INIT915

I comprehend just fine. I'm curios, where is "down there"?
This discussion amuses me quite a bit. The more you type, the bigger prick you make your self out to be.
Where is the the department that is blessed to have you as an employee?

FTFY:

Gun control is certainly is certainly a "one solution" answer to a complex problem......but data certainly points to it being the most effective component. It shouldn't be the only answer to this issue, but it should at least be part of the solution. Anyone who suggests that restrictions on gun ownership would have no impact is lying to themselves and everyone they speak to.
From 2000-2010 there were 26 shooting incidents with multiple casualties in the U.S.. Population approx. 310,000,000
Stacked against countries, with stricter gun laws, that comprise half the worlds population (England, China, India, France, Denmark, Israel and 30 more) there were only 27 equivelant events. In half of those countries there were no mass shooting events. Total population approx. 3,900,000,000
So, in the United States: 1/10th the population + lax gun laws (and a few things of minor significance) = 26 mass shootings in a decade.
But let's not discuss gun laws.....because the 2nd amendment guarantees organized militia members may own them. How many militias are left in the U.S.? Oh, that's right......ZERO.

Well....seeing as it's hotly debated, I don't see my understanding as misinformed at all. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say, "every law-abiding" or "In case you want to join a militia".
I'm more than certain that people who are more than self-proclaimed constitutional scholars could refute your statements thoroughly.
#2' the whole thing:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In U.S. vs. Cruikshank, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd didn't give the right to bear arms. In U.S. vs. Miller SCOTUS gave authorities the right to govern and restrict firearms not associated with a functioning regulated militia. In Miller vs. Chicago the court gave more latitude to the 2nd by applying the 14th and equal protections to citizens.
And the debate rages on........but don't presume to take a position that I'm illinformed.

This incident did happen, Marine 4 was on Queens side of east river and without going into great detail an incident happened causing serious injury to a members arm, the boat was piloted across river to the 90 street dock near FDR drive. Member was transported via FDR to Bellevue Hospital were he remains. His arm has been reattached and with prayer hopefully all continues well and he regains function.

While generally that's correct, there's a number of aspects of tort law that you'd be missing out on here, especially since there is a trove of studies, documentation, and anecdotal evidence that blue lights help with visibility. You be hard pressed to make a state of claim based solely on the fact that the blue lights violate the VTL. By that logic, blue lights must be inherently dangerous when used in such a fashion, making every volunteer's POV a "ticking time bomb on the public roadway", even when the lights are used lawfully.
To take that argument a step further, how many fire departments have amber lights, even if only rearward facing? Read the VTL closely, those amber lights on emergency vehicles are illegal in New York. So, if an engine/rescue/truck gets rear ended while having amber flashing lights, is that a home run for a civil claim. Of course not. But if your worried about it and your in a command position, how can you allow your department to continue to display those amber lights and "flout the law." I say that sarcastically, because I live in the real world.

Good points, but I don't know that it's that vague about the amber lights. Your trucks are not "specially equipped or designed for the towing or pushing of vehicles." It just happens to be something they can physically do, in addition to their intended purpose. And highway maintenance is defined, as permits are needed, so I doubt you file for a permit every time you respond to an MVA. That's all an aside though, I generally agree these laws are not realistic.
Not only would you have to sell that your engine was designed for pushing and towing vehicles, those lights "shall be
displayed on a hazard vehicle when such vehicle is engaged in a hazardous operation." Which means "the operation, or parking, of a vehicle on or immediately adjacent to a public highway while such vehicle is actually engaged in an operation which would restrict, impede or interfere with the normal flow of traffic," which creates all kinds of new problems. This would suggest you must be able to disable the amber flashing lights except when meeting one of those conditions. So, whenever not on or adjacent to a public highway as those terms are defined and actually engaged, you must have a way to turn them off. Absurd, right? I agree.
But as you said, a "creative lawyer..." My point, if I have one, is that a "creative lawyer" couldn't make either of these claims fly. Either the blue forward facing lights, nor the amber on your trucks. They are both well accepted practice nationally, and best-practice in many areas. So to argue that something that is generally considered "best practice" almost everywhere else, was somehow the proximate cause of a civil tort in New York, is, well, just a tad far fetched for my taste.

