JJB531

A number of posters have really hit the nail on the head regarding Police Officer LODD's, and the reasoning for a lot of them.
The FBI routinely interviews convicted Cop Killers. They are looking to answer the question, "Why did you kill this Police Officer? What made you do it?". The FBI reported that the majority of individuals interviewed responded, "Because the Officer gave me the opportunity", or "I felt like I could take advantage of the Officer", either because of the Officers poor use of tactics, or because the Officers general physical appearance (stature, build, uniform cleanliness and overall general appearance of the Officer being a "slob").
Regarding the Officers general appearance, not much can be done to correct that other then the individual Officer making time to exercise, eat right, clean/iron their uniforms, tuck in their shirts, give off a professional image/appearance, act professionally, etc.
In regards to Police Officers utilizing poor tactics, this falls on the the individual Officer, the Law Enforcement Agency, and society and how society views Police Officers. Most Police Officers have to qualify with their service weapons twice a year to be qualified to carry a firearm within their official duties. I ask the question, is anyone really good at anything they do just twice a year? If an individual officer shoots just twice a year with their department, and does not take the time outiside of work to shoot on their own time, or to attend classes given by private or government agencies, they are doing themselves a grave disservice. When Police Officers shoot to qualify, they're shooting a nice silhouette paper target, utilizing proper stance, closing their non-dominant eye, lining up their sight picture... they're target shooting for score based on the number of shots the tower or range instructor informs them to discharge. In a real-life deadly physical force encounter, Police Officers are not shooting for score, they're shooting to survive. They're point shooting. They're utilizing a combat stance (which is your body's natural reaction to a threat), they're drawing the firearm, pointing it at the target, looking past their sights, and discharging their firearm at the threat to stop the threat. They're not lining up their sights. They're not closing their non-dominant eye. There's no range instructor telling them, "Gimme 2 shots on the tone". So why aren't we conducting monthly training at the range on point shooting? Why aren't we conducting monthly realistic, scenario based training utilizing airsoft or simmunitions to mimic real life encounters? The answers are obvious (manpower, money, overtime, etc.), but Police Officers are dying because of it. The 2 days of TARGET SHOOTING at the range is a disservice to Police Officers, and is not realistic or a feasible way to train for real-life deadly physical force encounters.
In terms of how society is getting police officers killed... well, there are very few professions that are monday morning quarterbacked by the Average Joe citizen more then Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is criticized by the media, by the general population, and even by our Police Chiefs, Commissioners, Superintendants, etc., who have become more of a group of politicians who are more worried about their own general appearance in the eyes of the public, appeasing as many special interest groups as possible for their own personal political gain, rather then protecting and supporting the Officers they are suppoesd to represent. Hollywood has the Average Joe thinking that it's a piece of cake to shoot a gun out of a perpetrators hand. The Average Joe wants to know why we don't shoot people in the leg because that's what works in Hollywood. Until the average Joe sees an aggressive, determined perpetrator take five .223 rounds center mass and continue to fight, they won't understand why Police Officers utilize aggressive tactics against an armed adversary. Take a look at a just a few examples of recents incidents:
** A SWAT officer, while conducting a tactical entry to take a barricaded subject into custody, shoots and kills a perpetrator who was attempting to stab his bunker operator with a large kitchen knife. The perp struck the ballistic shield several times with the knife before the Officer discharged his weapon. Officer placed on adminstrative desk duty for 9 months, depsite the fact that the shooting was within department and NYS Criminal Procedure Law guidelines.
** 2 Police Officers respond to an EDP, where they are confronted with an individual in a parking lot weilding a metal chair. EDP advances and closes the distance on the Officers while attempting to strike the Officers with the metal chair. Officers retreat until they are finally cornered, forcing one Officer to fire a single shot center mass, eliminating the threat. Officers brought up on department charges for not utilizing appropriate concealment. The prosecuting attorney's arguement is that the Officers should have hid behind a bush to provide them concealment, thereby avoiding the need to shoot the subject.
** Pleasantville Police Officer, after being struck by a vehicle operated by an underage, intoxicated driver, clings onto the hood of the vehicle. Despite verbal commands to stop the vehicle, driver accelerates forcing the Officer to discharge his service weapon through the windshield eliminating the threat and preventing further injury to himself. Officer is dragged through the mud by the media, vigils held for the perp killed by this Officer. Over a week before the media reports on the serious injuries sustained by the Officer.
** A Massachusetts Police Officer, responding to a possible burglary call, encounters an unruly, uncooperate subject inside a private residence. Officer ends up effecting a disorderly conduct arrest, a lawful arrest based on the Massachusetts CPL/Penal Law, where his actions are called "stupid" by our Commander-in-Chief, without having all of the details of the encounter.
Based on a few of these examples, I have made a couple of conclusions. Some of my conclusions are based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other Police Officers. The most dangerous conclusion I have come up with is that Police Officers are utilizing poor tactics and not being as aggressive as they should be in certain instances because of the fear of being dragged through the mud by the media, disciplined by their department, and placed on modified desk duty, even when their actions were appropriate and well within the legal guidelines for the use of deadly physical force. This "second-guessing" gives a perpetrator who has it in their mind that they want to injure/kill the police officer a chance to act upon their intentions.
Police administrators will quite often administer disciplinary action upon a police officer based on the media coverage of an event and the public "outcry", no matter how justified the shooting may have been based on CPL and department guidelines. Officers are taken off the road and placed on desk duty for months, sometimes even years, to prevent the officer from being involved in another deadly physical force encounter, which may look unfavorably if the same officer is involved in numerous shooting incidents, even if they are all justified shootings. This reactive measure taken by Police Administrators in turn causes Police Officers to not take aggressive action when needed for fear of "ruining their careers" or being placed on desk duty. Once again, this "second-guessing" leads to perptrators taking advantage of Police Officers. Face it, Police Officers have pages and pages of rules and guidelines to abide by, whereas perpetrators don't play by the rules, which inherently gives the perpetrator the tactical advantage.
Lastly, Law Enforcement tactics are not pretty. It involves handcuffing people, placing people face down in the dirt, ordering people out of vehicles at gunpoint, striking people with impact weapons, utilizing less lethal devices, chemical agents, and when necessary, deadly physical force. Proper tactics are not pretty, they don't look good in the eyes of the public, but they are necessary for Police Officers to go home at the end of their shift. The media doesn't understand this, society doesn't understand this, but our Police Administrators have to understand this, and have to support their Officers when their Officers actions are appropriate, no matter how it may look in the eyes of the untrained and uneducated.
Sorry for the long post! Kinda got carried away but a very important topic that is filled with TONS of information! Stay safe!

While I do agree with you that every agency, both paid and volunteer, have their issues, having bad days because of the inability to cover a single call without other circumstances (i.e. the EMS agency is already on a job and gets toned out for a second call) is simply unacceptable.
Having a bad day in this field results in the potential for people to die. If I called 911 in my town, and it took 20 minutes for an ambulance to arrive, I would not be pleased if the agency was simply "having a bad day".
The important thing is not that an FD or a VAC shows up for the call. The important thing is that an FD or VAC (or paid agency for that matter) shows up for the call in the TIMELY MANNER. It does no good if the FD shows up for the call and the house that was on fire is nothing more then a smoldering foundation, or that difficulty breather is now in cardiac arrest.
I'm not trying to pick on you, so please don't take it personal. I just want to point out that there's alot more to consider then simply saying "as long as someone shows up well then everything is fine".

Lohud

Lohud

A number of posters have really hit the nail on the head regarding Police Officer LODD's, and the reasoning for a lot of them.
The FBI routinely interviews convicted Cop Killers. They are looking to answer the question, "Why did you kill this Police Officer? What made you do it?". The FBI reported that the majority of individuals interviewed responded, "Because the Officer gave me the opportunity", or "I felt like I could take advantage of the Officer", either because of the Officers poor use of tactics, or because the Officers general physical appearance (stature, build, uniform cleanliness and overall general appearance of the Officer being a "slob").
Regarding the Officers general appearance, not much can be done to correct that other then the individual Officer making time to exercise, eat right, clean/iron their uniforms, tuck in their shirts, give off a professional image/appearance, act professionally, etc.
In regards to Police Officers utilizing poor tactics, this falls on the the individual Officer, the Law Enforcement Agency, and society and how society views Police Officers. Most Police Officers have to qualify with their service weapons twice a year to be qualified to carry a firearm within their official duties. I ask the question, is anyone really good at anything they do just twice a year? If an individual officer shoots just twice a year with their department, and does not take the time outiside of work to shoot on their own time, or to attend classes given by private or government agencies, they are doing themselves a grave disservice. When Police Officers shoot to qualify, they're shooting a nice silhouette paper target, utilizing proper stance, closing their non-dominant eye, lining up their sight picture... they're target shooting for score based on the number of shots the tower or range instructor informs them to discharge. In a real-life deadly physical force encounter, Police Officers are not shooting for score, they're shooting to survive. They're point shooting. They're utilizing a combat stance (which is your body's natural reaction to a threat), they're drawing the firearm, pointing it at the target, looking past their sights, and discharging their firearm at the threat to stop the threat. They're not lining up their sights. They're not closing their non-dominant eye. There's no range instructor telling them, "Gimme 2 shots on the tone". So why aren't we conducting monthly training at the range on point shooting? Why aren't we conducting monthly realistic, scenario based training utilizing airsoft or simmunitions to mimic real life encounters? The answers are obvious (manpower, money, overtime, etc.), but Police Officers are dying because of it. The 2 days of TARGET SHOOTING at the range is a disservice to Police Officers, and is not realistic or a feasible way to train for real-life deadly physical force encounters.
In terms of how society is getting police officers killed... well, there are very few professions that are monday morning quarterbacked by the Average Joe citizen more then Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is criticized by the media, by the general population, and even by our Police Chiefs, Commissioners, Superintendants, etc., who have become more of a group of politicians who are more worried about their own general appearance in the eyes of the public, appeasing as many special interest groups as possible for their own personal political gain, rather then protecting and supporting the Officers they are suppoesd to represent. Hollywood has the Average Joe thinking that it's a piece of cake to shoot a gun out of a perpetrators hand. The Average Joe wants to know why we don't shoot people in the leg because that's what works in Hollywood. Until the average Joe sees an aggressive, determined perpetrator take five .223 rounds center mass and continue to fight, they won't understand why Police Officers utilize aggressive tactics against an armed adversary. Take a look at a just a few examples of recents incidents:
** A SWAT officer, while conducting a tactical entry to take a barricaded subject into custody, shoots and kills a perpetrator who was attempting to stab his bunker operator with a large kitchen knife. The perp struck the ballistic shield several times with the knife before the Officer discharged his weapon. Officer placed on adminstrative desk duty for 9 months, depsite the fact that the shooting was within department and NYS Criminal Procedure Law guidelines.
** 2 Police Officers respond to an EDP, where they are confronted with an individual in a parking lot weilding a metal chair. EDP advances and closes the distance on the Officers while attempting to strike the Officers with the metal chair. Officers retreat until they are finally cornered, forcing one Officer to fire a single shot center mass, eliminating the threat. Officers brought up on department charges for not utilizing appropriate concealment. The prosecuting attorney's arguement is that the Officers should have hid behind a bush to provide them concealment, thereby avoiding the need to shoot the subject.
** Pleasantville Police Officer, after being struck by a vehicle operated by an underage, intoxicated driver, clings onto the hood of the vehicle. Despite verbal commands to stop the vehicle, driver accelerates forcing the Officer to discharge his service weapon through the windshield eliminating the threat and preventing further injury to himself. Officer is dragged through the mud by the media, vigils held for the perp killed by this Officer. Over a week before the media reports on the serious injuries sustained by the Officer.
** A Massachusetts Police Officer, responding to a possible burglary call, encounters an unruly, uncooperate subject inside a private residence. Officer ends up effecting a disorderly conduct arrest, a lawful arrest based on the Massachusetts CPL/Penal Law, where his actions are called "stupid" by our Commander-in-Chief, without having all of the details of the encounter.
Based on a few of these examples, I have made a couple of conclusions. Some of my conclusions are based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other Police Officers. The most dangerous conclusion I have come up with is that Police Officers are utilizing poor tactics and not being as aggressive as they should be in certain instances because of the fear of being dragged through the mud by the media, disciplined by their department, and placed on modified desk duty, even when their actions were appropriate and well within the legal guidelines for the use of deadly physical force. This "second-guessing" gives a perpetrator who has it in their mind that they want to injure/kill the police officer a chance to act upon their intentions.
Police administrators will quite often administer disciplinary action upon a police officer based on the media coverage of an event and the public "outcry", no matter how justified the shooting may have been based on CPL and department guidelines. Officers are taken off the road and placed on desk duty for months, sometimes even years, to prevent the officer from being involved in another deadly physical force encounter, which may look unfavorably if the same officer is involved in numerous shooting incidents, even if they are all justified shootings. This reactive measure taken by Police Administrators in turn causes Police Officers to not take aggressive action when needed for fear of "ruining their careers" or being placed on desk duty. Once again, this "second-guessing" leads to perptrators taking advantage of Police Officers. Face it, Police Officers have pages and pages of rules and guidelines to abide by, whereas perpetrators don't play by the rules, which inherently gives the perpetrator the tactical advantage.
Lastly, Law Enforcement tactics are not pretty. It involves handcuffing people, placing people face down in the dirt, ordering people out of vehicles at gunpoint, striking people with impact weapons, utilizing less lethal devices, chemical agents, and when necessary, deadly physical force. Proper tactics are not pretty, they don't look good in the eyes of the public, but they are necessary for Police Officers to go home at the end of their shift. The media doesn't understand this, society doesn't understand this, but our Police Administrators have to understand this, and have to support their Officers when their Officers actions are appropriate, no matter how it may look in the eyes of the untrained and uneducated.
Sorry for the long post! Kinda got carried away but a very important topic that is filled with TONS of information! Stay safe!

A number of posters have really hit the nail on the head regarding Police Officer LODD's, and the reasoning for a lot of them.
The FBI routinely interviews convicted Cop Killers. They are looking to answer the question, "Why did you kill this Police Officer? What made you do it?". The FBI reported that the majority of individuals interviewed responded, "Because the Officer gave me the opportunity", or "I felt like I could take advantage of the Officer", either because of the Officers poor use of tactics, or because the Officers general physical appearance (stature, build, uniform cleanliness and overall general appearance of the Officer being a "slob").
Regarding the Officers general appearance, not much can be done to correct that other then the individual Officer making time to exercise, eat right, clean/iron their uniforms, tuck in their shirts, give off a professional image/appearance, act professionally, etc.
In regards to Police Officers utilizing poor tactics, this falls on the the individual Officer, the Law Enforcement Agency, and society and how society views Police Officers. Most Police Officers have to qualify with their service weapons twice a year to be qualified to carry a firearm within their official duties. I ask the question, is anyone really good at anything they do just twice a year? If an individual officer shoots just twice a year with their department, and does not take the time outiside of work to shoot on their own time, or to attend classes given by private or government agencies, they are doing themselves a grave disservice. When Police Officers shoot to qualify, they're shooting a nice silhouette paper target, utilizing proper stance, closing their non-dominant eye, lining up their sight picture... they're target shooting for score based on the number of shots the tower or range instructor informs them to discharge. In a real-life deadly physical force encounter, Police Officers are not shooting for score, they're shooting to survive. They're point shooting. They're utilizing a combat stance (which is your body's natural reaction to a threat), they're drawing the firearm, pointing it at the target, looking past their sights, and discharging their firearm at the threat to stop the threat. They're not lining up their sights. They're not closing their non-dominant eye. There's no range instructor telling them, "Gimme 2 shots on the tone". So why aren't we conducting monthly training at the range on point shooting? Why aren't we conducting monthly realistic, scenario based training utilizing airsoft or simmunitions to mimic real life encounters? The answers are obvious (manpower, money, overtime, etc.), but Police Officers are dying because of it. The 2 days of TARGET SHOOTING at the range is a disservice to Police Officers, and is not realistic or a feasible way to train for real-life deadly physical force encounters.
In terms of how society is getting police officers killed... well, there are very few professions that are monday morning quarterbacked by the Average Joe citizen more then Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is criticized by the media, by the general population, and even by our Police Chiefs, Commissioners, Superintendants, etc., who have become more of a group of politicians who are more worried about their own general appearance in the eyes of the public, appeasing as many special interest groups as possible for their own personal political gain, rather then protecting and supporting the Officers they are suppoesd to represent. Hollywood has the Average Joe thinking that it's a piece of cake to shoot a gun out of a perpetrators hand. The Average Joe wants to know why we don't shoot people in the leg because that's what works in Hollywood. Until the average Joe sees an aggressive, determined perpetrator take five .223 rounds center mass and continue to fight, they won't understand why Police Officers utilize aggressive tactics against an armed adversary. Take a look at a just a few examples of recents incidents:
** A SWAT officer, while conducting a tactical entry to take a barricaded subject into custody, shoots and kills a perpetrator who was attempting to stab his bunker operator with a large kitchen knife. The perp struck the ballistic shield several times with the knife before the Officer discharged his weapon. Officer placed on adminstrative desk duty for 9 months, depsite the fact that the shooting was within department and NYS Criminal Procedure Law guidelines.
** 2 Police Officers respond to an EDP, where they are confronted with an individual in a parking lot weilding a metal chair. EDP advances and closes the distance on the Officers while attempting to strike the Officers with the metal chair. Officers retreat until they are finally cornered, forcing one Officer to fire a single shot center mass, eliminating the threat. Officers brought up on department charges for not utilizing appropriate concealment. The prosecuting attorney's arguement is that the Officers should have hid behind a bush to provide them concealment, thereby avoiding the need to shoot the subject.
** Pleasantville Police Officer, after being struck by a vehicle operated by an underage, intoxicated driver, clings onto the hood of the vehicle. Despite verbal commands to stop the vehicle, driver accelerates forcing the Officer to discharge his service weapon through the windshield eliminating the threat and preventing further injury to himself. Officer is dragged through the mud by the media, vigils held for the perp killed by this Officer. Over a week before the media reports on the serious injuries sustained by the Officer.
** A Massachusetts Police Officer, responding to a possible burglary call, encounters an unruly, uncooperate subject inside a private residence. Officer ends up effecting a disorderly conduct arrest, a lawful arrest based on the Massachusetts CPL/Penal Law, where his actions are called "stupid" by our Commander-in-Chief, without having all of the details of the encounter.
Based on a few of these examples, I have made a couple of conclusions. Some of my conclusions are based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other Police Officers. The most dangerous conclusion I have come up with is that Police Officers are utilizing poor tactics and not being as aggressive as they should be in certain instances because of the fear of being dragged through the mud by the media, disciplined by their department, and placed on modified desk duty, even when their actions were appropriate and well within the legal guidelines for the use of deadly physical force. This "second-guessing" gives a perpetrator who has it in their mind that they want to injure/kill the police officer a chance to act upon their intentions.
Police administrators will quite often administer disciplinary action upon a police officer based on the media coverage of an event and the public "outcry", no matter how justified the shooting may have been based on CPL and department guidelines. Officers are taken off the road and placed on desk duty for months, sometimes even years, to prevent the officer from being involved in another deadly physical force encounter, which may look unfavorably if the same officer is involved in numerous shooting incidents, even if they are all justified shootings. This reactive measure taken by Police Administrators in turn causes Police Officers to not take aggressive action when needed for fear of "ruining their careers" or being placed on desk duty. Once again, this "second-guessing" leads to perptrators taking advantage of Police Officers. Face it, Police Officers have pages and pages of rules and guidelines to abide by, whereas perpetrators don't play by the rules, which inherently gives the perpetrator the tactical advantage.
Lastly, Law Enforcement tactics are not pretty. It involves handcuffing people, placing people face down in the dirt, ordering people out of vehicles at gunpoint, striking people with impact weapons, utilizing less lethal devices, chemical agents, and when necessary, deadly physical force. Proper tactics are not pretty, they don't look good in the eyes of the public, but they are necessary for Police Officers to go home at the end of their shift. The media doesn't understand this, society doesn't understand this, but our Police Administrators have to understand this, and have to support their Officers when their Officers actions are appropriate, no matter how it may look in the eyes of the untrained and uneducated.
Sorry for the long post! Kinda got carried away but a very important topic that is filled with TONS of information! Stay safe!

A number of posters have really hit the nail on the head regarding Police Officer LODD's, and the reasoning for a lot of them.
The FBI routinely interviews convicted Cop Killers. They are looking to answer the question, "Why did you kill this Police Officer? What made you do it?". The FBI reported that the majority of individuals interviewed responded, "Because the Officer gave me the opportunity", or "I felt like I could take advantage of the Officer", either because of the Officers poor use of tactics, or because the Officers general physical appearance (stature, build, uniform cleanliness and overall general appearance of the Officer being a "slob").
Regarding the Officers general appearance, not much can be done to correct that other then the individual Officer making time to exercise, eat right, clean/iron their uniforms, tuck in their shirts, give off a professional image/appearance, act professionally, etc.
In regards to Police Officers utilizing poor tactics, this falls on the the individual Officer, the Law Enforcement Agency, and society and how society views Police Officers. Most Police Officers have to qualify with their service weapons twice a year to be qualified to carry a firearm within their official duties. I ask the question, is anyone really good at anything they do just twice a year? If an individual officer shoots just twice a year with their department, and does not take the time outiside of work to shoot on their own time, or to attend classes given by private or government agencies, they are doing themselves a grave disservice. When Police Officers shoot to qualify, they're shooting a nice silhouette paper target, utilizing proper stance, closing their non-dominant eye, lining up their sight picture... they're target shooting for score based on the number of shots the tower or range instructor informs them to discharge. In a real-life deadly physical force encounter, Police Officers are not shooting for score, they're shooting to survive. They're point shooting. They're utilizing a combat stance (which is your body's natural reaction to a threat), they're drawing the firearm, pointing it at the target, looking past their sights, and discharging their firearm at the threat to stop the threat. They're not lining up their sights. They're not closing their non-dominant eye. There's no range instructor telling them, "Gimme 2 shots on the tone". So why aren't we conducting monthly training at the range on point shooting? Why aren't we conducting monthly realistic, scenario based training utilizing airsoft or simmunitions to mimic real life encounters? The answers are obvious (manpower, money, overtime, etc.), but Police Officers are dying because of it. The 2 days of TARGET SHOOTING at the range is a disservice to Police Officers, and is not realistic or a feasible way to train for real-life deadly physical force encounters.
In terms of how society is getting police officers killed... well, there are very few professions that are monday morning quarterbacked by the Average Joe citizen more then Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is criticized by the media, by the general population, and even by our Police Chiefs, Commissioners, Superintendants, etc., who have become more of a group of politicians who are more worried about their own general appearance in the eyes of the public, appeasing as many special interest groups as possible for their own personal political gain, rather then protecting and supporting the Officers they are suppoesd to represent. Hollywood has the Average Joe thinking that it's a piece of cake to shoot a gun out of a perpetrators hand. The Average Joe wants to know why we don't shoot people in the leg because that's what works in Hollywood. Until the average Joe sees an aggressive, determined perpetrator take five .223 rounds center mass and continue to fight, they won't understand why Police Officers utilize aggressive tactics against an armed adversary. Take a look at a just a few examples of recents incidents:
** A SWAT officer, while conducting a tactical entry to take a barricaded subject into custody, shoots and kills a perpetrator who was attempting to stab his bunker operator with a large kitchen knife. The perp struck the ballistic shield several times with the knife before the Officer discharged his weapon. Officer placed on adminstrative desk duty for 9 months, depsite the fact that the shooting was within department and NYS Criminal Procedure Law guidelines.
** 2 Police Officers respond to an EDP, where they are confronted with an individual in a parking lot weilding a metal chair. EDP advances and closes the distance on the Officers while attempting to strike the Officers with the metal chair. Officers retreat until they are finally cornered, forcing one Officer to fire a single shot center mass, eliminating the threat. Officers brought up on department charges for not utilizing appropriate concealment. The prosecuting attorney's arguement is that the Officers should have hid behind a bush to provide them concealment, thereby avoiding the need to shoot the subject.
** Pleasantville Police Officer, after being struck by a vehicle operated by an underage, intoxicated driver, clings onto the hood of the vehicle. Despite verbal commands to stop the vehicle, driver accelerates forcing the Officer to discharge his service weapon through the windshield eliminating the threat and preventing further injury to himself. Officer is dragged through the mud by the media, vigils held for the perp killed by this Officer. Over a week before the media reports on the serious injuries sustained by the Officer.
** A Massachusetts Police Officer, responding to a possible burglary call, encounters an unruly, uncooperate subject inside a private residence. Officer ends up effecting a disorderly conduct arrest, a lawful arrest based on the Massachusetts CPL/Penal Law, where his actions are called "stupid" by our Commander-in-Chief, without having all of the details of the encounter.
Based on a few of these examples, I have made a couple of conclusions. Some of my conclusions are based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other Police Officers. The most dangerous conclusion I have come up with is that Police Officers are utilizing poor tactics and not being as aggressive as they should be in certain instances because of the fear of being dragged through the mud by the media, disciplined by their department, and placed on modified desk duty, even when their actions were appropriate and well within the legal guidelines for the use of deadly physical force. This "second-guessing" gives a perpetrator who has it in their mind that they want to injure/kill the police officer a chance to act upon their intentions.
Police administrators will quite often administer disciplinary action upon a police officer based on the media coverage of an event and the public "outcry", no matter how justified the shooting may have been based on CPL and department guidelines. Officers are taken off the road and placed on desk duty for months, sometimes even years, to prevent the officer from being involved in another deadly physical force encounter, which may look unfavorably if the same officer is involved in numerous shooting incidents, even if they are all justified shootings. This reactive measure taken by Police Administrators in turn causes Police Officers to not take aggressive action when needed for fear of "ruining their careers" or being placed on desk duty. Once again, this "second-guessing" leads to perptrators taking advantage of Police Officers. Face it, Police Officers have pages and pages of rules and guidelines to abide by, whereas perpetrators don't play by the rules, which inherently gives the perpetrator the tactical advantage.
Lastly, Law Enforcement tactics are not pretty. It involves handcuffing people, placing people face down in the dirt, ordering people out of vehicles at gunpoint, striking people with impact weapons, utilizing less lethal devices, chemical agents, and when necessary, deadly physical force. Proper tactics are not pretty, they don't look good in the eyes of the public, but they are necessary for Police Officers to go home at the end of their shift. The media doesn't understand this, society doesn't understand this, but our Police Administrators have to understand this, and have to support their Officers when their Officers actions are appropriate, no matter how it may look in the eyes of the untrained and uneducated.
Sorry for the long post! Kinda got carried away but a very important topic that is filled with TONS of information! Stay safe!

A number of posters have really hit the nail on the head regarding Police Officer LODD's, and the reasoning for a lot of them.
The FBI routinely interviews convicted Cop Killers. They are looking to answer the question, "Why did you kill this Police Officer? What made you do it?". The FBI reported that the majority of individuals interviewed responded, "Because the Officer gave me the opportunity", or "I felt like I could take advantage of the Officer", either because of the Officers poor use of tactics, or because the Officers general physical appearance (stature, build, uniform cleanliness and overall general appearance of the Officer being a "slob").
Regarding the Officers general appearance, not much can be done to correct that other then the individual Officer making time to exercise, eat right, clean/iron their uniforms, tuck in their shirts, give off a professional image/appearance, act professionally, etc.
In regards to Police Officers utilizing poor tactics, this falls on the the individual Officer, the Law Enforcement Agency, and society and how society views Police Officers. Most Police Officers have to qualify with their service weapons twice a year to be qualified to carry a firearm within their official duties. I ask the question, is anyone really good at anything they do just twice a year? If an individual officer shoots just twice a year with their department, and does not take the time outiside of work to shoot on their own time, or to attend classes given by private or government agencies, they are doing themselves a grave disservice. When Police Officers shoot to qualify, they're shooting a nice silhouette paper target, utilizing proper stance, closing their non-dominant eye, lining up their sight picture... they're target shooting for score based on the number of shots the tower or range instructor informs them to discharge. In a real-life deadly physical force encounter, Police Officers are not shooting for score, they're shooting to survive. They're point shooting. They're utilizing a combat stance (which is your body's natural reaction to a threat), they're drawing the firearm, pointing it at the target, looking past their sights, and discharging their firearm at the threat to stop the threat. They're not lining up their sights. They're not closing their non-dominant eye. There's no range instructor telling them, "Gimme 2 shots on the tone". So why aren't we conducting monthly training at the range on point shooting? Why aren't we conducting monthly realistic, scenario based training utilizing airsoft or simmunitions to mimic real life encounters? The answers are obvious (manpower, money, overtime, etc.), but Police Officers are dying because of it. The 2 days of TARGET SHOOTING at the range is a disservice to Police Officers, and is not realistic or a feasible way to train for real-life deadly physical force encounters.
In terms of how society is getting police officers killed... well, there are very few professions that are monday morning quarterbacked by the Average Joe citizen more then Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is criticized by the media, by the general population, and even by our Police Chiefs, Commissioners, Superintendants, etc., who have become more of a group of politicians who are more worried about their own general appearance in the eyes of the public, appeasing as many special interest groups as possible for their own personal political gain, rather then protecting and supporting the Officers they are suppoesd to represent. Hollywood has the Average Joe thinking that it's a piece of cake to shoot a gun out of a perpetrators hand. The Average Joe wants to know why we don't shoot people in the leg because that's what works in Hollywood. Until the average Joe sees an aggressive, determined perpetrator take five .223 rounds center mass and continue to fight, they won't understand why Police Officers utilize aggressive tactics against an armed adversary. Take a look at a just a few examples of recents incidents:
** A SWAT officer, while conducting a tactical entry to take a barricaded subject into custody, shoots and kills a perpetrator who was attempting to stab his bunker operator with a large kitchen knife. The perp struck the ballistic shield several times with the knife before the Officer discharged his weapon. Officer placed on adminstrative desk duty for 9 months, depsite the fact that the shooting was within department and NYS Criminal Procedure Law guidelines.
** 2 Police Officers respond to an EDP, where they are confronted with an individual in a parking lot weilding a metal chair. EDP advances and closes the distance on the Officers while attempting to strike the Officers with the metal chair. Officers retreat until they are finally cornered, forcing one Officer to fire a single shot center mass, eliminating the threat. Officers brought up on department charges for not utilizing appropriate concealment. The prosecuting attorney's arguement is that the Officers should have hid behind a bush to provide them concealment, thereby avoiding the need to shoot the subject.
** Pleasantville Police Officer, after being struck by a vehicle operated by an underage, intoxicated driver, clings onto the hood of the vehicle. Despite verbal commands to stop the vehicle, driver accelerates forcing the Officer to discharge his service weapon through the windshield eliminating the threat and preventing further injury to himself. Officer is dragged through the mud by the media, vigils held for the perp killed by this Officer. Over a week before the media reports on the serious injuries sustained by the Officer.
** A Massachusetts Police Officer, responding to a possible burglary call, encounters an unruly, uncooperate subject inside a private residence. Officer ends up effecting a disorderly conduct arrest, a lawful arrest based on the Massachusetts CPL/Penal Law, where his actions are called "stupid" by our Commander-in-Chief, without having all of the details of the encounter.
Based on a few of these examples, I have made a couple of conclusions. Some of my conclusions are based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other Police Officers. The most dangerous conclusion I have come up with is that Police Officers are utilizing poor tactics and not being as aggressive as they should be in certain instances because of the fear of being dragged through the mud by the media, disciplined by their department, and placed on modified desk duty, even when their actions were appropriate and well within the legal guidelines for the use of deadly physical force. This "second-guessing" gives a perpetrator who has it in their mind that they want to injure/kill the police officer a chance to act upon their intentions.
Police administrators will quite often administer disciplinary action upon a police officer based on the media coverage of an event and the public "outcry", no matter how justified the shooting may have been based on CPL and department guidelines. Officers are taken off the road and placed on desk duty for months, sometimes even years, to prevent the officer from being involved in another deadly physical force encounter, which may look unfavorably if the same officer is involved in numerous shooting incidents, even if they are all justified shootings. This reactive measure taken by Police Administrators in turn causes Police Officers to not take aggressive action when needed for fear of "ruining their careers" or being placed on desk duty. Once again, this "second-guessing" leads to perptrators taking advantage of Police Officers. Face it, Police Officers have pages and pages of rules and guidelines to abide by, whereas perpetrators don't play by the rules, which inherently gives the perpetrator the tactical advantage.
Lastly, Law Enforcement tactics are not pretty. It involves handcuffing people, placing people face down in the dirt, ordering people out of vehicles at gunpoint, striking people with impact weapons, utilizing less lethal devices, chemical agents, and when necessary, deadly physical force. Proper tactics are not pretty, they don't look good in the eyes of the public, but they are necessary for Police Officers to go home at the end of their shift. The media doesn't understand this, society doesn't understand this, but our Police Administrators have to understand this, and have to support their Officers when their Officers actions are appropriate, no matter how it may look in the eyes of the untrained and uneducated.
Sorry for the long post! Kinda got carried away but a very important topic that is filled with TONS of information! Stay safe!

A number of posters have really hit the nail on the head regarding Police Officer LODD's, and the reasoning for a lot of them.
The FBI routinely interviews convicted Cop Killers. They are looking to answer the question, "Why did you kill this Police Officer? What made you do it?". The FBI reported that the majority of individuals interviewed responded, "Because the Officer gave me the opportunity", or "I felt like I could take advantage of the Officer", either because of the Officers poor use of tactics, or because the Officers general physical appearance (stature, build, uniform cleanliness and overall general appearance of the Officer being a "slob").
Regarding the Officers general appearance, not much can be done to correct that other then the individual Officer making time to exercise, eat right, clean/iron their uniforms, tuck in their shirts, give off a professional image/appearance, act professionally, etc.
In regards to Police Officers utilizing poor tactics, this falls on the the individual Officer, the Law Enforcement Agency, and society and how society views Police Officers. Most Police Officers have to qualify with their service weapons twice a year to be qualified to carry a firearm within their official duties. I ask the question, is anyone really good at anything they do just twice a year? If an individual officer shoots just twice a year with their department, and does not take the time outiside of work to shoot on their own time, or to attend classes given by private or government agencies, they are doing themselves a grave disservice. When Police Officers shoot to qualify, they're shooting a nice silhouette paper target, utilizing proper stance, closing their non-dominant eye, lining up their sight picture... they're target shooting for score based on the number of shots the tower or range instructor informs them to discharge. In a real-life deadly physical force encounter, Police Officers are not shooting for score, they're shooting to survive. They're point shooting. They're utilizing a combat stance (which is your body's natural reaction to a threat), they're drawing the firearm, pointing it at the target, looking past their sights, and discharging their firearm at the threat to stop the threat. They're not lining up their sights. They're not closing their non-dominant eye. There's no range instructor telling them, "Gimme 2 shots on the tone". So why aren't we conducting monthly training at the range on point shooting? Why aren't we conducting monthly realistic, scenario based training utilizing airsoft or simmunitions to mimic real life encounters? The answers are obvious (manpower, money, overtime, etc.), but Police Officers are dying because of it. The 2 days of TARGET SHOOTING at the range is a disservice to Police Officers, and is not realistic or a feasible way to train for real-life deadly physical force encounters.
In terms of how society is getting police officers killed... well, there are very few professions that are monday morning quarterbacked by the Average Joe citizen more then Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is criticized by the media, by the general population, and even by our Police Chiefs, Commissioners, Superintendants, etc., who have become more of a group of politicians who are more worried about their own general appearance in the eyes of the public, appeasing as many special interest groups as possible for their own personal political gain, rather then protecting and supporting the Officers they are suppoesd to represent. Hollywood has the Average Joe thinking that it's a piece of cake to shoot a gun out of a perpetrators hand. The Average Joe wants to know why we don't shoot people in the leg because that's what works in Hollywood. Until the average Joe sees an aggressive, determined perpetrator take five .223 rounds center mass and continue to fight, they won't understand why Police Officers utilize aggressive tactics against an armed adversary. Take a look at a just a few examples of recents incidents:
** A SWAT officer, while conducting a tactical entry to take a barricaded subject into custody, shoots and kills a perpetrator who was attempting to stab his bunker operator with a large kitchen knife. The perp struck the ballistic shield several times with the knife before the Officer discharged his weapon. Officer placed on adminstrative desk duty for 9 months, depsite the fact that the shooting was within department and NYS Criminal Procedure Law guidelines.
** 2 Police Officers respond to an EDP, where they are confronted with an individual in a parking lot weilding a metal chair. EDP advances and closes the distance on the Officers while attempting to strike the Officers with the metal chair. Officers retreat until they are finally cornered, forcing one Officer to fire a single shot center mass, eliminating the threat. Officers brought up on department charges for not utilizing appropriate concealment. The prosecuting attorney's arguement is that the Officers should have hid behind a bush to provide them concealment, thereby avoiding the need to shoot the subject.
** Pleasantville Police Officer, after being struck by a vehicle operated by an underage, intoxicated driver, clings onto the hood of the vehicle. Despite verbal commands to stop the vehicle, driver accelerates forcing the Officer to discharge his service weapon through the windshield eliminating the threat and preventing further injury to himself. Officer is dragged through the mud by the media, vigils held for the perp killed by this Officer. Over a week before the media reports on the serious injuries sustained by the Officer.
** A Massachusetts Police Officer, responding to a possible burglary call, encounters an unruly, uncooperate subject inside a private residence. Officer ends up effecting a disorderly conduct arrest, a lawful arrest based on the Massachusetts CPL/Penal Law, where his actions are called "stupid" by our Commander-in-Chief, without having all of the details of the encounter.
Based on a few of these examples, I have made a couple of conclusions. Some of my conclusions are based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other Police Officers. The most dangerous conclusion I have come up with is that Police Officers are utilizing poor tactics and not being as aggressive as they should be in certain instances because of the fear of being dragged through the mud by the media, disciplined by their department, and placed on modified desk duty, even when their actions were appropriate and well within the legal guidelines for the use of deadly physical force. This "second-guessing" gives a perpetrator who has it in their mind that they want to injure/kill the police officer a chance to act upon their intentions.
Police administrators will quite often administer disciplinary action upon a police officer based on the media coverage of an event and the public "outcry", no matter how justified the shooting may have been based on CPL and department guidelines. Officers are taken off the road and placed on desk duty for months, sometimes even years, to prevent the officer from being involved in another deadly physical force encounter, which may look unfavorably if the same officer is involved in numerous shooting incidents, even if they are all justified shootings. This reactive measure taken by Police Administrators in turn causes Police Officers to not take aggressive action when needed for fear of "ruining their careers" or being placed on desk duty. Once again, this "second-guessing" leads to perptrators taking advantage of Police Officers. Face it, Police Officers have pages and pages of rules and guidelines to abide by, whereas perpetrators don't play by the rules, which inherently gives the perpetrator the tactical advantage.
Lastly, Law Enforcement tactics are not pretty. It involves handcuffing people, placing people face down in the dirt, ordering people out of vehicles at gunpoint, striking people with impact weapons, utilizing less lethal devices, chemical agents, and when necessary, deadly physical force. Proper tactics are not pretty, they don't look good in the eyes of the public, but they are necessary for Police Officers to go home at the end of their shift. The media doesn't understand this, society doesn't understand this, but our Police Administrators have to understand this, and have to support their Officers when their Officers actions are appropriate, no matter how it may look in the eyes of the untrained and uneducated.
Sorry for the long post! Kinda got carried away but a very important topic that is filled with TONS of information! Stay safe!

