The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Juniors-only Section
I have been watching some of the postings on here by the less than literate junior members lately. I have also seen some of the "I want to be a firefighter types" post some ridiculous things on here. These discussions inevitably turn into the "learn to spell" or "shut-up and learn" conversations. I am not saying I have not participated in them either. But, is there some way to limit the posting capabilities of members? What if the junior members were only able to post in the junior area? Or, what if they were not allowed on here at all? I am sure that they can figure out a way to get around any sort of age requirement for membership, they are a little smarter than that. But, if they start posting immature crap, turn off their capability to post at all. They can still learn an awful lot with a read-only account.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
I can't believe that any state would continue to allow minors to be "firefighters." Yet...with the "zero tolerance" laws and regulations that some towns and schools have enacted, a 6 year old with a cub scout 'spork' can be suspended or kicked out of school for having a "dangerous weapon" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/education/12discipline.html?_r=2) and another student kicked out of school and off of a team for taking vitamins (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57533) yet a 16 y/o on the fireground is considered acceptable. WTF?
Could these examples of "zero tolerance" be any more polar from allowing (essentially) those same students to be minor "firefighters"?
-
Permalink Reply by Tiger Schmittendorf on
-
"Less litigious world?"
Are you crazy? This is New York State. LOL
People who haven't figured out how to get on our state's lucrative all-inclusive Medicaid plan simply file a law suit as a get-rich-quick scheme! That's what they meant when they called it the Empire State. LOL
The reality is that our laws defining and differentiating between firefighters --- and members of a fire department youth program --- are fairly clear. Active firefighters age 16 and up -- and Fire Explorers are not in the same category. It gets blurred when Fire Explorers are also active members of the fire department as designated by department bylaws.
It's in the interpretation, and worse yet, the application (or mis-application) of these laws that fire departments get themselves into trouble.
And Mike is right. We're a home rule state which means that the lowest form of local government has first say. That's both a good thing and can be a bad thing when ignorance of the higher laws abounds and they manipulate their application to suit themselves.
I've written several posts on this matter at www.firerecruiter.com and have plans for a more thorough examination of this subject.
Furthermore, check out this most recent event involving the utilization of Fire Explorers on the fireground (in your neck of the woods). It's not necessarily good: http://statter911.com/2010/01/02/investigation-under-way-into-why-1...
Stay safe. Train often.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Regardless of where the department is located, volunteer or career, there is no justification for having 17 people on scene when attacking a trash dumpster fire. There are too many unknowns involved. This leads me to believe that some departments are more social than safety orientated. Common sense should have ruled with this incident. Failure to follow this resulted in two kids that were under the age of 18.
I have to note here that in talking to my wife who is an RN, she replied that physiologically, someone under the age of 18 has not finished developing and lacks appropriate critical judgement and cognitive reasoning skills. As a result, there is significant discussion now about raising the driving age limit to 18. Take a moment to reflect on the types of things young people do that result in injury or death. Look at some of the questions and posts from Juniors. Kind of reinforces what a lot of us are saying. There is a difference between adults and children... Knowing this, and putting children at risk is something that no one should ever do. I believe it's called child endangerment...
Child Endangerment laws make it a crime to endanger the health or life of a child through an adult's recklessness or indifference. Some states include child endangerment offenses in existing child abuse statutes. Other states made child endangerment a separate offense.
What are the Penalties for Endangering a Child? The penalties for endangering a child vary from state to state but can be very severe:
California: Imprisonment for up to 6 years
Illinois: Imprisonment for up to 10 years
New York: Imprisonment for up to 1 year
Texas: Imprisonment for up to 20 years
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Jack,
I didn't really get the "full fledged FF" thing either for a 17 y/o. I've been around several departments in this state and will say the vast majority require a person to be 18 to be a FF, even volunteer. Now the person can work to get certs and stuff prior to being 18, but I'm sure this issue will be addressed as well with the NIOSH report. Especially considering the question was obviously asked why there were people younger than 18 on the scene to get injured.
-
-
there is no justification for having 17 people on scene when attacking a trash dumpster fire. There are too many unknowns involved. This leads me to believe that some departments are more social than safety orientated. Common sense should have ruled with this incident. Failure to follow this resulted in two kids that were under the age of 18
Capt,
I agree, but the 17 people on scene did not occur until after the explosion happened. However, there was (I believe from the news conference) 10 people on scene for a dumpster fire, still way above what would be needed. Although I don't know how it was called in and we have been toned out with a full fire response if the dumpster is close to a structure, this could have been what happened. Issue is though, we will call off once the first in rig checks it out, didn't see that happening here.
Yes, common sense should absolutely have ruled and there is no reason to get so close to a dumpster, however, the important thing is to learn from it so it doesn't happen again. I definately think this incident has become a wake up call for many depts.
As for the two minors on scene, no they shouldn't have been in harm's way and as I addressed Jack, the whole 17 being a full fledged FF doesn't really cut it. Most depts here require 18 to join the FD, you can get certs early but I definately think and hope NIOSH does address this.
-
-
my viewpoint is based on what I am used too obviously.. a three person engine company, not 10 or 17 responders... I don't have much background with volunteers being a career firefighter on the left coast where volunteers are not too common. regardless, having that many people in private vehicles responding to an incident makes absolutely no sense to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Jack:
And to get on our department, you must be at least 18 years old.
Want to bet I can get the state law changed?
Bet I can.
Stay tuned.
Art
-
-
John,
Based on this story link -
http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20101010421
"Schuh said the 17 firefighters on scene at Bremer were given no indication the trash bin could contain explosive material. Authorities have said water from a fire hose triggered a burning container of metal byproducts to explode." This suggests to me that all 17 were on scene but, not like the press has never gotten facts wrong before.
With regards to why there would have been so many at a dumpster call, most likely the risk of exposures increased the call, plus probably some drove directly there.
So while this may have been an initial safe-ish response, the end results clearly were different from the initital expectations. I for one will never look at a dumpster fire the same way.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug on
-
I for one will never look at a dumpster fire the same way.
Right on, dt! There is definitely a quick lesson to be learned in this tragic event. I, for one, have never looked at a dumpster fire the same way since we had something similar a few years ago. Granted, thankfully, it didn't explode, but it was two large industrial sized dumpsters filled with metal production by-products. It took two engines, a ladder, and a WHOLE LOTTA water to extinguish it.
9 years, really!?! I thought you had a good 10 or so in seniority to me! Sorry, thinking out loud again...
-
-
I agree Capt. For us such a response is a single pump with 4 people, difference being if the fire is reported in a close proximity to a structure, then dispatch sends a full fire response. First in rig will typically downgrade and cancel everyone else. Not sure how many came in POV's, or what else, I have a theory, but what I think really doesn't matter here.
-
-
I agree Jack, yeah hard to tell what the real response was for members. As I mentioned before I watched the press conference where it sounded like 10 on the initial call, either way though it was quite a number for a dumpster fire.
In all honesty though I never heard of this FD prior to this incident, so I really can't speculate the response reasoning.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
