# Ohio thinking about arming EMT workers



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Makes sense to me..I have seen EMT workers put in some pretty precarious positions before the police arrived..


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cleveland/emts-guns-ohio-bill-bear-arms-190819578.html


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

Hard to say which way this will go. Most EMT workers are all about saving lives and their shooting someone would go against their purpose in being on the scene. Just the same, being able to go into a "bad environment" to save someone, might give the victim a better chance for survival...as opposed to waiting on S.W.A.T.

Legally, this might be left up to the individual EMT as whether to carry or not to carry. However, the department that hires the EMT may have different views of armed employees.

Tough call, as to which way this one will shake out. 

Good hunting, Bowhunter57


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

I took a trama class a few years back, it was given by 3 emts that rode in an ambulance to shootings, wrecks, heart attacks and so on. after it was over we sat around and bs'ed. They all had some pretty interesting stories, talked of being punched, held by victims friends or family member, they had guns pulled on them too. the question came up "why don't you carry a gun?" all three of them said they didn't want too or wouldn't. They said they are not there for law enforcement. When they had a problem at the scene, they simply radioed in and waited for the police to arrive.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

ezbite said:


> I took a trama class a few years back, it was given by 3 emts that rode in an ambulance to shootings, wrecks, heart attacks and so on. after it was over we sat around and bs'ed. They all had some pretty interesting stories, talked of being punched, held by victims friends or family member, they had guns pulled on them too. the question came up "why don't you carry a gun?" all three of them said they didn't want too or wouldn't. They said they are not there for law enforcement. When they had a problem at the scene, they simply radioed in and waited for the police to arrive.


It wouldn't bother me if I needed an EMT and they came to my house armed. I will leave it to someone in that field to voice an opinion whether they think it is a good or bad idea.


----------



## Smitty82 (Mar 13, 2011)

After reading the article it would make sence to me that EMT's teamed up with the SWAT could carry. As far as "regular" EMTs teamed up with FD and Hopsitals, it just dosent seem practical. Thats what the PD is for.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Smitty82 said:


> After reading the article it would make sence to me that EMT's teamed up with the SWAT could carry. As far as "regular" EMTs teamed up with FD and Hopsitals, it just dosent seem practical. Thats what the PD is for.


What do you do when the PD isn't there yet?..While they won't be acting like cops,being able to protect themselves and patients could save more lives...I don't see it as impractical at all...And for this to come up I think somebody has been keeping statistics on violence involving EMT workers and maybe it looked high...Ezbite,I would hope nothing bad would ever come to the people you talked to...But given the opportunity,I would have to carry..For the EMT workers who died going into the towers is one thing..For the EMT workers who get shot or stabbed and die because of senseless violence,is another...


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

They can shoot somebody, then patch 'em up.....

Kinda sad that they even have to think about carrying a gun.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

creekcrawler said:


> Kinda sad that they even have to think about carrying a gun.


Exactly...People in today's society don't care anymore..I was at a bar where a fight broke out...The EMTs' showed up before the cops..The whole bar was involved with restraining people so the two people who were on their way to being beaten sensless could get taken out of there...I have no doubt in my mind the people involved would have went throught the EMTs' to get to the victims...Had it been the same situation but with less people to help and the cops still about 10 minutes behind them like they were,those guys probably would have died...I can't see a dfference between a cop or EMT shooting someone in defense of themselves or a victim...Two different people,same goal,same scenario...I think this would benefit us citizens...


----------



## Smitty82 (Mar 13, 2011)

Iraqvet said:


> What do you do when the PD isn't there yet?..While they won't be acting like cops,being able to protect themselves and patients could save more lives...I don't see it as impractical at all...And for this to come up I think somebody has been keeping statistics on violence involving EMT workers and maybe it looked high...Ezbite,I would hope nothing bad would ever come to the people you talked to...But given the opportunity,I would have to carry..For the EMT workers who died going into the towers is one thing..For the EMT workers who get shot or stabbed and die because of senseless violence,is another...


