And what you do in CA with cats should probably stay in CA.
As a matter of fact, I was at a party a few years ago and had just finished a beer (my second that afternoon) when a fire broke out in the bathroom of the host's home. I told someone to call 911 on their cell phone, grabbed a garden hose and knocked the fire down from the hallway wearing shorts and a T shirt. The Beverly FD showed up and overhauled the area. I got a thank you from the homeowner and the Brothers for making their job easier. I suppose if this happened in "Bobbyville Parish", you would have me written up , suspended or terminated.Quote:
What if I had been coming back from a praty and maybe had a couple of drinks? Not drunk at all but just a tad impaired. Still obligated to act in your mind? Or maybe bummed a shoulder a little bit the day before. Still obligated?
Bumming a shoulder? Toughen up, creampuff....
What consequences? Please do tell.. what are you going to do if one of your people does an off duty rescue? Are you going to "whack their pee pee" and get them reprimanded/suspended/fired? Make them a pariah?Quote:
The fact is when somebody is off-duty, they are just that. If they choose to act, that's fine, but there is no obligation to act and likely they wiill have to personally deal with the concequences.
It's the victim's fault that the car was involved in an accident and caught fire?Quote:
Again, sad to say but the victim got him/herself into the situation. Off-duty or out-of-district members are not responders. They are just plain folks who have a choice.
It's the victim's fault if a fire broke out in a neighbor's apartment?
It's the victim's fault if their home was struck by lightning and caught fire?
You can play the "blame the victim" game all you want in an attempt to cover up your lack of compassion, cowardice and downright refusal to do your duty.
What consequences? Please do tell.. what are you going to do if one of your people does an off duty rescue? Are you going to "whack their pee pee" and get them reprimanded/suspended/fired? Make them a pariah?
No, but if they are injured it's likely that their department will not cover the medical expenses. If they are injured, it's likely that their department will not cover the lost time from work under workman's compensation.
Those are the consequences that the family may have to deal with - lost time from work, lost wages and medical bills.
AS a full-time member, as we are now civil service, my lost time from work will be covered as required by civil service up to 364 days. The volunteer staff has no such protection. In fact workman's comp provides no lost time protection for them at all, even if they are injured operating with their own department.
I really don't care what my members do off-duty as it really doesn't impact me. And no, they would not be disciplined for acting as such.
That being said, if one of our full-time members were hurt performing a rescue out of the district, and was injured, the department would be on the hook under civil service law for paying him/her while he/she was out, while at the same time paying for somebody to cover, so in that sense, it does have an impact on department operations.
I don't think the famalies relying on that patycheck would consider that a joke. I don't think they would be laughing if they had to pay a significant amount of money towards medical bills that likely is needed for food, mortagage and other expenses.
Maybe to you they are not an issue but I suspect to most career and probably all volunteer personnel, the cost of getting hurt while operating out a district is something that they probably would not have a chuckle over.
I take the job, and my responsbilities just as seriously as anyone, however, i also understand my primary responsbility to is to make sure that my wife and kids are taken care of first. Again, maybe the job is more important to you than they are, but in my world, the bills need to be paid, and that may mean thinking very seriously about to concequences to my family when acting off the clock and out-of-the diastrict where I don't have wage and medical protections.
I can come up with "what if" scenarios all day just like you. You've made it very clear you aren't interested in being a firefighter. If you are truly that afraid of getting hurt, do something else. Maybe you should pursue a career in baking french pastry or small animal grooming.
Your excuse making only continues to certify you as a joke.
Money is YOUR motivator. Doing what is right is mine. I simply could not live with myself, and I would expect my family would be ashamed of me, if I didn't at least make an attempt to help someone trapped in a burning automobile, or structure. Th difference with you is you believe everything, other than what you would do, is a death wish, suicidal manuever. NONSENSE, we would do what we could do with the maximum chance to have a positive outcome, if the conditions push us back, or out, that is one thing. Cowering behind a crowd of civilians, who act because that is what having humanity called for, is entirely another.
I say again you must be so desperate for attention you come here just to get pounded on for your idiotic, non-fire service stances on the job. There can be no other reason to take the abuse you do...well unless you are a masochist.
Given that I have done this for 30 years before being hired, and still continue to do it as a volunteer in a seperate department, I hardly think that money is my motivator.
I guess if you want to call staying the hell out of abondoned buildings unless there's a damned good reason to go inside, reducing the number of offensive operations to savable property and realistic rescues, slowing down, buckling up, expanding the manpower pool for VFDs by adding exterior positions and training on local conditions and resources as determined by the local fire department vs. following a generic cookie-cutter standard certification class that may or may not meet the actua operational needs of your departmentl, so be it.
You put forth a scenario of rationalizing non-response because of the potential for injury. That being the low bar you've established for yourself, why don't you just go one step further and cite the potential for getting injured while responding going code 3. Given the number of injuries that occur while firefighters are enroute you can justify not leaving the station and staying home. Doing all parties concerned the greatest service.
As far as injuries, it's the bar that I have established for everyone, including the crews I supervise. Do you consider injuries an acceptable part of doing business? If you do, you are part of the problem with the fire service today. Most injuries are highly preventable if we stay out of buildings we never did or no longer belong in, and evaluate why we are performing tasks vs. the gain or need associatted with the tasks.
I do fully support cold response policies except in very narrow dfined parameters as it would certainly be one very effective way to reduce the number of vehicles responding hot, or even on the road, and would likely have a significant impact on firefighter fatalities.
Posted by scfire86...
Both those professions would be too dangerous for Bobbby... he might burn his fingers taking something out of the oven or get nipped by a Chihuahua.... :D:D:DQuote:
Maybe you should pursue a career in baking french pastry or small animal grooming.