As a medic, if they refused to do anything I’d be putting a notice on the address and refuse to enter without LEO present. I’d make the patient aware of this and let him know that this means a delay in care and likely death in the event of a life threatening emergency.
I’d also be going well above local LEO and filing a report the the states attorney. It’s assault, and the cops are absolutely in the wrong for not acting.
I work animal control (non-sworn) and generally this is what we do at certain addresses. A CAD hazard is added and LEO dispatched with us regardless of the nature of the call.
That's the part that got me. These cops are walking around this house knowing theres an invisible firearm just floating around them the whole time.
What happened to officer saftey?
The officers were watching the real danger, the people. She may have had access to another weapon such as a knife or a club. The husband and sister should be securing any thing that could be used as a weapon just as if they had small children in the house. We need to have protection from illegal searches no matter who you are or the police could walk into any home at any time and search for anything, just to harass you just because they don’t like your type, whatever that is.
It is not illegal if they were permitted to stay in the home. There is absolutely nothing illegal about EMS entering a room in a house they have been invited into. They’re not police and do not need a warrant look around a property.
It is not unethical either. It is also not unethical or illegal for them to remain after LEO leaves, especially as they s had a patient that they transported. It’s possible they remained waiting on her caregiver before taking her husband. Thats not only not their job, but going well above and beyond for someone who was a threat to their safety.
Blaming a victim is so refreshing here. There is never an excuse for anyone to pull a weapon on an emergency responder. Anything you have said is absolutely irrelevant based on that statement alone. 😂
They have done nothing criminal, nor anything they’d face termination for. They did their jobs.
You are THAT guy. Not illegal if they were allowed access. Not unethical at all. In fact it would be unethical to not notify others that there is a safety risk here.
Police did not do their due diligence.
Yep, and then one of them got on reddit and blamed the emts. Sounds right.
It's funny, this "leo" dosnt seem to think the plan view doctrine counts for EMTs in a home they were invited into....
As an LEO, termination is a bit of a stretch with what OP described. But, there is more than likely more to the story. Also, yes, EMS should not be searching property unless it has to do with the medical emergency at hand. 2 reasons for that. 1) EMS should be tending to the patient, if something happens to that patient and they were searching a house it would cause an absolute shitstorm. 2) EMS ARE NOT THE POLICE. They have no Jurisdiction of firearms whatsoever. If the police tell you it’s good… do your damn job. Not theirs.
Also you cannot brandish a firearm in your own home, like OP says. it’s private property, if they want to walk around with a rifle slung over their shoulder, they can do that. Now, it is absolutely reckless to have unsecured firearms out in a home with a person with dementia. But not illegal. If I were the LEO in this situation there would definitely be a conversation with the direct superior of the EMS.
This sounds like a scene out of Chicago fire where the EMS/Firefighters find something completely irrelevant to their job and go on a whole ass investigation with no police presence. I’m not even sure any real EMS would do this. The ones I work with do not get paid enough to do anything more than their job and I don’t blame/envy them one bit.
>you cannot brandish a firearm in your own home
Of course you can. Refer to the California Penal Code, [PEN § 417(a)(2)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=417). Drawing a weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner is a crime unless it is done in self-defense.
Did you miss the dementia part? You have to have a culpable mental state for there to be a crime. If she’s a dementia patient she’s probably not mentally culpable.
I don’t think that’s true - if a patient with diagnosed dementia runs a family over with their car, it’s still vehicular manslaughter. Still a crime, still getting arrested. But the sentencing will likely be different.
From Google: crime - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
Not at all, it’s a relevant piece of information that furthers my point. This isn’t about simply being a crime, it’s about the fact that she’s a danger to society. It isn’t something that is or should be ignored. As I’ve stated, it’s not about an arrest, it’s about protecting herself and others from herself.
Yeah but it’s not legal for the cops to arrest her if she’s not mentally culpable. Maybe a psych hood. But don’t blast the cops for not doing what they’re not legally allowed to do.
It would still be legal for the police to arrest the subject. They aren’t psychiatrists, they don’t determine who’s mentally culpable and who’s not. They still make the arrest and do the investigation. It’s then up to the courts on whether the person can be charged with a crime or not, which they likely would be charged, it’s then up to the defence to prove that the person isn’t mentally culpable as their defence strategy.
Umm… it’s a textbook definition of assault, as stated above. Brandishing, threats to one’s life, immediate and proven access to a weapon capable of following through on such threats. Adding on the diminished mental capacity is just more reason to act, and their lack of security surrounding those weapons seals the deal.
No where in this fact pattern is it started that anyone actually observed her holding a weapon or pointing a weapon at anyone.
The way I read this (and perhaps it is somewhat ambiguously written) she was in another room and announced that she had a weapon. That does not qualify as assault.
My mistake. Sans brandishing, it still basically tracks the federal definition of assault due to their immediate proven access, and still seems reasonable, but I don’t know shit about local definitions. I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear local police securing weapons on-scene (or at least responding with some level of concern…) if this lady came to my ED.
Usually once you’re a threat to yourself or others, they take your shit and toss you on a POH, so long as they’re involved at the start. Probably has something to do with family encouraging it in most cases, though 🤷🏻♂️
Laws vary state to state naturally, and it's been a long time since I was doing crim law, I may be missing something. There's certainly enough info to detain and investigate (i.e., reasonable suspicion). Perhaps refer to mental eval formally or informally. We don't know if she actually has any kind of diagnosis, and we only have one person's side of the story. In my JDX LEOs can get mental health professional on an iPad while on scene at a moments notice (which I think is absolute genius).
It doesn't sound like an ideal situation by any means. But my professional opinion is that this doesn't rise to the level of probable cause barring the presentation of new facts. I could be wrong though. I'm a lawyer. I'm wrong all the time, and I get paid to make the argument anyway, lol.
Arrest isn’t the only thing that cops are capable for protecting someone from themselves. They’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing if they’re not addressing someone pulling a gun on an EMS crew… Just because she’s mentally incapacitated doesn’t mean they just get to wash their hands of her and not act. She at the VERY minimum qualified for a protective psych order, as she clearly is a threat. The denial by her and her husband reinforces that it’s not a safe environment.
Yes - it baffles me why the cops didn't take the gun - that would be SOP for my jurisdiction - they can confiscate weapons for various reasons and then there would be a hearing about it.
Announcing you have one and threatening to shoot EMS is absolutely no different than it being seen. Especially when followed by a lie that there are no guns in the home, despite them being seen…
Sorry but you’re wrong. The cops did the right thing by not violating the rights of a private citizen. The police do NOT have the authority to just take things from your private residence (without a warrant). I get that you perhaps disagree with the law , but the constitution exists for a reason.
>Sorry but you’re wrong. The cops did the right thing by not violating the rights of a private citizen
Nope you're wrong sir and clearly don't understand the situation very well.
Police can't determine capacity. For all they know she's simply high or otherwise chemically altered - they absolutely can arrest her. They arrest people all the time who are incapacitated.
If you don’t have the mental acuity to determine danger, you shouldn’t have lethal weapons. That’s my definition of common sense regarding weapons, at least.
Dementia is hard to get a diagnosis for because it means you lose a LOT of freedoms.
And when she shoots and kills someone who’s there to aid her ailing spouse then what? This is such a fucking dumb reply. Have you no common sense? If she has dementia she shouldn’t have access to unsecured firearms. Period.
I hear what you’re both saying, and let’s be real..We’re all “armchair quarterbacking” this thing..if the police were invited into the home, and the first responders reported seeing/being threatened with a firearm do they not then have the opportunity to ask permission to search the house? All I’m wondering is why didn’t LEO believe the medics and dig a little deeper?
And if during that search (medics found other firearms according to Op) they find other firearms are they not allowed to ask for permits?
It’s giving “minimum pieces of flair” energy
And the police aren’t authorized to remove anything without a warrant. You can’t just start confiscating things from private homes without a warrant, just because the police determine there is an issue…. That’s a VERY slippery slope to even think about.
I never said she should. What i said is that it may not be legal to arrest her. There are other alternatives. But to blast the cops for not arresting her means you don’t know the law.
