The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
What would you do? Is the Scene Safe (or) Not? Watch and Comment
So here is the latest case study of "When is the scene safe or not?" The public feels you took an oath and expect you to rush in even though you could die from the environment.
Where does this end? Does the public expect firefighters to walk into the fully involved building because a loved one has unfortunately perished inside? If not... are you going to be sued for lack of response?
Take a look for yourself...
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid34762914001?bctid=6...
In my opinion, the Deputy Fire Chief gave the media what they want to hear and should have handled the clarification of their policy differently. As for my crew, I am waiting for three trigger words spoken by the Police Supervisor on scene that "The scene is safe"
Until then, law enforcement officers will have to secure the victim themselves and/or remove him to the fire-rescue staging area while they confront the non-detained assailant.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Mike, The FD changed the policy to allow the firefighter (to determine) when it is OK to risk their life in a case by case basis. The story did not reinforce the scene safety policy, lack of unified command, the communications breakdown or adding verbage for the PD to extricate a victim to a secure area for medical treatment.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Yet another case of the media blowing things out of proportion. So a firefighter being shot 20 years ago changed the policy to 'scene safe' but the media appears far less concerned. I guess they think that it's acceptable to have firefighters shot or attacked in the middle of an active crime scene. Funny how they always seem to get it wrong.
As firefighters we're trained and prepared to handle fire/medical emergencies, police are trained and prepared to handle criminal ones. Why does the media seem to think there should be overlap? The reason police go into violent/dangerous scenes is because they are trained and armed to deal with such situations. Like the police chief pointed out, the FD has the necessary medical equipment and training for medical emergencies, what wasn't said was that the PD has the necessary equipment and training to secure the scene first.
An armed maniac on the loose is not the place for the FD. If that were the case the FD would issue sidearms and vests. Oh wait a minute, the police already have them. Wonder why that is?
-
-
Jack I agree with you but the Police Chief said during the interview the FD would do it differently next time and the FD official sat there an agreed?
Is this poor journalism or poor politics?
-
-
FETC,
I think the FD Chief's foot was stuck in a bear trap, not much else he could say and I suspect that he was saying what he had been told to say.
The policy change leaving it up to FD discretion may not change the response, it only hangs the responsibility on the IC or engine boss instead of the City.
With (the stated) 30 police officers on scene, seems to me there may have been a lack of communication between the PD and FD. One would think that with that many cops they could have set up a defensive perimeter to allow the FD to move in and remove the vic.
However, it mostly seems that the guy that was shot and the girl (friend?) were simply trying to make more out of it than there was. Anyone else smell a pending law suit from these two upstanding citizens? (Didn't the vic say the the assailant took his gun and just started shooting? WTF was this guy doing in their apartment, with a gun? I don't think any of them were exactly bastions of proper society.)
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Workman on
-
It's sad that all it would have taken was two simple words "scene safe". With over thirty police officers on scene and the suspect in custody no one could say the scene was safe. There are policies like this one in place to make sure we don't become victims ourselves. Is there risk that goes along with our job, of course there is, however, we don't carry guns. When the call comes in for shots fired, man down, suspect at large, I can't say that I would go rushing in or ask anyone on my department to do so. Better communication could have solved this whole problem.
-
-
Joe,
I agree with Jack. The city probably told the FD what was allowable during the media interview. Joe I also agree with you, most department's have a scene safe policy. But by changing the FD policy and placing the responsibility on the FD officer for Go/No Go, the city has just placed the "next" blame game on the line officer who refused to go in.
Devils advocate here: Would you rush in for let's say "officer down"? Some might get emotionally involved and rush in, be a hero or a zero (dirt nap) Most who work together, understand unless you have SWAT - MEDICS then the officer down needs to be dragged back to a secure area for treatment.
The public's preception on a civilian medic may be more of a combat medic, even though we are not equipped as such.
-
-
Anyone remember the North Hollywood shootout with the two guys, home made body armor, automatic weapons and bags of ammo?
