Self Defense for EMS

[thatJeffguy]

I've had LEOs and the National Guard protecting me during various situations over the past 30 years.

The same LEO's that shoot themselves and unarmed minorities? If it's all the same, I'll protect myself thank you.

Unless you have actually been in these type of situations, you will never know how ridiculous some sound here with their macho gun carrying crap. I have counted bullet holes in my truck but have never felt the need to stick around and shoot it out with those carrying weapons.

I'm totally at a loss for where you see that. I've asked others this same question, are their threads that I'm not seeing with Rambo's to-be just itching to shoot someone? If so, I'd like to see them so that I can add those in the balance when forming an opinion. You'll notice the topic here isn't "EMT's as Vigilante Justice", it's self-defense. Anything that you bring up that isn't related to self defense is off-topic and not apropos for the discussion.

To clarify; At no time should a lay person go TOWARDS the sound of gunfire. I wouldn't do it and I'd hope that no person carrying a sidearm for defense would do it. Any position I have is based on the assumption of self-defense as stated in various statutes across the country, including in my state.

To further clarify;
Chasing someone down to shoot them - BAD
Using force on someone where you've no option to retreat - NOT BAD.

Do you now understand that it's not my position that EMT's go out seeking confrontation with their sidearms?

As far as carrying a weapon while on duty in the hospital, in no way do I want to be concerned about my weapon while working with kids and babies or anybody in the ED. Yes, we have taken weapons off many kids but that doesn't mean they have to see their caregiver carrying while trying to preach nonviolence to a 10 y/o gang member wannabe.

Carrying a sidearm doesn't mean you're a violent person. Cops teach DARE classes around here, do they teach them in NY as well? Good guys carry guns, ya know. And again, concealed means concealed.

Having another 3000 employees at any given time in a hospital would seriously complicate their job.

How many school shootings are you familiar with? Mall shootings? Post office shootings? Pretty good number of them, right? How many shootings have you heard of at gun stores? Shooting ranges? Thought so. Any reason for that, ya think?

I'm sure, also, that those states that decided to issue CCW's experienced a sharp increase in violent crime once they began their licensure system. Care to comment on that? Of course, they didn't experience that. On the flip side, those cities with strict gun control, like Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, are RIFE with gun violence. Any thoughts on that? Frankly, the "more guns equals more violent crime" theory is completely debunked, across the board. Show me where that isn't the case and I assure you you'll be seeing the exception, rather than the rule.

Carrying a gun is not for those who have no professional training and a job that mandates you to maintain that training.

Oh? Where is that written in the Constitution? Right after "shall not be infringed"? And weren't you the guy that's seen cop shoot themselves and unarmed minorities? Training doesn't solve every problem, ya know.

Everything you just said is wrong. Ask an insurance agent how many legit self defense situations they paid out on. Of course, than there are the accidental shootings.

I just asked my insurance agent, he said zero. Perhaps you could post a source that shows this? Googling "justifiable homicide insurance" doesn't give any appropriate hits, maybe my Goog-Fu is weak tonight?

2 EMTs get called to an EDP. As soon as they enter the apartment, the psych patient locks them in. He has they key. The psych goes for a gun ans was ready to kill them. The male EMT tackles him and hits the psych over the head several times. The female EMT calls for help. Their employer had to pay the EDP several hundred thousand.

Is that just some scenario that you've envisioned? The patient committed one felony, unlawful detainment/imprisonment, and was reaching for a gun. I think that this story came out of the south end of a north bound male bovine, but I could be wrong. You've, of course, got some source for this? And, lets say that it's true (which again, very doubtful) so what? If you were this EMT, would you be happier if you got shot? As you're lying there, locked in some nutcases house with your lungs collapsing, you could say "Thank god my department won't be sued! I'll sure miss my wife and kids, but my department won't get a lawsuit! Praise Jesus". No thanks. Safe to me means I go home at night. Do you seriously think that you'd NOT defend yourself because you're worried SOMEONE ELSE might get sued?!

You need a different profession than EMS.

Yea, thanks for the opinion. I'll take that under consideration. If you're ever in my squad, please tell me so I'll know not to get shifts with the coward that would rather get killed by a nutcase than defend themself. I think that all gun-haters should be required to wear pink shirts. That way, if I see you getting mugged or assaulted, I'll know you'd never dare me interfere and save your life, I'll just walk on by and listen to you thanking the Insurance Gods for saving them a payout.

As I said, a drunk with aknife will be faster than your going for a gun. Hence your gun is worthless.

Source, please? My bullets, all handloads, fly 1380fps. I don't think some drunk with a knife is going to be moving at twice the speed of sound, perhaps you've got evidence to the contrary? I find it so amusing how you're sitting here, armchair quarterbacking some imaginary scenario. If a knife is so deadly, wouldn't that be THE REASON that I'd carry a more effective weapon? Is every knife-wound immediatly fatal or incapacitating?

I clearly keep myself safe without a gun. You clearly can't.

You haven't yet been killed. You just can't stop with the insults, can you? Well, if I wasn't able to articulate my position clearly and logically, I'd probably insult people as well. I just hope that your cowardice doesn't end up getting your entire family killed.

you haven't heard of NY have you? There are negligent cops where you live. Now we need to worry about armed EMTs too.

"Worried"? You live in a fantasy land, friend. I don't "worry" about people carrying guns. I worry about violent criminals. I carry a gun to DEAL with violent criminals. Also, are you trying to say that NYC is a violent place to live? But.... aren't concealed weapons, and all sidearms, banned there? Bu.. buh... but... how can there be crime when guns are banned!

Cops are constantly working on forms of non lethal force. It would be a good idea to learn about them.

They're also constantly working on "Plan B". Since you approve of less than lethal methods, I'll assume you're OK with EMT's carrying Tasers? Right?

You would seriously be okay with somebody who has NO training carrying a deadly weapon out in public? Do you not see anything wrong with this?

"Shall not be infringed". How much training does the law mandate? How much training do you need before you're given permission to preach religion "out in public"? Don't cops, who have tons of training, still ND and shoot people? Training isn't some magical panacea, ya know. I'd prefer that individuals that choose to carry a weapon be trained in the use thereof, but I'm not going to prevent them from doing so. What about some young single woman in the city that can't afford an expensive firearms class? I guess she's OK to just get raped to death, right? We all know the second she picked up a gun she'd turn into a stark raving mad lunatic and go on a shooting spree :wacko: :wacko:

I have never taken any official firearms class, but I have done some shooting. Yes, I will agree with you that 2 days of firearm training is a good start. In your previous post (unless I misread it), you stated that you would be perfectly fine with an EMT carrying a firearm after 2 days of training.

Zero days. I'd be content if a guy I was riding with had no formal training, but had been to the range before. I'd encourage him to get more training, but I wouldn't feel that he'd just flip a gasket and start randomly shooting people. Only cops do that ;-)

You state that all you need to do is be able to pull the trigger and not have the weapon aimed at yourself, correct? How many other public, armed agencies do you know of that have this same mentality?

I was just kidding. Actually, I was boiling the issue down pretty far to caricture. I wouldn't want someone randomly pulling the trigger, but at two feet, it's hard to miss. One hand up next to your ear so you don't shoot yourself, aim at bad guy, pull trigger and then, as the shampoo bottle says, "Repeat as necessary".

Yep, I bet that in this situation, I would be able to hit the target nearly every time. But once again, you're forgetting something: stress. The question is not whether somebody can hit a target. The question is whether somebody can hit a target when it counts. And with 2 days of training, I'd be willing to say that they can't

So only IDPA Five-gun Masters are allowed to carry a sidearm to defend themselves? That must be what "shall not be infringed" means, right?

 

[thatJeffguy]

whatever... let rambo have his gun. maybe you'll be right and save the day... kill the terrrorists that the police can't handle, save grandma from a musclebound thug, and rescue your 90lbs female partner from a crazed crackhead.

Please don't live in the same city as me.

Are you serious? Don't come to DETROIT and carry a sidearm, lawfully and with years of training? My god, man do you READ!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Detroit

I mean, when Wiki has an entry on your cities CRIME RATES.... it MIGHT be a key that you aren't living in utopia, ya know?

Almost 48 murders per 100,000 people? Seriously? What percentage of those do you feel are carried out by CCW holding individuals packing heat?

I've heard it all... some guy from the Murder Capital of the USA telling me that I shouldn't come to his city, with my clear criminal history, military experience, years of firearms safety training, because I'll bring with me some inherent danger. hah! Well, obviously your position isn't rooted in ration or you wouldnt' dare to make such an absurd comment.

GUNS R TEH BADZ NDA KILL PPLZ. Whatever lets ya sleep at night, buddy.

 

[ffemt8978]

Thread reopened. If I have to close it again, some people are getting a vacation.

 

[guardian528]

Well, if I wasn't able to articulate my position clearly and logically, I'd probably insult people as well.

pretty sure you've already gotten to that point

Thought so. Any reason for that, ya think?

I'm sure, also, that those states that decided to issue CCW's experienced a sharp increase in violent crime once they began their licensure system. Care to comment on that?

Perhaps you could post a source that shows this? Googling "justifiable homicide insurance" doesn't give any appropriate hits, maybe my Goog-Fu is weak tonight?

You've, of course, got some source for this? And, lets say that it's true (which again, very doubtful) so what?

Yea, thanks for the opinion. I'll take that under consideration. If you're ever in my squad, please tell me so I'll know not to get shifts with the coward

I find it so amusing how you're sitting here, armchair quarterbacking some imaginary scenario.

now, i've only looked at the last page of this thread, so i can only imagine how well you've articulated yourself on the previous 16 pages, perhaps you didn't even have to insult anyone. For the record, being a :censored::censored::censored::censored: doesn't help your argument. in fact, it usually leads people to discredit it even more.

 

[ZVNEMT]

Are you serious? Don't come to DETROIT and carry a sidearm, lawfully and with years of training? My god, man do you READ!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Detroit

I mean, when Wiki has an entry on your cities CRIME RATES.... it MIGHT be a key that you aren't living in utopia, ya know?

Almost 48 murders per 100,000 people? Seriously? What percentage of those do you feel are carried out by CCW holding individuals packing heat?

I've heard it all... some guy from the Murder Capital of the USA telling me that I shouldn't come to his city, with my clear criminal history, military experience, years of firearms safety training, because I'll bring with me some inherent danger. hah! Well, obviously your position isn't rooted in ration or you wouldnt' dare to make such an absurd comment.

GUNS R TEH BADZ NDA KILL PPLZ. Whatever lets ya sleep at night, buddy.

been in and around detroit for quite a while now, never once have i needed a gun. and you seem to not understand that I'm PRO-GUN, i just doubt the usefullness on an ambulance as well as concerned with the weilder to use said gun responsibly.

however, I don't care. I'm sure you're just trolling for an arguement and the mods would lock this thread, and ban the topic from ever being brought up if they were smart. this is as bad as debating abortion...

 

[thatJeffguy]

been in and around detroit for quite a while now, never once have i needed a gun. and you seem to not understand that I'm PRO-GUN, i just doubt the usefullness on an ambulance as well as concerned with the weilder to use said gun responsibly.

You're pro "shall not be infringed", except when you want to infringe upon the RKBA? Gotcha.

 

[mcdonl]

Night and Day - In my opinion

I have been to many SD with a gun classes, read even more books... I take personal self defense very seriously. That being said.... Does anyone know the #1 rule that is preached to the civilian who carries a gun for self defense?

"AVOIDANCE" - Do not put yourself in situations where you are likley to need a firearm. Then based on this having already taken place, you are taught things like how to recognize when a bag duy is "interviewing" you, how to move tacticly for cover, etc.... How to retreat. Using the gunis the last resort.

When I put on that FD/EMS hat and turn that radio on, everything I have learned about SD is turned upside down. What do we do? We head straight for the emergency, disaster, situation that is likley to be volatile. We are legaly bound NOT to retreat.

Using a gun for self defense and the training that you get is a world away from being involved in EMS. The type of training, and the folks who understand how to use a weapon in our field (LEO's).... in my opinion... should be the only ones who carry at an emergency scene as a matter of procedure.

