On February 22, 2022, the Baltimore Sun released an article regarding a city Councilwomen who wants to issue rules for entering vacant homes and firefighters to wear body cameras. Last month the city of Baltimore saw one of the deadliest fires to firefighters in the city's history. The fire at 205 S. Stricker Street claimed the lives of three firefighters when the building collapsed. In the wake of that incident, the proposal from the councilwomen came to life.

Firefighter social media had plenty of conversations regarding this, and I'm here to give my opinion on it. First, what is the actual proposal? The bill will prohibit city firefighters from entering any "vacant" building if the fire has consumed 25% of the building. It also states firefighters could only enter the "vacant" building if the department confirms a victim is inside and a safe entry can be made. Firefighters are prohibited from entering a collapsed structure unless someone's life is in immediate danger. Lastly, it mentions a requirement for firefighters to wear an audio/video recording device to be used at the scene of fires.

So, there is a lot to take away from this proposal, and I'll break it down using my opinion, starting with the 25% rule. My first question here is, who calculates the 25%? Is it the first arriving unit? In that case, I feel it's relatively simple always to say, "fire has consumed 20%" if we're going merely off a size up, who is going to stop you? 25% of a building is not a lot, which means ¾ of the building does not have visible fire and could easily be accessed for an interior operation. It mentions that firefighters may enter if there is confirmation of a victim and it's safe to enter. Victims aren't always at the windows saying they need help; to find all victims, you have to search; to do that, you have to enter the building. Buildings should be considered occupied until proven otherwise, especially when it comes to vacant buildings in an area such as Baltimore.

I'm torn when it comes to firefighters' audio/video devices. I feel it can easily benefit firefighters for training purposes. It can also help with investigations; god forbid something goes wrong. However, the public trusts the fire department, and they may not want firefighters recording inside their homes. Two things to take away from that, 1) the bill says it will be for fires only, so maybe that does not include your familiar smells and bells where you would get a good visual of the interior of someone's home. 2) Many firefighters already tend to have cameras on their helmets or turnout gear, so would this make a difference? It all comes down to how it is written in the proposal. If lawmakers can convince the community that they won't be using the footage for anything else rather than fires, you may not get any negative feedback.

Firefighters take an oath to protect life and property. Although I honestly feel or at least hope this proposal comes with the best intentions to protect firefighters, it contradicts the job these men and women were hired to do. This article is my opinion only, and I'm not here to bash anyone or say what's wrong or right. I like this to start good conversations. Conversations are great for the fire service. If you'd like to discuss it feel free to contact me, I love hearing from readers and fellow firefighters! My contact info is below.

Instagram @firemantom193

Twitter @MarchianoTom