How will DUI affect my chances of becoming a paramedic (CA)

[defib_wizard]

"you can breathe"? "good" "your hired"

:shock: :shock:

HA! I like it thats better than- Help wanted: If you've got a pulse and a patch, you've got a position .

[firedoc5]

I'm getting in on this late. I might have missed it in some of the lengthy posts, but I would just say to talk with whatever agency you are trying to get on to see what their stand is on it and to see if some are willing to work around it. It was a mistake, hopefully one you won't make again. That's including any time that you were driving DUI but didn't get caught.

On an application don't lie about it. Include it when asked. They look into your driving record no matter how you respond to it. When you're honest about it, it could be a snag. But if you lie about it then you have zero chance of getting in.

[Just Plain Ruff]

Actually 6echo, read your 2nd post on the subject. You said "why not serial killers and rapists" aren't those your words there?

Ruffems ... Awwww so I made a little boo-boo. Hey, it's not like I was driving drunk or something dumb like that

Thanks for pointing that out.

Now you are just being silly or just plain acting stupid.

you are the one who opened the can of worms by saying you never said something which you did(and were called on the carpet on). I'd suggest maybe growing up and acting serious every now and then.

For someone who claims in their profile they are 98 years old I'd have expected some more maturity out of ya.

[Eydawn]

Just to clarify who said what from page one of the thread with time-stamps...

It would behoove everyone to re-examine what they've posted before they insist they didn't say something or did say something....

6echo25 said:

I generally choose not to post in here so your cute little comment about 'status posts' really doesn't matter at all. Hey if we're letting in drunk drivers, why not serial killers and rapists? Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:51 pm

So Ruffems responded:

Your argument about serial killers and rapists is flimsy at best. Try to make a better argument next time. Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:42 pm

And then 6Echo25 later said:

mshow00 ... At what point did I say rapist/murderer? Pay attention for crying out loud lol. There's no ignorance involved except on your part. YOU hire the guy with previous convictions for who knows what and YOU deal with the consequences when something goes wrong. YOU let that guy work on YOUR mother and drive around in YOUR neighborhood with YOUR children playing nearby. Tell me you'd be 150% comfortable with that hmm? Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:58 pm

Everyone pay attention. Let's get back to the actual question here, about hiring criteria and DUI convictions. I think 6Echo25's position and modus operandi is sufficiently clear that further pursuing it will only lead to thread constipation and lockdown...

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[6Echo25]

Now you are just being silly or just plain acting stupid.

you are the one who opened the can of worms by saying you never said something which you did(and were called on the carpet on). I'd suggest maybe growing up and acting serious every now and then.

So I see the topic of this discussion has now turned into you putting me on a carpet, and getting snitty at me because I made a mistake on words? Ease up a little Ruff; don't get all upset because you don't like the way I admit to my error. I would suggest a vacation, and maybe some Ativan.

The SERIOUSNESS of the topic of this whole discussion is enormous. People who drink and drive sometimes kill, I have seen this first hand and perhaps you have too. They have no place in emergency or protective services.

[Eydawn]

I believe the issue at hand is the vehemence with which you approach the situation and seem to indicate that anyone who takes into consideration extenuating circumstances surrounding DUI convictions is morally inferior to yourself, or doing society a grave disservice if only they would think about it.

The problem is, your position seems to display more of a knee jerk reaction than thought, and your subsequent responses have done little to aid your position as an important position for debate. I gave you some validity in previous posts, but you failed to acknowledge and expand on that.

It would seem to many of us, who post frequently, that you don't desire a dialogue at all, but rather to cling to your opinion and refuse to refute points that countermand your position. If there were more meat to your posts, and less over-exaggerated statements with no reasoning to help illustrate where you're coming from, you'd be getting a much more conciliatory response, brusqueness aside.

And yes, posts mean something here. You display your character, your depth of thought, and your communication ability through your posts. Lurking is fine, but it benefits only you and deprives the entire community of useful, instructional dialogue. The inflated posters get no respect. The individuals truly participating, whose post count reflects actual participation, are afforded respect because they have in a way, earned it by contributing to the discussion.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[Just Plain Ruff]

We know your position. It's not my position.

But when you say you didn't say something and then you are proven wrong and then you get snitty and insulting about getting called on that error you have to expect the response you did.

I truly understand your position, I'm just one who doesn't hold your position. I think that we need to give people who have learned their lessons a little bit more credit than you want to give them.

You don't have to defend your position to me, you really don't, I respect your opinion yet I do not agree with it.

I'd like for you to afford me the same respect to my opinion which you have repeatedly not done. We all have our own opinions and we are all entitled to those opinions. Some of us have strong reactions to certain things and others have strong reactions to the same thing but in a different way.

No need to get your panties in a wad, I also never said I wanted the person to work for me or work with me but I did not have the luxury of making any hiring decisions except when at one company.

Besides, it's not really our place to say who can work where when the insurance conpanies are really the ones who say that the person (with the dui history) is insurable or not. If they are not insurable then too bad so sad, no job.

But if they are insurable then I say give em a chance if there are certain criteria met.

Let's stop slinging insults at each other from here on out and leave it at that. Can you do that? I certainly can.

[VentMedic]

All personal opinions aside, it will still depend on what the State of California has to say about the issue especially with the new rules that are being pushed forth. After determining that, if the OP still has a year, 2, 3, 4 or 5 to go before California considers the length of time lapsed after conviction acceptable, he will then have to find a school that may or may not accept him before that time. Many employers will go by the state's acceptance of the conviction as a guide to hiring. Other character factors will also need to be considered. Some employers may have gotten burned by hiring someone with a previous conviction and will not be as accepting for insurance and/or liability concerns. Others may be forgiving for a 2nd chance.

So, the OP must find out from the State what the acceptable time post conviction is to even be able to start an EMT class.

Everybody's opinion and every State will be different. In California, every county is different but that is now changing a little. At this time one misdemeanor DUI conviction will not prevent him from becoming an EMT provided the time post conviction is acceptable by the state of California. He should be prepared for more scrutiny about his character traits overall.

Right now the responsibility rests on the OP and not the opinions of an anonymous forum.

[6Echo25]

We know your position. It's not my position.

But when you say you didn't say something and then you are proven wrong and then you get snitty and insulting about getting called on that error you have to expect the response you did.

No need to get your panties in a wad

Let's stop slinging insults at each other from here on out and leave it at that. Can you do that? I certainly can.

Then why did you get YOUR panties in a wad and tell me I was acting stupid, when in fact if that's the level I was on, you're obviously one of the same?

There was a discussion going on about a very sensitive and serious topic. You turned it into nitpicking about "he said she said".

One thing I didn't make clear before is that I do in fact respect the opinions of others, I just don't feel I need to state that at every turn. Don't make assumptions that you know what I think.

Now we can get along

[Just Plain Ruff]

I am interested in pursuing certification as an EMT-Basic, with the goal of becoming a paramedic. Before I commit myself, however, I'd like to know how a past DUI conviction will affect my progress down the road. Will I be utterly wasting my time? I was convicted of a non-accident DUI in August of 2004, here in California. I promptly completed all of my court-mandated sentencing (fees and DUI education classes) and am presently in full compliance with a valid driver's license.

I appreciate any input! Thanks very much.

ONe thing in an anonymous forum is no body does much follow up.

WE have given advice, good or bad is yet to be seen, but...... the original poster has not been back to inform any of us what he has found out for himself. A thoughtful post yes indeed yet, no response from the OP often means that such a thoughtful post only served to get into chat but that doesn't seem the case here as there is a single post from the OP.

So I ask the OP, what have you found out. What many of us here have said all along that this will depend on your direct jurisdiction and not ours. It is dependent upon the OP finding out this information. No matter what we tell him on this forum, the OP needs to find out for him/her self.