AFS1970

From the dispatch persepective I have always wondered why we send agencies to other agencie's calls. In my dispatch center a call for a structure fire automatically goes to both the police and fire dispatchers. By the very nature of police being out on patrol and fire waiting in a station for a call, it is almost impossible for the police to not arrive first. I often ask this question, why are we sending the police. Most often I get the nebulous answer that they might be needed. By this theory we should send police, fire and EMS on all calls because they might be needed. Do we send EMS on all buglaries because someone might have cut themselves on a broken window? I have been criticized for not sending the dive team to a car partially in the water with the driver standing looking at it, based on the idea that there might have been a body in the trunk. If that were really a concern then fire should be responding to all abandoned cars for the same reason.
Now there are concerns that the police need to deal with at many fire scenes, but none are critical enough that we need to send them well before we have alerted the fire department. THe old joke about the first car having to get there in time to block the hydrant is only sometimes a joke, but I was on a call once where one of our guys had to get out of the tower ladder and move the unattended police car at the end of the block, because the officer parked it across the street then walked up to look at the fire. I get that there are sometimes traffic concerns and there are even times when fires become crime scenes, but I also think that we are sometimes putting our responders in a no win situation by sending them unequiped for the situation.
The example of the police officer on scene when a civilian brigns out a victim needing CPR is one thing. But the public expects all responders to just do something. They do not understand why that police officer is not running in and trying to rescue all those people. This has lead to a culture where we have trained police officers to disregard their own safety. Why do firefighters wear turnout gear? Because years of science have told us it is the best way not to get burned. Why do police run into burning buildings? Because the fire department was not there yet. To this I will ask why were the police there? As a dispatcher I can wait a few seconds for the fire department to be alerted before sending the police to a call where their main function will be support, especially in a world where most fire responses are under 5 minutes.

From the dispatch persepective I have always wondered why we send agencies to other agencie's calls. In my dispatch center a call for a structure fire automatically goes to both the police and fire dispatchers. By the very nature of police being out on patrol and fire waiting in a station for a call, it is almost impossible for the police to not arrive first. I often ask this question, why are we sending the police. Most often I get the nebulous answer that they might be needed. By this theory we should send police, fire and EMS on all calls because they might be needed. Do we send EMS on all buglaries because someone might have cut themselves on a broken window? I have been criticized for not sending the dive team to a car partially in the water with the driver standing looking at it, based on the idea that there might have been a body in the trunk. If that were really a concern then fire should be responding to all abandoned cars for the same reason.
Now there are concerns that the police need to deal with at many fire scenes, but none are critical enough that we need to send them well before we have alerted the fire department. THe old joke about the first car having to get there in time to block the hydrant is only sometimes a joke, but I was on a call once where one of our guys had to get out of the tower ladder and move the unattended police car at the end of the block, because the officer parked it across the street then walked up to look at the fire. I get that there are sometimes traffic concerns and there are even times when fires become crime scenes, but I also think that we are sometimes putting our responders in a no win situation by sending them unequiped for the situation.
The example of the police officer on scene when a civilian brigns out a victim needing CPR is one thing. But the public expects all responders to just do something. They do not understand why that police officer is not running in and trying to rescue all those people. This has lead to a culture where we have trained police officers to disregard their own safety. Why do firefighters wear turnout gear? Because years of science have told us it is the best way not to get burned. Why do police run into burning buildings? Because the fire department was not there yet. To this I will ask why were the police there? As a dispatcher I can wait a few seconds for the fire department to be alerted before sending the police to a call where their main function will be support, especially in a world where most fire responses are under 5 minutes.

This is the best training video of how NOT to act on the scene of an incident when interacting with the general public. I also have to agree that I question if there was actually a need to move back or if this officer just wanted the video stopped for a personal reason. If a need existed to move back then a simple " please move back X feet for your safety" would have probably elicited cooperation but as soon as it was coupled with the second more really reason for the move, "stop the video" it was turned into a confrontation. The officer gave the citizen mixed signals, am I moving for my safety or because you do not want me video taping regardless of where I stand. If the later then I believe public space and freedoms trump the request especially if he was outside of the "scene".

