JJB531

Without much thought I came up with 4 simple reasons for this: #1 - The majority of EMS providers are lazy and struggle to find the motivation to get off the couch for a job. #2 - The majority of EMS providers are overworked (in the number of hours they work, not necessarily amount of work they do during those hours), so the last thing most want to do is training outside of the CME's and Call Audits they are forced to do to maintain their certifications. #3 - The majority of EMS providers don't understand the importance of Awareness and Operations level training with respect to HazMat and some aspects of Technical Rescue, especially awareness level training in Confined Space, Water, Collapse, and Trench. #4 - The majority of EMS providers don't understand their potential role in a WMD/HazMat incident, and don't realize they could, with the proper training and equipment, play a key role in Warm Zone Operations. So of these few reasons, which is the most prevalent? Is it laziness? Lack of understanding? Lack of motivation? Lack of caring? Lack of leadership?

If they're going to an "emergency" at a contracted facility, then you may see commercial ambulance providers responding code 3 through your jurisdiction.

You made the statement "would be interesting if they were right down the street from Empress like AMR used to be", and the poster affirmed that they are close to Empress base. You brought it up, so why are you asking what the proximity to Empress has to do with anything?

Looks like the Director of Homeland Security needs a reality check into the workings of Emergency Services in the Hudson Valley. Most agencies have a hard enough time handling simple calls for service as it is, I don't know what kind of "major role" he is expecting agencies to play in a NYC terror attack.

The C.O. Of SOD is a position held by (at the time) a 2-Star Chief (it's now a 3 Star position). Carroll retired as an Inspector, and was the C.O. of ESU only.

As far as I can remember, NRPD CIU really only provides tactical police services for the City of New Rochelle and doesn't offer any rescue services, making them more of a conventional SWAT team and not a true Emergency Service Unit. New Rochelle's Police Commisssioner was the Commanding Officer of NYPD ESU for a period of time during his tenure with the NYPD, and perhaps did not want to use the name "ESU" since they don't offer all the services that the surrounding ESU Squads (NYPD, Yonkers, Mt. Vernon) offer. Mere speculation on my part, if someone knows something different please feel free to correct me.

You'll see them around the NY/NJ metro area. Each departments ESU is slightly different in the services they offer. Some of the full time ESU Squads in the area are: NYPD, Yonkers, Mt Vernon, New Rochelle (CIU instead of ESU), White Plains, MTA, Port Authority, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Fort Lee, Jersey City

The video speaks for itself about the working conditions in Detroit and EMS in the city.

Updated the post to embed the video and repair the YouTube link in case anyone encountered an error while trying to view the link.

New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES)

Training is extremely important in any emergency service field, but the realities associated with live incidents can only be partially recreated in training. Do any of these agencies have actual on-going fire prevention programs, or does their fire prevention efforts consist of handing out informational pamphlets once a year at a FD sponsored carnival or open house?

BNechis, it's interesting that you bring this up, because from a previous post in this thread, another member indicated that the following Fire Departments in Long Island didn't log a single working fire in 2011: Bellerose-0 Floral Park Centre-0 Garden City Park-0 Stewart Manor-0 Meadowmere Park-0 Bayville-0 Sea Cliff-0 Merrick-0 South Hempstead-0 Albertson-0 Great Neck Vigilant-0 Plandome-0 Williston Park - 0 South Farmingdale - 0 I was wondering what this means for the experience these agencies firefighters are exposed to?

Depends on which departments ESU you're talking about, but the overall job of a PD Emergency Service Unit is to provide police officers who have specialized training and equipment to assist patrol officers with situations they may encounter that patrol cops are either not trained or not equipped to handle. The services offered vary slightly by jurisdiction, but pretty much all Emergency Service Units provide traditional SWAT services. In addition to tactical work, ESU also provides technical rescue, vehicle extrication, dive/water rescue, helicopter operations, less lethal weapon deployment, management of violent/barricaded EDP's, animal control, evidence searches, auxiliary lighting, vehicle lockouts, securing premises, uprighting overturned vehicles, cutting/removal of trees from roadways, etc. The ESU truck is a rolling tool box that's full of solutions to any and all problems that patrol officers may encounter.