A number of posters have really hit the nail on the head regarding Police Officer LODD's, and the reasoning for a lot of them.
The FBI routinely interviews convicted Cop Killers. They are looking to answer the question, "Why did you kill this Police Officer? What made you do it?". The FBI reported that the majority of individuals interviewed responded, "Because the Officer gave me the opportunity", or "I felt like I could take advantage of the Officer", either because of the Officers poor use of tactics, or because the Officers general physical appearance (stature, build, uniform cleanliness and overall general appearance of the Officer being a "slob").
Regarding the Officers general appearance, not much can be done to correct that other then the individual Officer making time to exercise, eat right, clean/iron their uniforms, tuck in their shirts, give off a professional image/appearance, act professionally, etc.
In regards to Police Officers utilizing poor tactics, this falls on the the individual Officer, the Law Enforcement Agency, and society and how society views Police Officers. Most Police Officers have to qualify with their service weapons twice a year to be qualified to carry a firearm within their official duties. I ask the question, is anyone really good at anything they do just twice a year? If an individual officer shoots just twice a year with their department, and does not take the time outiside of work to shoot on their own time, or to attend classes given by private or government agencies, they are doing themselves a grave disservice. When Police Officers shoot to qualify, they're shooting a nice silhouette paper target, utilizing proper stance, closing their non-dominant eye, lining up their sight picture... they're target shooting for score based on the number of shots the tower or range instructor informs them to discharge. In a real-life deadly physical force encounter, Police Officers are not shooting for score, they're shooting to survive. They're point shooting. They're utilizing a combat stance (which is your body's natural reaction to a threat), they're drawing the firearm, pointing it at the target, looking past their sights, and discharging their firearm at the threat to stop the threat. They're not lining up their sights. They're not closing their non-dominant eye. There's no range instructor telling them, "Gimme 2 shots on the tone". So why aren't we conducting monthly training at the range on point shooting? Why aren't we conducting monthly realistic, scenario based training utilizing airsoft or simmunitions to mimic real life encounters? The answers are obvious (manpower, money, overtime, etc.), but Police Officers are dying because of it. The 2 days of TARGET SHOOTING at the range is a disservice to Police Officers, and is not realistic or a feasible way to train for real-life deadly physical force encounters.
In terms of how society is getting police officers killed... well, there are very few professions that are monday morning quarterbacked by the Average Joe citizen more then Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is criticized by the media, by the general population, and even by our Police Chiefs, Commissioners, Superintendants, etc., who have become more of a group of politicians who are more worried about their own general appearance in the eyes of the public, appeasing as many special interest groups as possible for their own personal political gain, rather then protecting and supporting the Officers they are suppoesd to represent. Hollywood has the Average Joe thinking that it's a piece of cake to shoot a gun out of a perpetrators hand. The Average Joe wants to know why we don't shoot people in the leg because that's what works in Hollywood. Until the average Joe sees an aggressive, determined perpetrator take five .223 rounds center mass and continue to fight, they won't understand why Police Officers utilize aggressive tactics against an armed adversary. Take a look at a just a few examples of recents incidents:
** A SWAT officer, while conducting a tactical entry to take a barricaded subject into custody, shoots and kills a perpetrator who was attempting to stab his bunker operator with a large kitchen knife. The perp struck the ballistic shield several times with the knife before the Officer discharged his weapon. Officer placed on adminstrative desk duty for 9 months, depsite the fact that the shooting was within department and NYS Criminal Procedure Law guidelines.
** 2 Police Officers respond to an EDP, where they are confronted with an individual in a parking lot weilding a metal chair. EDP advances and closes the distance on the Officers while attempting to strike the Officers with the metal chair. Officers retreat until they are finally cornered, forcing one Officer to fire a single shot center mass, eliminating the threat. Officers brought up on department charges for not utilizing appropriate concealment. The prosecuting attorney's arguement is that the Officers should have hid behind a bush to provide them concealment, thereby avoiding the need to shoot the subject.
** Pleasantville Police Officer, after being struck by a vehicle operated by an underage, intoxicated driver, clings onto the hood of the vehicle. Despite verbal commands to stop the vehicle, driver accelerates forcing the Officer to discharge his service weapon through the windshield eliminating the threat and preventing further injury to himself. Officer is dragged through the mud by the media, vigils held for the perp killed by this Officer. Over a week before the media reports on the serious injuries sustained by the Officer.
** A Massachusetts Police Officer, responding to a possible burglary call, encounters an unruly, uncooperate subject inside a private residence. Officer ends up effecting a disorderly conduct arrest, a lawful arrest based on the Massachusetts CPL/Penal Law, where his actions are called "stupid" by our Commander-in-Chief, without having all of the details of the encounter.
Based on a few of these examples, I have made a couple of conclusions. Some of my conclusions are based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other Police Officers. The most dangerous conclusion I have come up with is that Police Officers are utilizing poor tactics and not being as aggressive as they should be in certain instances because of the fear of being dragged through the mud by the media, disciplined by their department, and placed on modified desk duty, even when their actions were appropriate and well within the legal guidelines for the use of deadly physical force. This "second-guessing" gives a perpetrator who has it in their mind that they want to injure/kill the police officer a chance to act upon their intentions.
Police administrators will quite often administer disciplinary action upon a police officer based on the media coverage of an event and the public "outcry", no matter how justified the shooting may have been based on CPL and department guidelines. Officers are taken off the road and placed on desk duty for months, sometimes even years, to prevent the officer from being involved in another deadly physical force encounter, which may look unfavorably if the same officer is involved in numerous shooting incidents, even if they are all justified shootings. This reactive measure taken by Police Administrators in turn causes Police Officers to not take aggressive action when needed for fear of "ruining their careers" or being placed on desk duty. Once again, this "second-guessing" leads to perptrators taking advantage of Police Officers. Face it, Police Officers have pages and pages of rules and guidelines to abide by, whereas perpetrators don't play by the rules, which inherently gives the perpetrator the tactical advantage.
Lastly, Law Enforcement tactics are not pretty. It involves handcuffing people, placing people face down in the dirt, ordering people out of vehicles at gunpoint, striking people with impact weapons, utilizing less lethal devices, chemical agents, and when necessary, deadly physical force. Proper tactics are not pretty, they don't look good in the eyes of the public, but they are necessary for Police Officers to go home at the end of their shift. The media doesn't understand this, society doesn't understand this, but our Police Administrators have to understand this, and have to support their Officers when their Officers actions are appropriate, no matter how it may look in the eyes of the untrained and uneducated.
Sorry for the long post! Kinda got carried away but a very important topic that is filled with TONS of information! Stay safe!

This proposal was brought forward by the County Executive as a cost saving measure, not the DPS Commissioner to encroach on Fire/EMS (unless there was some secret closed door meeting between the two in order to effect a takeover). How are police agencies always trying to encroach on the duties of fire and EMS guys? Where in Westchester County are police agencies attempting to take over the duties of a Firefighter?
I can remember a time in this county when a lot of Fire Departments didn't handle rescue work, especially on the County Parkways when the County Police had their own ESU unit equipped with a set of Jaws, since a lot of the local FD's were not equipped with extrication equipment. Same goes for the Town of Mount Pleasant PD, who was carrying a set of Jaws long before any of the local FD's were. Same in NYC, when ESU handled all of the rescue work because the FD was just way too busy handling Fires, whereas now you have the two agencies fighting over rescue work at times. So now when Fire Departments began to purchase rescue equipment and handle rescue and extrication work, were they encroaching on the local PD's and their "already established" handling of motor vehicle extrication?
What about Fire Departments who never handled EMS first response? Now that a majority of departments, especially paid departments, run some form of EMS first response, does that mean that they are encroaching on EMS?
So was this a "self-preservation" (as you put it) measure by Fire Departments since the number of fires have been reduced dramatically with the inception of building codes, sprinkler systems, etc.?
I personally have no problem with FD's handling rescue work, as I think in a lot of Westcheser communities, it's more feasible just based on manpower alone. The city of Yonkers may only have 6, 8, maybe 10 ESU cops working any given shift, whereas there may be 50 firefighters (these are not factual numbers as I honestly don't know what the City of Yonkers staffing levels are, but merely just a guess). And I personally don't have a problem with FD's performing EMS first response. Generally FD's do have better response times then EMS, and it's in the best interest of the patient to receive appropriate medical care in a timely manner, and most FD's do a good job of providing BLS level care until EMS arrives.
But to make a blanket statement that PD's are always trying to takeover FD/EMS is, IMHO, is not necessarily the truth, and looking at the history of emergency services, PD's could make the same blanket statements. Perhaps you could provide some factual information or better explain your position on PD's taking over the responsibilities of FD or EMS?
AS A DISCLAIMER, I AM NOT AGAINST FIRE DEPARTMENTS DOING THE WORK THAT THEY DO! I AM MERELY PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE HERE TO RESPOND TO LUCIFERS POST, SO DON'T JUMP DOWN MY THROAT!!!

BNechis brings up a lot of good points, and is along the lines of my personal feelings about a PSO/dual-role agency. I think that you can take a police officer and make them a decent firefighter, just as well you can take a firefighter and make them a decent police officer. But if my house is burning down, I don't want a decent firefighter showing up to save my personal belongings or myself for that matter if I'm trapped inside! I want a d**m good firefighter showing up! And vice versa for the firefighter trained as a police officer.
I think that these systems can work operationally, but now you have to find individuals who can wear both hats, be proficient and meet the standards set forth by the respective field, and personally I don't think that's an easy task. I know with my career as a police officer, there's certain aspects of the field that I am good at, and other parts where I might step back and let someone else handle. As an example, I know some police officers who can stop a car and find a bundle of heroin or a kilo of cocaine with little effort, while others couldn't find drugs if someone handed it to them. But that same police officer who might not be in tune with narcotics enforcement, might be extremely proficient in tactics, firearm control, and apprehension, and would probably be the one you want going through the door to apprehend a perp. With so many specialties in each field, it's difficult to not only master what is expected of you as a police officer or firefighter, but to master another field that has very little in common with the other.