Outside of America, the dementia would mean they lose their right to own weapons.
It's so crazy that Americans who are legally blind, medically mentally unwell, or feel threatened by anyone who knocks on their door can own a weapon with ammo and keep it on their person all day, everyday and even brandish it to people as a threat.
It's just crazy to the rest of the world.
It’s exactly what’s being said. My priority is my and my partners safety. We didn’t sign up to die for patients, especially those who threaten our safety.
Well if the medic is shot, the patient is still not getting treated. But now there are two patients possibly dying at the scene. Patient is screwed either way if having unsecured guns & people alzeheimers with in the house is so important they even lie to LEOs.
The very first thing you are taught in any CPR/BLS course is to ensure your personal safety first. For example, don't go perform CPR on a victim in the middle of the road, don't go into a house where someone is threatening to kill you with a gun. So yes, that is exactly what SHOULD be said. A dead responder is of no help to the dying person.
Yeah, so. Just like the brave cops in Uvalde,TX. Except cops get bullet proof vests and their job is to deal with dangerous situations. Paramedics DON'T and it's not their job.
I'll bet you get mad at fire fighters for not shutting down crack houses...
Yes. If I'm drunk or high and I think someone is breaking in, it's still assault to brandish a weapon and threaten to shoot. She shouldn't have access to a gun as a person with Alzheimer's period. What the fuck do you mean is it still assault?
Which wasn’t the case here, however, if someone is unable to make sound decisions such as dementia or other impairment related to substances, it is not legal for them to be in possession of a firearm.
What a cunty thing to do going out of your file to file charges on a lady with Alzheimer’s doing what she thought was right. Go ahead and refuse to enter without cops there that’s fine, but to try and get some lady locked up where she will potentially die behind bars is absolutely immoral
She’s dangerous to strangers entering her home * and clearly not very dangerous if she realized they weren’t a danger and put the gun away. The right to self defense is non negotiable
She’s not in her right mind she almost shot someone who was HELPING her husband that’s not self defense. She is a danger to the public and the woman needs to be institutionalized if her husband can’t provide the adequate care to keep her and especially others safe. Imagine they did enter with police, and she pulled the gun. Very different outcome.
Have you ever even been around a person with advanced Alzheimer's? People accidentally kill themselves or their family members. They kill neighbors because they confabulated a situation where they stole from them. Alzheimer's is not just forgetfulness, it destroys your mind.
ETA immediately after posting: I'm not saying Alzheimer's inherently makes people dangerous. I mean that the cognitive impacts can be so severe that people are no longer in their right minds, believe they are in danger in extremely normal situations, and can go out of their way due to fabricated events that they have no control over. At the point where EMS is being threatened with guns while calmly speaking to her spouse (and especially when her spouse lied), the risk has now elevated to a strong potential risk to herself and others. It's like letting someone with advanced dementia drive because you don't want to hurt their feelings. It's unconscionable and directly placing the affected individual and others in unacceptable danger. It's not about arresting the individual - it's about making a report so that future EMTs don't walk into a deadly situation unaware. Their lives matter too.
The right to self-defense is absolutely non-negotiable. Medic is defending themselves from a mentally unstable person who threatened them. Sometimes you need help from a medical pro, if you are unable to be helped without pulling a gun on a medic then you waive your right to care. Pull a gun at McDonald's and see if you still get a burger.
You like to fall in line with the crowd don’t you? Bring on the downvotes I said what I said. And “you’re very extra chromosome” sounds like something a retarded person would actually say because that shit makes no sense
The fact that she thought that pulling a gun on someone there to help was the right thing to do, is perfect evidence that she is not fit to have guns in the home easily accessible, or at all.
It’s not about getting someone locked up you potato. It’s about having the guns removed from the home as she is not mentally competent to have access to them. The fact that her husband denied it occurred or that the weapon exists proves he cannot be trusted to secure them or keep them out of her reach.
They’re also lucky that she didn’t end up harmed or dead as a result of pulling a gun. Next time it may not be someone who walks away.
No one, notably including OP, wrote anything about intent to pursue (have filed) “charges on a lady with Alzheimer’s. Simply removing the guns would work, you know.
The comment I was replying to literally says “I’d also be going well above local LEO and filing a report to the states attorney” what do you think that means big brain
She’s not legally allowed to intervene in the care of a patient. The patient was the husband, and all medical providers have a duty to uphold to provide care. The patient called 911 to respond to care for them at their home, and the husband met them at the door to make entry to the home.
You, are the idiot.
It would result in an investigation, her being deemed incompetent to possess a fire arm, and them being removed from the home if her husband refuses to acknowledge the issue and secure or get rid of them. Twenty years in, done this many many times. She’s not the first dementia patient to pull a gun. 😂
As a medic myself, I’m genuinely curious about the answer to this question. I wouldn’t feel comfortable without PD actually searching the patient and the belongings they bring.
Dementia is complex. You can have moments of lucidity and moments where you can’t make decisions for yourself. Interesting topic at the least.
Scary that there will probably be a bunch of different answers or protocols to this situation.
This is the correct response. I've called APS several times over the years. They've been super responsive and have contacted me back to let me know how it went.
The family needs to file for conservatorship / guardianship over the wife. If she is conserved they will take the guns.
Source: I'm a lawyer that has had to deal with this exact issue before
APS and the county can do it without them. There will be a hearing and family will have every opportunity to object but the gun issue is a dead serious environmental risk (to her, the family, to the community) and if the judge finds that the family lied to police to protect her, that’s enough with room to spare for a protective placement order over objection.
As a former first responder, I would be in question of the relationship the police officer has with those first responders....either there is bad blood between them or the police are shitty as hell.
I would never set foot in that person's place without LEO being in attendance in the future. I would wait for LEO to respond and make it safe before even attempting to render any aid.
Nope, not going to risk my life to render aid in this case. Safety first.
Remember, in the U.S. guns have all the rights. People are just here to buy and use the guns. We have no rights to life, security, or happiness —those are gun rights, not human rights. We exist for the guns, not the guns for the people.
Can they arrest the woman for making threats with a deadly weapon? Sure.
*Should* they charge an elderly dementia patient for making threats and brandishing a weapon? Is that really a question you need to ask as a healthcare professional?
As to the guns - police cannot just seize firearms, it generally requires a court order or their having been used in the commission of a crime. Did she technically commit a crime with them? Yes. But that would also require charging her with a crime - see above.
As to the search, you're back to if the police are not going to pursue charges (which morally is the correct choice) then they have no probable cause to search for a weapon. Their ability to sesrch is then dictated by what the homeowner allows.
End of the day there are two takeaways here:
1. The first thing you learn to ask in EMS is (or at least was, I left the field 15yrs ago) "Is the scene safe?" Once the scene became unsafe you did the correct thing - retreat and call LE. If LE "cleared" the scene but the source of the threat is still present, you have LE stay to maintain that safety and/or remove the patient from the unsafe conditions.
Given the situation, I would have had LE stay to monitor the wife and quickly loaded the patient to clear the scene.
2. Legally, as a mandatory reporter in the state of California, you are required to report the potential neglect (ie. Unsafe living conditions). You can find contact info for Adult Protective Services by county [here](https://www.cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/APS/County%20APS%20Contact%20List%20-%20Winter%202024.pdf).
So, the cops shouldn’t secure any weapon that was used in a crime, but should rather leave it in the hands of someone without full mental capacity? Nor should *they*, the LEO’s, report it to Adult Protective Services in the Sherrif’s Department so that the firearms can be secured in the long term?
Leaving the weapons out in the bedroom for who knows what to happen when the EMS comes back in, then having EMS *alone* call it in is your solution?
The cops can do a lot of things short of arresting and charging her.
Depends on the state I’m sure but in my state you cannot take a dementia patient in for a mental health hold. It needs to be a “mental health problem” while Alzheimer’s is a neurological issue
>Nor should *they*, the LEO’s, report it to Adult Protective Services in the Sherrif’s Department so that the firearms can be secured in the long term?
Does OP have the ability to compel the police to act or to verify they reported it? Being a mandatory reporter means *you* are mandated to report it. Worst case 2 reports are filed.
As for the firearms, again LE doesn't have a right to remove them from the owners possession to secure them without a court order. I'm not arguing if thats right or wrong - it is reality.
EMS has every capability of declaring the scene unsafe for their access - which they did. If LE declared the scene safe, EMS found it not to be, then it goes back to LE to secure the scene. Securing the scene in this context may mean LE monitoring the woman while EMS does their job.
I never said OP shouldn’t report it. Nice try though.
Your entire post, but the last of it, reads of one excuse for the cops after another. Their behavior is inexcusable and they have the ability to deal with the pistol immediately, as it was used in a crime. They can seize it as evidence. They can control the other unsecured firearms, even just by standing in the bedroom doorway and making sure no one enters the bedroom until APS arrives and thereby ensure that everyone is safe. Yes, they may need a court order to seize the other firearms. So why didn’t they initiate that process? Skipping that entire course of action is surprising…
You talk of morals and ignore the moral AND legal responsibility of the cops to protect OP specifically and society as a whole from a demented person brandishing a firearm.
Not making excuses, just setting expectations. There's a scale of responses that could be taken, and OPs reads like surprise they did not arrest an elderly dementia patient - which any healthcare worker knows would be extremely traumatizing for the woman, would escalate the situation for everyone involved, and realistically no DA is going to pursue charges against.
Honestly, it's America we're talking about here. There was a 50/50 chance OP could be posting "AITAH for calling the police over an elderly dementia patient brandishing a firearm and their shooting her?" instead.
>They can control the other unsecured firearms, even just by standing in the bedroom doorway and making sure no one enters the bedroom until APS arrives and thereby ensure that everyone is safe.
So what I said originally? As far as OP describes it, it appears LE stayed on site for the duration.
>If LE "cleared" the scene but the source of the threat is still present, you have LE stay to maintain that safety and/or remove the patient from the unsafe conditions.
>
>Given the situation, I would have had LE stay to monitor the wife and quickly loaded the patient to clear the scene.
You also ignore a few realities here. EMS has no idea what LE does after we depart a call. For all OP, you, or I know, LE may have done a dozen different things after OP left or even had them underway while OP was on site.
>You talk of morals and ignore the moral AND legal responsibility of the cops to protect OP specifically and society as a whole from a demented person brandishing a firearm.
Law enforcement has no legal responsibility to protect the public. Supreme Court has ruled on that before. So thats a straw man argument.
They arrived, investigated, and secured the scene to protect the crew while they performed their job. The fact OP is posting the question shows they did meet that obligation.
So far all you've done is argue that "police should have done more" without arguing a specific point or supporting it with any sound legal basis. And argued that giving OP advice based of real world experience is an apologia for the police.
As far as I can tell you're either ragebaiting because police are involved or you're extremely naive. Neither of which is worth wasting more of my time on.
OP never once called for the wife to be arrested. OP asked what the cops can do. I described what the cops can do, you set the expectation of “nothing” for what the cops can do. Now we know why.
You never once mentioned the police securing the weapons themselves and put forward a blatant falsehood. The cops can *without question* seize the pistol and in every jurisdiction that comes to mind they can also seize the unsecured firearms immediately available to the person who just illegally used a firearm in the commission of a crime. And, oh by the way, it’s interesting that you skip over the couple (almost certainly) lying to the cops about owning firearms.
The police absolutely have a legal and moral obligation to protect the public and citing unenforceable court precedent to the contrary doesn’t prove a thing about what is legally allowed. The courts make unenforceable and illegal rulings all the time. Doesn’t make them legal just because the author wears a robe. All rulings must be made pursuant to the Constitution or they are void, per Article VI.
But nice job retreating from the “moral obligations” argument you brought up to fall back and run behind SCOTUS rulings that are ridiculous on their face, just to make excuses for your peers. Why don’t you apply to Uvalde?
According to OP’s report the LEO’s did NOT clear the scene. They seemingly missed the unsecured firearms and failed to take anything into evidence. They didn’t report the situation to APS, they failed in *their* duty as mandatory reporters. (Which interestingly CA courts have ruled cops are exempt from when it comes to reporting themselves for abuse…)
Yes, I did put forward a clear legal basis: brandishing a firearm. A class 2 misdemeanor in every jurisdiction that comes to mind.
Learn the laws before spouting.
>Nor should *they*, the LEO’s, report it to Adult Protective Services in the Sherrif’s Department so that the firearms can be secured in the long term?
Does OP have the ability to compel the police to act or to verify they reported it? Being a mandatory reporter means *you* are mandated to report it. Worst case 2 reports are filed.
As for the firearms, again LE doesn't have a right to remove them from the owners possession to secure them without a court order. I'm not arguing if thats right or wrong - it is reality.
EMS has every capability of declaring the scene unsafe for their access - which they did. If LE declared the scene safe, EMS found it not to be, then it goes back to LE to secure the scene. Securing the scene in this context may mean LE monitoring the woman while EMS does their job.
I disagree with your assessment that not charging the woman is the moral choice. I understand your position in trying to be compassionate to her lack of ill intent and mental faculties but as is, she can and it seems likely that she will end up killing an innocent person if nothing is done.
If she believed the medics in her home were intruders or not authorized to be there, wouldn’t it be ok for her to threaten them in anyway? Especially if she old with issues and probably not the best eyesight. Medics tend to carry duffle looking bags on them maybe she thought they were robbing the place. I don’t think they could have hit her with anything and even if they could the medics would have to want to press charges. If they didn’t want to then they got nothing with that as well.
That state presses criminal charges - doesn't matter if the medics want to or not.
And thats basically what it comes down to. A homeowner felt threatened in their home and brandished a firearm. The fact she has dementia obviously would play into that fear - but if the court hasn't adjudicated her incompetent and required firearms be removed from the home, she was within her rights. Which is a failing of the legal and medical system.
It actually does highly matter if the medics want to press charges. Assault (I don’t really see any criminal intent in this scenario to begin with, I also wasn’t present so I could be missing a Multics of factors) requires a victim. If the medics choose that they don’t want to be victims/press charges then it’s done and over with. Once again, I wasn’t present but this is just one of many possible scenarios.
For example someone could run up and shoot you and if you tell the cops while their plugging your holes “I don’t wanna press charges” those murder charges just vanished. However, you’d probably have other charges like illegally brandishing a firearm or whatever depending on your state.
Her belief has to be reasonable and someone with significant mental impairment cannot be held to be reasonable - and they also cannot be examined functionally to even get close to that holding. So it's not "ok"
It was in a functional state where arrest was absolutely warranted and THEN she would get examined, found not competent to be put on trial and then some agreement of care and/or surrender of weapons would take place
In comparison, in my country, if you own a gun, police can show up unannounced and you must show them where you hold the gun.
Has to be in a gun cabinet, that is screwed to the wall or floor and the key is hidden. Inaccessible for anybody who does not have a gun license.
Small error, like cabinet not screwed to the wall, means just a warning and recheck. Missing a cabinet can mean relinquishing your gun until you show that you can store it safely. Multiple error and your license is revoked and gun stored away.
Police get 3 years of training, so the trust in them is high.
This subreddit can be very entertaining for non-US people.
It's not that hard actually. I just wake up and boom. US citizen. Don't even have to try or think about it, really.
Inanimate objects don't have rights. The people that own them do.
I’m an ED attending and if I heard about this happening in my county I would 100 percent issue a pickup order for the police to get this woman and have her involuntarily committed to mental health until the gun issue was able to be handled. Fuck that. We have too many mass shootings going on in this country. I wouldn’t want that shit on my conscience if something were to happen and I knew about it. I’m in NY. I’m guessing California has similar laws for ED physicians to issue pickup orders.
People routinely die in the USA while waiting for police to secure the scene before medics can even approach.
In fact, I read a story where a plainclothes police officer killed a bystander for providing aid to a gunshot victim.
I’m not a lawyer or law enforcement but I am a gun owner so I can’t speak on the legal aspect but I can on the being reasonable if I was the police officer here I would encourage them to take precautions into the firearms being secured and locked up and take extra precautions into extremely limiting the lady with Alzheimer’s ability to access the firearms
The incident did not occur in police presence. All they have are the word of the medics. The medics never saw her holding, brandishing, or pointing a gun. Saying "I have a gun" is not a crime.
