JJB531

Pretty sure I have some photos. I'll post them when I get home.

FDNY rescue companies were originally formed to rescue firemen, not civilians, in the time when NYC was burning down. No need to get all worked up, both agencies play their part in the "rescue world". I'd rather be able to work alongside a talented group of rescue specialists from any agency (PD/FD/EMS). We should start striving to learn from eachother rather then be at eachothers throats over childish nonsense.

I always enjoy when someone asks why the Police Departments try to take away work from the Fire Departments.
Let's look at NYPD ESU. NYPD ESU has been providing rescue services for the citizens of New York City since the 1930's. The Fire Department wanted nothing to do with rescue work, especially back in the days when the city was burning down, before the strict fire codes that exist today, along with the use of sprinkler systems, improved building materials, fireproofing, fire prevention programs, and everything else that has lead to a decrease in the number of fires. So for decades, the NYPD ESU was the sole provider of emergency rescue services in the City of New York.
It wasn't until the number of fires began to decrease, that the FDNY started getting involved with rescue work. So, should PD be asking why the FD was trying to duplicate a service already being provided by them? Before a lot of Westchester County Fire Departments purchased extrication equipment, extrications on the Westchester County Parkways were handled by the Westchester County Department of Public Safety. Should County PD have asked why the local FD's were trying to duplicate a service on the parkways already provided by them? The Town of Mount Pleasant Police was the sole provider of extrication services within their jurisdiction for years before the local fire departments purchased extrication equipment. Should the Town of Mount Pleasant PD have asked why the local FD's were trying to duplicate a service already being provided by the local PD?
Personally, I have no problem with FD's handling rescue work, and always look forward to working together at a scene rather then battle eachother. The one benefit I see to having both Firefighters and Police Officers assigned to Emergency Service Units taking part in a rescue, is that it gives you a larger talent pool to pull from in the event of a significant incident. There are some ESU officers who are talented rescue specialists, just as there are Firefighters assigned to Rescue Companies who possess the same talents and level of expertise. Being able to draw from the experiences and talents of both individuals at an incident is beneficial to the overall success of the operation.

Sorry if you don't like that history has shown that a lot of PD's in the Northeast were providing rescue services long before the Fire Service. Your attempt to compare a highly trained ESU Police Officer performing a Technical Rescue to a barber, who has no training or equipment to perform surgery, is quite comical.
NYPD ESU Officers undergo 28 weeks of training. This includes: 3 weeks of Roco Rope Rescue, 4 days Confined Space Rescue, 1 week of FEMA Building Collapse Technician, 4 weeks of Hazardous Materials (1 week of EPA HazMat Tech, 1 Week of NYPD HazMat In-service, 1 Week at the live agent school in Anniston, and 1 week of radiological training in Mercury, NV), 1 week of Trench Rescue, Firefighter I, 3 weeks of Dive Rescue including surface water and ice rescue, 5 days of Auto Extrication, 4 days of train extrication, 2 days of Vetta Airbags, 1 week of tools (chainsaws, Stanley Tool, breaking/cutting tools, small hand tools, etc.), 2 days of cutting torches (oxyacetylene & Caldo). This doesn't include any yearly in-service training, as well as additional schooling ESU officers attend, either on their own time or through the job. This knowledge base, along with having all the right equipment and resources available to them, makes them quite capable of handling rescue work. I can't remember the last time I saw a barber school where tonsilectomy's were a part of the curriculum?
Not all ESU is SWAT trained... the majority are, but if you look at Nassau County Police Department, their ESU only handles rescue-related work. Nassau County Bureau of Special Operations (BSO), which is actually their street crime unit, handles the traditional SWAT/tactical related types of jobs. Other ESU units only handle SWAT/Law Enforcement related work and do not get involved in rescue work (i.e. New Rochelle PD's CIU)
If you meant for this to be a discussion about comparative differences between Law Enforcement agencies in different parts of the country, specifically targeting Police ESU units and their role in rescue services, along with trying to argue that FD should be solely responsible, was probably not the best way to start off what you perceived would be an informative discussion.

Sorry if you don't like that history has shown that a lot of PD's in the Northeast were providing rescue services long before the Fire Service. Your attempt to compare a highly trained ESU Police Officer performing a Technical Rescue to a barber, who has no training or equipment to perform surgery, is quite comical.
NYPD ESU Officers undergo 28 weeks of training. This includes: 3 weeks of Roco Rope Rescue, 4 days Confined Space Rescue, 1 week of FEMA Building Collapse Technician, 4 weeks of Hazardous Materials (1 week of EPA HazMat Tech, 1 Week of NYPD HazMat In-service, 1 Week at the live agent school in Anniston, and 1 week of radiological training in Mercury, NV), 1 week of Trench Rescue, Firefighter I, 3 weeks of Dive Rescue including surface water and ice rescue, 5 days of Auto Extrication, 4 days of train extrication, 2 days of Vetta Airbags, 1 week of tools (chainsaws, Stanley Tool, breaking/cutting tools, small hand tools, etc.), 2 days of cutting torches (oxyacetylene & Caldo). This doesn't include any yearly in-service training, as well as additional schooling ESU officers attend, either on their own time or through the job. This knowledge base, along with having all the right equipment and resources available to them, makes them quite capable of handling rescue work. I can't remember the last time I saw a barber school where tonsilectomy's were a part of the curriculum?
Not all ESU is SWAT trained... the majority are, but if you look at Nassau County Police Department, their ESU only handles rescue-related work. Nassau County Bureau of Special Operations (BSO), which is actually their street crime unit, handles the traditional SWAT/tactical related types of jobs. Other ESU units only handle SWAT/Law Enforcement related work and do not get involved in rescue work (i.e. New Rochelle PD's CIU)
If you meant for this to be a discussion about comparative differences between Law Enforcement agencies in different parts of the country, specifically targeting Police ESU units and their role in rescue services, along with trying to argue that FD should be solely responsible, was probably not the best way to start off what you perceived would be an informative discussion.

