SRS131EMTFF

rip

Do they advocate violence? No. Has the church or any prominent member of the church been accused of violence? No.
Do they speak unfathomable hate? Yes. Do I fundamentally disagree with their speech? Yes. Do they have a right to their speech? Yes.
What will labeling this group as a legally recognized do? Absolutely nothing, they will still be able to protest funerals and spew their hate speech. Do I agree with it? No, but god damn it they have a right to speak it and you better believe that they can and will defend their right. We can condemn their speech in the strongest terms but we can not limit their speech no matter how extreme it is. So long as their speech does not violate any law, there is absolutely no choice but to accept the fact that they are entitled to their speech.
What you see as "push the 1st amendment to the extreme" I, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States, see as simply exercising their right to 1st amendment speech protection. If you don't like what they say, don't listen but they have not broken any laws and thus you have no right to limit their speech.

Do they advocate violence? No. Has the church or any prominent member of the church been accused of violence? No.
Do they speak unfathomable hate? Yes. Do I fundamentally disagree with their speech? Yes. Do they have a right to their speech? Yes.
What will labeling this group as a legally recognized do? Absolutely nothing, they will still be able to protest funerals and spew their hate speech. Do I agree with it? No, but god damn it they have a right to speak it and you better believe that they can and will defend their right. We can condemn their speech in the strongest terms but we can not limit their speech no matter how extreme it is. So long as their speech does not violate any law, there is absolutely no choice but to accept the fact that they are entitled to their speech.
What you see as "push the 1st amendment to the extreme" I, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States, see as simply exercising their right to 1st amendment speech protection. If you don't like what they say, don't listen but they have not broken any laws and thus you have no right to limit their speech.

Do they advocate violence? No. Has the church or any prominent member of the church been accused of violence? No.
Do they speak unfathomable hate? Yes. Do I fundamentally disagree with their speech? Yes. Do they have a right to their speech? Yes.
What will labeling this group as a legally recognized do? Absolutely nothing, they will still be able to protest funerals and spew their hate speech. Do I agree with it? No, but god damn it they have a right to speak it and you better believe that they can and will defend their right. We can condemn their speech in the strongest terms but we can not limit their speech no matter how extreme it is. So long as their speech does not violate any law, there is absolutely no choice but to accept the fact that they are entitled to their speech.
What you see as "push the 1st amendment to the extreme" I, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States, see as simply exercising their right to 1st amendment speech protection. If you don't like what they say, don't listen but they have not broken any laws and thus you have no right to limit their speech.

Do they advocate violence? No. Has the church or any prominent member of the church been accused of violence? No.
Do they speak unfathomable hate? Yes. Do I fundamentally disagree with their speech? Yes. Do they have a right to their speech? Yes.
What will labeling this group as a legally recognized do? Absolutely nothing, they will still be able to protest funerals and spew their hate speech. Do I agree with it? No, but god damn it they have a right to speak it and you better believe that they can and will defend their right. We can condemn their speech in the strongest terms but we can not limit their speech no matter how extreme it is. So long as their speech does not violate any law, there is absolutely no choice but to accept the fact that they are entitled to their speech.
What you see as "push the 1st amendment to the extreme" I, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States, see as simply exercising their right to 1st amendment speech protection. If you don't like what they say, don't listen but they have not broken any laws and thus you have no right to limit their speech.

Do they advocate violence? No. Has the church or any prominent member of the church been accused of violence? No.
Do they speak unfathomable hate? Yes. Do I fundamentally disagree with their speech? Yes. Do they have a right to their speech? Yes.
What will labeling this group as a legally recognized do? Absolutely nothing, they will still be able to protest funerals and spew their hate speech. Do I agree with it? No, but god damn it they have a right to speak it and you better believe that they can and will defend their right. We can condemn their speech in the strongest terms but we can not limit their speech no matter how extreme it is. So long as their speech does not violate any law, there is absolutely no choice but to accept the fact that they are entitled to their speech.
What you see as "push the 1st amendment to the extreme" I, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States, see as simply exercising their right to 1st amendment speech protection. If you don't like what they say, don't listen but they have not broken any laws and thus you have no right to limit their speech.

How about we line the borders of Newtown with FireFighters and EMS so they can' t get in to the town, you know go ahead make my day.

Do they advocate violence? No. Has the church or any prominent member of the church been accused of violence? No.
Do they speak unfathomable hate? Yes. Do I fundamentally disagree with their speech? Yes. Do they have a right to their speech? Yes.
What will labeling this group as a legally recognized do? Absolutely nothing, they will still be able to protest funerals and spew their hate speech. Do I agree with it? No, but god damn it they have a right to speak it and you better believe that they can and will defend their right. We can condemn their speech in the strongest terms but we can not limit their speech no matter how extreme it is. So long as their speech does not violate any law, there is absolutely no choice but to accept the fact that they are entitled to their speech.
What you see as "push the 1st amendment to the extreme" I, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States, see as simply exercising their right to 1st amendment speech protection. If you don't like what they say, don't listen but they have not broken any laws and thus you have no right to limit their speech.

The commercial transport agency I run with up here only gives 12 leads to AEMTs when they are transporting ALS patients, otherwise all BLS trucks only have an AED.
The 911 agency I run with mandates that all certified EMTs be capable of performing a 12 lead and transmit it to the ER successfully by themselves. Since we are a town based EMS service, we can receive funding from the town for 12 leads EKGs to provide a higher level of service then would otherwise be possible solely as a commercial agency.

I think you should mention that to the department that sold the rig...

I have requested family members ride in the box with me. Usually these are the parents of my child pt along to provide comfort for the child or the ridealong is adult care giver for an elderly pt that has difficulty communicating. Often times I will ask the adult care provider to interpret the pts responses since I do not always understand the muttering, slurring and stammering of an elderly pt much like their care provider does. Regardless of who is in the back with me, parent or care giver, company policy dictates that we make the ridealong sign a waiver indicating they will wear their seatbelt at all times until we arrive at our destination and that ultimately they will defer to company policy and crew instructions prior to departure from our location.

I have requested family members ride in the box with me. Usually these are the parents of my child pt along to provide comfort for the child or the ridealong is adult care giver for an elderly pt that has difficulty communicating. Often times I will ask the adult care provider to interpret the pts responses since I do not always understand the muttering, slurring and stammering of an elderly pt much like their care provider does. Regardless of who is in the back with me, parent or care giver, company policy dictates that we make the ridealong sign a waiver indicating they will wear their seatbelt at all times until we arrive at our destination and that ultimately they will defer to company policy and crew instructions prior to departure from our location.

And that is why every agency needs to have a seat belt policy for its members, pts and ride alongs as well as liability release forms for ridealongs.

And that is why every agency needs to have a seat belt policy for its members, pts and ride alongs as well as liability release forms for ridealongs.

New York cop's act of kindness goes viral
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/

New York cop's act of kindness goes viral
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/

Fire occurred in Bangladesh, not India.
Company involved in the fire manufactures clothing for Walmart. Remember that the next time you save a few pennies....

New York cop's act of kindness goes viral
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/

New York cop's act of kindness goes viral
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/

New York cop's act of kindness goes viral
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/

New York cop's act of kindness goes viral
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/

New York cop's act of kindness goes viral
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/

New York cop's act of kindness goes viral
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/

Did someone slip something in my drink or is her (the anchor woman's) shirt psychedelic?

two words: Private Island