First responder is a generic term which includes police, Fire, EMS and many other categories of persons. Department of Homeland Security includes those immediately responsible for preservation of life and property. There is no requirement to be on scene.
I work in a 911 center. Our staff are considered first responders. But so are reporting parties who carry out actions to preserve life and/or property. So even the 911 caller who acts to move parties to an MVA to the side of the road are first responders.
In the context of a mass shooting, a civilian acting to confront the gunman would be considered a first responder.
Certified first responder is a more specific term referring to a more limited group of people, again including police, Fire, and EMS personnel but still supplemented by those who have some particular training and certification in handling emergencies which threaten life and/or property. This may include passersby in addition to response agencies dispatched to the scene by a 911 or similar center.
I totally agree, but in some locals, PD, FD, or EMS will carry their gear with them so that they can go directly to the scene & not need to waste time going to the station first. As long as one person brings the vehicle, be it the SWAT truck, fire engine, or ambulance, the driver doesn’t need to wait for a bunch of guys to respond right past the scene to go to the station only to come right back. This is especially true of volunteer Fire & EMS & PD where they are full-time patrol officers but only SWAT officers as necessary for training or callouts.
The point being that just because you see a guy in fatigues & body armor with a gun doesn’t necessarily mean that that person is the killer. I haven’t seen anything about how our vigilante determined the guy with the gun should be shot other than he was a guy with a gun. IOW, how did our ‘first responder’ know he was the first first responder on scene & that he wasn’t really targeting a LEO? If a police car pulled up at that point & saw him with his gun, do you think they would have drawn on him, at least ordered him to the ground & even possibly shot him?
The dude’s a hero, and he’s far more likely to get a parade than criminal charges.
ETA:
I don’t know which state you live in, but even in the leftiest-left-most-lefty state in the country, I have a hard time imagining someone getting criminally charged under these circumstances.
Wiki says the shooter was wearing a face mask with a white skull, which is also not typical of SWAT personnel.
It also says
(cite) which again is not how I would expect a SWAT officer to behave.
The standard, I believe, is what a reasonable person would think under the circumstances. I think a reasonable person could reasonably conclude that a guy wearing a skull mask who has just finished shooting 26 defenseless people is a threat, not a case of mistaken identity. YMMV.
There was an interview where he described the arrival of the police at the end of the car chase. He seemed keenly aware of this possibility and acted as best he could to minimize the risk.
I would tend to agree with this. At most, unless for instance it were that the person was himself *illegally *armed (e.g. he himself has a felony record), then *that * may be made an issue. But the law does provide for exigent circumstances.
Now, sure, if I ran into some agitated barefoot dude with a rifle who tells me “follow that truck!” I’d be predisposed to put distance between me and *both *parties, but that’s a different story.
Yes, or more. We can’t know what would have happened if he had not intervened. And you’re certainly free to disagree with Sheriff Tackitt’s assessment.
THere’s no state that I know of that doesn’t allow one to act in self defense; what this vigilante did was not a defensive act but an offensive pair of acts, 1) engaging him in gunfire & 2) pursuing him after he had left the scene. A LEO would not only be allowed to do this but expected to do this but from what I’ve heard, our vigilante isn’t a LEO. Do you have a cite that states a private citizen can form their own posse to chase a bad guy?
AIUI, these guys pursued him, at speeds up to 95mph, they didn’t shoot at his moving vehicle. When he crashed, they pulled up & the ‘good guy gunman’ got out with his gun & ordered the ‘bad guy gunman’ out at gunpoint. BGG didn’t comply but not sure when the fatal, self-inflicted bullet to the head occurred, before or after they pulled up.
To all who reported this thread regarding it turning into yet another gun control debate: It happens…and IMO, it’s one of those things that is inevitable whenever there is a mass shooting thread. As a mod, I (and I’m speaking only for myself here) will usually mod any political pot shots and gun control debates for the first day or three after the tragedy happens,…but trying to keep the discussion totally free and clear of guns and gun control is pretty much an impossibility. It’s just going to happen eventually. Cutting off discussion, early on, while it’s still fresh, is good…but after a few days and–especially when mods aren’t on for awhile and the conversation/discussion gets hijacked into gun control talk and the next time any mod is on, it’s already got at least 50 new replies dedicated to that topic–it really becomes like trying to stop a speeding freight train with a thin piece of string put across the tracks. And who is to say what is good and what isn’t? In a thread about a mass death by someone firing a gun, gun talk is going to come up, there is no way to stop it, there is no way around it. Shutting down clear “There should be strict gun control laws” type of discussion is fine/easy…okay, but then what about those talking about what kind of gun it was? Or questions about the legality of owning a weapon? Or how easy it would be to get one? There’s not really anything wrong with asking those types of questions, but they usually lead to talk of gun talk…which leads to debate. To bar one would have to be to bar talk of all guns, period…and in doing that, there would probably be a whole lot more posters upset at that kind of restriction. The object (again, speaking only for myself) of modding is to make the most amount of people happy…and IMO, that means as little censoring of discussion as possible.
And so, while at first I was fine giving notes to cut out debate and to take it out of the thread, to do so now would be to erase about 90 percent of the thread and delete and/or move so many posts that only eight or nine remain and most of them wouldn’t make much sense anyway, anymore.
At this point, it’s best to move this to Great Debates now, as it’s fully evolved into a gun control debate.
If anyone is upset or bothered or annoyed by this, feel free to make a thread about it in ATMB and maybe myself, other mods, and other posters, as a whole, can try to find a solution or to further talk about what could be done regarding it, because trust me, IMO, avoiding gun talk and eventual debates in these kind of threads is nothing short of an outright impossibility.
If that happened, how would you know there’s less of it? (Being facetious, because we all know that’s not going to happen.)
Reminds of when the Vikings would always sack churches. The locals pointed to that as proof positive the Vikings were Satan’s spawn, but to the Vikings, who were not Christians, it was just the place where towns stored their wealth back in the day.
Had the gun control crowd had their way, the bad guy WOULD have had a gun or used some other method of murder and there would be no good guy to prevent further dead.
I apologize for my part in the derailment. I thought about not chiming in, but then went and did it anyway. mea culpa
Since it is now a GD. . .
Let me make it clear, I am not advocating for gun control. I am advocating for an attitude change. I think we Americans are far too enamored of our cowboy heritage, and that many of us see the gun as a way to solve all our problems. I have no problem with defending yourself and others from clear and present danger, and in this specific case an argument can be made that the second gunman may have prevented further carnage, but he did it by putting himself and others (including the first gunman) in grave danger.
And it’s really the attitude of some of the posters in this thread (and country) that set me off; cheering the “good guy with a gun” Even if you consider the second gunman a hero, there is nothing here to cheer about.