Dangers of EMS? Any experiences?

Joey DeMartino said:
After reading the story redundantbassist posted, I am even more concerned with the "self protection through firepower" suggestions being offered. And if the offending individual had gained possession of the firearm? This is a very real scenario that may-and has- led to the arming of an individual who is already intent on causing great bodily harm on persons other than himself / herself.

It would seem to me that there were a number of "missed" opportunities that might have circumvented this incident prior to the administration of lethal force. Waiting until a confrontation is imminent is taking scene control from your hands and relying on many other new factors that you have NO control over. For example: it is legal to blow through intersections running code ( an extremely foolish maneuver under ALL circumstances) in my state. If you take that option ("due regard") and give control over to the individual hidden behind the bus and impatient that traffic has stopped for an unknown reason, control now resides in the hands of a driver who legally has the right to the intersection. Simply put- learn to diffuse, prevent, and plan for these situations and you will remain in control.

EMS/Fire demands a conscious and deliberate effort to familiarize ourselves with "What Ifs'' prior to engagement. Be smart and don't rely on an offensive attitude being used as a moral, legal, ethical and "best practice" reaction for poor pre-incident defense.
Click to expand...
If the doctor had not intervened, the bg would have continued to run through the facility slaughtering innocent people.
 
Totally understood. But all too often intervention is a result of poor planning.

You seem to be just shy of understanding my point. That's OK- I am one who attempts to mitigate prior to engagement.

Granted the doctor intervened and saved exacerbation/ escalation of a very hostile situation. Consider-for a moment- taking your focus off the fact that he saved the moment by intervening and attempt to identify potential missed opportunities that put the doctor in that position. I am not saying that there was or could have been a foolproof plan that was in place prior to this unfortunate event. Nor am I chastising the doctor for his actions- but there a number of sayings that come to mind that are in place as a result of missed preventive planning. "Closing the gate after the horses got out" is one. I am merely advocating more emphasis on pre planning and taking pro-active measures rather than depending on the oft ill fated reaction producing anything other than stellar outcomes. Lockdown protocols, security guards, obstacles designed to hamper or impede further movement into critical areas, inter/intra office communication and alerting systems etc. These are nowhere mentioned within the context of this article as being either in place or being circumvented by the assailant. In our trade pre-planning failures normally will not stand the test of natures fury. A mentally disturbed patient who is out to kill is one of natures most hostile messengers. Kenny would probably agree. A little pre-planning and understanding that he may be in a hostile environment- probably would have kept him from becoming rat bait time and time again.
 
redundantbassist... This might be some good reading for you. It makes pre-planning and pre incident mitigation a little more understandable from another perspective. FEMA/DHS have been spending many years honing a system that deals with what we are currently discussing. Based on the events of 911 a comprehensive national framework has been developed that works from the basic principle of pre planning hazard mitigation practices. The ultimate goal being the avoidance of and ultimately gaining control of imminent engagements. All EMS/Fire personnel could benefit from this concept. Hope you don't pass this one by.
 
Joey, while your argument has valid points and is well worded, you are missing the big picture, which is that no matter how well you plan, how polite you are, how observant you may be, there are always going to be people out there who are motivated enough and smart enough to mitigate your preparedness and pose a threat to you. And to say that being prepared for that eventuality is somehow wrong headed is naive at best.
Now, I'm not advocating having EMS personnel geared up like they're going on patrol in Afghanistan, but having the means to protect yourself, your crew and your patients is not only a right, it is and ought to be our responsibility.
And the argument about getting your gun taken away and used against you is a red herring. It is old fear based rhetoric espoused by the anti-gun crowd and is patently false. That's like saying " I hope nobody steals your car and runs you over with it." Could it happen? Yeah, sure. But it is so astronomically unlikely as to be almost unheard of.

My whole philosophy on carrying on duty is pretty simple. It comes down to one question, would you rather lose your job or your life?
 
Leatherpuke, Very entertaining albeit inconsistent and marginally supportive scenario you present. You are missing my point in an unnecessary effort to make a pro gun political statement when it is neither the focus nor the position of my comments within this thread.
This is a hotly contested issue that brings out many arguments seemingly shrouded in the defense of the second amendment. You have no idea what my position on firearms is, yet you made assertions that I am maintaining a naïve "anti gun crowd" position. Prudence in forming a foundation of a legitimate argument should guide you in providing fact based commentary (yours is no doubt merely opinion driven) with viable and quantifiable sourcing. My comments are based on the entire thread-not on an isolated comment posted by pro gun/ anti gun advocates (of whom I have made no ill-formed assertions). This is a result of a string of ongoing commentaries regarding the promotion of carrying a weapon on an emergency medical unit that began with what was deemed a "knee jerk" reaction to a story mentioned by another member.
To propose an argument and base it on what your interpretation of what you surmise to be my point without following the full thread progression is akin to shooting everyone in the room in the hopes you might just hit the perp and justify your actions with a "duty to respond and protect" defense.
I maintain that a weapon should be considered a last option (as I mentioned with my fire shelter analogy). I only have advocated and emphasized an attitude of planning and safety first. You are obviously a little blurry on my position and the line I appreciate between LEO and EMS functions based on your statement ..."not only a right but a responsibility". And to use an argument such as your "run over" scenario and "astronomically unlikely" is a fair attempt to trivialize my statements in defense of your opinion-which is completely ill-premised. Unfortunately it misses the point as well. Join me for our next elk hunt and we can discuss the details of my position.
 
