helicopper

Behind The Scenes As A Fallen Warrior Comes Home, Delta Airlines Honor Guard.Something most people do not see, as it happens behind the scenes. Delta honors our Fallen as they come home with their own Honor Guard, as the Fallen is transferred from the plane. Thank you Delta for the respect you show to our Fallen Heroes.
http://guardianofvalor.com/behind-the-scenes-as-a-fallen-warrior-comes-home-delta-airlines-honor-guard/
CREDIT: http://guardianofvalor.com

Based on all that has been discussed, I would have to agree with those individuals who said to arrest based on the Aggravated Unlicensed Operation, search the person's grabbable area (which is different from many states where you can search the car even if you ask the person to step out of vehicle), and later conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. I think many departments have the policy of vouchering ammo from the gun itself and see no legal impediment to doing so for safety reasons.
In NYC, with DATs, the person would be cuffed, searched for any contraband on his/her person, and then brought to precinct for issuance of a DAT.
Insofar as the "if an officer is informed of a concealed carry permit, whether it be verbally or visualizing a license, does this give him/her the right to search and seizure or the need to physically exam the weapon or weapons on said license," I think it gives the officer the right to exam the weapon to see if the person is properly licensed. Outside of the inventory search, I don't see a need to examine the magazine unless it is an arrest for CPW as it would be a search covered under the fourth amendment.
The decline to prosecute on this case could be due to any number of reasons, including lack of prosecutorial merit, if the Columbia County District Attorney thinks prosecuting under the SAFE ACT would be unduly harsh and improper.

When I was a road boss, I was called to the scene of a simple auto accident by a police officer who had an un-usual circumstance:
The officer was dispatched to a non injury accident to file a report. It was determined that one of the drivers had a suspended license (for failure to answer a summons). The subject had his mother-in-law in the car whom he transporting to work. As the mother in law did not have a license, the officer instructed the arrested subject that he was going to tow the vehicle. He would arrange for a cab to take the mother in law home or to work. The subject was given his Miranda warnings, frisked and handcuffed. The subject asked to speak to his mother in law before being transported to police HQ. The two then had a conversation in Italian. The subject was secured in the radio car and the officer kept a close watch over the mother in law. The officer then requested a supervisor to the scene.
The unknown to the two, the officer spoke Italian. The conversation consisted of the subject telling his mother in law to take the gun from under the driver’s seat and put it in her handbag. Upon arrival, the officer advised of the events and was unsure of we could conduct a warrantless search under the conditions. Under the circumstances I advised that the search would be valid and we then confronted the mother in law and she surrendered her handbag. In her bag was a loaded .38 caliber revolver.
The subject was advised that we had recovered the handgun and would be arresting both parties. The subject denied any knowledge of the firearm and wanted to know how we found it. The officer told him in Italian what he said to his mother in law. The expression on their faces was priceless.
Both subjects were booked and the DA accepted all of the charges. The defendant was offered a chance in court to admit the gun was his and the charges against his mother in law would be dropped. He declined.
As a side note, I received a phone call at the booking desk from the subject’s wife. I was expecting her to tear my head off for having her mother arrested. She never addressed the issue, she wanted to know what gives us the right to arrest her husband. Thinking that he had not told her what had happened, I filled her in on the days events. Her reply was “Big deal, everyone in the Bronx carries a gun”! My only reply was “this isn’t the Bronx” !
You can't make this stuff up!