I always enjoy when someone asks why the Police Departments try to take away work from the Fire Departments.
Let's look at NYPD ESU. NYPD ESU has been providing rescue services for the citizens of New York City since the 1930's. The Fire Department wanted nothing to do with rescue work, especially back in the days when the city was burning down, before the strict fire codes that exist today, along with the use of sprinkler systems, improved building materials, fireproofing, fire prevention programs, and everything else that has lead to a decrease in the number of fires. So for decades, the NYPD ESU was the sole provider of emergency rescue services in the City of New York.
It wasn't until the number of fires began to decrease, that the FDNY started getting involved with rescue work. So, should PD be asking why the FD was trying to duplicate a service already being provided by them? Before a lot of Westchester County Fire Departments purchased extrication equipment, extrications on the Westchester County Parkways were handled by the Westchester County Department of Public Safety. Should County PD have asked why the local FD's were trying to duplicate a service on the parkways already provided by them? The Town of Mount Pleasant Police was the sole provider of extrication services within their jurisdiction for years before the local fire departments purchased extrication equipment. Should the Town of Mount Pleasant PD have asked why the local FD's were trying to duplicate a service already being provided by the local PD?
Personally, I have no problem with FD's handling rescue work, and always look forward to working together at a scene rather then battle eachother. The one benefit I see to having both Firefighters and Police Officers assigned to Emergency Service Units taking part in a rescue, is that it gives you a larger talent pool to pull from in the event of a significant incident. There are some ESU officers who are talented rescue specialists, just as there are Firefighters assigned to Rescue Companies who possess the same talents and level of expertise. Being able to draw from the experiences and talents of both individuals at an incident is beneficial to the overall success of the operation.

Your assertion was that the PD is trying to perform an FD function and we were merely pointing out that PD performed these services first in many communities thereby refuting your point as it could be argued that the FD's started to perform.
What in the emergency services is based strictly upon need? There are many more duplicative resources especially in Westchester County. Nobody suggested that history and tradition dictate our roles; we merely highlighted a contrarian viewpoint. On what standards should we base these needs? I wish we did more needs assessments to determine what was needed vs. what is popular or more cool.
Having been one of the officers to which you're referring, I will argue that the WCPD ESU could perform most extrications very well regardless of the unit staffing. The tool is really a one-person job anyway and additional resources/support could always be requested. One of the toughest extrications I ever worked, I worked with an EMS supervisor from a commercial EMS and not the FD.
I'll counter your hostage argument with what happens when FD is on a fire and a pin job comes in or vice versa?
I don't think they're competing and the 289 Nep scaffolding job proves that point. PD and FD worked well together.
Yup, that's who I meant.
SWAT may be one function of ESU but ESU generally performs many other services besides SWAT. The ESU or CIU trucks in Westchester County do much more than just SWAT. LAPD SWAT is just that, SWAT.
We've discussed this at length in other threads and I think the consensus was no, they shouldn't all be cross-trained.
What differences are you referring to?
Your initial post was construed by many, myself included, to be rather critical of cops in NY. I, and others, have responded to dispute your assertions and have done so factually and respectfully. The discussion has also morphed from a comparison of police in Texas and New York to who should provide rescue services in Westchester County and it is slanted against existing PD units.
I wanted to give you a negative rep point because I don't think the initial post articulated your position well and when someone has to start it with a disclaimer that you're not being critical it is generally because they are.
If you want to discuss regional differences in law enforcement let's do that but let's not do so while simultaneously insinuating that cops in NY are somehow less than their peers in Texas.
Finally, your last remark seems to be hlghly inflammatory. What exactly do you mean with that remark?

I always enjoy when someone asks why the Police Departments try to take away work from the Fire Departments.
Let's look at NYPD ESU. NYPD ESU has been providing rescue services for the citizens of New York City since the 1930's. The Fire Department wanted nothing to do with rescue work, especially back in the days when the city was burning down, before the strict fire codes that exist today, along with the use of sprinkler systems, improved building materials, fireproofing, fire prevention programs, and everything else that has lead to a decrease in the number of fires. So for decades, the NYPD ESU was the sole provider of emergency rescue services in the City of New York.
It wasn't until the number of fires began to decrease, that the FDNY started getting involved with rescue work. So, should PD be asking why the FD was trying to duplicate a service already being provided by them? Before a lot of Westchester County Fire Departments purchased extrication equipment, extrications on the Westchester County Parkways were handled by the Westchester County Department of Public Safety. Should County PD have asked why the local FD's were trying to duplicate a service on the parkways already provided by them? The Town of Mount Pleasant Police was the sole provider of extrication services within their jurisdiction for years before the local fire departments purchased extrication equipment. Should the Town of Mount Pleasant PD have asked why the local FD's were trying to duplicate a service already being provided by the local PD?
Personally, I have no problem with FD's handling rescue work, and always look forward to working together at a scene rather then battle eachother. The one benefit I see to having both Firefighters and Police Officers assigned to Emergency Service Units taking part in a rescue, is that it gives you a larger talent pool to pull from in the event of a significant incident. There are some ESU officers who are talented rescue specialists, just as there are Firefighters assigned to Rescue Companies who possess the same talents and level of expertise. Being able to draw from the experiences and talents of both individuals at an incident is beneficial to the overall success of the operation.

I always enjoy when someone asks why the Police Departments try to take away work from the Fire Departments.
Let's look at NYPD ESU. NYPD ESU has been providing rescue services for the citizens of New York City since the 1930's. The Fire Department wanted nothing to do with rescue work, especially back in the days when the city was burning down, before the strict fire codes that exist today, along with the use of sprinkler systems, improved building materials, fireproofing, fire prevention programs, and everything else that has lead to a decrease in the number of fires. So for decades, the NYPD ESU was the sole provider of emergency rescue services in the City of New York.
It wasn't until the number of fires began to decrease, that the FDNY started getting involved with rescue work. So, should PD be asking why the FD was trying to duplicate a service already being provided by them? Before a lot of Westchester County Fire Departments purchased extrication equipment, extrications on the Westchester County Parkways were handled by the Westchester County Department of Public Safety. Should County PD have asked why the local FD's were trying to duplicate a service on the parkways already provided by them? The Town of Mount Pleasant Police was the sole provider of extrication services within their jurisdiction for years before the local fire departments purchased extrication equipment. Should the Town of Mount Pleasant PD have asked why the local FD's were trying to duplicate a service already being provided by the local PD?
Personally, I have no problem with FD's handling rescue work, and always look forward to working together at a scene rather then battle eachother. The one benefit I see to having both Firefighters and Police Officers assigned to Emergency Service Units taking part in a rescue, is that it gives you a larger talent pool to pull from in the event of a significant incident. There are some ESU officers who are talented rescue specialists, just as there are Firefighters assigned to Rescue Companies who possess the same talents and level of expertise. Being able to draw from the experiences and talents of both individuals at an incident is beneficial to the overall success of the operation.

