# Gun Scenario



## firecoins (Nov 27, 2009)

You and your partner are called to a 4th floor apartment in an elevator building for the diff. breather. This neighborhood is referred to as the ghetto. You arrive at the building with no signs of PD or any other first responder on scene.  Your partner and you gather your bags and a stair chair and head up to the apartment on the 4th floor.

You enter the apartment. An older man and woman stand in the living room. The woman complains of abdominal pain with some S.O.B. She wants to go to the hospital. She yells at her husband to get her coat.  

2 children are sleeping on beds on the uncarpeted floor oddly undisturbed by the commotion going on.  They have been through this before. Nothing unusual for them.  

The man iseems quite but aggitated.  His aggitation grows as his wife a.k.a the patient yells for coat.  The wife and husband banter back and fourth.  Outright yelling breaks out.  The man grabs a baseball bat and start to swing at his wife and at you and your partner.  

As his swings get closer, you draw you concealed weapon and warn the husband.  The gun aggitates him further.  Your forced to shoot.  You wound him but don't kill him.  Police arrive.  A 2nd bus arrives.  Both patients are transported and investigation is launched.

Is the shooting justified?

Does the EMT/Medic face criminal liability?  

Personal liability (lawsuits)? 

Professional liability(job loss, certification loss)? 

Should EMS have entered the scene without police?  

Should EMS have left the scene after it became unsafe and waited for police?  

Thooughts?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 27, 2009)

Moved to Scenarios forum.


----------



## Akulahawk (Nov 27, 2009)

Interesting, but well hashed scenario (on other forums). My answers assume the following: that you're in legal possession of the firearm and that you are legally carrying it (not illegal to have while on ambulance or in an otherwise prohibited area). Company Policy is not the law. I'll answer in red...



firecoins said:


> You and your partner are called to a 4th floor apartment in an elevator building for the diff. breather. This neighborhood is referred to as the ghetto. You arrive at the building with no signs of PD or any other first responder on scene.  Your partner and you gather your bags and a stair chair and head up to the apartment on the 4th floor.
> 
> You enter the apartment. An older man and woman stand in the living room. The woman complains of abdominal pain with some S.O.B. She wants to go to the hospital. She yells at her husband to get her coat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Nov 27, 2009)

First, let me say that this is not gonna end well, but here I go...



firecoins said:


> Is the shooting justified?



If there is a situation where my life is seriously threatened and I have a legit fear for my life then I will do everything to stop that threat.  If I had a gun, then that might be on my list of ways to accomplish this effectively… however, despite the fact that I am pro (responsible) gun (owners), I do not have a gun nor would I ever carry a gun while working pure EMS.  But, yes, based on the scenerio it probably is justified considering that your life and your partners life were about to end.  However, consider that a cop would also have considered less than lethal means (OC, tazer, asp, etc…), so if we as EMTs/Medics are gonna carry guns then shouldn’t we also be carrying nonlethal defensive measures which would be used first, just like LEOs?  Also, was it possible to flee the scene without pulling the gun?  It still stands:  We are not LEOs and unless we are going to act just as they would in the same capacity, then we should not half-azz it and just carry a gun with the thinking that "if I get into serious trouble I start shooting."  Responsible cops don't think that way... but by only carrying a gun, you are setting yourself up to behave that way...



firecoins said:


> Does the EMT/Medic face criminal liability?



I don't belive so.  But the case will doubtlessly be investigated and depending on the state (like CA), possibly…  I am no lawyer (thank god), but I think that the law/investigation would probably revolve more around the issues of if you should have been carrying in the first place, if you should have been in that situation, and if you had other options.  But, more than likely, it is justified and no criminal charges would be filled...



firecoins said:


> Personal liability (lawsuits)?



Will you get sued?  Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha… Hell ya…  Will they win?  Probably not… but does it matter?  You are screwed because you will have to spend time, energy, money defending yourself…



firecoins said:


> Professional liability(job loss, certification loss)?



Probably…  In my case, when I was working Ambulance, yes… the company had a policy of no weapons carried by the crew or in the ambulance...  No guns, no cameras, no alcohol, to porno, no smoking…  so I have no doubt I would be canned.  On a SAR call, as I have said before, I am allowed to carry, but rarely respond to the “ghetto” for Searches or Rescues… LOL…  Can you lose a Paramedic License?  Dunno, maybe; but a license is usually harder to lose than, let’s say, an EMT Certification.  Whether or not it was justified in the eyes for everyone else, an EMSA could (and might) pull certification just to CYA if you were to end up on the front page of the paper in a year’s time after going on a shooting rampage…



firecoins said:


> Should EMS have entered the scene without police?



Yes… unless there is a policy that EMS/Fire doesn’t enter this area or a particular home without LEOs.  For instance, we had a section of town where I was working where EMS and Fire was not allowed to enter at night without LEO securing the scene first.  The reason was entirely gang related.  EMS/Fire staged outside the south side of the city for those calls…  But if your decisions (in lieu of such a policy) are based on the neighborhood and your personal feelings about the types of people that might live in these areas… then we have problems…  EMS does not need LE for every call and there was no indication in this scenario (other than a sketchy part of town) that staging was needed…



firecoins said:


> Should EMS have left the scene after it became unsafe and waited for police?



Yes… First Responsibility is to your own safety… Second Responsibility is to your partner’s safety… Third Responsibility is to other responder’s safety… Fourth Responsibility is to bystander’s safety (the kids in the apartment)… and your Last Responsibility is to the Patient…  So, yes, textbook:  EMS should have backed out if possible, others in the room be damned… in real life, not so easy to say as you are leaving those kids and the pt. behind… 



firecoins said:


> Thoughts?



 Just one more series of questions to add… After emptying you gun into this subject… do you then treat him?  Do you treat him first as his wounds (triage-wise) probably are more severe than the woman’s?  Do you now back out of the scene thinking that maybe other “less then upstanding” people in the complex might make an appearance?


----------



## DV_EMT (Nov 27, 2009)

everything akulahawk said... would be my exact response. So no need to double post it


----------



## firecoins (Nov 27, 2009)

You can assume that you have the gun legally. Do not assume the company is backing you carrying it.  

Your protocols says not to eneter a safe scene however the scene appears to be safe.  It escalates after you arrive.  You are uninhibited from leaving the scene at any point.


----------



## spisco85 (Nov 27, 2009)

If you have the ability to leave the scene than you leave the scene. Even in home defense shootings in certain states if you have a way out you have to take it.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Nov 28, 2009)

firecoins said:


> As his swings get closer, you draw you concealed weapon and warn the husband. The gun aggitates him further. Your forced to shoot. You wound him but don't kill him. Police arrive. A 2nd bus arrives. Both patients are transported and investigation is launched.


 
Are _you _allowed to carry while on duty? Because, at my service at least, the possesion of a firearm anywhere on your body at any time during your 12 hours is grounds for immidiate and perminate seperation from the service. Stupid IMHO, but, oh well.....



> Is the shooting justified?


 
Yes. His very act of picking up the bat could be called assult with a deadly weapon. And not only do you need to be concerned about your own safety and your partners safety, but also the pts. The pt is just as much a citizen as you or your partner and if there is a life threat to that person, you are authorized to stop it. Although how you came up with the gun, in my area, would not be.



> Does the EMT/Medic face criminal liability?


 
In this case, no. Although....well, see my last two answers
Personal liability (lawsuits)? 



> Professional liability(job loss, certification loss)?


 
In this case, No. Lawsuits? :censored::censored::censored::censored: right. But liability, no sane judge with any morals would rule against a "justified" shooting.



> Should EMS have entered the scene without police?


 
Depends, with hindsight being, in my opinion, better that 20/20, it is easy to say no. However, nothing in the OPs scenario indicates that it might be scene unsafe. Unless you count the very location as unsafe. But then every EMS call in the inter-city would need LE.



> Should EMS have left the scene after it became unsafe and waited for police?


 
Ideally, yes. But it dosen't sound like they really had time from the appearance of the bat to the shooting.



> Thooughts?


 
As I have been going on about, we cannot carry at all while on. How many of you can carry while on duty?


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Nov 28, 2009)

spisco85 said:


> If you have the ability to leave the scene than you leave the scene. Even in home defense shootings in certain states if you have a way out you have to take it.


 
Not if you can safely stop an assult and battery with a deadly weapon. If you have an incapacitated family member and you are standing in the back doorway, you don't need to escape. Plug the guy! it is the same with a pt. Or any other citizen for that matter. I would say that if you can ssafely stop a beating or murder, by all means, have at! If he has a baseball bat, which falls well into the catagory of deadly weapons, use a deadly weapon of your own. If it is a gun, so be it. (And all the more safe it is for you.)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh and I have to add, even though it is totally un-related. This is post number 800 for me.......that is all.


----------



## Akulahawk (Nov 28, 2009)

firecoins said:


> You can assume that you have the gun legally. *Do not assume the company is backing you carrying it.*


In my experience, most won't, even if it's legal for YOU to do so. They're generally afraid that they'll get into a civil suit because you're their employee, if they explicitly authorized carrying of weapons. 


firecoins said:


> Your protocols says not to enter a safe scene however the scene appears to be safe.  It escalates after you arrive.  *You are uninhibited from leaving the scene at any point.*


As a non-LEO, I'd default to doing that, if it's the safest course of action, especially if I'm unarmed.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Nov 28, 2009)

spisco85 said:


> Even in home defense shootings in certain states if you have a way out you have to take it.



There is actually an interesting law in my county along those lines that dates back over 100 years and has never been changed:

If someone illegally enters your home/property with the intent to harm you, you catch them, they attempt to flee, and you shoot them (in the back obviously), then your actions will be judged based upon one factor:

Are you Male or Female?

If you are Male, then there was no reason for you to shoot this person since you had caught them red handed, they fled, and the threat to yourself no longer existed.

If you are Female, then you are legally justified in shooting him in the back since you can not be sure that the subject will not return and since you are (or at least were viewed as such in the 1800's) a Woman and weaker, you have reason to believe he might return and that you will be unable to drive him off the second time...

A bit sexist in my opinion, but apparently it is legal in my county for women to shoot men in the back... LOL  ^_^


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Nov 28, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> A bit sexist in my opinion, but apparently it is legal in my county for women to shoot men in the back... LOL ^_^


 
Isn't it the general opinion that they do anyway regardless of what the laws might say? (Maybe not physically, but still...............)


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 28, 2009)

firecoins said:


> As his swings get closer, you draw you concealed weapon and warn the husband. The gun aggitates him further. Your forced to shoot. You wound him but don't kill him.


 
Was it your intent to "just wound" the person?  The law is a tricky matter and if you felt your life was not in enough danger and that you just aimed to wound, things will probably not go in your favor.  You must fear for your life or that of someone close to you to justify the use of the use of deadly force but if you decided your intent was just to "slow the person down" then there will be a doubt that you thought your life was in serious danger.  

LEOs don't practice aiming for the hand as shown in the movies.  They practice kill shots that will stop, not slow a person.  If they want to slow a person down, they have other means to do that.   Maybe that is what should be considered in EMS and not a weapon that can end your career and put you in prison for a few years. 

Also in this situation it can be argued that you escalated the scene with your gun.   Again, the other person's attorney may gain the advantage here if it is found you had a way to remove yourself to a safe distance.


----------



## firecoins (Nov 28, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> Was it your intent to "just wound" the person?



Assune you are very nervous as one might be in such a situation. You aimed to kill but just wounded him.


----------



## firecoins (Nov 28, 2009)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> Are _you _allowed to carry while on duty? Because, at my service at least, the possesion of a firearm anywhere on your body at any time during your 12 hours is grounds for immidiate and perminate seperation from the service. Stupid IMHO, but, oh well.....