Watch the videos, there were civilians and police down all over the place yet I don't remember seeing a fire truck in the middle of that. The police/swat were doing what they could to rescue the victims. Yet I don't remember ever reading any comments about why the FD wasn't rescuing the victims. Was it because they were all police and law abiding citizens that were shot, as opposed to...well, the ones in the video above?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOWSDtxERU&feature=related
listen to the comment by the narrator at 48 seconds in.
Which makes more sense:
'Police secure scene before Firefighters are allowed in to attend to victims.'
or
'Firefighters refuse to enter building while victim bleeds.'
Which one would most people be intrigued enough to read/watch? You decide.
-
Permalink Reply by Patti Walz on
-
Our policy is to stage until the PD clears the scene and we have to rely on dispatch to tell us this.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Is this poor journalism or poor politics?
Probably a bit of both, moreso with the journalism aspect, IMO. Issues like this would be something to touch on with a Fire Ops or just to present to the media. Problem is that despite the story and reasons out there you are still going to get issues and comments made like we see here.
I blame the journalism more because we live in such a blame game society, yet despite the story at hand and the delayed response waiting for the person to get treatment, no where was PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY even mentioned. We know the victim was drinking and so forth, yet no mention about not getting in such a situation in the first place....instead it is the responder's fault and by golly gee, we took and oath and we are paid to risk our lives....Nope.
I took an oath to protect lives and property, my oath makes no mention of me being required to sacrifice myself. This means we size up, we do risk assessment, yes we do risk ourselves and safety to mitigate an emergecy, but it is a calculated risk. Part of that size up comes into what the emergency is....let's remember we did not cause the emergecy...we are there to help solve it, we can not do that if we become victims ourselves. This means that my training and job description does NOT have me rushing in around bullets flying, that is not my job....just like it isn't the police officer's job to make a fire attack. We don't have the equipment or training to mitigate a police response and vice versa.
Now I do agree with Jack as well that this particular incident could be lack of communication. Besides the fact that officersrequested rescue to come up, it was dispatch saying the scene wasn't safe. Dispatch said the scene wasn't safe from the get go and said it wasn't safe when rescue was requested by PD. This is where the poor politics aspect comes into play. If PD are resquesting rescue, then there shouldn't be an issue about going in, because for the most part, that should mean the scene is made safe enough to get in and get out. If there were a bit of a question the PD could remove the person to where rescue could get in, in a safer location.
In the end, there is some risk we do take in our jobs, but it should be a calculated risk depending upon the size up and situation.
-
Permalink Reply by Larry Taggart on
-
All the police had to do was say scene safe, how hard is that to do. What they wanted to really do was to make the fire look like assholes. It is always money time, so if the police can make the fire department look stupid they will doit. My dept. had many a run in with the police on this very point, what we did was to send the battalion chief to check the scene as to safety of his personnel. The battalion chief made to call not the police. This came from an incident where I was almost stabbed by the bad guy, it was a domistic battle call. We went to help the injured party and the scene was not safe as no police officer had entered the building to look for the bad guy. I was the first emergency person to enter and he almost got me. This was not unusual for our police I am afraid.
-
Permalink Reply by Stormey Tucker on
-
You know it just amazes me how much the media can blow things out of proportion. In no way what so ever unless someone disobeys my order will I ever send anyone into an unsafe scene. We stage at an appropriate distance until dispatch has notified us that the SO has secured the scene then we approach it. There has been a few times in the past however that we have had our EMT's attacked while trying to help a patient. That's when we made it a standard protocol that no one goes in alone, stays alone or proceeds until the scene is safe.
As of what I know all of us whether they are PD, SO, HP, FF they are all trained in minimum of first aide. So my question is would the PD go into a burning building knowing that it contained a meth lab....no So why should we risk our lives and go into an unsafe scene. Its a simple two-way communication..Yes scene is safe..No scene is not safe.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
