AFS1970

Meriden, CT just fired one of their Officers after several videos surfaced of him beating handcuffed, minority suspects on multiple occasions. IAD tried investigating him, but being the Chief's son, it took a federal civil rights charge to finally get him gone.
Is it annoying when people video the police? Absolutely. Does it get edited by those with an agenda? Sure does. Does it sometimes catch a good cop on a bad day? Without a doubt. Do we live in America, where people have a right to videotape in public? You're goddamned right we do.

So long as you, the photographer, are on property you have the legal right to be present on (i.e. sidewalk, porch, car, etc.) you have the legal right to film anything in plain view.

I know Seth and in answer to your first question above, police officers need the ability to control a scene, including the proximity of any videographers that may be filming. When one of these would be Steve Spielbergs "crosses the line" and either gets too close or attempts to disrupt the officers in the performance of their duty than by all means at the very least they should be arrested and charged with interfering with a police officer. As far as the suspect and for the police too, there is not nor should there be any expectation of privacy when in a public space, such as a street corner, mall or movie theater, therefore if they are filmed either being arrested or arresting that video can be put out in the public realm without consent. If on the other hand a suspect is in their living room or on their front lawn, well then that's private property and a person has every right to expect what goes on there to remain private. The police though as public servants enjoy no such protection when on someone else's property, so Mrs. Jones has every right to film them arresting her husband in that living room or on the front lawn. And finally in answer to your last question, well I think we all know the answer to that one. Social media has indeed changed the game for all of us, public servant and civilian alike, and put us all under the harsh scrutiny of the public eye.
And while I understand that you did not call for the preventing of people of filming arrests, again it is disconcerting that the question was even asked because it belies a much bigger problem. We Americans have become desensitized to violence in our streets and in the world around us, and it is only natural that at some point we would also become desensitized to the curtailing our personal freedoms as a means of combatting that violence. On the surface yea sure the problem is dealt with, but at what cost? With each new restriction comes an acceptance of the loss of personal freedoms and it then becomes that much easier to take away more of them. We must be forever vigilant and protective of our First Amendment rights, including the right to film and share the police in action, for if we let them be curtailed we will not ever get them back.

If they got one handcuff on and not the other then there must have been resistance during the arrest3....

I don't trust ANYTHING I read in the media, except maybe the weather report. Today's media is little more than entertainment, not "news." They intentionally withhold facts, twist the truth, and outright lie in order to sensationalize incidents and create controversy.
As they say on XFiles, "the truth is out there." But you'll rarely get it from the "mainstream" media.

Per the attachment in the article, Jane Dunn (wife?sister?mother? of Colin?) appears to have another take on the events rather than letting it be seen as theft of a county vehicle and freelancing in the extreme. The only question is, was she there and witnessed their "heroic" actions, or did he relate his acts to her by phone or electronic media after being taken into custody? Guess we need more investigative details.............................
Must have been more to it than what she says for them to press obstruction charges, you would think.

It may be besides the point, or maybe not, but one has to keep in mind that many of the calls are not always to save a life, but to help people who are sick, or cannot get up by themselves, or who are injured but not in danger of dying, or having a psychological emergency or episode or are drunk, or who had the flu for three days and call when everyone is now sleeping even if they do happen to be staffing inside the firehouse. Yes, we should get out as promptly as possible, and absolutely ASAP for the more serious calls and emergencies in which the patient is in extreme distress. But not everyone is going to die if we pass 9 minutes. Although I can understand the point of getting out faster, and wish it were always possible, especially for the patient's sake and comfort.

"Nothing Showing" YET

The problem here seems not to be in what the initial arriving reports but how that is interpreted by other incoming units. If you become complacent it is your problem not the problem of the guy giving the size up. Remember complacency kills!
I will qualify that with a note about how information is relayed to us effecting our perception. Think about central station alarms. We all know that the false alarm rates are astronomincal. However the fire service definition of a false alarm is greatly different from the alarm industry's definition of a false alarm. For the most part they consider a false alarm as anytime they get the passcode from a keyholder, no matter where he is or what the situation is.
For years as a dispatcher I would relay to responding units that the alarm company was attempting to cancel. None of the departments in Stamford will cancel a fire alarm but most if not all will downgrade to a single engine based on that information. Then once as an officer in a VFD we had an incident like this wher ethe alarm company attempted to cancel, our first due engine canceled everyone else and were met by the homeowner who had given the code to the alarm company. The homeowner told them not to worry, it was only a small fire. Now it was very small and had no extension, but complacency drove the downgrade. It was a combination of misplaced trust in the alarm company by the dispatchers (something I no longer do) and complacency by responding units about alarm calls. THe outcome could have been worse.
It is how we interperate and react to incoming information that we need to fix because that is something we can do ourselves.

