Actual experience providing field civilian medical care under fire?

[mycrofft]

OK, everyone wants to carry a firearm. Got it.:glare:

Anyone here have true personal anecdotes wherein they actually needed and had firearms to allow them to perform civilian medical care and transport before the hospital? How was having a firearm necessary? Did you have to shoot anyone?

Note: NO armchair tacticians, no fantasies, no second-hand stories. YOUR experience.

 

[AnthonyM83]

I don't get the point of this.
In the previous thread, I don't think we really had any people who carried on-duty other than law enforcement.
So, how are we going to get replies from people who carried on duty AND had to use them for patient care? (Especially since the ones who might carry still probably wouldn't have pulled their weapons out just to treat the patient...seems like making the situation worse)

The restrictions on the question itself make it unlikely to get many (if any) answers....

 

[mct601]

Call up some of the members of Gretna Police EMS in New Orleans. The EMS is a division of the PD. Talk about some medics that don't have to "take no :censored::censored::censored::censored:".

 

[firecoins]

This is just stupid.

Either your treating a pt or your in a firefight. Your not doing both.

 

[airborne2chairborne]

I think he means engaging in a firefight to get to or recover a patient or to secure the scene so he could safely treat the patient.

 

[Handsome Robb]

I feel like you're trying to prove a point that has been already pretty widely accepted.

There's a few TEMS guys on here but they aren't very active.

 

[mycrofft]

This is just stupid.

Either your treating a pt or your in a firefight. Your not doing both.

Zackly.

 

[mycrofft]

Call up some of the members of Gretna Police EMS in New Orleans. The EMS is a division of the PD. Talk about some medics that don't have to "take no :censored::censored::censored::censored:".

That represents New Orleans law enforcement and EMS in a very positive light.:rofl:

 

[AnthonyM83]

If this is in relation to the thread about allowing civilian EMS to carry firearms, I don't think it's the best question to disprove or support the idea. A civilian medic wouldn't be carrying or using his firearm to get to a patient.

He would be using it for times he's held at gunpoint, shot at, stabbed, had his patient shot, battered in aggressive manner, chased with knives, or otherwise witness to an immediate threat of great bodily harm / death. I'm sure you'd get a number of these stories.

If on the other hand, the question is in relation to needing a firearm when a civilian is doing TEMS, the providers I know who carry them, do so for protection of self and team, not to actively gain access to a patient (as a civilian).

 

[mycrofft]

Anthony M83, the choir is attentive. I'm not replying to a particular thread, just the recurrent EMTLIFE "black hole" about "going about armed" on the job as a caregiver.

And, we are not seeing replies about how they had to shoot their way in or display a sidearm or knife to avoid being assaulted pouring in........

nuff NOT said.

 

[airborne2chairborne]

I don't think not getting a reply about first hand experience of it being needed means it's not. Does this forum even have 1% of working EMTs in the US on it and does the military/tactical thread even get 1% of this forums users viewing it?

If you want stories call up Oakland FD, I'm sure they'll have a few.

 

[AnthonyM83]

Anthony M83, the choir is attentive. I'm not replying to a particular thread, just the recurrent EMTLIFE "black hole" about "going about armed" on the job as a caregiver.

And, we are not seeing replies about how they had to shoot their way in or display a sidearm or knife to avoid being assaulted pouring in........

nuff NOT said.

Ah, that's different. The original question was how asking for people who had ALREADY used their firearms (so that reduced the people who can reply to pretty much zero)...and not for protection, but to actually gain access to a patient (if there are some who carry, I doubt they'd use their gun just for that reason).

Does that make sense? It's like asking "How many of you have had to perform a c-section in the field, for elective purposes?" Well, first no one is performing them, so you reduce your replies to almost zero...but then on top of that, you're putting the "elective purposes" restriction, so even the few in the country who have won't be able to reply.