Well, it would appear that the Captain is not as smart as his name implies.
Buffs have been around since before cameras, I doubt they are going away anytime soon. Although they can at times be quite annoying, most departments seem to either ignore them entirely or at least tacitly accept them at scenes.
Based on the begining of the video, I would say that the firefighter shown to the rear of the engine in the roadway was responsible for maintaining the perimiter, which he seemed to be doing. By the fact that he was in the same video as the rest of the incident it was pretty clear that the buff was outside of this perimiter. This was also clear by the multiple cars that passed between the camera and the LZ. If for some reason the perimiter needed to be expanded, I would think that the firefighters on the perimiter would have been notified and been responsible for shutting down the roadway and notifying any pedestrians there.
When the captain and the other firefighter approiached the buff, the first guy motioned and said to stop filming and then before any question could be asked, the captain became beligerant, rude, and demanding. He lied on the radio when he described the buff as "combative". He then seemed to use excesive physical force to more the buff. In some cases , although this video was too limited in view to determine, this could have been an assault. I also notied that while pushing the buff he was wearing goiled gloves with the patient's blood on them. Dangerous and not too classy.
I also noticed that he kept yelling into the radio and speaking over the buff thus creating a recording of his side of the argument but due to his yelling and the normal background noise of the LZ probably no recording of how calm the buff was.
I am sure that Capt. Smart is the exception and not the rule when it comes to MDFR, I hope that he is not used as an example of the right way to interact with the public, and frankly I hope he has to explain why he should keep his job after such a performance. At the very least he should not be treating patients or supervising anyone with that kind of behavioral issue.

Well, it would appear that the Captain is not as smart as his name implies.
Buffs have been around since before cameras, I doubt they are going away anytime soon. Although they can at times be quite annoying, most departments seem to either ignore them entirely or at least tacitly accept them at scenes.
Based on the begining of the video, I would say that the firefighter shown to the rear of the engine in the roadway was responsible for maintaining the perimiter, which he seemed to be doing. By the fact that he was in the same video as the rest of the incident it was pretty clear that the buff was outside of this perimiter. This was also clear by the multiple cars that passed between the camera and the LZ. If for some reason the perimiter needed to be expanded, I would think that the firefighters on the perimiter would have been notified and been responsible for shutting down the roadway and notifying any pedestrians there.
When the captain and the other firefighter approiached the buff, the first guy motioned and said to stop filming and then before any question could be asked, the captain became beligerant, rude, and demanding. He lied on the radio when he described the buff as "combative". He then seemed to use excesive physical force to more the buff. In some cases , although this video was too limited in view to determine, this could have been an assault. I also notied that while pushing the buff he was wearing goiled gloves with the patient's blood on them. Dangerous and not too classy.
I also noticed that he kept yelling into the radio and speaking over the buff thus creating a recording of his side of the argument but due to his yelling and the normal background noise of the LZ probably no recording of how calm the buff was.
I am sure that Capt. Smart is the exception and not the rule when it comes to MDFR, I hope that he is not used as an example of the right way to interact with the public, and frankly I hope he has to explain why he should keep his job after such a performance. At the very least he should not be treating patients or supervising anyone with that kind of behavioral issue.

Well, it would appear that the Captain is not as smart as his name implies.
Buffs have been around since before cameras, I doubt they are going away anytime soon. Although they can at times be quite annoying, most departments seem to either ignore them entirely or at least tacitly accept them at scenes.
Based on the begining of the video, I would say that the firefighter shown to the rear of the engine in the roadway was responsible for maintaining the perimiter, which he seemed to be doing. By the fact that he was in the same video as the rest of the incident it was pretty clear that the buff was outside of this perimiter. This was also clear by the multiple cars that passed between the camera and the LZ. If for some reason the perimiter needed to be expanded, I would think that the firefighters on the perimiter would have been notified and been responsible for shutting down the roadway and notifying any pedestrians there.
When the captain and the other firefighter approiached the buff, the first guy motioned and said to stop filming and then before any question could be asked, the captain became beligerant, rude, and demanding. He lied on the radio when he described the buff as "combative". He then seemed to use excesive physical force to more the buff. In some cases , although this video was too limited in view to determine, this could have been an assault. I also notied that while pushing the buff he was wearing goiled gloves with the patient's blood on them. Dangerous and not too classy.
I also noticed that he kept yelling into the radio and speaking over the buff thus creating a recording of his side of the argument but due to his yelling and the normal background noise of the LZ probably no recording of how calm the buff was.
I am sure that Capt. Smart is the exception and not the rule when it comes to MDFR, I hope that he is not used as an example of the right way to interact with the public, and frankly I hope he has to explain why he should keep his job after such a performance. At the very least he should not be treating patients or supervising anyone with that kind of behavioral issue.

Well, it would appear that the Captain is not as smart as his name implies.
Buffs have been around since before cameras, I doubt they are going away anytime soon. Although they can at times be quite annoying, most departments seem to either ignore them entirely or at least tacitly accept them at scenes.
Based on the begining of the video, I would say that the firefighter shown to the rear of the engine in the roadway was responsible for maintaining the perimiter, which he seemed to be doing. By the fact that he was in the same video as the rest of the incident it was pretty clear that the buff was outside of this perimiter. This was also clear by the multiple cars that passed between the camera and the LZ. If for some reason the perimiter needed to be expanded, I would think that the firefighters on the perimiter would have been notified and been responsible for shutting down the roadway and notifying any pedestrians there.
When the captain and the other firefighter approiached the buff, the first guy motioned and said to stop filming and then before any question could be asked, the captain became beligerant, rude, and demanding. He lied on the radio when he described the buff as "combative". He then seemed to use excesive physical force to more the buff. In some cases , although this video was too limited in view to determine, this could have been an assault. I also notied that while pushing the buff he was wearing goiled gloves with the patient's blood on them. Dangerous and not too classy.
I also noticed that he kept yelling into the radio and speaking over the buff thus creating a recording of his side of the argument but due to his yelling and the normal background noise of the LZ probably no recording of how calm the buff was.
I am sure that Capt. Smart is the exception and not the rule when it comes to MDFR, I hope that he is not used as an example of the right way to interact with the public, and frankly I hope he has to explain why he should keep his job after such a performance. At the very least he should not be treating patients or supervising anyone with that kind of behavioral issue.

Well, it would appear that the Captain is not as smart as his name implies.
Buffs have been around since before cameras, I doubt they are going away anytime soon. Although they can at times be quite annoying, most departments seem to either ignore them entirely or at least tacitly accept them at scenes.
Based on the begining of the video, I would say that the firefighter shown to the rear of the engine in the roadway was responsible for maintaining the perimiter, which he seemed to be doing. By the fact that he was in the same video as the rest of the incident it was pretty clear that the buff was outside of this perimiter. This was also clear by the multiple cars that passed between the camera and the LZ. If for some reason the perimiter needed to be expanded, I would think that the firefighters on the perimiter would have been notified and been responsible for shutting down the roadway and notifying any pedestrians there.
When the captain and the other firefighter approiached the buff, the first guy motioned and said to stop filming and then before any question could be asked, the captain became beligerant, rude, and demanding. He lied on the radio when he described the buff as "combative". He then seemed to use excesive physical force to more the buff. In some cases , although this video was too limited in view to determine, this could have been an assault. I also notied that while pushing the buff he was wearing goiled gloves with the patient's blood on them. Dangerous and not too classy.
I also noticed that he kept yelling into the radio and speaking over the buff thus creating a recording of his side of the argument but due to his yelling and the normal background noise of the LZ probably no recording of how calm the buff was.
I am sure that Capt. Smart is the exception and not the rule when it comes to MDFR, I hope that he is not used as an example of the right way to interact with the public, and frankly I hope he has to explain why he should keep his job after such a performance. At the very least he should not be treating patients or supervising anyone with that kind of behavioral issue.

