some departments were left out.

There are plenty of volly chiefs who are certified beyond the credentials that you specify. There are plenty who aren't. There are also plenty of career chiefs that litter suburbia with the minimum certifications required to attain the position, who have been placed there through political influence and have no business commanding a girl scout troop selling cookies let alone let alone a fire-rescue response. Your post seems to be more pointed towards a vollie vs. career discussion rather than actually having data to support whether or not volunteer chiefs in a particular municipality have the appropriate certifications to attend a training event that could potentially improve the outcome of an emergency that may occur in their first due response area.

The right of WHOM shall not be abridged? "THE PEOPLE." What "people"? Law-abiding U.S. citizens.
I think the words as written are clear enough, but for added emphasis:
In the fairly recent SCOTUS decision in Washington, D.C. v. Heller:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes
2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
3. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
4. None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
So, no "Consttitutional scholars" can legitimately "refute my statements thoroughly." Facts are facts and truth is truth. Neither are subject to "opinion.".

The right of WHOM shall not be abridged? "THE PEOPLE." What "people"? Law-abiding U.S. citizens.
I think the words as written are clear enough, but for added emphasis:
In the fairly recent SCOTUS decision in Washington, D.C. v. Heller:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes
2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
3. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
4. None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
So, no "Consttitutional scholars" can legitimately "refute my statements thoroughly." Facts are facts and truth is truth. Neither are subject to "opinion.".

You're correct. The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in the 80s on behalf of the mentally ill, alleging that the government had no right to institutionalize them against their will...even if it was to protect them. The SCOTUS agreed, and the doors to the institutions were thrown open. That was when the "homeless" problem began.
Now, there must be proof that the person is a threat to themselves or to others for them to be institutionalized....and even then it's a revolving door.
Clearly, more gun laws are not the answer. Every mass shooter was already breaking numerous gun laws, and almost all of them were already legally prohibited from possessing firearms. All of the shootings occurred in "Gun Free Zones." The fact is that gun laws merely serve to disarm the law-abiding and make it harder for them to defend themselves from the nutcases.

But let's not discuss gun laws.....because the 2nd amendment guarantees organized militia members may own them. How many militias are left in the U.S.? Oh, that's right......ZERO.
No offense, but you're demonstrating a woeful misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms. It does not require membership in any sort of militia, organized or otherwise.
I have been a Constitutional scholar for decades. Luckily, the authors of the Constitution were prolific writers and their letters are available for study and research to determine their intent.
During the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, a militia was nothing more than ordinary citizens deciding to band together for some purpose, There WERE NO "organized" militias. However, this is a moot point because the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that to keep and bear arms citizens must be in a militia, it says citizens can keep and bear arms IN CASE they might wish to join a militia.
Probably the 2nd most misunderstood term in the 2nd Amendment is "well regulated." The American left wants to claim that this means legal regulations. It doesn't. In the vernacular of the times, "well regulated" meant "well TRAINED."

You just hit the nail squarely on the head. These psychos want to BE somebody. They want to be known, remembered, to go down in history. So, when they see the media making household names out of other mass murderers, they see their chance to finally be famous.
If the media would stop making these guys famous, the shootings would stop.

You just hit the nail squarely on the head. These psychos want to BE somebody. They want to be known, remembered, to go down in history. So, when they see the media making household names out of other mass murderers, they see their chance to finally be famous.
If the media would stop making these guys famous, the shootings would stop.

How about we just make schools "GUN FREE ZONES"?
Oh, wait............

You just hit the nail squarely on the head. These psychos want to BE somebody. They want to be known, remembered, to go down in history. So, when they see the media making household names out of other mass murderers, they see their chance to finally be famous.
If the media would stop making these guys famous, the shootings would stop.

How about we just make schools "GUN FREE ZONES"?
Oh, wait............

Honestly I don't see the problem with this, it's not like they are trying to mitigate the situation or take down the gunman. Sure doors can be breached, but most gunman aren't carrying around forcible entry tools with them just multiple weapons and ammo. These sickos are trying to inflict maximum damage in minimal time because they know sooner than later there will be armed response, something like this that slows them down could make them move on to try and find another target or buy precious time while law enforcement is en route in order to save lives. It's not like these people think they have found a solution to school shootings. Plenty of times in these instances you hear about teachers and students barricading themselves inside classrooms, this is just another method to accomplish just that. Why bash it if it could save lives? If your child was stuck in that room would you prefer if the teacher was just trying to hold the door shut from the inside or if they actually had a device like this to better accomplish the same task?
On top of all this, when is the national news media going to stop plastering these killers faces all over the place granting them their fifteen minutes of fame? It only further emboldens others to commit similar acts. Knowing they will achieve some infamy and exposure as they escape their own perceived notions of insignificance is a lot of what drives these lunatics. The media is more concerned with selling papers than they are with common sense and the safety of the public.

It's my understanding from articles I've read that the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR) is miffed because some items hint that we were attacked by radical Muslims on 9/11.....when everyone knows that it was actually Norwegian fishermen.

It's my understanding from articles I've read that the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR) is miffed because some items hint that we were attacked by radical Muslims on 9/11.....when everyone knows that it was actually Norwegian fishermen.

We respond to ALL calls of trouble, including reports of fire. That is SOP, policy, or whatever you want to call it.
We do not FIGHT fires. That is the job of our brother and sister firefighters. However, we do observe and report until the firefighters arrive. We then back off and do crowd control, traffic control, or whatever.
I can't comment on what heppened with the two injured NYPD officers but, if I had to guess, it would be that they responded to the trouble call and were confronted with an already out-of-control fire.
"First responder" means what it says. Police officers are first responders and MAY arrive at fires before the fire department. Sometimes that has disasterous consequences....but that's the nature of the job.

We respond to ALL calls of trouble, including reports of fire. That is SOP, policy, or whatever you want to call it.
We do not FIGHT fires. That is the job of our brother and sister firefighters. However, we do observe and report until the firefighters arrive. We then back off and do crowd control, traffic control, or whatever.
I can't comment on what heppened with the two injured NYPD officers but, if I had to guess, it would be that they responded to the trouble call and were confronted with an already out-of-control fire.
"First responder" means what it says. Police officers are first responders and MAY arrive at fires before the fire department. Sometimes that has disasterous consequences....but that's the nature of the job.

We police officers do not have the medical training to administer medications. We are only trained in advanced first aid. In a pinch, we can keep some people alive until the paramedics arrive. That's how we like it.

There are devices available to keep the ambulance running. We have a simple button on the dashboard. Push the button, turn the key to the off position and pull out the key. The rig stays running. Get back in the rig, insert the key and off you go. Anyone who jumps in and steps on the brake to take the truck out of park causes the engine to shutoff.