Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 So some are saying that if an EMT or paramedic chooses to work for a private service they are not considered a " Public Servant " when they are on duty and providing care, is that true? I disagree with that for a couple of reasons. First the " Private " service may be the only game in town for a new medic and can be a great way to get experience while waiting to be hired by the municipal service.Some may require at least one year experience before they will hire you. Also many of these municipal employees will moonlight for a private service during their off time, so while they are working municipal they are punlic servants but in their second job they are not? That's not fair! Maybe the private service is in this to make money but many of us got into this because we want to " serve " the public in some way. Heaven knows we are not getting rich at it. Which is why many choose to or may have to take second jobs. How will this law apply to those of us who work for a government contractor providing service on federal property? Do the laws change because we are federal contractors? We still have to abide by the same laws as everyone else and are regulated by the state as well. We have to maintain our certs just like everyone else does. And like Mike said in an earlier post, we all have to take the same DOT mandated training and pass the same types of tests in order to earn the PRIVILEGE to wear the patch we have earned. And we all bleed red so why make a distinction between governmental, municipal services and private services? We are all doing the same job just under different circumstances. Anita NREMTP/LP > > > Mike, > > > > Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone chooses > > to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental > > entity that they really don't deserve to be protected? > > I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly hope > > that I have misunderstood your meaning here. > No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced > punishment range as those working for a government entity, or under > the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not > just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone > engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an enhancement/ > protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be > engaged in? > > We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing > services under the auspices of government are working directly for > the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like > we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers are > present. Private employees, government contract. That same > " enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working on > their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house - at > that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and the > " standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against them. > > In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing service > under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault > against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will > assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're facing > more punishment for doing so). > > Mike > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Mike, I am not sure that there is enough bandwidth out there for me to express just how much I disagree with you one this one. Rather than try and change your mind which seems set, (as is mine) I guess that this is one of those times when we are going to have to disagree but not be disagreeable. Dave Mike wrote: > Mike, > > Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone chooses > to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental > entity that they really don't deserve to be protected? > I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly hope > that I have misunderstood your meaning here. No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced punishment range as those working for a government entity, or under the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an enhancement/ protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be engaged in? We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing services under the auspices of government are working directly for the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers are present. Private employees, government contract. That same " enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working on their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house - at that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and the " standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against them. In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing service under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're facing more punishment for doing so). Mike The comments contained in this correspondence are the sole responsibility of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the thoughts, feelings, or opinions of my employer, or any other group or organization that I may be, am perceived to be, have been or will be involved with in the future. They are my own comments, submitted freely and they are worth exactly what you paid for them. --------------------------------- The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 > Using the same arguments - what about PSOB benefits? Should for profit > security agencies and industrial fire fighters as well as for > profit EMS > agencies be eligible for PSOB? Personally, I think they should not. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Gene, By your interpretation...then....this won't apply to volunteers either? Most of them work for non-profit corporations that contract or " just do it " for governmental agencies....is this not going to apply to them either? Dudley Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no rational reason to mandate enhanced penalties for those who assault private EMS providers, any more than there is a reason to extend such provisions to private plumbers. There is a vast difference between public EMS providers and private ones. Public EMS is not profit driven, although it usually must meet budgetary limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit enterprise, and as such, is a business just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal status. Private EMS providers do not wear the badge of the state. (Well, they may, but their badges are bogus.). Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that plumbers do not. As Mike points out, they can have ambulances that can run with lights and sirens and violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are responsible for their employees, and they can purchase insurance to cover their losses from negligent acts. They can purchase health insurance for their employees. They are a business, and not a governmental entity. So they do not qualify for governmental immunities. I see no reason that any private EMS service not the contracted exclusive provider for a city or county should have any emergency rights whatsoever. Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS services at some time, and now is the best time to do it. When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas County, and 200 in County, things are seriously out of control. I do think that if a private contractor has the exclusive right to provide EMS for a city or county, or both, that there should be some provision to afford that service recognition as a quasi governmental entity, but it should be limited, if the provider is a for profit company. There are many issues involved with private EMS companies, but they ought not to enjoy special status given to governmental entities. Gene G. > > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into this line of PUBLIC > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to whom ever calls, > > where ever it is, and it should make no difference the provider > > they chose to work for. > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS companies exist to make > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist not for the > public good, but to make money for the owners, founders or stockholders. > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best care possible > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to be free from > > potential harm or at least know that if they are violated the > > violator will be punished. > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, just like any other > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it involves serious bodily > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like any other " regular " > person that gets assaulted. > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at limiting protection we > > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys don't differentiate > > between Private or Government employees; we wear the same patch for > > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed red. > > Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking at limiting > protection. People are looking at creating yet another " exception " > where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. Assault is still > assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass this, why not make it > the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He takes tickets from > the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS drivers? They > deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza delivery guys - they > deliver pizza to the public. > > The fact that the public can't distinguish between private and public > EMS providers is indicative of several other problems, the first of > which is that they don't know there's no " requirement " that their > government provide them with service at all, and no idea that private > EMS providers work for for-profit companies who must, as a matter of > finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " vs running on > government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid directly by the > public). It's also indicative of the problem that we allow private > providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is the *only* public > service that does so. There are NO private police and NO private > fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers cannot get the > " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason for that - they're > PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the public to slip into > apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS as a service to > the public, have allowed (and in some places, 'required') private > providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not saying that > private providers don't do a good job filling the gap - just that we > should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the gap, and this law > ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public EMS providers equal, > which they shouldn't be if we really want the public to see EMS as a > public service that *must* be provided rather than a " choice " between > providing and not providing, and allowing profiteers to benefit from > a lack of public understanding and interest. > > > This could be bad for everyone in the industry as a whole.... > Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just doesn't give that > extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant. > > Mike > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 > Mike, > > The DPS arrest title has nothing to do with HB 495. This bill is > intended to AMEND the section of the statutes that may CURRENTLY > generate such a title. However, the bill as filed includes five (5) > classes of personnel for whom the enhancement (to a third degree > felony) applies - only one (1) of these is a " public servant. " > > The inclusion of " emergency services personnel " in the bill is an > addition - it wasn't there before. However, the inclusion of > " security officer " and the others I mentioned before was already in > the statute which is to be amended. That would seem to mean that > " security officers " were already covered by the enhancement, as > were - under certain conditions - persons with a relationship with > the actor as " described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, > Family Code. " They aren't " public servants " either, and never have > been. While I personally disagree with the inclusion of " security officers " in the current law, I can see the rationale, at least in part, for their inclusion. Security officers are licensed/certified by the state to perform duties and actions not available to the public at large and have crafted exceptions in the law for carrying weapons, etc. As such, they are, at least in part, agents of the state for purposes of protecting the public peace. They have arrest powers (the same as any other non-peace-officer in the State of Texas) and are allowed to train with, carry on their persons and, given an appropriate situation, use weapons including deadly weapons (handguns). So, to a degree, they are " quasi- " representing a public interest. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, as they work for private companies who are purchasing protections above and beyond those offered through existing public safety infrastructures (police, sheriff, constable, etc.), but it's the law on the books as of today. I doubt that you could argue that EMS certificants, by status alone, serve the interest of the state DIRECTLY. Not that there's not a public service provided, but when an EMS professional is performing a service for private remuneration (not 911, not part of a government service or contract), there is *no* public interest being served. The public gains NOTHING by having private EMS companies providing private medical transports for private remuneration (or acceptance of insurance as payment). Only when an EMS provider *is* providing a service to or for the public should they be considered a public servant, IMO. Then again, that's the whole point of this discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why - that's all fair discourse! > Regardless of what the DPS title may be, the governing document is > the statute - not DPS shorthand. Yes and no. The DPS published arrest title is what the probable cause addifavit, complaint, indictment or information are written using. It's also the " charge " listed on a criminal history for purposes of tracking and conviction. So, a person arrested for assault is only charged with ASSAULT. A person arrested for assault on a public servant (under the same portion of the code, just a different section of the same title) is in fact charged differently, ASSAULT / PUBLIC SERVANT (I don't have my actual arrest title sheet in front of me, but I can find it if need be - that's close enough for discussion's sake). It's all still under the same title, but the arrest title makes a SIGNIFICANT difference and does show up differently in prosecutorial documents and on a criminal history. > EVERY mention of the phrase " public servant " in the body of HB 495 > is in an OR situation, such as " public servant, security officer or > emergency services personnel. " The statute [sections 22.01 ( and > (d), Penal Code], as HB 495 amends it, will apply equally to all of > them - not just to " public servant " personnel. Right. And the reason for that is to include emergency service personnel who are not currently considered public servants, which I don't agree should happen. I believe the law, as enacted, correctly represents the intent of the legislature - to enhance punishments for those who assault a public servant in the course of their duties. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 I strongly feel that no licensed or certified EMS provider should be excluded from this Bill if it does become enacted--private, volunteer or otherwise. For any of our municipality employed brethren to suggest otherwise demonstrates even further the " us versus them " syndrome that keeps us divided as a profession on the whole. Some of the same " exclude the private " commentators are the same ones who preach " unity and the world " for EMS. Does that mean " unity and the world--unless you a employed by a private service, volunteer department or hospital? " Kind of like the founders of this country--All men are created equal. Equal if you a rich, white. male landowner. It took almost 200 years for us to clarify that " Everybody is equal. " Even if you are a privately employed EMT or Medic in Texas. And by the way, not all privately owned services are corrupt or out to fleece their employees, clients or the system. In fact, I started my service with a vow to myself to operate ethically, treat my employees well, pay them a livable wage and respect them for the job that they do. I have worked for too many services that were the opposite. In return, I have (in my opinion) the best damned group of EMS PROFESSIONALS that I have ever had the Privilege to work with. Every single one of them. My only regret is that I cannot do more for them. Despite the typical " family bickering " we all pull together to get the job done and it makes me proud to see that folks are proud to work at FREMS. In fact, most of the employees who have left voluntarily have reapplied within a few months. That says a lot about us as a team. And whether they are working an MVA, a 911 mutual aid call, an assault at an event, a psychiatric transfer or a simple dialysis call, I hope and pray that the lawmakers of this great state have the wisdom and the courage to extend that additional protection to them and everyone else that is not municipally employed. After all, they deserve it. Bacco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Gene, I was reading your post regarding this issue. I agree with the fact that the private EMS provider as a company should not get any more special privileges or exemplary treatment while engaged in the course of private business. However, the licensed and certified EMS personnel should be covered under the law. I really wish my previous post of a few hours ago would be posted. It must have gotten " moderated. " The bill in question addresses the personnel of the EMS agency as being covered. Not the company. For profit or not, all providers in the state charge for the ambulance transport for reimbursement. Whether one of my employees is running an MVA, a 911 rollover, mass casualty mutual aid call, and assault at a special event, a seizure, chest pain, dialysis call or a stop to render aid, they are being placed at the same risk with the same duties of a municipally employed emt or medic. I know plenty of privately employed medics and emts, as well as the hospital employed personnel and volunteers who have been assaulted, threatened, stalked by sex offenders and even abducted at gun point and raped for several hours before being returned to her place of employment by her abductor (1994/95--VA hospital in Dallas, AMR employee-- before the " police " there were allowed to carry sidearms). With her for an example, she was clearing a medical call and was simply fixing the cot in the ER. Would extra " punishment' have stopped this? Probably not. Will it stop it in the future? Don't know. Everybody in this country knows that if you hit a cop while performing his duties bad things are going to happen. 1) you will get your but kicked or pepper-sprayed at the very least. then; 2) You will be charged with a felony and spend several years going " Man, I really messed up this time. " A call that results in any patient contact is a call. An injured person is an injured person whether they call 911 or a private service. Why should the increased criminal penalties be offered to private security personnel who have far less training than a basic peace officer on a whole and not offered to an EMT or medic who has met the same training requirements to function as an EMS Provider (employee not employer). ACLS is the same,CPR Healthcare provider is the same, PTLS, BTLS, PALS--all the same. Are the increased penalties applied if one assaults a " private " police officer such as a hospital cop. Baylor Medical Center has them, so does Methodist in Dallas. They are privately employed by a hospital? How about a DART transit officer? You bet it will be because the language reads (not verbatim) " peace officer while executing his/her duties and has identified themselves as a peace officer. With that said, the lawmakers need simply to change the language from " emergency services worker " to Emergency Medical Services personnel and Fire Services personnel..... " That should cover it and settle the argument so that all Emergency Services personnel (EMS, LE, FD and SEO) can feel better that Mr. or Mrs Havingabadday may spend some more time in jail if they hit me. I am disappointed though to see that some of our municipally employed brethren are so willing to deny a privately employee EMS employee the same basic legal protection from bodily harm. From my perspective, that discrimination and " municipal vs private " attitude only further drives yet another wedge into us (EMS) evolving as a profession on a whole. Argue all you want about calls, transfer providers, differences in wages and benefits, the alleged benevolence of a non-profit provider private versus the " corrupt, money-grubbing " private ambulance service owner (yes ambulance--privates are that, others are private EMS services) or the " tax dollar wasting municipalities that are just trying to justify their budgets " for the next fiscal year. All of that is simply time wasting bickering that is based more on opinion than fact. The bottom line is that we are all ECAs, EMTs, and Paramedics. If we cannot come together on a proposed bill that would give all of us more protection, then we are doomed as a profession and all of the efforts of groups like EMSAT have been for naught. You do not see other professions publicly disparaging their peers because of where they choose to practice. Under the Nurse Practice Act, Medical Boards, The Texas Bar association etc all see every body with the respective license as their profession and fight for all of them. Hospital RN vs nursing home or doctors office or school nurse--all are equal in their associations, as we are un the eyes of DSHS and the Bureau of Emergency Management . We do not see Physicians publicly bickering or trying to deny malpractice insurance to a plastic surgeon but offer it to an EMS medical director. Attorneys do not publicly bicker or try to deny court privileges to an ambulance chasing personal injury attorney while favoring a civil rights attorney. Sure, they may all joke about the other specialty because it is not what they chose to practice. However, you will not see a doctors lounge in a hospital deny entry to a family practice physician or a pathologist because they are not doing surgery or cardiac catheters. We do not see LE personnel try to denies benefits because they work for DPS and not SO or a large urban department or even the Border Patrol--they are all law enforcement. When one dies in the line of duty, they all wear a black ribbon on their badges. What to we do? What traditions do we have that are uniform (other than the free t-shirt, Frisbee and sandwiches at the ER during EMS week?) How many of us even know that their is a national EMS museum (thanks Woody at TEEX--great dvd!). The one thing that Physicians, Law Enforcement officers, Firefighter, Attorneys and Nurses have that EMS is lacking is MUTUAL RESPECT no matter where one chooses to work. We need to learn how to support each other rather than tear each other down. I challenge any fire-based medic to go to work for a " reputable " private provider in their area and run some critical care calls or see what the private EMS folks really do. I have had numerous Dallas FireFighters and suburban firefighters who have worked with us part-time come back and tell me that our jobs were way tougher than they imagined and that they were surprised at the amount of " real runs " that we " privates " do. All without the benefit of going back to our lazy-e-boy at the station because now the " non-emergency " calls need to be run. The non-emergency calls that are no less important to the health and well-being of patients and the public overall that no " self respecting " 911 fireman would run because " there are private services for that. " Like I said earlier, a call is a call, is an call regardless of who you work for or where you work for. We ALL deserve the equal protection of the law. I am going to go and buy my crews a cup of coffee now. They deserve it. Bacco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Using the same arguments - what about PSOB benefits? Should for profit security agencies and industrial fire fighters as well as for profit EMS agencies be eligible for PSOB? Personally, I think they should not. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Mike, The DPS arrest title has nothing to do with HB 495. This bill is intended to AMEND the section of the statutes that may CURRENTLY generate such a title. However, the bill as filed includes five (5) classes of personnel for whom the enhancement (to a third degree felony) applies - only one (1) of these is a " public servant. " The inclusion of " emergency services personnel " in the bill is an addition - it wasn't there before. However, the inclusion of " security officer " and the others I mentioned before was already in the statute which is to be amended. That would seem to mean that " security officers " were already covered by the enhancement, as were - under certain conditions - persons with a relationship with the actor as " described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code. " They aren't " public servants " either, and never have been. While I personally disagree with the inclusion of " security officers " in the current law, I can see the rationale, at least in part, for their inclusion. Security officers are licensed/certified by the state to perform duties and actions not available to the public at large and have crafted exceptions in the law for carrying weapons, etc. As such, they are, at least in part, agents of the state for purposes of protecting the public peace. They have arrest powers (the same as any other non-peace-officer in the State of Texas) and are allowed to train with, carry on their persons and, given an appropriate situation, use weapons including deadly weapons (handguns). So, to a degree, they are " quasi- " representing a public interest. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, as they work for private companies who are purchasing protections above and beyond those offered through existing public safety infrastructures (police, sheriff, constable, etc.), but it's the law on the books as of today. I doubt that you could argue that EMS certificants, by status alone, serve the interest of the state DIRECTLY. Not that there's not a public service provided, but when an EMS professional is performing a service for private remuneration (not 911, not part of a government service or contract), there is *no* public interest being served. The public gains NOTHING by having private EMS companies providing private medical transports for private remuneration (or acceptance of insurance as payment). Only when an EMS provider *is* providing a service to or for the public should they be considered a public servant, IMO. Then again, that's the whole point of this discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why - that's all fair discourse! Regardless of what the DPS title may be, the governing document is the statute - not DPS shorthand. Yes and no. The DPS published arrest title is what the probable cause addifavit, complaint, indictment or information are written using. It's also the " charge " listed on a criminal history for purposes of tracking and conviction. So, a person arrested for assault is only charged with ASSAULT. A person arrested for assault on a public servant (under the same portion of the code, just a different section of the same title) is in fact charged differently, ASSAULT / PUBLIC SERVANT (I don't have my actual arrest title sheet in front of me, but I can find it if need be - that's close enough for discussion's sake). It's all still under the same title, but the arrest title makes a SIGNIFICANT difference and does show up differently in prosecutorial documents and on a criminal history. EVERY mention of the phrase " public servant " in the body of HB 495 is in an OR situation, such as " public servant, security officer or emergency services personnel. " The statute [sections 22.01 ( and (d), Penal Code], as HB 495 amends it, will apply equally to all of them - not just to " public servant " personnel. Right. And the reason for that is to include emergency service personnel who are not currently considered public servants, which I don't agree should happen. I believe the law, as enacted, correctly represents the intent of the legislature - to enhance punishments for those who assault a public servant in the course of their duties. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 > Gene, > > By your interpretation...then....this won't apply to volunteers > either? Most of them work for non-profit corporations that contract > or " just do it " for governmental agencies....is this not going to > apply to them either? I think the assertion was that you either had to be working for a governmental entity (city, county, ESD, etc.) *or* be working under contract with a government entity to provide service to the public for the public benefit. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Mike I have do disagree with your statement outlined below. <I doubt that you could argue that EMS certificants, by status alone, <serve the interest of the state DIRECTLY. Not that there's not a <public service provided, but when an EMS professional is performing a <service for private remuneration (not 911, not part of a government <service or contract), there is *no* public interest being served. <The public gains NOTHING by having private EMS companies providing <private medical transports for private remuneration (or acceptance of <insurance as payment). Only when an EMS provider *is* providing a <service to or for the public should they be considered a public <servant, IMO. Then again, that's the whole point of this <discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why - that's all <fair discourse! The way I see it, private EMS does benefit the public directly. For example what would the increased tax burden on the public be to conduct inter-hospital transfers? When a local " public " provider brings an MVA patient to a community hospital and they require a trauma center, private services provide the transport. Is that not a public service by helping keep the citizens tax rate down and allowing the local municipal service to remain available? The same for medically necessary transports. Would you support a tax hike so that the local FD's can run transfers or Dialysis calls? If the FD or (God Forbid) a third city service did perform these transports without a tax hike, how thin do you think that the local FD would be spread? Private EMS services have to provide these services on a more or less fixed income. They do not have the benefit of being tax exempt as does a municipality. They have to match the employees payroll taxes dollar for dollar and meet their overhead on their own without the cushion of a tax base. Private EMS providers across the country have to overcome these challenges and face scrutiny for making it work. What does the remuneration source matter if it is privately paid, tax funded or a third party payer. If you think that municipalities do not bill for EMS, you are sorely mistaken. It seems to me that you have fostered some animosity towards private providers. You say you understand Security Officers being included because they are " keeping the peace to some degree. " There are both publicly employed and privately employed SEO's. IE--The Dallas Police Department's security division and say Protection. The only difference in the power/rights as compared to a private citizen is that SEOs wear a distinctive uniform, if they are commissioned they may carry a weapon in plain view while en route to or from their assigned job/post and while they are on that property. However, a private citizen may carry a concealed weapon except for specific locations--sporting event, church, liquor stores, schools, polling locations and government buildings. There is no difference in their arrest powers as compared to a private citizen. However, the private citizen who is carrying a concealed weapon does not have to act whereas uniformed personnel are expected to act. Yes, I agree that SEOs should be included in the bill should be included in the bill as well because they often find themselves in dangerous positions due to their duty assignments. In fact, more SEO's are killed in their line of duty annually than LEOs. You know as well as I do that the general public does not really know the difference between a private EMS service or a public one. What they DO know is that they have a need for an ambulance--emergent or otherwise--and an ambulance is there for them--private or not. Just like the bad guys you encounter could care a less about whether somebody is a real cop or a rent a cop. They see a uniform that represents some kind of authority. Therefore, if one is in that perceived position of authority, they should be entitled to the same level of consideration and protection under the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 I think it should apply to any 911 provider. That is where the risk is. If your service provides 911 service to a community you should be covered. No matter the service type. henry Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS So some are saying that if an EMT or paramedic chooses to work for a private service they are not considered a " Public Servant " when they are on duty and providing care, is that true? I disagree with that for a couple of reasons. First the " Private " service may be the only game in town for a new medic and can be a great way to get experience while waiting to be hired by the municipal service.Some may require at least one year experience before they will hire you. Also many of these municipal employees will moonlight for a private service during their off time, so while they are working municipal they are punlic servants but in their second job they are not? That's not fair! Maybe the private service is in this to make money but many of us got into this because we want to " serve " the public in some way. Heaven knows we are not getting rich at it. Which is why many choose to or may have to take second jobs. How will this law apply to those of us who work for a government contractor providing service on federal property? Do the laws change because we are federal contractors? We still have to abide by the same laws as everyone else and are regulated by the state as well. We have to maintain our certs just like everyone else does. And like Mike said in an earlier post, we all have to take the same DOT mandated training and pass the same types of tests in order to earn the PRIVILEGE to wear the patch we have earned. And we all bleed red so why make a distinction between governmental, municipal services and private services? We are all doing the same job just under different circumstances. Anita NREMTP/LP > > > Mike, > > > > Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone chooses > > to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental > > entity that they really don't deserve to be protected? > > I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly hope > > that I have misunderstood your meaning here. > No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced > punishment range as those working for a government entity, or under > the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not > just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone > engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an enhancement/ > protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be > engaged in? > > We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing > services under the auspices of government are working directly for > the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like > we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers are > present. Private employees, government contract. That same > " enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working on > their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house - at > that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and the > " standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against them. > > In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing service > under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault > against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will > assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're facing > more punishment for doing so). > > Mike > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Dudley, What we're talking about here is public policy, not the relative merits of what either public or private providers do. It can be argued that governmental protection should be extended to everybody who does any work for a governmental entity. Traditionally there has been a separation between governmental entities and private entities in terms of protections and immunities. The soverign and its agents were afforded certain protections because they carried the mantle of the government. It is true, however, that individual employees of a governmental entity that enjoys soverign immunity do not, individually, enjoy the same immunity. Volunteers enjoy a status that's somewhere in between purely private actors and agents of government. The legislature has the power, undoubtedly, to extend extraordinary protections to certain classes of workers. The policy question is where to draw the line. There are, I have been told, over 200 licensed EMS providers in County, Texas, alone. There are more than 100 in Dallas County. Is the legislature willing to extend extraordinary statutory protection to every EMS employee regardless of the role of that employee? How many private EMS services are really " public servants? " That's a philosophical question. I would go so far as to agree that primary 911 responders, whether they be public employees, or private service employees operating under exclusive contract with a governmental body, might be eligible for some statutory protection over and above the protections that are afforded all citizens, to be free from assaults and criminal attacks. What we're talking about with the bill in question is an enhanced penalty for harming certain classes of people. I am not convinced that the " A-ACME Ambulance Service " whose business is primarily contractual agreements with nursing homes, dialysis centers, and so forth, is the sort of " public service " that should enjoy extraordinary protection. I am pursuaded that volunteers may very well deserve such protection, since they do, in my mind, occupy a different position from the ordinary for-profit EMS provider. I am open to argument. I simply think that we should be very careful what precedents we create for affording extraordinary protection to classes that have not heretofore enjoyed enhanced protection. I do not mean to degrade those who choose to work for private services, or who are pursuaded to do so because of economic interests, and so forth. My views have nothing to do with the dedication of those individuals, their talents and expertise. My questions have to do with public policy considerations. Gene Gandy > > Gene, > > By your interpretation. By your By your interpretation.<wbr>..then...<wbr> > .this won't apply to volunteers either? Most of them work for non-profit > corporations that contract or By your interpretation.<wbr>..then...<wbr > > Dudley > > > Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS > > I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no rational reason to mandate > enhanced penalties for those who assault private EMS providers, any more > than there > is a reason to extend such provisions to private plumbers. > > There is a vast difference between public EMS providers and private ones. > Public EMS is not profit driven, although it usually must meet budgetary > limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit enterprise, and as such, is a > business > just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal status. Private EMS > providers do not wear the badge of the state. (Well, they may, but their > badges are > bogus.). > > Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that plumbers do not. As Mike > points out, they can have ambulances that can run with lights and sirens and > violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are responsible for their > employees, and they can purchase insurance to cover their losses from > negligent acts. > They can purchase health insurance for their employees. They are a > business, and not a governmental entity. So they do not qualify for > governmental > immunities. > > I see no reason that any private EMS service not the contracted exclusive > provider for a city or county should have any emergency rights whatsoever. > Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS services at some time, and now > is the > best time to do it. > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas County, and 200 in > County, things are seriously out of control. > > I do think that if a private contractor has the exclusive right to provide > EMS for a city or county, or both, that there should be some provision to > afford > that service recognition as a quasi governmental entity, but it should be > limited, if the provider is a for profit company. > > There are many issues involved with private EMS companies, but they ought > not > to enjoy special status given to governmental entities. > > Gene G. > In a message dated 1/24/07 10:36:01 PM, paramedicop@paramedic writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into this line of PUBLIC > > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to whom ever calls, > > > where ever it is, and it should make no difference the provider > > > they chose to work for. > > > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS companies exist to make > > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist not for the > > public good, but to make money for the owners, founders or stockholders. > > > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best care possible > > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to be free from > > > potential harm or at least know that if they are violated the > > > violator will be punished. > > > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, just like any other > > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it involves serious bodily > > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like any other " regular " > > person that gets assaulted. > > > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at limiting protection we > > > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys don't differentiate > > > between Private or Government employees; we wear the same patch for > > > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed red. > > > > Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking at limiting > > protection. People are looking at creating yet another " exception " > > where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. Assault is still > > assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass this, why not make it > > the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He takes tickets from > > the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS drivers? They > > deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza delivery guys - they > > deliver pizza to the public. > > > > The fact that the public can't distinguish between private and public > > EMS providers is indicative of several other problems, the first of > > which is that they don't know there's no " requirement " that their > > government provide them with service at all, and no idea that private > > EMS providers work for for-profit companies who must, as a matter of > > finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " vs running on > > government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid directly by the > > public). It's also indicative of the problem that we allow private > > providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is the *only* public > > service that does so. There are NO private police and NO private > > fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers cannot get the > > " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason for that - they're > > PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the public to slip into > > apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS as a service to > > the public, have allowed (and in some places, 'required') private > > providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not saying that > > private providers don't do a good job filling the gap - just that we > > should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the gap, and this law > > ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public EMS providers equal, > > which they shouldn't be if we really want the public to see EMS as a > > public service that *must* be provided rather than a " choice " between > > providing and not providing, and allowing profiteers to benefit from > > a lack of public understanding and interest. > > > > > This could be bad for everyone in the industry as a whole.... > > Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just doesn't give that > > extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 so I take it that Gene would refuse transport if a private ambulance service showed up on his door when he called 911. If we are so BOGUS then he wouldn't want us treating him or his familey in an emergency because obviously we dont know what we are doing as we just made up our certs. Anyway off my box. <a href= " http://vampirefreaks.com " ><img src= " http://e.vampirefreaks.com/banners/Mergazer_2.gif " ></a> <a href= " http://www.myspace.com/emtdragon1 " target= " _blank " ><img src= " http://x.myspace.com/images/Promo/myspace_4.jpg " border= " 0 " ><br><img src= " http://myspace-150.vo.llnwd.net/00417/05/11/417701150_s.jpg " border= " 0 " ><br><font size= " 1 " face= " Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif " >Check me out!</font></a> ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q & A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list & sid=396546091 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 What concerns me the most about this whole conversation, is simply this at least in my little part of the state the general public does not know the difference between the many different statuses that we are discussing, I mean H--L we are all just " ambulance drivers " ... so now we want the public to understand the difference between public and private and why it is more of a penalty to assault this " driver " instead of that " driver " . As one who has answered complaints about the service the patient received within a city that has multi EMS services, I know that many of the ones that use the services we provide do not even really know what service provided the care, we are forced to ask many times what color the truck was painted in order to determine if it was public or private and who was actually at fault. So as I see it if we do not see our selves as the same then the intent will actually be lost for all. Also while I believe that we that we must do something about the large numbers of private providers within some communities I really do not want the way we regulate and monitor them is that we do not provide protection for the employees of said service. > > > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into this line of PUBLIC > > > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to whom ever calls, > > > > where ever it is, and it should make no difference the provider > > > > they chose to work for. > > > > > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS companies exist to make > > > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist not for the > > > public good, but to make money for the owners, founders or stockholders. > > > > > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best care possible > > > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to be free from > > > > potential harm or at least know that if they are violated the > > > > violator will be punished. > > > > > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, just like any other > > > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it involves serious bodily > > > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like any other " regular " > > > person that gets assaulted. > > > > > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at limiting protection we > > > > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys don't differentiate > > > > between Private or Government employees; we wear the same patch for > > > > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed red. > > > > > > Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking at limiting > > > protection. People are looking at creating yet another " exception " > > > where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. Assault is still > > > assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass this, why not make it > > > the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He takes tickets from > > > the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS drivers? They > > > deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza delivery guys - they > > > deliver pizza to the public. > > > > > > The fact that the public can't distinguish between private and public > > > EMS providers is indicative of several other problems, the first of > > > which is that they don't know there's no " requirement " that their > > > government provide them with service at all, and no idea that private > > > EMS providers work for for-profit companies who must, as a matter of > > > finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " vs running on > > > government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid directly by the > > > public). It's also indicative of the problem that we allow private > > > providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is the *only* public > > > service that does so. There are NO private police and NO private > > > fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers cannot get the > > > " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason for that - they're > > > PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the public to slip into > > > apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS as a service to > > > the public, have allowed (and in some places, 'required') private > > > providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not saying that > > > private providers don't do a good job filling the gap - just that we > > > should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the gap, and this law > > > ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public EMS providers equal, > > > which they shouldn't be if we really want the public to see EMS as a > > > public service that *must* be provided rather than a " choice " between > > > providing and not providing, and allowing profiteers to benefit from > > > a lack of public understanding and interest. > > > > > > > This could be bad for everyone in the industry as a whole.... > > > Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just doesn't give that > > > extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 M wrote <<<I doubt that you could argue that EMS certificants, by status alone, serve the interest of the state DIRECTLY. Not that there's not a public service provided, but when an EMS professional is performing a service for private remuneration (not 911, not part of a government service or contract), there is *no* public interest being served. The public gains NOTHING by having private EMS companies providing private medical transports for private remuneration (or acceptance of insurance as payment). Only when an EMS provider *is* providing a service to or for the public should they be considered a public servant, IMO. Then again, that's the whole point of this discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why - that's all fair discourse! >>> Mike, Here is where I believe your arguement is faulty. You are, if I understand what you are saying, argueing not whether or not it is a public service that determines protections...but whether a 3-digit or 7-digit number summoned the help. For instance, a 7-digit number is called to get assistance for an elderly female (Medicare recipient) who fell and broke her hip. She is resting comfortably on the floor having been padded and covered with blankets to maintain warmth. The fall happened 5 minutes ago...an ambulance is dispatched to this request for service...they respond, treat the patients pain, package the patient and begin transport to the hospital. Enroute, the patient turns into a ninja-warrior and starts smacking the medic in attendance mercilessly....this patient can only be charged with assault Now compare this to this scenario: A 911 call is placed to get assistance for an elderly female (Medicare recipient) who fell and broke her hip. She is resting comfortably on the floor having been padded and covered with blankets to maintain warmth. The fall happened 5 minutes ago...an ambulance is dispatched to this request for service...they respond, treat the patients pain, package the patient and begin transport to the hospital. Enroute, the patient turns into a ninja-warrior and starts smacking the medic in attendance mercilessly....NOW...this patient can be charged with Assault on a Public Servant? This is where I don't see the arguement. Face it man...these private entities that pain you so much are truly doing a public service. They are providing a service that prevents a deep dark secret of " E " MS from getting out...that we really only want to treat those who are having really cool, complex issues...and not those who find themselves in long-term chronic conditions, institutions such as rehab/vent hospitals, nursing facilities or hospice homes. If these private EMS providers didn't go....we would all have to " stoop down " to their level and actually care for EVERYONE in our jurisdiction...not just those fortunate enough to call for 911. The real crime isn't what the patch on the oppisite arm of your cert says when you get smacked...its the fact that EMS in Texas purports to be a public service but for only CERTAIN segments of the public. Then we stand on our ivory pedestals and look down on those who cover up this deep dark secret every day...because they need to pay the bills and make a living to do it. All the while we tax citizens for the availability of 911 services and then bill them as much and usually more than these private " non-public " servants do...so that we can make a living doing it. I know there are a few EMS transport agencies that do not bill...but it is VERY few and getting fewer every day....but by your logic, only first responders who do not bill (again this is getting smaller and smaller everyday) should really be protected by this because they do not see remuneration...but then again this is basically just fire departments that do this service...and they are already covered by this law. Dudley Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS > Mike, > > The DPS arrest title has nothing to do with HB 495. This bill is > intended to AMEND the section of the statutes that may CURRENTLY > generate such a title. However, the bill as filed includes five (5) > classes of personnel for whom the enhancement (to a third degree > felony) applies - only one (1) of these is a " public servant. " > > The inclusion of " emergency services personnel " in the bill is an > addition - it wasn't there before. However, the inclusion of > " security officer " and the others I mentioned before was already in > the statute which is to be amended. That would seem to mean that > " security officers " were already covered by the enhancement, as > were - under certain conditions - persons with a relationship with > the actor as " described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, > Family Code. " They aren't " public servants " either, and never have > been. While I personally disagree with the inclusion of " security officers " in the current law, I can see the rationale, at least in part, for their inclusion. Security officers are licensed/certified by the state to perform duties and actions not available to the public at large and have crafted exceptions in the law for carrying weapons, etc. As such, they are, at least in part, agents of the state for purposes of protecting the public peace. They have arrest powers (the same as any other non-peace-officer in the State of Texas) and are allowed to train with, carry on their persons and, given an appropriate situation, use weapons including deadly weapons (handguns). So, to a degree, they are " quasi- " representing a public interest. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, as they work for private companies who are purchasing protections above and beyond those offered through existing public safety infrastructures (police, sheriff, constable, etc.), but it's the law on the books as of today. I doubt that you could argue that EMS certificants, by status alone, serve the interest of the state DIRECTLY. Not that there's not a public service provided, but when an EMS professional is performing a service for private remuneration (not 911, not part of a government service or contract), there is *no* public interest being served. The public gains NOTHING by having private EMS companies providing private medical transports for private remuneration (or acceptance of insurance as payment). Only when an EMS provider *is* providing a service to or for the public should they be considered a public servant, IMO. Then again, that's the whole point of this discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why - that's all fair discourse! > Regardless of what the DPS title may be, the governing document is > the statute - not DPS shorthand. Yes and no. The DPS published arrest title is what the probable cause addifavit, complaint, indictment or information are written using. It's also the " charge " listed on a criminal history for purposes of tracking and conviction. So, a person arrested for assault is only charged with ASSAULT. A person arrested for assault on a public servant (under the same portion of the code, just a different section of the same title) is in fact charged differently, ASSAULT / PUBLIC SERVANT (I don't have my actual arrest title sheet in front of me, but I can find it if need be - that's close enough for discussion's sake). It's all still under the same title, but the arrest title makes a SIGNIFICANT difference and does show up differently in prosecutorial documents and on a criminal history. > EVERY mention of the phrase " public servant " in the body of HB 495 > is in an OR situation, such as " public servant, security officer or > emergency services personnel. " The statute [sections 22.01 ( and > (d), Penal Code], as HB 495 amends it, will apply equally to all of > them - not just to " public servant " personnel. Right. And the reason for that is to include emergency service personnel who are not currently considered public servants, which I don't agree should happen. I believe the law, as enacted, correctly represents the intent of the legislature - to enhance punishments for those who assault a public servant in the course of their duties. Mike ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Please do not distort what I have said. If you read my post last night, you will see that I am open to inclusion of private services working under a 911 contract. What I am not convinced of is that private services who do no 911 work and which may have dubious ownership, management, and practices should have the same status as those chosen by a governmental entity to provide 911 service. Gene Gandy > > so I take it that Gene would refuse transport if a > private ambulance service showed up on his door when > he called 911. If we are so BOGUS then he wouldn't > want us treating him or his familey in an emergency > because obviously we dont know what we are doing as we > just made up our certs. Anyway off my box. > > <a href= " http://vampirefreakhttp: " ><img src= " > http://e.vampirefrehttp://e.vampirehttp://e.http: " ></a> > > <a href= " http://www.myspace.http://www.mys " target= " _blank " ><img src= " > http://x.myspace.http://x.myhttp://x.myspahttp: " border= " 0 " ><<w><img src= " > http://myspace-http://myspachttp://myshttp://myspace-http: " border= " 0 " ><<w><font > size= " 1 " face= " Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif " ><wbr>Check me</font><<w> > > ____________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ > Need Mail bonding? > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q & A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. > http://answers.http://anshttp://anshttp & sid=sid=<wbr> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Mike just so you know not all security guards carry and are cert. as Commisioned Officers to carry firearms yet even the non certed security guard will be protected if I am reading this right. Forgive me if I am wrong please. > > > Mike, > > > > The DPS arrest title has nothing to do with HB 495. This bill is > > intended to AMEND the section of the statutes that may CURRENTLY > > generate such a title. However, the bill as filed includes five (5) > > classes of personnel for whom the enhancement (to a third degree > > felony) applies - only one (1) of these is a " public servant. " > > > > The inclusion of " emergency services personnel " in the bill is an > > addition - it wasn't there before. However, the inclusion of > > " security officer " and the others I mentioned before was already in > > the statute which is to be amended. That would seem to mean that > > " security officers " were already covered by the enhancement, as > > were - under certain conditions - persons with a relationship with > > the actor as " described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, > > Family Code. " They aren't " public servants " either, and never have > > been. > > While I personally disagree with the inclusion of " security officers " > in the current law, I can see the rationale, at least in part, for > their inclusion. Security officers are licensed/certified by the > state to perform duties and actions not available to the public at > large and have crafted exceptions in the law for carrying weapons, > etc. As such, they are, at least in part, agents of the state for > purposes of protecting the public peace. They have arrest powers > (the same as any other non-peace-officer in the State of Texas) and > are allowed to train with, carry on their persons and, given an > appropriate situation, use weapons including deadly weapons > (handguns). So, to a degree, they are " quasi- " representing a public > interest. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, as they work > for private companies who are purchasing protections above and beyond > those offered through existing public safety infrastructures (police, > sheriff, constable, etc.), but it's the law on the books as of today. > > I doubt that you could argue that EMS certificants, by status alone, > serve the interest of the state DIRECTLY. Not that there's not a > public service provided, but when an EMS professional is performing a > service for private remuneration (not 911, not part of a government > service or contract), there is *no* public interest being served. > The public gains NOTHING by having private EMS companies providing > private medical transports for private remuneration (or acceptance of > insurance as payment). Only when an EMS provider *is* providing a > service to or for the public should they be considered a public > servant, IMO. Then again, that's the whole point of this > discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why - that's all > fair discourse! > > > Regardless of what the DPS title may be, the governing document is > > the statute - not DPS shorthand. > > Yes and no. The DPS published arrest title is what the probable > cause addifavit, complaint, indictment or information are written > using. It's also the " charge " listed on a criminal history for > purposes of tracking and conviction. So, a person arrested for > assault is only charged with ASSAULT. A person arrested for assault > on a public servant (under the same portion of the code, just a > different section of the same title) is in fact charged differently, > ASSAULT / PUBLIC SERVANT (I don't have my actual arrest title sheet > in front of me, but I can find it if need be - that's close enough > for discussion's sake). It's all still under the same title, but the > arrest title makes a SIGNIFICANT difference and does show up > differently in prosecutorial documents and on a criminal history. > > > EVERY mention of the phrase " public servant " in the body of HB 495 > > is in an OR situation, such as " public servant, security officer or > > emergency