Saturday, January 04, 2014

Do Fire Fighters need to be armed for defensive purposes?

Thanks for the video Joe



Are we heading toward a future of combined Law Enforcement/EMS?

I once thought like Nicky.  That fire fighters need to only wear body armor if they're accompanying SWAT or police into a high risk situation.
But consider this.  EMS is dispatched to a car accident with injuries.  The fire dept is busy that day so they send the EMS only instead of with a fire truck. EMS arrive on the scene and what are they faced with?  Yeah its a car accident but instead of two citizens that had a boo-boo you're faced with two car loads of gang members that were involved in a rolling shoot out.
The bad guys don't target the EMS on purpose but how many times have you seen gang members at the range practicing their skills?  Bullets fly, EMS is hit, and after all is said and done you have EMS that needs EMS, a couple of bystanders shot and on top of it all you still have a couple of scum bags that need to be patched up so they can hopefully be executed by the state.
Body armor isn't the real question.

The real question is do we need to arm fire fighters so that they can defend themselves?

Personally.  I think so.  But only for the purposes of self defense.  If we remember the Mumbai Incident, the Kenya Mall Shooting and fast forward to what we can expect (or perhaps better stated...imagine) terrorist will bring to our shores then self defense for all people (and I advocate civilian concealed carry rights) including Fire Fighters in the performance of their duties just seems to make sense.

Additionally if we're expecting Fire Fighters to enter active shooter situations to save lives then they need to be able to defend themselves and the injured.

Will we allow Fire Fighters to perform Law Enforcement of any kind?

No.

Will they face sanction if they attempt to do so?

Yes.

Will this idea fly with the public?

Unknown.  If properly explained, to include the limits and why it makes sense then perhaps.  Push back will occur from libertarians (I think), Gun Control Advocates and Police (they'll feel as if their turf is being invaded). It doesn't need to be that way.  This is simply a defensive measure.

What do you think?

16 comments :

  1. Well, I live in enterprise/dalevile area. Enterprise has a separate Fire Department because its bigger but dalevile is about a fourth of the size. In dalevile the cops are the fire fighters as well.
    I found this out because my trailer burned down a few years ago. They showed up put the fire out it didn't spread.
    Most of the police dept that was on duty was there putting out the fire.
    I dont really think its a big deal, around here violent crime only happens 2-3 times a week and murder only happens 2-3 times a year so the extra manpower isn't goin to do much.
    When we have a SWAT situation we call in cops from 4-5 cities and occasionally involve the state police or Ft.Rucker.

    I agree with multitasking emergency services and allowing them to contract hire other departments occasionally whenever possible to save the taxpayers money. Only a fourth of emergency services staff are on duty during periods of regular volume so having enough people isn't really a problem.
    The police usually don't deter criminal activity through presence, that would cost a lot and take our freedom.

    They do it through the inevitability of getting caught.

    You can get away with smokin the reefer a little for awhile but if you murder some one around here the likelihood of getting away with it is statistically very low, much lower than big cities.

    To me getting the most affordable form of emergency services that can effectively do the job without being totally poor is the best route for the people. We need to keep the taxes as low as possible to keep the economy good. If emergency services get too big citizens start getting too many traffic tickets and start voting down funding, so itsw kind of a natural process. LOL, here in Enterprise they wont write you a ticket unless you are doing 15 MPH over the limit to avoid funding cuts.



    ReplyDelete
  2. That's typically not how fire and EMS work, Sol.

    The biggest thing we look for when we get on scene is safety hazards. If the scene doesn't look safe, we don't enter. Period. If there's fire, we wait for a fire truck. If there's guns, we wait for police.

    Is it cowardly? Hardly. We aren't trained or equipped to handle those situations. The last thing we want is to become casualties ourselves, draining the system of even more resources. For every medic that goes down on a call, you need to send two. One to attend the original patient, and another to attend the downed medic.

    SWAT teams and the like usually have specialized medics that can deal for those situations. The most important thing is to extricate the patient from the situation. You simply can't practice medicine beyond basic first aid while being shot at. Maybe in Hollywood, but not in real life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ok, but to stay on my line of thinking here. what if it looks safe and then you become aware of it being a bad situation. i haven't googled it but i'm sure EMS has walked into firefights somewhere. additionally what if we're talking about a worse case, Kenya Mall type situation or even more illustrative what if we're talking about a Mumbai Incident where terrorist are targeting first responders?

      the only thing i'm saying is that its logical to me, if i advocate for citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms then it makes sense to give firefighters and ems the same right. the ability to defend yourself so you can go home seems to be the favor that we can extend to fire fighters.

      Delete
    2. It's possible, but again, our training and policy states that our first duty is to protect ourselves. At the first sign of trouble we hightail it out of there.

      I'll take any and all measures needed to protect myself on scene, but carrying a gun with me is a non-starter. Not only is it antithesis to what I do, but it would add more stress to the situation. Part of my job is to put people at ease, and its hard to do that all armoured up with a gun on my hip. There's also always the chance that the psyche patient I'm dealing with will decide to make a go for it.

      As I'm sure you will agree, a weapon is useless without the proper training. Most EMS agencies are too cash strapped to pay for this, and most medics don't have the time and/or money to do this on their own. It's plenty work for them to keep their medical skills up and current.

      Even if I did decide to carry a weapon with me at work, the shitstorm that would happen to me if that weapon ever got used would be unimaginable.

      Yes, sometimes shit like the Kenya mall happens. But that's the kind of insanity that's almost impossible to plan for. You can't use that as a basis to start arming everybody.