There are differences in many things as you move from region to region in the United States; income, accents, history, culture, politics, demographics, etc., etc., etc. The question you raise is not merely applicable to law enforcement. There are vast differences between New York and Texas. I don't think the differences are as great as you believe nor do I think you properly articulated your argument without disparaging cops in NY and the northeast.
I think there is something to be said for the anti-police, anti-government sentiment in the northeast being a contributing factor to your supposition. I think as the country tried to become more politically correct and public service changed from being a calling to a secure job with benefits, we lost some of the service focus that contributed to law enforcement being what it used to be. There are still many hard-chargers in civil service but there are now an equal number of deadbeats just studying for promotional exams with no concept of the job and/or using the stability to advance their education for their next job.
You're flat out wrong about some things. Cops in ESU aren't trying to be firefighters and who says that rescue is a fire function? ESU predates many of the FD rescue resources in Westchester County. Yonkers E-rigs of the 80's were the first paramedics in the city and had the only extrication equipment for many years. The County PD ran an ESU that provided extrication services all over the county before a lot of FD's got their own hurst tools. ESU is not the same as SWAT either. The LAPD runs SWAT but they don't do most of the things that ESU cops do - it is an apples and oranges comparison. In Jersey City, extrications are performed by EMS not fire or PD. White Plains has a police / fire special operations command that works collaboratively.
Duplicating resources? Are you kidding me? You really think that ESU in the couple of cities that have them in Westchester are the duplicative resources and squandering the funding that exists for emergency services. Hmmm, the 59 fire departments, 43 police departments, 60 or so school districts are definitely not duplicative. Who says that EMS is a fire function? PD is an first responder and in many places they are the only BLSFR that responds. We've already covered in other threads that BLSFR is not strictly limited to PD or FD exclusively.
OK, who decides what the core responsibilities are? What do you do when an agency can't/won't/doesn't fulfill it's core responsibilites? Competition exists on many levels in public service and it can be healthy. There are plenty of examples of intra-disciplinary rivalries that are unhealthy; you're broad sweeping generalizations about inter-disciplinary relationships and responsibilities are way off base.
Pity there isn't a negative rep button anymore. Comparing patrol cops in Texas with ESU cops in NY or asserting that certain functions don't have cross-over between disciplines is way off base. There should be collaboration and less division and that's not strictly a PD/FD thing.

Ive read this post many times and I still fail to see the reason for posting it but it most certainly requires a response.
From what I know of you, you have no background in Law Enforcement so your ideas of how cops should feel about being cops and what they should do on duty may be how it is in a perfect world but in reality thats not how it works. This would be like me who knows nothing of fire fighting making critical observations about the fire service and putting all over the post " No offense guys" and " this is not a knock to firefighters".
As far as I've seen, you're the only member on here from texas so you are the only one who could answer your own question of " why are police officers down here so different ?"
I've been a cop for 12 years and I go balls to the wall every day I go into work as do most cops I know. Would it be nice to follow up with every crime victim we deal with ? Yes but we don't have the time or the manpower to do that stuff. How do you know that cops up here don't know their post as well as cops in Texas ?
Cops are in a unique situation to be cross trained in rescue, where as FD's can't be trained in law enforcement specific things... thats just the way it is.
You ask why is there competition ? There always has and always will be competiton in the emergency services and it's healthy to a degree.
You ask why are there not more hudson river patrols ? There are in the summer but not so much in the winter but what does one thing have to do with the other ?
The bottom line is that expanding the scope of your working capabilities means more job security and possibly more state and federal funding.
The biggest difference between cops up here and cops in texas is that maybe cops in texas enjoy a lot more community support than cops in the north east get.

For any LEO's out there who are looking for some good reading material, I just finished the book titled "On Combat", written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Lt. Col. Grossman is a former Army Ranger and West Point Psychology Professor, and is the director of the Killology Research Group. He studies human aggression and the psychology of combat, and has been on the lecture circuit for a number of years speaking at Law Enforcement conferences. Below is an excerpt from his book that I thought was an excellent piece and just wanted to share it. If you haven't read On Combat yet, I highly reccommend it.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

For any LEO's out there who are looking for some good reading material, I just finished the book titled "On Combat", written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Lt. Col. Grossman is a former Army Ranger and West Point Psychology Professor, and is the director of the Killology Research Group. He studies human aggression and the psychology of combat, and has been on the lecture circuit for a number of years speaking at Law Enforcement conferences. Below is an excerpt from his book that I thought was an excellent piece and just wanted to share it. If you haven't read On Combat yet, I highly reccommend it.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

For any LEO's out there who are looking for some good reading material, I just finished the book titled "On Combat", written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Lt. Col. Grossman is a former Army Ranger and West Point Psychology Professor, and is the director of the Killology Research Group. He studies human aggression and the psychology of combat, and has been on the lecture circuit for a number of years speaking at Law Enforcement conferences. Below is an excerpt from his book that I thought was an excellent piece and just wanted to share it. If you haven't read On Combat yet, I highly reccommend it.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

