JPINFV

More complete news article on the arrest. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/05/tip-lead-to-suspect-in-dodger-stadium-beating-case.html

As a Catholic, I can't help but notice some of the cognitive dissonance involved with my religion, especially when it comes to the teaching of the Old Testament (which is where a lot of the moral code comes from).

Oh noes! Pink nail polish! It can't nearly be as bad as the mom who let her son dress as Daphne from Scooby Doo. The saddest part about the halloween and nail polish cases is that they reflect society's views about inanimate objects. Remember, Jesus wore a dress (well, ok, robes, but the issue remains that it wasn't pants or shorts) so does that make Jesus gay?

...because there will be no reprisal for killing him? ...because al Qaeda is a serious threat against, say, Guantanamo Bay or a variety of other highly secure military facilities? The same could be said for September 11. No amount of fighting will bring them back either. Additionally, if there's anything any movement benefits from is a martyr. Could this be al Qaeda's Alamo? Let's execute everyone in prison then, so that way everyone can have closure. Justice is closure. Killing is only closure if done in the name of justice, but is not by default justice.

...except that I'm agreeing that this is, in no way, comparable to VE day. Nor is it comparable to VJ day either (need me to spell that one out for you?). ...except copypasta'ing a URL does not honor everyone. ...except believing that the War on Terror is only about one man, and that now that he is gone peace will reign does absolutely nothing to honor anyone. In fact, it's more of a slap in the face to anyone who fought terrorism, and especially anyone who fights terrorism past today. Sorry, I'm not buying that terrorism is now magically gone now. Al Qaeda may be weakened, heck it may even be the beginning of the end with how the power vacuum plays out, however terrorism is not limited only to al Qaeda.

Victory Europe day? Wait a minute, the war on terror was against one person? So terrorism is no more? Awesome, pack everything up then.

Here's my problem with the philosophy of this was planned. To me, saying it's a "kill mission" means that he could be down on his knees, hands behind his head, ready to surrender when our forces entered, and they would have turned the corner, made a positive ID, and with him surrendering still would have put 2 in the center mass. That is a kill mission. By all accounts, he fought back and was using his wife as a shield. With how it played out, regardless of an attempt to capture him or not, it would have been a clean kill. Regardless, though, capturing or killing him would have achieved the same benefit of removing him from terrorism. There is always the need for a trial. When the Nazis get a trial, I find it hard to argue that anyone else shouldn't get a trial because their guilt is so obvious that it makes any verdict other than guilty out of the question. He wouldn't have been the first person to go to trial with such obvious blood on his hands, and it wouldn't be the last. Furthermore, where do you set the limit for who's crimes are so terrible and obvious that they don't deserve a trial and who's isn't that they don't deserve a trial? Heck, why did we allow Saddam to have a trial? Wasn't his crimes obvious too? I do agree that our military should be used to [help] eradicate terrorism, however I don't think out military is currently geared appropriately for that goal, however that is for another thread.

So because I don't always agree with the methods, that's somehow wrong? Why is it bad that I can admit that my country has done bad things in the past, and like all countries, will probably do bad things in the future? I guess I should be ok with the slaughter and constant moving of the Indians, with slavery, with the WW2 internment camps, and with every other decision that America has made then? The question is not whether bad things will happen, but how we respond, and what we recognize would be a better plan. I fear the day that any part of the government, including and -especially- the military is beyond all reproach, because once that happens they have the ultimate power. Also, I think you forgot how we got freedom. We didn't get freedom by just going along with what ever the British military told us to do. If we had this, "Our country is never wrong. The military is never wrong. RAH! RAH! RAH!" we'd still be British.

As long as we agree that he can't be put into a box...

"I guess you are one of very few in the USA believing that today, well besides Kate." "Its all that needed to be stated IMHO." You're the one that's claiming that whether someone is a good Christian or not is based on following Deuteronomy. I guess I can also surmise that, based on your stance on quotes from Deuteronomy, that you support the message of Westboro Baptist Church. After all, they're quoting Deuteronomy too, like how your supposed good little "Christians" should. "We learned ?" Learned or regressed? Who are we if we become the thing we loath? Is American not better than this? "Congrats for attempting to arge a point you will never win, ever think you should have become a Lawyer ? I would love to read a post you have made about anything medical JPINFV but I can't find ONE ?" http://www.emtcity.com/index.php/topic/19949-how-bleeding-causes-rigidity/page__p__257302__fromsearch__1#entry257302 http://www.emtcity.com/index.php/topic/19960-is-this-a-hippa-law-violation/page__st__10 http://www.emtcity.com/index.php/topic/19634-cardiac-arrest-save-caught-on-video/page__p__254210__fromsearch__1#entry254210 Of course I could start posting links from other forums since I'm more active elsewhere now or go further back in time. Too bad you couldn't go back and volunteer to be a subject for them then.

Deuteronomy: 12:2-3 " 'You must completely destroy all the places where the nations you dispossess have served their gods, on high mountains, on hills, under any spreading tree; you must tear down their altars, smash their sacred stones, burn their sacred poles, hack to bits the statues of their gods and obliterate their name from that place." Hmm, most people now a days don't agree with religious wars. Pity, I guess Americans are bad Christians. Deuteronomy: 13:7-11 "'If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries secretly to seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God who brought you out of Egypt, from the place of slave-labour." So, if a family member follows a different religion and tries to convert me, I must stone them to death? How peaceful. After all, isn't it only that "backwards" Islam religion that calls for stoning? Don't get me started quoting the entire kosher food requirements that Deuteronomy demands. Which, again, I guess makes America and most Christians... well... bad Christians. Want to quote Deuteronomy like this? Cool, but you have to own it, all of it, not just the parts that are beneficial. Snipers and actual combat versus what could easily have been a snatch and grab are two different things. Why didn't we just immediately execute German and Japanese leaders again? Also, congrats on picking a non-option. I guess Jews who died fighting the Final Solution aren't victims? If you want to go that route, I'd just pick that we'd know Hitler as a mediocre landscape artist and Bin Laden the middle manager of the Saudi Binladin Group. Those, however, are not viable alternatives than having to deal with Hitler the mass murderer or Osama the terrorist. There's a difference between pacifism and realizing that there's a difference between a snatch and grab operation that could have, in fact probably would have, resulted in Osama's death, and sending a hit squad in with no intention of capture. One is revenge, the other is actual justice. Revenge should never be an option for a civilized nation. Justice, however, should always be an option. After all, if we want revenge, why not just drop a nuclear bomb? Oh, if you want to sling shit like that, I can play to. You can stop by putting down Call of Duty and joining everyone else at the adult table.

You can say the same about the Japanese and German leadership circa WW2, but we didn't summary execute them (considering there are reports that this was purely a "kill" mission). Personally, if I had to choose between being a victim of Bin Laden or Unit 731, I'd pick Bin Laden every time.

Well, who's a member of the militia then? From the United States Code (USC), -http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html Additionally, at least in terms of ownership for protection, please see District of Columbia vs Heller (federal land) and McDonald vs Chicago (incorporated the second amendment against the states). As such, the right to bear arms is an individual right based on SCOTUS case law. Regardless, even if it was tied to the militia, any male between 17 and 45 is, by law, a member of the militia.

Too bad that, except for the fact that he fought in the USMC during WW2 and is buried in Arlington, that letter is almost completely a work of fiction. http://www.snopes.com/military/celebrities/leemarvin.asp

So, apparently, did the person who covered privacy laws at my school at the beginning of this school year, as well as, apparently, the Center for Medicare/Medicade Services.

Provided the police department isn't engaged in electronic billing, then they do not fall under HIPAA regulations. Now, depending on how they came to know that Mr. Smith has AIDS, it could fall under state privacy laws, but those aren't HIPAA regulations. Similarly, it's unprofessional and possibly against department policy, but that is irrelevant when discussing the legality of an action.

Did you read your own link? "Who is Covered by the Privacy Rule The Privacy Rule, as well as all the Administrative Simplification rules, apply to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and to any health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with transactions for which the Secretary of HHS has adopted standards under HIPAA (the “covered entities”). For help in determining whether you are covered, use CMS's decision tool."

Yep... irritation and inflammation. A rigid abdomen is caused by either of those and can be found in conditions other than a bleed. Massive amounts of fluid (e.g. ascities) would be more like a really filled up water balloon where you can induce a fluid wave over the abdomen.

Could and should he have done more? Probably. Should he have felt guilt? Definitely not. I'm willing to bet that when it happened his brain switched off and the last thing he was able to do was think logically and make decisions on the fly about it. She would have equal chance or more at staying alive though. After all, what if the police walked up during the crime? I doubt that they would have just sat around waiting anymore than the slightest opening for a clear shot. To say that it's better to do nothing while waiting for the police during an active crime would be the same as saying that the police shouldn't be called at all until the crime is complete. After all, if he is that dangerous, he isn't going to just submit to the police when they arrive. As I mentioned earlier, do not take this as a slam against the husband. Being present when a crime is initiated and coming in half way through are two different situations and the person coming in half way through should have a clearer head on their shoulders. If the police's job is not to protect us or they are unable to do so, then we should be able to take proactive steps, including the ability to carry weapons (including, but not limited to things like pepper spray, bludgeons, and yes, fire arms). After all, the criminals don't care about what the law says they can or can't carry, and even the nicest areas suffer major crimes from time to time. Preparedness is about what might happen, not what is expected to happen. I have health and auto insurance, yet I don't expect to be in a car accident or sick anytime soon. If I could legally conceal carry, I would not because I feel that there is an active threat against me, but because I can be a victim of a major crime, regardless of where I am. Which is my point. Standing tall and acting not like a victim waiting for an attack isn't going to save someone from bad timing or random acts. If I came across someone being raped or assaulted, I'm not sure if I could just stand back waiting for the police to arrive after calling 911. Going back and rereading what was written, I did misread that, and I'm sorry about that. I don't think Seattle vs Canada matters as the issues about criminals not caring about what the law says and the police's inability to actively protect citizens is the same regardless of the side of the border.

How much risk and liability are you assuming by having a loose and loaded fire arm laying around? The vast majority of my patients have not changed consciousness over the duration of the call. Not everyone taking a ride in the ambulance have been in a car wreck or at any sort of risk for becoming combative or losing consciousness. How quickly, to whom, and where should they, if they are legally carrying, surrender their fire arm? How long are you willing to wait on scene for PD to treat and/or transport if the patient is disarmed regardless of the complaint or their status? What sort of liability is there to refuse care to someone who is exercising a legal right? Similarly, why would someone who carries surrender to anyone besides family, trusted friends, or police? Last time I checked, my first concern was for my safety, followed by my partner's safety, followed by bystander safety, followed by the patient's safety. The question is, now, is the man with the gun a danger to my safety or not. I reject the notion outright that a man with a gun is, by default, a threat immediately necessitating evacuation (otherwise every time the police show up evacuation would be needed). What are you going to do if you discover a firearm during a physical exam? Drop everything and run? How does that not compromise patient care? Have you thought that, just maybe, the demeanor of the patient would play a role in determining legal/illegal status of a conscious adult? If police are not on scene, what are you planning on doing during the minutes it takes for the police to respond?

What if someone else in the family was carrying? What if a by-passer was carrying and could have stopped it? Did she carry her head high before hand? If she did (and I hope she did then and hope she does now), it didn't do her a lick of good deterring the attack. Also, apparently the police did a real good job of protecting her, correct? Also, such a lick of good that entire "shared values" glib did in keeping her safe.

I think that comparing handling a fire arm with a restricted medical practice is comparing apples to oranges. If we want to go the job description route, I've helped push a few cars out of the road while on duty and not on a car. I guess I shouldn't have since clearing road ways aren't in my job description or scope of practice. I guess I should have left that to the police or tow truck companies. Clearing roads of simple broken down cars has about as much to do with a restricted medical practice as clearing a fire arm. Additionally, I agree that EMS providers who are not familiar with fire arms should not be handling them. However not everyone is not familiar with fire arms. I agree that leaving in place is the best option for a person who is legally carrying a fire arm. How many EMTs are going to let anyone, legally carrying or not, keep control of their weapon? I suspect very few will do so. Additionally, if the patient is altered or unconscious, then they aren't in control of their weapon, thus the situation is such where no one is in control of the weapon if left in place. I find a situation where no one is in control of a loaded (and it's loaded until cleared by default) to be much more dangerous that having a person with a CCW retaining control of their weapon. As far as the fire arm being used in a crime, if the patient is legally carrying, then my first assumption is not going to be that the fire arm was used in a crime any more than I'm going to assume that a insulin dependent diabetic with an injection kit is actually some sort of drug dealer because the patient has syringes and needles with them. If the patient is not legally carrying, then my first concern is separating them from their fire arm or my partner and I from the criminal (not necessarily in that order). At that point, my concern for my safety over rules any concern over chain of custody. To clarify that last point, I do not consider someone who is legally carrying a fire arm to be a threat to my life. Hence the lack of a need to separate myself from a patient, or the patient's fire arm from the patient of an alert and oriented patient who has a valid CCW.

...but bad things happen to people who don't carry a gun too. If the wrong person gets a hold of a gun, that just means that the innocent victim should have fired sooner. If you (generic "you") have a problem with shooting bad guys, then don't carry for the reason PCP elaborated on. If you carry a weapon, you have to be prepared to take a life. As far as someone else getting shot, I'm perfectly happy with bad guys being shot after attacking, or making a move towards, a victim. In fact, if someone is shot robbing a house, the criminal's estate should have to pay for the clean up. Quick question PCP, what are you going to do between being attacked and the police arriving?

Err, which pistols in standard civilian use require a special piece of equipment to clear? I can one up that. Half past midnight, walking to my car in the parking structure after studying late at school and walked up on a guy who had broken into my car 3 minutes earlier and was still sitting in my front seat. Thankfully, it was my car and not the female student who had parked one floor above me (the only car above mine too). If I stood even a small chance of getting both a CCW permit and permission to carry on campus, I would in a heart beat. As the cliche goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Additionally, there is ample case law stating that the police are not responsible to protect you. That means the only person who is responsible for protecting you is you, yourself, and, I personally, would rather be an armed survivor than an unarmed victim. I would. I honestly don't think that it would be too hard for someone familiar with fire arms to clear one in a safe manner. Keep the finger off the trigger, be careful if you're manipulating the hammer (e.g. on my Father's .22 revolver, it has to be half cocked to rotate the cylinder), and never point it at anything you aren't willing to destroy, and you should be fine. Personally, I'd be more concerned with a fire arm of unknown status laying around someplace than trying to unload it myself.

Welcome back to the city! Thanks for all of the awesome discussions in the past, and yet to come.