BOTH of you are correct- however if law enforcement do not get the adequate training on de-escalating situations, nor do the military...it is sadly unlikely that other organisations would ever consider the pre-emptive tactics let alone arming them. Im not saying here 'it probably won't happen so let's not bother', but rather this is how things are at present.

The courses hospitals have for medical and hospital security staff regarding assaults etc is CRAP. 'Distract the intruder with a loud noise before removing the grip he has on your hair'.

The ONLY way ahead is realistic training measure put in place...and that takes time and money which organisations for whatever reason, place elsewhere. My personal stance is this: Im confident of my own abilities and judgement through education and experience so I will carry when/where I deem suitable (within the law of course)...I cannot speak for other people, but I guarantee the one thing the world does have in abundance...stupid and confident people, the WORST combination lol...
 
Mr. irishboxer...Always a pleasure to get your thoughts and insights on the matter at hand. I can't believe that I almost got sucked into a defending a position I staunchly oppose.
Many of the individuals I see now with "conceal carry" permits feel this odd sense of quasi-empowerment and full capability. These individuals scare the living hell out of me to be around them. This is very similar to the individual that blows code through intersections because he/she has red lights, sirens, and the law giving them the "right" to do so.
True we have the legal-Constitutional- right, but it does not necessarily mean we have the ability or the expertise to be in that situation in the first place. The emergency drivers I train are put into a cascading system of situations. They need to show not only confidence and ability but incident pro-active avoidance technique prior to being placed in reactive- hazardous situations. I emphasize to them that just because they are certified, it doesn't mean they are qualified in critical judgment under duress situations.
Permitting for "conceal carry" is typically "defensive" based. I will not fully trust an individual who has not been in situations requiring critical process under stress/duress. Especially if they are more focused on the fact that they are armed and safe. Rather than providing an argument for pre planning and conflict mitigation prior to engagement- they become as much of a threat to me and my patient as the little old lady holding the gun shaped cigarette lighter they just perforated out of "self defense".
My point is not about the second amendment- it is about being cognizant that there are not too many people with guns- just that too many of them lack the skill, discipline, and mental ability to be fully trusted in hostile situations. The extremely limited exposure they gain during most conceal carry classes just doesn't-and can not be expected to- put them in a position where I would put much confidence in their critical judgment and reaction process. And lest we forget- I wonder....where did the other 14 stray rounds end up anyway?
 
Joey DeMartino said:
Mr. irishboxer...Always a pleasure to get your thoughts and insights on the matter at hand. I can't believe that I almost got sucked into a defending a position I staunchly oppose.
Many of the individuals I see now with "conceal carry" permits feel this odd sense of quasi-empowerment and full capability. These individuals scare the living hell out of me to be around them. This is very similar to the individual that blows code through intersections because he/she has red lights, sirens, and the law giving them the "right" to do so.
True we have the legal-Constitutional- right, but it does not necessarily mean we have the ability or the expertise to be in that situation in the first place. The emergency drivers I train are put into a cascading system of situations. They need to show not only confidence and ability but incident pro-active avoidance technique prior to being placed in reactive- hazardous situations. I emphasize to them that just because they are certified, it doesn't mean they are qualified in critical judgment under duress situations.
Permitting for "conceal carry" is typically "defensive" based. I will not fully trust an individual who has not been in situations requiring critical process under stress/duress. Especially if they are more focused on the fact that they are armed and safe. Rather than providing an argument for pre planning and conflict mitigation prior to engagement- they become as much of a threat to me and my patient as the little old lady holding the gun shaped cigarette lighter they just perforated out of "self defense".
My point is not about the second amendment- it is about being cognizant that there are not too many people with guns- just that too many of them lack the skill, discipline, and mental ability to be fully trusted in hostile situations. The extremely limited exposure they gain during most conceal carry classes just doesn't-and can not be expected to- put them in a position where I would put much confidence in their critical judgment and reaction process. And lest we forget- I wonder....where did the other 14 stray rounds end up anyway?
Click to expand...