The role of the safety officer is far more than simply accountability. In fact, the Safety Officer has little to do with accountability when you really do ICS right. The resource unit accounts for all operating resources and the operations element (Division, Group, Task Force, Strike Team, Unit) where they are working monitors conditions to insure things are going according to plan. That said, this pre-supposes that you have a resource unit, that you have a safety officer, and that you organize resources and don't just have all the bosses at the ICP while all the troops are "gettin' dirty".
This is a short list of some of the Safety Officer Responsibilities (from FEMA):
Identify and mitigate hazardous situations. Ensure safety messages and briefings are made. Exercise emergency authority to stop and prevent unsafe acts. Review the Incident Action Plan for safety implications. Assign assistants qualified to evaluate special hazards. Initiate preliminary investigation of accidents within the incident area. Review and approve the Medical Plan. Participate in planning meetings. Here's more from the FIRESCOPE Field Operations Guide (420-1, 2007 edition)


Only in the NWCG Firescope FOG does it discuss the safety officer having anything to do with accountability; and that's to initiate the program not necessarily DO IT him(her)self. Now, I'm not saying that anyone is wrong if they do it this way. I'd just like you to consider if the Safety Officer is doing accountability, who's doing all the rest of the stuff on the above list?

We need to start looking at the big picture and stop narrowly applying just parts of the process to how we do business. We'd probably surprise ourselves if we did that.

Right now the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) is the subject of intense debate. Several states have or are passing legislation that would ban their use, even (especially) for public safety purposes, citing privacy concerns. One bill in Missouri is written so broadly that it will even ground law enforcement helicopters except for use in "life and death" situations. Existing case law on the subject has created "reasonable" altitudes for "searches" to be considered "not intrusive" and almost all UAV's fly below these altitudes creating a whole new issue to be resolved. If you think the issue of guns and car stops and bullets is a gray area, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
The FAA is also still wrestling with how they are to be integrated into the system so I don't think they're going to be popping up in a lot of places soon.
For more info:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

http://www.auvsi.org/Home/
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=68004
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/07/anti-drone-bill-could-ground-st-louis-county-air-support/
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/remote-controlled-aerial-photo-industry-encountering-political-turbulence-b9918687z1-209288541.html
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/SE-drones-052413
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/statewide/archive/2013/05/grand-forks-drones-getting-international-attention.shtml
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/05/privacy_vs_security_when_does_the_use_of_drones_cross_the_line.html
http://www.komu.com/news/aerial-surveillance-by-police-could-face-restrictions/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/28/va-delegate-seeks-curbs-on-use-of-drones-in-state/

The role of the safety officer is far more than simply accountability. In fact, the Safety Officer has little to do with accountability when you really do ICS right. The resource unit accounts for all operating resources and the operations element (Division, Group, Task Force, Strike Team, Unit) where they are working monitors conditions to insure things are going according to plan. That said, this pre-supposes that you have a resource unit, that you have a safety officer, and that you organize resources and don't just have all the bosses at the ICP while all the troops are "gettin' dirty".
This is a short list of some of the Safety Officer Responsibilities (from FEMA):
Identify and mitigate hazardous situations. Ensure safety messages and briefings are made. Exercise emergency authority to stop and prevent unsafe acts. Review the Incident Action Plan for safety implications. Assign assistants qualified to evaluate special hazards. Initiate preliminary investigation of accidents within the incident area. Review and approve the Medical Plan. Participate in planning meetings. Here's more from the FIRESCOPE Field Operations Guide (420-1, 2007 edition)


Only in the NWCG Firescope FOG does it discuss the safety officer having anything to do with accountability; and that's to initiate the program not necessarily DO IT him(her)self. Now, I'm not saying that anyone is wrong if they do it this way. I'd just like you to consider if the Safety Officer is doing accountability, who's doing all the rest of the stuff on the above list?

We need to start looking at the big picture and stop narrowly applying just parts of the process to how we do business. We'd probably surprise ourselves if we did that.

