Friday, September 24, 2010

Should EMTs be required to put themselves in the line of fire?

What? There's still a shooter on the loose, police have not secured the area, and Stokes expects emergency medical technicians to put themselves in harm's way, potentially increasing target opportunities and the number of victims to include themselves?

Apparently...uh...yeah. [More]
Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at an anti-gun councilman who demands others put themselves in harm's way.

Also get a recap on yesterday's DISCLOSE vote and take a JPFO survey.

Share the link?

3 comments:

Phelps said...

In my experience, the EMTs and Firemen are willing to go into danger that the police generally won't. The few instances that they didn't rush in were where the police refused to let them.

David Codrea said...

And, of course, we've also seen and documented incidents of EMTs arrested when the cop thinks proper deference to authoritah has not been shown. Rushing in to a shooting scene could very well result in interference with law enforcement charges.

hazmat said...

Maybe if the EMTs in this country went through the combat medical course offered by the Army the difference would possibly be different.

I've evaluated the course that military medics go through to get the 'Cobmbat Medical Badge' or the medical red badge of courage as I call it. Ask any wounded vet from Vietnam to present what the outcome would have been had the medic/corpsman had abided by the ROE given to civilian EMTs what the result would have been. I guarantee you they would rather hace the combat medic than the EMT work on them,