Captain, we all grieve for the loss of the brothers fallen in CT, VA and elsewhere but we can not forget that life goes on. We must constantly learn from the events, tragedy and lessons of actions both past and present. We can not stop learning just because it hurts too much, or it is too soon.
I choose not to "chill on this thread" because we too must learn from this video as if it were a NIOSH report. We must take the lessons learned and apply them to actions both present and future.
The individuals in the video this thread is based on risked their safety to extinguish what, a tractor-trailer truck cab with limited life-safety except those individuals who choose to unnecessarily risk their own safety. That sir contains a lesson if you ask me. That lesson is risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot. Those pictured in this video risked a lot to save something that was going to the dump the second that fire started.
I am sorry if this offended you, but we can not let the lessons of this video escape us.

With all due respect to those "grieving", how are you making the connection between that incident and this thread? And, a little bit disingenuously I might add, as you posted several posts before invoking this.
And on an entirely different note, is it really that arduous to envision a "public safety concept" with cross-trained members. I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I don't really think firefighting or law enforcement are of such an academic or unique nature that with motivated and determined employees, both positions could not be mastered. To assume otherwise really discredits members of both professions, in my personal opinion.

Thanks Chris192... so from reading it we can gather that if an individual chooses to respond to an emergency instead of going to work, the employer will have the right to deduct the time missed from work out of someone's vacation or sick time (if sick time is even accrued by the employee). If the employee (Volunteer firefighter or EMS provider) doesn't have any accrued time, they are entitled up to 3 hours in a 12 month period (which in reality works out to 1 or 2 jobs) in a 12 month period and/or they are permitted to leave work to respond to an emergency 2 times a year (assuming that the volunteer works in the same town/village that they volunteer).
Realistically, how much of an effect is this bill going to have? For somone who doesn't work in the town they volunteer in, they won't be able to respond to calls during work hours so that part of the bill won't come into play, and after one or two calls they've burnt up the 3 hours allotted to them before their employer can start tapping into their accrued time. Tapping into accrued sick or vacation time means you can forget that family vacation or don't bother calling in sick when you are doubled over on the toilet because you no longer have the time to take.
It's a nice gesture by the State government, and it definetly may save someones job at some point, but I don't think in the long run the benefits offered by this bill are going to be felt by many people.

Not a cut and dry question to answer. As in all branches of emergency services, whether it be police, fire, or EMS, we are always evaluating risk vs. benefit. The "validity" of a high speed pursuit by law enforcement depends on a number of variables.
First, why are we chasing this individual. Perpetrators who have committed violent offenses should be pursued. IMHO the risk of having a violent individual on the street is greater then the risk of pursuing this individual to bring them into custody. Perpetrators who have committed violent offenses against a law enforcement officer should be pursued to the next galaxy if need be. Personally, if a perpetrator commits a violent offense against a LEO, there is absolutely no reason why that individual should not be pursued. Should law enforcement engage in a high speed pursuit for an individual who stole a pack of gum from the local bodega... probably not. Sometimes LEO's don't know why someone is running from them. You go to stop a vehicle for a simple traffic infraction and next thing you know the vehicle takes off. Could be that the driver just butchered his/her whole family, or something as simple as the driver just doesn't have a license.
You have to weigh environmental and geographical factors. Are road conditions poor because or rain or snow? Are we pursuing individuals through school zones or residential neighborhoods in the middle of the day where there is a higher likelihood of a non-participant being injured by a fleeing perpetrator? Or are we pursing someone in the middle of the night on an empty highway where the likelihood of a non-participant being injured in considerably less?
How aggressive is the indivual being pursued. Are they driving with such recklessness that they are placing non-participants at a significanly increased risk of injury? Or are they maintaining a reasonable speed and not blatantly disobeying traffic control devices?
Do we know the ID of the person being pursued? If we do, and the offense we're chasing them for is a non-violent offense, might be more feasible to terminate the pursuit and pick them up at a later time at their residence, place of employment, etc.
Personally, I'm all for pursing violators, no matter how petty the offense, as long as there is no blatent danger to the public based on some of the factors I mentioned. Someone who has no problem fleeing law enforcement to evade arrest is more then enough reason for me to pursue a vehicle. It always amazes me though, for example after reading the thread about the Phillies fan who was tasered, that the individual who started the thread felt the police used excessive force in deploying the taser. When, as a society, are we going to start placing the blame where it belongs? Not on the police officer who engaged in a pursuit or deployed a device such as the taser to apprehend a criminal who was knowingly fleeing law enforcement, but on the individual who committed a crime and then chose to recklessly flee law enforcement to evade capture? Why is it my fault if some moron decides to run from me, crashes, and kills himself? I didn't tell him to run. I didn't make him to run. I'm sorry, but if you want to take that chance and run from the police, you deserve everything you have coming to you, and if you kill yourself in the process... oh well, that's on you.

I don't know if I can see a benefit to prehospital 12 lead EKG's in this area. I am generally a fan of proactive procedures, but in my experiences with prehospital 12 leads, the ER docs may take a glance at them but still perform their own 12 lead and base their treatment modalities off of their EKG.
A 12 lead is a great diagnostic tool, but I have never altered a course of treatment based on a 12 lead after a "routine" EKG. Has anyone changed their course of treatment based specifically on a 12 lead finding? If so, what were the circumstances?
I don't agree with BLS providers doing 12 leads only because why delay transport for a suspected MI to do a 12 lead only to administer oxygen and aspirin, which the BLS provider should be doing anyway if they suspect an MI. And getting an accurate reading is quite difficult to do in a moving ambulance without a great deal of artifact.

I think that the point system is beneficial to the forum. It encourages members to contribute positive, constructive posts. It also encourages some members to put a little more thought into their posts, and these posts should be recognized by other members of the forum. So far, the majority of the posts I have seen with positive rep points have been excellent posts, and well deserved by the poster.
The benefit I see to the negative rep point is it might keep certain posters "at bay" so to speak from posting certain things in the forum that could be construed at utterly ridiculous. I haven't seen too many negative rep points given out. I have been on the receiving end of a negative rep point for two of my posts, one which I can understand, but the other I felt wasn't necessarily warranted because my post was not in any way "ridiculous", but instead quite factual. But am I going to lose sleep over it? No, I have more important things to worry about in my life.
Perhaps the EMTBravo group can somehow design the negative rep point so in order for someone to give a negative rep point, the rater has to #1) Identify themselves, and #2) Describe why the negative rep point was issued to the member.

No worries and no hard feelings... I was not making a reference as to the curriculum teaching all EMT's to give Aspirin to every single chest pain. I was offering two real life scenarios where EMT's hear the words chest pain and right away they shove aspirin in someone's mouth, or they hear altered mental status and are shoving globs of insta-glucose down someones throat. Instead of having a good knowledge base and good clinical judgement skills, they hear the words "chest pain" or "altered mental status" and that's all that registers in their minds.
When I was teaching EMT/Paramedic students, a few of the EMT instructors always taught their students to "play it safe". Is there anything wrong with playing it safe? No, not at all. But after a while it gets a little out of hand with certain scenarios, and EMT's (and even Paramedics alike), don't do a detailed assessment and obtain a good history of the illness, and instead just follow through with protocol to "play it safe", even if certain interventions are not warranted or indicated. It's like using spinal immobilization on someone who tripped and fell on a sidewalk, and who has absolutely not the slighest indication of a spinal injury. Why do we do it... well usually just to "play it safe".
I think the simple parts of the problem are:
1) Not enough time is spent dealing with real patients who present with a chief complaint, and learning how to differentiate and/or make a field diagnosis of the illness in order to provide the correct and proper treatment.
2) Too many EMS providers are cookbook providers. They follow the protocol from A to Z without utilizing good diagnostic and clinical judgement skills. You can chalk up some of this to inexperience, but when I come across providers who have been through 2 or 3 refreshers in their time and are still following the "recipes" we talked about here without performing a good, solid patient assessment, who do we blame them for their skills as a provider?
3) The curriculum has definetly been dumbed down considerably. As long as an EMT student can run through a very basic patient assessment scenario without getting nabbed for a critical failure for something like not using BSI, most students will pass the patient assessment scenario without any real knowledge of how to actually perform a patient assessment. Now in the field, I see EMT's performing this basic "cookbook" patient assessment on every patient they come across. Why is it that I still see EMT's checking pupillary response on a cardiac chest pain? Because that's what they learned and has been forced into their heads in patient assessment. I would rather see EMT students take the time to learn how to perform vectored patient assessments, where they are actually learning how to assess patient who present with certain disease processes. Check for pupillary response on patients who may present with neurological conditions (AMS, stroke, head injury, etc.), not someone complaining of chest pain.