Date: 05/28/2013
Time: 04:37
Incident Type: Single Truck Colision on I95
District: SFRD/CSP/MTA PD
Location: I95 Northbound between Exit 8 & 9, extension to Northeast Corridor RR Tracks
Units: E3,R1,M1,E1 (Special Called), Stamford Police, CT State Police, MTA Police
Frequency: Stamford Trunked
Weather Conditions: Warm & Clear
Reporters: AFS1970

Description: Passerby reported truck vs pole colision on I95 N/B, with a pole down. Units initially unable to locate scene due to wrong exit numbers given. SFRD units arrived and confirmed multiple poles down, with pole falling onto MNRR catnary wires. Hood of truck had also fallen onto tracks. MNRR Chief's office confirmed they had power outage on two tracks with unknown cause. MTA Police notified due to incident impact on upcoming rush hour / peak comute. State Police reported a 30 foot section of concrete hanging over the side of elevated highway over surface roads, Stamford Police blocking surface roads and some entrance and exit ramps to highway. CTDOT Bridge Inspectors enroute. MNRR Electrical Crew enroute. Tracks 3 & 5 shut down from Stamford Station north. No train service on the New Canaan branch.

Date: 05/28/2013
Time: 04:37
Incident Type: Single Truck Colision on I95
District: SFRD/CSP/MTA PD
Location: I95 Northbound between Exit 8 & 9, extension to Northeast Corridor RR Tracks
Units: E3,R1,M1,E1 (Special Called), Stamford Police, CT State Police, MTA Police
Frequency: Stamford Trunked
Weather Conditions: Warm & Clear
Reporters: AFS1970

Description: Passerby reported truck vs pole colision on I95 N/B, with a pole down. Units initially unable to locate scene due to wrong exit numbers given. SFRD units arrived and confirmed multiple poles down, with pole falling onto MNRR catnary wires. Hood of truck had also fallen onto tracks. MNRR Chief's office confirmed they had power outage on two tracks with unknown cause. MTA Police notified due to incident impact on upcoming rush hour / peak comute. State Police reported a 30 foot section of concrete hanging over the side of elevated highway over surface roads, Stamford Police blocking surface roads and some entrance and exit ramps to highway. CTDOT Bridge Inspectors enroute. MNRR Electrical Crew enroute. Tracks 3 & 5 shut down from Stamford Station north. No train service on the New Canaan branch.

kingsferry, thanks for your insight, as well as to all.
I've been to numerous musters over the past 20 years I've been involved in the fire service, including Milford, Kensico, Croton Point, Los Angeles, Texas, and others. I learned a great deal by attending and participating in these events. One of the other reasons that I think killed a lot of musters is the internet. Instead of having swap meets or vendors, Ebay and E-commerce have replaced that. Another main reason is that there tends to be a mentality of why things can't happen, instead of the mentality that it can happen.
I think it's very important to preserve the heritage of the fire service. A great deal can be learned about the things that we do and why. The heritage of the fire service, and how "easy" we have it now, can't really be appreciated until you see it. And I want to specifically focus on the heritage of the fire service in the Hudson Valley. There is a lot of talk about tradition and how it is negative, this is one that I think would be a positive.
This can happen. There are a lot of obstacles, but there are many ways to overcome them. I'm sure we could get sponsors, as I've already been contacted by a few. And if departments can make parades, car shows, and carnivals happen, then the collective power of the membership of this forum can make it happen.
AND, I'd like to include EMS and PD in these events as well. There are a lot of people with vintage EMS and PD vehicles, and we should include them to make this not only a firematic, but an emergency services muster.

If this was intended for me I feel I don't have to respect someone who is responsible for killing 4 people one of them an 8 year old kid and a cop and also injured many others to a point they have lost limbs and their quality of life has changed forever both physically and mentally. He was not human, he was a terrorist...period!

I'd totally wear a "Terrorist Basher" T-Shirt. If our society has degraded to the point where that is considered an insult, then I must have missed something... Last I checked terrorist bashing was something all of us in public safety were supposed to be working towards, but hey, to each their own I guess.

Putting the politics of the events aside. If the threat(s) against the funeral home create a imminent threat against the public as a whole then I personally believe it is incumbent on law enforcement, local, state or federal, to ensure that that threat is mitigated. If no threat exists other than that to the funeral home and it's business for what in their hindsight became a decision of poor judgement then it should be up to the establishment to provide it's own private security the same way malls and stores add additional security (armed or unarmed) during sales and holiday times. The real issue here is what was the level of the threat, how credible was it and who was imperiled by it.

