Gun Scenario

[reaper]

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

 

[medichopeful]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.
A threat to life, even if there's a means of escape is still a threat to life.

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.
From a criminal perspective, yes. Civil Court? That may be a different story, unless the shooter has statutory protection against civil suits in justified shoot situations.

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


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.
Agreed.

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.
Not always true, and that can vary from state to state. Some states require that you retreat if possible. Others do not. If someone's close enough to pose a credible threat to my life with whatever weapon at hand, that's close enough to justify the shoot.
"Don't shoot to kill, shoot to live!"

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.

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 ***



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.
If that can be done safely, that'd be the thing to do.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.