This is one of the top debates within the Tactical EMS community, and there are a few good arguements made on both sides as to which provider, a civilian EMT/Medic or a sworn Law Enforcement Officer, is better utilized to function as a TEMS provider. Each methodology has it's own pros and cons, and as NJMedic stated, it generally comes down to the individual team studying both options and going with the concept that is going to work for them. I'll try to give you some of the pros and cons of each concept.
Civilian EMS Providers as TEMS Providers
The Pros: Generally civilian EMS providers possess a stronger medical skillset then LEO's who are not regular practioners of prehospital emergency medicine. Prehospital medical providers are generally more comfortable and often more competent with providing prehospital medical care to individuals who are sick/injured. Because they already possess that skillset and that level of competency, medical training for experienced prehospital medical providers focuses on taking that knowledge of conventional prehospital medicine and applying it to an unconventional environment.
The Cons: One of the big cons is the liability of taking a civilian EMT/Medic and placing them in an austere, potentially violent environment where there is a higher likelihood of a violent encounter with an armed individual, which is completely the opposite of conventional EMS training and scene safety standards. The debate on whether to arm civilian providers is another that comes down to local jurisdictions and is an entire topic in it's own. Some civilian providers are an unarmed member of the team, leaving the medical provider defenseless in the event of a violent encounter. Generally these providers are offered basic firearms training and some range time to become familiar with the weapon platforms the tactical team they are supporting utilizes. Armed civilian providers generally attend some form of peace officer academy, similiar to becoming an armed auxiliary or part-time officer of the department they are working with. I could go on and on about this, but it's a whole different topic. One of the other big concerns for tactical teams is Operational Security (OPSEC). Generally tactical teams work under a heavy blanket of OPSEC so their operations remain covert until it is time for them to go operational. Usually the only individuals privy to an upcoming warrant execution are the members of the team. Even other sworn LEO's who are not associated with the tactical team are not made aware of the pending operation so the covert nature of the operation is not blown. Let's say the Tactical Commander contacts their civilian TEMS counterpart to advise them of the impending operation, and the civilian TEMS provider, who is not in the mindset of OPSEC, then posts all over his/her Facebook page about the "big hit" they're doing with the tactical team in the morning. This is a significant concern for tactical teams, and one of the reasons only certain individuals are privy to the details, even small details, of the impending operation. If the target of the hit is somehow tipped off, they can easily prepare for it, either by moving their operation to another location, or fortify their location and be ready to shoot it out with the team when they arrive.
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers as TEMS Providers
The Pros: Sworn LEO's assigned to Tactical teams are already trained in police tactics, weapon platforms, and are used to operating in an austere, violent tactical environment. Assigning a LEO to the stack provides the team with another gun; meaning another LEO who is an armed member of the team with arrest powers and all of the other powers provided to LEO's. One of the other pros is that LEO's in general have a slight amount of "distrust", and I use that term loosely, when it comes to individuals outside of the Law Enforcement community. By distrust I mean that you will often see LEO's associating with and hanging out with other LEO's, because of that mutual understanding of "the job". Now within the Law Enforcement community, LEO's assigned to Special Operations teams are a group within the group, and they often won't fully associate with other LEO's, even from their own department, the way they would with other members of their team. Now try taking a civilian, non-LEO TEMS provider, and placing them in the middle of this team and see how they're received. Every team is different, but it may take a while before they are welcomed into the team as a team member. A sworn-LEO provider also has earned some level of trust from the team simply because they're "on the job".
The Cons: Maintaining a strong skillset to be able to provide competent, complete, and correct medical care to a sick or injured individual. A LEO who does not regularly practice prehospital medicine will possess a weak skillset and be an incompetent provider, which is counter-productive to the operation. One of the other cons that can arise is confusion on the part of the LEO medical provider. Are they a TEMS provider first, or a Police Officer first?
There are just some of the basic arguements for which type of provider would be better suited for work on a tactical team as a medical provider. Obviously there is a whole lot more to be said for types of providers, levels and types of training, and so on.

Overall I have enjoyed reading the comments. JJB..your spot on as usual. I have been very fortunate to be part of a team that was receptive to the concept at the start and very receptive over time and now they want to know which medic is walking in the door. While unarmed..good tactics, consistent training, strong policies and an understanding of limitations on both sides has lead to us being a solid partnership within the team and the guys trusting us as much as we trust them. While I personally believe that there is no reason after an excellent screening and selection process to be accepted on the team that tac medics should be given what is needed to have a pistol, fact is I'm very comfortable with how I operate being where we stage in the stack and other formations for various situations. Also there is no shortage of weapons if needed to protect myself or an officer on the team if need be. Again some concepts move slow and we live in litigation nervosa part of the country. Again good policy with the right people solve that issue.
Now...simply put...tactically trained EMS providers, meaning those who have been trained to operate in a hot zone, have been proven invaluable to increase the chances of survival for those in active shooter scenarios. Its not as simple as just getting someone out as the hot zone is much wider then that and treatment may need to be rendered by those wearing protective equipment and supported by armed officers. Case in point Dave Sanders, the teacher who survived his initial wounds only to succumb to his blood loss. It is quite ironic to me how law enforcement nationwide changed its tactics to handle active shooter scenarios to respond to the threat, yet many have not changed their relationship with EMS for those who may survive or increase survivability if they did. I've been fortunate to work with, train and lecture to law enforcement who some are very open to the concept, others doubt or just dismiss or think I'm nuts...but either way...its proven. In fact a USFA report post columbine recommends EMS agencies (of all types) to have members trained for such environments and since that fateful day in Littleton, CO...Littleton has the largest TEMS team in that nation.
But of course..things that have worked for years elsewhere won't work here. I can get an officer untrained in anything medical but CPR to an EMS call...but have cops who are more then glad to say they disagree with having someone like me as a tactical medic. I just laugh..and I am grateful the officers I work with on my team have always been vocal of their support of myself and my fellow TEMS members and I take pride in the mutual respect we have for each other.

