Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567
Results 121 to 135 of 135
  1. #121
    Forum Member gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,407

    Default

    George,
    I didn't know that was what you were referring to. And, you'll notice I posted the article about the officer who got screwed by his city for an ice rescue off duty. I remember my dad stopping at accidents as a kid-as I do now. I completely agree that any public safety professional has a duty to respond to a life threatening emergency, on or off duty. You seem to pick out the pieces of posts you don't like and ignore the context of the whole post. As I mentioned "all the rescues" was a reference to a perception created by the media.

    I guess I haven't been as elegant in describing my concern in a way that you could understand. I'm sure you have heard of cops being referred to as "blue canaries". I don't want to see that. Bones42 just made the point much more successfully than I have.

    BTW, this "envy" goes both ways-our PD complained when a FF disarmed a woman with a knife who was coming at his fellow FFs and EMS while they treated her husband. There were two cops on the scene. Both were looking the other way and in no position to stop her before she could have plunged the knife in someone's back. Our Chief got a complaint about our FF "working out of class"-doing the work of another dept.


  2. #122
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    BTW, this "envy" goes both ways-our PD complained when a FF disarmed a woman with a knife who was coming at his fellow FFs and EMS while they treated her husband. There were two cops on the scene. Both were looking the other way and in no position to stop her before she could have plunged the knife in someone's back. Our Chief got a complaint about our FF "working out of class"-doing the work of another dept.
    An edged weapons incident is actually a fairly good comparison to a fire. If we start from the premise that LEO are undertrained in the field of fire suppression, the same can be said of FF/EMT when edged weapons are involved. An edged weapon can be more hazardous to an officer than many other types of weapons incidents. An edged weapons incident will more often than not involve hand-to-hand combat. This is something a FF/EMT is not trained to do. An edged weapon is at a more certain danger or penetrating body armor than the most common ballistic rounds. (If you think I am wrong, look at some of the body armor threads that have beenon this forum). This is something that most FF/EMT's don't realize and certainly are not equipped for. In that sense they are very similar.

    That said, the FF/EMT exhibited split-second decision making and extreme courage in this incident.

    I do not take posts out of context. I call people on what the post is really about. If you then try to change what you meant, (ie; "media perception") that is your problem, not mine.

    I understand way more than you think I do.

  3. #123
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    193

    Default

    What if it had been your 16 yoa daughter
    I, of course , would want him to shoot the bastard between the eyes. He would be, although off duty, doing what he is trained to do.He would not be running into a fire.

    Let's refer to Bones' post. You roll up on a scene, purple smoke coming out. I'm trained enough to recognize a probable haz-mat, no where near trained or equipped enough to deal with the incident. If I'm bold(or stupid)enough to attempt a rescue without any protection, that's on me. Would it be nice to covered and get compensation? Sure, but that's not the real world.

    I still say that there is more to this story. There may be a policy explaining the city's reason for the denial. WE DON'T KNOW.

    This was ONE example. We could go point-counterpoint on this until the sun burns out. I answered your question,(without calling names, btw) now please answer mine; where do you draw the line on off-duty coverage needed by people doing things they are not trained to do?

  4. #124
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by firepics


    I, of course , would want him to shoot the bastard between the eyes. He would be, although off duty, doing what he is trained to do.He would not be running into a fire.

    Let's refer to Bones' post. You roll up on a scene, purple smoke coming out. I'm trained enough to recognize a probable haz-mat, no where near trained or equipped enough to deal with the incident. If I'm bold(or stupid)enough to attempt a rescue without any protection, that's on me. Would it be nice to covered and get compensation? Sure, but that's not the real world.

    I still say that there is more to this story. There may be a policy explaining the city's reason for the denial. WE DON'T KNOW.

    This was ONE example. We could go point-counterpoint on this until the sun burns out. I answered your question,(without calling names, btw) now please answer mine; where do you draw the line on off-duty coverage needed by people doing things they are not trained to do?
    [/QUOTE]

    If you are too much of a girl to get called names, don't post idiotic stuff.

    The post you got called a mutt for was not about "people doing things they are not trained to do". It was a blatant attempt to be a smart-*** and be insensitive and trying to sound tough.

    The off-duty question is not a relevant question. With a law enforcement officer, there is no such thing. Arguably, the same holds true for FF/EMT.

    As far as what tasks you may choose to perform given a particular situation...you do what you have to do.

