JJB531

Unfortunately Crime Cop's interpretation of these kids is not that far off. I know that everyone finds it hard to believe that a 12 year old could be a "hardened criminal", or at least have the personality and the likes of one. But until you have dealt with some of these kids, you really have no idea. I understand that 12 is young, I understand 12 is pre-teen, I understand that 12 is still a baby, and so on. But a lot of these 12 year olds are just as street smart and street savvy as their 21 year old counterparts, and they have the mouth and the attitude to back it up.
Police Officers have a very jaded view of these kids, unfortunately that's just the way it is. When you have 12 year olds on a daily basis telling uniformed police officers to "F*ck off", literally, and try to tell you what you can and can't do to them, you become jaded and conditioned to expect that kind of a response. The youth are some of the most challenging to deal with, because we all know when you're young you think you're invincible, untouchable, you know everything, and so on. But I know growing up, despite how invincible I thought I was, I still had a respect for the police. The only figures these troubled kids respect are the drug dealers and rappers on TV. Unfortunately, until we can convince these rappers and drug dealers to teach kids manners, respect, etiquette, and the differences between right and wrong, you can be as "feel good" as you want to be with these kids, and they are merely going to see it as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Like I said, at 12 years old a lot of these kids can be extremely manipulative, and they will take advantage of you any chance they get.
When a police officer walks down the street and a little kid waves, and you have their parental figure grabbing these kids and yelling, "Don't wave to the police, they're not your friend", these kids are conditioned not to respect or trust any type of authority. When these kids see their parents, or parent in a lot of cases, acting like an animal, they are taught to believe that type of behavior is acceptable. When these kids see the drug dealers on the corner flashing money, driving nice cars, and mouthing off to the police and pretty much getting away with it, they are conditioned to accept and favor that type of lifestyle. Until you can completely remove these kids from that environment, most will not change and will grow up emulating the drug dealers, gangbangers, and will possess the same poor parental skills as their own parents, which then just gets passed on down to the next generation. Some of these kids are good kids who just get wrapped up in the wrong crowd, and still have a conscience, a respect for elders and authority, and a good understanding of the difference between right and wrong. These are the diamonds in the rough so to speak in these group homes. I'm not saying all kids who grow up in urban environments grow up to be criminals, but the ones who do possess these criminal traits from extremely young ages, even as young as 12.
So now law enforcement organizes Police Athletic Leagues, Explorer Programs, After School Programs, Community Outreach Programs, etc. to try to combat some of these problems. Do I think it should be our responsiblity? Eh, I honestly don't know. I think anytime you can improve police-community relations it's a win-win situation. If you can get one kid on the right track, then it's definitely is worth it. But for the average patrol cop, who may be answering 30 jobs a night, missing their meal break, and running from one job to the next, its simply not possible or feasible to change a kids life in the 10 minutes you interact with them. When you work the same area night after night, you start to know the players, and you start to know who the trouble kids are. I know personally I have tried to reach out to certain kids, invited them to stop by the precinct, offered them advice on how to change their lifestyle for the better, shown them alternatives to the "street life", informed them of programs that are available to help with job placement and education. You know how many took me up on my offers? ZERO. Not one. The simple fact is that these kids are surrounded in an environment full of negativity and negative influences, and every day they are conditioned to have no respect for authority, their parents, the school system, the court system, law enforcement, and so on.
I think I've rambled on enough, but my point it, and you can ask any Police Officer working in an urban area, is that eventhough these kids are "only 12 years old", these kids have mentality and the street toughness of a 21 year old. They are a challenge and are street wise well beyond their years, and treating them like a typical 12 year old is really not going to get you far. Unfortuantely the tactics you would normally use in dealing with a "typical 12 year old" more then likely will not work with these kids.