Wow this topic really got some people mad. We've got everything in this thread from Tony Pagano to Eleanor Roosevelt!
Some people have quit the board because of this discussion? C'mon fellas we've got to have thicker skins than that. The original question was about volunteer firefighters being indemnified.
There was a thread in here recently about one of the police officers in Mount Pleasant, and a fund raiser that is being held for him because of attorney fees. Even if you are a municipal employee and things get bad, there are going to be associated costs it appears.
Now, in my opinion I think absolutely yes, volunteer firefighters should be indemnified, have some protection if they are going to be out there fighting fires in their districts. The question comes down to; who is going to pay for it, and what are they going to pay for?
My answer for New York State is the Volunteer Benevolent Associations should be footing the bill to provide protection for their membership in the form of covering attorney fees and possibly purchasing blanket malpractice insurance to cover all volunteer firefighters, who in the performance of any actions associated with the duties of being a firefighter are sued.
VBAs get two percent money in NYS. In many cases these organizations end up banking millions of dollars, because of what the law limits the money being spent on. If I remember correctly, it can only be spent on things that benefit the entire membership. I've known volunteer firefighters who were very frustrated at the fact that the only thing their VBA was paying for, was a death benefit. It wasn't a huge amount either; basically enough to cover burial costs.
What better reason could we think of to spend VBA 2 percent money, than to provide that security for every member in a department? Knowing that attorney fees and insurance against lawsuits would be provided would probably help volunteer recruitment and retention.
If the laws in New York State prohibit this, what better cause could be lobbied for to make the necessary changes in said laws, so that this can become a reality for NYS volunteer firefighters?
Your Benevolent is a bit like our Union is it not? It is supposed to provide something for the membership, and that should be protection, as much as it is possible.

I partially agree with the above statement. I do agree 100% that in the event of a downed LEO, airway/breathing control, hemostatics, and tourniquets are the basic tools a Tactical Medic will pull from his/her toolbox, and therefore a "trauma medic" is all that is really needed in this scenario. Realistically, a Tactical Medic doesn't have to be a paramedic, but can simply be a BLS provider. The only tool a BLS provider will not be able to utilize is advanced airway control techniques and needle decompression. The Tactical EMS provider might be a good application for the EMT-Intermediate level of training which is currently being discussed in another thread.
True Tactical Medicine is more about injury prevention and routine preventative maintenance then it is about providing care under fire. The true Tactical Medic is a useful resource for the Tactical Team to ensure that members are properly hydrated, medically able to continue a prolonged operation (just as we rehab and medically monitor firefighters between SCBA bottle changes), address even routine ailments and medical conditions that may affect Tactical Operators that can have an adverse affect on the outcome of an operation. Smaller tactical teams often have limited resources, so it doesn't help if your sniper is suffering from a case of diarrhea or even a simple headache. This is where the Tactical Medic comes in, to provide the sniper with some relief from any routine ailments he/she may be suffering from and to keep him/her in the game so their concentration and focus is on point in case they have to take that crucial shot.
My point is simply that the idea and concept of Tactical Medicine is not just the "glory image" of intubating a downed person while bullets are flying above. Realistically most Tactical EMS providers will spend more time answering questions about "why does it burn when I pee" or "hey, what's this rash look like to you?" rather then providing emergency medical care in a true tactical environment. This is where an experienced provider, and not just a "trauma medic" is more of an asset to the team.

I think you guys all got the right idea. The value of an EMT-I in this part of New York is, thankfully, not that high because of the proximity of most medic units. However, as an EMT-I myself, I think the course is very valuable for any EMT that is going to be riding calls simply for your own benefit of knowledge and experience(rotations during the course).
Having said that, you will only get to practice your skills on a small amount of calls (if you get to at all). I've found that if you work with the same medic "group" long enough, and they know that you are a COMPETENT EMT-I(and are MAC'd), they do not have a problem with you practicing your skills when appropriate(under their supervision). Do I ask to start every IV line? No. But if there is an arrest and everything else is taken care of except for intubation and IV access, then yes I might ask to do whatever the medic isn't working on (assuming BLS care is being taken care of by other EMT-B's on the crew).
If you have the time, just go for the medic course. But if you can't manage that into your schedule, then an EMT-I course might be a good way to get a good foundation in emergency care.

I'm a little confused by your post, but what I did get from it is the arguement that is made by a lot of Tactical EMS practicioners that "it's easier to train a medic to be a cop then it is to train a cop to be a medic". In my opinion, this does hold some level of truth. I've tried to keep my personal opinion about this topic to myself, but here it is (if anyone cares, lol).
First and foremost, if a Tactical Team is going to utilize a civilian EMS provider as their Tactical Medic (in the TEMS world the term "medic" is used to describe both EMT's and Paramedics), they have to select the right person. The individual needs to be put through the hiring process as if they were going for a job with the Law Enforcement agency they're going to be working with, including interviews, psychological exams, drug tests, background checks, etc. Secondly, they need to pass the SWAT physical/agility just as if they were trying out for the team as a regular LEO. Face it, not every LEO is cut out for the type of work that Tactical Teams perform. We like to think of Tactical operators as "the best of the best", true masters of the craft of high risk tactical operations. Experts in firearms control, marksmanship, and tactics. Individuals who can carry out specialized tactical operations that require such a highly motivated and skilled LEO. Civilian TEMS providers should be held to that same standard.
In regards to training, any civilian TEMS provider should attend some form of Law Enforcement training to attain a title similiar to peace officer status. In addition, all TEMS providers must attend some form of TEMS training to learn how to take the medical skills they already possess and apply it to the tactical environment, as well as learn those skills and methodologies they are not accustomed to which are specific to the field of Tactical EMS (i.e. remote patient assessments, medical threat assessments, barricade medicine, etc.)
You can't just take a civilian medical provider, throw a heavy vest and helmet on them, and call them a Tactical Medic. There needs to be a stringent, rigid set of standards and training before any civilian EMS provider can attain such a status. There needs to be written medical and operation protocols, continual joint training between the Tactical Team and the TEMS providers, training standards set forth by the agency, medical directors should be involved, etc.
Operationally, I don't necessarily believe in putting a civilian TEMS provider in the stack. I do agree that civilian TEMS providers, if properly outfitted with the necessary PPE (heavy vest, etc.), can be placed in the inner perimeter, staged at the point of entry. A civilian TEMS provider in the stack does nothing to benefit the Tactical Team; it's just another individual to get in their way of what they have to do. Tactical Teams have a mission, and that mission is carried out through speed, suprise, and violence of action. Sometimes more is not better, and this is one of thoses cases where unnecessary personnel running around the inside of a location can be more of a hinderance then a help. One of the main ideas of the TEMS program is to cut down on the time for an injured person to receive medical aide. Having your civilian medical provider staged at the point of entry, where they are not in the way of LEO's as they carry out their operation, but still close enough that they can be on top of an injured party in seconds, is not only effective, but ensures a higher level of safety for the TEMS provider.
Am I against civilian TEMS providers? No, as long as they follow the strict standards and guidelines I spoke of before. There are a hundred reasons why most LEO's are against the idea of civilian TEMS providers, and I don't disagree with them. There are liability concerns, safety concerns, OPSEC concerns, and so on. Neither way of thinking is right or wrong in my opinion. Both concepts can work, it's simply up to the Tactical Team to decide which is going to be the best means of providing tactical medical care. The only thing that I don't agree with is to shun away from civilian EMS providers simply because they're "civilians" and have no idea about law enforcement or combat. You know how many combat veterans are returning back from overseas and going back to their jobs stocking shelves at the local grocery or department store? These individuals have more combat experience then most LEO's out there. Keep an open mind. There are many civilian EMS providers out there with significant military experience serving multiple tours overseas. They're an untapped resource for such a program that should not be overlooked just because they're not an LEO.