Not to take away from the topic at hand, but although I am no fan of the City of New York as an employer, it was a Federal Judge, not a City Judge, who rendered a decision that the FDNY's hiring practices discriminated against minorities. Therefore, the City's hands are tied because of the Federal Government, not because of a decision/policy made by the City of New York.

From the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, preliminary LODD statistics for 2011; Total Fatalities - 173 (up 13%) Firearms Related - 68 (up 15%) Traffic Related - 64 (down 10%) Other Causes - 41 (up 78%) New York ranked #3 with 11 LODD's NLEOMF

With due respect to the staff, Before the topic was locked, there was some measure of displeasure with the post from the site's founder regarding one-liners and inflammatory comments, with a poster saying the site has lost it's balls and the members need thicker skin. It's not a matter of the site "losing it's balls" or members who need "thicker skin", it's about keeping the site educational, a positive environment, and most of all, PROFESSIONAL. Sometimes we need to remember that "we" (emergency service members) are not the only ones who read the content contained in these forums. I'm sure there are enthusiasts, members of local government, members of the media, and so on who read the content contained in these forums. While it's all good to banter amongst each other as if we were in the firehouse, precinct, quarters, or whatever you would like to call it, we still have to maintain some level of decorum and professionalism just as if we were present in a public place, since this board is easily viewed by members of the general public, and more importantly the media. Case in point; The NYPD Rant for those who's haven't read it is full of so much garbage since there is little to no moderation, it's not one bit enjoyable to read from an educational standpoint. If anyone outside the NYPD read the material in that forum, the useless bantering of a few sets a bad precedence and honestly depicts the members of the NYPD in a very negative light. The media reported today on a thread contained in the NYPD Rant website about posters who posted personal attacks against an NYPD member. As a civilian reading that article, what kind of opinion do you think the "average Joe" will have of the Rant and the members of the NYPD? So in order to keep this site from becoming another "rant style" website, there needs to be a level of moderation that suits the wishes of the site's founder, since it is ultimately his call on what is and what is not permitted. If any of us don't like it, we are all free to start up our own site where anything goes and all the members can brag over who has the biggest balls. Personally, I'll stick with the site that's an educational portal as well as promotes and exhibits the professionalism of emergency service providers.

Actually sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we can arrange for patches and shirts to be mailed to HFD where they can then be delivered to Christopher instead of disclosing his personal address in a public forum.

You're welcome. Understood. I agree 100% with you on this point. Unfortunately, a lot of times the dangers associated with these types of incidents are indeed overlooked; including certain hazards which may be obvious to trained/experienced responders, but not so obvious to the untrained/nexperienced. Having the training and experience is absolutely beneficial to conducting a risk assessment, but there was nothing stated that this individual conducted a risk assessment before running into the fire, we are going off assumption because of his training as a firefighter; the same way nothing was stated in the media about this particular incident as to whether or not the Officer conducted a risk assessment, and we don't know his level of training or experience with these types of incidents. Did you have a problem with the FDNY members in Staten Island who utilized a deck gun as a crowd control technique to assist NYPD officers who were being overcome by an unruly crowd, a crowd that could have easily directed their aggression towards the FD members had their technique failed to control those individuals? I don't think anyone had a problem with it, and as a police officer I am undoubtedly grateful for them and their actions. I don't recall seeing you question them or their actions for getting involved in a police matter. They did what any of us would hopefully do for one another... in the end we all have to look out for eachother. No safety/belay line? No bombproof anchor? No victim harness? Utilizing life safety rope on a 2 person load in direct vicinty of a fire floor where the rope could melt? Are these all within their SOP's and training? I don't know, I'm honestly asking. I would find it hard to believe that any of this would be routinely acceptable. It was deemed acceptable because of the exigent circumstances surrounding the incident, they adapted to the incident, and knowing the risk they were taking, they ended up conducting a memorable rescue with efficiency and professionalism. I remember a big deal was made about the "1 use only" violation, and with the change in the standard, this obviously wasn't really as big of an issue as it was made out to be back then. Agreed there should be no excuse for it in awareness classes, but considering most of the courses are offered through the New York State Office of FIRE Prevention and Control, most Police Officers and EMS Providers automatically feel shunned from these programs, and instead try to seek out the training from venues that cater to their individual fields of employment. These awareness level programs (Water, Tech Rescue, HazMat) should be mandatory for every emergency service provider. Undoubtedly agreed.