I don't need to start a thread about that, that thread has been visited on here a dozen times and is a pointless one to start because it will not go anywhere. Feelings hurt? Far from it my friend as it takes a lot more to hurt my feelings. I personally can care less whether or not Hudson River patrols go from 20 police boats to 1.
I'm merely playing devils advocate, and you were the one who got all up in arms because I compared the redundancy on the Hudson River to the redundancy in the Fire Service in Westchester County. The point I was making was that the redudancy on the River exists for some of the same reasons there is redundancy in the Fire Service.
Why does every PD need to be out there doing these checks? How about a link to the Poughkeepsie Journal article about the alcohol involved boat accident in Tivoli that killed 4 people? Putting 2 marine units in the water to cover an area of the Hudson River from the New York City line up to the Putnam County line, IMHO, is stretching the marine resources too thin. Why does every PD need to get involved? Perhaps because the County PD doesn't have the manpower and/or equipment to staff more then what they already have, I don't know as I do not work for them and am not intimately familiar with the money they have budgeted and allocated for their marine unit. Or maybe it's simply because every PD along the River wants "their piece of the pie". What I do know is that every summer we read about the various marine units, FD and PD alike, carrying out legitimate rescues on the Hudson, and that right there is what makes the strong presence on the River worth it to me. I know if I were bobbing in the middle of the River, I'd rather have 3 boats from neighboring jurisdictions coming to pluck me out rather then wait for 1 coming from miles away. How would I fix it? I don't know, I guess that depends if a problem truly exists?
Better coordination between all of the agencies that patrol the River is a great idea, and how much coordination there is now I truly don't know. A central database for all boats stopped? Eh, not quite sure how that would work or if it's feasible to do so. Just because a boat is stopped at 8am doesn't mean that the individual operating the boat is in the same "condition" (i.e. sober) at 2pm. Maybe the boat had enough life jackets for all the people on the boat at 8am, but now after picking up a few more passengers, now there isn't an appropriate amount of life jackets, which could be a problem if the boat starts taking on water? Is that line of thinking a little far-fetched? Yeah, I will agree that it is, but is it possible? Sure it is. But complacency can not just kill responders, it can kill the people we're supposed to protect as well. I honestly don't have the answers, I'm not a maritime expert, in fact I'm not even a maritime novice, so I'm not sure what is considered the appropriate amount of manpower to cover the Hudson River. All I do know is that the maritime environment is a different environment that has it's own challenges.
Lastly, give me a break with the "harassment" comment. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone cry "harassment" when a Police Officer is simply doing his/her job I'd be a millionaire. Better yet, how about Police Officers just sit back, drop their fishing lines in the water and maybe go for a little dip while they're out there so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those damn Troopers should just park their car on the side of the parkways off in the bushes and take a nap so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those plain-clothes anti-crime cops should just go to the movies or go out to dinner instead of aggressively trying to get guns off the streets so they're not "harassing" anyone?
Whether you like it or not, aggressive enforcement, or I'll just call it "harassment" so you understand, is what prevents incidents like the Tivoli boating accident from occurring more frequently through deterring people from doing stupid things and enforcing the law when they get caught. Like it or not, people do stupid things and Law Enforcement are the ones who hold the responsibility to prevent such incidents from occurring.

1) County PD does have several boats, how many are on the water at a given time? How many police officers would you have to transfer to the Marine Unit to staff 2 boats? What if a boat is down for service/repairs? Would this result in a lack of coverage? I didn't say there should be a Mounted Unit in the River (although it would be comical to see horses with floaties), I was questioning how is the County going to justify transferring more officers to a specialized detail when they are cutting police officers from other details? I don't know anything about boating, but how long would it take a marine boat to respond to let's say the Tappan Zee Bridge from the further ends of the Hudson (Yonkers or the Bear Mountain Bridge)?
2) Most maritime units in local jurisdictions require their police officers to undergo some form of training regarding maritime law enforcement. I can't speak for every agency that staffs a police boat, but the agencies that I am somewhat familiar with don't just throw any police officer on overtime out on the River for the day.
3) Correct, specialized services shouldn't always be repeated, so why do we have 3 Technical Rescue Teams (that I know of) in Westchester County? Why does one town need 3 or 4 Rescues instead of consolidating?
4) I fully understand a fire alarm may be a legit emergency. When a 3rd party call comes over for a boat in distress, it could be some moron who ran out of gas, or it could be a boat taking on water. Many times the dispatch information regarding maritime emergencies is extremely vague. Boat type/size, number of souls on board, location, water/weather conditions can influence a response from maritime units.
5) Minor motor vehicle accidents really aren't emergencies, but still illicit a full response of engines, ladders, rescues, chiefs cars, ambulances, and paramedic fly cars. It's okay on dry land but not appropriate for the water?
I do agree with a lot of your points, and would like to see specialized services merged, and I'm sure it is frustrating and annoying for recreational boaters who get stopped numerous times while trying to enjoy a nice day out on the Hudson, but the way Police agencies handle their patrols of the Hudson River in terms of redundancy and duplication of resources is just the norm for the area. Do I agree with it? No, I don't. Why is it that way? I'm going to assume because of the same reasons every FD in Westchester County has to have their own "toys" instead of combining and sharing resources.