1) the safety officer role is "all incompassing safety" and may require multiple people to perform. I was always taught he/she was to be another set of eyes for the IC, but with a different focus.
2) If its just entry exit then are we not accounting for everyone on the fire ground. While less hazardous, exterior members have been killed operating
An accounability officer should be doing it now with tags, passport, etc. They can do it.
There is no back-up to the current system that does not work today. Not know where the members are opperating in a timely manor is what most depts have today.
It should be a regional standard, but we cant even agree on apparatus staffing and response times (turnout times)

Thanks for the feedback. Again I must ask how these systems account for ff locations in hazardous areas?
An improvement on the "ring" as you know who has what assignment, radio, pack, etc......But it only works if you have very good company integrity.
From what I have seen, very few depts. have this. So while you arrived as Eng 1 nozzle, 2 bottle changes latter Eng 1 has been split up and the officer is doing one thing, the driver is somewhere else and the nozzle is now working with eng 2. If you do not track all of this, they are still on the bearclaw (or ring or passport or riding list) and its wrong and you no longer have accountability.
I have seen this happen at most fires in Westchester. So it does not matter what current system you use, if you do not track the member from begining to end.
If the Safety officer is doing accountability, who does the safety officers job?
Great idea. We have been doing this for 30 years and it is very helpful. We are about to step it up to the next level and actually track members using this.
You are correct. It is only as good as the self discipline of the members using it. We need a better system!!!!!
How many times have the members forgotten to use the tag, or go check the rig and find someones tag who you know has already gone home.

I take a few things away from this article :
1) New Yorkers have let their lawmakers trample their rights.
2) Don't drive when your license is suspended.
3) Don't drive your suspended licensed self around in a car with broken stuff on it.
4) When breaking two laws, try to avoid interacting with the police.
5) When breaking laws, don't be carrying a handgun and be shocked when the police ask to hold on to it for a minute.
6) Here in NY, don't be a test case for the SAFE Act, especially when numbers 2 thru 5 apply to you.

Ya know what the drone could tell you about that fire? The same thing a guy in the TL bucket could......except there was no one there.....probably because they don't have adequate staffing.
FDNY does about 30,000 fires a year. If Detroit were the same size they'd do 60,000 fires. Now, I know many of these are vacant surround and drowns, they still see tons of fire. Twice the work, half the staff......brilliant planning.

Right now the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) is the subject of intense debate. Several states have or are passing legislation that would ban their use, even (especially) for public safety purposes, citing privacy concerns. One bill in Missouri is written so broadly that it will even ground law enforcement helicopters except for use in "life and death" situations. Existing case law on the subject has created "reasonable" altitudes for "searches" to be considered "not intrusive" and almost all UAV's fly below these altitudes creating a whole new issue to be resolved. If you think the issue of guns and car stops and bullets is a gray area, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
The FAA is also still wrestling with how they are to be integrated into the system so I don't think they're going to be popping up in a lot of places soon.
For more info:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

http://www.auvsi.org/Home/
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=68004
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/07/anti-drone-bill-could-ground-st-louis-county-air-support/
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/remote-controlled-aerial-photo-industry-encountering-political-turbulence-b9918687z1-209288541.html
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/SE-drones-052413
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/statewide/archive/2013/05/grand-forks-drones-getting-international-attention.shtml
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/05/privacy_vs_security_when_does_the_use_of_drones_cross_the_line.html
http://www.komu.com/news/aerial-surveillance-by-police-could-face-restrictions/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/28/va-delegate-seeks-curbs-on-use-of-drones-in-state/

Right now the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) is the subject of intense debate. Several states have or are passing legislation that would ban their use, even (especially) for public safety purposes, citing privacy concerns. One bill in Missouri is written so broadly that it will even ground law enforcement helicopters except for use in "life and death" situations. Existing case law on the subject has created "reasonable" altitudes for "searches" to be considered "not intrusive" and almost all UAV's fly below these altitudes creating a whole new issue to be resolved. If you think the issue of guns and car stops and bullets is a gray area, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
The FAA is also still wrestling with how they are to be integrated into the system so I don't think they're going to be popping up in a lot of places soon.
For more info:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

http://www.auvsi.org/Home/
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=68004
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/07/anti-drone-bill-could-ground-st-louis-county-air-support/
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/remote-controlled-aerial-photo-industry-encountering-political-turbulence-b9918687z1-209288541.html
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/SE-drones-052413
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/statewide/archive/2013/05/grand-forks-drones-getting-international-attention.shtml
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/05/privacy_vs_security_when_does_the_use_of_drones_cross_the_line.html
http://www.komu.com/news/aerial-surveillance-by-police-could-face-restrictions/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/28/va-delegate-seeks-curbs-on-use-of-drones-in-state/

