CBEMT

Not applicable. If I'm following our DNR protocol, I never applied the monitor. Ergo, I don't know she's in SVT. O2 and transport. Let the hospital decide if they want to do something about it. If we assume that I did apply the monitor, I now have to decide if adenosine is a "cardiac ressucitation drug," because if it is I can't start an IV to give it.

Not good enough. If they can't do their invidetgation without his pictures, they need new jobs (actually, based on this incident, they do need new jobs). This is probably the more pathetic excuses for PC they could possibly use. Like I said. A first-year student of a night law school could get it thrown out if this is what they use. It's scary how ignorant the general population is concerning their rights both in general and when interacting with law enforcement in particular.

Doesn't matter why they wanted it. It is his personal proprety, locked inside a vehicle. They couldn't take so much as a piece of lint off the floormat without a warrant. Unless they bully/inntimidate you into handing it over, which they did. I'll try not to hold that against thim. Probably because of the bad press. Wouldn't be the first time somebody got hung out to dry by an organization they were a member of until the moment the reporter called.

If they believe in spreading Sharia I'm inclined to say yes, because pretty much anything done for that goal is permissible if the infidel does not submit. Lol. According to a lot of liberals, yeah, we do.

So why criticize the OP for not posting more of/the whole article? Doesn't sound like these idiots would have accepted it either way. Even assuming you're right, it's not illegal. It may be a violation of his arrangement with the fire department, but still not against the law. One that could easily cost the state six figures and months of embarrasment. Bullshit. How many times have you seen the police keep a road or highway shut down for hours after a crash while they take pictures? Accident reconstructions happen every day without any idea of what the car looked like before the extrication. It's not a necessary part of the investigation, certainly not to the point of illegally siezing the private property of a third party. Are you not getting this? THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL ACT. HIS CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. First and Fourth, specifically. If the troopers are really and truly so stupid that they can't conduct an accident investigation (which, as the highway patrol, is pretty much ALL THEY DO) without knowing what the car looked like before they got there, they could A) ask politely, or B, get a subpoena. Investigation 101. A rookie on his first day could have told them what to do. And a first-year law student could win the civil suit.

When Fred Phelps kills himself and 3,000 other people because of his religion, he'll be a good example.

Even better: how many mosques in Isreal? (Answer: more than a few.)

I would've told them, politely, to go fuck themselves. They have no right to my property without a warrant, and they had ZERO probable cause for a warrantless earch- which is why they asked him to GIVE them the camera, hoping that like most citizens ignorant of their rights, that he would just do it. Unfortunately, he did. You'll notice he wasn't arrested or even detained and transported to the station for further questioning, meaning even the two thugs in front of him knew he'd committed no obvious crime and couldn't even stretch one (like the usual catch-all, "disorderly conduct") to cover the situation. More bullshit. If they think there was evidence that needed photographing, they can do it themselves. Or- here's a crazy thought- give him a business card and ask him for copies once he downloads them off the camera! They're stalling, because they know that there is absolutely no face-saving way out of this. Then don't bust somebody else's balls for not doing the same thing! That would pretty much be the definition of "freelance," wouldn't it? Any moron can make up an ID card for themselves, how is that better? And a salaried newspaper photographer at the same scene would be different.... how exactly? Your personal sense of morality is irrelevant. Any "newsworthy event" can be photographed by anyone, professional or not, freelance or not- protected 100% by the First Amendment. The cop would have had no more right to take a camera away from you or me had we been there while passing by on vacation. Disciplinary action against the office for exposing his department to a lawsuit is more than justified. Criminal charges if he took it by force would be a distinct possibility as well. In a time of budget cuts in all sectors, including the media, stringers are infinitely cheaper than professional photographers (my local NBC station's cameramen are unionized, for example). But the media still need on-scene coverage of breaking news to stay relevent. Stringers and freelancers fill that gap. Whether we like it or not, they're going to continue to show up on our scenes. I suggest being very careful with how you and your law enforcement collegues deal with them. A little cooperation can go a long way. Like the saying goes- never get in a pissing contest with people who buy ink by the barrel.

We've got commercially-made kits at both of my agencies, and I can't see the people with the checkbook replacing them until used. Which we've never had to do.

Yeah. It's just the Saudis that wouldn't want a synagogue in Mecca. Ok.

Religion had ZERO to do with McVeigh's actions. It had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. The comparision is absurd.

What corner of your ass did you pull that from? I'm not even talking about SA specifically. I meant Muslims in general.

Exactly. They want tolerance but give none.

Where's the synagogue in Mecca? Tolerance goes both ways.

Are you @#$%ing kidding me? I linked to TWO different websites providing the same article. I copy/pasted FOUR out of FIFTEEN paragraphs. I gotta stop there, because I'll get in trouble if I keep typing. :rolleyes2: :rolleyes2:

*shrug* What can I say. The Northeast is in a giant hole of suck economically right now. The well is dry, there's no more money, and the taxpayers don't want to hear it. They figure they didn't have it until 3 years ago, it costs a boatload, we can get away without it.

When you tell a town of 1000 people that it's going to cost them $540,000 a year to pay for 3 full-time paramedics, it's a no-brainer for people who've never needed the service, but do wonder where their next mortgage payment is coming from. They're never going to think of it in terms of $44 a year.

http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?id=14410&siteSection=1 http://telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100819/NEWS/8190748

You'd never know it....

I'll be away from teh internets on vacation for a few days, figured I'd give you all something to chew on while I'm gone.... http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/08/paramedics_say_new_mass_ambulance_staffing_law_can_cost_lives/

I'm far more concerned about the damage caused, indirectly, by anchor babies than I am about the possibility of Hamas breeding sleeper cells inside the US. 60,000 a year, just in Texas. Think about that.

How about a partner with verbal diarrhea?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like most of urban CA use the stretchers that tilt way down at the feet/way up at the head to transition into a rolling chair for their small elevators in the housing projects... maybe since they have those they don't feel like they need stairchars? In my state they aren't required, but everybody has one. I've used a rolling computer desk-type chair to move a patient from a cramped room into a larger one, but I would never actually carry a patient in something they weren't strapped to.

Pretty sure the survivor would have noticed the difference.

I refer specifically to Resolution 17. They're like the @#$%ing Borg. Seriously.