It has been some time since I last read the V&T laws, their have been some minor language changes and you bring up an interesting point. The definition of a hazard vehicle has changed, in the past amber light could be used on any vehicle involved in an operation where it was operating at reduced or different speeds than the flow of traffic. Now its rather limited, so as I read it, the following vehicles that regularly use amber lights are breaking the V&T: security companies, private security (hospitals, manufacturing, universities, etc.), oversized vehicles, escort vehicles, delivery vehicles, USPS (except on rural routes), fleet maintenance & repair vehicles, etc.
Now while it is a little vague as to who may use ambler, it does indicate that as long as a vehicle is designed to push a disabled vehicle (our fire trucks are so equipped) or is involved in highway maintenance (like cleaning up a fluid spill or the remaining debris at a crash) as we regularly do, then the regulation clearly allows us to use amber lights.
At the same time its hard to get past the language for blue lights as its on point:
Article 9, 375, 41. 4. b. In addition to the red and white lights authorized to be displayed pursuant to paragraph two of this subdivision, one or more blue lights or combination blue and red lights or combination blue, red and white lights may be affixed to a police vehicle, fire vehicle, ambulance, emergency ambulance service vehicle, and county emergency medical services vehicle provided that such blue light or lights shall be displayed on a police vehicle, fire vehicle, ambulance, emergency ambulance service vehicle, and county emergency medical services vehicle for rear projection only.

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 Letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education(1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
A number of letters written by both Jefferson and Madison, show what their intent was, and you have misrepresented their positions. It has nothing to do with current radical atheist's, since this is the position they wrote on 200 years ago.

Explain how that would work.
Yes.

You'd be wrong.
If one dime of tax money was used to put the mural on the rig, then the mural should be removed.

And that is because?

Great point. You're going to see more cases of average bystanders taking more risk to help their fellow man than the average trained rescuer.

I am just having an image of a bunch of tired, wet, hungry firemen trudging away from a smoldering foundation and hearing the OIC say, "Wow, that should have been an easy save. I guess we really suck. We need to get way better at this". I just can't see that happening.

Stellaris has not been dissolved, it is still in place as a shared services entity, rather than a parent corporation, for the four Stellaris hospitals. Westchester EMS remains one of those shared services. The four hospitals have committed to continue utilizing WEMS as their transport provider and transfer call center. That commitment will continue whether WEMS is part of Stellaris, or if it becomes a stand-alone company in the future.
WEMS is working with Somers FD on their transition to 60-Control and will continue to serve the FD and citizens of the Town of Somers as long as needed. WEMS will then move our dispatch operations to our headquarters in Mt. Kisco.
Scott T. Glaessgen, EMT-P
Operations Supervisor
Westchester EMS

What exactly caused you to decide that I was talking about rural areas? You say don't assume, but do just that.
Antman, listen to the counsel of those senior to you.
You wonder why we found your post scary, and taking an offensive posture? You said if an EDP threatened you or your partner, you wouldn't hesitate to put them down. That is a very offensive posture. I've had more "EDPs" threaten me than I can count. Haven't wanted to shoot any of 'em. In fact, I cannot recall a situation in my career where I can say a firearm would have made me feel better about doing my job, or a situation where I could have said...damn I wish I had a handgun I could've used today.

I think people, including me, are getting upset about this because you don't know what you're talking about and are so aggressive about it. I know arguing with you about this is probably useless and a waste of time, but I'm bored so what the heck.
As mentioned above by other members,the NRA class is NOTHING like what they teach you in the police academy. Police Officers have to regularly train and certify on their weapons. It's a tool of their profession, and the LAST line of defense. You can't just shoot everyone who attempts to assault you, nor will it deter someone from assaulting you. Ever watch "Cops"? Also, take a look back at some of your comments...you are advocating using a weapon offensively!
You need to learn to have an open mind, and listen to others who may have more experience then you, and are actually on the job, and not just "lol" them off. Being that you are at such a young age so closed minded and stubborn as you are presenting this opinion of yours, that scares me. If you're pursuing a career in emergency services, that's going to need to change.

I've been doing this EMS thing for over 20 years now. I've worked in busy, nasty urban areas, sleepy rural areas and pretty much everything in between. The poster who claims that we need to be armed, and he'd put someone down who was gonna hurt him...wow. Just, wow. With a mindset like that, EMS is NOT for you, pal. If you showed up to work with me, and started with that attitude, I'd drop you off at the next corner and wish you well.
I am a STRONG supporter of the 2nd amendment, and I want no part of having to carry weapons at work. Have I been in fights? Yup. Hairy situations? A few. But looking back, they were mostly avoidable and walking away (or running for that matter) will get you out of trouble you probably never should have been part of in the first place.
Quite frankly, you scare me more than the EDP's do. Put down an EDP? Beacuse they threatened your life? Do you know how many times in a busy urban area EMT's get threatened each year? We both can't count that high.
A few other points: Concealed carry won't stop an assault. They dont know you have it, so it's not a deterent.
Additionally, cops carry a number of tools to repsond to threats of force, or force. They have rules of engagement, force must be met with force. They don't just draw down and waste every person that threatens them. Please, please rethink your approach to EMS.

So we throw the word "Expedite". It will soon be replaced by another word which implies the same urgency.
Any word like expedite which implies urgency will have the same reaction to those who would put the pedal down and kill or injure people with their reckless abandon.
I used forthwith before. It used to be a word like expedite, but it seemed to wear off and go to the place of adrenaline- producing words that lost their effect This is where expedite will go when the effect wears off. It's not the word that is the problem, it's that squirt of adreninene that gets people to lose control. It looks like a widespread Safety issue. Let's have a stand-down and come up with all the words and phrases that might activate the adrenal glands of the untrained. Throw the squirt-words out.
Here's a starter list:
Expedite, 10-75, CPR commenced, worker, working fire, take a hydrant, smoke showing, shots fired, pin, entrapment
Come on! If you panic over a "word," what are you going to do when you get a "situation"

This is a few years overdue.

There is no public perception IMO one way or another. the public does not really care. Nor do the public officials.
We are the only ones who care. Usually some bitter member is the person who makes it a problem.
Yeh, I know... 9 years as a chief officer and I never had a problem taking my town issued car to work ( grant it was in the next town and I did respond to when I could. Ya know who made it a problem, a member that was disgruntled. He went out of his way to document via photos the 3 chiefs cars at work, at shopping etc. Needless today, one car sits in the chiefs driveway while he is at work the other two sit in the FD parking lot 18 hours a day and only used when a member wants to go to the pizza joint.
As one of my mentors and favorite Chiefs once said..." WE have met the enemy and WE are them".

Expedite is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the message is not interpreted as go to warp speed, abandon all caution, etc, etc.
If it's taken as only an advisory to that incoming unit that the situation is serious and time is of the essence. It's the same as giving the first due Truck an "expedite" because you have working fire with people trapped on the floor above. Now the incoming officer has a tactical objective.
If the medic goes to "warp speed" on the word "expedite" he doesn't need to throw out a word from his vocabulary, he needs training and a little more experience.

An anonymous friend of mine who is a police officer tells me of an officer on his job that asked for an "expedite on EMS and the medical examiner!".
I read an article in one of the journals about this subject and it boiled to to the "Expediter" being out of their element, or comfort zone. While I loath unneeded code 3 driving, I do appreciate knowing that I am heading to a scene that is more emergent than the typical not-so-emergent calls that make up 95% (that is a real stat, BTW) of the tour. I may not drive any faster, but I may move a little quicker in getting the gear un-secured and getting to the pt. I may don gloves in route, other little things to prepare for a bad call.

I think its got a psychological effect... "Expedite", "Have them step it up" maybe gives the crew on scene some "comfort" that the enroute unit(s) know they have an uncomfortable or more serious situation on their hands... whether those enroute maintain the same speed or not... that's also a different story. In my head at least I sort of see it as emergency services communicating with each other through a different "lingo" to get their views of the situation across without using language that may further upset patients or civilians around the incident.

I don't know where your getting your information, but it makes no sense whatsoever.