As I mention the company has not authorized you to carry. Your protocols require you to leave if you can and leaving was a possibility.


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 28, 2009)

firecoins said:


> Assune you are very nervous as one might be in such a situation. You aimed to kill but just wounded him.


 
Hence the word "intent".

The first words out of your mouth in ear shot of others and the statements you give will form your "intent".

"I didn't mean to kill him".

"I didn't want to kill him but just slow him down".

"I wanted to STOP him". 

All of these statements can be up for interpretation.


----------



## reaper (Nov 28, 2009)

"I wanted to stop him"

That is what you say. You have chosen to use deadly force. You do not shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. You want to stop the threat.

Anything else and you will be wrapped up in investigations forever!


----------



## triemal04 (Nov 28, 2009)

reaper said:


> "I wanted to stop him"
> 
> That is what you say. You have chosen to use deadly force. You do not shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. You want to stop the threat.
> 
> Anything else and you will be wrapped up in investigations forever!


Amen.  Saying that you tried to wound him could be potentially as bad as saying that you tried to kill him; might matter more in a civil trial, but either is bad, and not what you want to do, which is to eliminate the threat.  Doesn't matter if you shoot him in the head or the leg and he drops the bat and lays on the floor; the threat is gone and so is the need for deadly force.

The OP didn't mention it, but this would be the perfect example of why most self-defense statuettes contain the phrase "in defense of others."  Even if the attacker was not blocking the exit, the shooting would still be justifiable in that there were 2 children and a woman (who was already being attacked) in the apartment who couldn't leave.


----------



## MrBrown (Nov 29, 2009)

Who traditionally shoots people with weapons? The Police.

Lets leave it that way.


----------



## medichopeful (Nov 29, 2009)

firecoins said:


> Is the shooting justified?



(For the sake of my answers [unless noted], I'm going to assume that the EMT was highly trained with weapons, was allowed to carry by his agency, and was authorized to use force if necessary by his agency.  But note, I do not think that EMTs should be carrying firearms on duty)

Yes, the shooting is justified.  The EMT had reason to believe that the life of the patient was in danger.



> Does the EMT/Medic face criminal liability?



If everything I said in the beginning is true, than no.



> Personal liability (lawsuits)?



This is the United States.  That is always a very distinct possibility.



> Professional liability(job loss, certification loss)?



If the shooting was found to be justified after an extensive investigation involving LE agencies, than he should be fine.



> Should EMS have entered the scene without police?



If they had reasonable suspicion to believe that something could happen, than no, they should have waited outside.  This could include the type of neighborhood or other signs.  



> Should EMS have left the scene after it became unsafe and waited for police?



This is where it becomes tricky.  If the EMTs were armed, and had authorization to use deadly force, than no.  But note, that is only if they were authorized to, in a way, be auxiliary LE.  If they were only authorized to use the weapon for self-defense, than yes.  They should have left immediately.  



> Thooughts?



I think this really demonstrates the reason EMTs should not be carrying weapons.  It puts them into a position they should not be in: that of a LEO.  I'm sorry, but I have a major problem with an EMT carrying a weapon (or anyone in the healthcare field carrying weapons, except for a very select few).  Remember, the Hippocratic Oath says "First, do no harm."  By carrying weapons, it makes it very easy to violate that first rule.  I think that this scenario demonstrates that.

Stay safe out there.


----------



## reaper (Nov 29, 2009)

Except for the fact that Paramedics and EMT's do not take the Hippocratic oath!


----------



## medichopeful (Nov 29, 2009)

reaper said:


> Except for the fact that Paramedics and EMT's do not take the Hippocratic oath!



Okay, you got me.  It was more the basic principle I was looking at


----------



## firecoins (Nov 30, 2009)

medichopeful said:


> If the shooting was found to be justified after an extensive investigation involving LE agencies, than he should be fine.


Remeber, the employer has not authorized the EMT/Medic to carry concealed or otherwise. 