I'm merely playing Devils Advocate here, but...
1) The Hudson River is a large body of water, but how do you propose that WCPD cover the Hudson River from Yonkers to the Putnam County line? How many police officers from the WCPD do you propose the County dedicate to Hudson River patrol when the County is cutting police officers from details (i.e. disbanding the Mounted Unit)? How many boats would the County have to purchase to adequately cover the Hudson River waterway? Should the County have to pick up the tab to patrol the Hudson River?
2) Why would the County or State Police know more about maritime law enforcement then local law enforcement? Is it because of the stigma associated with a "County" or "State" law enforcement agency that makes them better educated and/or prepared to handle certain aspects of law enforcement? That's like saying that a city patrol officer is more knowledgeable then a Police Officer from a local agency. True that city officers might handle considerably more calls for service, and a city patrol officer may have more clinical street experience, but unlike city patrol officers, many local law enforcement patrol officers carry out their own follow-up investigations and build their own criminal cases without referring every case to a detective squad, giving some local police officers more investigative experience.
2) I don't understand why an Automatic Fire Alarm requires the response of 3 Engines, a Ladder, a Rescue, 3 Chiefs Cars, and 12 POV's? I would assume the same reason why an emergency call on the Hudson invokes a response from several agencies.

I don't need to start a thread about that, that thread has been visited on here a dozen times and is a pointless one to start because it will not go anywhere. Feelings hurt? Far from it my friend as it takes a lot more to hurt my feelings. I personally can care less whether or not Hudson River patrols go from 20 police boats to 1.
I'm merely playing devils advocate, and you were the one who got all up in arms because I compared the redundancy on the Hudson River to the redundancy in the Fire Service in Westchester County. The point I was making was that the redudancy on the River exists for some of the same reasons there is redundancy in the Fire Service.
Why does every PD need to be out there doing these checks? How about a link to the Poughkeepsie Journal article about the alcohol involved boat accident in Tivoli that killed 4 people? Putting 2 marine units in the water to cover an area of the Hudson River from the New York City line up to the Putnam County line, IMHO, is stretching the marine resources too thin. Why does every PD need to get involved? Perhaps because the County PD doesn't have the manpower and/or equipment to staff more then what they already have, I don't know as I do not work for them and am not intimately familiar with the money they have budgeted and allocated for their marine unit. Or maybe it's simply because every PD along the River wants "their piece of the pie". What I do know is that every summer we read about the various marine units, FD and PD alike, carrying out legitimate rescues on the Hudson, and that right there is what makes the strong presence on the River worth it to me. I know if I were bobbing in the middle of the River, I'd rather have 3 boats from neighboring jurisdictions coming to pluck me out rather then wait for 1 coming from miles away. How would I fix it? I don't know, I guess that depends if a problem truly exists?
Better coordination between all of the agencies that patrol the River is a great idea, and how much coordination there is now I truly don't know. A central database for all boats stopped? Eh, not quite sure how that would work or if it's feasible to do so. Just because a boat is stopped at 8am doesn't mean that the individual operating the boat is in the same "condition" (i.e. sober) at 2pm. Maybe the boat had enough life jackets for all the people on the boat at 8am, but now after picking up a few more passengers, now there isn't an appropriate amount of life jackets, which could be a problem if the boat starts taking on water? Is that line of thinking a little far-fetched? Yeah, I will agree that it is, but is it possible? Sure it is. But complacency can not just kill responders, it can kill the people we're supposed to protect as well. I honestly don't have the answers, I'm not a maritime expert, in fact I'm not even a maritime novice, so I'm not sure what is considered the appropriate amount of manpower to cover the Hudson River. All I do know is that the maritime environment is a different environment that has it's own challenges.
Lastly, give me a break with the "harassment" comment. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone cry "harassment" when a Police Officer is simply doing his/her job I'd be a millionaire. Better yet, how about Police Officers just sit back, drop their fishing lines in the water and maybe go for a little dip while they're out there so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those damn Troopers should just park their car on the side of the parkways off in the bushes and take a nap so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those plain-clothes anti-crime cops should just go to the movies or go out to dinner instead of aggressively trying to get guns off the streets so they're not "harassing" anyone?
Whether you like it or not, aggressive enforcement, or I'll just call it "harassment" so you understand, is what prevents incidents like the Tivoli boating accident from occurring more frequently through deterring people from doing stupid things and enforcing the law when they get caught. Like it or not, people do stupid things and Law Enforcement are the ones who hold the responsibility to prevent such incidents from occurring.

I'm merely playing Devils Advocate here, but...
1) The Hudson River is a large body of water, but how do you propose that WCPD cover the Hudson River from Yonkers to the Putnam County line? How many police officers from the WCPD do you propose the County dedicate to Hudson River patrol when the County is cutting police officers from details (i.e. disbanding the Mounted Unit)? How many boats would the County have to purchase to adequately cover the Hudson River waterway? Should the County have to pick up the tab to patrol the Hudson River?
2) Why would the County or State Police know more about maritime law enforcement then local law enforcement? Is it because of the stigma associated with a "County" or "State" law enforcement agency that makes them better educated and/or prepared to handle certain aspects of law enforcement? That's like saying that a city patrol officer is more knowledgeable then a Police Officer from a local agency. True that city officers might handle considerably more calls for service, and a city patrol officer may have more clinical street experience, but unlike city patrol officers, many local law enforcement patrol officers carry out their own follow-up investigations and build their own criminal cases without referring every case to a detective squad, giving some local police officers more investigative experience.
2) I don't understand why an Automatic Fire Alarm requires the response of 3 Engines, a Ladder, a Rescue, 3 Chiefs Cars, and 12 POV's? I would assume the same reason why an emergency call on the Hudson invokes a response from several agencies.

