Talk:Emergency Service Unit
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article could do with some work, added citations and an expansion of the freely availible information out there. I'm also curious as to why a picture of the CDU 'Hummer' is featured as opposed to a picture of ESU officers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by YEPPOON (talk • contribs) 07:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Only NYPD ESU picture available so far?--71.185.193.245 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The introduction and NYPD sections both contain "provides specialized equipment, expertise and support to the various units within the Police departments of several states in the United States. From auto accidents to building collapses to hostage situations, "ESU" officers are called on when the situation requires advanced equipment and expertise. The Canine Unit provides assistance during searches for missing persons, perpetrators and evidence such as drugs and contraband." Furthermore, the citation listed (#1) doesn't seem to mention anything about auto accidents or building collapses... Psomero (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge with NYPD ESU edit
Disagree - NYPD ESU is just one ESU, would we put all Highway Patrols under Highway Patrol?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Also disagree: For the same reasons,--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned up the equipment one a little, AED's are a part of BLS, Hazmat PPE stands for Hazmat personal protective equipment but those were both listed, plus some other redundant skills and equipment. It's still kind of a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.133.46 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Criticism Section is Bad edit
Almost 100% Citation Needed, and I agree. Nothing specific to ESU units, not much about specialist police units even, just a general, currently-in-vogue "militarization of the police" screed. I'd suggest cleaning it, but it's so bad that until someone can post one that is well-cited and presented with less obvious bias, I think it should just be entirely removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.29.37.4 (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)