Fares are a big problem for Amtrak on most shorter runs, just look at the difference between them and any comuter railroad on the same run. However on the long distance runs the fares become more reasonable. I took Amtrak from Seatle to San Francisco once and the sleeper car with means included was fairly reasonable when you figured what I would have paid for a Hotel and Restaurants plus the train. I too would take the train over a plane as long as it is feasible. Some trips just are not feasible to do because of how fast the plane will get you there. From our area, basically anything north of Boston or South of Washington is not efficient on the train.

Since courts have rules time and time again that the police do not have a responsability to protect any specific citizen, just the community as a whole, I do not think this detail should have been a police responsability at all. The funeral home accepted the body, and I assume that being a business they are not doing this service for free. However even if they are, they made the business decision to take this action. Thus they should have to bear any and all costs associated with that business decision. As they learned from the protestors outside their business, actions have consequenses. I would never condone any violence or vandalism towards that business or their employees and I think they (and by default the Worchester Police) greatly over reacted. I thik that the protestors would have likely gone away had the response not been so overt. The police could have responded in the event of any criminal activity. The news media gave far too much coverage which brought more people up there. However this should not have been a police function and should not be a taxpayer expense (local, state or federal). The Funeral home could have hired priovate security if they felt the need, but instead they decided to see if they could get someone else to pay for it.

Date: 01/11/2013
Time: 23:40
District: SFRD
Location: Canal St between S State St & Tresser Blvd
Units: SFRD: E1,R1; SEMS: M1,M1,M901 (Supervisor); SPD: 24,1E31, 2B32, 2B41, 3A294, 3D56, 2A21, 4A48, 2C46, K9-6, 3C34, 1C297, 8S3(Sergeant), 8D (Lieutenant); CT State Police
Frequency: Stamford Trunked
Weather Conditions: Dark, Minor Rain
Reporters: AFS1970

Description: Multiple calls for 2 car head on MVA with entrapment. SPD arrived and found 3 patients trapped in one car, Scene is close to I95 Exit 7 S/B requiring CSP to block ramp. FD arrived and began extrication. Due to limited access and two high traffic one way streets SPD had to assign several units for traffic control at different intersections to prevent traffic from feeding into the scene. Due to Stamford Hospital (135B) being on Trauma Diversion, SEMS had to transport patients to Norwalk Hospital (103A). SPD calling back CARS (Collision and Reconstruction Squad) for investigation.

Date: 01/11/2013
Time: 23:40
District: SFRD
Location: Canal St between S State St & Tresser Blvd
Units: SFRD: E1,R1; SEMS: M1,M1,M901 (Supervisor); SPD: 24,1E31, 2B32, 2B41, 3A294, 3D56, 2A21, 4A48, 2C46, K9-6, 3C34, 1C297, 8S3(Sergeant), 8D (Lieutenant); CT State Police
Frequency: Stamford Trunked
Weather Conditions: Dark, Minor Rain
Reporters: AFS1970

Description: Multiple calls for 2 car head on MVA with entrapment. SPD arrived and found 3 patients trapped in one car, Scene is close to I95 Exit 7 S/B requiring CSP to block ramp. FD arrived and began extrication. Due to limited access and two high traffic one way streets SPD had to assign several units for traffic control at different intersections to prevent traffic from feeding into the scene. Due to Stamford Hospital (135B) being on Trauma Diversion, SEMS had to transport patients to Norwalk Hospital (103A). SPD calling back CARS (Collision and Reconstruction Squad) for investigation.

