Would you consider this a line of duty death?

[Steve Whitehead]

But Herbie, you're not compare apples to apples when you compare risk for saving life to risk to saving property, right?

I think this is the big question right here. This is hugely relevant. Sure, some bad decisions were made leading up to this incident. Firefighters were put in a position where they had their apparatus available but not their PPE. (God, I hope their PPE was unavailable.) Oopps. We can sort that out later.

But why did this fire need to be put out? The comments about, "Hey they're firefighters. You can't expect them to do nothing! It's in their blood. We respond even when it involves risk." really burn me. Risk a little to save a little. Risk a lot to save a lot. Risk NOTHING to save NOTHING. (Sorry for shouting in here but it seems so hard to get this point across sometimes.) Why do we have such a hard time making this distinction?

Why did we need to fight this fire? That car was totaled the minute the engine caught fire. Couldn't we just push / pull / move the other vehicles out of the way and let it burn until some firefighters could put on their PPE and put it out properly? Take a window if you need to. Our just let the other cars burn until a proper response could be initiated. There was no life safety risk here. There was very little unburned property of any value at risk.

If life is at risk then do what you need to do. If no life and very little property is at risk then stand there in your chiffon dress and let the insurance company sort it out.

[craig]

I think this is the big question right here. This is hugely relevant. Sure, some bad decisions were made leading up to this incident. Firefighters were put in a position where they had their apparatus available but not their PPE. (God, I hope their PPE was unavailable.) Oopps. We can sort that out later.

But why did this fire need to be put out? The comments about, "Hey they're firefighters. You can't expect them to do nothing! It's in their blood. We respond even when it involves risk." really burn me. Risk a little to save a little. Risk a lot to save a lot. Risk NOTHING to save NOTHING. (Sorry for shouting in here but it seems so hard to get this point across sometimes.) Why do we have such a hard time making this distinction?

Why did we need to fight this fire? That car was totaled the minute the engine caught fire. Couldn't we just push / pull / move the other vehicles out of the way and let it burn until some firefighters could put on their PPE and put it out properly? Take a window if you need to. Our just let the other cars burn until a proper response could be initiated. There was no life safety risk here. There was very little unburned property of any value at risk.

If life is at risk then do what you need to do. If no life and very little property is at risk then stand there in your chiffon dress and let the insurance company sort it out.

could not agree more.........

what was the net benifit of these guys attempting to put out the fire. If the car was fully engrosed then of what value did it have pumping water on to it.....unless it was to save a life or vast amounts of other property.

But then again in litigous USA, maybe they were worried about being sued for not attempting to put it out.

[Just Plain Ruff]

no, these guys were putting on a show, plain and simple. Where else do you get to see a couple of "fairies" er I mean firefighters in dresses playing firefighters?

they were putting on a show. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the fire was intentionally set for just this event. It was all part of the parade.

There was another fire truck a block away waiting with "Real" Firefighters waiting to come clean up the pieces if something actually went wrong.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Captain Kickass

[mikeymedic1984]

My opinion is that most LODDs result from stupid actions (note I said most)--- Going in any burning structure is stupid to me, thats why we have fire insurance --- driving too fast or carelessly -- Not living a healthy life-style causing an MI --- engaging in dangerous activities.  

With that being said, if you are on-duty and die from a call related activiity, I would call it LODD.  Are they stupid union members who deserve to be fired, YES !!!!! I imagine they violated enough policies to earn that.

Now the question I would ask, is less change it up a bit.  What if the firefighters were playing basketball on-duty, one of them lands the wrong way and gets a compound fracture of his ankle, then the next day he dies of an embolus.  Is that a LODD ?

Edited April 5, 2012 by mikeymedic1984

[Just Plain Ruff]

Not sure mikey, I mean he wasn't doing anything but playing basketball while on duty.

I don't really consider that a line of duty death.

No more than I consider a cop choking on a doughnut and dying a line of duty death.

Or a paramedic tripping while walking to his sleeping quarters and hitting his head and dying of a brain bleed a line of duty death either.

I might be biased but I think of line of duty death as dying while performing your duty. for example

Firefighter dying in a burning house or similar

Cop being shot and killed by a suspect or similar

Paramedic being assaulted and killed by a patient

that's to me a line of duty death, not a broken ankle while playing basketball and a embolus breaking off and killing them or choking on a doughnut at Winchells doughnuts. I just don't see those as line of duty deaths. Of course others here may not agree with me and that's ok.

[Richard B the EMT]

What if the firefighters were playing basketball on-duty, one of them lands the wrong way and gets a compound fracture of his ankle, then the next day he dies of an embolus. Is that a LODD ?

Depends on how the agency's rules, regulations and policies are written. There will also be other contributing agencies, like OSHA, and definitely the unions.

[ERDoc]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here, OCCUPY THE CITY!!! I don't think it's a big deal. It was funny and made for great PR. From what I saw on CNN it looked like they were staying further back then normal (though I am not FF). I think I would have a problem with it if they ran into a burning building dressed like that. Were these guys volley or paid?

[Kiwiology]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here,

Bloody Emergentologists with a four year medical degree, one year internship and three years vocational training

In any other country you'd be a first year Registrar (Specialist Trainee) with another four years of vocational training to go and know how low down the food chain you really were

PS Love you Emergentologist even tho I'm not counting your undergraduate degree because that's not really medical education per-se one year of pre-med seems to suffice outside US

Edited April 5, 2012 by Kiwiology

[ERDoc]

Oh my Kiwi, I'm beginning to think you have a man-crush on me. You also give me too much credit. I only have 4 years undergrad (it took me 5), 4 years med school and 3 years residency. Here in the US we must be a little quicker because we get the same result in the end. As for the pre-med stuff here, it all depends on your degree but with my BS in biochemistry, I pretty much took most of the first year med school classes.

[Kiwiology]

Oh my Kiwi, I'm beginning to think you have a man-crush on me.

No, I just like giving you shit

You also give me too much credit.

Yes, I do, you're a bloody funny tawking New Yorker vollie from Lawn Guyland who thinks he knows how it is

And no, I do not look good in a speedo esp not in the Great Mitten winter

Now, lets go get pissed so I don't hijack any more threads