Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt_wulfeck | Hacker News Reader

> "ma'am you're just being detained right now until we can get this all sorted out."

Apparently owning a gun and letting the police know of that fact is enough to get you killed. Good luck sorting things out.

View on HN

Not making any judgments or assumptions about what happened in this case, but there are better and worse ways of informing a police officer that you're carrying.

To start, not all states obligate concealed carry permit holders to inform police that they are carrying. However, if you're pulled over, and you do want to inform the officer, keep your hands on the wheel and calmly tell the officer that you have a permit to carry concealed. Tell them that you are currently doing so -- again, without having moved your hands. Ask them how they would like you to proceed.

You will probably be asked where the firearm is located. They might ask you to step out of the car so they can temporarily relieve you of your weapon. They might just say something like "don't reach for yours, and I won't reach for mine." Bottom line: let the officer guide you, and keep your movements slow and deliberate.

DON'T say the words "gun" or "weapon" or anything like that. Those are keywords that can trigger an instinctive reaction in the officer, and they might not be able to hear anything else you say thanks to a rush of adrenaline.

Interestingly, Minnesota is not a state where CCW holders are obligated to disclose their permit or weapon to peace officers.

"You will probably be asked where the firearm is located."

Based on recent events, I'd venture to guess that this is true if you're white. If you're not, they may just start shooting.

The officer didn't even try to help the man as he was bleeding all over the car and clearly unconscious.

It's just unconscionable that a trained safety officer would allow someone to bleed like that, and even worse that the officer pulled the trigger.

Not surprised a bit. Then they handcuffed her as well.

That is not just "got confused by adrenaline" at that point. It is a very deliberate tactic police use (I already mentioned below, but in case it gets pushed down I'll mention again) -- The police have to act like they just caught the most vile gang bangers who are wanted for some despicable crime, almost got killed by them, and only due to "rigorous" training and quick judgment by officer so-and-so the day was saved. Starting to help him means, he is not as dangerous maybe, so it looks like murder now. Not arresting her means, the situation wasn't really that dangerous and it looks even more like murder. And besides, if she is arrested, her testimony is now the testimony of an "accomplice" or a suspect -- clearly cannot be trusted.

The officer isn't an EMT and if he was really shot 4 times in the abdomen then nothing the officer has would stop the bleeding. Not only that but if the guy really did react in a threatening manner the officer is providing cover to make sure the gun doesn't come back out.

I'm not advocating one side or the other on this, just letting you know how the protocols work.

I think you've made this post in multiple places but it's not applicable in this situation - see a reported image of police officers performing chest compressions on Mr. Castile in the article below [1].

More broadly, EMTs are not the only individuals capable of providing support after a shooting. Indeed, some state governments (e.g., VT and MN) have a statutory "duty to rescue" those exposed to grave physical harm for all individuals.

One would hope that police officers would be the most likely to do this, especially after a grievous injury - even if the wounds proved not to be survivable, this is hard to assess from feet away, with a gun drawn.

As an aside to counter a point you make elsewhere, there are multiple other police on the scene in the video, though it's not clear at what point they arrive.

1. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shot-dead-minn-...

EDIT:

For posterity's sake, here's a press-release description of medical training that many Minneapolis/St. Paul are police officers receive:

https://hcmcnews.org/2013/01/09/hcmc-network-feature-real-li...

My main point is that any officer would not likely provide that treatment without backup after a shooting like this.

Also officers are not usually covered under the good samaritan laws, so their actions can lead to lawsuits if they cause more damage and don't have training. So a lot of times they do just wait for the EMTs.

> The officer isn't an EMT and if he was really shot 4 times in the abdomen then nothing the officer has would stop the bleeding.

Hmm, not sure I agree with "he isn't helping just because he forgot or never learned first aid stuff".

For example, there is footage out there of cops shooting their own, and here is what "trying to help even though not an EMT" might look like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5SWkEAX64U

I never said he forgot. Only that he is not a trained EMT with access to a trauma kit that would stop 4 GSWs. From the video he is also alone and has to secure the scene until backup arrives.

Even if he had a kit in his car, he can't risk getting it with a gun still in the car. From his perspective he felt threatened enough to shoot and the gun is still with the victim(s) which could be turned against him.

The video you provided was different because they immediately realized that the undercover officer was not a threat, and had multiple people on scene as well to start helping.

I made a response to a similar comment in another location (see ref 1).

I only want to respond to the following claims:

> he is not a trained EMT with access to a trauma kit that would stop 4 GSWs [gunshot wound, clarification added]

There are other cases where Minnesota police officers are documented to have responded to gunshot wounds (ref. 2) Indeed, certain MN police departments provide additional training, beyond basic first aid, for trauma situations - see the edit to ref. 1.

Further, you're implying that highly-specialized training ('EMT'), specific medical supplies ('trauma kit'), and injury severity ('4 GSWs') are important in considering rendering aid. My contention would be that, those factors absent, having a gun drawn and yelling at a victim are not appropriate responses to an event of this type.

> he is also alone and has to secure the scene until backup arrives

Backup is clearly present by the time the video is rolling and multiple officers appear on the video when Mr. Castile's girlfriend is removed from the car.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12047969

[2] http://www.startribune.com/documents-detail-accidental-eden-...

> Only that he is not a trained EMT with access to a trauma kit that would stop 4 GSWs. From the video he is also alone and has to secure the scene until backup arrives.

I was trying to say even if he had a kit and was moonlighting as a rescue squad volunteer, nothing in his behavior indicated he was attempted to help.

The video I linked was an example of how "attempted to help" might look like, and there is difference there it seems.

Can see the other points of wanting to secure the scene or saying he was threated, but don't see the point at all of "well not an EMT, so that's why looked indifferent to the a person's suffering and death. If only he had a kit with him, he would have knelt down and attempted to stop the bleeding, but didn't so kept pointing the gun at him and watched him die..."

Kit or no kit, they still don't administer aid alone while there is still a potential threat. Getting that guy out of the car requires holstering your weapon and going in the car when you still might not know where the weapon is.

Safer for the officer to wait for backup. That was my point.

LEt's not play doctor after death. He shot 4 times someone who revealed he was open carrying, and had his daughter in the car.

Then he didn't provide basic assistance to someone shot even though he his trained for it.

How do you know he is trained for administering GSW treatment? We don't know the full story here and I was just trying to point out why the protocol is basically to secure the scene and wait for backup when you're alone.

I am only adding these posts for posterity's sake - in MN, there is an obligation to aid individuals who have been harmed and MN officers are trained to do this. Indeed, reports exist of MN officers responding to gun shot wounds (GSWs).

See my earlier posts:

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12047969

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12048024

And again I will suggest that and officer will not do that alone, before backup arrives after a shooting like this. I saw somewhere else that once backup arrived they started CPR which would be in line with what I am trying to point out.

I'd like to share that regardless of the officer's training for medical situations, they didn't get help in time. They just let him die.

What I don't understand is why any EMTs weren't called right then.. they might have been able to save his life if they hadn't waited so long (he died later in the hospital)

They probably were. Whenever the officer would radio "shots fired" the dispatcher would automatically start an ambulance. Just depends on how long it takes them to get there.

> in the abdomen

I think the shots were in the man's arm. I could be mistaken.

I just hand over my ccp along with my other documents and keep my hands visible. I let the cop decide where to go from there. Florida here ...

Terrorists have guns, cops have guns, joe and Mary have guns. Go figure.

Deaths from gun suicides > deaths from cops killing civilians > terrorists killing civilians.

Yes the problem is definitely mexicans crossing the border and Muslims in the country /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com