If you want more information, go to www.thehighroad.org and read the legal, or Tactics and Situations section and you will see where I am coming from. No where in there are you going to see anyone advise that you go anywhere near an emergency situation with your handgun.

 

[VentMedic]

If you want more information, go to www.thehighroad.org and read the legal, or Tactics and Situations section and you will see where I am coming from. No where in there are you going to see anyone advise that you go anywhere near an emergency situation with your handgun.

I posted this a while ago when this was being discussed.

http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=14850

Even the Fire Rescue Paramedics who do work SWAT do not carry a gun while on duty with Fire Rescue and not SWAT. You must know you job and know what others in Law Enforcement are also doing. Your gun at scene changes everything including your role and how you are perceived or received by the patient, the neighborhood and the LEOs. I would rather put my faith in knowing the areas I am working in and allowing those with tactical training to secure the scene before I would ever trust some Rambo partner to protect me with his gun.

I will state again that those like thatJeffguy who only quote the headlines from the media have probably never been in a situation to where any direct danger was ever directed at them.

From reading thatJeffguy's posts it also seems he has some issues with Law Enforcement.

Here's an example of that where he is babbling about something he is totally clueless about. A one man army taking on a crowd in a riot with his gun...real smart.

Originally Posted by VentMedic
I've had LEOs and the National Guard protecting me during various situations over the past 30 years.

The same LEO's that shoot themselves and unarmed minorities? If it's all the same, I'll protect myself thank you.

The fact that you believe you know more with your conceal weapon cert than the LEOs makes you a threat to anyone who might be your partner, the patient, the general public and the LEOs. You try to say this isn't about vigilante justice for EMTs and it probably isn't. With you, the issues are far beyond that and much more dangerous.

 

[ZVNEMT]

You're pro "shall not be infringed", except when you want to infringe upon the RKBA? Gotcha.

as far as i recall, never once did i say you can't, only that i believe you shouldn't. there's a big difference.

 

[mcdonl]

A couple of threads from THR....

I figured I would share these... they are from a little different perspective but this debate seems as endless as which is the best caliber, volly vs paid or any other countless arguments.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=109086&highlight=EMT+CCW

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...hreadid=106417

 

[thatJeffguy]

I posted this a while ago when this was being discussed.

http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=14850

Even the Fire Rescue Paramedics who do work SWAT do not carry a gun while on duty with Fire Rescue and not SWAT. You must know you job and know what others in Law Enforcement are also doing. Your gun at scene changes everything including your role and how you are perceived or received by the patient, the neighborhood and the LEOs. I would rather put my faith in knowing the areas I am working in and allowing those with tactical training to secure the scene before I would ever trust some Rambo partner to protect me with his gun.

Are you familiar with the term "Straw man argument"? It's when you create the argument for the other side and argue against that.

For example, you keep postulating that those individuals that are concerned with self defense will be instigating combat, fulfilling the roles of LEO or out being "rambo". Despite my having asked, you've not sourced one person on here that has said anything like that. The title of the thread should be a dead giveaway, we're talking about "DEFENSE" here, not going out and partaking in vigliantism, not arresting bad guys, DEFENSE. Perhaps you can argue the actual issues brought up by those with different opinions, rather than engaging in straw-man-isms.

I will state again that those like thatJeffguy who only quote the headlines from the media have probably never been in a situation to where any direct danger was ever directed at them.

I'll just say "you're wrong". I couldn't care less what you think. Again, why don't you focus on the actual argument instead of attacking the person with whom you're engaged in discussion.

From reading thatJeffguy's posts it also seems he has some issues with Law Enforcement.

Oh? The post where I said I was about to be hired as an armorer for a local PD, and sworn as a officer? Was it that post?

Here's an example of that where he is babbling about something he is totally clueless about. A one man army taking on a crowd in a riot with his gun...real smart.

You're intentionally obfuscating the issue. YOU'RE the one that said you've seen cops shoot themselves and unarmed people, not me. I'm very pro- law enforcement, I just realize that rarely do cops STOP a crime, more frequently they show up, take some statements and investigate the crime. As much as I appreciate their efforts, I'd rather not be laying on a slab while they investigate my attack.