If the PD isnt there and dispatch has told us that its a domestic disturbance then we wait around the corner for the PD. Fortunately where i work it is very rare if the PD isnt on scene before us. Yes there have been those times where dispatch hasnt been notified of an unsafe scene and we have to do our job w/o the PD there. Thats part of the job. If you dont like it then dont be a medic. We have done fine w/o carying firearms for the past 35 years. Im a cc holder but i would rather not have that responsibility with me on the job and have to deal with a the bureaucratic BS that would come with it. It dosent make scence to me that an ambulance crew should be armed. The FD, EMS, PD are a team and everyone has there job. The PD is trained to cary. Now the way i see it, if an ambulance crew is going to be armed then that means they need to be trained with that firearm in different situations just like the cops. If thats going to happen then the tax payer has to pay for them to get trained, and the way ohio is cutting back on the FD/EMS/PD funding i don't see them spending the money, when the PD is already trained for it. its just not practical.


----------



## ltfd596 (Apr 15, 2005)

I have been in many situations where I thought that a sidearm would be nice, but my partner and I were able to get out of those situations without harm coming to anyone. 

My department has a strict NO WEAPONS policy. Council even tried to go as far as not allowing us to carry our folding knives... but they did wise up.

I have done some training with our SRT (SWAT) guys. I have never actually got to participate in an incident. We have all been trained to use every weapon that the SWAT guys can/do carry, but that is only as a last resort... Basicially use one of their weapons if some or all of them become incapacitated and I have to defend myself/them. It has also been made very clear to me that I am there to provide EMS for the SWAT team FIRST - bad guys second.

I have got to shoot full auto M-16, MP5... all kinds of neat stuff.

I am on the fence with this one. I have a CC permit and I do carry off duty, but I dont think I would want to carry while working Fire side - EMS side - Maybe.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Smitty82 said:


> If the PD isnt there and dispatch has told us that its a domestic disturbance then we wait around the corner for the PD. Fortunately where i work it is very rare if the PD isnt on scene before us. Yes there have been those times where dispatch hasnt been notified of an unsafe scene and we have to do our job w/o the PD there. Thats part of the job. If you dont like it then dont be a medic. We have done fine w/o carying firearms for the past 35 years. Im a cc holder but i would rather not have that responsibility with me on the job and have to deal with a the bureaucratic BS that would come with it. It dosent make scence to me that an ambulance crew should be armed. The FD, EMS, PD are a team and everyone has there job. The PD is trained to cary. Now the way i see it, if an ambulance crew is going to be armed then that means they need to be trained with that firearm in different situations just like the cops. If thats going to happen then the tax payer has to pay for them to get trained, and the way ohio is cutting back on the FD/EMS/PD funding i don't see them spending the money, when the PD is already trained for it. its just not practical.


Well,I didn't start this to get into a peeing contest...But waiting around the corner for the cops when someone's life is on the line doesn't seem fair to the person or their family..And saying you don't wanna deal with the bureaucratic side of it sounds like a pretty poor answer..Why would anyone need to pay for anything??..There are police officers who's sole duty is to train others to shoot...Would it be that hard to send the EMT workers through a modified version of the course?..We are paying for bodies to go through it regardless,why would it make a difference if they were EMTs'??..


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

ltfd596 said:


> I have been in many situations where I thought that a sidearm would be nice, but my partner and I were able to get out of those situations without harm coming to anyone.
> 
> My department has a strict NO WEAPONS policy. Council even tried to go as far as not allowing us to carry our folding knives... but they did wise up.
> 
> ...


Thats what I am saying...EMT workers gamble alot...If you did all that raining,thats great..I would much rather have people on scene who know what to do when SHTF..I guess to me it just makes more sense to have people who can show up on a scene and say " I am armed,if you do anything to threaten the patient's life or mine,you will get shot"...


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Let's give them tasers too.


----------



## scallop (Apr 1, 2007)

Why shouldn't they be given the same opportunity to defend themselves as everyone else? Should be an individual choice not something dictated by ones employer. This does not apply to EMT's only but should be accross the board. If you have a problem with carrying, then simple, don't carry. But on the same note do not deprive me of one of my basic rights.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

fallen513 said:


> Let's give them tasers too.


That could be an option for those who do not want to carry guns...Scallop,I agree...These people put themselves in danger and should be aloud to protect themselves and those they are responding to...


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

i've been an firefighter/emt for 21 years now and have no desire to carry a weapon.on calls such as an assault,stabbing,etc., we wait for the police to secure the scene first then we go in and do our job.waiting down the street on these types of call does add time to getting help to whoever needs it but we are taught to protect ourselves first.i'll let the police do their job and i'll do mine.