  5. #125
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    193

    Default

    still didn't answer my question, and i've been called worse by better.

  6. #126
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by firepics
    still didn't answer my question, and i've been called worse by better.
    That's because there is no answer to a question that is designed to start an argument.

    And you may have been called worse, but not by better.

  7. #127
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    193

    Default

    That's because there is no answer to a question that is designed to start an argument.
    Not trying to start an argument, just a discussion. I thought that's what these forum were for.

    And you may have been called worse, but not by better.
    Gotta admit, ya got a smile out of me with that one.

  8. #128
    Forum Member gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,407

    Default

    Sunday, March 20, 2005


    Washtenaw Sheriff's Dept. cleared of safety violations


    Associated Press


    ANN ARBOR -- A state agency has cleared the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department of workplace safety violations and commended three deputies for rescuing two occupants from a burning apartment building.

    The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration also recommended, however, that the Sheriff's Department train its deputies for fire-scene responses.


    The findings, detailed in a letter released Tuesday, concluded an investigation that started in January after an anonymous complaint was filed regarding the deputies' actions Nov. 17 at the Golfside Apartments in Ypsilanti Township.

    Sheriff Daniel Minzey said MIOSHA's findings were appropriate.

    Deputies Eugene Rush, Doug Ballou and Derek Wiese arrived several minutes ahead of township firefighters and ran into the burning building. They helped out a 68-year-old woman before going back inside and pulling out a despondent man.

    The deputies received two awards for their actions, but the complaint prompted state officials to consider the central issue of whether supervisors required or asked deputies to enter burning buildings without the proper equipment, officials said.

    The Sheriff's Department has no policy addressing when, or if, deputies can enter fires.

    "It is not the intent of MIOSHA to interfere with or to regulate an individual's choice to place himself or herself at risk to save the life of another person," John Brennan, the agency's division director for general industry and safety and health, said last week in his letter to Minzey.

  9. #129
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    "It is not the intent of MIOSHA to interfere with or to regulate an individual's choice to place himself or herself at risk to save the life of another person," John Brennan, the agency's division director for general industry and safety and health, said last week in his letter to Minzey.

    OMG, a government bureaucrat with common sense!

    This was absolutely the right decision.

  10. #130
    Forum Member HeavyRescueTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    George, read the entire recommendation (not just getting tunnel vision and focusing on certain individual areas), including this part:

    The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration also recommended, however, that the Sheriff's Department train its deputies for fire-scene responses.


    give them the proper training (and equipment) to allow them to make a proper fire scene response. but I'm sure that kinda of thinking is unreasonable and anti-cop, right?
    If my basic HazMat training has taught me nothing else, it's that if you see a glowing green monkey running away from something, follow that monkey!

    FF/EMT/DBP

  11. #131
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Right.

  12. #132
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    487

    Default

    When i was in Iraq my platoon had this great saying when anything stupid went down:

    "You cant make this S@#t up"

    I think it fits this situation

  13. #133
    Forum Member Weruj1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    7,857

    Default from todays news ...................

    California Officer Saves Woman in Fire
    By JASON KANDEL


    Updated: 11-24-2005 11:26:01 AM


    E-MAIL THIS STORY PRINT THIS STORY


    The Daily News of Los Angeles

    BURBANK - Police Sgt. Jay Hawver was drinking iced tea at the Coral Cafe at 12:30 a.m. Tuesday when he got a radio call - a house fire in the 400 block of North Griffith Park Drive, elderly woman possibly inside.

    Among the first at the scene, Hawver braved thick smoke and searing flames to pull 91-year-old May Fox out of her home, which caught fire after a still-smoldering cigarette was tossed in a wicker trash basket.

    After police helped Fox to safety, paramedics rushed her to Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center, where she was listed in critical condition in the intensive care unit.

    Even though Fox's fate was uncertain, officers and firefighters praised Hawver and four of his colleagues for their valiant attempt to save her life.

    ``The officers did an outstanding job,'' said Burbank police Sgt. Jay Jette. ``They worked as a team to do what needed to be done. They went above and beyond.''

    Burbank Fire Department Capt. Bob Reinhardt echoed the sentiments.

    ``They acted in a very heroic manner,'' he said. ``We're very proud of them.''

    Hawver deflected the praise, saying, ``It really is part of the job. That's what we're here for.''