The fact that you believe you know more with your conceal weapon cert than the LEOs makes you a threat to anyone who might be your partner, the patient, the general public and the LEOs. You try to say this isn't about vigilante justice for EMTs and it probably isn't. With you, the issues are far beyond that and much more dangerous.

You're just being rude. I'm sorry you aren't able to engage in discussion without bringing up straw man arguments or insulting me. Clearly, you've no legs on which to stand.

You've not demonstrated that normal, rational people, once carrying firearms, engage in mass murder.

You've not demonstrated that LEO's are on-scene all the time to stop crimes.

You've intentionally mischaracterized my position numerous times and argued against that false position, rather than my real position.

You reply only piecemeal to my posts, ignoring the questions I ask and instead adding more off-topic commentary.

I've really got nothing more to say. I've clearly laid out my position, at least five times, that carrying a weapon is for DEFENSE (notice the topic title), that I don't feel anyone other than LEO's should move TOWARDS the dangerous scene and that I don't believe individuals should act in any manner other than purely defensive, and even then as a LAST OPTION, with a sidearm. You're either unwilling to understand that or you lack the capacity to understand what I'm saying. Either way, I'm quite done dealing with you until you acknowledge that my position isn't what you're saying it is. I can't do any more than spell it out, plainly and clearly, as I've done about five times thus far. Keep on arguing against EMS acting as vigilantes and you'll keep on being the fool. No one has stated that we should act as such, who are you possibly directing your questions towards?

 

[Michael Sykes]

Now, I'm just a former EMS First Responder with a volunteer fire department; our SOP states clearly that, if the dispatch indicates even a possibility of violence, we will stage in the area until PD arrives on scene and verifies that the scene is secure. Our local ambulance providers do the same. This can vary from a person with a known firearm in the house to an overdose.

Our FD policy is that, any member who carries a concealed firearm, which I am licensed to do, must leave it in his or her vehicle when responding to an emergency situation. This occurred because, several years ago, we had a member show up on the scene of a fire with a handgun under his turnout coat. I know of several of our members who do, indeed, carry handguns in their POV's, but that's where they stay.

I think it all comes back to that old song, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

 

[firecoins]

Now if someone wishes to carry on their own time, thats wonderfull. However, I will not have partner carrying while on a shift with me. I will not get in the ambulance. We will not be available to take calls.

Now just about every non LEO based EMS agency does not allow EMS providers to carry. THAT IS THEIR RIGHT!!!! If this difficult for you, don' let the door hit you in the behind.

issues not covered by those in support of EMS providers carrying guns.

1. Hitting innocent bystanders including friendly fire of other emergency responders. Yeah you may miss your target and hit me, a cop, a FF, pther people on scene. Bullets have gone through the person it was aimed at and hit innocent people.

2. Community response. Police shootings have riled up the community. EMS shooting will be different how? Oh you'll be alive, probably suspended or worse and the rest of us now have to deal with a hostile community.

3. You see it in the moment as self defense. Are you sure everyone else will? It may be demonstrated that you were never really in danger you thought you were. At least not enough to warrent pulling a gun. Now you must defend.

 

[thatJeffguy]

The point still seems to be lost here, but I'm already engaged so I'll give one more attempt.

Now if someone wishes to carry on their own time, thats wonderfull. However, I will not have partner carrying while on a shift with me. I will not get in the ambulance. We will not be available to take calls.

An irrational fear of items is abnormal. I'll not deal with that.

issues not covered by those in support of EMS providers carrying guns.

That's funny, since I've covered all of these. Perhaps the problem exists specifically with comprehension?

1. Hitting innocent bystanders including friendly fire of other emergency responders. Yeah you may miss your target and hit me, a cop, a FF, pther people on scene. Bullets have gone through the person it was aimed at and hit innocent people.

You're focusing on one possible, and quite negative, out come without evaluating the entire situation. I assume you're discussing a scenario in which a EMS responder was lawfully carrying a gun, encountered a situation where it was appropriate to draw and fire according to local laws and, when acting in self-defense with their firearm, mistakenly hits a bystander or perforates the target, thus hitting another person. I just want to spell that out as the chronology is important.