Your selective quoting does nothing to bolster your point. If you actually read the thread you would be able to see that I was "a little more OK" with a plan that prevented the southern states from buying more population to ensure control of the United States House of Representatives than I was of a court decision to allow a march by a group that advocates the overthrough of our government through a suburban community, which in my opinion was only a ploy to draw attention to their permit fight in Chicago. So yes I will stand by that. I know you want to make the 3/5's rule all about racism, but that just was not the fact, it was about equal representation under the law, which it did it's best under the socioeconomic environment of the time to accomplish. For those of us living in the northeast (the area most of EMTBravo's members are in) it is the only reason that our votes even count when we elect our congress. For the record I am also OK with the Kansas Nebaska compromise which ensured that the number of states with legalized slavery did not overwhelm the number of states that did not have it. If you though ending slavery was the right thing to do, imagine if the congress responsible for sending the amendment to the states had been influenced by counting slaves in the majority of states as voting population, in which case the 13th amendment never would have made it off the house floor.
I have already said that I do not agree with what WBC does, not how they do it. In Connecticut our state governemnt passed a law controlling while allowing protests at funerals. I believe but am not certain that this law was passed before WBC ever came to Connecticut and it does not single them out but places the same restrictions on anyone who chooses to protest at a funeral. It also does not specify military funderals, as was their original strategy. Thus it gives equal protection under the law.
To the best of my knowledge the WBC has never butally attacked anyone, they stand outside with their viscious signs and spew their unwelcome words but contrary to what Justice Alito said, they never attacked any person. There is also no such thing as verbal assault, as assault requires a physical act. It is kind of like my mother used to tell me when I was a kid, sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.
The WBC has a hard uphill journey to make anyone side with their arguments but the idea that the West Webster Firefighters were fighting for idol worship is so laughable as to basically roll off my mind without even needing a reply. Since they claim that this is the status of the U.S. government to justify their protests of military fiunerals they really are just reaching for media attention when they apply that to non government volunteer firefighters or schoolchildren. But I said as much before.
As for invoking the KKK, well they generally hate anyone who isn't them, and as such they have few if any allies. As a matter of fact they often hate each other and as such are an extremely fragmented movement made up of not one organization but a whole lot of smaller similar but hardly friendly organizations (Many years ago I did a report on them for history class, so some things may have changed). However I am confused by invoking them against the WBC, what would the status be of a hate group that hates other hate groups? Should there be a new designation of double hate greoup? Or are they no longer a hate group because now they hate the right people? I personally wouldn't be throwing my lot in with them.
I do not think it is too bad we can't do what Britan does, you see starting around 1775 we fought a war so that we did not have to be British subjects any more. we started that effort with a doccument that contains the words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So if you want to be just like England, well take down that American flag, put the Union Jack back up and swear an oath to defend King and Country. Also remember to go to your government approved church on Sunday. I prefer to elect my leaders and have a voice in my government. By the way even the 3/5's rule gave us more votes than the utter and compleat lack of representation in parliment afforded the colonies which lead the Sons of Liberty to dump tea in Boston harbor, an act that in and of itself was illegal under British law.
Now petitioning a branch of the government that has no authority to pass laws is shows an upsetting lack of knowledge of how our government works, yet despite the White House claiming it woulod address any petition that got enough signatures, this is simply not the case. The recent fools errand of asking permission to secede from the union has not been addressed but the petitions looking to remove the first amendment rights from WBC and the second amendment rights from the rest of us are being held aloft by the current administration as a sign that they really do respond to the people.
As Napolean the Pig said "Some animals are more equal than other animals".

Well it does have to be that way, because we should never decide to make an example of a group by restricting their rights. This is the first step towards tyrany and once we accept it we will probably accept such attacks against lots more groups, until one day we find ourselves in such a restricted group and we are crying out for someone to stand up for our rights. This is an area where we can not afford to become complacent.
The GLBT community is not the same as an ethnic minority, but EMTBravo is not the place to discuss that. However since you list that as a good reason to fight the Westboro Baptist Church, have you also signed the petition to lable the Roman Catholic Church as a "hate group"? After all the petition uses the same claims againt the RCC. I guess it must be hatefulness that causes them to be the foremost charitable organization in the world.
I don't think WBC will become violent but mainly because I think they lack the guts to do something violent. I am not condoning violence but it is a pretty big step from cowardly holding signs outside a funeral to attacking a real live person who can fight back. Plus WBC seems to be all about getting media attention and if you think they are viewed negatively now, imagine how much more negatively they would be viewed if they acted violently. In addition to a good legal team, they also seem to have a pretty good marketing team, and they certainly do not want to jeapordize the small amount of good will shown to them by others.
The Sothern Poverty Law Center is only steps away from being a hate group themselves. I do not consider anything from them to be valid as a primary source.