> I think this really demonstrates the reason EMTs should not be carrying weapons.  It puts them into a position they should not be in: that of a LEO.  I'm sorry, but I have a major problem with an EMT carrying a weapon (or anyone in the healthcare field carrying weapons, except for a very select few).  Remember, the Hippocratic Oath says "First, do no harm."  By carrying weapons, it makes it very easy to violate that first rule.  I think that this scenario demonstrates that.


That was the point of the scenario. 

In this scenario, the EMTs had the option to leave and in my opinion should have taken it. Nothing happens to you or your career of you leave.  AND your following protocols.  Its a police matter and your not.  The husband is agitated by his wife and your presence.  Your leaving in part might diffuse it.    

But what about the children?  I know many people may be compelled to act to protect them.  I think you need to bite your lip on this one and call the police in to get them out.


----------



## Akulahawk (Nov 30, 2009)

Firecoins: From a criminal investigation standpoint, the shooting would quite likely be justified. If that is the case, the EMT would be in the clear from a _criminal _standpoint. In some states, that would also extend civil protection to the EMT as well, in that the EMT couldn't be sued in civil court for shooting someone justifiably. That is regardless of whether or not that EMT was carrying against company policy. Company policy does not set the law in criminal matters. Show me an instance where a private company policy violation results in someone going to prison, and I'll change my tune on that.

That being said, while the EMT would not likely stand trial in civil or criminal court, that EMT could still face disciplinary action by his/her employer for a violation of company policy. 

Things get a bit more interesting if the EMT works for a public agency. In my case, if I carry a weapon into my workplace, I violate California PC 171b. If I have been issued an unrestricted CCW, I would not violate 171b, but I'd violate agency policy. I wouldn't get arrested/prosecuted in that instance, but I'd lose my job... unless my agency authorized me to carry weapons on-duty.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Dec 14, 2009)

firecoins said:


> As his swings get closer, you draw you concealed weapon and warn the husband.  The gun aggitates him further.  Your forced to shoot.  You wound him but don't kill him.  Police arrive.  A 2nd bus arrives.  Both patients are transported and investigation is launched.


Wound but didn't kill?  Sounds like you failed the "repeat as necessary" part of the instructions ;-)  Kidding, of course.  But in all honesty, if I ever have to shoot someone, he's dying. Especially at that close of range.  Regardless 



> Is the shooting justified?


Not enough information, specifically.  But, most likely, yes.  You've got no means of retreating, you're there lawfully, he's not only threatening your life but involving a disparity of force. Sounds kosher to me.



> Does the EMT/Medic face criminal liability?


I'm not sure how that question differs from your last.  Same answer.  Let's assume that the shooter in question was legally carrying and wasn't prevented, by law, from carrying while performing EMS duties.  It's most likely totally justified and he'll face no recriminations.



> Personal liability (lawsuits)?


Anyone can file a lawsuit.  They wouldn't win.



> Professional liability(job loss, certification loss)?


If you've violated your companies policy, they're allowed to discipline you.  Hopefully they'll see that you saved some lives and give you the lightest penality possible.  Of course, I'd rather be "fired" than "dead" anyday.



> Should EMS have left the scene after it became unsafe and waited for police?


For the shoot to be justifiable, you've got to have no other means of *SAFE* retreat.  If bad guy with the bat is between you and the door, he gets to enjoy the fruits of your firearms training.

"Don't shoot to kill, shoot to live!"


----------



## thatJeffguy (Dec 14, 2009)

firecoins said:


> In this scenario, the EMTs had the option to leave and in my opinion should have taken it.



Maybe my literacy is lacking; do tell us where you said that in your OP.  You went from "bad guy with a weapon" to "bad guy getting closer".  You never said that the reader had the option of leaving.  If you want us to know these things, it'd be a tremendous help if you said so.

As a matter of fact, that's sort of the lynch pin here.  If you were able to *SAFELY* retreat, you're required to do so.  Now, safely retreat doesn't mean "turn your back on a guy five feet away that's got a baseball bat", their *IS NO* safe retreat from a situation like that.  



> Nothing happens to you or your career of you leave.  AND your following protocols.  Its a police matter and your not.  The husband is agitated by his wife and your presence.  Your leaving in part might diffuse it.


Or he could smash your skull in the second you turn around.  A guy that close with a weapon is an IMMEDIATE threat.  If he's lucky, I'd give him one VERY quick verbal warning, which must be complied with immediately, before I decided to perform a brain-splat-ectomy on his ignorant *** 



> But what about the children?  I know many people may be compelled to act to protect them.  I think you need to bite your lip on this one and call the police in to get them out.



My god, we agree on something!  If he was storming around the apartment breaking stuff with his bat and saying that he was going to kill his kids, *and if I could do so with safety*, I'd guide the kids out the door and follow them out, leaving LEO to deal with him.  I'm not a vigilante, I'm not a judge and I'm not acting as a cop.  :censored::censored::censored::censored:head people exist in this world and just because you happened to be called to the scene of one of them doesn't mean you've got to entangle your lives.  He wants to beat his kids? I'll tell the cops.  He wants to kill me?  I'll tell the coroner.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Dec 14, 2009)

reaper said:


> Except for the fact that Paramedics and EMT's do not take the Hippocratic oath!



Facts and reason have no place in this debate.

The children are now to resume their "guns r tehz badz" wailing.


----------



## Akulahawk (Dec 15, 2009)

There's a lot here... but I'll respond to what I think needs to be responded to. I'll bold some things and answer in red.



thatJeffguy said:


> *Wound but didn't kill?*  Sounds like you failed the "repeat as necessary" part of the instructions ;-)  Kidding, of course.  But in all honesty, if I ever have to shoot someone, he's dying. Especially at that close of range.  Regardless
> Frankly, if wounding him stops the attack, the shoot would still be justified. Remember the phrase: "Shoot to stop the threat." LE is taught that same thing. They're also taught a "failure to stop" drill...
> 
> Not enough information, specifically.  But, most likely, yes.  You've got no means of retreating, you're there lawfully, he's not only threatening your life but involving a disparity of force. Sounds kosher to me.
> ...





thatJeffguy said:


> Maybe my literacy is lacking; do tell us where you said that in your OP.  You went from "bad guy with a weapon" to "bad guy getting closer".  You never said that the reader had the option of leaving.  If you want us to know these things, it'd be a tremendous help if you said so.
> Retreat is not always legally necessary, or possible.
> As a matter of fact, that's sort of the lynch pin here.  If you were able to *SAFELY* retreat, *you're required to do so*.  Now, safely retreat doesn't mean "turn your back on a guy five feet away that's got a baseball bat", their *IS NO* safe retreat from a situation like that.
> Totally depends upon state law. Know the law for self defense as it applies in your area. If you do not, you could face criminal charges... and that would be detrimental to your career.
> ...





thatJeffguy said:


> Facts and reason have no place in this debate.
> 
> The children are now to resume their "guns r tehz badz" wailing.
> 
> Sadly, sometimes, facts and reason just get lost...


----------



## Jeffrey_169 (Jan 12, 2010)

spisco85 said:


> If you have the ability to leave the scene than you leave the scene. Even in home defense shootings in certain states if you have a way out you have to take it.



I am not unlike others here on the site, do not advocate violence. I think violence, as a rule, only escalates an already bad situation. 

I was a bouncer in a rather rough night club in NM for about a year, and it simply amazed some of my coworkers how I was able to talk a person down. I would walk up the biggest, meanest, drunkest person and literally talk him out of the bar. Only once, in 6 months, did I actually have to take someone down physically. The power of words cannot be overestimated if used correctly. 

With that said; as with all rules there are exceptions. Sometimes there is no reasoning with some people. Some people, such as in this example, are too quick to resort to violence and there is simply no time to react in another way. I do believe EMS providers should be trained in both armed and unarmed defense, especially in urban areas where things can seem quiet one moment, and before one can see it coming a riot has no ensued. Even in the smallest of towns I have seen scenes which were tame and well under control spin wildly out of control in a instant and without provocation. Once you there, sometimes a tactical stand is the only way out. 