We're not talking about some EMS responder going CFCP here, they're using their weapon in a VALID SELF DEFENSE shooting. That means that someone ALREADY has drawn a gun, or a deadly weapon, and is acting to injure innocent bystanders, EMS, FF, etc. If an armed EMS responder deals with the situation and mistakenly shoots an innocent bystander, is that somehow worse than the original assailant shooting them? What if the assailant manages to kill a dozen people where the EMS responder could have terminated the threat after the first shots were fired? To sum it up, you're not looking at the fact that a lawful shooting did take place and that the shooting most assuredly did stop innocents from being injured. Would you rather the lunatic killed everyone present? The law covers this issue in what's known as the "Felony-Murder Rule", stipulating that the individual that was committing the felony would be responsible for all of the deaths that occur as a result of his felony.

Just an invalid argument. I guess you'd rather be dead than have the bad guy killed and perhaps some negative side effects.

2. Community response. Police shootings have riled up the community. EMS shooting will be different how? Oh you'll be alive, probably suspended or worse and the rest of us now have to deal with a hostile community.

So what? Any community possessive of the vileness required to hate the first responder for defending himself from a local denizen is a worthless lot of pathetic losers. They should be outraged that some dirtbag tried to kill an EMT but, of course, that's not quite how things work in some parts of town, mainly, downtown.

3. You see it in the moment as self defense. Are you sure everyone else will? It may be demonstrated that you were never really in danger you thought you were. At least not enough to warrent pulling a gun. Now you must defend.

The same scenario applies with a knife, hands, a ice pick or a gun. Doesn't make those ITEMS evil, it makes the action wrong.

 

[thatJeffguy]

This occurred because, several years ago, we had a member show up on the scene of a fire with a handgun under his turnout coat.

How was this breach of protocol detected?

 

[firecoins]

The point still seems to be lost here, but I'm already engaged so I'll give one more attempt.

You haven't dealt once. I have read your posts and comprehended them. I see your off the insults.

An irrational fear of items is abnormal. I'll not deal with that.

Rational fear of people who need to carry guns when they shouldn't very scary. I am scared of you. I would ask the police to remove you from scenes.

That's funny, since I've covered all of these. Perhaps the problem exists specifically with comprehension?

Yeah no insults in your posts but you accuse others. Nice.

You're focusing on one possible, and quite negative, out come without evaluating the entire situation.

No I am evaluating realty. This happens. People get shot who are not trhe target. I understand your unable to deal with that, which is the point. Manslaughter charges may be pending.

assume you're discussing a scenario in which a EMS responder was lawfully carrying a gun, encountered a situation where it was appropriate to draw and fire according to local laws and, when acting in self-defense with their firearm, mistakenly hits a bystander or perforates the target, thus hitting another person. I just want to spell that out as the chronology is important.

You have it made it clear that you rather tried by twelve, than carried by 6. I am not too sure your interested in local laws.

A legit self defense situation can only call for use of lethal force. At least, thasts what I am getting from you.

Your employer who has made rules against carrying a gun is infringing on your rights. So these rules are an issue.

So what? Any community possessive of the vileness required to hate the first responder for defending himself from a local denizen is a worthless lot of pathetic losers. They should be outraged that some dirtbag tried to kill an EMT but, of course, that's not quite how things work in some parts of town, mainly, downtown.

Ill put you in a cop uniform in Oakland. Well talk. Lets Newark, NJ, Camden, NJ. New York, NY, Yonkers, NY, Camden, NJ, Boston, MA, Washington D.C. Oakland, CA, Detroit, MI etc etc etc.

The same scenario applies with a knife, hands, a ice pick or a gun. Doesn't make those ITEMS evil, it makes the action wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[thatJeffguy]

Rational fear of people who need to carry guns when they shouldn't very scary. I am scared of you. I would ask the police to remove you from scenes.

I'd appreciate it if you could post a time "when you should" and "when you should not" carry guns.

In a school? Like Virginia Tech?

In a mall?

At a McDonalds?

On a secure military base, waiting for your evaluation before you ship to Iraq?

