# DC Fire Investigates "Hiding Ambulance" During Mass Shooting



## ffemt8978 (Oct 29, 2010)

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/loc...-hiding-ambulance-during-mass-shooting-102810


----------



## CAOX3 (Oct 30, 2010)

Oh boy, I got a feeling this isn't going to turn out well.


----------



## medic417 (Oct 30, 2010)

Initially I thought scene safety but in this case multiple other units responded to the scene.  This ambulance has a tracking system and they were even at one of their houses while the rest of the crews dealt with mass casualties.   Now it doesn't appear they were actually ever dispatched but they are supposed to be monitoring which would have let them know hey we need all available.  Dispatch though allowed them to stop for fuel.  Really looks like multiple failures on this call.


----------



## Aidey (Oct 30, 2010)

You know, I almost wonder if there is some big missing bit of info, like they had just run a nasty call and the person stopped at home to get a clean uniform. Because otherwise it is hard to understand how so many people could have farked up.


----------



## MonkeySquasher (Nov 2, 2010)

Aidey said:


> You know, I almost wonder if there is some big missing bit of info, like they had just run a nasty call and the person stopped at home to get a clean uniform. Because otherwise it is hard to understand how so many people could have farked up.




Same.  I know people who will try to dodge "bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:" calls, but when it comes to a "cool" call like that, people tend to jump on it.  I'm wondering if there's something else to it.

But then again, I'm sure there's atleast a couple crews in the world who just don't care, THEY want food, and THEY want downtime.  Forget what the public wants, right?  They need to eat!


----------



## EMSLaw (Nov 2, 2010)

Before the mob gathers at the relevant firehouse with torches and pitchforks, I feel the need to ask the unpopular but obvious question...

Was the absence of this ambulance a clinically significant factor in the outcomes of any of the patients involved?  

That doesn't excuse the screw-ups, which seem to be legion (multiple supervisors noticed the ambulance was there, but it *still* wasn't dispatched?  Odd.).  I tend to agree, though, that this is the kind of call that usually has people coming out of the woodwork to respond, even self-dispatching if "necessary".  

I'm kinda surprised Brown didn't swan in on a helicopter, wearing his trademark orange jumpsuit.   "Why did I get shot?"  "Well, let's be honest, you're a big lad, hard to miss..."


----------



## JPINFV (Nov 2, 2010)

medic417 said:


> Initially I thought scene safety but in this case multiple other units responded to the scene.  This ambulance has a tracking system and they were even at one of their houses while the rest of the crews dealt with mass casualties.   Now it doesn't appear they were actually ever dispatched but they are supposed to be monitoring which would have let them know hey we need all available.  Dispatch though allowed them to stop for fuel.  Really looks like multiple failures on this call.



Fuel is different than food. If the ambulance runs out of fuel, then the ambulance doesn't run. If you're hungry and you have to run another call, you just get more hungry. To me, what's key is that they were cleared to get fuel, but they failed to get fuel. If it was something else, then they should have requested a detail to do something else, but they didn't (according to the article).


----------



## Aerin-Sol (Nov 2, 2010)

This article has a few contradictions - 

"Sources say an internal DC Fire and EMS investigation shows some first responders actually did all they could to avoid the call for help."

"Sources tell FOX 5 an internal investigation shows the unit and its two medics did all they could to avoid the mass shooting."

Were they first responders or where they medics? I assume the latter since they were in an ambulance, but still.


----------



## JPINFV (Nov 2, 2010)

There are two uses for the term "first responder." One use is a medical level, and another is a general term for police, fire, and EMS as these are the three agencies to respond first to emergency situations.


----------



## firecoins (Nov 2, 2010)

Aerin-Sol said:


> This article has a few contradictions -
> 
> "Sources say an internal DC Fire and EMS investigation shows some first responders actually did all they could to avoid the call for help."
> 
> ...



cops and firefighters are also referred to as first responders. 

Unnamed sources are meaningless.


----------



## usalsfyre (Nov 2, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Fuel is different than food. If the ambulance runs out of fuel, then the ambulance doesn't run. If you're hungry and you have to run another call, you just get more hungry. To me, what's key is that they were cleared to get fuel, but they failed to get fuel. If it was something else, then they should have requested a detail to do something else, but they didn't (according to the article).



So I'll agree with this to a point. Point being...

Every agency I've ever worked for had a policy about when to refill your unit, and every policy stated between 1/2 and 3/4s. A longish transport in DC would be 5 miles, meaning half a tank is plenty to get to the hospital and back, multiple times.


----------



## RUGBY66X (Nov 2, 2010)

i agree with you here and there is no excuse for them not show up according to the evidence presented but 40 people for 9 patients should have been plenty.


----------



## MrBrown (Nov 2, 2010)

EMSLaw said:


> I'm kinda surprised Brown didn't swan in on a helicopter, wearing his trademark orange jumpsuit.   "Why did I get shot?"  "Well, let's be honest, you're a big lad, hard to miss..."



Let us not forget his Cat In The Hat hat .....


----------



## FrostbiteMedic (Nov 3, 2010)

CAOX3 said:


> Oh boy, I got a feeling this isn't going to turn out well.


I think I must agree..


----------