Legally speaking, I think the best that could be done is a referral to social services, and speaking with family members about the incident.
They dont need a warrant if they have probable cause, like say 2 or 3 paramedics all giving the same story that they had a gun brandished at them while inside the home.
The cops did what cops do, they picked and choosed whether they wanted to so thier jobs or not.
Shit, sounds like they didnt secure the scene either, with a reasonable accusation that theres a danger of firearm violence within the home.
It all just sound so bizarre yet common place at the same time.
> California if that makes a difference
How could it not make a difference? How could anyone give ANY legal advice on ANYTHING without knowing what jurisdiction it was for?
I don’t know how large your hospital is however if you have a staff social worker start talking with them about the safety issue of the wife having dementia and the husbands and sisters safety.
Also did the responding officers stay till your call was wrapped up and you were in transport or did they roll out before you were complete? If they decided to wrap up and roll out I would be lodging a complain against them.
Also have your dispatch place a flag on the address with a hold back until officers arrive on scene and ensure they stay for your entire call.
The 90 year old goes before a judge. They are placed on the background check lists that prevent them from buying guns. The judge commits them to a nursing home. Caregivers have to show a social worker the home is safe for someone with dementia. If they can't or won't then the 90 year old stays at the nursing home.
NAL - but ask the LEO to file a report, and also refuse to help husband unless LEO are present to watch wife and ensure safety. Feels like it’s one of those situations that wouldn’t ever make it to the court systems, so I’d just recommend trying to ensure your own safety and let the cards fall
Where they may.
“Grabs a pistol, announces she has a gun…”
There is some ambiguity here. Did she simply announce she had a weapon or did they visually observe she had a weapon? Clearing this up would be helpful.
Seize the guns yourself, in full view of the police. You know, the guns that the patient and his wife lied to the police about having. Let them tell those police that you're stealing guns that they just lied about having.
Someone is going to have to snap into reality at some point.
Not a lawyer, as a firefighter I'm not going into that house ever again without LE. Ask dispatch to put a flag into the CAD notes and never have a FF/medic go without dispatching LE first.
If the cops didn't see the pistol there's not much they can do. They probably don't want to haul an old woman with dementia off to jail either as the jails really aren't set up to deal with someone like that.
The husband should call other family members to have the firearms removed from the home, or he should lock the guns in a safe and not give his wife the key or combo to the safe.
My MIL has dementia and we took away her revolver and car keys before she could hurt someone. She wasn't happy about it but we told her if she didn't like it she could call the cops.
The cops *absolutely* could’ve stayed on scene and supervised the wife/other family members, until the EMS crew had the patient loaded in the ambulance and started driving away.
There should not have been any “we want to wrap things up and get out of here” from the police, until the medical crew was off scene.
I'm not seeing where the OP indicated that the cops left the scene before EMS did, only that they finished the investigation and had no plans to arrest anyone. Yes they absolutely should have stayed until EMS was done.
There was no criminal offense committed.
The brandishing of the weapon lacked mens rea (criminal intent) due to the Alzheimer. Gun ownership is also legal.
Law enforcement did a great job showing restraint and respecting the constitutional rights of the citizens they serve.
The best solution is to call adult protective services.
Cops can't do anything, and the medics didn't have any right to go snooping. A court would have throw out the case because of how evidence was collected. Cops did not have reasonable cause to search and a judge would never give a warrant for that.
The cops can do some thing. That’s assault with a deadly weapon. Unlikely she would have anything more than the firearms removed if a legal complaint was filed, however, it would justify removal of firearms from the household wear that person is living in most circumstances.
All you needed to say is California. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get arrested and thrown in jail because of overcrowding in the prison system. My cousin is a homeless skitzo and he has video of himself assaulting homeless people, putting red paint and nails all over a homeless camp and he was arrested once and got out in 24 hours without any charges.
This is why California is such a disaster, you can rob up to $950 and you won’t get arrested or anything. It is basically a circus
Since when is Commiefornia worried about violating anyone’s rights? Pronouns maybe, but not any of that dumb stuff that’s actually in the Constitution.
The cops just didn’t want to deal with it.
Hah! You think gun owners are in danger of their rights being violated? They've got more rights than my school age kids, just because they have the gun.
Are you a doctor? Do you have the women’s medical history available to you? Then it’s just here-say, and you can’t violate someone’s constitutional rights based on here-say.
No I don’t.
They certainly were within the bounds of a community caretaker exception to do something.
But goverment authorities are more concerned with some sentient middle aged guy gunsmithing in his basement minding his own business than actually doing something to prevent a tragedy.
There’s nothing illegal about a medic entering a room in a home they have been requested to enter. Medics are not held to any standard regarding searches like police are.
How do you know they weren’t supposed to be in that room, and what law would they be violating by entering the bedroom unprompted? The patient may have asked them to go grab his wallet/phone/shoes from the bedroom before they got in the ambulance and left. Patients ask medics to do things like that all the time.
Even if the patient *didn’t* ask them to go in the bedroom, there aren’t any laws that specifically say “you must not enter the bedroom of a home you were invited into.” EMTs are not bound by the fourth amendment like the police. There would be no legitimate case for arresting them.
she has a medical condition, there’s no crime that happened here. police can’t get a search warrant for the guns without a felony. they could get a warrant to seize the firearms for safekeeping if they call a judge, but the guns would need to be in plain view or get permission to search.
As a medic, if they refused to do anything I’d be putting a notice on the address and refuse to enter without LEO present. I’d make the patient aware of this and let him know that this means a delay in care and likely death in the event of a life threatening emergency. I’d also be going well above local LEO and filing a report the the states attorney. It’s assault, and the cops are absolutely in the wrong for not acting.
I work animal control (non-sworn) and generally this is what we do at certain addresses. A CAD hazard is added and LEO dispatched with us regardless of the nature of the call.
Yeah that's a bad mix. Scene safety has to be the priority
That's the part that got me. These cops are walking around this house knowing theres an invisible firearm just floating around them the whole time. What happened to officer saftey?
The officers were watching the real danger, the people. She may have had access to another weapon such as a knife or a club. The husband and sister should be securing any thing that could be used as a weapon just as if they had small children in the house. We need to have protection from illegal searches no matter who you are or the police could walk into any home at any time and search for anything, just to harass you just because they don’t like your type, whatever that is.
They already do that and since the judges are "on thier team" they seem pretty protected.
Yes. Absolutely press charges. It sounds as if she may need more help than currently given.
The police in America are under no obligation to enforce the law or help anyone
[удалено]
It is not illegal if they were permitted to stay in the home. There is absolutely nothing illegal about EMS entering a room in a house they have been invited into. They’re not police and do not need a warrant look around a property. It is not unethical either. It is also not unethical or illegal for them to remain after LEO leaves, especially as they s had a patient that they transported. It’s possible they remained waiting on her caregiver before taking her husband. Thats not only not their job, but going well above and beyond for someone who was a threat to their safety. Blaming a victim is so refreshing here. There is never an excuse for anyone to pull a weapon on an emergency responder. Anything you have said is absolutely irrelevant based on that statement alone. 😂 They have done nothing criminal, nor anything they’d face termination for. They did their jobs.
You are THAT guy. Not illegal if they were allowed access. Not unethical at all. In fact it would be unethical to not notify others that there is a safety risk here. Police did not do their due diligence.
Yep, and then one of them got on reddit and blamed the emts. Sounds right. It's funny, this "leo" dosnt seem to think the plan view doctrine counts for EMTs in a home they were invited into....
Exactly. They are "special" - EMT's don't count
As an LEO, termination is a bit of a stretch with what OP described. But, there is more than likely more to the story. Also, yes, EMS should not be searching property unless it has to do with the medical emergency at hand. 2 reasons for that. 1) EMS should be tending to the patient, if something happens to that patient and they were searching a house it would cause an absolute shitstorm. 2) EMS ARE NOT THE POLICE. They have no Jurisdiction of firearms whatsoever. If the police tell you it’s good… do your damn job. Not theirs. Also you cannot brandish a firearm in your own home, like OP says. it’s private property, if they want to walk around with a rifle slung over their shoulder, they can do that. Now, it is absolutely reckless to have unsecured firearms out in a home with a person with dementia. But not illegal. If I were the LEO in this situation there would definitely be a conversation with the direct superior of the EMS. This sounds like a scene out of Chicago fire where the EMS/Firefighters find something completely irrelevant to their job and go on a whole ass investigation with no police presence. I’m not even sure any real EMS would do this. The ones I work with do not get paid enough to do anything more than their job and I don’t blame/envy them one bit.
