EMS and Fire wearing body armor / bullet resistant vests/ ballistic vests.

[EMSDude54343]

With a lot of departments starting to issue ballistic vests to crews to wear either full time or for dangerous calls, I have noticed something. In the news stories that I have seen, most agencies are issuing ballistic vests that closely resemble LEO vests with little to differentiate the wearer from being law enforcement. All the ones I have seen are using large patches that have EMS or FIRE in large bold white letters over a black vest. I think that by the look mirroring LEO too closely that can cause more safety issues than they protect against.
I think by making ems personnel resemble LEO we are putting ourselves and crews in more danger. One example may be that a subject escalates and becomes violent and go to attack someone and see someone in a black ballistic vest and automatically assumes they are LEO and attacks them. Also in an event like Dallas the subject may see a medic or ff in a ballistic vest and automatically target them thinking they are LEO.
I am not saying I would rather an officer be shot or attacked instead of a medic or ff, I am just thinking without making significant changes to the vests (not just protocols) we are putting ourselves and personnel at more risk than necessary.
I use Dallas only as an example and applaud the firefighters (and of course other officers) that put themselves in harms way without protection to attempt to rescue the downed officers. I also like to think that I would have done the same.
I think any armor issued to EMS and Fire Rescue personnel should either be blue or red to stand out from the black or at a minimum to make the labels red or blue with different colored letters.
Now in a true active shooter where ems is making entry with LEO I doubt the shooter would care if they were shooting LEO or ems personnel, but other dangerous scenes or when LEO is being specifically targeted I think looking different may help save a life.

What are y'alls thoughts on this?

 

[STXmedic]

Honestly I don't think it matters. If somebody is willing to target and shoot an officer, they're probably more than willing to shoot anybody involved in the response. I'd rather not stick out like a highlighter and be a more visible target. If you're in a position where you truly need the ballistic vest, odds are you'll be a target no matter what color it is. Most *******s don't even care on regular runs. Anybody involved is against them.

 

[DesertMedic66]

Being in bright colored cloths makes you a much more visible target. A bright orange vest is going to say "look at me!"

 

[nightmoves123]

I think it is situation dependant- if a department is saying all personnel should be wearing body armor as a mandatory precaution in daily duties (in the same fashion LEO's wear it during their shifts)- then I think it should be covert body armor used...there's no need to confuse the public as to whom is there for emergency care vs police response. Also the general public don't necessarily want people who appear to be geared up like rambo at all times. People react differently to police as they will to fire/ems as you all know.

If the SOP is merely for wearing body armor during an active shooter incident or the like- then the armor type does not matter as the shooter will be engage anything he/she deems to be a government representative. So long as each responding agency can tell who is who, that is what is most important in those scenarios.

 

[Daniel G]

Your staging your CCP way too close if you need armor.

 

[nightmoves123]

Not necessarily the case. With incidents becoming more frequent it is only a matter of time before secondary and tertiary devices come into play. It is not hard to predict the likely location of control points...

1- Detonation of a device in a public area/begin active shooter sequence in specific location
2- First responders arrive on scene and CP established
3- Secondary device detonates at control point taking out more civilians and senior command

It's been happening for years in other countries around the world, as attacks become more frequent on US soil so will the variation and evolution of tactics. Simply having one active shooter in one elevated position can take hours of engaging to eliminate, imagine a plan where shooters have a plan only to reveal their location at set times?

1- 1200hrs initial contact
2- all assets are dealing with that incident
3- 1400hrs, other shooters within 1km begin their attacks

Control points are only useful if they are fully protected from the various secondary threats

 

[Daniel G]

Not necessarily the case. With incidents becoming more frequent it is only a matter of time before secondary and tertiary devices come into play. It is not hard to predict the likely location of control points...

1- Detonation of a device in a public area/begin active shooter sequence in specific location
2- First responders arrive on scene and CP established
3- Secondary device detonates at control point taking out more civilians and senior command

It's been happening for years in other countries around the world, as attacks become more frequent on US soil so will the variation and evolution of tactics. Simply having one active shooter in one elevated position can take hours of engaging to eliminate, imagine a plan where shooters have a plan only to reveal their location at set times?

1- 1200hrs initial contact
2- all assets are dealing with that incident
3- 1400hrs, other shooters within 1km begin their attacks

Control points are only useful if they are fully protected from the various secondary threats

What you are suggesting is a bigger transition for civilian EMS to more of a Combat Medic role. I dont think this is a good idea as a former Airborne Infantry Medic.

 

[Summit]

It is very easy for people to think of nightmare scenarios of terrorist secondary attacks.
It is easy to allow one tragedy to create a disproportionate response.

What is the actual rate of incidents where these interventions would actually yield an improved outcome?
Are they the best intervention? (or is there something else that grants better safety)
How tightly should the intervention be targeted? (eg just a few units in a few cities)

 

[nightmoves123]

What you are suggesting is a bigger transition for civilian EMS to more of a Combat Medic role. I dont think this is a good idea as a former Airborne Infantry Medic.

I didn't suggest the wearing of body armor- I just suggested that having a control point does not result in safety for personnel stationed there. I don't advocate having kneejerk reactions to every possible scenario- but I certainly am all about having plans in place to avoid being caught out.