I am a former Marine, and I do own several firearms, and I know all too well how to use them. I commonly carry on my person, but no one other my wife, my children, and the state know about it. I believe this situation was warranted, but there should be other options open to us. I learned a long time ago how to "talk someone" down, and I believe should be one item EMTs and Medics are more trained in. I believe some degree of non-lethal defense, as well as access to a firearm, would not be a bad idea and should be employed by us in the field. I believe training is the key. How could I leave those children and this unarmed women to the devices of someone not only armed but apparently willing to use in such a state of mind? Don't get me wrong, if a Medic or EMT did not feel as if they could take control of the situation, then perhaps vacating is the is best answer; it would a judgment call made by the individual person, but the option should be made available. 

In reference to the quote I used here, you are right. In some states they require you to even leave YOUR OWN HOME in the event of an intruder, and the only way to fix this is to vote out the idiots who passed it. 

I do not advocate, endorse, or promote violence, but if someone is placing another in immediate threat of life or limb, do we not have a personal and civic responsibility to do all in our power to prevent it? I know we are not LEO's but we are people. No one is going to place a child or an unarmed person in jeopardy in front of me and expect me to simply walk away. We as Medics are going to have to face the reality that we are going to be placed in harms way in one way or another, at some point or another in the course of our careers, and some more then others. We need to be trained to handle these situations as they arrive. One medic said "Do no harm"; I have yet to take that oath, but I was trained to "protect my patient" and "patient advocacy" 

Violence, as a rule, is not the answer; but as with all rules there are exceptions. Few things in life are black and white, and we need to adapt as situations dictate.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 12, 2010)

Does anyone's opinions change if they were told that US Case Law says that the police have no duty to act? (Warren v District of Columbia and Castle Rock v Gonzales). 

Warren v DC is particularly disturbing and involves DC police being held immune to failure to dispatch and actually investigate an active crime. The end result was 3 women being raped, beaten, and robbed because the police failed to act. 

Should EMS be required to carry? No!

Should EMS carry? Probably not due to scene management and tunnel vision when focusing on the patient.

Should law abiding citizens be allowed to carry? Definitely.


----------



## Jeffrey_169 (Jan 12, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Does anyone's opinions change if they were told that US Case Law says that the police have no duty to act? (Warren v District of Columbia and Castle Rock v Gonzales).
> 
> Warren v DC is particularly disturbing and involves DC police being held immune to failure to dispatch and actually investigate an active crime. The end result was 3 women being raped, beaten, and robbed because the police failed to act.
> 
> ...



That is interesting, I did not know that. I guess it only reinforces the idea that an armed society is a polite society. Besides, anyone who expects me to put my safety in the hands of LEO is sadly mistaken. They have there place, and they are needed, but if a good cop could everywhere at once we would have no crime at all.


----------



## FLEMTP (Jan 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Does anyone's opinions change if they were told that US Case Law says that the police have no duty to act? (Warren v District of Columbia and Castle Rock v Gonzales).
> 
> Warren v DC is particularly disturbing and involves DC police being held immune to failure to dispatch and actually investigate an active crime. The end result was 3 women being raped, beaten, and robbed because the police failed to act.
> 
> ...



IIRC, the opinion issued by the court was that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen, just the public in general. If the police had no duty to act, then why have police at all?


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 13, 2010)

If the police aren't required to protect individual citizens when a crime is in progress, then why have police at all is a very good question. It's like saying that EMS only has a vague general obligation to provide medical care to society, but if you just drive by a house and say "no patient found" then said obligation is full filled.


Similarly, if the police have no obligation to respond to 911 calls for active crimes, why not allow citizens to protect themselves? After all, someone thinking about becoming a criminal isn't going to bother to get a concealed carry or open carry permit.


