Dangerous Precedent: Paramedics to no longer wait and stage during active-shooter

(I'm just some guy, so take this from a civilian's perspective)
I'm not sure about other cities, but I know that when I went through CERT training, I learned our city charter prohibits firefighters from being armed (CERT is considered reserve fire in my town, and my assumption is that it is the same for others).

I know that be preferable answer would be more tactical paramedics on the teams, but until that time, would regular line-officers working in conjunction with paramedics/EMTs going in after the SWAT team as a second wave work? The police would not only provide cover for medical and evac teams, but also (hopefully) secure already cleared areas. These days, every active shooter scene is a parking lot of non-tactical units hanging out on the perimeter. Why not utilize assets already at the scene. I know there are a lot of issues to sort out (sorting hostage from hostile, etc...and a bunch not to be mentioned on public forums), and it would take some training and coordination between police and fire, but that already needs to happen.

The same way tactics have evolved post-Columbine from first responders using strict 4-C's protocol, to the newer push/contact/neutralize training, this could simply be the next evolution of active shooter tactics.


Sent from 80ms in the future
Jimmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TacMedic556

I am not judging your decision or statement. The issue I see with that mindset however, is that you then could put others in harms way as well as become ineffective when you yourself become a casualty. Any skills you were bringing to the scene are now void, should you become a victim (because you were rendered impotent and unarmed by administrators and desk jockeys). You also potentially put others in harms way, as they come to your aid.

If an individual needs a vest, he/she needs a gun. We must continuously enforce the mindset from Kyle Defers brief - We are the feeders not the receivers.

I will never support this unarmed task force crap.

---

I agree with this post. In our EMS service, "not holding back" would likely result in termination of employment. I admire the compassion and respect the commitment, but it's not smart and is excessively dangerous to the EMT rushing in, and those who might now be faced with trying to save him.

And no. They are either trained and equipped and have people willing to accept responsibility for their training and deployment, or the don't go in until the people that are trained have finished their task.


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pv18463

Some of our local Fire Departments have body armor on their rigs, however I am not sure of their SOPs. I work private, and there is no way my company would outfit us with armor.

I can understand your position and agree with it on an intellectual level, however I think in the moment I would have a hard time saying no. In a situation with civilians or officers down, I don't think I could hold back.

---

Back when I volunteered, we had body armor on our (city) trucks and ambulances. We'd put it on if responding to a shooting/stabbing, but still staged. we never entered if the suspect was not in custody.

working private EMS, same deal, but no armor. Stage and wait.

My ems service has bought vests for every full time employee(myself being one). It is also left up to each crew how they want to handle it. If you feel comfortable going in right away, go for it. If you dont, then dont go in. We are told we can not be armed or take personal weapons, but its with the eye roll and look the other way. Our director understands and knows that I have been through numerous training courses from top tier instructors (HSP, Costa , McNamara) and understands some of us know or have a good idea of what we are doing. My partner and I have it worked out that we both grab our go bags, which have our personal weapons in them. On scene we put them on and go in with officers. If we can have an officer stay with us we both tend to the patient, if we cant have officer protection, I cover him until we are ready to load and move the patient.

Our official policy is that our EMTs are not to be armed. My unofficial policy is "Don't ask, don't tell".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jwfuhrman

... It is also left up to each crew how they want to handle it. If you feel comfortable going in right away, go for it. If you dont, then dont go in. We are told we can not be armed or take personal weapons, but its with the eye roll and look the other way. Our director understands and knows that I have been through numerous training courses from top tier instructors (HSP, Costa , McNamara) and understands some of us know or have a good idea of what we are doing. My partner and I have it worked out that we both grab our go bags, which have our personal weapons in them. On scene we put them on and go in with officers. If we can have an officer stay with us we both tend to the patient, if we cant have officer protection, I cover him until we are ready to load and move the patient.

---

Leaving it up to each individual or crew to decide on that particular day in that instant how to respond, creates an inconsistent response, standard and known resource(s) response capability for a jurisdiction. This idea, coupled with no SOG/SOP, proper legal affiliation to be armed, lack of standardized training hours/recorded POST hours would leave any individual who chose to act, be armed, employ weapons or lethal action to extreme risk of liability and most of all litigation. The training, and professional arming of medics is imperative and in a way serves to protect them, as well as the public we serve.