I don't need to start a thread about that, that thread has been visited on here a dozen times and is a pointless one to start because it will not go anywhere. Feelings hurt? Far from it my friend as it takes a lot more to hurt my feelings. I personally can care less whether or not Hudson River patrols go from 20 police boats to 1.
I'm merely playing devils advocate, and you were the one who got all up in arms because I compared the redundancy on the Hudson River to the redundancy in the Fire Service in Westchester County. The point I was making was that the redudancy on the River exists for some of the same reasons there is redundancy in the Fire Service.
Why does every PD need to be out there doing these checks? How about a link to the Poughkeepsie Journal article about the alcohol involved boat accident in Tivoli that killed 4 people? Putting 2 marine units in the water to cover an area of the Hudson River from the New York City line up to the Putnam County line, IMHO, is stretching the marine resources too thin. Why does every PD need to get involved? Perhaps because the County PD doesn't have the manpower and/or equipment to staff more then what they already have, I don't know as I do not work for them and am not intimately familiar with the money they have budgeted and allocated for their marine unit. Or maybe it's simply because every PD along the River wants "their piece of the pie". What I do know is that every summer we read about the various marine units, FD and PD alike, carrying out legitimate rescues on the Hudson, and that right there is what makes the strong presence on the River worth it to me. I know if I were bobbing in the middle of the River, I'd rather have 3 boats from neighboring jurisdictions coming to pluck me out rather then wait for 1 coming from miles away. How would I fix it? I don't know, I guess that depends if a problem truly exists?
Better coordination between all of the agencies that patrol the River is a great idea, and how much coordination there is now I truly don't know. A central database for all boats stopped? Eh, not quite sure how that would work or if it's feasible to do so. Just because a boat is stopped at 8am doesn't mean that the individual operating the boat is in the same "condition" (i.e. sober) at 2pm. Maybe the boat had enough life jackets for all the people on the boat at 8am, but now after picking up a few more passengers, now there isn't an appropriate amount of life jackets, which could be a problem if the boat starts taking on water? Is that line of thinking a little far-fetched? Yeah, I will agree that it is, but is it possible? Sure it is. But complacency can not just kill responders, it can kill the people we're supposed to protect as well. I honestly don't have the answers, I'm not a maritime expert, in fact I'm not even a maritime novice, so I'm not sure what is considered the appropriate amount of manpower to cover the Hudson River. All I do know is that the maritime environment is a different environment that has it's own challenges.
Lastly, give me a break with the "harassment" comment. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone cry "harassment" when a Police Officer is simply doing his/her job I'd be a millionaire. Better yet, how about Police Officers just sit back, drop their fishing lines in the water and maybe go for a little dip while they're out there so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those damn Troopers should just park their car on the side of the parkways off in the bushes and take a nap so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those plain-clothes anti-crime cops should just go to the movies or go out to dinner instead of aggressively trying to get guns off the streets so they're not "harassing" anyone?
Whether you like it or not, aggressive enforcement, or I'll just call it "harassment" so you understand, is what prevents incidents like the Tivoli boating accident from occurring more frequently through deterring people from doing stupid things and enforcing the law when they get caught. Like it or not, people do stupid things and Law Enforcement are the ones who hold the responsibility to prevent such incidents from occurring.

I don't need to start a thread about that, that thread has been visited on here a dozen times and is a pointless one to start because it will not go anywhere. Feelings hurt? Far from it my friend as it takes a lot more to hurt my feelings. I personally can care less whether or not Hudson River patrols go from 20 police boats to 1.
I'm merely playing devils advocate, and you were the one who got all up in arms because I compared the redundancy on the Hudson River to the redundancy in the Fire Service in Westchester County. The point I was making was that the redudancy on the River exists for some of the same reasons there is redundancy in the Fire Service.
Why does every PD need to be out there doing these checks? How about a link to the Poughkeepsie Journal article about the alcohol involved boat accident in Tivoli that killed 4 people? Putting 2 marine units in the water to cover an area of the Hudson River from the New York City line up to the Putnam County line, IMHO, is stretching the marine resources too thin. Why does every PD need to get involved? Perhaps because the County PD doesn't have the manpower and/or equipment to staff more then what they already have, I don't know as I do not work for them and am not intimately familiar with the money they have budgeted and allocated for their marine unit. Or maybe it's simply because every PD along the River wants "their piece of the pie". What I do know is that every summer we read about the various marine units, FD and PD alike, carrying out legitimate rescues on the Hudson, and that right there is what makes the strong presence on the River worth it to me. I know if I were bobbing in the middle of the River, I'd rather have 3 boats from neighboring jurisdictions coming to pluck me out rather then wait for 1 coming from miles away. How would I fix it? I don't know, I guess that depends if a problem truly exists?
Better coordination between all of the agencies that patrol the River is a great idea, and how much coordination there is now I truly don't know. A central database for all boats stopped? Eh, not quite sure how that would work or if it's feasible to do so. Just because a boat is stopped at 8am doesn't mean that the individual operating the boat is in the same "condition" (i.e. sober) at 2pm. Maybe the boat had enough life jackets for all the people on the boat at 8am, but now after picking up a few more passengers, now there isn't an appropriate amount of life jackets, which could be a problem if the boat starts taking on water? Is that line of thinking a little far-fetched? Yeah, I will agree that it is, but is it possible? Sure it is. But complacency can not just kill responders, it can kill the people we're supposed to protect as well. I honestly don't have the answers, I'm not a maritime expert, in fact I'm not even a maritime novice, so I'm not sure what is considered the appropriate amount of manpower to cover the Hudson River. All I do know is that the maritime environment is a different environment that has it's own challenges.
Lastly, give me a break with the "harassment" comment. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone cry "harassment" when a Police Officer is simply doing his/her job I'd be a millionaire. Better yet, how about Police Officers just sit back, drop their fishing lines in the water and maybe go for a little dip while they're out there so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those damn Troopers should just park their car on the side of the parkways off in the bushes and take a nap so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those plain-clothes anti-crime cops should just go to the movies or go out to dinner instead of aggressively trying to get guns off the streets so they're not "harassing" anyone?
Whether you like it or not, aggressive enforcement, or I'll just call it "harassment" so you understand, is what prevents incidents like the Tivoli boating accident from occurring more frequently through deterring people from doing stupid things and enforcing the law when they get caught. Like it or not, people do stupid things and Law Enforcement are the ones who hold the responsibility to prevent such incidents from occurring.

1) County PD does have several boats, how many are on the water at a given time? How many police officers would you have to transfer to the Marine Unit to staff 2 boats? What if a boat is down for service/repairs? Would this result in a lack of coverage? I didn't say there should be a Mounted Unit in the River (although it would be comical to see horses with floaties), I was questioning how is the County going to justify transferring more officers to a specialized detail when they are cutting police officers from other details? I don't know anything about boating, but how long would it take a marine boat to respond to let's say the Tappan Zee Bridge from the further ends of the Hudson (Yonkers or the Bear Mountain Bridge)?
2) Most maritime units in local jurisdictions require their police officers to undergo some form of training regarding maritime law enforcement. I can't speak for every agency that staffs a police boat, but the agencies that I am somewhat familiar with don't just throw any police officer on overtime out on the River for the day.
3) Correct, specialized services shouldn't always be repeated, so why do we have 3 Technical Rescue Teams (that I know of) in Westchester County? Why does one town need 3 or 4 Rescues instead of consolidating?
4) I fully understand a fire alarm may be a legit emergency. When a 3rd party call comes over for a boat in distress, it could be some moron who ran out of gas, or it could be a boat taking on water. Many times the dispatch information regarding maritime emergencies is extremely vague. Boat type/size, number of souls on board, location, water/weather conditions can influence a response from maritime units.
5) Minor motor vehicle accidents really aren't emergencies, but still illicit a full response of engines, ladders, rescues, chiefs cars, ambulances, and paramedic fly cars. It's okay on dry land but not appropriate for the water?
I do agree with a lot of your points, and would like to see specialized services merged, and I'm sure it is frustrating and annoying for recreational boaters who get stopped numerous times while trying to enjoy a nice day out on the Hudson, but the way Police agencies handle their patrols of the Hudson River in terms of redundancy and duplication of resources is just the norm for the area. Do I agree with it? No, I don't. Why is it that way? I'm going to assume because of the same reasons every FD in Westchester County has to have their own "toys" instead of combining and sharing resources.

