Stun Gun Used on Hiker

[dug]

http://www.kptv.com/story/15459808/deputies-use-taser-on-combative-hiker?hpt=us_bn7

"I'll be goddamned if you are gonna charge me for this! I'm fine I tell 'ya!"

Seriously, this could be a dangerous situation. Curious from our SAR folks if this is something that you have experienced, or, if it's something worry about.

 

[REK]

"You will respect my authoritah!!!!!!!"
Bob

 

[MadRiver]

Many years ago we saw a man hit by a car on I91 just north of Brattleboro VT. We stopped to render assistance and when I was talking to the guy trying to assess his injuries he started throwing punches at me. I was able to deflect the punches without too much trouble and eventually calmed him down before the paramedics arrived. I would hate to have this happen in the backcountry, especially if I’m alone with the injured hiker. Since I wasn't there I will let others comment on whether or not it was the right call.

 

[Little Rickie]

Maring became combative and lifted one of the rescuers off the ground.

Must have been a big guy. What would you have done?

 

[sardog1]

Combative behavior is a well-known consequence of head injuries or impairment by alcohol or drugs. It's not something you can necessarily talk a patient out of -- the brain isn't functioning normally. Helicopter crews will routinely restrain such patients with straps, even if they haven't displayed the behavior.

 

[griffin]

I'm inclined to give them (the rescuers) the benefit of the doubt that they used it as a last or only resort, short of abandoning the guy.

I do think it's probably bs to consider charging him with assault since it sounds like he wasn't in his right mind.

 

[una_dogger]

I'm inclined to give them (the rescuers) the benefit of the doubt that they used it as a last or only resort, short of abandoning the guy.

I do think it's probably bs to consider charging him with assault since it sounds like he wasn't in his right mind.

I agree with you, Griffin.

 

[erugs]

What would you have done?

What would I have done as an individual? I'd have backed away to a safe distance and tried to help as possible.

What would I have done in an official capacity with proper training? Anything necessary with the resources we had. Stunning might have been reasonable. If the behavior was caused by a health issue, then charging the individual would not be something I'd like to see unless it was a pattern of abuse. But I think that would be a last resort.

 

[Mikie]

Combative behavior is a well-known consequence of head injuries or impairment by alcohol or drugs.

So true. Seen it a number of times. I have found that when they are under the influence, I can reason with them sometimes.

They are lucky the guy didn't go into cardiac arrest and die on them after being shocked. With unknown medical condition, it was certainly a risk.

 

[J.Dub]

The responsibility priorities they taught us in EMT class were:

1. Safety of self
2. Saftey of partner
3. Saftey of patient

The headline "Rescuers use stun gun on hiker" will probably provoke a certain type of gut reaction (esp. in folks who don't bother to read the article )

Unless somebody was on-scene, they don't really have the information, ability or right (IMO) to start second-guessing the actions of the rescuers.

 

[DSettahr]

There must be more to the story. Typically, if an injured hiker refuses care, then first responders have no choice to leave them alone. Something had to have happened that allowed the first responders to give him care against his wishes (he initially accepted care, was drunk, etc.).

Or maybe the laws are different on the West Coast...

 

[Raven]

Don't taze me, Bro!

There must be more to the story. Typically, if an injured hiker refuses care, then first responders have no choice to leave them alone. Something had to have happened that allowed the first responders to give him care against his wishes (he initially accepted care, was drunk, etc.).

Or maybe the laws are different on the West Coast...

I agree. This story is definitely light on detail - not enough to tell much yet.

Regarding treating against his will, maybe where the injured is not inclined to make decisions in his or her own best interest (heavily influenced, brain damage, etc., this can be overlooked?)

 

[Puma concolor]

“As the medics tried to assess his condition and start treatment, Maring became combative and picked them up off the ground,” Edwards continued. "He attempted to assault them, but was subdued by the deputy using a Taser.”

It was Maring's second rescue off the same peak in less than a year. Last Sept. 30, he was flown from South Sister after being found unconscious by another climbing party.

Second South Sister Rescue

Duncan Tyler Maring, 33, Stayton, pleaded guilty to Criminal Trespass II; sentenced to $113 fine, $45 offense surcharge and $92 assessment fees

Oregon Court Stuff

'Nuff said.

 

[DSettahr]

That article still doesn't explain what the justifications were for treating him against his wishes, though. Anyone who has taken a wilderness first aid course knows that this is hugely important- if an injured person is conscious, you have to ask them for permission before you can treat them. If they say no, then you legally have no choice but to do nothing.

 

[Puma concolor]

Kind of sounds to me like things went south in a hurry (no pun intended). It's one thing to have a nice, rational discussion with a potential patient and quite another to have one come at you right after initial contact.

Additionally, one thing law enforcement will be assessing is a person's mental health condition. At least in NY, if a person is not in their right mind and is exhibiting behavior that is dangerous to himself or others (MHL 9.41), he/she actually can be forced to receive medical treatment against his/her will. Attempted suicides and drug overdoses are the most common examples of this. Oregon law will obviously be somewhat different, but I would suspect that the same principal holds true.

 

[Maddy]

The responsibility priorities they taught us in EMT class were:

1. Safety of self
2. Saftey of partner
3. Saftey of patient

The headline "Rescuers use stun gun on hiker" will probably provoke a certain type of gut reaction (esp. in folks who don't bother to read the article )

Unless somebody was on-scene, they don't really have the information, ability or right (IMO) to start second-guessing the actions of the rescuers.

This guy is a very slow learner!

Having worked for years in large med centers, I have seen my share of crazed lunatics and believe me when I say they can be very, very strong and do serious bodily damage to anyone in the immediate vicinity. In these situations wee utilized our hospital police who did carry "arms". Some only needed to see the "uniforms" approach and they became instantly subdued. In other cases the "uniforms" handled the situation and we stepped back until they got the patient under control so we could do our jobs. On more than one occasion they wound up in leather restraints or handcuffed to the bed rails. Some required police presence for some time before they came to their senses.

They had new policies prior to my leaving, aka retiring.
We could press assault charges if they came after us and they would be prosecuted same as anyone else.
If it's related to their actual medical condition, i.e. head injury, brain tumor, etc. no charges would be filed.

In a nutshell, threatening, aggressive behavior was not tolerated.

Maybe now this "hiker", and I use the term "hiker" loosely, will think twice about setting himself up for rescue #3.

 

[DSettahr]

Kind of sounds to me like things went south in a hurry (no pun intended). It's one thing to have a nice, rational discussion with a potential patient and quite another to have one come at you right after initial contact.

Additionally, one thing law enforcement will be assessing is a person's mental health condition. At least in NY, if a person is not in their right mind and is exhibiting behavior that is dangerous to himself or others (MHL 9.41), he/she actually can be forced to receive medical treatment against his/her will. Attempted suicides and drug overdoses are the most common examples of this. Oregon law will obviously be somewhat different, but I would suspect that the same principal holds true.

Exactly. But the article doesn't specify any of that. So... "not enough said." We still don't know the full story. (And probably never will!)

 

[Puma concolor]

Exactly. But the article doesn't specify any of that. So... "not enough said." We still don't know the full story. (And probably never will!)

Medical confidentiality is funny that way.