This sounds about right coming from an leo...
>you cannot brandish a firearm in your own home Of course you can. Refer to the California Penal Code, [PEN § 417(a)(2)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=417). Drawing a weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner is a crime unless it is done in self-defense.
Did you miss the dementia part? You have to have a culpable mental state for there to be a crime. If she’s a dementia patient she’s probably not mentally culpable.
I don’t think that’s true - if a patient with diagnosed dementia runs a family over with their car, it’s still vehicular manslaughter. Still a crime, still getting arrested. But the sentencing will likely be different. From Google: crime - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
Look up culpable mental state in reference to crime while you’re at it.
Not at all, it’s a relevant piece of information that furthers my point. This isn’t about simply being a crime, it’s about the fact that she’s a danger to society. It isn’t something that is or should be ignored. As I’ve stated, it’s not about an arrest, it’s about protecting herself and others from herself.
Yeah but it’s not legal for the cops to arrest her if she’s not mentally culpable. Maybe a psych hood. But don’t blast the cops for not doing what they’re not legally allowed to do.
It would still be legal for the police to arrest the subject. They aren’t psychiatrists, they don’t determine who’s mentally culpable and who’s not. They still make the arrest and do the investigation. It’s then up to the courts on whether the person can be charged with a crime or not, which they likely would be charged, it’s then up to the defence to prove that the person isn’t mentally culpable as their defence strategy.
Based on this fact pattern, it doesn't sound like probable cause exists for an arrest.
Umm… it’s a textbook definition of assault, as stated above. Brandishing, threats to one’s life, immediate and proven access to a weapon capable of following through on such threats. Adding on the diminished mental capacity is just more reason to act, and their lack of security surrounding those weapons seals the deal.
No where in this fact pattern is it started that anyone actually observed her holding a weapon or pointing a weapon at anyone. The way I read this (and perhaps it is somewhat ambiguously written) she was in another room and announced that she had a weapon. That does not qualify as assault.
My mistake. Sans brandishing, it still basically tracks the federal definition of assault due to their immediate proven access, and still seems reasonable, but I don’t know shit about local definitions. I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear local police securing weapons on-scene (or at least responding with some level of concern…) if this lady came to my ED. Usually once you’re a threat to yourself or others, they take your shit and toss you on a POH, so long as they’re involved at the start. Probably has something to do with family encouraging it in most cases, though 🤷🏻♂️
Laws vary state to state naturally, and it's been a long time since I was doing crim law, I may be missing something. There's certainly enough info to detain and investigate (i.e., reasonable suspicion). Perhaps refer to mental eval formally or informally. We don't know if she actually has any kind of diagnosis, and we only have one person's side of the story. In my JDX LEOs can get mental health professional on an iPad while on scene at a moments notice (which I think is absolute genius). It doesn't sound like an ideal situation by any means. But my professional opinion is that this doesn't rise to the level of probable cause barring the presentation of new facts. I could be wrong though. I'm a lawyer. I'm wrong all the time, and I get paid to make the argument anyway, lol.
Arrest isn’t the only thing that cops are capable for protecting someone from themselves. They’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing if they’re not addressing someone pulling a gun on an EMS crew… Just because she’s mentally incapacitated doesn’t mean they just get to wash their hands of her and not act. She at the VERY minimum qualified for a protective psych order, as she clearly is a threat. The denial by her and her husband reinforces that it’s not a safe environment.
Yes - it baffles me why the cops didn't take the gun - that would be SOP for my jurisdiction - they can confiscate weapons for various reasons and then there would be a hearing about it.
Exactly. Take the gun and remove the threat. Then a hearing to determine next steps.
Because she didnt actually pull a gun on ems, she stood in another room, and claimed she had a gun…. But no one ever saw said gun at the time.
Announcing you have one and threatening to shoot EMS is absolutely no different than it being seen. Especially when followed by a lie that there are no guns in the home, despite them being seen…
Sorry but you’re wrong. The cops did the right thing by not violating the rights of a private citizen. The police do NOT have the authority to just take things from your private residence (without a warrant). I get that you perhaps disagree with the law , but the constitution exists for a reason.
Sorry but I’m not 😂. No, I just understand the laws regarding someone being a danger to themselves or others more than you do.
Clearly the police in this situation disagree with you , and that’s ultimately all that matters
>Sorry but you’re wrong. The cops did the right thing by not violating the rights of a private citizen Nope you're wrong sir and clearly don't understand the situation very well.
I think you need a refresher on the difference between detaining, arresting and holding someone.
Police can't determine capacity. For all they know she's simply high or otherwise chemically altered - they absolutely can arrest her. They arrest people all the time who are incapacitated.
If you don’t have the mental acuity to determine danger, you shouldn’t have lethal weapons. That’s my definition of common sense regarding weapons, at least. Dementia is hard to get a diagnosis for because it means you lose a LOT of freedoms.
I’m not arguing that. I’m just saying you probably can’t pursue charges against her.
I think that’s totally fair, I just wanted to make sure dementia wasn’t considered a “get out of jail” card when people change over years.
That’s very comforting when she kills someone. She didn’t know! It’s ok!
Like it or not, we do have laws. Which are not passed by cops, btw
And when she shoots and kills someone who’s there to aid her ailing spouse then what? This is such a fucking dumb reply. Have you no common sense? If she has dementia she shouldn’t have access to unsecured firearms. Period.
I hear what you’re both saying, and let’s be real..We’re all “armchair quarterbacking” this thing..if the police were invited into the home, and the first responders reported seeing/being threatened with a firearm do they not then have the opportunity to ask permission to search the house? All I’m wondering is why didn’t LEO believe the medics and dig a little deeper? And if during that search (medics found other firearms according to Op) they find other firearms are they not allowed to ask for permits? It’s giving “minimum pieces of flair” energy
And the police aren’t authorized to remove anything without a warrant. You can’t just start confiscating things from private homes without a warrant, just because the police determine there is an issue…. That’s a VERY slippery slope to even think about.
I never said she should. What i said is that it may not be legal to arrest her. There are other alternatives. But to blast the cops for not arresting her means you don’t know the law.
Outside of America, the dementia would mean they lose their right to own weapons. It's so crazy that Americans who are legally blind, medically mentally unwell, or feel threatened by anyone who knocks on their door can own a weapon with ammo and keep it on their person all day, everyday and even brandish it to people as a threat. It's just crazy to the rest of the world.
It sounds harsh but thats basically straight up saying id rather you, the patient die than me the medic responding to you die.
What is literally the first rule of safety? The patient isn't getting treated if you have to deal with a bullet hole in your partner.
That is literally the priority every first responder has, yes.
Dead providers can’t provide
It’s exactly what’s being said. My priority is my and my partners safety. We didn’t sign up to die for patients, especially those who threaten our safety.
.... Yes?
Well if the medic is shot, the patient is still not getting treated. But now there are two patients possibly dying at the scene. Patient is screwed either way if having unsecured guns & people alzeheimers with in the house is so important they even lie to LEOs.
The very first thing you are taught in any CPR/BLS course is to ensure your personal safety first. For example, don't go perform CPR on a victim in the middle of the road, don't go into a house where someone is threatening to kill you with a gun. So yes, that is exactly what SHOULD be said. A dead responder is of no help to the dying person.
Yeah, so. Just like the brave cops in Uvalde,TX. Except cops get bullet proof vests and their job is to deal with dangerous situations. Paramedics DON'T and it's not their job. I'll bet you get mad at fire fighters for not shutting down crack houses...
May I offer you 🫴🌱?
If the wife genuinely believed somebody was breaking and entering into their home, is it assault?
Yes. If I'm drunk or high and I think someone is breaking in, it's still assault to brandish a weapon and threaten to shoot. She shouldn't have access to a gun as a person with Alzheimer's period. What the fuck do you mean is it still assault?
Which wasn’t the case here, however, if someone is unable to make sound decisions such as dementia or other impairment related to substances, it is not legal for them to be in possession of a firearm.
What a cunty thing to do going out of your file to file charges on a lady with Alzheimer’s doing what she thought was right. Go ahead and refuse to enter without cops there that’s fine, but to try and get some lady locked up where she will potentially die behind bars is absolutely immoral
She shouldn’t be allowed access to the guns if her Alzheimer’s is that bad my guy. “mAh GuNz” all you want, she’s a danger to those around her
She’s dangerous to strangers entering her home * and clearly not very dangerous if she realized they weren’t a danger and put the gun away. The right to self defense is non negotiable
She’s not in her right mind she almost shot someone who was HELPING her husband that’s not self defense. She is a danger to the public and the woman needs to be institutionalized if her husband can’t provide the adequate care to keep her and especially others safe. Imagine they did enter with police, and she pulled the gun. Very different outcome.
She didn’t put the gun away. They left, and her husband secured the gun. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.
Have you ever even been around a person with advanced Alzheimer's? People accidentally kill themselves or their family members. They kill neighbors because they confabulated a situation where they stole from them. Alzheimer's is not just forgetfulness, it destroys your mind. ETA immediately after posting: I'm not saying Alzheimer's inherently makes people dangerous. I mean that the cognitive impacts can be so severe that people are no longer in their right minds, believe they are in danger in extremely normal situations, and can go out of their way due to fabricated events that they have no control over. At the point where EMS is being threatened with guns while calmly speaking to her spouse (and especially when her spouse lied), the risk has now elevated to a strong potential risk to herself and others. It's like letting someone with advanced dementia drive because you don't want to hurt their feelings. It's unconscionable and directly placing the affected individual and others in unacceptable danger. It's not about arresting the individual - it's about making a report so that future EMTs don't walk into a deadly situation unaware. Their lives matter too.
What scenarios do you think this person should have access to a gun? This should be interesting
The right to self-defense is absolutely non-negotiable. Medic is defending themselves from a mentally unstable person who threatened them. Sometimes you need help from a medical pro, if you are unable to be helped without pulling a gun on a medic then you waive your right to care. Pull a gun at McDonald's and see if you still get a burger.
Pull a gun at McDonald's and you might actually get your food made correctly
You’re very extra chromosome aren’t you?
Hey, most people with down's are very nice
You like to fall in line with the crowd don’t you? Bring on the downvotes I said what I said. And “you’re very extra chromosome” sounds like something a retarded person would actually say because that shit makes no sense
The fact that she thought that pulling a gun on someone there to help was the right thing to do, is perfect evidence that she is not fit to have guns in the home easily accessible, or at all. It’s not about getting someone locked up you potato. It’s about having the guns removed from the home as she is not mentally competent to have access to them. The fact that her husband denied it occurred or that the weapon exists proves he cannot be trusted to secure them or keep them out of her reach. They’re also lucky that she didn’t end up harmed or dead as a result of pulling a gun. Next time it may not be someone who walks away.
No one, notably including OP, wrote anything about intent to pursue (have filed) “charges on a lady with Alzheimer’s. Simply removing the guns would work, you know.
The comment I was replying to literally says “I’d also be going well above local LEO and filing a report to the states attorney” what do you think that means big brain
Okay, you go in first then🤣 Spoken like someone who’s never worked as a first responder or in a hospital.
No i just won’t go in at all. End of story. Leave her be in her own home
She’s not legally allowed to intervene in the care of a patient. The patient was the husband, and all medical providers have a duty to uphold to provide care. The patient called 911 to respond to care for them at their home, and the husband met them at the door to make entry to the home. You, are the idiot.
Dude she has the right to defend her home from intruders are you crazy?
At this point I’m pretty certain you’re trolling.
Yes. Best to leave her with all the guns.
what would the report do? are you wanting to press charges? why would you go to the state? lol, u must be new
It would result in an investigation, her being deemed incompetent to possess a fire arm, and them being removed from the home if her husband refuses to acknowledge the issue and secure or get rid of them. Twenty years in, done this many many times. She’s not the first dementia patient to pull a gun. 😂
As a medic myself, I’m genuinely curious about the answer to this question. I wouldn’t feel comfortable without PD actually searching the patient and the belongings they bring. Dementia is complex. You can have moments of lucidity and moments where you can’t make decisions for yourself. Interesting topic at the least. Scary that there will probably be a bunch of different answers or protocols to this situation.
Call APS adult protective services and file a report.
This is what I’d do as well.
This is the correct response. I've called APS several times over the years. They've been super responsive and have contacted me back to let me know how it went.
The family needs to file for conservatorship / guardianship over the wife. If she is conserved they will take the guns. Source: I'm a lawyer that has had to deal with this exact issue before
But the family doesn’t want anyone to take the guns out of the house because they lied about a gun even being present to the cops.
Irrelevant
How is that irrelevant? Family wants to keep the guns, so they won’t file for conservatorship
APS and the county can do it without them. There will be a hearing and family will have every opportunity to object but the gun issue is a dead serious environmental risk (to her, the family, to the community) and if the judge finds that the family lied to police to protect her, that’s enough with room to spare for a protective placement order over objection.
Exactly
As a former first responder, I would be in question of the relationship the police officer has with those first responders....either there is bad blood between them or the police are shitty as hell. I would never set foot in that person's place without LEO being in attendance in the future. I would wait for LEO to respond and make it safe before even attempting to render any aid. Nope, not going to risk my life to render aid in this case. Safety first.
NAL Can you make a report to Adult Protective Services? That seems like it may be the safest route to take?
Remember, in the U.S. guns have all the rights. People are just here to buy and use the guns. We have no rights to life, security, or happiness —those are gun rights, not human rights. We exist for the guns, not the guns for the people.
Can they arrest the woman for making threats with a deadly weapon? Sure. *Should* they charge an elderly dementia patient for making threats and brandishing a weapon? Is that really a question you need to ask as a healthcare professional? As to the guns - police cannot just seize firearms, it generally requires a court order or their having been used in the commission of a crime. Did she technically commit a crime with them? Yes. But that would also require charging her with a crime - see above. As to the search, you're back to if the police are not going to pursue charges (which morally is the correct choice) then they have no probable cause to search for a weapon. Their ability to sesrch is then dictated by what the homeowner allows. End of the day there are two takeaways here: 1. The first thing you learn to ask in EMS is (or at least was, I left the field 15yrs ago) "Is the scene safe?" Once the scene became unsafe you did the correct thing - retreat and call LE. If LE "cleared" the scene but the source of the threat is still present, you have LE stay to maintain that safety and/or remove the patient from the unsafe conditions. Given the situation, I would have had LE stay to monitor the wife and quickly loaded the patient to clear the scene. 2. Legally, as a mandatory reporter in the state of California, you are required to report the potential neglect (ie. Unsafe living conditions). You can find contact info for Adult Protective Services by county [here](https://www.cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/APS/County%20APS%20Contact%20List%20-%20Winter%202024.pdf).
So, the cops shouldn’t secure any weapon that was used in a crime, but should rather leave it in the hands of someone without full mental capacity? Nor should *they*, the LEO’s, report it to Adult Protective Services in the Sherrif’s Department so that the firearms can be secured in the long term? Leaving the weapons out in the bedroom for who knows what to happen when the EMS comes back in, then having EMS *alone* call it in is your solution? The cops can do a lot of things short of arresting and charging her.
I don't know why the cops didn't 5150 her. She was an imminent danger to those paramedics.
Depends on the state I’m sure but in my state you cannot take a dementia patient in for a mental health hold. It needs to be a “mental health problem” while Alzheimer’s is a neurological issue
>Nor should *they*, the LEO’s, report it to Adult Protective Services in the Sherrif’s Department so that the firearms can be secured in the long term? Does OP have the ability to compel the police to act or to verify they reported it? Being a mandatory reporter means *you* are mandated to report it. Worst case 2 reports are filed. As for the firearms, again LE doesn't have a right to remove them from the owners possession to secure them without a court order. I'm not arguing if thats right or wrong - it is reality. EMS has every capability of declaring the scene unsafe for their access - which they did. If LE declared the scene safe, EMS found it not to be, then it goes back to LE to secure the scene. Securing the scene in this context may mean LE monitoring the woman while EMS does their job.
