TexasCHLforum.com

allisji wrote:

C-dub wrote: ...
I don't know about the case that you're referring to, ...

Probably this one: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... cy#p552682

This seems like a great idea to lure would be terrorists out into the open. Just sponsor a prophet drawing contest and secure the area around the entry point with elevated snipers and barricades. You can only enter from that point if you do a quick sketch of the prophet, to minimize the chance that any terrorist gets into the actual venue with an explosive device, etc.

ELB wrote:

allisji wrote:

C-dub wrote: ...
I don't know about the case that you're referring to, ...

Probably this one: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... cy#p552682

In my mind and I'd guess that most here are in agreement, the two situations are sufficiently different that they should not be comparable... Of course, we always underestimate the ability of the anti-gun forces to try to lump all of these incidents under the broad umbrella of "gun violence". It's hard to fault a police officer for killing an active shooter, but the man in OK seemed to make an unwise decision when he returned to and killed his offender.

I know that I would not want to be the police officer in that situation considering the Anti-Police environment that exists today within large groups like BLM and antifa.

allisji wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:This raises a question, suppose following a shoot out you have a wounded bad guy and a wounded good guy, as a paramedic I would go to the wounded good guy and render whatever medical assistance I could, but I would have a concern with the wounded bad guy doing something while my attention was on the care of the wounded GG, is a coup de grace ever justified?
Never leave a wounded enemy at your back!

As a paramedic, are you trained in how to prioritize patients, and how does this type of scenario fit that training?

Lena wrote:My partner stabbed in kidney area 2-3 times bad guy shot 3 times center chest 5' distance 9mm Win Silvertips.
They transported the shot thug 1st I never forgot that.
The thug did not survive and was DOA. Partner recovered after surgeries and long rehab time.

If the responders didn't suspect that your partners injuries were life-threatening, then they may have been following protocol to attempt to treat the patient with life-threatening injuries first (I use the term patient, because he was clearly not a victim). I would also be angry that they would treat a dangerous criminal before they would treat an innocent victim of a stabbing attack with very real injuries. Very glad to hear that he recovered.

There is no written rule, however it's an understood among those of us that have medical training EMTs, Paramedics that the good guy goes first, the bad guy started the whole thing and can suffer! I know alot of EMS workers that have said they would transport a Police Dog to a vet before taking a bad guy to an ER, I'd probably lose my job but that is my view also!

Thank you much there, off record the thug was dead at scene with a nasty exit in his back there was really no response from him from PM's they only dispatched 1 PM unit was the problem, he went to the 1st hospital and due to stab wounds observed re routed to Baylor Dallas prior to unloading him. A 4th shot fired missed him and was aimed at the temple area, blood loss was bad from stabbing.

allisji wrote:

ELB wrote:

allisji wrote:

C-dub wrote: ...
I don't know about the case that you're referring to, ...

Probably this one: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... cy#p552682

In my mind and I'd guess that most here are in agreement, the two situations are sufficiently different that they should not be comparable... Of course, we always underestimate the ability of the anti-gun forces to try to lump all of these incidents under the broad umbrella of "gun violence". It's hard to fault a police officer for killing an active shooter, but the man in OK seemed to make an unwise decision when he returned to and killed his offender.

I know that I would not want to be the police officer in that situation considering the Anti-Police environment that exists today within large groups like BLM and antifa.

The two situations are different, but with similarities.

1. One involved police and the other did not.
2. In both situations the BG was no longer a threat when they were shot additional times.
3. I don't have any sympathy for the deceased in either case.
4. AFAIK, the additional shots did nothing to change the outcome.
5. We may never know what the true intent of that pharmacist or the officers when those additional shots were fired.

Justice is blind, laws should be applied as law was stated, otherwise, we are living in a dictatorship.

ELB wrote:

allisji wrote:

C-dub wrote: ...
I don't know about the case that you're referring to, ...

Probably this one: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... cy#p552682

I would have reasonable doubt whether the armed robbers were still a threat and my conscience would require a not guilty vote for the victim/pharmacist if I was on the jury.