If you're asking about stories where a gun COULD have potentially been used for DEFENSE, then that's TOTALLY different. I could list you several personal and many more of people from my station...but that just turns into war stories :/

 

[mycrofft]

People who are wanting to tell us about the guns they carry and coulda used in self defense would be like the heroes of The Big Bang Theory bragging how they coulda dated Heidi Klumm.

I'm not asking the world, I'm asking the people on this forum if any of them have actually had occasion to need to use the threat of weapon force to get to, treat or transport a patient in the civilian world.

The point is this; as with the great peanut allergy and latex allergy alarums, where are the piles of bodies? Why aren't we reading about yet another citizen/EMT faces down a festering gang mob to rescue their MVA victim and stop their bleeding under fire at Hollywood and Vine, or on Times Square, Piccadilly Circus, or the Ginza?

It's a fantasy.

In an earlier thread some of us actually went online and looked for studies about murders of EMS workers by patients or bystanders, and the finding was very, very, very few. You are much more likely to be killed by your partner's driving than by homicidal or psychotic/paranoid/angry others.

 

[Tigger]

People who are wanting to tell us about the guns they carry and coulda used in self defense would be like the heroes of The Big Bang Theory bragging how they coulda dated Heidi Klumm.

I'm not asking the world, I'm asking the people on this forum if any of them have actually had occasion to need to use the threat of weapon force to get to, treat or transport a patient in the civilian world.

The point is this; as with the great peanut allergy and latex allergy alarums, where are the piles of bodies? Why aren't we reading about yet another citizen/EMT faces down a festering gang mob to rescue their MVA victim and stop their bleeding under fire at Hollywood and Vine, or on Times Square, Piccadilly Circus, or the Ginza?

It's a fantasy.

In an earlier thread some of us actually went online and looked for studies about murders of EMS workers by patients or bystanders, and the finding was very, very, very few. You are much more likely to be killed by your partner's driving than by homicidal or psychotic/paranoid/angry others.

I agree with you completely about the last part.

That said, there are many better ways to make this point than to start threads like this. If you know the answer to a question, why bother asking it? Educate with your knowledge instead.

 

[airborne2chairborne]

Of the 114 deaths, 67 were from ground transportation accidents; 19 from air ambulance crashes; 13 from heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular problems; 10 from homicides, most of them shootings; and five from other causes, such as needlesticks, electrocution and drowning.

http://www.emsedsem.org/Prior Articles/EMS_Fatalities from JEMS.pdf

3 thoughts on this:
1: I don't think anyone would claim it's common, but it is about 9% of EMT deaths, and I don't think anyone would consider that to be acceptable.
2: Going by the number of firearm deaths vs injuries in the US in 2009 according to the CDC, there were about 3 firearm injuries for every 1 firearm death in cases of assault, so realistically we can assume that yearly theres at least 40 EMTs nation wide who are vicitims of life threatening assault.
finally: just cause something isn't in the news doesnt mean its not happening, it just means it wouldn't sell. Anyone remember news coverage about when 500 munitions classified as WMDs were recovered from Iraq? Exactly...

Anyway I don't think that means EMTs should carry fire arms, I'd bet my bottom dollar there would be more injuries from negligence than lives saved from carrying; I do however think it means they should have better access to police escorts.

 

[mycrofft]

Tigger, thanks, I appreciate your opinion. I just can't resist poking the bear once in a while. I'm sort of staying away from commenting IN the gun posts because it overrides my beta blockers, and they just keep talking about what they'd carry if they could. And they have the right to equal entertainment on the website, so instead I post sarcastic and ridiculing threads they are free to ignore, or join in.
Yeah, it is sort of obnoxious and sarcastic and short tempered and grumpy, just like I get around armchair commandos.

 

[mycrofft]

airbornetochairborne, yeah!

 

[AnthonyM83]

I'm not asking the world, I'm asking the people on this forum if any of them have actually had occasion to need to use the threat of weapon force to get to, treat or transport a patient in the civilian world.

That's a different question than originally asked (you asked for stories where they needed AND used firearms...but since hardly anyone has firearms, how could they use them?).

