jf1acai wrote: What ECFD saw fit to release about the incident:
At 05:30 this morning, the Elk Creek Fire Department responded to an active structure fire.
Upon arrival Elk Creek crews found that the occupants had evacuated. They observed substantial flame involvement inside the attic and on the roof of the building. An initial defensive attack was ordered, and proved effective. Elk Creek Firefighters switched to offensive tactics, making entry into the building with an 1 ¾-inch attack line. The fire was quickly extinguished.
One Elk Creek Firefighter suffered from smoke inhalation, and was airlifted to St Anthony's Hospital. He is now resting and is doing very well. He is expected to make a full recovery and be released soon.
It appears that the fire originated in the chimney and spread into the attic of the structure. There was substantial structural damage to the home. No other injuries were incurred.
Firefighter Michael Davis, Public Information Officer
Good news.
In my opinion....these are the guys who should be providing that information...Not any of us
Came back to add that if you talk with any of the f.d. they really don't want any info posted no matter how broadly it is described. That's why they all go to phone to phone when they are able.
That is the issue in a nut shell and the fine line we all try to walk.
jf1acai wrote: What ECFD saw fit to release about the incident:
At 05:30 this morning, the Elk Creek Fire Department responded to an active structure fire.
Upon arrival Elk Creek crews found that the occupants had evacuated. They observed substantial flame involvement inside the attic and on the roof of the building. An initial defensive attack was ordered, and proved effective. Elk Creek Firefighters switched to offensive tactics, making entry into the building with an 1 ¾-inch attack line. The fire was quickly extinguished.
One Elk Creek Firefighter suffered from smoke inhalation, and was airlifted to St Anthony's Hospital. He is now resting and is doing very well. He is expected to make a full recovery and be released soon.
It appears that the fire originated in the chimney and spread into the attic of the structure. There was substantial structural damage to the home. No other injuries were incurred.
Firefighter Michael Davis, Public Information Officer
Good news.
In my opinion....these are the guys who should be providing that information...Not any of us
Came back to add that if you talk with any of the f.d. they really don't want any info posted no matter how broadly it is described. That's why they all go to phone to phone when they are able.
That is the issue in a nut shell and the fine line we all try to walk.
So then why do you post anything at all since you know they would rather not have anything posted?
IN NOVEMBER 2014, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE! DONT BLOW IT!
“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only whit man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.” Indian Chief Two Eagles
Fair question.
I suppose I do it because I try to balance a public's right to know certain information that might affect their drive or safety while trying to adhere to an agreed upon understanding of what they have said they will tolerate. Please see Shilohlady's post.
I can't speak for anyone else.
Thanks - But I am serious. It seems to me that asking the PIO what information is ok to post would be in the best interest of everyone.
I think this - this series of posts has turned into a catfight and no one is seeking answers, only defending their beliefs. Wouldn't it be good to ask this question to the ones that REALLY have the answers? If they say that info is ok to post - them so be it. End of discussion. If they say it isn't ok, then you know for the next time. Doing it wrong once is one thing. But doing it wrong again is really wrong. Ignorance is not bliss. It is a screw-up. But we'll never know unless the right people are asked.
Law regulating the use of radio scanners are enforced by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and spelled out in the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986).
The bottom line:
It is illegal to listen in on cellular and cordless phone calls.
It is illegal to intercept encrypted or scrambled communications.
It is illegal for scanner manufacturers to sell or import radio scanners that are capable of receiving cellular phone frequencies. (Note: This rule does not apply to sales by individuals and radio scanners made before 1985).
It is illegal to modify radio scanners so that cellular phone frequencies can be received.
It is illegal to use information you hear for personal gain. A common example is where a taxi driver listens to a competitor's dispatch channel for fare pick-ups and then races over and picks-up the fares.
It is illegal to use information you hear to aid in the commission of a crime.
It is illegal to disclose information you hear to other persons.
otterdog wrote: Thanks - But I am serious. It seems to me that asking the PIO what information is ok to post would be in the best interest of everyone.
I think this - this series of posts has turned into a catfight and no one is seeking answers, only defending their beliefs. Wouldn't it be good to ask this question to the ones that REALLY have the answers? If they say that info is ok to post - them so be it. End of discussion. If they say it isn't ok, then you know for the next time. Doing it wrong once is one thing. But doing it wrong again is really wrong. Ignorance is not bliss. It is a screw-up. But we'll never know unless the right people are asked.
Law regulating the use of radio scanners are enforced by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and spelled out in the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986).
The bottom line:
It is illegal to listen in on cellular and cordless phone calls.
It is illegal to intercept encrypted or scrambled communications.
It is illegal for scanner manufacturers to sell or import radio scanners that are capable of receiving cellular phone frequencies. (Note: This rule does not apply to sales by individuals and radio scanners made before 1985).
It is illegal to modify radio scanners so that cellular phone frequencies can be received.
It is illegal to use information you hear for personal gain. A common example is where a taxi driver listens to a competitor's dispatch channel for fare pick-ups and then races over and picks-up the fares.
It is illegal to use information you hear to aid in the commission of a crime.
It is illegal to disclose information you hear to other persons.
Mtn Gramma wrote: Hells Bells! You yammer and yammer and yammer, seemingly hoping that by bombarding the OP with slop you'll get your way. Why don't you just go to DSV (where there's nothing about this incident under "Recent Posts"), post the incident there the way you want it done, and let 285bound do things the way they want to.
Sheesh!
Great suggestion, but it would be too easy and then there would be nothing to b*tch about, nothing to attempt to slam, discredit, or embarrass this site (or the ownership) over, etc. Same old, same old. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's really best when dealing with this type of nonsense to ignore it and the ones trying to stir the pot. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the nasty bullying is disgusting at best. Let's face it 285 Bound, because of the parting of the ways that happened earlier this year, you will continue to receive these types of posts from the same people forever. Trust me, most of us are sick to death of reading the same whiny cr*p all the time. I support you and your site. THANK YOU for all you do for us!
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
BuyersAgent wrote: ok, so next time maybe it would be better to leave out the details (age) and condition (seizure)? Are those the details you would prefer had been omitted?
The only thing I could possibly think would be leaving out the age. On the other hand, as a parent I would want to know sooner than later. If I had an inkling this were my loved one and I hadn't been notified yet, then I would be calling the station and asking. Again, I'd want to know SOONER THAN LATER, and it wouldn't have bothered me, but I can see how some might not want that released.
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
Great suggestion, but it would be too easy and then there would be nothing to b*tch about, nothing to attempt to slam, discredit, or embarrass this site (or the ownership) over, etc. Same old, same old. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's really best when dealing with this type of nonsense to ignore it and the ones trying to stir the pot. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the nasty bullying is disgusting at best. Let's face it 285 Bound, because of the parting of the ways that happened earlier this year, you will continue to receive these types of posts from the same people forever. Trust me, most of us are sick to death of reading the same whiny cr*p all the time. I support you and your site. THANK YOU for all you do for us!