I don't need to start a thread about that, that thread has been visited on here a dozen times and is a pointless one to start because it will not go anywhere. Feelings hurt? Far from it my friend as it takes a lot more to hurt my feelings. I personally can care less whether or not Hudson River patrols go from 20 police boats to 1.
I'm merely playing devils advocate, and you were the one who got all up in arms because I compared the redundancy on the Hudson River to the redundancy in the Fire Service in Westchester County. The point I was making was that the redudancy on the River exists for some of the same reasons there is redundancy in the Fire Service.
Why does every PD need to be out there doing these checks? How about a link to the Poughkeepsie Journal article about the alcohol involved boat accident in Tivoli that killed 4 people? Putting 2 marine units in the water to cover an area of the Hudson River from the New York City line up to the Putnam County line, IMHO, is stretching the marine resources too thin. Why does every PD need to get involved? Perhaps because the County PD doesn't have the manpower and/or equipment to staff more then what they already have, I don't know as I do not work for them and am not intimately familiar with the money they have budgeted and allocated for their marine unit. Or maybe it's simply because every PD along the River wants "their piece of the pie". What I do know is that every summer we read about the various marine units, FD and PD alike, carrying out legitimate rescues on the Hudson, and that right there is what makes the strong presence on the River worth it to me. I know if I were bobbing in the middle of the River, I'd rather have 3 boats from neighboring jurisdictions coming to pluck me out rather then wait for 1 coming from miles away. How would I fix it? I don't know, I guess that depends if a problem truly exists?
Better coordination between all of the agencies that patrol the River is a great idea, and how much coordination there is now I truly don't know. A central database for all boats stopped? Eh, not quite sure how that would work or if it's feasible to do so. Just because a boat is stopped at 8am doesn't mean that the individual operating the boat is in the same "condition" (i.e. sober) at 2pm. Maybe the boat had enough life jackets for all the people on the boat at 8am, but now after picking up a few more passengers, now there isn't an appropriate amount of life jackets, which could be a problem if the boat starts taking on water? Is that line of thinking a little far-fetched? Yeah, I will agree that it is, but is it possible? Sure it is. But complacency can not just kill responders, it can kill the people we're supposed to protect as well. I honestly don't have the answers, I'm not a maritime expert, in fact I'm not even a maritime novice, so I'm not sure what is considered the appropriate amount of manpower to cover the Hudson River. All I do know is that the maritime environment is a different environment that has it's own challenges.
Lastly, give me a break with the "harassment" comment. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone cry "harassment" when a Police Officer is simply doing his/her job I'd be a millionaire. Better yet, how about Police Officers just sit back, drop their fishing lines in the water and maybe go for a little dip while they're out there so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those damn Troopers should just park their car on the side of the parkways off in the bushes and take a nap so they're not "harassing" anyone? Maybe those plain-clothes anti-crime cops should just go to the movies or go out to dinner instead of aggressively trying to get guns off the streets so they're not "harassing" anyone?
Whether you like it or not, aggressive enforcement, or I'll just call it "harassment" so you understand, is what prevents incidents like the Tivoli boating accident from occurring more frequently through deterring people from doing stupid things and enforcing the law when they get caught. Like it or not, people do stupid things and Law Enforcement are the ones who hold the responsibility to prevent such incidents from occurring.

I'm merely playing Devils Advocate here, but...
1) The Hudson River is a large body of water, but how do you propose that WCPD cover the Hudson River from Yonkers to the Putnam County line? How many police officers from the WCPD do you propose the County dedicate to Hudson River patrol when the County is cutting police officers from details (i.e. disbanding the Mounted Unit)? How many boats would the County have to purchase to adequately cover the Hudson River waterway? Should the County have to pick up the tab to patrol the Hudson River?
2) Why would the County or State Police know more about maritime law enforcement then local law enforcement? Is it because of the stigma associated with a "County" or "State" law enforcement agency that makes them better educated and/or prepared to handle certain aspects of law enforcement? That's like saying that a city patrol officer is more knowledgeable then a Police Officer from a local agency. True that city officers might handle considerably more calls for service, and a city patrol officer may have more clinical street experience, but unlike city patrol officers, many local law enforcement patrol officers carry out their own follow-up investigations and build their own criminal cases without referring every case to a detective squad, giving some local police officers more investigative experience.
2) I don't understand why an Automatic Fire Alarm requires the response of 3 Engines, a Ladder, a Rescue, 3 Chiefs Cars, and 12 POV's? I would assume the same reason why an emergency call on the Hudson invokes a response from several agencies.

