khas143

Note the comments made after the article by posters. Does anybody have any additional information on this? http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008808270346

First, I have got to agree with the other posters here...... what does this have to do with anything discussed on this thread. So glad that fire commissioners may adopt rules to BLOW UP things. Second, I would like to thank all those that provided responses that added content to this thread. I am just trying to find out what occurred. From the posts on lohud and this thread, it would appear that the RCSO suddenly intervened in a rescue operation for no apparent reason. I guess I am just trying to find out if they had a reason to or just arbitrarily decided to and the situation escalated from there. Just an FYI... if a vessel is involved in any sort of accident, the police are mandated to investigate and file a New York State Vessel Accident Report for it. From my limited experience on the water, I have never encountered a situation where there was a problem with an FD response. In fact, all FD responses that I have encountered have been great and it doesn’t matter if "we got there first or FD did". IMHO, the most important thing is that the job gets done!!! ICS and NIMS should be utilized for all agencies at this point in time... The problem is communication! As far as the WCPD, we have recently acquired (thanks DES) a UHF radio and are capable of transmitting on all fireground frequencies. My recommendation is this, all PD Marine Units should be equipped with FD fireground frequencies and all Maritime incidents should immediately be assigned a fireground frequency so that ALL responders can communicate on the same frequency and utilize / implement the ICS system. I feel that would eliminate much of the communication problem(s) that we currently encounter. Thanks again to all. P.S. - Any Police Officer in NYS can arrest for misdemeanor anywhere in NYS. Obstructing Governmental Administration is a misdemeanor so it doesn’t matter where the PO is in NYS. CVFD... IMHO... Good call on pulling out.

This is a great contract for the NYPD. It is always better to settle (for a fair contract), than to go to arbitration and this is a great compromise to get the NYPD "on track" to where they should be. I hate to say it but more importantly, this will give the NYPD better and more qualified recruits to insure the future of one of the best Police Departments on Earth. Good luck brothers!

To try and save the dummy........ oh wait.... too late.... it sank!

Yeah... that's what matters in a MOS funeral..... hope your joking Oswego????!@!@@!

That bird is not nearly as "pretty" as WCPD Air-2.... Is it Chris192?

Depends... Get paid to sleep... sign me up.... Get woken up at 3:00AM, get paid nothing, and have my balls busted over having a parade once a year.... No thanks. Oh... I'm sorry.... that's EMS (a.k.a. Earn Money Sleeping) HA HA!

When I lived in New Mexico, the Alamogordo City PD did this. They used to have about 1/2 of all on-duty cops trained as firefighters. It appeared to work for them since it did alleviate the issue of having all on duty P.O.'s fighting a fire. As far as I know, they still do it out there. (I sure as hell don't plan on going back!)

Too bad you didn't get the picture of me flipping you off Art!!

To reply to some of the odd comments here, yes he does have the option of going out on 3/4's and never working again. HE DOES NOT WANT THIS OPTION. As for the poster who stated that dispatch duties are for trained dispatchers only.... I think that this trooper would be able to fill that position with a significant amount of ability. I don't know exactly what you were implying but please.... don't put yourself on that high a pedestal. (That is not an attack on dispatchers both simply a statement that a veteran trooper could handle that job!!). Here is what it comes down to... HE HAS THE OPTION OF GOING OUT ON DISABILITY BUT HE DOSEN'T WANT THAT! That is a rarity in the PD world and we all should respect and appreciate that. Support our brother through this fight. It is what he wants and I hope he gets it.

I had the privilege of meeting Trooper Mattson a couple a weeks ago and he is one of the most stand-up guys that I have ever met. This is a disgrace and what bugs me even more is that the rag of reporting the JN stuck this obscure little article on page 6. This should have been a headline story! The only way that Trooper Mattson has a chance of fighting this is through legislation. I could not think of another situation that deserves special dispensation more than this one. I urge everyone on this forum to write their State Senators and Assemblymen to make sure that Trooper Mattson can stay on the job. This is what he loved to do and being injured while performing his duties as heroically as he did should NOT end up having him work as a Wal-Mart greeter.

Granted, the cop might have been fishing but a ticket for 1180(a) is still better than an acutal speeding ticket. Getting a regular speeding ticket would have subjected you to increased points, a greater fine, and if you got nailed speeding again in the next 18 months even more of a fine for your next ticket. What it comes down to is that he was still doing you a favor for writing the 1180(a).

How is it possible that you say , "Not one of you have a right to lay judgement" but in almost the same breath, you start doing that exact same thing. You say nobody has the facts and then say that it would only be justified if they were holding a hostage??? What sense does that make?

I think this had to have been a cheap off duty gun since it went off after simply being dropped on the ground. I think this guy will get some days on the beach but will return to duty. On a side note, there are only a couple hundred first grade detectives in the city. Not that it is an excuse but this guy had to have some serious collars under his belt. (For those of you who don't know, 1st Grade Detective in the NYPD make LT's pay.... with none of the BS that comes with it). Guess we will have to wait and see how this turns out.

Depends on the situation, traffic conditions, and weather. If the officer is radar certified, he can write you the actual speed based solely on his / her visual observations. When he said he was doing you a favor, he meant that you are better off getting a ticket for 1180 (a) (Speed not reasonable and prudent) than an acutal speeding ticket. Personally, writing that ticket would depend on the actual circumstances. Can you elaborate on traffic conditions, etc??

Great decision... You have made a lot of people happy.

Well... I wasn't going to comment on what was an obviously doomed thread but.... I have donated to this site in the past and will continue to donate as I am financially able to. This site provides a service that obviously has an impact on the public safety community and a positive one at that. I have sat on these forums and given advice on what and what not to do to make this site better. Some have been taken into consideration and some have not. Despite that, I continue to donate, partly because of my admiration of the site and partly because of the financial situation of the founder (which could easily happen to any of us). What it comes down to is this, if you don't like the ads then don't come back. This is not an attack on anyone but if I don't like a site, I won't come back and I could care less what happens to it. Therefore, leave.... you won't be missed, the site will continue to run, and nobody will care about what happens to you. Stop making a mountain out of a mole-hill. As was said in a previous post, this site costs money to run... if you have donated in the past then you might, I say might, be entitled to an opinion of the advertising.... if you haven't, stop your b*****ng.... Be safe brothers!!!!

Explosive entry is the way to go!!!!

I agree that post deletion is a very needed tool in post moderation, however, a good point was raised about notifying members of their post deletions/edits. This would enhance communication with posters and moderators and help inform people about why their posts were deleted and what they should or should not post in the future. EMTBravo staff.... just something to consider to further enhance the site.

Given your previous post, I guess that dosen't refer to your "cousins"!!!!! Good looking out BROTHER!!!!

Well the fact of the matter is we differ on opinons of the scenario in question, however, your statement that we are not brothers is one of the reasons that there is any sort of "rift" between our professions. Given that statement that you made, why would PD give FD any sort of courtesy. Luckily, I for one do not belive the statement that you made and I DO believe that WE ARE ALL BROTHERS. If we have a disagreement we work it out and talk it out. If that is not your way of handling things, hopefully your not an officer and hopefully we never have to "work out" anything on a scene. P.S. - FDONTHEJOB - I guess you would take a comment posted earlier that stated "I HATE COPS" as not being cop bashing. Again... lets refocus on the incident at hand and I ask you why you would need to take out all of those lanes in order to provide a safe scene. Where does that end, every MVA why not close the highway? Hell... why not close down both lanes so somebody dosen't ruberneck and possibly jump the guiderail? (Again, throwing this out there for discussion so that we can focus on learning from the incident.)

The topic of this thread has gone astray so let me bring it back on course. Having done highway patrol work, I have been on the scene of many, many accidents so lets take a look at the one in question. The accident had been moved entirely onto the shoulder of the highway. The officer took out the right lane of the highway in order to let the ambulance crews work. I have never been on the scene of an accident like the one in question where taking out a second lane of traffic was needed. In my personal and professional opinion, there was more than adequate space to perform patient care with an entire lane of traffic to work with. Fire engines are great for blocking traffic and providing safety to responders. (We have all had too many brothers killed by vehicles), but wouldn't the prudent thing to do is for the engine to be positioned behind the police car. If that was the case, any vehicle that "rear-ended" the engine would not have posed a threat to any of the responders. As for the Police Officer invovled, it is apparent that he did not communicate his rationale for the engine to be moved. I have dealt with fire cheifs and officers and explained to them why you don't need to shut down all lanes of the highway in order to safely handle a car accident and I have never, ever had a problem. When traffic needs to be shut down by all means shut it down, if it dosen't, don't just do it to say that you can or like I have heard on scenes by FD members "F the motoring public". Anyway, I cannot see there being any sort of intelligent exchange between the officer and the fire offical in that short of an amount of time, it just couldn't have happened. Kudos to the Fire Dept. Capt. for not resisting arrest, it would not have helped and not been legal (At least here in New York). To sum it up, IMO, the FD did not need to shut down an additional lane, the PD Officer should have communicated better, and the whole incident could have been avoided with a little patience and communication on both sides.

What are you going to do with all those points??? Possibly donate them to the EMTBravo NCAA pool?? (Chris192, work on that)

Put me in for a few more... 60,70,80

Just FYI on the parkways, the tow companies are required to provide speedy-dri (or equivilant) and have them available when the respond on the parkways.