Unarmed tactical medics

[John E]

Gosh....

I had no idea people could carry guns these days...( that was sarcasm for the humor impaired).

I'm well aware that there are ways for people to carry guns, I'd guess that some EMT's even carry guns, what I don't believe and unless someone can provide some actual verifiable sources is that any EMT or Paramedic is allowed to not only legally carry a gun but legally use a gun while working with law enforcement without being a sworn police officer or sheriff's deputy or some other LEO.

It's the use of words like "supposedly" and "usually" and "Other places may do that" and " there are places that you do not need to be a sworn LEO to carry a weapon..." without a single verifiable source that make me wonder if you guys have a clue.

An EMT that's been "deputized" is considered a law enforcement official, that's sort of the whole point of being deputized.

The key word there is "deputized".

The topic at hand has NOTHING to do with anyone's right to bear arms. We're talking about people using a weapon while engaged in law enforcement procedures.

If anyone can provide a single actual reference to any police dept. that's using Tactical Medics or any other sort of Medic, arming them, and letting them respond to police calls while armed and then letting them use their weapons while on that call without requiring them to be sworn/deputized police officers, please provide a source.

I couldn't help but notice that the poster who was bragging about how well his "tac team" can shoot hasn't responded.

Look, if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it but I simply don't believe in this day and age that any police department would take on the liability of allowing a non-sworn person to carry and use a weapon.

John E

 

[spinnakr]

I had no idea people could carry guns these days...( that was sarcasm for the humor impaired).

I'm well aware that there are ways for people to carry guns, I'd guess that some EMT's even carry guns, what I don't believe and unless someone can provide some actual verifiable sources is that any EMT or Paramedic is allowed to not only legally carry a gun but legally use a gun while working with law enforcement without being a sworn police officer or sheriff's deputy or some other LEO.

I don't think this is quite the issue at hand. Carrying a weapon for self-defense presumes the ability to use it. If a tac medic is serving in an armed capacity, he, almost by definition, can use his weapon. In other words, especially in a tactical situation, if you are expressly allowed to carry, then you are allowed to shoot.

The legality of carrying a weapon as an EMT or paramedic (non-tac) varies GREATLY, and is a topic that's hotly debated... not to mention (in this case) irrelevant, since we're talking about tactical medics.

 

[John E]

Well I don't know what issue...

you're referring to but I'm referring to what the poster who calls himself "reaper" wrote in his message above in which he referred to medics on his "tac team" carrying and using firearms but not being law enforcement officials.

I don't believe that any police department or other law enforcement agency would allow an EMT or a Paramedic to carry and use a firearm while participating in any law enforcement activities without that EMT or Paramedic being a LEO themselves.

I'm not splitting hairs about right to carry laws and self defense situations. I'm asking for someone to provide a verifiable reference to a department that allows non-sworn or non-deputized personnel to use firearms while on duty.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I just find it very hard to believe that as I wrote earlier, that any police department would take on the liability of allowing non-sworn personnel to use a gun.

The topic of EMS personnel carrying firearms has been beaten to death on this forum many times, I'm not referring to that scenario. I'm referring to the department sanctioned use of a firearm by someone who's not a LEO.


John E

 

[spinnakr]

Sorry, I may not have been the clearest in my post. I was trying to point out that it seemed you were making a distinction between carrying and using a firearm in a tactical environment; however, I see no such distinction.

I'm not splitting hairs about right to carry laws and self defense situations. I'm asking for someone to provide a verifiable reference to a department that allows non-sworn or non-deputized personnel to use firearms while on duty.

I realize that, but what I was saying, is that for a tactical medic who is not acting as a LEO, a firearm is a defensive measure (or at least should be). Again, ultimately, I'm trying to say that there is no difference between carrying a weapon and using a weapon in a tactical situation. There may me a difference in the capacity in which the medic is used - for example, he may be put in the stack and serve as a LEO, or he may be taking cover in the nearest "warm" zone - but carrying and using is the same thing. If you carry, and you are threatened, then you will use. The only distinctions to be made are about the likelihood of firing the weapon.

In my mind, unarmed tactical medics are being put in an extremely perilous situation. I don't care how much trust you have in your team - if you're in a hot zone, you should be armed. But that's just my $.02.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I just find it very hard to believe that as I wrote earlier, that any police department would take on the liability of allowing non-sworn personnel to use a gun.

I don't think this is very likely, either - but only for liability reasons. Let me be clear: I agree with you (mostly) on this particular point. Unless we're talking military medics, then if the medic isn't a LEO or deputized (aka LEO), then I can't see him being armed.

The topic of EMS personnel carrying firearms has been beaten to death on this forum many times, I'm not referring to that scenario. I'm referring to the department sanctioned use of a firearm by someone who's not a LEO.

I wouldn't have brought it up, except that I saw this:

"I'm well aware that there are ways for people to carry guns, I'd guess that some EMT's even carry guns"​

which to me (possibly a misunderstanding!) was bringing it up.

 

[Afflixion]

It's the use of words like "supposedly" and "usually" and "Other places may do that" and " there are places that you do not need to be a sworn LEO to carry a weapon..." without a single verifiable source that make me wonder if you guys have a clue.

I worked as a TacMedic for 2 years at White Sands Nuclear Missile Range I was armed with an M4 (AR-15) and an XD45 Service Model Handgun. I was not a law enforcement officer, I was however certified as a security officer (different than security guard) and I was required to qualify four times a year on both weapon systems. So yes I do have a clue and no, in fact there is no set standards on tactical paramedics carrying weapons it varies from department to department.

An EMT that's been "deputized" is considered a law enforcement official, that's sort of the whole point of being deputized.

The key word there is "deputized".

The topic at hand has NOTHING to do with anyone's right to bear arms. We're talking about people using a weapon while engaged in law enforcement procedures.

If anyone can provide a single actual reference to any police dept. that's using Tactical Medics or any other sort of Medic, arming them, and letting them respond to police calls while armed and then letting them use their weapons while on that call without requiring them to be sworn/deputized police officers, please provide a source.

Verifiable source that does not pertain to OEMS per say but Walden Security who provides security on all U.S Military installations are armed and once again are not sworn LEOs. They are once again certified as security officers. Another would be the guards outside Texas state government buildings, they are not LEOs, yet still armed.

I couldn't help but notice that the poster who was bragging about how well his "tac team" can shoot hasn't responded.

The original poster is from the United Kingdom and has different terminology than us Americans.

Look, if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it but I simply don't believe in this day and age that any police department would take on the liability of allowing a non-sworn person to carry and use a weapon.

Once again not all in OEMs are part of a police department or Sheriff's Office, and once again every PD varies. I know that Hudspeth County Sheriff's Office does not require their TacMedics to be LEOs as the population and ammount of medics in general in Hudspeth are not high enough that they can pick and choose.