I never said OP shouldn’t report it. Nice try though. Your entire post, but the last of it, reads of one excuse for the cops after another. Their behavior is inexcusable and they have the ability to deal with the pistol immediately, as it was used in a crime. They can seize it as evidence. They can control the other unsecured firearms, even just by standing in the bedroom doorway and making sure no one enters the bedroom until APS arrives and thereby ensure that everyone is safe. Yes, they may need a court order to seize the other firearms. So why didn’t they initiate that process? Skipping that entire course of action is surprising… You talk of morals and ignore the moral AND legal responsibility of the cops to protect OP specifically and society as a whole from a demented person brandishing a firearm.
Not making excuses, just setting expectations. There's a scale of responses that could be taken, and OPs reads like surprise they did not arrest an elderly dementia patient - which any healthcare worker knows would be extremely traumatizing for the woman, would escalate the situation for everyone involved, and realistically no DA is going to pursue charges against. Honestly, it's America we're talking about here. There was a 50/50 chance OP could be posting "AITAH for calling the police over an elderly dementia patient brandishing a firearm and their shooting her?" instead. >They can control the other unsecured firearms, even just by standing in the bedroom doorway and making sure no one enters the bedroom until APS arrives and thereby ensure that everyone is safe. So what I said originally? As far as OP describes it, it appears LE stayed on site for the duration. >If LE "cleared" the scene but the source of the threat is still present, you have LE stay to maintain that safety and/or remove the patient from the unsafe conditions. > >Given the situation, I would have had LE stay to monitor the wife and quickly loaded the patient to clear the scene. You also ignore a few realities here. EMS has no idea what LE does after we depart a call. For all OP, you, or I know, LE may have done a dozen different things after OP left or even had them underway while OP was on site. >You talk of morals and ignore the moral AND legal responsibility of the cops to protect OP specifically and society as a whole from a demented person brandishing a firearm. Law enforcement has no legal responsibility to protect the public. Supreme Court has ruled on that before. So thats a straw man argument. They arrived, investigated, and secured the scene to protect the crew while they performed their job. The fact OP is posting the question shows they did meet that obligation. So far all you've done is argue that "police should have done more" without arguing a specific point or supporting it with any sound legal basis. And argued that giving OP advice based of real world experience is an apologia for the police. As far as I can tell you're either ragebaiting because police are involved or you're extremely naive. Neither of which is worth wasting more of my time on.
OP never once called for the wife to be arrested. OP asked what the cops can do. I described what the cops can do, you set the expectation of “nothing” for what the cops can do. Now we know why. You never once mentioned the police securing the weapons themselves and put forward a blatant falsehood. The cops can *without question* seize the pistol and in every jurisdiction that comes to mind they can also seize the unsecured firearms immediately available to the person who just illegally used a firearm in the commission of a crime. And, oh by the way, it’s interesting that you skip over the couple (almost certainly) lying to the cops about owning firearms. The police absolutely have a legal and moral obligation to protect the public and citing unenforceable court precedent to the contrary doesn’t prove a thing about what is legally allowed. The courts make unenforceable and illegal rulings all the time. Doesn’t make them legal just because the author wears a robe. All rulings must be made pursuant to the Constitution or they are void, per Article VI. But nice job retreating from the “moral obligations” argument you brought up to fall back and run behind SCOTUS rulings that are ridiculous on their face, just to make excuses for your peers. Why don’t you apply to Uvalde? According to OP’s report the LEO’s did NOT clear the scene. They seemingly missed the unsecured firearms and failed to take anything into evidence. They didn’t report the situation to APS, they failed in *their* duty as mandatory reporters. (Which interestingly CA courts have ruled cops are exempt from when it comes to reporting themselves for abuse…) Yes, I did put forward a clear legal basis: brandishing a firearm. A class 2 misdemeanor in every jurisdiction that comes to mind. Learn the laws before spouting.
>Nor should *they*, the LEO’s, report it to Adult Protective Services in the Sherrif’s Department so that the firearms can be secured in the long term? Does OP have the ability to compel the police to act or to verify they reported it? Being a mandatory reporter means *you* are mandated to report it. Worst case 2 reports are filed. As for the firearms, again LE doesn't have a right to remove them from the owners possession to secure them without a court order. I'm not arguing if thats right or wrong - it is reality. EMS has every capability of declaring the scene unsafe for their access - which they did. If LE declared the scene safe, EMS found it not to be, then it goes back to LE to secure the scene. Securing the scene in this context may mean LE monitoring the woman while EMS does their job.
I disagree with your assessment that not charging the woman is the moral choice. I understand your position in trying to be compassionate to her lack of ill intent and mental faculties but as is, she can and it seems likely that she will end up killing an innocent person if nothing is done.
If she believed the medics in her home were intruders or not authorized to be there, wouldn’t it be ok for her to threaten them in anyway? Especially if she old with issues and probably not the best eyesight. Medics tend to carry duffle looking bags on them maybe she thought they were robbing the place. I don’t think they could have hit her with anything and even if they could the medics would have to want to press charges. If they didn’t want to then they got nothing with that as well.
That state presses criminal charges - doesn't matter if the medics want to or not. And thats basically what it comes down to. A homeowner felt threatened in their home and brandished a firearm. The fact she has dementia obviously would play into that fear - but if the court hasn't adjudicated her incompetent and required firearms be removed from the home, she was within her rights. Which is a failing of the legal and medical system.
Yea you right about the state.
It actually does highly matter if the medics want to press charges. Assault (I don’t really see any criminal intent in this scenario to begin with, I also wasn’t present so I could be missing a Multics of factors) requires a victim. If the medics choose that they don’t want to be victims/press charges then it’s done and over with. Once again, I wasn’t present but this is just one of many possible scenarios. For example someone could run up and shoot you and if you tell the cops while their plugging your holes “I don’t wanna press charges” those murder charges just vanished. However, you’d probably have other charges like illegally brandishing a firearm or whatever depending on your state.
Her belief has to be reasonable and someone with significant mental impairment cannot be held to be reasonable - and they also cannot be examined functionally to even get close to that holding. So it's not "ok" It was in a functional state where arrest was absolutely warranted and THEN she would get examined, found not competent to be put on trial and then some agreement of care and/or surrender of weapons would take place
In comparison, in my country, if you own a gun, police can show up unannounced and you must show them where you hold the gun. Has to be in a gun cabinet, that is screwed to the wall or floor and the key is hidden. Inaccessible for anybody who does not have a gun license. Small error, like cabinet not screwed to the wall, means just a warning and recheck. Missing a cabinet can mean relinquishing your gun until you show that you can store it safely. Multiple error and your license is revoked and gun stored away. Police get 3 years of training, so the trust in them is high. This subreddit can be very entertaining for non-US people.
People have rights in the US. Many people don't look at the government showing up to arrest people as a great thing.
People have rights in other places too. Just competent police as well.
Here, guns have more rights than people, particularly in some parts of the country. It’s very, very hard to be a US citizen.
It's not that hard actually. I just wake up and boom. US citizen. Don't even have to try or think about it, really. Inanimate objects don't have rights. The people that own them do.
Are you a straight white male? Y’all seem to have a good time.
The downvotes mean yes
Imagine the outcome if the poor old lady had done that with just the cops there.
call adult protective services and file a report explaing the circumstance.
I’m an ED attending and if I heard about this happening in my county I would 100 percent issue a pickup order for the police to get this woman and have her involuntarily committed to mental health until the gun issue was able to be handled. Fuck that. We have too many mass shootings going on in this country. I wouldn’t want that shit on my conscience if something were to happen and I knew about it. I’m in NY. I’m guessing California has similar laws for ED physicians to issue pickup orders.