This is one of the top debates within the Tactical EMS community, and there are a few good arguements made on both sides as to which provider, a civilian EMT/Medic or a sworn Law Enforcement Officer, is better utilized to function as a TEMS provider. Each methodology has it's own pros and cons, and as NJMedic stated, it generally comes down to the individual team studying both options and going with the concept that is going to work for them. I'll try to give you some of the pros and cons of each concept.
Civilian EMS Providers as TEMS Providers
The Pros: Generally civilian EMS providers possess a stronger medical skillset then LEO's who are not regular practioners of prehospital emergency medicine. Prehospital medical providers are generally more comfortable and often more competent with providing prehospital medical care to individuals who are sick/injured. Because they already possess that skillset and that level of competency, medical training for experienced prehospital medical providers focuses on taking that knowledge of conventional prehospital medicine and applying it to an unconventional environment.
The Cons: One of the big cons is the liability of taking a civilian EMT/Medic and placing them in an austere, potentially violent environment where there is a higher likelihood of a violent encounter with an armed individual, which is completely the opposite of conventional EMS training and scene safety standards. The debate on whether to arm civilian providers is another that comes down to local jurisdictions and is an entire topic in it's own. Some civilian providers are an unarmed member of the team, leaving the medical provider defenseless in the event of a violent encounter. Generally these providers are offered basic firearms training and some range time to become familiar with the weapon platforms the tactical team they are supporting utilizes. Armed civilian providers generally attend some form of peace officer academy, similiar to becoming an armed auxiliary or part-time officer of the department they are working with. I could go on and on about this, but it's a whole different topic. One of the other big concerns for tactical teams is Operational Security (OPSEC). Generally tactical teams work under a heavy blanket of OPSEC so their operations remain covert until it is time for them to go operational. Usually the only individuals privy to an upcoming warrant execution are the members of the team. Even other sworn LEO's who are not associated with the tactical team are not made aware of the pending operation so the covert nature of the operation is not blown. Let's say the Tactical Commander contacts their civilian TEMS counterpart to advise them of the impending operation, and the civilian TEMS provider, who is not in the mindset of OPSEC, then posts all over his/her Facebook page about the "big hit" they're doing with the tactical team in the morning. This is a significant concern for tactical teams, and one of the reasons only certain individuals are privy to the details, even small details, of the impending operation. If the target of the hit is somehow tipped off, they can easily prepare for it, either by moving their operation to another location, or fortify their location and be ready to shoot it out with the team when they arrive.
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers as TEMS Providers
The Pros: Sworn LEO's assigned to Tactical teams are already trained in police tactics, weapon platforms, and are used to operating in an austere, violent tactical environment. Assigning a LEO to the stack provides the team with another gun; meaning another LEO who is an armed member of the team with arrest powers and all of the other powers provided to LEO's. One of the other pros is that LEO's in general have a slight amount of "distrust", and I use that term loosely, when it comes to individuals outside of the Law Enforcement community. By distrust I mean that you will often see LEO's associating with and hanging out with other LEO's, because of that mutual understanding of "the job". Now within the Law Enforcement community, LEO's assigned to Special Operations teams are a group within the group, and they often won't fully associate with other LEO's, even from their own department, the way they would with other members of their team. Now try taking a civilian, non-LEO TEMS provider, and placing them in the middle of this team and see how they're received. Every team is different, but it may take a while before they are welcomed into the team as a team member. A sworn-LEO provider also has earned some level of trust from the team simply because they're "on the job".
The Cons: Maintaining a strong skillset to be able to provide competent, complete, and correct medical care to a sick or injured individual. A LEO who does not regularly practice prehospital medicine will possess a weak skillset and be an incompetent provider, which is counter-productive to the operation. One of the other cons that can arise is confusion on the part of the LEO medical provider. Are they a TEMS provider first, or a Police Officer first?
There are just some of the basic arguements for which type of provider would be better suited for work on a tactical team as a medical provider. Obviously there is a whole lot more to be said for types of providers, levels and types of training, and so on.