Ahhhh, you don't get it. The way you type from a phone, from a computer, in a letter, in an email, or address someone in person has a lot to do with it. It's about presenting yourself to your "fellow professionals" as a professional, not presenting yourself to your "fellow professionals" as if you were text messaging your prom date.
I understand it is frustrating, but not only are the "older guys" entitled to their opinions, but they have earned that right by "coming up through the ranks" and proving themselves to their professional counterparts. Don't use the word bash, because they all make excellent points which are very far from bashing. I don't think anyone is picking on the "younger crowd", and even if everyone on this board disagreed with young drivers, so what? Is it worth getting that frustrated over? You're already certified by your agency to drive, so why get all bent out of shape? Just keep doing what you're doing. I don't blame them for saying that young people shouldn't drive. If you look at the factual data regarding age groups and motor vehicle accidents in general, the facts don't lie. And now you are taking an individual with 2 or 3 years of driving experience and giving them the keys to a million dollar truck that is considerably larger than most vehicles sharing the roadway. When you have 15 or 20 years of driving experience under your belt, you'll probably become one of those "older guys picking on the young guys". I'm 32 years old and I'm not qualified to drive one of the trucks at work. I'm not offended by that, and when my co-workers feel I'm ready, then I'll get quailfied. But I have to earn their respect and trust first, the same way they earned it from the senior men when they were new.

I don't mean any disrepsect whatsoever, but if you want to be taken seriously when addressing older members of this forum, as well as convincing them to consider your competency, qualifications, and abilities, stay away from using phrases like "wat", "gunna", "ur", or "u". It shows your age, and unfortunately will keep anyone from taking you seriously.
On a second note, I don't think that anyone will argue that with age comes experience, and with experience comes ability and knowledge. I think every one of us at a young age thought that we were ready for anything; it's only as you get older, a little more experienced, and a little wiser does your attitude change about the "younger crowd", whether it be at work or in your personal life.. I know growing up, I used to cringe every time my parents would say to me, "One day you'll understand", and as depressing as it may be, now that I'm older, I do understand.

I don't mean any disrepsect whatsoever, but if you want to be taken seriously when addressing older members of this forum, as well as convincing them to consider your competency, qualifications, and abilities, stay away from using phrases like "wat", "gunna", "ur", or "u". It shows your age, and unfortunately will keep anyone from taking you seriously.
On a second note, I don't think that anyone will argue that with age comes experience, and with experience comes ability and knowledge. I think every one of us at a young age thought that we were ready for anything; it's only as you get older, a little more experienced, and a little wiser does your attitude change about the "younger crowd", whether it be at work or in your personal life.. I know growing up, I used to cringe every time my parents would say to me, "One day you'll understand", and as depressing as it may be, now that I'm older, I do understand.

I don't mean any disrepsect whatsoever, but if you want to be taken seriously when addressing older members of this forum, as well as convincing them to consider your competency, qualifications, and abilities, stay away from using phrases like "wat", "gunna", "ur", or "u". It shows your age, and unfortunately will keep anyone from taking you seriously.
On a second note, I don't think that anyone will argue that with age comes experience, and with experience comes ability and knowledge. I think every one of us at a young age thought that we were ready for anything; it's only as you get older, a little more experienced, and a little wiser does your attitude change about the "younger crowd", whether it be at work or in your personal life.. I know growing up, I used to cringe every time my parents would say to me, "One day you'll understand", and as depressing as it may be, now that I'm older, I do understand.

I don't mean any disrepsect whatsoever, but if you want to be taken seriously when addressing older members of this forum, as well as convincing them to consider your competency, qualifications, and abilities, stay away from using phrases like "wat", "gunna", "ur", or "u". It shows your age, and unfortunately will keep anyone from taking you seriously.
On a second note, I don't think that anyone will argue that with age comes experience, and with experience comes ability and knowledge. I think every one of us at a young age thought that we were ready for anything; it's only as you get older, a little more experienced, and a little wiser does your attitude change about the "younger crowd", whether it be at work or in your personal life.. I know growing up, I used to cringe every time my parents would say to me, "One day you'll understand", and as depressing as it may be, now that I'm older, I do understand.

You know, I'm pretty annoyed by this one-line pot stirring comment. Like I said before, if you don't like it, then get your ambulances out the door and don't depend on outside people to do it for you. OVAC may not be the pinnacle of EMS in your eyes, and that's fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to made such a childish remark which basically insults every single person who is employed by or volunteers for OVAC is unfair, unprofessional, and in poor taste coming from an individual who is in a position of leadership and is supposed to set a good example of professionalism and leadership. OVAC has some highly respected, experienced, and competent providers who day in and day out not only provide excellent prehospital emergency medical care, but do so with little to no necessary supervision, and I think I speak for every single one of them when I express my disgust with your comment. To lump us all together in a public forum and make all of us sound like a bunch if morons is unfair and in poor taste for someone who should be setting a better example.

You know, I'm pretty annoyed by this one-line pot stirring comment. Like I said before, if you don't like it, then get your ambulances out the door and don't depend on outside people to do it for you. OVAC may not be the pinnacle of EMS in your eyes, and that's fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to made such a childish remark which basically insults every single person who is employed by or volunteers for OVAC is unfair, unprofessional, and in poor taste coming from an individual who is in a position of leadership and is supposed to set a good example of professionalism and leadership. OVAC has some highly respected, experienced, and competent providers who day in and day out not only provide excellent prehospital emergency medical care, but do so with little to no necessary supervision, and I think I speak for every single one of them when I express my disgust with your comment. To lump us all together in a public forum and make all of us sound like a bunch if morons is unfair and in poor taste for someone who should be setting a better example.

