Shooting at Psychiatric Clinic

After the client shot the dr dead, of course. I'm sure that would have improved the situation for all involved.

Yes, that we know for a fact, too.

if one finds oneself overcome with nostalgia for the original Hippocratic oath

Click to expand...

I was very slightly disappointed we didn't have to take the original oath at graduation, the one where you swear by Apollo and Heal-All.

Celia Cyanide said:

Yeah, who knows? Maybe if the doctor hadn't had a gun, the police, who are trained to deal with a situation like this, could have dealt with it?

Click to expand...

So, even though the shooter shot the doctor in the head, we can't assume that the shooter would have at the very least killed the doctor as well even if you then assume that the shooter would just sit down and wait for the cops to arrive? So would not two dead be worse than one dead?

Celia Cyanide said:

Yes, that we know for a fact, too.

Click to expand...

We don't "know" for a fact what the shooter would have done had he not been shot, but it appears that he was planning on killing at least two people. Now, we don't know for sure, but since he was carrying dozens of extra rounds, (loose rounds for a revolver according to some reports) I think it's safe to assume one of two possibilities: 1. He wanted to make sure that the doctor and case worker stayed good and dead; or 2. He may have decided that since he had come this far, might as well go out in a blaze of glory.

Who's to say which one is correct.

Emilander said:

So, even though the shooter shot the doctor in the head, we can't assume that the shooter would have at the very least killed the doctor as well even if you then assume that the shooter would just sit down and wait for the cops to arrive?

Click to expand...

No, I would not assume that. I don't assume that the only way to stop a person with a gun is to shoot them.

Celia Cyanide said:

No, I would not assume that. I don't assume that the only way to stop a person with a gun is to shoot them.

Click to expand...

My point is, since the doctor was also shot, that had the doctor been unarmed, it's safe to presume that the shooter would have at the very least attempted to kill the doctor. It's also safe to presume that the shooter would have succeeded since all three people were alone in an office. Since it's safe at presume that the doctor would have been killed had he been unarmed, it's okay to say it could have been worse if the doctor hadn't been armed as most people would consider two people being murdered worse than one person being murdered.

TerzaRima said:

I was very slightly disappointed we didn't have to take the original oath at graduation, the one where you swear by Apollo and Heal-All.

Click to expand...

I wanted to have a stethescope ceremony instead of a white coat ceremony. Celebrate taking up the tools, not the power symbols.

Celia Cyanide said:

If you work in a place that does not allow its employees to carry a gun at work, then you give up the right to carry a gun while you are at work. It doesn't really matter if you're a doctor or a janitor.

Click to expand...

I agree with your statement, but still I follow the philosophy of "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

So what's the solution? Metal detectors and X-ray scanners at the entrances to hospitals, like you have at courthouses?

There have been a few patients I've dealt with who made me wish we had a metal detector/scanner at the door. But that would be insulting and Press Ganey would be vexed, I imagine. *eyeroll*

GailD said:

So what's the solution? Metal detectors and X-ray scanners at the entrances to hospitals, like you have at courthouses?

Click to expand...

A couple of armed security guards?

Ambrosia said:

I think a stun gun may have been more effective, however, since the psychiatrist emptied his gun on Plotts and still didn't kill him. Could have been the injury the dr was suffering from after being shot by Plotts, though, that affected his aim.

Click to expand...

Missed this earlier, but I really want to comment on it.

I suspect any department in the US that issues any kind of stun gun includes as part of the policy that IF they allow the use of a stun gun in what would otherwise be a lethal force situation - and most don't - the stun gun is never to be used in a lethal force situation without lethal force backup. That is, if a cop thinks he can take an armed person with a TASER, he has to have another officer on the scene with a firearm out and aimed at the suspect. But most US departments don't allow TASERs to be used in place of lethal force. It's just to dangerous to get in TASER or stun gun range to someone with a weapon. TASERs need to be within 15 or so feet of the target to be accurate.

Stun guns don't work on every person either. Lots of people can just pull the probes out and walk away.

And yeah, when someone is shooting at you, there's a HUGE adrenaline dump, and the first thing you lose is fine motor control (followed quickly by a narrowing of the field of vision and hearing as well). There's all sorts of research on this.

And it's not unusual for a shooting victim in a fight to take multiple hits without going down. They may not know they've been hit, and the hits may not be in a critical location, like the torso. Peripheral hits like the arms and legs aren't typically going to bring down someone who's amped up on drugs or adrenaline. The pain and blood loss just aren't going to be bad enough to stop them. Someone who's not expecting to be shot is going to suffer the "OH MY GOD! I'VE BEEN SHOT!" reaction, and their body will respond to the trauma accordingly. But someone who's in a fight may not even realize they've been hit, and so won't deal with the physical trauma until the fight winds down a bit.

Bob, I didn't know that about stun gun usage being backed up with a person holding a gun at the ready. It makes sense, given what you have said. Thank you for the information.

Happy to help. If you look at Youtube videos of TASER usage, it's typically against an unarmed person.

If you want some really eye-opening stuff, search "Tueller drill" or "Tueller 21-foot-rule" or even look for an old video called "Edged Weapons."

cmhbob said:

It's just to dangerous to get in TASER or stun gun range to someone with a weapon. TASERs need to be within 15 or so feet of the target to be accurate.

Stun guns don't work on every person either. Lots of people can just pull the probes out and walk away.

Click to expand...

In addition to that, Tasers can cause muscle contractions. You don't want that in a guy who has his finger on the trigger of a firearm.

The problem is there will generally be more patients or patient rooms than security guards. Unless there's an armed dude in every room, there's a good chance a shooter will at the very least have an excellent opportunity to wound a person or two in their room before getting stopped.

I realize the rarity of these kinds of events, but hell. It seems to me if you're going to demand your employees be unarmed, you'd make a damn honest effort to ensure NO ONE else but authorized personnel have a gun either.