----------



## FISNFOOL (May 12, 2009)

I think some are missing the point. Waiting around the corner until the Police can secure an area, not only secures the EMTs but secures the squad.

And if armed EMT's got into an armed conflict, that would only delay their treatment of the victims, same or worse than waiting to secure the area.

The Police on scene first, not only deal with the conflict but deal with clearing a way to get to the victim. And keeping family members clear so the EMT's can treat. If Emt's arrived first, even if not an armed threat, they would be delayed trying to clear a way to the victim. They can't do both at the same time.

If they want to carry concealed, fine if they so wish but that should not change the response procedure. In violent situations, three things need to be done. Secure the area, control the people on scene and treat the victim. It takes manpower to do this.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Well,if they decided to carry,they wouldn't have to show up on scene like Rambo...But a scene could go from ok to bad,and then what?...I just don't think I could watch someone die because I felt it wasn't part of my job to help them...


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

There you have it. EMT's don't want to carry, nor should they.


----------



## Smitty82 (Mar 13, 2011)

FISNFOOL said:


> I think some are missing the point. Waiting around the corner until the Police can secure an area, not only secures the EMTs but secures the squad.
> 
> And if armed EMT's got into an armed conflict, that would only delay their treatment of the victims, same or worse than waiting to secure the area.
> 
> ...


I agree. Thats why i think its impractical for EMS to cary.


----------



## Smitty82 (Mar 13, 2011)

Iraqvet said:


> Well,I didn't start this to get into a peeing contest...But waiting around the corner for the cops when someone's life is on the line doesn't seem fair to the person or their family..And saying you don't wanna deal with the bureaucratic side of it sounds like a pretty poor answer..Why would anyone need to pay for anything??..There are police officers who's sole duty is to train others to shoot...Would it be that hard to send the EMT workers through a modified version of the course?..We are paying for bodies to go through it regardless,why would it make a difference if they were EMTs'??..


Im not trying to get in a pissing contest either. Im just simply offering up my opinion based on my experiences.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

fallen513 said:


> There you have it. EMT's don't want to carry, nor should they.


You're talking about the opinion of a few...I wouldn't take you as one to believe the opinions of a few should outweigh the potential opinion of the thousands of EMTs' that are not here voicing their opinions...


----------



## BOO (Jan 23, 2009)

9 times out of 10 the police will be there before EMT's. If they do arm the EMT's are they gonna train them properly. What if they have an active shooter situation...are they gonna know what to do. I dont think EMT's need to be armed, for the simple fact the police will likely be there before them, and the police go in first to secure the scene. Just another worry, having an untrained EMT with a weapon in a tense moment, may get someone killed!!!


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

BOO said:


> 9 times out of 10 the police will be there before EMT's. If they do arm the EMT's are they gonna train them properly. What if they have an active shooter situation...are they gonna know what to do. I dont think EMT's need to be armed, for the simple fact the police will likely be there before them, and the police go in first to secure the scene. Just another worry, having an untrained EMT with a weapon in a tense moment, may get someone killed!!!


The article says the bill will allow them to carry while responding only with SWAT...However,I think it should be all the time..No one is stating they should show up with blazing guns...But dying "just because" ,doesn't seem right...


----------



## DaleM (Apr 5, 2004)

I can see both sides. I was a fire fighter/medic/emt for 28 years and have seensome hairy situations where having a gun would be nice. I don't think all emt's need to carry though. Fire Fighters in central Ohio already have bullet proof vest assigned to them. There are medics in Columbus that have been shot at while responding to calls. I remember one time when they returned from a call there were bullet holes in the side of the medic. The police do a great job of getting there when a weapons is involved, if there is a fight or domestic problem. As most regular fire fighters on here have said, we don't want to carry as that's the police' job. Most police officers I know don't or wouldn't want our job,and in most cases fire fighters don't want the police job. Let each do there job and things will work out. 
Sounds to me like some small emt unit just want more power or the local politicans want to make them all public safety officers and do both jobs. Another way to save money in their eyes. Lets leave things alone and let them work like they have for many many years.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

This is about saving lives...I don't see it as being a power thing or trying to funnel more people into both positions...It's not like EMTs' will be pulling over speeders...And as I said,this bill is directed towards those who work with swat..Even though I believe units not responding with swat should have the choice as well..