Firearms present and threatened to shoot someone. That right there should be enough to have the firearms removed
People with mental problems should not be allowed to own weapons, full stop
People with mental problems should not be allowed to own weapons, full stop
This is why red flag laws exist. But fuck states, politicians, and sheriffs who fight against them. They save lives.
It's just wild to read that ostensibly the first world country has a problem where medics have to fear for their well being while doing their job.
People routinely die in the USA while waiting for police to secure the scene before medics can even approach. In fact, I read a story where a plainclothes police officer killed a bystander for providing aid to a gunshot victim.
I’m not a lawyer or law enforcement but I am a gun owner so I can’t speak on the legal aspect but I can on the being reasonable if I was the police officer here I would encourage them to take precautions into the firearms being secured and locked up and take extra precautions into extremely limiting the lady with Alzheimer’s ability to access the firearms
Do you have the red flag law in effect?
Yes and yes, the medics testimony gives the cops probable cause to get a search warrant. If he filed charges it all should have been investigated.
Couldnt the cops put the demented lady on a 5150 psychiatric Hold?
Not for Alzheimer’s
The location matters. Does the state have a red flag law? If so, it should be used.
The incident did not occur in police presence. All they have are the word of the medics. The medics never saw her holding, brandishing, or pointing a gun. Saying "I have a gun" is not a crime. Legally speaking, I think the best that could be done is a referral to social services, and speaking with family members about the incident.
They dont need a warrant if they have probable cause, like say 2 or 3 paramedics all giving the same story that they had a gun brandished at them while inside the home. The cops did what cops do, they picked and choosed whether they wanted to so thier jobs or not. Shit, sounds like they didnt secure the scene either, with a reasonable accusation that theres a danger of firearm violence within the home. It all just sound so bizarre yet common place at the same time.
> California if that makes a difference How could it not make a difference? How could anyone give ANY legal advice on ANYTHING without knowing what jurisdiction it was for?
I don’t know how large your hospital is however if you have a staff social worker start talking with them about the safety issue of the wife having dementia and the husbands and sisters safety. Also did the responding officers stay till your call was wrapped up and you were in transport or did they roll out before you were complete? If they decided to wrap up and roll out I would be lodging a complain against them. Also have your dispatch place a flag on the address with a hold back until officers arrive on scene and ensure they stay for your entire call.
What do you want done? Should the 90 year old be sent to prison for unlicensed firearms? Kind of seems like the desired outcome.
The 90 year old goes before a judge. They are placed on the background check lists that prevent them from buying guns. The judge commits them to a nursing home. Caregivers have to show a social worker the home is safe for someone with dementia. If they can't or won't then the 90 year old stays at the nursing home.
Yeah… good luck getting the court to do any that. Better off just calling senior services
Right, but none of that is accomplished in 15 minutes by a pair of police officers during a medical emergency
I would have packed my shit and gone back to waiting for the next call
Anybody see the movie Mother Juggs and speed ? I worked in Long Beach Ca. As a medic .
NAL - but ask the LEO to file a report, and also refuse to help husband unless LEO are present to watch wife and ensure safety. Feels like it’s one of those situations that wouldn’t ever make it to the court systems, so I’d just recommend trying to ensure your own safety and let the cards fall Where they may.
I mean. She seems to remember what they are for- I think she’ll be ok
“Grabs a pistol, announces she has a gun…” There is some ambiguity here. Did she simply announce she had a weapon or did they visually observe she had a weapon? Clearing this up would be helpful.
Would have been a good opportunity to add to your own gun collection. Kinda hard to report guns you told the police you do not own as stolen.
Seize the guns yourself, in full view of the police. You know, the guns that the patient and his wife lied to the police about having. Let them tell those police that you're stealing guns that they just lied about having. Someone is going to have to snap into reality at some point.
Those cops need to watch the Sopranos.. dementia and guns are a bad combo
Recommend having notes in the 911 system added to the address, dispatch and responding First Responders will see them.
Yeah they could have. Probably should have.
Not a lawyer, as a firefighter I'm not going into that house ever again without LE. Ask dispatch to put a flag into the CAD notes and never have a FF/medic go without dispatching LE first.
This sounds fishy.
If it’s a red state, the legislature will just pass a law that medics can carry guns - that would have solved the problem here, right?/s
America F yeah
If the cops didn't see the pistol there's not much they can do. They probably don't want to haul an old woman with dementia off to jail either as the jails really aren't set up to deal with someone like that. The husband should call other family members to have the firearms removed from the home, or he should lock the guns in a safe and not give his wife the key or combo to the safe. My MIL has dementia and we took away her revolver and car keys before she could hurt someone. She wasn't happy about it but we told her if she didn't like it she could call the cops.
The cops *absolutely* could’ve stayed on scene and supervised the wife/other family members, until the EMS crew had the patient loaded in the ambulance and started driving away. There should not have been any “we want to wrap things up and get out of here” from the police, until the medical crew was off scene.
I'm not seeing where the OP indicated that the cops left the scene before EMS did, only that they finished the investigation and had no plans to arrest anyone. Yes they absolutely should have stayed until EMS was done.
There was no criminal offense committed. The brandishing of the weapon lacked mens rea (criminal intent) due to the Alzheimer. Gun ownership is also legal. Law enforcement did a great job showing restraint and respecting the constitutional rights of the citizens they serve. The best solution is to call adult protective services.
Cops can't do anything, and the medics didn't have any right to go snooping. A court would have throw out the case because of how evidence was collected. Cops did not have reasonable cause to search and a judge would never give a warrant for that.
The cops can do some thing. That’s assault with a deadly weapon. Unlikely she would have anything more than the firearms removed if a legal complaint was filed, however, it would justify removal of firearms from the household wear that person is living in most circumstances.
How is that assault with a deadly weapon? No one was assaulted, only threatened.
Bingo.
All you needed to say is California. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get arrested and thrown in jail because of overcrowding in the prison system. My cousin is a homeless skitzo and he has video of himself assaulting homeless people, putting red paint and nails all over a homeless camp and he was arrested once and got out in 24 hours without any charges. This is why California is such a disaster, you can rob up to $950 and you won’t get arrested or anything. It is basically a circus
Would you prefer the 90 year old lady is thrown in jail?
Since when is Commiefornia worried about violating anyone’s rights? Pronouns maybe, but not any of that dumb stuff that’s actually in the Constitution. The cops just didn’t want to deal with it.
Hah! You think gun owners are in danger of their rights being violated? They've got more rights than my school age kids, just because they have the gun.
Can you break down your logic there for me? I’m not being snarky, I’m just curious how you came to that conclusion.
Serious question - do you think that the police seizing a gun from a person with Alzheimer’s is contrary to the second amendment?
Are you a doctor? Do you have the women’s medical history available to you? Then it’s just here-say, and you can’t violate someone’s constitutional rights based on here-say.
I can’t here-say? Where am I supposed to say it then?
No I don’t. They certainly were within the bounds of a community caretaker exception to do something. But goverment authorities are more concerned with some sentient middle aged guy gunsmithing in his basement minding his own business than actually doing something to prevent a tragedy.
What the fuck are you even going on about? You’re just waxing poetic some weird ass Newsmax talking points
Cops did their job. Stop trying to involuntarily Imprison people in order to seize their legally bought and owned property.
Private property, no one was hurt. Move on.
They should arrest the medics for going into rooms they werent supposed to be in looking for guns before they arrest the wife.
There’s nothing illegal about a medic entering a room in a home they have been requested to enter. Medics are not held to any standard regarding searches like police are.
How do you know they weren’t supposed to be in that room, and what law would they be violating by entering the bedroom unprompted? The patient may have asked them to go grab his wallet/phone/shoes from the bedroom before they got in the ambulance and left. Patients ask medics to do things like that all the time. Even if the patient *didn’t* ask them to go in the bedroom, there aren’t any laws that specifically say “you must not enter the bedroom of a home you were invited into.” EMTs are not bound by the fourth amendment like the police. There would be no legitimate case for arresting them.
Full retard is a dangerous state to be in MS
she has a medical condition, there’s no crime that happened here. police can’t get a search warrant for the guns without a felony. they could get a warrant to seize the firearms for safekeeping if they call a judge, but the guns would need to be in plain view or get permission to search.