RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > U.S. Regional Radio Discussion Forums > Washington DC Radio Discussion Forum


Washington DC Radio Discussion Forum - Forum for discussing Radio Information in the Washington DC Area

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2013, 9:26 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dumfries, VA
Posts: 371
Default Bad Fire at 1704 R St. SE DC

Multiple Fire Units on scene of abandoned house fire. OPS are on DCFD FG 3

Currently an exterior operation.
Evacuation tones sounded at around 1015

1022 - Firefighter with broken leg at front door.
1025 - Heavy smoke/fire still being reported
1033 - Requesting hooks to open up the structure
1040 - Command going through checking units on scene. Sounds like the fire is out for now. Units keep repeating that the firewalls held up well.
1142 - Just heard a Dispatch on MPD Citywide for some units to respond to the scene (1704 R St. SE DC) for a suspicious death.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/24...-SE-Fire-In-DC

Last edited by beastieboy101; 02-05-2013 at 10:48 AM.. Reason: updates
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2013, 10:39 AM
DickH's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beastieboy101 View Post
Multiple Fire Units on scene of abandoned house fire. OPS are on DCFD FG 3

Currently an exterior operation.
Evacuation tones sounded at around 1015

1022 - Firefighter with broken leg at front door.
1025 - Heavy smoke/fire still being reported
1033 - Requesting hooks to open up the structure
1040 - Command going through checking units on scene. Sounds like the fire is out for now. Units keep repeating that the firewalls held up well.
1142 - Just heard a Dispatch on MPD Citywide for some units to respond to the scene (1704 R St. SE DC) for a suspicious death.

2 Die In DC Vacant Building Fire | wusa9.com
It's not a good idea to publish all those details.What if a firefighter's wife is listening and it could be her husband that was injured? She might be needlessly upset.

There is also a federal law against repeating what you hear on the radio, although it is seldom enforced.
__________________
Dick H
http://dickh.zenfolio.com
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 5:37 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Our Nation's capitol
Posts: 637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DickH View Post
It's not a good idea to publish all those details.What if a firefighter's wife is listening and it could be her husband that was injured? She might be needlessly upset.

There is also a federal law against repeating what you hear on the radio, although it is seldom enforced.
1 he posted the info 4 hours after the fire. It was already cover by multiple news outlets

2 name the law and section of CFR! No such law applies to what he posted

No harm no foul no law broke
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2013, 8:23 AM
DickH's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gesucks View Post
1 he posted the info 4 hours after the fire. It was already cover by multiple news outlets

2 name the law and section of CFR! No such law applies to what he posted

No harm no foul no law broke
It is the Communications Act of 1934. It says, in part, and I don't recall the exact wording, no one shall repeat to a third party (other than the sender and receiver) what is heard ... No time line is stated.
As I said, it is seldom enforced. My objection to publishing those things is most police hate to see it and it promotes encryption which hurts all of us who like to monitor.
__________________
Dick H
http://dickh.zenfolio.com
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2013, 8:59 AM
Dispatcher308's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hon Land!!!!!
Posts: 741
Default

Dick H,

If that were the case then this entire website would be illeagal as well as any posts or any submissions you have ever made to support the website, as all the data you retrieve from your scanner and post onto this website would be illegal as you would be repeating what your scanner says.

Nate
__________________
Nathan

Every cloud has a silver lining!!! Except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2013, 9:17 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 704
Default

^ Best to just ignore him.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2013, 7:06 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Our Nation's capitol
Posts: 637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DickH View Post
It is the Communications Act of 1934. It says, in part, and I don't recall the exact wording, no one shall repeat to a third party (other than the sender and receiver) what is heard ... No time line is stated.
As I said, it is seldom enforced. My objection to publishing those things is most police hate to see it and it promotes encryption which hurts all of us who like to monitor.
So I assume you are refuring to Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter VI, Paragraph 605, Section (a)

If you bother to read all of it, you will see that subsection (6) states:

"This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band"

Further more, there is numerous case law that further backs that up.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2013, 7:39 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 704
Default

^ I don't see how any of that applies to public safety radio. Police, fire and medical dispatches are clearly not *intended* for the general public. "Persons in distress" I'm sure refers to Mayday type calls over frequencies intended for public use.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2013, 11:21 PM
DickH's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dispatcher308 View Post
Dick H,

If that were the case then this entire website would be illeagal as well as any posts or any submissions you have ever made to support the website, as all the data you retrieve from your scanner and post onto this website would be illegal as you would be repeating what your scanner says.

Nate
The Act covers the content of messages sent from one person to another, not data or info. as posted on RR.
__________________
Dick H
http://dickh.zenfolio.com
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2013, 7:24 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Our Nation's capitol
Posts: 637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DickH View Post
The Act covers the content of messages sent from one person to another, not data or info. as posted on RR.
I am sorry, you are correct. All of us and the entire US Court system that has ruled and provided the case law are wrong.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions