Incident in the ER

[NOLAEMT]

And you would be mistaken.

Even if a person has HIV, and a high viral load, just getting their blood on you is not enough to contract the disease. Even if you have an open wound, the amount of blood to blood contact needed is very large and extremely unlikely. Fact is, people get HIV through IV drug use and sexual contact, and very rarely through accidental contact with spilled blood.

Combine that with the fact that HIV is no longer considered a fatal disease in medicine, and you would probably be in big trouble for using lethal force in such a scenario.

 

[larry_minn]

While a person might NOT catch (anything) Let me ask you. Police Officers, EMTs etc get shots for Hep B C right? IIRC it was 3 shots over 8 months and dang sore arms... If they are EVER exposed to blood, have hint of open sore they are put on a drug "cocktain" right? So there is no reason for testing/concern if its only blood urine??????? And people lose sleep over this?

So since it ONLY reduces your quality and length of life its no big deal? Besides which. Don't you think the op was more concerned about physical threats to his mother? Do you think a person with a (already compremised health) the threat is not real?

 

[NOLAEMT]

I never said that there was no threat. Just that I do not believe it meets any standard for using lethal force.

And no, just being exposed to blood does not constitute a reason to go on anti-retroviral drugs. A direct needle stick from an unknown source does. I've been exposed to large amounts of blood on my person (enough I had to go change my uniform and shower) and got nothing for prophylaxis other than a bar of soap.

The person coming up to harass you for money at the gas station late at night might have a weapon and be there to kill you, but if you were to shoot him just for being there you would go to jail.

Shooting someone because you are afraid they may get blood on you is the same, the chance of you being injured or killed as a result is so small as to be insignificant. You must be in imminent fear of your life to use lethal force, not afraid of an off the wall chance of infection.

I agree that the OP was probably more worried about physical threats to his mother, but I was trying to respond to the people in favor of using lethal force to prevent themselves being exposed to blood. I agree that it should be avoided if at all possible, hence the use of personal protective equipment in the hospital. And yes, having strange blood on you is gross, but it just isn't a lethal force issue. Just as an aside, every infections disease doctor I've met will tell you they would rather have HIV than diabetes.

 

[Loosedhorse]

HIV is no longer considered a fatal disease in medicine

Lethal force can be justified for not just deadly threat but crippling threat, too. Is contracting Hep C, with its attendant risks of both liver failure and liver cancer, not to be considered crippling at least?

But as to risk: this site (I'm sure not the best one) puts the risk of HIV infection from getting blood on intact skin at essentially zero. And of getting blood on mucus membranes as 1 in 1000.

And, as I said, you may be actually substantially INCREASING your blood exposure (and a lot of other persons, too) by shooting the person at close range.

(This post is not directed toward the OP, who I believe understands these points.)

Note that under law, jurors weighing a SD case would consider what the shooter knew at the time. If the shooter (mistakenly) "knew" that blood exposure was dependably deadly, and that shooting would decrease his risk, a jury might consider that--despite his being egregiously wrong.

Might.

 

[SharkHat]

Does the presence of oxygen have any bearing on the issue? The potential for collateral damage may be greatly increased.

 

[NOLAEMT]

Does the presence of oxygen have any bearing on the issue? The potential for collateral damage may be greatly increased.

Not really.

Oxygen is not flammable by itself, it only acts as to accelerate other sources of flame, which there should not be in the ER. On top of that there are emergency shutoff valves for the O2, if it were necessary, and plenty of portable oxygen cylinders to make up for the lack of bedside o2.

 

[BSA1]

And it smells distinctly low road.

PastorAaron,

ABSOLUTELY!

I cannot emphasize enough how anti-gun the medical community is. Two examples I saw at the hospital when I was working there were:

1. In a outpatient clinic on the campus they had flyers to give to patients and their families. One of the flyers stated that all guns in a home were dangerous and should be removed.

2. On one of the floors they have a very large bulletin board on which they would post result of "studies". They would have visual aids such as charts and graphs along with information about how the study was conducted. This bulletin board was directly across from three public elevators.

Once they posted results of a "study" that was straight out of Brady organization proganda and was being passed off as results of scientific research.

We were very closely watched when we had to use force to subdue a combatative patient. Generally the E.R. doctors and nurses were supportive as Doctors did not like seeing their nurses get hurt. BUT all it took was for one doctor or nurse to complain that we used too much force and our jobs were on the chopping block.

The anti-gun attitude was so bad that I personally decide that I would never use a firearm. And yes you can probably guess that is one of the reasons I don't work there anymore.

 

[2'Bucks'11]

PastorAaron,
As a person who encounters Hospital Security late at night fairly often. (ER docs order pizza too.) I would say the reaction if you where found out you where carrying w/o the added situation in the ER. You would probably be escorted out or asked to remove the weapon. I stress probably b/c I have been escorted out hospitals for entering the wrong door with pizza, after certain hours. However, it still could have gone very badly; people tend to over react to the word "gun" no matter how you act or intention. Had you drew or God forbid let one sing...end game. No questions. Regardless, keeping an eye out for no weapon signs is a must... It seems to be the smallest sign in the worst place. I just wouldn't do it again and file it under lesson learned.