I agree whole-heartedly. I was an inch from setting up a company in California specifically aimed at teaching judgment classes based on the idea that just because you CAN legally fire your weapon doesn't mean you HAVE to- such as the guy in Florida who mistakenly (although legally) shot his son who was robbing his own house.

It is like the people who say 'we should be all armed and it could stop incidents like the cinema massacre'...but they don't know that CT units/special ops train day in day out with the biggest budget in the world and still screw up situations with multiple innocents around. Everyone has the right to self defence, but not everyone is capable of resolving an incident. I'm sure I will be labelled a liberal for that way of thinking though lol
 
Probably better being a liberal who runs from an altercation than a conservative who creates them (that hurt). It's like the oxymoron "counterintelligence". Does that mean we have to be idiots to figure stuff out? The mental picture of the outcome in the "Cinema" incident having provided the entire "flawlessly capable, superiorly equipped, and tactically trained" audience with firepower (other than bic lighters) just screams MCI with no survivors. The more I read the more I am beginning to understand. I must be becoming counter intelligent.
 
Joey DeMartino said:
Probably better being a liberal who runs from an altercation than a conservative who creates them (that hurt). It's like the oxymoron "counterintelligence". Does that mean we have to be idiots to figure stuff out? The mental picture of the outcome in the "Cinema" incident having provided the entire "flawlessly capable, superiorly equipped, and tactically trained" audience with firepower (other than bic lighters) just screams MCI with no survivors. The more I read the more I am beginning to understand. I must be becoming counter intelligent.
Click to expand...

for the record my 'knee-jerk' reaction comment previously was that these measures seems to have been just thrown in as a result of one incident. rather than actual risk assessment and planning which is always going to be more successful
 
That's why I used it as an example and direction for my little diatribe. It made the most sense given the fact that we live in a snippet age where the 20 second news brief is powerful enough to incite riots and attitudes based on emotion rather than facts. You offered a deliberate resourceful approach that provided a "springboard" into what I strongly advocate. Die for our rights and live for the privilege to pass them on.
 
Leatherpuke said:
Joey, while your argument has valid points and is well worded, you are missing the big picture, which is that no matter how well you plan, how polite you are, how observant you may be, there are always going to be people out there who are motivated enough and smart enough to mitigate your preparedness and pose a threat to you. And to say that being prepared for that eventuality is somehow wrong headed is naive at best.
Now, I'm not advocating having EMS personnel geared up like they're going on patrol in Afghanistan, but having the means to protect yourself, your crew and your patients is not only a right, it is and ought to be our responsibility.
And the argument about getting your gun taken away and used against you is a red herring. It is old fear based rhetoric espoused by the anti-gun crowd and is patently false. That's like saying " I hope nobody steals your car and runs you over with it." Could it happen? Yeah, sure. But it is so astronomically unlikely as to be almost unheard of.

My whole philosophy on carrying on duty is pretty simple. It comes down to one question, would you rather lose your job or your life?
Click to expand...


Uh how is it my responsibility to protect my patients with a firearm?

I don't have any interest in every carrying a gun whether it be at work or wherever. I also think it is a risk to my safety to have a gun on ambulance. 99% of the time there are no guns on the ambulance, period. Why introduce one?
 
.... is that to be construed as pro gun or anti gun? Liberal or Conservative? Neither. Since when does everything require a link to a political standard or view point? My "liberal/conservative" response in my earlier thread was SARCASM.

If I were to say "Guns don't kill people- bullets do", someone would most assuredly take offense and wander off point. They would site all kinds of data and turn to personal attacks rather than addressing the issue. At which point they would begin defending the bullets as if they were fluffy little baby seals at a Louisville Slugger conference.

I am in agreement with your position. Does that make those who share the same opinion anti-gun? Who do I trust in a deteriorating situation? The ones who are trained, skilled, and most importantly understand and advocate recognition and avoidance of confrontation- but are prepared for the worst. This is the best defense.
 
I get warm just wearing a job shirt while treating pts, much less body armor.... I'll just stick to situational awareness, proper distancing and my gut feeling on a situation. You can usually figure out who has the propensity/intent to attack you and who does not. As for those few that people never see coming? I figure we'll cross that bridge when we get there. I don't wear a helmet for fear of an earthquake, either.

... And what if they shoot you in the face?
 
I'm glad I wont be working in a city larger than Olympia or Vancouver, Washington cuz I have yet to be assaulted, cussed out or even come close to anything like it. Simply had a few violent pts but they were restrained and just doing the normal rapid speech and "talking to god" shpeal. Maybe ive just been lucky idk, but for the most part ive only been treated with respect and honestly ive been thanked a few times in this supposed "thankless" job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top