Guys - just remember, that one of the main reasons so many of the local fire photogs stopped posting pics here is for posts like these. Images capture one MILLISECOND in time at an incident that is typically very busy. What you very well may be seeing is a guy putting his helmet down to take safety glasses out of the crown (common place to put them), then popping it right back on...could have been stung by a bee...anythinG!
It is not always perfect, textbook operations on a fire scene, you do what needs to be done to save lives and property. If you have a problem with something in a picture, make a note of it, and make sure YOUR guys don't do it...use it as a learning experience.
It is NOT our place to second guess the members actions in public, well, unless of course you work for Firefighter Close Calls..
I am glad the Chief posted above - clears up some questions. And let me clarify, I was not MMQ'ing the FAST decision, I was adding MY opinion. As a fireman who routinely operates without the added benefit of a deidcated FASTeam, it is something I feel is very important. Someday I hope to work to fix that on our end....
Good to see RM in action to boot!

Briarcliff saving OVAC's butt? Please, go into details. Um, if OVAC doesnt run the fly car, then who does? Yes, the fly car does operate under a separate agency code (Tri-Community ALS), but is lettered Ossining VAC, turns out of OVAC HQ, scheduling is done by OVAC, medications/narcs are handled by OVAC, equipment is supplied by OVAC, OVAC Line Officers/Chief oversee the daily operations of the Fly Car, the medics are hired by OVAC.... So, once again who runs the fly car?
I'm not sure who you think you are threatening people on this board, threatening to "talk to your chief about you", threatening someone who was simply proud to be a life member of an agency, but if you have a problem with OVAC, it's operations, or the way they conduct EMS, there are proper avenues to address your concerns. if you would like to start airing out each agency's dirty laundry out here in a public forum, we can do that, just be careful what you wish for.

Briarcliff saving OVAC's butt? Please, go into details. Um, if OVAC doesnt run the fly car, then who does? Yes, the fly car does operate under a separate agency code (Tri-Community ALS), but is lettered Ossining VAC, turns out of OVAC HQ, scheduling is done by OVAC, medications/narcs are handled by OVAC, equipment is supplied by OVAC, OVAC Line Officers/Chief oversee the daily operations of the Fly Car, the medics are hired by OVAC.... So, once again who runs the fly car?
I'm not sure who you think you are threatening people on this board, threatening to "talk to your chief about you", threatening someone who was simply proud to be a life member of an agency, but if you have a problem with OVAC, it's operations, or the way they conduct EMS, there are proper avenues to address your concerns. if you would like to start airing out each agency's dirty laundry out here in a public forum, we can do that, just be careful what you wish for.

Briarcliff saving OVAC's butt? Please, go into details. Um, if OVAC doesnt run the fly car, then who does? Yes, the fly car does operate under a separate agency code (Tri-Community ALS), but is lettered Ossining VAC, turns out of OVAC HQ, scheduling is done by OVAC, medications/narcs are handled by OVAC, equipment is supplied by OVAC, OVAC Line Officers/Chief oversee the daily operations of the Fly Car, the medics are hired by OVAC.... So, once again who runs the fly car?
I'm not sure who you think you are threatening people on this board, threatening to "talk to your chief about you", threatening someone who was simply proud to be a life member of an agency, but if you have a problem with OVAC, it's operations, or the way they conduct EMS, there are proper avenues to address your concerns. if you would like to start airing out each agency's dirty laundry out here in a public forum, we can do that, just be careful what you wish for.

Having the shout box was nice, and I understand what you're saying about having a heads up so you can flip on the scanner and follow the incident. But if I did an IA for every pin job I get dispatched to, of which 90% of them are not pins, it would take away from the confirmed incidents if someone had to click on 10 unconfirmed/unfounded jobs before they got to an IA of a confirmed incident.

Having the shout box was nice, and I understand what you're saying about having a heads up so you can flip on the scanner and follow the incident. But if I did an IA for every pin job I get dispatched to, of which 90% of them are not pins, it would take away from the confirmed incidents if someone had to click on 10 unconfirmed/unfounded jobs before they got to an IA of a confirmed incident.

I don want to single anyone out, but why are particular members posting incomplete IA's, without even knowing the incident location? And then asking other members to PM them with the necessary info to complete the IA? How about waiting until you have all the info, or at a minimum the incident location, and then posting it so no one wastes their time reading an incomplete IA.