Do not take this as a criticism of you or my limited knowledge of your entities. This is merely my observation based on what you and the gentlemen above stated. I would advise against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in regards to being armed on duty. That could be grounds for termination, legal issues and more. I have nothing against being an armed medic, just make sure the suits have your back. They will burn you and, never have known you if anything went south.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TacMedic556

Leaving it up to each individual or crew to decide on that particular day in that instant how to respond, creates an inconsistent response, standard and known resource(s) response capability for a jurisdiction. This idea, coupled with no SOG/SOP, proper legal affiliation to be armed, lack of standardized training hours/recorded POST hours would leave any individual who chose to act, be armed, employ weapons or lethal action to extreme risk of liability and most of all litigation. The training, and professional arming of medics is imperative and in a way serves to protect them, as well as the public we serve.

Do not take this as a criticism of you or my limited knowledge of your entities. This is merely my observation based on what you and the gentlemen above stated. I would advise against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in regards to being armed on duty. That could be grounds for termination, legal issues and more. I have nothing against being an armed medic, just make sure the suits have your back. They will burn you and, never have known you if anything went south.

---

Luckily our EMS service is a private business and the highest person is our Director. All funding comes from billing and we get a grant from the Wells County Foundation every year for equipment purchases and repairs.

Basically its a no-no for being armed any time other than an active shooter type situation, then its left up to each crew. If the crews want to be armed, they must be trained and I arrange the training through various LEO and other agencies along with doing some of the training myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TacMedic556

Leaving it up to each individual or crew to decide on that particular day in that instant how to respond, creates an inconsistent response, standard and known resource(s) response capability for a jurisdiction. This idea, coupled with no SOG/SOP, proper legal affiliation to be armed, lack of standardized training hours/recorded POST hours would leave any individual who chose to act, be armed, employ weapons or lethal action to extreme risk of liability and most of all litigation. The training, and professional arming of medics is imperative and in a way serves to protect them, as well as the public we serve.

Do not take this as a criticism of you or my limited knowledge of your entities. This is merely my observation based on what you and the gentlemen above stated. I would advise against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in regards to being armed on duty. That could be grounds for termination, legal issues and more. I have nothing against being an armed medic, just make sure the suits have your back. They will burn you and, never have known you if anything went south.

---

Yeah, thanks for the advice. Those EMTs, going out into a variety of potentially dangerous situations, have a right to defend themselves. I appreciate your concern but my experience with EMS, Tactical EMS, the needs of our particular service, and the political landscape it operates in, is significant. I've been doing this a long time.

How many Swat Teams have EMT trained and equipped members?

I am 100% for the arming of medics. The observations and concerns I hold are for their safety and protection. Imagine a bullet fired from an EMT who is not trained to the states standards, not legally allowed to carry on duty, or is not deputized or a special reserve officer, strikes a hostage/civilian. There is unfortunately grounds from litigation. Yes the EMTs have a right to protect themselves, but they also have to abide by certain laws, including ones you and I disagree with. Just as I being a 14 year paramedic am prohibited from performing a C-section - no matter the totality of the circumstances, because it is outside my scope of practice. We are forced to, "stay in our lanes" when it comes to our jobs.

Be safe. I am glad to see on here and hear that so many medics are indeed prepared for such evil events.

To answer Linebacker: that is a good question. Not many. I was first or second in my entire state, and have now been on a team 10 years. There are still less than 4 or 5 in my entire state. As the medic with ten years on, I am the most senior member on our SWAT team, which is funny. The allowance for medics on teams and what they are allowed to do, training standards, qualifications and integration on team varies greatly from city to city and state to state. Here, it is a full entry level job, with full integration into the "stack".

After meeting the physical and shooting testing standards (2006) I made the team. I then went through POST certified basic SWAT in 2007, and two week long TCCC courses at different times, as well as IRTB and PRSBI (Terrorist and Suicide Bombing awareness and prevention, response courses) at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center in Socorro NM. Our team provides us with great training, continuing education, 1 mandatory 10 hour drill day a month, shooting schools, CQB and Vehicle operations training, among many other facets of the trade. This is merely to illustrate that some teams have a medic with little outside applicable training, no integration on the team and at times no ALS level training. The standards vary greatly. I have met "tactical medics" that have a job description resembling sitting on the perimeter in a ambulance, waiting for the scene to be cleared and declared safe, and would aspirate their own vomit if required to meet our physical standard. Again, standards vary greatly.