Don't Carry a Trauma Kit ???

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Amishman44

    Master
    Rating - 98%
    48   1   0
    Dec 30, 2009
    3,680
    113
    Woodburn
    As a former volunteer EMT, I carry a very basic kit in the vehicle, mainly for use on myself or a loved one, should something happen that requires emergency first aid...primarily centered around stopping blood loss and providing oxygen (should emergency breathing be required?) Those are the only two (2) things that really make a difference in the first 15 minutes or until EMS arrives.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,866
    113
    Merrillville
    I have 3 fire extinguishers in my house.
    I have 2 first aid kits in my car.
    I have 5 first aid kits in my house.

    Carrying one on my ankle is not really outside my preexisting actions.
    Actions that have been in place for over 3 decades. Except the ankle, that's maybe 5 to 10 years.

    I've also had multiple classes.

    Doesn't mean I want someone to get hurt so I can use them.
    Or that I want to do the hurting.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,866
    113
    Merrillville
    "Consciousness of Guilt"

    Huh?

    If someone gets hurt near me and I can help them, I will.
    Doesn't mean I'm admitting guilt because I helped them.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,866
    113
    Merrillville
    "If you shovel your sidewalk someone can slip and sue you"

    I got news for you.
    If you DON'T shovel your sidewalk, someone can slip and sue you.
    Accusations are going to be made.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,736
    113
    Indy
    What I learned from Binger and the Rittenhouse case is that trying to outfox a prosecutor ahead of time is for fools. Their job is to say or do whatever will work get you convicted, no matter how dumb it is. Even if you somehow give them absolutely nothing, they'll just make something up. Their job is to spin anything and everything into intent and guilt.
     

    ECS686

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Dec 9, 2017
    1,705
    113
    Brazil
    What I learned from Binger and the Rittenhouse case is that trying to outfox a prosecutor ahead of time is for fools. Their job is to say or do whatever will work get you convicted, no matter how dumb it is. Even if you somehow give them absolutely nothing, they'll just make something up. Their job is to spin anything and everything into intent and guilt.
    I like to put it like this.

    For those that didn’t know.What the Rittenhouse case should have taught them is. A Prosecutor does not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prosecute…only to win a conviction
     

    pitbulld45

    Follower of I AM
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Dec 27, 2012
    1,394
    113
    Terre Haute
    As a leo we have for years and years been trained, shoot to stop the threat and once that threat is stopped and secured and scene safe we MUST render aide.

    I have actually seen were officers were prosecuted and or sued for not rendering aide but according to these idiots that aide would make me look guilty.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    What I learned from Binger and the Rittenhouse case is that trying to outfox a prosecutor ahead of time is for fools. Their job is to say or do whatever will work get you convicted, no matter how dumb it is. Even if you somehow give them absolutely nothing, they'll just make something up. Their job is to spin anything and everything into intent and guilt.

    The flip side is your defense attorney has to construct a narrative that the jury will prefer to swallow as well. You want your narrative to be as palatable as possible so the prosecutor is left with fewer options. In a rough analogy, if you give your attorney top cut steak to work with, he'll have an easier time feeding it to the jury than if you give him 3 day old roller dogs from the local c-store, despite both being meat.

    Some shoots are so clean and so obvious that the type of meat doesn't matter. The equivalent of a starving man, he'll gratefully swallow the roller dogs or the steak with equal speed.

    Some are good shoots but the evidence just isn't there to say for sure, or it's borderline and maybe good / maybe not good. Many on INGO think it's totally fine to shoot an unarmed person for punching you because somebody somewhere died from a punch. Can you? Maybe, but you better have more than "I got punched". Disparity of force, etc. A recent conviction that was, in my mind, completely wrong had a perfect disparity of force claim but a very very stupid lawyer and their client paid for their stupidity. These sorts of things are when steak helps you come out on top.

    Finally, some are *bad* shoots. Everybody wants to ignore that possibility, imagining that their shoot could only be a good one yet forgetting they are human and could make a mistake. Then the narrative may be the difference between reckless disregard for human life vs an understandable mistake in fact, or the difference between a much higher charge and sentence vs a lighter one. In the incident I'm thinking of above, despite being ruled a bad shoot, the sentence was very very light for one causing death because it was understandable (and, again, I think it was a good shoot but it is illustrative).
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    As a leo we have for years and years been trained, shoot to stop the threat and once that threat is stopped and secured and scene safe we MUST render aide.

    I have actually seen were officers were prosecuted and or sued for not rendering aide but according to these idiots that aide would make me look guilty.

    Police are held to a different standard, both due to training (reasonable person standard is versus your peers, not the general population) and constitutional duties (once someone is in your custody they are your responsibility).

    The argument for the civilian is they don't know the guy is out of the fight. 1st responders have buddies there to watch them work and are trained to not approach and render aid until it's safe to do so. It's not safe to do so for a loan defender.

    On a side note, this trend *is* very real and has resulted in Body Worn Camera Theater. Some officers probably don't even know that they are being trained for theater, but if you're doing CPR on someone with penetrating trauma to the torso you are engaged in theater. You are not saving that person's life, you are just acting like you're doing something for both bystanders and for the camera footage, so that other people who don't know any better think you're trying to save a life. You're really pumping them dry faster, but like the general population thinks d-fib paddles start the heart (vs stop it, which is the truth), they see it on TV and it works so it's now best practice. The guys teaching you to pump away know it doesn't matter, and the sole reason to do it is it looks better, but that's how dumb lawsuits influence reality in dumb ways.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,736
    113
    Indy
    The flip side is your defense attorney has to construct a narrative that the jury will prefer to swallow as well. You want your narrative to be as palatable as possible so the prosecutor is left with fewer options. In a rough analogy, if you give your attorney top cut steak to work with, he'll have an easier time feeding it to the jury than if you give him 3 day old roller dogs from the local c-store, despite both being meat.

    Some shoots are so clean and so obvious that the type of meat doesn't matter. The equivalent of a starving man, he'll gratefully swallow the roller dogs or the steak with equal speed.

    Some are good shoots but the evidence just isn't there to say for sure, or it's borderline and maybe good / maybe not good. Many on INGO think it's totally fine to shoot an unarmed person for punching you because somebody somewhere died from a punch. Can you? Maybe, but you better have more than "I got punched". Disparity of force, etc. A recent conviction that was, in my mind, completely wrong had a perfect disparity of force claim but a very very stupid lawyer and their client paid for their stupidity. These sorts of things are when steak helps you come out on top.

    Finally, some are *bad* shoots. Everybody wants to ignore that possibility, imagining that their shoot could only be a good one yet forgetting they are human and could make a mistake. Then the narrative may be the difference between reckless disregard for human life vs an understandable mistake in fact, or the difference between a much higher charge and sentence vs a lighter one. In the incident I'm thinking of above, despite being ruled a bad shoot, the sentence was very very light for one causing death because it was understandable (and, again, I think it was a good shoot but it is illustrative).
    You accomplish that by making good and reasonable decisions, not by buying this thing or not buying that thing or putting this part on your gun or taking that part off.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    You accomplish that by making good and reasonable decisions, not by buying this thing or not buying that thing or putting this part on your gun or taking that part off.

    Disagree and from personal experience. Nothing is everything, but everything is something.

    There's currently a prosecution decision on hold pending testing results of trigger weight. Obviously I can't talk about specifics, but all the things I'm frequently told are not relevant 'if it's a good shoot' absolutely do come up at times in those middle ground shootings, and that's more of them then people want to think.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,736
    113
    Indy
    Disagree and from personal experience. Nothing is everything, but everything is something.

    There's currently a prosecution decision on hold pending testing results of trigger weight. Obviously I can't talk about specifics, but all the things I'm frequently told are not relevant 'if it's a good shoot' absolutely do come up at times in those middle ground shootings, and that's more of them then people want to think.

    Which kind of just reinforces my point that prosecutors will say or do whatever it takes to convict.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Which kind of just reinforces my point that prosecutors will say or do whatever it takes to convict.

    The *decision to charge* rests on the trigger weight. If they just wanted to do whatever to convict, they'd just charge the individual and go to court. If the trigger is not "lightened", there's never be a trial as it will be a no file.

    So, no, it doesn't reinforce your point in the slightest nor does it counter that your defense attorney will do or say whatever it takes to get you off (giggity) so better building blocks for their narrative can very well matter.
     

    Sylvain

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 30, 2010
    77,313
    113
    Normandy
    I'll update the subject to a more realistic title: "Dont carry a trauma kit if you are health care professional because you could be sued for malpractice."

    At least here, you are protected by the good Samaritan law. But that doesnt apply if you are health care pro. If you screw up as a pro, you can be on the hook. At least as I understand it.

    Where I live it's the other way around.
    You can be sued for failure to render aid, as every person as a duty to render aid as long as your own life is not in danger.
    As a healthcare professional that duty is even more important and in that case a professional can't claim that they had no idea what to do.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Disagree and from personal experience. Nothing is everything, but everything is something.

    There's currently a prosecution decision on hold pending testing results of trigger weight. Obviously I can't talk about specifics, but all the things I'm frequently told are not relevant 'if it's a good shoot' absolutely do come up at times in those middle ground shootings, and that's more of them then people want to think.
    The *decision to charge* rests on the trigger weight. If they just wanted to do whatever to convict, they'd just charge the individual and go to court. If the trigger is not "lightened", there's never be a trial as it will be a no file.

    So, no, it doesn't reinforce your point in the slightest nor does it counter that your defense attorney will do or say whatever it takes to get you off (giggity) so better building blocks for their narrative can very well matter.

    This very interesting. Hopefully, it's something we can discuss later, when the case is settled?

    I wonder how close a lot of self defense shootings are to turning into the "middle ground shootings"?


    .
     

    cosermann

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 15, 2008
    8,372
    113
    Not the first piece of highly questionable advice I’ve seen/heard from the “armed attorneys.”
     
    Top Bottom