I'm sure I will draw the ire of some with these comments but having experienced some of these things first-hand, I have some strong feelings on the subject.
The need for a second medic should be a rare call because a paramedic should be competent and able to handle a single patient without a second paramedic. That said, there are always those calls where IV access or intubation is challenging and the condition of the patient warrants the expeditious handling that two medics may be able to provide.
In cases where an intubation is difficult or suitable IV access can't be obtained, the benefit of an EMT-Intermediate on scene will be limited. As was pointed out, in this area EMT-I's don't get a lot of opportunity to hone their skills and they would not be my first choice to back me up if I couldn't get a tube or line in someone. This is not to say that an EMT-I is not valuable or their skills useful in some areas (St. Lawrence County probably has more EMT-I's than P's but Westchester is the opposite).
I suspect that the EMT-I program never really caught because we have people who are resistant to the length of the EMT-B course so taking another course of nearly the same length with no prospects for employment or skills practice had no appeal. Another big problem is that there are some skills that paramedics don't get to practice often enough to maintain their own proficiency so they're not going to let the EMT-I perform them.
As for people being able to assist the medic with EKG's, setting up meds or IV's, or other stuff, there was a time that we called those indispensible assistants EMT's. You don't need to be an EMT-I to put electrodes on a patient and set up the monitor while the medic does other things. EMT's routinely used to do most of the things that are being discussed here and I've never understood why that skill set diminished as much as it did. I guess turnover, apathy, delayed response times, and other things all contributed to what I'll call the demise of these kinds of EMT's and that's a shame. I worked with EMT's who were able to do almost everything I could do as the medic right up to the venipuncture or intubation or other invasive skills. They were crackerjack EMT's and truly a pleasure to work with.
Unfortunately we have EMT's out there now (and I'm confident that they're still the minority) who are barely competent in their basic skills so helping a medic is stretch.
Good topic!

I'm a little confused by your post, but what I did get from it is the arguement that is made by a lot of Tactical EMS practicioners that "it's easier to train a medic to be a cop then it is to train a cop to be a medic". In my opinion, this does hold some level of truth. I've tried to keep my personal opinion about this topic to myself, but here it is (if anyone cares, lol).
First and foremost, if a Tactical Team is going to utilize a civilian EMS provider as their Tactical Medic (in the TEMS world the term "medic" is used to describe both EMT's and Paramedics), they have to select the right person. The individual needs to be put through the hiring process as if they were going for a job with the Law Enforcement agency they're going to be working with, including interviews, psychological exams, drug tests, background checks, etc. Secondly, they need to pass the SWAT physical/agility just as if they were trying out for the team as a regular LEO. Face it, not every LEO is cut out for the type of work that Tactical Teams perform. We like to think of Tactical operators as "the best of the best", true masters of the craft of high risk tactical operations. Experts in firearms control, marksmanship, and tactics. Individuals who can carry out specialized tactical operations that require such a highly motivated and skilled LEO. Civilian TEMS providers should be held to that same standard.
In regards to training, any civilian TEMS provider should attend some form of Law Enforcement training to attain a title similiar to peace officer status. In addition, all TEMS providers must attend some form of TEMS training to learn how to take the medical skills they already possess and apply it to the tactical environment, as well as learn those skills and methodologies they are not accustomed to which are specific to the field of Tactical EMS (i.e. remote patient assessments, medical threat assessments, barricade medicine, etc.)
You can't just take a civilian medical provider, throw a heavy vest and helmet on them, and call them a Tactical Medic. There needs to be a stringent, rigid set of standards and training before any civilian EMS provider can attain such a status. There needs to be written medical and operation protocols, continual joint training between the Tactical Team and the TEMS providers, training standards set forth by the agency, medical directors should be involved, etc.
Operationally, I don't necessarily believe in putting a civilian TEMS provider in the stack. I do agree that civilian TEMS providers, if properly outfitted with the necessary PPE (heavy vest, etc.), can be placed in the inner perimeter, staged at the point of entry. A civilian TEMS provider in the stack does nothing to benefit the Tactical Team; it's just another individual to get in their way of what they have to do. Tactical Teams have a mission, and that mission is carried out through speed, suprise, and violence of action. Sometimes more is not better, and this is one of thoses cases where unnecessary personnel running around the inside of a location can be more of a hinderance then a help. One of the main ideas of the TEMS program is to cut down on the time for an injured person to receive medical aide. Having your civilian medical provider staged at the point of entry, where they are not in the way of LEO's as they carry out their operation, but still close enough that they can be on top of an injured party in seconds, is not only effective, but ensures a higher level of safety for the TEMS provider.
Am I against civilian TEMS providers? No, as long as they follow the strict standards and guidelines I spoke of before. There are a hundred reasons why most LEO's are against the idea of civilian TEMS providers, and I don't disagree with them. There are liability concerns, safety concerns, OPSEC concerns, and so on. Neither way of thinking is right or wrong in my opinion. Both concepts can work, it's simply up to the Tactical Team to decide which is going to be the best means of providing tactical medical care. The only thing that I don't agree with is to shun away from civilian EMS providers simply because they're "civilians" and have no idea about law enforcement or combat. You know how many combat veterans are returning back from overseas and going back to their jobs stocking shelves at the local grocery or department store? These individuals have more combat experience then most LEO's out there. Keep an open mind. There are many civilian EMS providers out there with significant military experience serving multiple tours overseas. They're an untapped resource for such a program that should not be overlooked just because they're not an LEO.