ALSO, just because someone has a firearm, does NOT mean they're going to use them simply to gain access to a patient. People who do carry in EMS tend to do it for SELF-DEFENSE....not to do some entry into a scene. Come on, now.

The point is this; as with the great peanut allergy and latex allergy alarums, where are the piles of bodies? Why aren't we reading about yet another citizen/EMT faces down a festering gang mob to rescue their MVA victim and stop their bleeding under fire at Hollywood and Vine, or on Times Square, Piccadilly Circus, or the Ginza?

Uh, because we stage out when there's a mob...EVEN the providers who do carry guns (on the down low) STILL stage out. Gun-carrying does NOT equal using it to get to patients. People who carry do it for PROTECTION...not to rush a mob!

In an earlier thread some of us actually went online and looked for studies about murders of EMS workers by patients or bystanders, and the finding was very, very, very few.

For every murder, there are cases of great bodily harm done. For every case of great bodily harm, there are almost endless cases of Near Tragedies.

Why aren't they in the news? No one reports it. We don't even report it. Assaults on healthcare providers are under reported (there was an article on that somewhere).


I am NOT advocated the carrying of firearms for EMS.
BUT yes I have definitely been in situations where I could have used a gun on a mob to gain access to the patient because the scene became uncontrolled after we were on-scene. The cops were in active fights, so couldn't help out. A FEW times, too. Not an isolated event. That's just ME personally...times that by however many other providers have also had that happen. BUT I wouldn't have used a firearm EVEN IF I had one with me.

So, there you go.


And if you want to add stories of EMT injury and near-misses, there are plenty more. But we don't even report it to our supervisors for a lot of near-miss homicides on us...much less get police reports and media attention.

 

[AlphaButch]

OK, everyone wants to carry a firearm. Got it.:glare:

Anyone here have true personal anecdotes wherein they actually needed and had firearms to allow them to perform civilian medical care and transport before the hospital? How was having a firearm necessary? Did you have to shoot anyone?

Note: NO armchair tacticians, no fantasies, no second-hand stories. YOUR experience.

Civilian world - I've needed a firearm to allow EMS to gain entry or during the extrication of a patient from a mob situation - however I was not acting in the role of EMS at the time. Necessary? I didn't have to unholster it, but made it clear that it was one of my options.

As an EMS provider, I've never had need of a firearm, despite many scenarios where many other providers would have felt it necessary. I actually think that if I had a firearm during those calls, things would have escalated to something more dangerous. Not having a firearm made us less like "police" and less of a threat to the natives. Most of these incidents occurred in very crowded and small areas (nightclubs, etc) with illegal activity occurring and bringing in a firearm would have just caused more problems.

We stage to allow PD to secure things. We also train in defensive EMS techniques. I've had much more need for a crowbar than a firearm to gain access to a patient.

On a TEMS team, the situation is different. We gain access first, then extricate if possible, then we step out of PD mode and into EMS mode.

 

[mycrofft]

Well, here's the place to report it then. I've raised this question in another form before in a poll, some folks said they carried and had used their personal weapons to stop a crime, but no emails or comments were forthcoming.

Firing into a mob isn't something armed law enforcement do either. It isn't like the lynch mob scenes in westerns. AND all hell will rain down on you after the fact, even if they don't turn on you, take your weapon and stow it somewhere unlikely.

I worked alongside law enforcement for nearly a quarter century, I worked for two EMS bosses who were reserve deputies ( in rural Nebraska and Arizona, where they had actual LE duties). Never heard of an instance.

The feeling that having a sidearm would make it possible or easier to do the job is exactly what most firearms trainers are trying to drum out of you. The gun is the last resort. And as for having and using a knife...

And my questions are not mutually exclusive.

I am still not receiving communications from anyone, either email or otherwise, saying they personally have had to use force or threat of force (openly carrying) to execute their duties.

I'll take the rest of my answers on the air, as they say.