 

[flyskater]

"I cannot emphasize enough how anti-gun the medical community is. Two examples I saw at the hospital when I was working there were:"

As a CCW holder and a triage nurse that used to work in a county hospital I can relate that I strongly agree with hospitals with 30.06 signs. I have seen people fight over someone's "DNR" status, have inmates from jail come to the hospital for treatment, family get pissed because they can't come into the room when we have the room packed with people trying to revive their family, have shooting suspects accompanied by police waiting for them to poop out the crack cocaine that they just swallowed... etc etc. Then you have the occasional psycopath from the psych ward. When you have all those emotions, criminals and I am trying to revive someone who is crashing, the last thing I want to see is a person with a gun wanting to shoot someone because they were on PCP or they saw the killer who killed their baby daddy...

 

[Loosedhorse]

When you have all those emotions, criminals and I am trying to revive someone who is crashing, the last thing I want to see is a person with a gun wanting to shoot someone because they were on PCP or they saw the killer who killed their baby daddy

So, you think the 30.06 sign will stop them? Or is it more likely to stop the level-headed person who might need a gun to defend his own life--a level-headed person like you, for instance.

Intended and wished-for effects are not necessarily the actual effects of a no-guns policy.

 

[Fred Fuller]

ST&T, folks. Not Legal and Political... please stay on topic.

 

[flyskater]

"So, you think the 30.06 sign will stop them? Or is it more likely to stop the level-headed person who might need a gun to defend his own life--a level-headed person like you, for instance."

No. That is why there were metal detectors and armed guards at the entrance.

Here is the article dated 1994 that i pulled up. (Denton Chronicle)

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1994_1212339/county-to-install-metal-detectors-in-

" a woman shot another woman in a dispute over a man they were both visiting."

 

[Loosedhorse]

Speaking tactically, not politically, I think most of us have far fewer objections to controlled-access, full-screening weapon-exclusion zones (like airport sterile areas) than to simple signs which guarantee very little.

So-called metal detectors (usually magnetometers) do a pretty good job--when properly tuned--of detecting dense metal objects, like handguns. However, to avoid too many "false alarms", their sensitivity is often turned down, and smaller alloy or plastic-framed guns (which may have steel mostly in the barrel) then become harder to detect. This is one of the reasons that airports are transitioning from gantry discriminators to back-scatter X-ray.

Since 9/11, airport screening failure rates have not been available to the public, but it is not clear they are doing better than the 66-95% failure rate that pertained before 9/11; a 70% failure rate is probably a reasonable estimate.

There are a number of available knife-like weapons that would not be detectable to any metal detector, and would challenge (if hidden in a bag) an experienced airport X-ray screener. And a dedicated "shivologist" would have no problem producing such weapons himself.

It is unlikely that hospital security is close to as "good" rolleyes as airport security. In practice, that metal detector is chiefly a deterrent--just like a sign--not a weapons-excluder. If you look at the finances of the typical US hospital, the idea that they are going to spring for new, more effective security any time soon is highly unlikely.

So, tactically, I would suggest that any assumption on your part that a "no-weapons" policy is keeping you safe may need to be rethought.

 

[flyskater]

I haven't worked there or been there in over 10 years, so I don't know what it is right now. In addition to the armed guard at the entrance, we also had several HPD officers within yelling distance plus a sheriff and HPD station about a mile away.
Although there is no such thing as 100% safe even at anyone's own home, that's pretty tight security.
I don't how tuned them magnetic detectors are, but everytime I go to my county courthouse now they are still as effective plus I am always greeted by four sheriffs at the entrance.

 

[Loosedhorse]

everytime I go to my county courthouse now they are still as effective plus I am always greeted by four sheriffs at the entrance.

As I'm sure you know, as long as you are staffed and willing to hand-search everyone who sets off the alarm, you can set the alarm sensitivity as high as you want. I think we've all been in situations where a belt buckle or a few coins set off the alarm in one airport but not another.

Also, it's a question of what are the penalties if you're caught. If speeding carried a 20-year mandatory sentence, no one would speed. Similarly, if the result of being caught with a weapon is "go put that in your car," there is very little reason not to risk getting caught. If instead it is a mandatory felony, with permanent loss of gun rights, that will weigh heavily in the considerations of non-felons carrying legally...and not so much on felons who've already lost those rights and are carrying illegally.

In other words: are some hospitals setting up a system that may serve to persuade only the law-abiding to enter unarmed?

 

[Owen Sparks]

Last time my Mom was in the hospital I had go walk through a metal detector to get into the ER. My brother went in first and they confiscated a 1 inch pen knife off his key chain. I left my Emerson in the car and chose a better weapon. A 3 foot Osage Orange walking stick that weighs a pound and a third. No one questioned me when I walked through the metal detector with this heavy club.