There's a difference between protesting outside the White House and threatening the President. Nobody is protected by the Constitution when they make threats against a person (or the President).
It is ironic and their venom is disturbing to say the least but we have to endure that just like we have to endure the neo-nazis, skinheads, and other extremist groups who enjoy the same freedoms that we do.
As for abuses of the IRS code by claiming religious exemptions, they're not the only ones who do it. There're lots of other stories about the same thing in other groups but a dim view is taken on investigating and prosecuting "religious" groups, even the offensive ones.
Gotta take the bad with the good. That's part of what makes this country so interesting!

Date: 01/04/2013
Time: 01:49
District: Turn of River
Location: 88 Barnes Rd
Units: E9, E5, E3, E62, T3, T45, R1, U4 (Stamford DC), U6 (Safety), U69, C611 (TRFD Chief) C411 (BFD Chief), C612 (TRFD Asst. Chief), V614 (TRFD Captain), FM108, FM660
Frequency: Stamford Trunked
Weather Conditions: 30 Degrees, Overcast.
Reporters: AFS1970

Description: Initially reported as a fire in the closet of an occupied residence. E9 arrived and reported smoke showing from a bedroom window and streching a line. V614 arrived and established command (Very shortly transferred to C612). Fire knocked down by 02:00. Recall holding E9, E62 & T45 per C612 at 02:11. FM660 & FM108 responding for investigation. FM660 Requested CT State Police Fire Marshals Office for assistance.

Maybe they should just ban these high capacity, high speed assault trains, they're nothing but scary death machines, we don't really need them.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
In all honestly I agree with Chris and Barry on this one (surprise.) I don't see the cost/benefit analysis. If someone wants to kill you in public there are plenty of other ways to do it. And as for the accidents? If you're stupid enough to lean over the tracks to see if the train is coming, well then I don't really know what to say.

How many pedestrians are run over by city buses in a year? Probably about the same number. Where's the outcry about that?

We have to stop trying to legislate responsibility!

I am neither a Nazi nor a slave owner.
The ruling in the Skokie affair was just used as an example of how even groups that most people find hateful do in fact have constitutional rights. While I do think the SCOTUS ruled correctly in that matter, I do not like the way in which that case was brought about. It was theater for its own sake on the part of the NSPA. I would have preferred that they had pushed their original plan, which I think had equal constitutional issues (although I am certainly no legal expert) but they chose to go for the route that would alarm and inflame the most people and bring them the media coverage. I think this is terrible and even can dilute whatever message you are trying to send out.
Think about WBC, they started by protesting soldier's funerals because they thought the war was unjust and they thought that the deaths were divine retribution for decisions our government had made. Now I don't agree with it, but I can see how they equate soldiers with the government. However if anyone can tell me what the kids killed in Sandy Hook had to do with various laws and court rulings that WBC disagrees with I would love to hear it, because it makes no sense to me. At this point they are just going anywhere they can get in front of a camera and as a result have muddied whatever their original stand was.
As for the 3/5's compromise, I am a little more OK with that one because I understand what it protected against. It was not about saying that blacks were less than whites, as some suggest. First we have to understand that slavery was a hotly debated topic at the founding of our country. The northern states were basically against it and the southern states were basically for it, although they were even in that pre-industrial age in a slightly different economic environment. However after the southern states won on the slavery issue, they wanted their slaves to count as full citizens, thus giving the south a larger population and ensuring their control of the House of Representatives. The delegates from the northern states did not want to count the non voting slaves at all, arguing that if they south insisted on slaves being property why should they count any more than cattle or horses. Counting slaves as population would have encouraged importing more slaves as a political control measure. The compromise actually came in not in the fraction but how the fraction was applied. Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for representation hurt the south, but counting them that way for taxation hurt the north. Some say it actually protected the integrity of the census in that it prevented artificially increasing population just before an official count.