Medic137

And then some of those fire-rescue and police boats could be justified.

With their vehicles crushed, "We had nothing to pursue him with," said Chief Deputy Philip Brooks.Sounds like the opening scene of "Super Troopers II". Coming soon!

With their vehicles crushed, "We had nothing to pursue him with," said Chief Deputy Philip Brooks.Sounds like the opening scene of "Super Troopers II". Coming soon!

Why does it matter aside from maybe helping figure out what is wrong with the patient? Forget about how its just wrong to treat someone differently based upon a medical condition, what if they don't know they're carrying some disease. Everyone gets treated the same unless I suspect an infection requiring droplet precautions.
Moderator note: This was the very last post made by Lenny, before he left us for keeps. RIP.

That will be the key factor in whether or not the medic gets jammed on this. We've all been with patients that should go to the hospital and refuse despite our efforts to convince them. Documentation is everything here. Did the medic paint a picture of an informed and competent patient refusing treatment and transport?

When you disappear a thread and a month later suddenly restore it amongst other threads that are no longer active you have effectively killed it. This forum is large and many like myself only go to the new content link. Especially on a mobile device, navigating each individual section and subsection is time consuming and onerous. When restoring a thread, quick bump post would help hopefully help to restart the discussion.

Is there any hope of the 'New Content' automatically going to the last read item? It's bit of a pain to click on a popular thread, wait for the page to load, then click on the option to go to first unread and wait for the page to load again.

When you open a topic it brings you to the first post in the thread not the last post you have read.

The short answer is, no. There could be very limited exceptions, all of which would involve consent or Search Warrants. These "experienced officers" you're working with are committing larceny. And, if they're actually taking it from a person, they're committing a felony larceny. To go one step further, if they are using force or threats to take them, they are committing a robbery, which is classified as a violent felony here in New York.
You can always ask a witness for their video if you think it could aid in your investigation, but you can't force them to turn it over without a judicial decree. And, taking the phone just because you don't like what a bystander is saying/doing will never give rise to the probable cause required to obtain a Search Warrant. As a backdoor way to get it, you could Subpoena the recordings with a Subpoena Duces Tecum, however in that case, they only need to provide you with a copy of what they recorded, not the actual phone.
Additionally, taking all phones from all witnesses or bystanders just because they "might" have seen something is impermissible and violates the Forth Amendment. There is a ton of caselaw on that. Feel free to LexisNexis it and you can spend days reading the cases.

ZAKA (the agency in the article) generally is responsible for identifying and burying people and body parts from terrorist attacks. The vehicle pictured in the article does not appear to be an ambulance. It does appear to be a vehicle used to respond to a terrorist incident and transport the dead and body parts for identification and burial. The vehicle may be equipped with a light and siren package. It is certainly not a "911" ambulance being used to transport the bride to the wedding. The "911" functions in Israel are covered by MADA and Hatzolah. ZAKA does not serve as a "911" agency in Israel. In fact, the slogan on the side of the van says, "true kindness", which is a phrase used to describe kindness to those who have already passed away as they have no chance to repay the favor.

Its a high profile event so the manpower will crawl out of the wood work, for sure. Now, competent manpower becomes a different story.

I believe that when a member of Mohegan VFA and MAC successfully ran for Fire Commissioner 5 years back, he did some math and determined (my memory is very suspect) that running their engines cost about $17/mile and running their SUV's was less than $5/mile, taking in many costs. Big district, lots of calls = many miles.
I also recall a quote from Allen Brunacini who was the Chief of the Phoenix FD and a highly respected national leader and speaker in the fire service. He said "Using a class A pumper to answer EMS calls is like using a cement truck to deliver a pizza."

Is it really all of us who don't get it, or is it just you? It's been clearly established you were wrong. Just plain wrong. Yet, you continue to want us to take your side over this calltaker, who it sounds was just doing her job, and doing it well. Why should we blindly side with you over your unwarranted and nasty criticisms? Just because your "on the job"? Your not impressing anyone here. Everyone here is "on the job". You keep doubling down, yet you remain in the wrong. Why should we side with you? You have the nerve to come on this forum, call out this dispatcher, and now, in retrospect, we see it's for no legitimate reason. In all your posts, you have failed to identify how this woman was incompetent.
As for your last thought, I'm glad I don't work with you either, because you seem to have a poor attitude, no attention to detail, and a short fuse. I would have a miserable time dealing with that full-time. Additionally, if while driving "55 mph on a highway" you can't see the MPM, then you may have serious vision issues. I don't want someone like that backing me up. I also don't want someone backing me up who doesn't have the integrity and fortitude to admit when he or she made a mistake. Finally, I don't want anyone working with me who sterotypically believes workers may be inferior, just because they are female. So for once, you said something I agree with, I don't want to work with you either. :-)

