FireMedic049

What makes him "so diff" as you put it is that this does not appear to be a case of just not doing good enough in the testing process as he apparently was #1 on the list, selected by the Mayor, was endorsed by the Police Chief, supported by the community, but has a sister who is a board member that is not a political ally of the remainder of the board. Take the family relation out of the equation and unless the board is being mum about some sort of serious skeleton in his closet that nobody else appears to know about, this guy would've been unanimously approved.
This isn't the time to just "get over it", this is exactly the type of situation in which a lawsuit contesting the hiring process should be fired, unlike the numerous lawsuits filed on behalf of minorities that don't get hired claiming "racial discrimination" because they simply weren't prepared enough to score high enough on the tests to get hired.

What makes him "so diff" as you put it is that this does not appear to be a case of just not doing good enough in the testing process as he apparently was #1 on the list, selected by the Mayor, was endorsed by the Police Chief, supported by the community, but has a sister who is a board member that is not a political ally of the remainder of the board. Take the family relation out of the equation and unless the board is being mum about some sort of serious skeleton in his closet that nobody else appears to know about, this guy would've been unanimously approved.
This isn't the time to just "get over it", this is exactly the type of situation in which a lawsuit contesting the hiring process should be fired, unlike the numerous lawsuits filed on behalf of minorities that don't get hired claiming "racial discrimination" because they simply weren't prepared enough to score high enough on the tests to get hired.

What makes him "so diff" as you put it is that this does not appear to be a case of just not doing good enough in the testing process as he apparently was #1 on the list, selected by the Mayor, was endorsed by the Police Chief, supported by the community, but has a sister who is a board member that is not a political ally of the remainder of the board. Take the family relation out of the equation and unless the board is being mum about some sort of serious skeleton in his closet that nobody else appears to know about, this guy would've been unanimously approved.
This isn't the time to just "get over it", this is exactly the type of situation in which a lawsuit contesting the hiring process should be fired, unlike the numerous lawsuits filed on behalf of minorities that don't get hired claiming "racial discrimination" because they simply weren't prepared enough to score high enough on the tests to get hired.

What makes him "so diff" as you put it is that this does not appear to be a case of just not doing good enough in the testing process as he apparently was #1 on the list, selected by the Mayor, was endorsed by the Police Chief, supported by the community, but has a sister who is a board member that is not a political ally of the remainder of the board. Take the family relation out of the equation and unless the board is being mum about some sort of serious skeleton in his closet that nobody else appears to know about, this guy would've been unanimously approved.
This isn't the time to just "get over it", this is exactly the type of situation in which a lawsuit contesting the hiring process should be fired, unlike the numerous lawsuits filed on behalf of minorities that don't get hired claiming "racial discrimination" because they simply weren't prepared enough to score high enough on the tests to get hired.

I find most "communities" haven't the slightest idea what level of risk they have. They do not know if the dept. is staffed or not. They see trucks parked in the station and they believe they are protected.
If the FD takes a week to respond as long as its not their home that is burning, they are ok with it.
And the costs in their mind is almost always too much. They want to pay nothing, because they know they will never need it. And they pray like made that the dept is well staffed, well trained and well equipped as they are dialing 9-1-1.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

The term n"nothing showing" is fine. Short sweet and to the point. It can be a helpful assesment in conjunction with other reports as well. Perhaps units operating at a 1sty. commercial taxpayer have a strong odor, an the OV Man gives a report from the rear that "nothing is showing", could it be buttoned up really tight? Could there be fire, just not visible, indicating that it is in an early decay (possibly very dangerous) phase?
Nothing showing is info, it means......there's nothing showing. At least for us, we wouldn't say "on scene, investigating", because they already know where on scene. Investigating, I'd think, is assumed. I don't think anyone's doing a cursory drive by.

Wow! Here we go again.
It sounds like the first arriving officer should now say "Arrived at 100 Main Street I don't see anything but I'll have to investigate further because I can only see sides 1 and 2. Have incoming units reduce their response to non-emergency but they don't have to proceed with caution any more because those words trigger something in their brains and they may get into an accident. OOPS, I said sides1 an 2. For those of you who can't convert that, it's A and B. No signs of fire after my 360, but the neighbors keep pointing to the house across the street. Whoop, there it is."
Why not just leave it as "Nothing Showing"

We have on officer that uses something close to this. My question is can we not assume that an arrival report is "from the exterior"? Are we so scared of something that the details must be included? Are people confused that no smoke may still mean there's fire showing? Or is you report fire, must you also note the smoke? I actually don't care what is said, but I do like the same phraseology to be used by everyone in the same department, but that's just me. We use: "Nothing showing, will be investigating".
I think it has far less to do with what the words are, and much more to do with what those hearing the report do. I fail to see why reporting there are no visible smoke/fire conditions is a problem. Please enlighten some of us as to the issue?