BNechis, I respect your experience and seemingly endless knowledge regarding policies, procedures, and emergency service operations, so this is absolutely nothing personal on my part, plus you weren't the only one to questionably comment his actions, but... I agree with your statement that this forum is an educational "tool", and I have always been a big advocate of EMTBravo being an invaluable resource to learn from others. But you're initial post was not educational per-se, it was basically defamatory, full of statements that questioned this officers actions. Where is the educational value in asking rhetorical questions? It's one thing to give the officer his kudos for getting the job done, without any injury to himself, as well as further injury to the aided, and then educating the rest of us on some of the safety measures we should ensure we take at these incidents. That's educational. Ignoring the good job that was done, and posing several "well did he do this" and "did he do that" questions does not come across as educational. Maybe in the future, we can ensure that news reporters ask the first responder if the bus was put in park first and emergency brake applied before so we can further evaluate if a proper hazard analysis was conducted. Emergency service courses teach lots of techniques, with a major emphasis on safety, and rightfully so. And based on certain situations, while the textbook scenario is ideally what we should follow, sometimes we, as first responders, make concessions after doing a risk vs. benefit analysis and do things at times that the textbook doesn't advocate. See, I didn't see you question, for educational value of course, when an off-duty FDNY firefighter ran into an structure fire to conduct a rescue of an occupant without the proper PPE. No one questioned it; we simply commended him on a job well done, and rightfully so. But I did see you start posting questions and comments when a similiar topic was posted here regarding a police officer who did the exact same thing, with the exact same positive outcome. What about the rope rescue FDNY conducted back in 1991 in Times Square where a firefighter was lowered with a rescue rope that was anchored off to other firefighters and violated numerous safety measures. Should we sit here and point out everything that was done questionably for eduational value, or commend them for a job well done in the face of the dangers that they faced? I am not in any way knocking the FDNY member who conducted this rescue, I think what he did was amazing, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for his actions that day. The list goes on and on of incidents where emergency service providers have taken part in rescues that did not necessarily follow the textbook. When we can follow the textbook, we definitely should. Safety guidelines are meant to protect our victims, and more importantly, to protect us. But, unless something was done that was so egregious, so unnecessary, so stupid as to endanger our other first responders, our victim, or ourselves, let's give credit where credit is due for doing a good job, while also educating the rest of us on how the textbook says we should do it. In regards to awareness level training for Police Officers and EMS providers related to technical rescue and hazardous materials... there pretty much is none. I'm a big advocate for training, especially awareness level training for front line responders so they can adequately identify and potentially mitigate certain hazards at such incidents, but for whatever reason, this type of training is simply not conducted in this area. Part of the problem is a lack of interest from these groups to receive the training, and part of the problem is the fact that PD and EMS are typically "shut-out" from any type of training related to technical rescue and/or hazardous materials.

While I think the "get the job done first, safety second" statement is absolutely ludicrous, I think what's even more ludicrous is how individuals on here have to nitpick this officers actions as if he did something so egregiously dangerous, instead of applauding him for his actions on a job well done.

On-duty Police Officer Line of Duty Deaths are up 14% from 2010, with a 19% increase in the number of Police Officers killed by gunfire. CNN Article

Thanks George, One of the most disturbing things about this whole incident is that the perpetrator involved was recently arrested twice in NYC for relatively minor drug offenses, and both times NYPD officers reached out to North Carolina authorities about an outstanding warrant that was issued against him for shooting another individual, and both times North Carolina authorities refused to extradite him from New York to face the serious charges he had pending in North Carolina. Had he been extradited like he should have been, this incident may have never happened.

Rest in Peace...

Rest in peace

Positioning rehab away from the immediate vicinity of the fire scene helps provide a form of "mental rehab". Firefighters who are still in the immediate reach of the incident may remain mentally focused on the incident, instead of promoting the mental rest that they may need.