Alton Sterling shooting.

[Which Tyler]

Police are an emergency responder - WTF is first aid beyond the scope of their employment?

They don't need to be paramedics; but they absolutely should be trained in first aid.

Mind you, they should also be trained in how to be an armed thug, and how not to be a racist c***

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BBW,

Have you watched the video?  Kinsey was shouting to the officers at the top of his lungs that the "mentally unstable person" was holding a firetruck.  Then the officers shot the guy lying on the ground with his arms raised with rifles from 150 feet away.  The guy doing the shooting has SWAT training.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

7 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Police are an emergency responder - WTF is first aid beyond the scope of their employment?

They don't need to be paramedics; but they absolutely should be trained in first aid.

Mind you, they should also be trained in how to be an armed thug, and how not to be a racist c***

In the United States, the police are responsible for catching bad guys.  They aren't even responsible for keeping people safe.  They do receive some first aid training, and many do choose to provide first aid in emergency situations.  But it isn't required.

[Which Tyler]

3 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

In the United States, the police are responsible for catching bad guys.  They aren't even responsible for keeping people safe.  They do receive some first aid training, and many do choose to provide first aid in emergency situations.  But it isn't required.

I got that from the last few times you said it - it will continue to be irredeemably stupid.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BBW,

Have you watched the video?  Kinsey was shouting to the officers at the top of his lungs that the "mentally unstable person" was holding a firetruck.  Then the officers shot the guy lying on the ground with his arms raised with rifles from 150 feet away.  The guy doing the shooting has SWAT training.

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/

Police only hit their target 30% of the time when the subject is not shooting back.  When he is shooting back, it drops to 18%.

[Quoth]

Just now, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/

That should cover most of it, you can judge the citations for yourself.  It has kind of a California bent, but it touches on Federal case law as well.

From the article you linked:

Quote

Confusion and Conflict
As a general rule, an individual has no duty to come to the aid of another. A person who has not created, by his words or deeds, a danger to another, is not liable for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another unless there is some relationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act.² The application of these general principles in the area of law enforcement and other police activities has produced some confusion and conflict. The confusion is further exacerbated by widely-held misconceptions concerning the duty owed by police to individual members of the general public.³

My emphasis added... This seems a very salient point of the protection of "no duty to come to the aid"...

It seems to me that once a Police Officer shoots someone, especially when it becomes readily apparent that the shooting was in error, common sense and a sense of common decency should compel the Officer to take some basic first aid steps, assuming the element of danger to the officer(s) and other bystanders has been removed from the equation.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

If you read further on, this is explained as:

Quote

The courts, however, have found that police officers may create a “special relationship” with individuals in certain circumstances, thereby establishing a duty of care to that individual. This “special relationship” may be created when an officer performs an affirmative act which places a person in peril or increases the risk of harm. For example, an officer who investigated an accident and instructed an individual to follow him to the middle of the intersection, where the individual was hit by another car, established a duty of care for that person;¹⁸ a highway patrol officer established a duty to an individual when he parked his vehicle with lights engaged behind the stalled motorist, but later left the scene without warning the motorist who had relied upon his protection and was struck by another car.¹⁹

Shootings don't count.  A police officer would be required to secure the scene and call an ambulance.

[Dr. Pepper]

39 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/

That should cover most of it, you can judge the citations for yourself.  It has kind of a California bent, but it touches on Federal case law as well.

So the answer is no, you don't actually have a reputable source.  Didn't think so.  

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

So the answer is no, you don't actually have a reputable source.  Didn't think so.  

A lawyer specializing in police liability isn't reputable?  What is, DailyKOS?  ThinkProgress?

[Quoth]

Yes, I read that. I'm afraid I don't see how it helps provide the blanket protection of "no duty to come to the aid". In this case, the Officer actually caused the injury. And, yes, the need to secure the scene is often times paramount (although it didn't seem to apply in this instance) and that's why I added "assuming the element of danger to the officer(s) and other bystanders has been removed from the equation".

