EMT fired after refusing to respond to call with patient who previously attacked her.

Dennhop

Forum Crew Member
64
18
8
So my question is if according to heartland, that this is not considered an assault or former assault, then what is? You have an individual who is not functioning at a full mental state who assaults an EMT and injures them. Im not saying anyone should press charges, but how is that different from someone who's on spice or even just drunk, who does the same thing?
If you intentionally run someone over in a car, it's murder. If you accidentally run them over, it's still vehicular manslaughter. Both are essentially the same thing, just the intent is different, but both are counted as an assault.
 

bakertaylor28

Forum Lieutenant
198
20
18
So my question is if according to heartland, that this is not considered an assault or former assault, then what is? You have an individual who is not functioning at a full mental state who assaults an EMT and injures them. Im not saying anyone should press charges, but how is that different from someone who's on spice or even just drunk, who does the same thing?
If you intentionally run someone over in a car, it's murder. If you accidentally run them over, it's still vehicular manslaughter. Both are essentially the same thing, just the intent is different, but both are counted as an assault.
Speaking as a former law student (before I switched over into EMS for ethical reasons) It is true that the difference is the element of intent- however there is a type of intent that most people don't know about, called "specific intent". Specific intent means that someone "specifically intended to break the law", it infers a condition of "malice". Murder is specific intent. (requires "malice aforethought") whereas manslaughter falls as "recklessness". (i.e. no direct intent but a reasonable and prudent person should know that death is extremely likely to occur as a direct and proximate result of an action, and could take affirmative steps to attempt to mitigate the risk that weren't taken.) Then we have "General Intent" which applies to most crimes, and falls somewhere between the two.

While Assault and Battery is normally a General Intent Charge (i.e. A reasonable person is only aware of a "high probability" that their actions are unlawful.) Battery on a LEO or EMT / Paramedic, however, is ALWAYS a "specific intent" case, because of the fact that the charged is always enhanced to a felony. This is why someone whom is not reasonably A & O cannot be charged under the circumstances.
 

marian

Forum Crew Member
30
16
8
The company she used to work for dodged a bullet.

She told her dispatcher that she was uncomfortable taking the call and didn't feel safe and asked for another crew to be assigned to it (and it seems as if there were crews that were willing to take the call from what the article implies).

If she had run that call under the pressure of the threat of losing her job and had subsequently been injured after stating her safety concerns, she coulda gotten a good lawyer and at the very least been a pain in that company's backside for years. Coulda even been a major payout for her had something happened.

I don't get why the company she worked for couldn't see that and refused to prioritize her safety. Sounds like a terrible company to work for.
 

Top