This seems more like an issue of priorities. I have seen fire departments that have EMS duties favor Firefighter training and even responses. I was once told by a senior member that I despite my being an EMT, and despite the department paying for my refreshers, that I was not bound to respond on EMS calls, even if I was in the building. I only HAD to go on fire calls. Why anyone would take this attitude is beyond me.

This seems more like an issue of priorities. I have seen fire departments that have EMS duties favor Firefighter training and even responses. I was once told by a senior member that I despite my being an EMT, and despite the department paying for my refreshers, that I was not bound to respond on EMS calls, even if I was in the building. I only HAD to go on fire calls. Why anyone would take this attitude is beyond me.

The problem here seems not to be in what the initial arriving reports but how that is interpreted by other incoming units. If you become complacent it is your problem not the problem of the guy giving the size up. Remember complacency kills!
I will qualify that with a note about how information is relayed to us effecting our perception. Think about central station alarms. We all know that the false alarm rates are astronomincal. However the fire service definition of a false alarm is greatly different from the alarm industry's definition of a false alarm. For the most part they consider a false alarm as anytime they get the passcode from a keyholder, no matter where he is or what the situation is.
For years as a dispatcher I would relay to responding units that the alarm company was attempting to cancel. None of the departments in Stamford will cancel a fire alarm but most if not all will downgrade to a single engine based on that information. Then once as an officer in a VFD we had an incident like this wher ethe alarm company attempted to cancel, our first due engine canceled everyone else and were met by the homeowner who had given the code to the alarm company. The homeowner told them not to worry, it was only a small fire. Now it was very small and had no extension, but complacency drove the downgrade. It was a combination of misplaced trust in the alarm company by the dispatchers (something I no longer do) and complacency by responding units about alarm calls. THe outcome could have been worse.
It is how we interperate and react to incoming information that we need to fix because that is something we can do ourselves.

Thanks, Snotty, I knew somebody out there would bring up Education in The Fire Service. Way back when, before there was a FLIP, or for that matter, any formal education (except FDNY's Academy) there was a number of individuals who demanded education. My father went to the Delehanty Institute in NYC ni the late '50s. Then a new concept opened in Mount Vernon in about 1958. Imagine a course for firefighters taught by Manny Fried, FDNY who wrote the book on strategy and tactics.
The "nob" was then passed to guys like DC Oreste Spallone and Capt Seely Burigo who made Fire Science an Associate Degree course. Our education was now "official." We weren't done six or eight of us persuaded Mercy College to offer a BS Degree based on John Jay's curriculum and in 1977, I was proud to be in the first graduating class with a BS in Fire Science. Meanwhile, Doc Kiernan and a few Chiefs were working on a Career Chiefs Academy for new firefighters, then FLSS for new officers which was Statewide and Required.
Now, instead of taking 25 guys and burning things down (we called it "building a parking lot"), we can now take 150 guys, fighting a fire in a organized manner, and leaving fire buildings bruised but still standing. We also have better accountability, better equipment, and special teams like Hazmat, Tech Rescue, etc.
So what's my point in all of this? I sometimes hear of the new generation pointing fingers at prior generations saying today's way is better. Sure, it's better, but the new generation didn't make it better. It took a lot of work on the part of older generations to develop these innovations and hand them to today's firefighters.
You don't have to tell the old guys that they were doing things screwed up. They know that. That's why they changed things. Now, new generation, it's your turn to "take the nob." If you don't like something
change it, but remember, these things take time.
Oh, by the way, if you happen to run into an old guy, just tell him "thanks."

Wow! Here we go again.
It sounds like the first arriving officer should now say "Arrived at 100 Main Street I don't see anything but I'll have to investigate further because I can only see sides 1 and 2. Have incoming units reduce their response to non-emergency but they don't have to proceed with caution any more because those words trigger something in their brains and they may get into an accident. OOPS, I said sides1 an 2. For those of you who can't convert that, it's A and B. No signs of fire after my 360, but the neighbors keep pointing to the house across the street. Whoop, there it is."
Why not just leave it as "Nothing Showing"

While I can agree that "nothing showing" is a valid arrival report, I believe that "on scene investigating" is better terminology to use. The bottom line is until we get in and take a look we have no idea what is going on and unless we state otherwise it's a given that there is nothing showing...otherwise we would have said so when we arrived, wouldn't we? "On scene investigating" let's incoming units know that the situation is not yet under control and keeps them mentally in a state of readiness, it also clearly states what action we, as the first due, will be taking. I agree with Seth's point that saying nothing showing often times leads to complacency, and whether or not that's a training/leadership issue or not, it still happens...why invite it? Finally I'm not a fan of radio chatter...short, sweet and to the point is always better. We've arrived, we do not yet know the entirety of the situation or what may be needed and we are going to investigate to find out is all covered by the phrase "on scene investigating" without the potential of bringing everyone's guard down or reciting a novella over the radio. Years ago in my FD we were taught to never say nothing showing upon arrival, now maybe my view is a holdover from those days...or maybe we're just better served by simply saying investigating until we have done so and know there's nothing there before saying so.

Date: 7-24-18
Time: 16:53 hrs
Location:Hudson River south of Croton Point Park
District: Croton On Hudson
Units: (See Below)

Description: Croton Rescue 18 Marine 12 and County Police aviation responding to the Hudson River south of Croton Point Park for a possible overturned white boat with another white boat possibly rendering
Updates
17:07 County PD has visual on the boat
17:08 Hudson River Command established
17:11 County Police reporting boat has been uprighted
17:15 Hudson River Command confirming sailboat has been uprighted and is underway to Haverstraw. County PD verifying. All fire units can take up.
Units
Croton Rescue 18 Marine 12 Car 208(?)(IC)
Montrose VA Marine Unit
County Police Aviation, Marine 17, ESU

*Please reply to this thread with any corrections or updates*

I believe the course is called "FLSTP" (first-line supervisor training program. It is run by FDNY but it is for any NYS career firefighter promoted to the next up supervisory rank (usually Lieutenant, but it could be Captain or Chief, depending on the size of the dept.). When I went years ago, we had officers from Yonkers to Syracuse to Cohoes to Johnson city to Albany and buffalo. It was 4 weeks long, and the lessons were all taught in a generic manner, meaning they were relevant to any career dept., not just FDNY (there were only 2 days where the FDNY lieutenants were separated from the rest to teach specific FDNY admin matters). It was really interesting when we had a tactics class- each student had to explain to the class how they would handle a fire on the 3rd floor of a 5 story multiple dwelling. The small departments really showed us "big city" guys how they attempted to "do more with less". We all got a lot out of the class, and had a lot of laughs.

1. Garner was not put in a "choke hold." That terminology is only used by the lying, sensationalizing media. He was put in a "carotid neck hold", which many police officers are trained in. The neck hold does NOT "choke" the suspect or restrict the airway at all. The neck hold is an alternative to using a baton or punching a resisting suspect and it has prevented thousands of injuries to suspects and officers.
2. Garner was morbidly obese and had asthma. He may have been on drugs. He overstressed his body by resisting arrest and fighting with the police. THAT caused him to suffer a heart attack, not anything the officer did.
3. He kept repeating "I can't breath" because he was having a heart attack, not because of anything the officer did.
The media is sleazy. They will change facts, omit facts, and outright LIE to sensationalize stories like this. Look at all the omissions and lies they initially made in the Trayvon Martin case. It's almost like they are trying to incite race riots and violence against the police.

This entire incident is just another case of lying media sensationalism. The FACTS are:
The officer did NOT put Garner in a "choke hold." He put him in a NECK RESTRAINT. Most officers are trained in the use of manual neck restraints. The restraint, or "neck hold" does NOT "choke" the suspect or restrict the airway in any way. The arm is positioned such that the airway is in the "crook" of the elbow and has an inch or two of room. Any pressure is applied to the sides of the neck only.
Garner was morbidly obese. He had asthma. He was quite likely on drugs. He died of a heart attack when he over-stressed his body by resisting arrest and fighting with police. Garner was hardly "murdered", as many NY blacks are claiming. He basically killed himself by making the conscious decision to fight with police despite his medical conditions.
It's just a shame that so many gullible readers fell for the sensationalism.

Let's not forget that in so many similar cases the news media edits the video to show you the most incriminating 5 seconds of a 20 minute video. A court in Florida recently rules that news media editing like this is not libel. I read an article years ago about a very high profile case, where an expert witness was brought in to testify against the police. He, like everyone else in the nation, had seen the footage shown on the news. After watching the whole unedited video, he refused to testify against the police, went to their lawyer and became their expert witness for free.
Cameras will not solve anything. First of all there was a camera in this case and the public is still up in arms. How did the presence of the video help the suspect? The police officers did what they did, right or wrong the camera did not seem to have any effect on this. There is still a dead suspect, although I can't help but think there were other factors beyond control of the police or EMS that played into the end result. The NYPD commissioner says that he expects the entire department to go through retraining. I always laugh at this. The news is reporting that choke holds are not allowed. So if (and only if) this is a case of excessive force, how will a class about following an existing rule that was not followed help the situation? I am pretty sure there are already classes in that. How about a class for the public on how not to sell bootleg cigarettes or DVD's or illegal drugs? Maybe pass a new law that says you still have to follow all the other laws we already have?
From the video footage I have seen I saw the EMS workers check the pulse and do some sort of assessment. Of course the video does not show what care occurred int he Ambulance, but that is irrelevant to the pro-criminal crowd, who make a living stirring up local communities against the police.
What I did get from the video is someone who was about to be arrested and when the cuffs came out, resisted being cuffed. When officers tried to restrain him, he turned away and probably would have tried to run if he were not outnumbered and 300 pounds. I will be willing to say that had he been compliant during the arrest, he would be alive today. Not only that but EMS would not have been needed and we would not be talking about 4 EMS members being suspended.
I do have to laugh (in a sort of sad way) at the reporters that have not stopped using as some sort of damning evidence that the suspect kept saying he could not breath. Last time I checked it took breathing to talk. This is just like the parent that says their baby isn't breathing and you can hear the baby crying. I can't speak to the effectiveness of respiration, but I do not that if you can talk to me you are breathing. This is the same theory behind not doing the Heimlich maneuver on someone who says they are choking, only on someone who isn't speaking and is holding their throat in the "international choking sign". You would think that every channel would get one of their semi-doctors or even Dr. Oz to explain this to them before they go on the air.

I saw this in my e-mail today: DRONE VIDEO
Now I am sure we could all comment on the specific fire, but my first thought was could a drone be used as a tool by an IC? Would this be a cost effective way to get air recon in a department without rapid access to other aircraft? I am sure that a drone that could operate at or near a fire would need to be better quality than those ones that are little more than RC aircraft one can by at the local mall, but it does seem to have some possibilities.

Goons? Blimp uniforms? Didn't have the guts to admit it? What's your problem with the police? They're doing a tough job under miserable conditions and you're calling them goons? That's just messed up!
I saw another video on the news this morning about some crazy carjacker in Colorado being taken down on the highway by a cop who used the same technique to bring the guy down - arm around the neck. There are not a lot of other/better options to take down a guy especially one who's 6'5 and 300+ pounds without using significant force (like taking out a knee or two). Martial artists learn that where the head goes the body follows so here we are.......

Where did you hear this? No one in the firehouse has heard this. That said.....old habits die hard and I think you'll hear this one in plain English for a long time/forever.

You get it? 300 lb pissed off dude "Hey bud, you need to come with me ok?" " Sure officer, no problem. I'd put my hands behind my back but I'm to big to handcuffed in the rear unless you have two sets of cuffs handy" Pick a scenario. Tasers? Not an option on Staten Island. Shoot the perp? Not a good idea. Maybe wait for K9, but thats inhumane. What's the answer? No matter what you do, you lose. Yes let's put cameras on all our officers, that will solve everything. How about holding each and every citizen responsible for their actions to in include showing their ass on a public sidewalk, street etc. LEOs aren'tperfect and there's some bad apples out there but the morales of society suck and it's out of control.

I definitely think they (the EMS personnel) could've handled the situation better, however the video appears to me to be ambiguous at best as to whether or not the pt had a pulse or was breathing. The only thing that was clear was that the guy needed medical attention in some fashion. If their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, then the administration of CPR would in all likelihood not be appropriate. They certainly could've had a little more pep in their step, but the patient was on the stretcher and on the way to the ambulance within a few of minutes contact by EMS. Again, if their assessment was that he was breathing and had a pulse, going to the ambulance rather than initiating care right there was the appropriate call IMO. Now, if their assessment was that he wasn't breathing and/or didn't have a pulse, then initiating care on the spot would've been the right thing to do.
I think the only thing clearly obvious to a lay person was that the guy appeared to be in need of medical care in some fashion since he was unconscious. The average lay person is often ignorant to exactly what care a patient needs on scene and what care EMS can actually provide at that point. I know I frequently encounter patients, family or bystanders who question why we aren't just putting the patient in the ambulance and driving to the hospital. The average lay person also often thinks that their medical needs or that of another person are more of an "emergency" than it actually is and this feeds the belief that EMS should be doing "more" to treat the patient, when in fact they may be doing everything they can within their scope of practice or the patient's condition only merits "minimal" care.
I think the video is a little less murky to the trained eye in that the initial assessment could have definitely been performed better, but it still fails to definitively answer the questions "is he breathing" and "does he have a pulse". We can only assume the answer to both questions was "yes" since they didn't immediately start CPR.
Without knowing all of the details, it's hard to say whether or not any or all of the suspensions for the 4 EMS providers were appropriate, but I think the speed in which they occurred were a PR move first (damage control) and a patient care issue second. The public often sees what they want to see in these situations, particularly when their is racial component (real or perceived) and want immediate action and far too often, management et al are too willing to bow down to that pressure and take punitive actions with incomplete information and in violation of the employees right to "due process".