Oh, wait. Shootings have happened at all of those places. Perhaps you could define, specifically, what makes it a "should" or "should not" carry situation. Are you familiar with the shooting at Luby's in Killeen Texas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

I mean... who would ever need to bring their EVIL-ITEM into a nice family restaurant? I'm glad the laws were in place to protect people from guns back in 1991.

Don't you find it funny how you'd ask "the guys with guns" to remove "a non threatening person with a gun" because of, you guessed it, the gun? Why don't you feel threatened when cops are walking around armed? You don't need me to cite the various times where cops committed violent crimes or engaged in depraved negligence that led to the death of an innocent, do you? Do you find their shield to possess magical powers?

No I am evaluating realty. This happens. People get shot who are not trhe target. I understand your unable to deal with that, which is the point. Manslaughter charges may be pending.

You aren't evaulating anything, you're regurgitating your thoughts without reading my post. For example, did you read what I wrote about the "felony murder" rule? If during the process of my self-defense against an individual that initiated a felony, someone dies, the individual that initiated the felony is charged with the murder. Felony-Murder laws specifically state that an individual shooting to defend himself against an aggressor, if the shooting is justified per se are NOT to bear culpability if an innocent is harmed.

You have it made it clear that you rather tried by twelve, than carried by 6. I am not too sure your interested in local laws.

Once again, you are the epitome of ignorant. I live in Pennsylvania, I'd like to see these "laws" that I'm not interested in. I possess a LTCF meaning I'm licensed to carry a loaded sidearm, concealed, on my person. My state is an open carry state, meaning I can carry a loaded sidearm visible on my person. We've very few restrictions on where we may possess our sidearms and neither "ambulance" nor "walking around in public" are prohibited.

Now, on the other hand, I'd certainly be in violation of company policy, meaning the private company for whom I worked would be able to initiate disciplinary actions.

And yes, I'd rather at least have a chance to convince twelve rational people of my innocence than be freaking dead! Are you kidding? Of course I'd prefer that! I realize that for the younger generation, the entire notion of "taking responsibility for your actions" is anathema. However, that's the code by which I live. I'm completely responsible for my own actions and I take responsibility for the results of the actions. If I shoot someone and, god forbid, it turns out they weren't attacking me, then I'd be punished. But, I don't think that would happen and I find it much more likely, based on statistics and studies, that I'll use my sidearm properly and defend myself.

A legit self defense situation can only call for use of lethal force. At least, thasts what I am getting from you.

How did you get that? For your improbable scenario, we're past the question of "is this force appropriate", we're talking about misses, overpenetration and the wounding or killing of non-combatants. Let me ask you this.... you said, when you introduced this post

I have read your posts and comprehended them

Yet on page 13 of this discussion I specifically talked about escalation of force. I specifically said that I didn't think EVERY self-defense situation was a SHOOT! situation. I specifically said that EMS should consider taking forms of martial arts designed specifically to ensure compliance and end the threat.

So, what makes you make statements like that, then ask a question I've fully answered? I don't mean to be rude, but your constant typographical and grammatical errors, your lack of ability to engage in debate and your glaring problem of forgetting critical facts might indicate you aren't prepared for jobs where people are trusting you with their lives. Whatever, though.

Your employer who has made rules against carrying a gun is infringing on your rights. So these rules are an issue.

I suppose I'd lose my job. Of course, you've brought this issue up to me before way back on, IIRC, page 15. You talked about the number of lawsuits that have been paid out to the "victims" of a justifiable shooting. Of course, again, when I asked for any sort of citation that this has happened in reality, you vanished from the discussion. If I violate an employers rule, I'd be fired. But, as I said in yet another post you haven't bothered responding to yet, I'd rather find another job than try to find another "life", know what I'm saying?

Ill put you in a cop uniform in Oakland. Well talk. Lets Newark, NJ, Camden, NJ. New York, NY, Yonkers, NY, Camden, NJ, Boston, MA, Washington D.C. Oakland, CA, Detroit, MI etc etc etc.

So, wait, now even the guys who are on scene to protect us aren't capable of protecting themselves?! And thats the reason I shouldn't carry?!

Also, just because such facts amuse me, Newark, Camden, NYC, Yonkers, Boston, Washington D.C and Oakland, all of those horribly violent cities..... have strict gun control and have banned the carrying of handguns. Any idea why the cities you cited as being so violent don't allow guns? Weird, hm? Also, you mentioned Camden twice. Do you not proof your posts?