I'm a little confused by your post, but what I did get from it is the arguement that is made by a lot of Tactical EMS practicioners that "it's easier to train a medic to be a cop then it is to train a cop to be a medic". In my opinion, this does hold some level of truth. I've tried to keep my personal opinion about this topic to myself, but here it is (if anyone cares, lol).
First and foremost, if a Tactical Team is going to utilize a civilian EMS provider as their Tactical Medic (in the TEMS world the term "medic" is used to describe both EMT's and Paramedics), they have to select the right person. The individual needs to be put through the hiring process as if they were going for a job with the Law Enforcement agency they're going to be working with, including interviews, psychological exams, drug tests, background checks, etc. Secondly, they need to pass the SWAT physical/agility just as if they were trying out for the team as a regular LEO. Face it, not every LEO is cut out for the type of work that Tactical Teams perform. We like to think of Tactical operators as "the best of the best", true masters of the craft of high risk tactical operations. Experts in firearms control, marksmanship, and tactics. Individuals who can carry out specialized tactical operations that require such a highly motivated and skilled LEO. Civilian TEMS providers should be held to that same standard.
In regards to training, any civilian TEMS provider should attend some form of Law Enforcement training to attain a title similiar to peace officer status. In addition, all TEMS providers must attend some form of TEMS training to learn how to take the medical skills they already possess and apply it to the tactical environment, as well as learn those skills and methodologies they are not accustomed to which are specific to the field of Tactical EMS (i.e. remote patient assessments, medical threat assessments, barricade medicine, etc.)
You can't just take a civilian medical provider, throw a heavy vest and helmet on them, and call them a Tactical Medic. There needs to be a stringent, rigid set of standards and training before any civilian EMS provider can attain such a status. There needs to be written medical and operation protocols, continual joint training between the Tactical Team and the TEMS providers, training standards set forth by the agency, medical directors should be involved, etc.
Operationally, I don't necessarily believe in putting a civilian TEMS provider in the stack. I do agree that civilian TEMS providers, if properly outfitted with the necessary PPE (heavy vest, etc.), can be placed in the inner perimeter, staged at the point of entry. A civilian TEMS provider in the stack does nothing to benefit the Tactical Team; it's just another individual to get in their way of what they have to do. Tactical Teams have a mission, and that mission is carried out through speed, suprise, and violence of action. Sometimes more is not better, and this is one of thoses cases where unnecessary personnel running around the inside of a location can be more of a hinderance then a help. One of the main ideas of the TEMS program is to cut down on the time for an injured person to receive medical aide. Having your civilian medical provider staged at the point of entry, where they are not in the way of LEO's as they carry out their operation, but still close enough that they can be on top of an injured party in seconds, is not only effective, but ensures a higher level of safety for the TEMS provider.
Am I against civilian TEMS providers? No, as long as they follow the strict standards and guidelines I spoke of before. There are a hundred reasons why most LEO's are against the idea of civilian TEMS providers, and I don't disagree with them. There are liability concerns, safety concerns, OPSEC concerns, and so on. Neither way of thinking is right or wrong in my opinion. Both concepts can work, it's simply up to the Tactical Team to decide which is going to be the best means of providing tactical medical care. The only thing that I don't agree with is to shun away from civilian EMS providers simply because they're "civilians" and have no idea about law enforcement or combat. You know how many combat veterans are returning back from overseas and going back to their jobs stocking shelves at the local grocery or department store? These individuals have more combat experience then most LEO's out there. Keep an open mind. There are many civilian EMS providers out there with significant military experience serving multiple tours overseas. They're an untapped resource for such a program that should not be overlooked just because they're not an LEO.

This is one of the top debates within the Tactical EMS community, and there are a few good arguements made on both sides as to which provider, a civilian EMT/Medic or a sworn Law Enforcement Officer, is better utilized to function as a TEMS provider. Each methodology has it's own pros and cons, and as NJMedic stated, it generally comes down to the individual team studying both options and going with the concept that is going to work for them. I'll try to give you some of the pros and cons of each concept.
Civilian EMS Providers as TEMS Providers
The Pros: Generally civilian EMS providers possess a stronger medical skillset then LEO's who are not regular practioners of prehospital emergency medicine. Prehospital medical providers are generally more comfortable and often more competent with providing prehospital medical care to individuals who are sick/injured. Because they already possess that skillset and that level of competency, medical training for experienced prehospital medical providers focuses on taking that knowledge of conventional prehospital medicine and applying it to an unconventional environment.
The Cons: One of the big cons is the liability of taking a civilian EMT/Medic and placing them in an austere, potentially violent environment where there is a higher likelihood of a violent encounter with an armed individual, which is completely the opposite of conventional EMS training and scene safety standards. The debate on whether to arm civilian providers is another that comes down to local jurisdictions and is an entire topic in it's own. Some civilian providers are an unarmed member of the team, leaving the medical provider defenseless in the event of a violent encounter. Generally these providers are offered basic firearms training and some range time to become familiar with the weapon platforms the tactical team they are supporting utilizes. Armed civilian providers generally attend some form of peace officer academy, similiar to becoming an armed auxiliary or part-time officer of the department they are working with. I could go on and on about this, but it's a whole different topic. One of the other big concerns for tactical teams is Operational Security (OPSEC). Generally tactical teams work under a heavy blanket of OPSEC so their operations remain covert until it is time for them to go operational. Usually the only individuals privy to an upcoming warrant execution are the members of the team. Even other sworn LEO's who are not associated with the tactical team are not made aware of the pending operation so the covert nature of the operation is not blown. Let's say the Tactical Commander contacts their civilian TEMS counterpart to advise them of the impending operation, and the civilian TEMS provider, who is not in the mindset of OPSEC, then posts all over his/her Facebook page about the "big hit" they're doing with the tactical team in the morning. This is a significant concern for tactical teams, and one of the reasons only certain individuals are privy to the details, even small details, of the impending operation. If the target of the hit is somehow tipped off, they can easily prepare for it, either by moving their operation to another location, or fortify their location and be ready to shoot it out with the team when they arrive.
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers as TEMS Providers
The Pros: Sworn LEO's assigned to Tactical teams are already trained in police tactics, weapon platforms, and are used to operating in an austere, violent tactical environment. Assigning a LEO to the stack provides the team with another gun; meaning another LEO who is an armed member of the team with arrest powers and all of the other powers provided to LEO's. One of the other pros is that LEO's in general have a slight amount of "distrust", and I use that term loosely, when it comes to individuals outside of the Law Enforcement community. By distrust I mean that you will often see LEO's associating with and hanging out with other LEO's, because of that mutual understanding of "the job". Now within the Law Enforcement community, LEO's assigned to Special Operations teams are a group within the group, and they often won't fully associate with other LEO's, even from their own department, the way they would with other members of their team. Now try taking a civilian, non-LEO TEMS provider, and placing them in the middle of this team and see how they're received. Every team is different, but it may take a while before they are welcomed into the team as a team member. A sworn-LEO provider also has earned some level of trust from the team simply because they're "on the job".
The Cons: Maintaining a strong skillset to be able to provide competent, complete, and correct medical care to a sick or injured individual. A LEO who does not regularly practice prehospital medicine will possess a weak skillset and be an incompetent provider, which is counter-productive to the operation. One of the other cons that can arise is confusion on the part of the LEO medical provider. Are they a TEMS provider first, or a Police Officer first?
There are just some of the basic arguements for which type of provider would be better suited for work on a tactical team as a medical provider. Obviously there is a whole lot more to be said for types of providers, levels and types of training, and so on.