You and your "attorney slash LE Commissioner Father in law" got all that out of that article posted above? Given the scant details, it's impossible to know what happened at that car stop. What if the search was by consent? If it was, there's no Forth Amendment violation. I have no idea if it was by consent or not, but since the article doesn't give us the details, it's impossible to form an educated opinion. We need more details to decide.

As a Past President and a Chairman of the Fairchester Hose Hauler's Muster at Croton Point Park, I would like to offer the following advice for thought:
If you are considering a County Park site (Kensico, etc.) or any site for that matter then it is important that the first Muster be as successful as possible in order to keep the host and attendees enthusiastic and locked in for the future. That being said, I would strongly recommend that the commitee focus on a date for next year. A successful muster takes a lot of logistics planning, equipment and people and cannot be just thrown together by a handful of people in a short time. You want to come into it with your "A" game and plan, thoroughly publicize and execute a memorable event that will make everyone want more.
The Fairchester Hose Haulers Muster was nationally known because it was put on by a group of hard working, dedicated individuals who focused on maintaining high standards that did not erode over time. The only reason it ended was because some members of the core group moved away, others wanted a break and there was no "young blood" willing to do the hard work.
Alan M.
Past President
Fairchester Hose Haulers Association

But you better not have more than seven rounds in your gun when you use it!

But you better not have more than seven rounds in your gun when you use it!

This topic has gotten kind of off track, but just in reference to some of the statements made:
Texas DOES have a fire code, the State Fire Marshals Office uses NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code.
http://www.tdi.texas.gov/fire/fmfsi.html
To be fair, the State of Connecticut doesn't allow municipalities to create their own Fire Codes either, so that's hardly a fair argument to make.
OSHA and EPA laws and regulations exist no matter what state you're in, so to say that there's NO regulation in Texas isn't entirely accurate, they're held to the same federal standards that any other regulated industry is. Also if I recall correctly, this company WAS fined for a violation by Texas' environmental enforcement agency previously, so its not as if nobody is out there enforcing the law.

One of the funadmental problems with this argument is that nobody is saying there should be career departments instead of volunteer departments. The argument as I see it is that there should be just one standard for training for firefighter. If you're a volunteer and can't take it full-time during the week that's OK but you should still have to meet the same training objectives as a career guy to be designated a firefighter.
The problem with your statement above is that there is no guarantee that you're getting a qualfied and trained FF in many volunteer departments. However a career department is obligated to follow the mandated training so you are getting a qualified and trained firefighter. Now, before anyone reads this as a smack to the vollie side, there there are plenty of properly trained guys on the volunteer side. But you can't say, with any degree of certainty, that they'll be the ones showing up at your fire.
One training standard impiemented statewide (like they are for cop and EMT and paramedic) would go a long way to bridge this philosopical divide between career and volunteer firefighters.
Here endeth the rant.

I completely agree with you here. This reminded me of an article that i read a few weeks ago about a department near my mutual aid company in Northern NY where they are actually "locked out" of their firehouse until they complete their mandatory trainings. No matter what your call volume is, one should be trained properly to hold their status as a firefighter.
http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Tuesday-Newton-Falls-Fire-Volunteers-Locked-Out-201104971.html?m=y&smobile=y&clmob=y&c=n
^^^^article on firehouse lockout^^^^^