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

I definitely think they (the EMS personnel) could've handled the situation better, however the video appears to me to be ambiguous at best as to whether or not the pt had a pulse or was breathing. The only thing that was clear was that the guy needed medical attention in some fashion. If their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, then the administration of CPR would in all likelihood not be appropriate. They certainly could've had a little more pep in their step, but the patient was on the stretcher and on the way to the ambulance within a few of minutes contact by EMS. Again, if their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, going to the ambulance rather than initiating care right there was the appropriate call IMO. Now, if their assessment was that he wasn't breathing and/or didn't have a pulse, then initiating care on the spot would've been the right thing to do.
I think the only thing clearly obvious to a lay person was that the guy appeared to be in need of medical care in some fashion since he was unconscious. The average lay person is often ignorant to exactly what care a patient needs on scene and what care EMS can actually provide at that point. I know I frequently encounter patients, family or bystanders who question why we aren't just putting the patient in the ambulance and driving to the hospital. The average lay person also often thinks that their medical needs or that of another person are more of an "emergency" than it actually is and this feeds the belief that EMS should be doing "more" to treat the patient, when in fact they may be doing everything they can within their scope of practice or the patient's condition only merits "minimal" care.
I think the video is a little less murky to the trained eye in that the initial assessment could have definitely been performed better, but it still fails to definitively answer the questions "is he breathing" and "does he have a pulse". We can only assume the answer to both questions was "yes" since they didn't immediately start CPR.
Without knowing all of the details, it's hard to say whether or not any or all of the suspensions for the 4 EMS providers were appropriate, but I think the speed in which they occurred were a PR move first (damage control) and a patient care issue second. The public often sees what they want to see in these situations, particularly when their is racial component (real or perceived) and want immediate action and far too often, management et al are too willing to bow down to that pressure and take punitive actions with incomplete information and in violation of the employees right to "due process".

I definitely think they (the EMS personnel) could've handled the situation better, however the video appears to me to be ambiguous at best as to whether or not the pt had a pulse or was breathing. The only thing that was clear was that the guy needed medical attention in some fashion. If their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, then the administration of CPR would in all likelihood not be appropriate. They certainly could've had a little more pep in their step, but the patient was on the stretcher and on the way to the ambulance within a few of minutes contact by EMS. Again, if their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, going to the ambulance rather than initiating care right there was the appropriate call IMO. Now, if their assessment was that he wasn't breathing and/or didn't have a pulse, then initiating care on the spot would've been the right thing to do.
I think the only thing clearly obvious to a lay person was that the guy appeared to be in need of medical care in some fashion since he was unconscious. The average lay person is often ignorant to exactly what care a patient needs on scene and what care EMS can actually provide at that point. I know I frequently encounter patients, family or bystanders who question why we aren't just putting the patient in the ambulance and driving to the hospital. The average lay person also often thinks that their medical needs or that of another person are more of an "emergency" than it actually is and this feeds the belief that EMS should be doing "more" to treat the patient, when in fact they may be doing everything they can within their scope of practice or the patient's condition only merits "minimal" care.
I think the video is a little less murky to the trained eye in that the initial assessment could have definitely been performed better, but it still fails to definitively answer the questions "is he breathing" and "does he have a pulse". We can only assume the answer to both questions was "yes" since they didn't immediately start CPR.
Without knowing all of the details, it's hard to say whether or not any or all of the suspensions for the 4 EMS providers were appropriate, but I think the speed in which they occurred were a PR move first (damage control) and a patient care issue second. The public often sees what they want to see in these situations, particularly when their is racial component (real or perceived) and want immediate action and far too often, management et al are too willing to bow down to that pressure and take punitive actions with incomplete information and in violation of the employees right to "due process".

I definitely think they (the EMS personnel) could've handled the situation better, however the video appears to me to be ambiguous at best as to whether or not the pt had a pulse or was breathing. The only thing that was clear was that the guy needed medical attention in some fashion. If their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, then the administration of CPR would in all likelihood not be appropriate. They certainly could've had a little more pep in their step, but the patient was on the stretcher and on the way to the ambulance within a few of minutes contact by EMS. Again, if their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, going to the ambulance rather than initiating care right there was the appropriate call IMO. Now, if their assessment was that he wasn't breathing and/or didn't have a pulse, then initiating care on the spot would've been the right thing to do.
I think the only thing clearly obvious to a lay person was that the guy appeared to be in need of medical care in some fashion since he was unconscious. The average lay person is often ignorant to exactly what care a patient needs on scene and what care EMS can actually provide at that point. I know I frequently encounter patients, family or bystanders who question why we aren't just putting the patient in the ambulance and driving to the hospital. The average lay person also often thinks that their medical needs or that of another person are more of an "emergency" than it actually is and this feeds the belief that EMS should be doing "more" to treat the patient, when in fact they may be doing everything they can within their scope of practice or the patient's condition only merits "minimal" care.
I think the video is a little less murky to the trained eye in that the initial assessment could have definitely been performed better, but it still fails to definitively answer the questions "is he breathing" and "does he have a pulse". We can only assume the answer to both questions was "yes" since they didn't immediately start CPR.
Without knowing all of the details, it's hard to say whether or not any or all of the suspensions for the 4 EMS providers were appropriate, but I think the speed in which they occurred were a PR move first (damage control) and a patient care issue second. The public often sees what they want to see in these situations, particularly when their is racial component (real or perceived) and want immediate action and far too often, management et al are too willing to bow down to that pressure and take punitive actions with incomplete information and in violation of the employees right to "due process".

I definitely think they (the EMS personnel) could've handled the situation better, however the video appears to me to be ambiguous at best as to whether or not the pt had a pulse or was breathing. The only thing that was clear was that the guy needed medical attention in some fashion. If their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, then the administration of CPR would in all likelihood not be appropriate. They certainly could've had a little more pep in their step, but the patient was on the stretcher and on the way to the ambulance within a few of minutes contact by EMS. Again, if their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, going to the ambulance rather than initiating care right there was the appropriate call IMO. Now, if their assessment was that he wasn't breathing and/or didn't have a pulse, then initiating care on the spot would've been the right thing to do.
I think the only thing clearly obvious to a lay person was that the guy appeared to be in need of medical care in some fashion since he was unconscious. The average lay person is often ignorant to exactly what care a patient needs on scene and what care EMS can actually provide at that point. I know I frequently encounter patients, family or bystanders who question why we aren't just putting the patient in the ambulance and driving to the hospital. The average lay person also often thinks that their medical needs or that of another person are more of an "emergency" than it actually is and this feeds the belief that EMS should be doing "more" to treat the patient, when in fact they may be doing everything they can within their scope of practice or the patient's condition only merits "minimal" care.
I think the video is a little less murky to the trained eye in that the initial assessment could have definitely been performed better, but it still fails to definitively answer the questions "is he breathing" and "does he have a pulse". We can only assume the answer to both questions was "yes" since they didn't immediately start CPR.
Without knowing all of the details, it's hard to say whether or not any or all of the suspensions for the 4 EMS providers were appropriate, but I think the speed in which they occurred were a PR move first (damage control) and a patient care issue second. The public often sees what they want to see in these situations, particularly when their is racial component (real or perceived) and want immediate action and far too often, management et al are too willing to bow down to that pressure and take punitive actions with incomplete information and in violation of the employees right to "due process".

They quit! Why?
1. Last time I checked this was a team sport! The success of an operation cannot and should not be determined by the actions of the few (or the individual). When a member constantly trains and studies, but is surrounded by novices who can't perform simple functions, he (or she) will be discouraged. It is hard to be proud of or confident in your organization or your team when you know exactly what needs to be done on the fireground and are prepared for every emergency, but everyone else doesn't. It is discouraging to consistently do your job exactly by the book and have every operation fail because no one else read it.
2. It is dangerous! To be a knowledgeable and aggressive firefighter is a good thing. However, when an individual is experience and talented but surrounded by novices, who can you count on to come to your aid when the s*** hits the fan. Instead, it hampers your ability because you have to be overcautious since no one else can keep up (or get scared) and no one can get you out should you get into trouble (it happens to the best of us!).
3. Frustration! It gets tiring to know exactly what needs to be done to resolve and incident but have other people consistently screw things up! You get tired of having ceilings pulled down on you; you get tired of waiting for water because your CPO can figure out how to pull the right levers; you get tired of having rooms flash when you are in them because your outside vent team doesn't know how to properly vent horizontally and introduces too much oxygen to the fire; you get tired of having no back-up man on the knob because the guy behind you couldn't find his gloves; you get tired of telling your crew to pull a 2 1/2 with a smooth bore and getting an 1 3/4 with a fog tip! After a while you just realize that they don't care and that you don't want to be a part of them anymore.
4. Ostracization! When you are part of the small minority that actually cares about training, firematics, and performace, but 46 of the other 50 members of the organization only care about parades and pancake dinners, then you become the a******! You are the guy who is always critiquing everyone; you are the guy who is always telling people how to improve; and you are the guy who takes things too seriously (after all "We are just volunteers!"). So even though all you want to do is teach others and improve the effectiveness of your department, you are always the a****** who is ruining the fork and knifers' good time and telling them that they are doing it wrong! So instead of moving up because you are the most well-trained, you are voted out and replaced with the head clown in the popularity contest that they call an election because everyone loves him!
Thats why they quit...