    Fire officials said the blaze started in the trash basket, where Fox's live-in caretaker had thrown out her cigarette before falling asleep. She woke up to flames and smoke and alerted neighbors, who called 911.

    Police were the first to arrive and quickly pulled Fox out of the home. Hawver suffered a cut on his hand while climbing through a broken window to save her.

    ``I couldn't see anything, the smoke was so thick,'' said Hawver, a 12- year department veteran. ``The heat was very intense. When I first got in, I stumbled over a chair or a table, and was calling out for the lady, 'Are you here? Is anybody in here?' I didn't know her name.''

    He said he heard coughing and moaning in the room and started feeling around.

    ``I could feel a person. I could feel the leg,'' he said. ``I took ahold of her and picked her up off the bed and then turned back toward where I knew the window was at.''

    By that time, another officer, Jennifer Downs, was inside the room. She and Hawver lifted Fox out of her bedroom through the window and into the arms of other officers outside. They sat her on the lawn to give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation before paramedics took her to the hospital.

    While she was fighting for her life, neighbors reacted with shock about their beloved friend, who they said loves gossip, ballroom dancing and singing along with her TV.

    ``It's an empty hole in the pit of my stomach,'' said Flo Johnson, 66, a friend for 45 years. ``She was a great lady. She was a fun lady. Everybody loved her. ... She was a good neighbor. She was a good friend.''

    Helen Gregos, 83, a retired nurse, used to give Fox her medication before she had round-the-clock caretakers.

    ``We've been friends a long time,'' said Gregos, who has been praying that Fox recovers from her ordeal. ``She knew all the news that was going on in the neighborhood: who was visiting who, which car pulled into my driveway and who was sleeping with who. What she didn't see, she manufactured.
    IACOJ both divisions and PROUD OF IT !
    Pardon me sir.. .....but I believe we are all over here !
    ATTENTION ALL SHOPPERS: Will the dead horse please report to the forums.(thanks Motown)
    RAY WAS HERE 08/28/05
    LETHA' FOREVA' ! 010607
    I'm sorry, I haven't been paying much attention for the last 3 hours.....what were we discussing?
    "but I guarentee you I will FF your arse off" from>
    http://www.firehouse.com/forums/show...60#post1137060post 115

  14. #134
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Berks2Montco84
    A few days later I heard that the one kid (a newly "retired" junior was bitching to our DC about how I wasn't wearing gear, so I called him. He had two arguments, 1. It was none of my business and 2. The company by-laws state that you should wear full TOG at every call invloving fire.
    If it's department SOG to wear full gear at any call involving fire, threat of fire, or confimerd working fire, then he has every right to bitch about it. IT'S IN YOUR SOG'S...FOLLOW THE RULES!
    Guess what my reply was. 1. The fact that he was bitching about me not wearing gear made it my business, and actually whether I was wearing gear or not was none of HIS business
    Actually it is his business, because it's his job to look out for your safety, as well as any public, regardless of his rank.
    and 2. Wearing full TOG to a grass fire is completely senseless when boots and jeans is sufficient. My brother and I were standing in the flames and our boots and pants were untouched. He just likes making trouble...but he get's his, I make sure of it...
    No it isn't. While structural gear is hot, and heavy unless you have an approved option, which jeans are definetly NOT, quit whining. The other question is...why are you standing in flames? It's a freakin grass fire..unless there is threat to life, or building, that you could have a profound effect on, you are not going to do any good. Don't be a cowboy, and don't be stupid. In most cases the DNR, will be happier anyway, as it promotes regrowth and rehab to the effected area.
    FF/NREMT-B

    FTM-PTB!!

    Brass does not equal brains.

    Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the ability to control it.

  15. #135
    Forum Member BerwynFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Rule have to have penalties.
    Penalties have to be issued REGARDLESS of the outcome.

    If I had to break the rules to save a life?

    Damd right I'd do it.

    I'd weigh the concequences against the benifit.

    The cops in the original posting really didn't have the resources to safely conduct a rescue. They decided that it was worth the risk.

    We have the tools and equipment to do our jobs safely.
    The concequences for us to conduct the same rescue are much less, including breaking workplace safety rules.

    I'd say the rules have to ALWAYS be inforced becouse:

    The line between a hero and and a dead fool is outcome.

    The hero won't mind having to pay all the costs.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts