Recently, two of my written pieces (articles I guess some may call them), were posted with my permission onto some esteemed and reputable sites:
https://sofrep.com/97327/psychology-arming-paramedics-first-responders-protect/
https://loadoutroom.com/thearmsguide/psychology-arming-paramedics-first-responders-protect/
https://loadoutroom.com/thearmsguide/rescue-task-force-nope-train-arm/
From there these articles were posted and shared on Facebook to the tune of thousands of shares, re-shares and posts. There was a tremendous outpouring of accolades and support as well as the dissenters of my position. The conversation is in my opinion healthy, important, productive and most of all necessary.
I include here a conglomeration of responses that I wrote to address some of the mass hysteria surrounding the pieces. It was clear that not all commenting had read the entirety of the articles, nor do they have any experience, training or education on the subject they wished to debate. The typical BookFace mosh pit of comments ensued with below being my replies:
Embedded and armed team medics is the safest way for themselves, the team, other responders as well as the victims to provide care in this environment without question. The RTF idea opens up a lot of room for sacrificing or compromising unnecessarily. Team medics can rapidly provide the proper immediate treatments to prevent the leading causes of death that occur in this environment (extremity hemorrhage, tension pneumos and the airway issues that are rare and only one percent). RTF can come in after the threats are neutralized and the commander or leadership in communication wit the team down range doing work determines it is absolutely safe to do so. If I was on RTF I would do 2 things - ditch the uncomfortable brain bucket and the armor. Heck if it were my choice I wouldn't even where a helmet on callouts ever.
RTF has no need for it. A ballistic helmet will only impede there economy of effort/motion, encumber them, and decrease their efficacy as a provider (ever price helmets out?). If RTF members take fire at any point in history, whoever allowed them to go unarmed into that environment needs to be terminated from their position. That would be gross and wanton negligence on any leaderships head.
I appreciate the passionate discussion by the varied and eclectic group of commentators on the above post. It is good to see such a vigorous and energetic discussion, as well as taking some flak, meaning we must be over a target. I will post here some of the replies that have clarified some points on bookface where the article really went around:
To clear some air, as there were many comments by the multitude of highly experienced internet commentators I will leave some of my replies here in case similar topics arise by those who fail to read and grasp the purpose of the article: Let's address a few concerns here. First, this is not about arming "street medics". This discussion was never about putting GATs on the hips of cot jockies. This is more of a discussion about the role medics should theoretically play in this unconventional environment, and at what time, using what equipment they engage in that role. Some comments relating to, "the shooting is mostly over" or, "bUt tHe bAD gUyS dEaD" are irrelevant and I discount them immediately.
Depending on the situation, all are unique, yes the shooter may be dead and yes it was obviously one shooter or attacker, in that case - if you think its safe, go for it. However many are missing the key point of the ever changing zones of "hot" vs "warm" (God I hate those terms). Your warm zone can turn real hot, real quick. There is no guarantee and the playground rules are not written in stone here. Your warm zone, can be assaulted by whoever, with whatever, at any point in this game. Look at the several major public venue attacks over the last decade globally. Malls, open air venues, it really does not matter, any care providers operating in that arena open themselves up to be confronted with hostile fire and they themselves becoming a victim, further complicating an already overwhelming tactical situation for those responsible at remedying the problem.
Too often we see gung ho Adrenalin junkies who want to collect another pager or velcro patch, volunteering or stepping into a role that may be more complex and multi-faceted than they comprehend. I'm not confused about my role at all actually. This is a good discussion to have and it was the motivation for putting my thoughts and yes opinions into words. The problem with the terms everyone uses like, "cold, warm, hot" as it relates to these "zones" is (not accusing you sir) , some believe there is some invisible, impenetrable barrier that prevents any hostility from coming into their "zone".
You are I am sure aware of the real terms of "care under fire", "tactical field care" and "tactical evacuation/CASEVAC". The warm zone can become hot. The field of play is every changing and dynamic. Every incident will be unique and there is not blanket policy or approach to solving some of them. All we can do is implement the soundest tactics and safest policies to come to our most desired outcome.
This was far less about arming medics for duty, and more about NOT sending unarmed care providers into an environment where being armed may quickly become a necessity for survival. A helmet and vest is not, "comfort" or "peace or mind", they serve a utility and purpose, just as a firearm does.
There is no such thing as a "warm zone". A "warm" zone is a place that's just not "hot" yet. I do not believe in arming all medics, all responders, all firefighters whatsoever my friend, just as I do not support introducing all responders into an environment that may require being armed to safely do ones job. If the individuals are on a "RTF" and wearing armor they need to also be armed. That simple.
For those who seem to fail at grasping the concept I will reiterate it one last time: This was not at all about arming all medics. This was about NOT sending unarmed care givers into the unconventional and violent environment where being armed is a necessity.
I understand my position is unique and foreign to some. In discussing trends, attending training out of state, and reading periodicals I cannot help but sense at times, from some individuals, a feeling that they are uneasy with the arming of those whose job it is to provide care – not harm. The idea of using force in order to provide care is foreign to some.
I attended fire academy in 1999 – receiving WI State Board CertifiedFFI, FFII and EMT-B. I Graduated with honors with a degree as a Paramedic in 2002, and was hired as a professional firefighter paramedic. I have trained exhaustively in many skill sets for 18 years related to a myriad of hazards and emergencies. I qualified for SWAT in 2006, attended multiple TCCC and LETTC courses taught by US Special Forces (PJs, Delta, USAF Trauma Surgeon) as well as attending two other courses related to terrorist bombing incidents. I have been decorated with the police Exceptional Service Medal, and participated in thousands of hours in tactical training, CQB, as well as instructed bleeding control courses and hemostatic agents. I am responsible for a large portion of the agencies in my region learning and adopting tourniquets dating back to 2006 even though it was at the time frowned upon by the dinosaurs of EMS.