----------



## FLEMTP (Jan 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> If the police aren't required to protect individual citizens when a crime is in progress, then why have police at all is a very good question. It's like saying that EMS only has a vague general obligation to provide medical care to society, but if you just drive by a house and say "no patient found" then said obligation is full filled.
> 
> 
> Similarly, if the police have no obligation to respond to 911 calls for active crimes, why not allow citizens to protect themselves? After all, someone thinking about becoming a criminal isn't going to bother to get a concealed carry or open carry permit.



I agree with you, and that was the original intent of the second amendment...to allow us to defend ourselves, from other people, and our government should the need arise!


----------



## Akulahawk (Jan 14, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> If the police aren't required to protect individual citizens when a crime is in progress, then why have police at all is a very good question. It's like saying that EMS only has a vague general obligation to provide medical care to society, but if you just drive by a house and say "no patient found" then said obligation is full filled.
> 
> 
> Similarly, if the police have no obligation to respond to 911 calls for active crimes, why not allow citizens to protect themselves? After all, someone thinking about becoming a criminal isn't going to bother to get a concealed carry or open carry permit.


The police are NOT required to provide protection to any _specific_ person unless they specifically offer it to that individual. Police provide protection to society as a whole. Occasionally, they'll arrive in the nick of time to actually prevent a crime in progress. What happens with EMS is that "our" dispatchers let the person on the other end of the line. "We" don't just go out patrolling to provide care to the general public, we go to where we're called, when we're called, to a specific incident or patient. "Our" mission is different than LE... as it should be!

JP... MOST of the US does exactly what you wonder about... Most states (about 40) have some kind of "shall issue" firearms permit or license, and some licenses are not specific to firearms (or even specific ones). California is one of the states that have discretionary issue for these licenses and that's a major reason why they're so rare in California. JP... you're going to school in one of the WORST counties in California. Just to the East, San Bernadino County is pretty good for those licenses, and to the North, Kern County, is almost shall issue. 

I can go MUCH further about this issue, but it's quite a bit off-topic.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 14, 2010)

Akulahawk said:


> The police are NOT required to provide protection to any _specific_ person unless they specifically offer it to that individual. Police provide protection to society as a whole. Occasionally, they'll arrive in the nick of time to actually prevent a crime in progress. What happens with EMS is that "our" dispatchers let the person on the other end of the line. "We" don't just go out patrolling to provide care to the general public, we go to where we're called, when we're called, to a specific incident or patient. "Our" mission is different than LE... as it should be!


So... if you call 911 and say that you're roommate is being rapped downstairs in your house, you shouldn't expect a police response? Just because they patrol doesn't mean that they shouldn't be obligated to respond to serious 911 calls. It's like 911 telling a chest pain patient that "we'll respond when the crew recovers from changing posts." Would you excuse a fire department who takes their sweet time to respond to a confirmed fire because the 'building is already on fire?'



> JP... MOST of the US does exactly what you wonder about... Most states (about 40) have some kind of "shall issue" firearms permit or license, and some licenses are not specific to firearms (or even specific ones). California is one of the states that have discretionary issue for these licenses and that's a major reason why they're so rare in California. JP... you're going to school in one of the WORST counties in California. Just to the East, San Bernadino County is pretty good for those licenses, and to the North, Kern County, is almost shall issue.
> 
> I can go MUCH further about this issue, but it's quite a bit off-topic.



Of course to throw a wrench into the situation, my permanent address is currently at my parents' house in San Diego (another non-CCW permit friendly county). Regardless, CCWs are forbidden on university and college campuses (because unarmed students worked well at V-Tech).


----------



## Jeffrey_169 (Jan 14, 2010)

I a not a violent person, nor do I condone violence, but I see my .45 like rich folks see their American Express card; I never leave home without it. IN Texas, if you have a CCW, you can legally carry on a college campus now. I don't travel anywhere where I can't carry. In my opinion, a failure to be prepared is just asking for it. Besides, if a GOOD cop could be everywhere at once, we would have no crime at all. 

I agree with your analogy however.


----------