Mile Post Markers:
First, you claimed that you referenced to the calltaker the Taconic/BRP Interchange which is MPM 0.00 on the Taconic. Simultaneously, it is MPM 19.12 on the Bronx River Parkway.
Then you claimed that it was right in front of the TMC which is MPM 12.62 on the Sprain Brook Parkway, NOT the Taconic. The Lower Taconic branches off before reaching the TMC.
Now, you claim it was a quarter mile south of the 9A ramp, which could reference EITHER the 141/9A Interchange located at MPM 2.87 on the Taconic OR the newer 9A ramp which is located at MPM 4.67 on the Taconic. Now, you say a quarter mile south of that, which would put you at MPM 4.42 (from the new ramp) OR MPM 2.62 (from the 141/9A ramp). Now the second one would put you on the Lower Taconic.
Now, this whole time, this calltaker is probably thinking to herself "...well, he can't mean the Taconic at all, now can he, because the TMC is on the Sprain, not the Taconic. Maybe if he gives me the MPM, I'll know exactly where he is, so I don't have a Trooper driving all over the place looking for this van!..." So she asks you for the MPM to help clarify things, but at this point, you've decided she's too "mildly retarded" and it all goes down hill from there. Did I get that about right?
See how just reading the next MPM you saw could have avoided all this confusion? You can try to spin this all you want, but it seems obvious to me (and others here) that her follow-up question was reasonable, and not really anything you should have gotten angry over.
Any dispatchers here agree/disagree? Maybe JBE, will chime in. Asking for a MPM a reasonable follow-up question?

I'd still suggest that they be trained to the EMT-Basic level if for no other reason then the likelihood of injuries to their associates. Whether it be fireground, during training, or whatever the environment, having the extra knowledge could prove beneficial.

Golfclap

I think the "attending" of other folks incidents offers a learning opportunity. Many agencies get very few actual structure fires, MCI's etc, so you can multiply your chances to see right and wrong by going to other folks calls.
BUT: At these incidents there are victims. Someone is losing life and or property. It does us all a big disservice for people to stand around wearing jackets and outerwear with FD or EMS insignia at these scenes. Add the joking, smoking, laughing, swearing and snide comments that occur and we all look like absolute crap to the 99% of the crowd who are not us.
Being able to watch an incident without the responsibility of having to participate can be a valuable learning experience. But making us all look like uncaring fools can be very wreckless. Go. Learn. Don't look like an MOS. Be respectful of the scene and its victims.

Absolutely disgraceful. There is no excuse to leave an animal to suffer, throw it out alive and then use it for entertainment. You should be ashamed.

Lets take the passion out of this for a minute.
At best the City handled this latest development poorly. What did the NJ Daily News quote as the number for responders to the WTC....roughly 91,000. Even if you halfed that number that's 45,000 people. There is no way the area around the WTC could currently handle 45,000 people and have it not be a logistical nightmare. I was at the WTC on 9/11 and in the two weeks following, had collegues that died and rarely discuss or mention it. I have never had a desire to feel I needed to be there every 9/11 and I don't have a burning desire to be there this September 11. Hopefully when the Memorial opens to will provide a suitable setting for remembrance but basically the WTC area is what it is intended to be, a construction site for now. Let the date be for the family members of those killed on 9/11. With 343 FDNY, 23 NYPD, and 37 PANYNJPD and those from the other public safety agencies, those families should be the representatives of the uniformed services. I can go to the WTC any time of th day or night to make my peace.

I'm not so sure I entirely agree with the sentiment that more lights can't really hurt anything.
Perhaps it is because I work exclusively at night time or perhaps simply because I have had this happen to me several times over the past month or so, but I find that excessive lighting (emergency lighting, that is) can make it very difficult to see. Especially in the instance of some of the very fast LED flash patterns that seem to have become very popular, going from using relative night vision while driving to a scene to, all of a sudden, having to cope with extremely bright flashing lights can be very difficult--so much as to potentially make initially assessing a scene nearly impossible. I actually had an experience recently where, upon arriving at a call, was literally blinded by several flashing LED lightbars to the extent that my partner and I actually entered the driveway next to the one of our patient's (they were directly next to each other) because we simply could not see.
While I feel LED's are fantastic for the daytime where traditional warning lights are very easy for people to not notice, I'm still not convinced that they are the best option outright. Perhaps more old-fashioned options or a combination of them with some LED's is worth considering?

I said in my earlier post on this thread:
"You should assign drivers after looking at their record, their experience, their temperament, their personality, and their driving skills"


I'm a Scotsman. I call a spade a spade. I have to say, based just on what you're saying and how you're saying it, I personally wouldn't let you near the driving seat of any apparatus. You're talking too much and not listening enough.


Mike

There are parts of this issue I have never fully understood:
In many (not all) systems in Westchester that send FD units on EMS runs, this arrangement was begun in the last 20 years or so, and was done, again in many but not all cases, at the FD's request. If the FD wants to stop running on calls they feel are beneath them, simply get yourselves deleted from the EMS response protocol. Un-due what you did.
I have read in data gathered from the Emergency Care information Center in Escondido Ca (sorry no link) that about 35% of EMS calls are serious enough to need ALS. About 3% of EMS calls are "life and death". In my personal experience, less than 1% of fire alarms are working fires. (hose, hydrants, air-packs). The fire service never complains about the smoking dryer belts, steam from the shower, furnace burps, light ballast, forgot to open the fireplace flu type of work that makes up many of their alarms.
It is no ones fault but ours that we over-respond. I have heard a bloody nose on the Sprain get 1 BLS bus, 1 ALS car, GPD, NYSP and I think 4 large fire units from two departments. It is US that make the decisions about what to send. It is the public that pays. In my job as a paid EMS guy, I was once called to a town bordering our primary area for some minor complaint. I asked them why they called us, not their own 911 agency? They said they had done so in the past and were ovewhelmed with the 2 EMS 2 PD and 2 FD units that came. In Massachusetts the Governor at the time(Romney I believe) issued an executive order allowing nursing homes to call private EMS agencies for emergencies. That was done at the NH industry's request, as they did not like the multiple lights, loud radios, idling deisel and whatever else a large response brings to a quiet home. In response, the Mass State FF union sued him to get the order recinded. I read all this in an article about the Boston FD LT killed when the brakes on his ladder truck failed returning from an EMS run. I do no know the outcome of the lawsuit.
Not trying to anger anyone here. If you feel EMS work is not good enough for you, I would appreciate it if you found a way not to do it. The patient and I would appreciate it.
Bill

High Five to the US Military! OOH-RAH

With all due respect, I think you have a grave misunderstanding about the role of an agency officer and the responsibilities of an agency member. It also seems that you view "professional courtesy" as an entitlement. Let me address your comments one at a time...
First off how do you know the police agencies and/or officers involved in this situation haven't gone to the offending agency in the past? Perhaps this is a pattern of behavior that needs to be resolved officially in the courts.
The defendant in this case committed 21 violations (or perhaps more) and received 21 summonses. The number of violations is what should be viewed as excessive, not the number of charges filed against him. These summonses were issued in lieu of a custodial arrest so the officers did exercise discretion.
Agency administrators, be they Chief, Captain, Commissioner, or whatever, are not parents and their members are not children (at least chronologically). There is definitely a time and a place for bringing a wayward child home to mommy or daddy but this is the case of an adult being held responsible for his actions. There's simply no reason for law enforcement to take an offender to his employer to resolve criminal acts (and reckless driving is a crime). That's like saying the State Police should take their findings in the fatal I-95 bus crash to the bus company for resolution. Where's the logic in that?
I understand where you're coming from about dealing with an agency directly and sometimes that is the right thing to do. I once stopped a vehicle operating at an excessive speed with a blue light and learned that there was no fire, the driver was late for work. He got his speeding ticket and his chief (three towns over) got a phone call about the blue light. Had the guy been running people off the road the chief would have read about the arrest in the newspaper.
It doesn't matter if it is a chief or member or civilian driving recklessly. They should be and are held responsible for their own actions. This case is noteworthy because it occurred while the offender was exercising the privilege of using red lights and siren. As the driver of any vehicle you're held responsible for the operation of that vehicle.
It isn't the lights and siren that make the risk greater; it is the driver's tendency to go faster and take more chances while using them. Psychologically it may be a false sense of security or it may be just plain adrenaline. And, highlighting points from other threads, there is a lack of supervision in many volunteer agencies that exacerbates this problem.
Finally, to receive professional courtesy one must be professional and courteous. This driver was neither. To expect preferential treatment or even infer that it is deserved in a case like this is why we hear stories of people getting tickets despite their membership in a fire or EMS agency. People get courtesy when they deserve it, not when they demand it.

My ambulance has been parked on 163 & Westchester, Southern & 167, and 149 & Union in the Bronx for many full moons as a medic and I was scattered all over the north Bronx as an EMT. I've done my share of shenanigans filled evenings with EDPs, PCP abusers and the latest inductees to the knife and gun club. There is not a correlation between the moon and the stupid.
I'm going to go with selective memory to explain this one. The big incidents or crazy nights that happen on or near a full moon reinforce a previously held notion. This causes a stronger emotional response and makes a stronger memory. Then years later when you reflect back on all your "bilat 14g's" all those events near a full moon are clearer in your mind. The research is there. Read for yourself, The Google knows all...