services personnel. " The statute [sections 22.01 ( and > > (d), Penal Code], as HB 495 amends it, will apply equally to all of > > them - not just to " public servant " personnel. > Right. And the reason for that is to include emergency service > personnel who are not currently considered public servants, which I > don't agree should happen. I believe the law, as enacted, correctly > represents the intent of the legislature - to enhance punishments for > those who assault a public servant in the course of their duties. > > Mike > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Agreed, Steve. It's up to the Lege. If they want to extend enhanced penalties to employees of Mc's in cities of 14,579 to 129,446 population, they certainly can. My arguments are, as I have tried to make clear but probably have not, that government should be careful about extending enhanced protection, NOT that one class of EMTs are better or more deserving than another of protection. Some opinions to the contrary, I do not feel that those who choose to work for private services or volunteer services are inferior to other medics. I myself spent most of my " street " career as a volunteer. My arguments are, as I have said, about issues of public policy. The law already affords considerable protection to private citizens against assaults. An aggravated assault carries substantial penalties. I am not sure that medics will necessarily be any safer with the enhanced penalties proposed. Perhaps our energy would be better spent in educating the public about what all of us in EMS do, are capable of doing, and the value we bring to the public. Nevertheless, my arguments are about the role of government, not the relative merits of the lives of those who work for public vs. private services. Gene Gandy > > A lot of people seem to be getting tied up in the debate over whether > private EMS personnel are (or should be) classed as " public servants. " That e > specially seems to be the thrust of Mike's and Gene's comments. > > However, this thread is about HB 495, not about " public servants. " > > HB 495 amends the language of the statute to increase the number of groups > of people on whom an assault is enhanced from four groups to five - ONLY ONE > OF WHICH is " public servants. " The other groups for which the enhancement to a > third degree felony applies (three groups in the existing statute / four > groups in HB 495) are not, and never have been, " public servants. " They are > simply groups for which the legislature considered additional protection > appropriate. > > There are many other groups which receive additional protection without > being classed as " public servants. " Examples would be the elderly, children, etc. > Additional protection is also extended to large groups of people who aren't > " public servants " via hate-crime statutes. > > In all of these cases, the legislature chose to enhance the potential > penalties for crimes against these groups - exactly as in the statute that HB 495 > amends - and NOT because they are public servants - because they aren't. > > The decision as to who qualifies for such enhanced protection, in our system > of government, belongs to the legislature. They have chosen to identify four > such groups in this particular statute - and HB 495 is intended to add > another. Most of these groups AREN'T public servants - they are simply > identifiable groups to whom the legislature decided to extend additional protection. > > That's the legislature' That's the legislature'<wbr>s prerogative - and it's > NOT in the purview of DPS, a municipal FD, a county EMS or any other similar > agency to change it. They are supposed to enforce it and/or live under, n > > If you don't like what the legislature does, there is a simple solution - > run for office and try to change it. > > Steve > > > > > > > momedic95 wrote: > > So some are saying that if an EMT or paramedic chooses to work for a > private service they are not considered a " Public Servant " when they > are on duty and providing care, is that true? I disagree with that > for a couple of reasons. First the " Private " service may be the only > game in town for a new medic and can be a great way to get > experience while waiting to be hired by the municipal service.Some > may require at least one year experience before they will hire you. > Also many of these municipal employees will moonlight for a private > service during their off time, so while they are working municipal > they are punlic servants but in their second job they are not? > That's not fair! Maybe the private service is in this to make money > but many of us got into this because we want to " serve " the public > in some way. Heaven knows we are not getting rich at it. Which is > why many choose to or may have to take second jobs. How will this > law apply to those of us who work for a government contractor > providing service on federal property? Do the laws change because we > are federal contractors? We still have to abide by the same laws as > everyone else and are regulated by the state as well. We have to > maintain our certs just like everyone else does. And like Mike said > in an earlier post, we all have to take the same DOT mandated > training and pass the same types of tests in order to earn the > PRIVILEGE to wear the patch we have earned. And we all bleed red so > why make a distinction between governmental, municipal services and > private services? We are all doing the same job just under different > circumstances. > Anita > NREMTP/LP > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone > chooses > > > to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental > > > entity that they really don't deserve to be protected? > > > I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly > hope > > > that I have misunderstood your meaning here. > > No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced > > punishment range as those working for a government entity, or > under > > the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not > > just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone > > engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an > enhancement/ > > protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be > > engaged in? > > > > We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing > > services under the auspices of government are working directly for > > the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like > > we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers > are > > present. Private employees, government contract. That same > > " enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working > on > > their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house - > at > > that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and > the > > " standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against > them. > > > > In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing > service > > under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault > > against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will > > assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're > facing > > more punishment for doing so). > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 The problem with the criminal system today is not the level of punishment imposed but the lack of certainty of punishment. The criminal justice system is overloaded, inefficient, and about as sure in outcome as the lottery. Having spent considerable time as a prosecutor at both the federal and state level, what I see today is a breakdown in the system. Justice is not dispensed with any sort of reliability. A great example is the complete dichotomy in the way crimes are handled in County and in on County next door. Commit an assault in County and you'll pay a small fine or get your case dismissed or deferred adjudication. Commit the same crime in on County and you spend 90 days in jail. In the large metropolitan areas funding for DA's offices is barely adequate, salaries for Assistant DA's are ridiculous when compared to what a good lawyer can make in a big law firm, and cases that are not high profile tend to get swept under the rug. A good criminal lawyer can get a case postponed almost indefinitely and then get it scheduled at a time when the witnesses are on spring vacation and don't show up, and the case gets dismissed. Or, worse, in the case of an assault on an EMT, the DA has no clue that the EMT is a part of the public safety system and blows the case off. Yes, this does happen. When an assistant DA has " X " number of cases to handle, and the caseload is usually far above what anybody could be expected to handle reasonably, the cases that get tried are the ones that are pushed by a constituency. For example, DWI cases get pushed because of pressure from DPS and MADD. Who pushes cases against assaulters of EMS people? From my point of view, the enhanced sentences will maybe give a good DA more bargaining power, but still, 90% of all criminal cases are disposed of by plea bargain or dismissal. It is simply impossible to try every case. The system cannot support it. I know one county where the DPS put enough pressure on the DA that he agreed not to plea bargain DWI cases. In response, the defense lawyers got together and agreed to demand a jury trial in every case. And they did. Suddenly, the docket became clogged with DWI cases. Troopers were being subpoenaed to court every day, so they were having to come in on their days off, losing sleep, and when they were at work they were sitting in the courthouse waiting to testify rather than enforcing the law. Before long the Commissioners Court summoned the DA to a meeting to find out why the jury expenses had gone up 10 times in the last 6 months. The Commissioners Court said that the county was going to be bankrupted by paying the jury fees, plus, the citizens were squealing like pigs caught under a gate about receiving jury summonses all the time for DWI cases. The clerk was whining about having to be sitting in court all day so she couldn't get her administrative work done. The county treasurer painted a bleak picture about what this was doing to this small county's resources. And even worse, jurors were becoming angry at the system and the defense lawyers were arguing the " there but for the grace of God go I " concept, and jurors were beginning to balk at convictions. The troopers were beginning to get very tired of being raked over the coals by defense lawyers, having the DPS policy manuals subpoenaed and being cross-examined in every case on whether or not they had followed the correct procedures, being cross-examined about the Breathalyzer, having DPS chemists subpoenaed in every case and cross-examined about the methods used in blood alcohol analysis, and on and on. Shortly, the DPS sergeant visited the DA and wanted to know why this was happening. The DA explained that the defense had the right to do all those things and it was up to the judge to allow them or not. The DPS sergeant went to see the County Judge and made an ass of himself and ended up being thrown out of the office and the DPS Captain was summoned by the judge to his office to explain the sergeant's actions. The DPS people were not happy about anything. The newspapers got involved, and there were a series of articles about the whole kerfuffle, and people lined up behind the DA and the DPS, or behind the defense lawyers. The paper printed some story about the inaccuracy of blood alcohol tests, and the community became angry and polarized. The county politicians began to seek cover. The rate of actual convictions went down. Whereas before, most cases has been plea-bargained and a substantial fine +DWI school, probation, and so forth was imposed, now juries were convicting some of the time, acquitting a lot of the time, the judge was dismissing every case that had a defect in order to just manage the docket and minimize expenses for jury pools, and nobody was happy. Finally, the DPS backed off, quietly, and the DA went back to plea-bargaining the cases. The County Judge was happy, the County Commissioners were happy, the prospective jurors were happy, the defendants were happy, but the defense lawyers were unhappy because their fees went down. They get more for trying a case than settling it. This vignette may cause some of you to gag, and that's understandable. But this is the way the system really works. Where am I going with this? Here: Unless an assault on an EMS provider is egregious and results in substantial harm, the case is not going to be handled as a top priority matter by the DA in lots of places. Notice, I didn't say it wouldn't be a top priority some of the time, but the way cases are handled depends upon local issues. Unfortunately, we're not high in the profile for priority cases. Gene Gandy, JD, LP " Tell the truth, but ride a fast horse. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 A lot of people seem to be getting tied up in the debate over whether private EMS personnel are (or should be) classed as " public servants. " That especially seems to be the thrust of Mike's and Gene's comments. However, this thread is about HB 495, not about " public servants. " HB 495 amends the language of the statute to increase the number of groups of people on whom an assault is enhanced from four groups to five - ONLY ONE OF WHICH is " public servants. " The other groups for which the enhancement to a third degree felony applies (three groups in the existing statute / four groups in HB 495) are not, and never have been, " public servants. " They are simply groups for which the legislature considered additional protection appropriate. There are many other groups which receive additional protection without being classed as " public servants. " Examples would be the elderly, children, etc. Additional protection is also extended to large groups of people who aren't " public servants " via hate-crime statutes. In all of these cases, the legislature chose to enhance the potential penalties for crimes against these groups - exactly as in the statute that HB 495 amends - and NOT because they are public servants - because they aren't. The decision as to who qualifies for such enhanced protection, in our system of government, belongs to the legislature. They have chosen to identify four such groups in this particular statute - and HB 495 is intended to add another. Most of these groups AREN'T public servants - they are simply identifiable groups to whom the legislature decided to extend additional protection. That's the legislature's prerogative - and it's NOT in the purview of DPS, a municipal FD, a county EMS or any other similar agency to change it. They are supposed to enforce it and/or live under, not change it however they want. If you don't like what the legislature does, there is a simple solution - run for office and try to change it. Steve momedic95 wrote: So some are saying that if an EMT or paramedic chooses to work for a private service they are not considered a " Public Servant " when they are on duty and providing care, is that true? I disagree with that for a couple of reasons. First the " Private " service may be the only game in town for a new medic and can be a great way to get experience while waiting to be hired by the municipal service.Some may require at least one year experience before they will hire you. Also many of these municipal employees will moonlight for a private service during their off time, so while they are working municipal they are punlic servants but in their second job they are not? That's not fair! Maybe the private service is in this to make money but many of us got into this because we want to " serve " the public in some way. Heaven knows we are not getting rich at it. Which is why many choose to or may have to take second jobs. How will this law apply to those of us who work for a government contractor providing service on federal property? Do the laws change because we are federal contractors? We still have to abide by the same laws as everyone else and are regulated by the state as well. We have to maintain our certs just like everyone else does. And like Mike said in an earlier post, we all have to take the same DOT mandated training and pass the same types of tests in order to earn the PRIVILEGE to wear the patch we have earned. And we all bleed red so why make a distinction between governmental, municipal services and private services? We are all doing the same job just under different circumstances. Anita NREMTP/LP > > > Mike, > > > > Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone chooses > > to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental > > entity that they really don't deserve to be protected? > > I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly hope > > that I have misunderstood your meaning here. > No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced > punishment range as those working for a government entity, or under > the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not > just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone > engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an enhancement/ > protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be > engaged in? > > We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing > services under the auspices of government are working directly for > the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like > we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers are > present. Private employees, government contract. That same > " enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working on > their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house - at > that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and the > " standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against them. > > In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing service > under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault > against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will > assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're facing > more punishment for doing so). > > Mike > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Gene, Stand by man...but I agree with you... Crime is a crime...and whether is Assault or Assault on a Public Servant, I don't ever recall a time when I have been around these situations where the perpetrator spent a few seconds thinking... " hmmmm...I could smack this guy but since he is an EMT it will cost me more jail time and a higher fine....better not do it " .... If the penalty isn't severe enough when it happens to an EMT...it probably isn't severe enough when it happens to any other poor hapless soul. Dudley Re: Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS Agreed, Steve. It's up to the Lege. If they want to extend enhanced penalties to employees of Mc's in cities of 14,579 to 129,446 population, they certainly can. My arguments are, as I have tried to make clear but probably have not, that government should be careful about extending enhanced protection, NOT that one class of EMTs are better or more deserving than another of protection. Some opinions to the contrary, I do not feel that those who choose to work for private services or volunteer services are inferior to other medics. I myself spent most of my " street " career as a volunteer. My arguments are, as I have said, about issues of public policy. The law already affords considerable protection to private citizens against assaults. An aggravated assault carries substantial penalties. I am not sure that medics will necessarily be any safer with the enhanced penalties proposed. Perhaps our energy would be better spent in educating the public about what all of us in EMS do, are capable of doing, and the value we bring to the public. Nevertheless, my arguments are about the role of government, not the relative merits of the lives of those who work for public vs. private services. Gene Gandy > > A lot of people seem to be getting tied up in the debate over whether > private EMS personnel are (or should be) classed as " public servants. " That e > specially seems to be the thrust of Mike's and Gene's comments. > > However, this thread is about HB 495, not about " public servants. " > > HB 495 amends the language of the statute to increase the number of groups > of people on whom an assault is enhanced from four groups to five - ONLY ONE > OF WHICH is " public servants. " The other groups for which the enhancement to a > third degree felony applies (three groups in the existing statute / four > groups in HB 495) are not, and never have been, " public servants. " They are > simply groups for which the legislature considered additional protection > appropriate. > > There are many other groups which receive additional protection without > being classed as " public servants. " Examples would be the elderly, children, etc. > Additional protection is also extended to large groups of people who aren't > " public servants " via hate-crime statutes. > > In all of these cases, the legislature chose to enhance the potential > penalties for crimes against these groups - exactly as in the statute that HB 495 > amends - and NOT because they are public servants - because they aren't. > > The decision as to who qualifies for such enhanced protection, in our system > of government, belongs to the legislature. They have chosen to identify four > such groups in this particular statute - and HB 495 is intended to add > another. Most of these groups AREN'T public servants - they are simply > identifiable groups to whom the legislature decided to extend additional protection. > > That's the legislature' That's the legislature'<wbr>s prerogative - and it's > NOT in the purview of DPS, a municipal FD, a county EMS or any other similar > agency to change it. They are supposed to enforce it and/or live under, n > > If you don't like what the legislature does, there is a simple solution - > run for office and try to change it. > > Steve > > > > > > > momedic95 wrote: > > So some are saying that if an EMT or paramedic chooses to work for a > private service they are not considered a " Public Servant " when they > are on duty and providing care, is that true? I disagree with that > for a couple of reasons. First the " Private " service may be the only > game in town for a new medic and can be a great way to get > experience while waiting to be hired by the municipal service.Some > may require at least one year experience before they will hire you. > Also many of these municipal employees will moonlight for a private > service during their off time, so while they are working municipal > they are punlic servants but in their second job they are not? > That's not fair! Maybe the private service is in this to make money > but many of us got into this because we want to " serve " the public > in some way. Heaven knows we are not getting rich at it. Which is > why many choose to or may have to take second jobs. How will this > law apply to those of us who work for a government contractor > providing service on federal property? Do the laws change because we > are federal contractors? We still have to abide by the same laws as > everyone else and are regulated by the state as well. We have to > maintain our certs just like everyone else does. And like Mike said > in an earlier post, we all have to take the same DOT mandated > training and pass the same types of tests in order to earn the > PRIVILEGE to wear the patch we have earned. And we all bleed red so > why make a distinction between governmental, municipal services and > private services? We are all doing the same job just under different > circumstances. > Anita > NREMTP/LP > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone > chooses > > > to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental > > > entity that they really don't deserve to be protected? > > > I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly > hope > > > that I have misunderstood your meaning here. > > No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced > > punishment range as those working for a government entity, or > under > > the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not > > just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone > > engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an > enhancement/ > > protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be > > engaged in? > > > > We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing > > services under the auspices of government are working directly for > > the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like > > we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers > are > > present. Private employees, government contract. That same > > " enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working > on > > their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house - > at > > that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and > the > > " standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against > them. > > > > In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing > service > > under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault > > against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will > > assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're > facing > > more punishment for doing so). > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 Actually, I posted that last Friday morning--it just went through.. must have been " moderated. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 So you to have fell victim to the group " police " on this list. But there is one thing that you pointed out on here that I had forgot, and that is about the " private " police. While Mike says that there are no such thing, there is and you pointed that out. Baylor, Methodist, Parkland, and other non-public police are just that " PRIVATE " . They only service that facility and not the general public. THey are more or less over glorified private rent-a-cops. Wayne fremsdallas@... wrote: Gene, I was reading your post regarding this issue. I agree with the fact that the private EMS provider as a company should not get any more special privileges or exemplary treatment while engaged in the course of private business. However, the licensed and certified EMS personnel should be covered under the law. I really wish my previous post of a few hours ago would be posted. It must have gotten " moderated. " The bill in question addresses the personnel of the EMS agency as being covered. Not the company. For profit or not, all providers in the state charge for the ambulance transport for reimbursement. Whether one of my employees is running an MVA, a 911 rollover, mass casualty mutual aid call, and assault at a special event, a seizure, chest pain, dialysis call or a stop to render aid, they are being placed at the same risk with the same duties of a municipally employed emt or medic. I know plenty of privately employed medics and emts, as well as the hospital employed personnel and volunteers who have been assaulted, threatened, stalked by sex offenders and even abducted at gun point and raped for several hours before being returned to her place of employment by her abductor (1994/95--VA hospital in Dallas, AMR employee-- before the " police " there were allowed to carry sidearms). With her for an example, she was clearing a medical call and was simply fixing the cot in the ER. Would extra " punishment' have stopped this? Probably not. Will it stop it in the future? Don't know. Everybody in this country knows that if you hit a cop while performing his duties bad things are going to happen. 1) you will get your but kicked or pepper-sprayed at the very least. then; 2) You will be charged with a felony and spend several years going " Man, I really messed up this time. " A call that results in any patient contact is a call. An injured person is an injured person whether they call 911 or a private service. Why should the increased criminal penalties be offered to private security personnel who have far less training than a basic peace officer on a whole and not offered to an EMT or medic who has met the same training requirements to function as an EMS Provider (employee not employer). ACLS is the same,CPR Healthcare provider is the same, PTLS, BTLS, PALS--all the same. Are the increased penalties applied if one assaults a " private " police officer such as a hospital cop. Baylor Medical Center has them, so does Methodist in Dallas. They are privately employed by a hospital? How about a DART transit officer? You bet it will be because the language reads (not verbatim) " peace officer while executing his/her duties and has identified themselves as a peace officer. With that said, the lawmakers need simply to change the language from " emergency services worker " to Emergency Medical Services personnel and Fire Services personnel..... " That should cover it and settle the argument so that all Emergency Services personnel (EMS, LE, FD and SEO) can feel better that Mr. or Mrs Havingabadday may spend some more time in jail if they hit me. I am disappointed though to see that some of our municipally employed brethren are so willing to deny a privately employee EMS employee the same basic legal protection from bodily harm. From my perspective, that discrimination and " municipal vs private " attitude only further drives yet another wedge into us (EMS) evolving as a profession on a whole. Argue all you want about calls, transfer providers, differences in wages and benefits, the alleged benevolence of a non-profit provider private versus the " corrupt, money-grubbing " private ambulance service owner (yes ambulance--privates are that, others are private EMS services) or the " tax dollar wasting municipalities that are just trying to justify their budgets " for the next fiscal year. All of that is simply time wasting bickering that is based more on opinion than fact. The bottom line is that we are all ECAs, EMTs, and Paramedics. If we cannot come together on a proposed bill that would give all of us more protection, then we are doomed as a profession and all of the efforts of groups like EMSAT have been for naught. You do not see other professions publicly disparaging their peers because of where they choose to practice. Under the Nurse Practice Act, Medical Boards, The Texas Bar association etc all see every body with the respective license as their profession and fight for all of them. Hospital RN vs nursing home or doctors office or school nurse--all are equal in their associations, as we are un the eyes of DSHS and the Bureau of Emergency Management . We do not see Physicians publicly bickering or trying to deny malpractice insurance to a plastic surgeon but offer it to an EMS medical director. Attorneys do not publicly bicker or try to deny court privileges to an ambulance chasing personal injury attorney while favoring a civil rights attorney. Sure, they may all joke about the other specialty because it is not what they chose to practice. However, you will not see a doctors lounge in a hospital deny entry to a family practice physician or a pathologist because they are not doing surgery or cardiac catheters. We do not see LE personnel try to denies benefits because they work for DPS and not SO or a large urban department or even the Border Patrol--they are all law enforcement. When one dies in the line of duty, they all wear a black ribbon on their badges. What to we do? What traditions do we have that are uniform (other than the free t-shirt, Frisbee and sandwiches at the ER during EMS week?) How many of us even know that their is a national EMS museum (thanks Woody at TEEX--great dvd!). The one thing that Physicians, Law Enforcement officers, Firefighter, Attorneys and Nurses have that EMS is lacking is MUTUAL RESPECT no matter where one chooses to work. We need to learn how to support each other rather than tear each other down. I challenge any fire-based medic to go to work for a " reputable " private provider in their area and run some critical care calls or see what the private EMS folks really do. I have had numerous Dallas FireFighters and suburban firefighters who have worked with us part-time come back and tell me that our jobs were way tougher than they imagined and that they were surprised at the amount of " real runs " that we " privates " do. All without the benefit of going back to our lazy-e-boy at the station because now the " non-emergency " calls need to be run. The non-emergency calls that are no less important to the health and well-being of patients and the public overall that no " self respecting " 911 fireman would run because " there are private services for that. " Like I said earlier, a call is a call, is an call regardless of who you work for or where you work for. We ALL deserve the equal protection of the law. I am going to go and buy my crews a cup of coffee now. They deserve it. Bacco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 Hey, we're all in the healthcare business. Let's expand the protection to ANYONE licensed by the state to provide health care -- CNAs, LVNs, RNs, NPs, CRNAs, DOs, DDSs, PAs, MDs, ODs, DCs, dental assistants, anyone who attends a trade school advertised on late night TV, ad nauseam. After all, just because I provide CPR on the side of the highway doesn't make me any better than the hospital orderly who does it toting Uncle Sal to radiology, does it? Gene and I are considered " officers of the court " since we're both attorneys. Give us " public servant " status in case someone assaults us. Also, attorneys face jokes and discrimination -- we want hate crime status too. Seriously folks -- this has got to cease. The law, because it's made by human beings, is going to have some arbitrary distinctions. This is one of those cases. For what it's worth, it doesn't seem that folks get worked up over private school teachers not being considered public servants either. Besides, I doubt anyone says, " Gee, I won't assault the Austin EMS paramedic because I'll get a felony rap. I'll go hit the AMR paramedic instead. " If the private EMS services would spend half as much time worrying about driving the shysters out of their midst as they are worrying about their status as public servants, EMS would improve dramatically. And folks, you know that some (not all, mind you) private transfer services are bad when a freaking lawyer is calling them shysters. Remember the spam we occasionally get about " Just two patients " ? Antics like that (whether billing fraud or shoddy care) are why private EMS doesn't get the same recognition that government-run EMS does. I do feel sorry for the quality private services that are out there doing the right thing, even when CMS's auditors and the HHS OIG special agents aren't conducting a " routine audit " while wearing raid jackets and waving search warrants. If we're going to allow private EMS to have the status of public servants for the purpose of assault, do you also want to be public servants when it comes to the charge of " theft of government funds by a public servant " or when Federal sentencing guidelines kick in? Be VERY careful what you ask for -- as you just may get it. In other words, if you want the status of a public servant, start acting in the public good, not merely to line your pockets. Sarcastically yours, Wes Ogilvie, resident assistant crumudgeon In a message dated 1/29/2007 1:32:27 AM Central Standard Time, fremsdallas@... writes: Mike I have do disagree with your statement outlined below. <I doubt that you could argue that EMS certificants, by status alone, <serve the interest of the state DIRECTLY. Not that there's not a <public service provided, but when an EMS professional is performing a <service for private remuneration (not 911, not part of a government <service or contract), there is *no* public interest being served. <The public gains NOTHING by having private EMS companies providing <private medical transports for private remuneration (or acceptance of <insurance as payment). Only when an EMS provider *is* providing a <service to or for the public should they be considered a public <servant, IMO. Then again, that's the whole point of this <discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why - that's all <fair discourse! The way I see it, private EMS does benefit the public directly. For example what would the increased tax burden on the public be to conduct inter-hospital transfers? When a local " public " provider brings an MVA patient to a community hospital and they require a trauma center, private services provide the transport. Is that not a public service by helping keep the citizens tax rate down and allowing the local municipal service to remain available? The same for medically necessary transports. Would you support a tax hike so that the local FD's can run transfers or Dialysis calls? If the FD or (God Forbid) a third city service did perform these transports without a tax hike, how thin do you think that the local FD would be spread? Private EMS services have to provide these services on a more or less fixed income. They do not have the benefit of being tax exempt as does a municipality. They have to match the employees payroll taxes dollar for dollar and meet their overhead on their own without the cushion of a tax base. Private EMS providers across the country have to overcome these challenges and face scrutiny for making it work. What does the remuneration source matter if it is privately paid, tax funded or a third party payer. If you think that municipalities do not bill for EMS, you are sorely mistaken. It seems to me that you have fostered some animosity towards private providers. You say you understand Security Officers being included because they are " keeping the peace to some degree. " There are both publicly employed and privately employed SEO's. IE--The Dallas Police Department's security division and say Protection. The only difference in the power/rights as compared to a private citizen is that SEOs wear a distinctive uniform, if they are commissioned they may carry a weapon in plain view while en route to or from their assigned job/post and while they are on that property. However, a private citizen may carry a concealed weapon except for specific locations--sporting event, church, liquor stores, schools, polling locations and government buildings. There is no difference in their arrest powers as compared to a private citizen. However, the private citizen who is carrying a concealed weapon does not have to act whereas uniformed personnel are expected to act. Yes, I agree that SEOs should be included in the bill should be included in the bill as well because they often find themselves in dangerous positions due to their duty assignments. In fact, more SEO's are killed in their line of duty annually than LEOs. You know as well as I do that the general public does not really know the difference between a private EMS service or a public one. What they DO know is that they have a need for an ambulance--emergent or otherwise--and an ambulance is there for them--private or not. Just like the bad guys you encounter could care a less about whether somebody is a real cop or a rent a cop. They see a uniform that represents some kind of authority. Therefore, if one is in that perceived position of authority, they should be entitled to the same level of consideration and protection under the law. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.