First its not the job of any instructor of any educational discipline to "weed out" students. Its our job to identify students who have deficiencies or issues and work with them to correct them. I always point out to my students in the beginning of my classes that I am there for them and that its not my job to fail them but to to get them to pass. I put my effort into advising them of any deficiencies or problems that are incurring and either work with them to assist them to overcome them or give them advice on what they can do to solve the problem. If they still don't I then counsel them and drop them from the course with appropriate documentation as to what standard they did not meet by curriculum or course policy. "Weeding out" can often lead to inappropriate actions by instructors and create an environment which could cause or actually be discriminatory. You are correct that you get what you put in to it, and after being advise those type of students often handle the situation for themselves and rarely are successful. The ones who may seem lazy who actually may have a learning disability or another issue or event that is causing the problem. Those are the ones who need assistance and not "weeding."
As far as JJB's "recipes" I'm with the others you're way off base. What is required and what protocol dictates doesn't always lend itself to what the curriculum is actually reinforcing. See my case in point with my "recipe" in regard to BLS albuterol administration. Its great that you know what it says, but you're not in a class nor just on the street. I'm not sure what you were reading with his posts..but you totally missed the point and basically reiterated his point with the correct answer which is not what we're seeing on the street.
In regard to your comment that the EMT course needs to be tougher...again either I have to disagree with you or you're using bad wording. It doesn't need to be tougher...it needs to be more comprehensive and geared towards the potential of future advancement in line with the EMT-I (which I won't get into my opinion on that) and the Paramedic curriculums. Making it tougher does nothing..in fact I'd be interested in what your idea of "making it tougher" entails. You can make testing requirements "tougher" or more stringent, but how do you make a curriculum "tougher?" I don't want "tougher." I want comprehensive, detailed curriculum content that makes for higher educated providers with a good grasp of illnesses, injuries and anatomy.
Please don't feel I'm bashing you, I'm just making points on your comments which I see differently much in line with how you responded to JJB's.
Chris...ALS dependency...isn't even the right word. I'm to the point where often all I can do is shake my head...but point out things not going well, correct something, or try to guide providers to make decisions and act and your nothing but an assh...e. But hey...I'd rather be a professional assh...e who knows what I'm doing, then eat cake, drink kool aid and wear blinders.

I couldn't agree with JJB's and Chris's posts more. I've always disliked the curriculum since its change back around 1999/2000 if I remember correctly, to the watered down generalized version that is still taught today. With the inception of DCAPBTLS, detailed vs. focused assessment and the time honored change from a more detailed instruction/review of anatomy and physiology to the terms used now, like long bone, etc. None of which corresponds to what is actually needed in the field to be an effective provider and to actually have a clue as to what is occurring with patients. It also does not correspond to being effective with certain skills, for example the albuterol administration ability, where I've experienced more admins of albuterol when it was not necessary or flat out incorrect because they didn't have the background ability or experience to differentiate asthma versus some other respiratory issues. I've had more times where I've removed the BLS admin'd albuterol, and for some reason a high number of them were for persons hyperventilating. Sit in any call audit which many today are combined and we're not using such terminology when reviewing calls, not using it in the field and certainly not using it in CME's and other courses like PHTLS, so tell me it makes sense. It also doesn't play well for those who move on or want to move on to the Paramedic level where solid assessment skills are a must in order to be a good paramedic. I'm a firm believer that the old curriculum I got better prepared new EMT's me included at the time to operate in the field more comfortably and prepped me for my future education as a Paramedic. That goes without saying that I had fantastic EMT instructors, Paramedic instructors and excellent Paramedics that I stuck to in order to gain knowledge and learn the craft better as an EMT and when I started my quest to become a Paramedic. Even if I was a pain in the a** to people like Chris192 at the time.
For anyone who is reading this and for those of you that have replied, I posted a thread on EMS continuing Ed and what people are looking for out there. I know I'm tired of the same old stuff and would like to see some things more in detail. For example we talk about penetrating trauma...great...but why not pick one item like ballistics and go over things in detail on that. Environmental emergencies..spend the time on heat illnesses instead of blurbs of each and cold issues on top of it. I'd still like some more input on that as I have the ability and platform to do such things in my instructor position and would like to help make a bigger impact and change the face of training in our area.

I think the problem with new EMT's who are insufficiently prepared for EMS lies with the EMT curriculum and not so much instructors pushing students through the program. I don't believe there is enough emphasis placed on field training/rotation hours spent actually working on an ambulance encountering real patients. Role playing in a classroom or performing skills on a mannequin is a good start, but you truly learn "the job" by encountering real life situations, treating real life patients, and overcoming real life problems that may come up on "routine" calls.
Of course, then there are inherent problems with field training, such as finding a qualified EMT/Paramedic to act as a FTO. With the high turnover rates in EMS systems, finding experienced, competent providers can be a challenge all in its own.
The other problem with the cirriculum is that it's too cookbook. EMT's are not taught to think, they are taught a cookbook form of medicine which doesn't fly in real life scenarios because nothing is routine, and each call presents its own unique set of circumstances. Two real life examples I can think of:
#1) EMT responds to a reported chest pain. EMT arrives on scene and finds a patient complaining of chest pain. Patient states they fell a week ago and has been having chest pain ever since. EMT administers aspirin because, well in EMT class, they are taught chest pain=aspirin. Would be correct if we were talking suspected cardiac chest pain, which this is not.
#2) EMT responds to an unresponsive. Arrives and finds an unresponsive male in front yard of house. Patient was installing roof shingles in the middle of July while downing a couple beers. You can cook a steak on the patients body, but in EMT school, we learned that unresponsive=oral glucose. EMT is seen shoving tubes of oral glucose down the patients throat. The reason as it was relayed to me, he's unresponsive and we're taught to give oral glucose to unresponsive patients (which is incorrect all in its own, but that's for a different discussion). Two examples of cookbook medicine at its finest.
Hopefully a CIC can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the EMT programs do receive money from the State based on the number of graduates from their programs... I'm not sure how much of that money goes directly into a CIC's pocket though. I know when I was teaching as a CLI, my pay, as well as the CIC, was based on the training institutions pay scale, not based on how many students we graduated.

I think the problem with new EMT's who are insufficiently prepared for EMS lies with the EMT curriculum and not so much instructors pushing students through the program. I don't believe there is enough emphasis placed on field training/rotation hours spent actually working on an ambulance encountering real patients. Role playing in a classroom or performing skills on a mannequin is a good start, but you truly learn "the job" by encountering real life situations, treating real life patients, and overcoming real life problems that may come up on "routine" calls.
Of course, then there are inherent problems with field training, such as finding a qualified EMT/Paramedic to act as a FTO. With the high turnover rates in EMS systems, finding experienced, competent providers can be a challenge all in its own.
The other problem with the cirriculum is that it's too cookbook. EMT's are not taught to think, they are taught a cookbook form of medicine which doesn't fly in real life scenarios because nothing is routine, and each call presents its own unique set of circumstances. Two real life examples I can think of:
#1) EMT responds to a reported chest pain. EMT arrives on scene and finds a patient complaining of chest pain. Patient states they fell a week ago and has been having chest pain ever since. EMT administers aspirin because, well in EMT class, they are taught chest pain=aspirin. Would be correct if we were talking suspected cardiac chest pain, which this is not.
#2) EMT responds to an unresponsive. Arrives and finds an unresponsive male in front yard of house. Patient was installing roof shingles in the middle of July while downing a couple beers. You can cook a steak on the patients body, but in EMT school, we learned that unresponsive=oral glucose. EMT is seen shoving tubes of oral glucose down the patients throat. The reason as it was relayed to me, he's unresponsive and we're taught to give oral glucose to unresponsive patients (which is incorrect all in its own, but that's for a different discussion). Two examples of cookbook medicine at its finest.
Hopefully a CIC can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the EMT programs do receive money from the State based on the number of graduates from their programs... I'm not sure how much of that money goes directly into a CIC's pocket though. I know when I was teaching as a CLI, my pay, as well as the CIC, was based on the training institutions pay scale, not based on how many students we graduated.

What about a Street Smarts course for EMS providers? A couple sample topics:
Drug Recognition
Dealing with Emotionally Disturbed Persons
Violent Encounters/Basic Self Defense
Crime Scene Awareness
Scene Safety
Make it interactive/hands on. More of a scenario based training experience in addition to classroom lecture.

I don't know where he is, but I bet ya his Patrol Car is parked in front of the hydrant.