One of the funadmental problems with this argument is that nobody is saying there should be career departments instead of volunteer departments. The argument as I see it is that there should be just one standard for training for firefighter. If you're a volunteer and can't take it full-time during the week that's OK but you should still have to meet the same training objectives as a career guy to be designated a firefighter.
The problem with your statement above is that there is no guarantee that you're getting a qualfied and trained FF in many volunteer departments. However a career department is obligated to follow the mandated training so you are getting a qualified and trained firefighter. Now, before anyone reads this as a smack to the vollie side, there there are plenty of properly trained guys on the volunteer side. But you can't say, with any degree of certainty, that they'll be the ones showing up at your fire.
One training standard impiemented statewide (like they are for cop and EMT and paramedic) would go a long way to bridge this philosopical divide between career and volunteer firefighters.
Here endeth the rant.

24 whole hours? Wow!
I think the discussion started out so actively because it is VERY unusual for the state to take such definitive action against an agency. In the past 25 years, I can count on one hand the number of times such action was taken. THAT was "news".
Congratulations to them for getting things straightened out and being ALS again.
And if you've spent any time in this forum you know that even the most contentious discussions peter out after time. Big deal.

One of the funadmental problems with this argument is that nobody is saying there should be career departments instead of volunteer departments. The argument as I see it is that there should be just one standard for training for firefighter. If you're a volunteer and can't take it full-time during the week that's OK but you should still have to meet the same training objectives as a career guy to be designated a firefighter.
The problem with your statement above is that there is no guarantee that you're getting a qualfied and trained FF in many volunteer departments. However a career department is obligated to follow the mandated training so you are getting a qualified and trained firefighter. Now, before anyone reads this as a smack to the vollie side, there there are plenty of properly trained guys on the volunteer side. But you can't say, with any degree of certainty, that they'll be the ones showing up at your fire.
One training standard impiemented statewide (like they are for cop and EMT and paramedic) would go a long way to bridge this philosopical divide between career and volunteer firefighters.
Here endeth the rant.

This topic really does baffle me. So many people think that just pinning a badge on their chest makes them a fireman. However, very few actually want to earn the right to wear that badge by being able to do the job WELL! Everyone wants to be a heroic fireman when they meet a hot blonde at the bar, get pulled over for driving a little too fast (or having a few too many), or when they need to be well rounded on their college application/essay. Yet, when it comes time to take a long class to get thier firefighter 1, gather at the firehouse every tuesday night for drill, come to the firehouse an extra night every other week to do their Officer's rig checklist, or come to the firehouse on a saturday morning to clean the floors, then it is suddenly a "volunteer" fire department and they can't be expected to donate so much of their precious time. Thats when they all of a sudden "remember" that they have a family and a full time job that comes first...they never seem to have those commitments on the night of a parade, a serious fire call, a monthly barbecue, or a meeting with an open bar. But, all of a sudden, when the training starts or the brooms come out, they have a wife and kids that suddenly can't be left unattended for a few hours that night.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to denounce the volunteer fire service or those that dedicate their time to helping their neightbors. I have been a volunteer for 10 years and am not a career firefighter. In that time I have taken just about every New York State training class that is offered at the Westchester County Fire Training Center and know many worthwhile volunteer firefighters who have made it their business to do the same; I would be that most of these men could give many of the career guys who b**** in these very forums, alongside the volunteers who are also bitching, a run for their money firematically.
It is unfortunate that these types of volunteers seem to be a minority these days and the "do as little as possible to meet the minimum requirement" crowd is prevailing. In my opinion, the over-and-above volunteer firefigher is the proper way to be a volunteer firefighter. The firefighter who says "how can I better serve my neighbors" instead of he who says "how can my department better serve me." As this mentality prevails, and the former is overtaken by the latter, the tradition that is the volunteer fire service will surely fade into the past and become something that is remembered instead of practiced.

I don't think the security was for the body. It was for the local business that took the body and held it pending burial. Because tempers were high and (as you can even see here in this thread) people were extremely worked up about it. It's not out of the realm of possibility that they would have taken out their frustration on the funeral home.

Not a problem. Not that many people go to their games anymore anyway.