      Delete
    3. ok. i can see that side of the argument, but tell me this. do they at least teach you guys some type of unarmed self defense?

      Delete
    4. Wind-sprints. Very effective self-defence technique.

      Delete
  3. I don't think most cities would want to spend the funding to get Fire up to pass the liability threshold for shooting someone. You have to look at how stupid lawsuits have gotten and your not going to get away with 40hrs to 80hrs of training in some leftist states.
    On the other hand how long does it take to teach someone how to use a tourniquet, halo chest seals, and tell them where they can and can not plug holes? My department gave us a rundown in 6 or 8hrs. I'm not saying we could do near the same job as FD or paramedics, but we can be taught enough in under 40hrs training to keep people alive until they can get full medical treatment which normally isn't until they get to a hospital anyway. I could see where having some FD trained to go in with police would be great. In my city we now have teams tasked with being responsible to go to active shooter calls. Maybe attaching 2 or more Fire guys to them would work. They would know and trust each other. It would be better than just meeting up with someone outside a building for the first time with shots ringing out asking each other if they are ready to go in and not knowing what the other would do if they somehow make contact with a shooter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the scenario above I agree they should be able to protect themselves, but I do not see cities or ems companies being willing to take on the liability of a shooting. They would much rather pay a smaller death benefit to the fire fighters family or ems worker than some multimillion dollar wrongful death lawsuit. Case in point a ton of officers are scared they will be fired or worse yet get put in jail if they have to shoot someone coming out of the academy. Think of how much fear Fire/ems instructors will put into them. They would start sending them into hot areas alone when they have no business there and may be to scared to defend themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i can't argue any of that, but i just see incidents like the one in New York where a fire was set and the guy waited in ambush to kill fire fighters when they got on the scene.

      Delete
  5. The way I see it, is that the only time Fire and EMS will wear body armor is if they are DIRECTLY supporting SWAT or ERT teams. That means if your a Fire dept Paramedic, EMT or EMS squads supporting SWAT or ERT and it's part of your job, then I can see the need. If your just a plain Firefighter, than NO way. Their are some EMS units in the world such as Magen David Adom have been known to issue Medics and EMT's with Body Armor. In the US, it would be a liability issue and only if their Town, county, City and state insurance would cover it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wait. you're talking body armor?! you wouldn't allow fire fighters on duty to wear body armor? considering some of the parts of cities that we send them into i have to think thats a "ok" if you think it helps kinda thing and leave it up to the individual depts. the issue on firearms i can see where its a nonstarter in many peoples eyes, but on the body armor issue i'm solidly behind it. i have a choice on where i go and how i get there. fire fighters go where they're needed and most of the time its in the poorest parts of the city.

      if they feel they need it, in this case, then i'm all for it.

      Delete
    2. It also depends on what Dept you are in and who are you working for, Some major cities such as LA, Chicago, New York and Boston. A body Armor should be optional only if they were working directly and supporting with the likes of LA SWAT, LASD-ESU or NYPD ESU. In medium to smaller dept's Heck NO. It would also depend on where you are. You have to get that past the Town, city and County Insurance before they ever give Body Armor to their Firefighters, EMT's and Paramedics.

      That's like that with the US Coast Guard Auxiliary. We are banned from any USCG law or Military operation, except for if your a Language interpreter or medical personnel, you can work in any Law and military ops.

      Delete
    3. I can't see why anyone would stop someone from wearing armor unless for Fire it would be detrimental to them fighting fires in some way.. I would think it would just need to be concealable to make them look as non imposing as possible.
      In a way its just like patrol officers are stuck wearing duty belts and concealable vests. Everyone knows it would be much easier and better for our backs to wear overt carriers and shift some of the weight from our belts to our chest, but it looks to much like the military. The only problem with a city is if they issue a vest they must keep buying them after their warranty is out so figure $1000 on average every 5 years per employee.
      Now they may have to buy it themselves but look at what you can get now for under a grand.

      http://miguelcaballero.com/en/portfolio-category/black/

      Delete
  6. If I wanted to carry a gun and body armor I'd have stayed in the Corps or been a cop. Firefighters deal with dangerous people all the time- I've wrestled with drunk/high patients, distraught family interfering and trying to get back into burning buildings, etc. Last year two firemen were shot and killed as they arrived at a fire in NY state, and there were several firefighters in GA held hostage for hours until SWAT killed the perp. I doubt that the firemen having guns would have done any good, and I fear it would cost us our non-threatening status that allows us to work unopposed in the worst neighborhoods.The only thing it would do is encourage more politicians to combine police and fire, which always results in less fire/EMS effectiveness..

    ReplyDelete
  7. as a police officer we go to all medicals that are calling in throu 911. and 90% of the time we arrive before ems or fire. and in the situation as described you will have a police going to a car accident. U do like the idea in that video where the cop had a full Paramedic kit in his cruiser. a bunch of us are EMTs on the department and as i stated we usually are first on the scene. There has been times where i shown up to medical calls and been working on a bleeding patient for about 10mins before fire or ems got on scene. It was not the fault of the the EMS but it was an obscure address they had a hard time to find.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I ABSOLUTELY LUV THE IDEA OF POLICE GETTING EMS TRAINING. it can be as extensive or as limited as the LEO or the Dept decides but it would be a big two-fer. first it would help with community relations in a real way. i'm talking real, not the fluffy bullshit community policing stuff but to see a police officer working to save lives is a cool thing. i also don't think it would step on EMS or firefighter toes or responsibility. their is definitely enough work to go around.

      i've just seen cases where fire rolled with police and vice versa. a busy nite and everyone is hopping and that's where my idea came from.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.