 

[rescuepoppy]

I have tried to stay out of this post but have a few questions to interject. I have possesed my concealed carry permit for several years and my idea of gun control is to put every round you fire in the score zone. I have pondered over the thoughts of where would I carry a concealed weapon so that it would not be observed or reachable by someon else, but still be able to reach it in time to defend myself against someone that has already pulled their own weapon. In the heat of the moment would I be able to hit what I was intending to hit? If I was injured by an assailants weapon would I be able to accuratly return fire even in the confines of an ambulance? Am I willing to take anothers life in order to protect property if that is what a person is after?
This is no to mention the chance you would be taking that you could hit your partner or a by stander. Also take into account that on the event of gun fire breaking out that the patient may have friends near by who could also become involved in a fire fight. I feel that by bringing my own weapon in to play that I have eliminated the possibility that I could back out of a situation. I have in fact escalated the event to a situation where there is a good possibility that somebody may lose their life.
Granted I do not live in an area of high crime and violence. I do how ever live in an area where most homes I go int have at least one if not multiple fire arms in them. And a good portion of people have a fire arm on thier person or in thir vehicle. My thoughts are that a fire arm has no place in the hands of an EMS crew while they are performing thier jobs.

 

[mcdonl]

MAybe a little off topic... but....

but still be able to reach it in time to defend myself against someone that has already pulled their own weapon.

Not much of a chance of this happening, an uphill battle at best but probably a losing battle. I would suggest anyone who carries read In the Gravest of Extremes. Great book, a must read for the CCW holder.

 

[Michael Sykes]

The point still seems to be lost here, but I'm already engaged so I'll give one more attempt.



An irrational fear of items is abnormal. I'll not deal with that.



That's funny, since I've covered all of these. Perhaps the problem exists specifically with comprehension?



You're focusing on one possible, and quite negative, out come without evaluating the entire situation. I assume you're discussing a scenario in which a EMS responder was lawfully carrying a gun, encountered a situation where it was appropriate to draw and fire according to local laws and, when acting in self-defense with their firearm, mistakenly hits a bystander or perforates the target, thus hitting another person. I just want to spell that out as the chronology is important.

We're not talking about some EMS responder going CFCP here, they're using their weapon in a VALID SELF DEFENSE shooting. That means that someone ALREADY has drawn a gun, or a deadly weapon, and is acting to injure innocent bystanders, EMS, FF, etc. If an armed EMS responder deals with the situation and mistakenly shoots an innocent bystander, is that somehow worse than the original assailant shooting them? What if the assailant manages to kill a dozen people where the EMS responder could have terminated the threat after the first shots were fired? To sum it up, you're not looking at the fact that a lawful shooting did take place and that the shooting most assuredly did stop innocents from being injured. Would you rather the lunatic killed everyone present? The law covers this issue in what's known as the "Felony-Murder Rule", stipulating that the individual that was committing the felony would be responsible for all of the deaths that occur as a result of his felony.

Just an invalid argument. I guess you'd rather be dead than have the bad guy killed and perhaps some negative side effects.


So what? Any community possessive of the vileness required to hate the first responder for defending himself from a local denizen is a worthless lot of pathetic losers. They should be outraged that some dirtbag tried to kill an EMT but, of course, that's not quite how things work in some parts of town, mainly, downtown.


The same scenario applies with a knife, hands, a ice pick or a gun. Doesn't make those ITEMS evil, it makes the action wrong.

I guess I'm fortunate to live in a community where PD hasn't got much else to do than to chase the FD and EMS. They're usually there when we get there, and have evaluated the scene.

I do advocate an EMT pr Paramedic carrying a Glock in the passenger compartment of an ambulance; an errant shot could ricochet all over the place, even taking the driver out. Then what happens?

I think a compromise could be reached here; an EMT carrying pepper spray for outside-of-ambulance only, or something of that nature. If you've got a combative patient in the back who poses a threat to the treater, you haven't got him strapped down tight enough. The driver could always pull over and push enough Demerol to make him happy again.