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

I'd like to know what situation would an EMT ever be in that required he ever,ever pulled a gun to save a life? I have served on 4 separate fire departments from a rookie to an assistant chief and ALL of them had rules against going into an unsecured scene.That means if a personal danger is possible you wait for the Police.I've had to suspend a few guys for violating the rule but eventually they rethought the decision and never did it again completely understanding the rule better.Personally I feel you are a Fire/ems guy or a policeman,one or the other ,you can't do both at the same time.You can't start drugs,ventilate a patient,splint a leg while pointing a gun with one hand.Leave it as it is,it is working fine the way it is.I can't believe for a minute the police or swat teams would want an EMT carrying on a scene.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Maybe I am just a SHTF kind of guy..I am glad we have people that do these jobs...I just feel this is a way to prevent uncalled for deaths of EMTs' and the people they are trying to help...


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Jim it's admirable that you want to preserve a life but honestly having worked the field on the emt side of the issue,in my opinion,if both sides do their jobs,it should be safe to do your job as is.But nothing wrong with trying to improve if it's really an improvement in the end.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Iraqvet said:


> I just feel this is a way to prevent uncalled for deaths of EMTs' and the people they are trying to help...


From the replies looks like you're the only one feeling strongly.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

puterdude said:


> Jim it's admirable that you want to preserve a life but honestly having worked the field on the emt side of the issue,in my opinion,if both sides do their jobs,it should be safe to do your job as is.But nothing wrong with trying to improve if it's really an improvement in the end.


Thats my only reason for thinking it would be a good idea...



Snakecharmer said:


> From the replies looks like you're the only one feeling strongly.


I swear,I am trying to be a lover and not a fighter...


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Iragvet I know your heart is in the right place.It's okay not to agree all the time.That's what makes the world interesting,other wise it would be a boring place


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

puterdude said:


> Iragvet I know your heart is in the right place.It's okay not to agree all the time.That's what makes the world interesting,other wise it would be a boring place


Well,its not me profession and I don't want it to seem like I would want people who wouldn't want to carry to do just that....I just despise criminals...


----------



## Jigging Jim (Apr 3, 2010)

I call BS ! If any EMT's are to be armed while on Duty, then the need is "always" - not just when out with a SWAT Team. The SWAT Team Members will be right there to neutralize any threats - so what's the point? It's the other types of Calls where the vulnerability exists. The Police cannot always be there first.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

Iraqvet said:


> Well,if they decided to carry,they wouldn't have to show up on scene like Rambo...But a scene could go from ok to bad,and then what?...I just don't think I could watch someone die because I felt it wasn't part of my job to help them...


just out of curiosity,but just how would you go about treating a patient if you didn't have a secure scene?
if i have to guard myself and my partner i surely can't give care to the it's not a good idea.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

and btw,make no mistake about it,some politicians want dually trained people just to save money.


----------



## Smitty82 (Mar 13, 2011)

I know i said it was impractical for EMS to CC, but i'm starting to think it wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.


----------



## angler69 (Sep 26, 2005)

fisnfool said:


> i think some are missing the point. Waiting around the corner until the police can secure an area, not only secures the emts but secures the squad.
> 
> And if armed emt's got into an armed conflict, that would only delay their treatment of the victims, same or worse than waiting to secure the area.
> 
> ...


agree !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 419deerhunter (Mar 23, 2011)

I am an emt and have a ccw I would lve to be able to carry while at work, concealed carry not open just for my own piece of mind and safety. And I think emts should be able to carry if they have a ccw but I dont know about arming them like police its hard enough trying to get info at the scene because people are afraid we are there to arrest them now ad a gun on our waist and no one is going to tell us the truth


----------



## Burks (Jun 22, 2011)

I could see some situations going badly. EMT's are there to save lives, so that will be their focus.....so their attention will be 100% on the injured person. Arriving on scene they have no clue who all is involved. The obvious might be the guy with blood on himself holding a knife, but what if he had help? You don't know. EMT has their back turned tending to the victim, additional guy comes up and takes their gun......big problem.

Thinking out loud here. I could see it turning badly fairly quick.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

This thread is almost two years old! It has already been stated by those who have worked in the profession. You cannot secure the scene and treat victims. And vis versa, you cannot treat victims and keep your weapon secure. Bad idea!


----------