I can understand stepping back once more qualified personnel arrive to help. But, really... Under these facts, maybe, you know, bind the wound... staunch the bleeding...? 

Oh and BTW... Shootings don't count?! Shootings by the Officer himself?!  Did I miss a such a citation or notation in the article to that effect?

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

2 minutes ago, Quoth said:

Yes, I read that. I'm afraid I don't see how it helps provide the blanket protection of "no duty to come to the aid". In this case, the Officer actually caused the injury. And, yes, the need to secure the scene is often times paramount (although it didn't seem to apply in this instance) and that's why I added "assuming the element of danger to the officer(s) and other bystanders has been removed from the equation".

I can understand stepping back once more qualified personnel arrive to help. But, really... Under these facts, maybe, you know, bind the wound... staunch the bleeding...? 

Oh and BTW... Shootings don't count?! Shootings by the Officer himself?!  Did I miss a such a citation or notation in the article to that effect?

The distinction is a legal one regarding the definition of 'aid'.  The police, having shot him and handcuffed him were responsible for his well being.  That does not mean they are required to provide first aid however, especially if they have not had specialized training in treating gunshot wounds.  They were responsible for ensuring an ambulance was called and making sure he wasn't run over by a passing vehicle.

Quote

Further, regarding the officers duty to provide medical aid to Drummond, the court also noted that the officers had no special training, beyond basic first aid, in treating gunshot wounds.  The court then stated that, because of the officer’s lack of training in this area, “any failure to treat would be, at most, negligent and thus not actionable under Section 1983.” [vi]  The Sixth Circuit did not speculate whether the officer’s would have had a different duty if they had more advanced medical treatment. 

From this analysis of Pierce v Springfield:

http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2014_pierce_v_springfieldtwpoh.shtml

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BBW,

Let me get this straight.  The police shoot the wrong guy because they are crappy shots.  the cuff the wrong guy because... no explaination offered for cuffing the guy they weren't aiming at but shot.  And as they man they injuried "unintentionally" is lying on the ground cuffed and bleeding they have have no obligation to do what any decent human being who happened upon a bleeding stranger would do and try to staunch the bleeding?

[Quoth]

Just now, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

The distinction is a legal one regarding the definition of 'aid'.  The police, having shot him and handcuffed him were responsible for his well being.  That does not mean they are required to provide first aid however, especially if they have not had specialized training in treating gunshot wounds.  They were responsible for ensuring an ambulance was called and making sure he wasn't run over by a passing vehicle.

From this analysis of Pierce v Springfield:

http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2014_pierce_v_springfieldtwpoh.shtml

First, I have to say that I find it unbelievable that Police Officers don't have basic training in at least rudimentary First Aid. And specifically as relates to GSWs. After all, one would think as their partners are at risk of same, they'd be trained in the basics for this.

And second, the case you cite deals with a suspect who suffered a self inflicted GSW. Very different, IMO, from this instance where the Officer himself erroneously inflicted the wound.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BBW,

Let me get this straight.  The police shoot the wrong guy because they are crappy shots.  the cuff the wrong guy because... no explaination offered for cuffing the guy they weren't aiming at but shot.  And as they man they injuried "unintentionally" is lying on the ground cuffed and bleeding they have have no obligation to do what any decent human being who happened upon a bleeding stranger would do and try to staunch the bleeding?

Yes.  The officer fired three shots and one hit Kinsey.  Not very accurate, especially if he was aiming for the autistic man.  I already offered the explanation for why they cuffed the person they shot.  But if you want to ignore that to make your rhetoric sound better, that's on you.

I've also explained, and linked a couple times, how police are not legally obligated to provide first aid.

Maybe the officer is a craphat who missed, hit a bystander, then handcuffed him and didn't provide first aid.  That doesn't make what he did criminal, or even against his training.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Yes.  The officer fired three shots and one hit Kinsey.  Not very accurate, especially if he was aiming for the autistic man.  I already offered the explanation for why they cuffed the person they shot.  But if you want to ignore that to make your rhetoric sound better, that's on you.

I've also explained, and linked a couple times, how police are not legally obligated to provide first aid.

Maybe the officer is a craphat who missed, hit a bystander, then handcuffed him and didn't provide first aid.  That doesn't make what he did criminal, or even against his training.

BBW,

As to the last paragraph... that's just pathetic.  Nauseatingly, pathetic 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

6 minutes ago, Quoth said:

First, I have to say that I find it unbelievable that Police Officers don't have basic training in at least rudimentary First Aid. And specifically as relates to GSWs. After all, one would think as their partners are at risk of same, they'd be trained in the basics for this.

And second, the case you cite deals with a suspect who suffered a self inflicted GSW. Very different, IMO, from this instance where the Officer himself erroneously inflicted the wound.

The case did acknowledge that the officer's had basic first aid, but also stated that basic first aid doesn't suggest that have training to deal with gunshot wounds.

And while the fact pattern is different, the conclusion, "that officers without specialized training in gunshot wounds are not obligated to provide first aid", is universal.  Whether the officer shot him or he shot himself has no bearing on whether he has specialized training to treat gunshot wounds.

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Yes.  The officer fired three shots and one hit Kinsey.  Not very accurate, especially if he was aiming for the autistic man.  I already offered the explanation for why they cuffed the person they shot.  But if you want to ignore that to make your rhetoric sound better, that's on you.

I've also explained, and linked a couple times, how police are not legally obligated to provide first aid.

Maybe the officer is a craphat who missed, hit a bystander, then handcuffed him and didn't provide first aid.  That doesn't make what he did criminal, or even against his training.

This makes no sense. If ever the police start cuffing victims...and, for example, do you suppose they started cuffing all the injured victims in Orlando after they gained access...it's when there's doubt about whether they were victims or perps. In this case they would know with great certainty that the victim was not the shooter, as they themselves were the shooter. 

Honestly, you make good arguments at times, but this is really, really weak.

[Quoth]

Just now, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

The case did acknowledge that the officer's had basic first aid, but also stated that basic first aid doesn't suggest that have training to deal with gunshot wounds.

And while the fact pattern is different, the conclusion, "that officers without specialized training in gunshot wounds are not obligated to provide first aid", is universal.  Whether the officer shot him or he shot himself has no bearing on whether he has specialized training to treat gunshot wounds.

This is understandable in instances where the officer happens upon a gunshot victim, or even in the case you cited where the suspect stupidly self inflicts. However, again, the "no duty to provide aid" is, I would think, dispensed with where the Officer directly caused the injury.

Let me also take exception to the "specialized training for a gunshot wounds". I'm certainly no expert. And undoubtedly there are gunshot wounds that require unusual care. But, even a Tenderfoot Boy Scout would know that stopping the bleeding is as basic as it gets. Even for a GSW to the leg.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

12 minutes ago, Quoth said:

This is understandable in instances where the officer happens upon a gunshot victim, or even in the case you cited where the suspect stupidly self inflicts. However, again, the "no duty to provide aid" is, I would think, dispensed with where the Officer directly caused the injury.

Let me also take exception to the "specialized training for a gunshot wounds". I'm certainly no expert. And undoubtedly there are gunshot wounds that require unusual care. But, even a Tenderfoot Boy Scout would know that stopping the bleeding is as basic as it gets. Even for a GSW to the leg.

Basic first aid covers stopping bleeding.   = Apply a compress to would, apply pressure.  Keep applying pressure until help (ambulance) gets there.   

 

I don't even care that much that they hand cuffed him.  - I don't think they should have.  But they had a moral duty to try and stop the bleeding. They could do still do that after cuffing him and securing the scene.

and if the law states otherwise then the law is wrong.

[Which Tyler]

Basicaly this seems to come down to:

Legal =/= Ethical

Legally obligated =/= Ethically obligated

 

Cops aren't trained properly; but they still flipping well should be. There is absolutely no excuse for not training cops in first aid; or American cops in first aid for gunshot wounds (just how specialist is this? does it really give people an ethical opt-out from being decent human beings?). This is an absolute disgrace - up there with not training cops to not be trigger-happy racist thugs.