Skip to comments.Doctor shoots armed patient in Philly hospital: A gun rights case is born
Posted on 07/26/2014 6:42:46 AM PDT by Innovative
Psychiatrist Lee Silverman worked in a gun-free hospital, but pulled out a gun in his desk to subdue an armed patient, who had just shot his caseworker. The case renews the issue: Should doctors and teachers be armed?
A mental-health caseworker is dead and a doctor and his patient wounded after a bizarre gunfight at a gun-free-zoned hospital in Yeadon, Pa., near Philadelphia, Thursday. As police prepare murder charges against the wounded patient, focus is shifting to the gun-toting psychiatrist who stopped the mayhem, likely saving other lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Then many would blame the guns, again, for the possible massacre.
Heard this discussed last night on the radio. A real lesson to remember. Bookmarked.
The mental patient might have shot up a lot of people, the doctor had a gun, the patient killed one person sadly, the doc was wounded but he was armed as well.
“Whether the hospital takes administrative action against Silverman for carrying a gun to work will be closely watched by those involved in Americas febrile gun debate.”
If this is even a question — that is a sad commentary — the doctor should get a medal for saving many lives.
Classic scenario Justice vs. Law.
Well, they have a right to make rules.
However, to be fair, just give him a slap on the wrist at worst.
This is where “judgement” comes in, not “by the book”. Which probably doesn’t give details anyway.
Having said that, all rights are coupled with responsibilities, and if a property owner is going to disallow his employees, customers and guests the means of protecting themselves, they incur an obligation to protect each and every one of them. I think an easy solution is to allow the employer to make the rules permitting or not permitting lawful firearm ownership on their property, but should they choose to bar firearms, knives, pepper spray, etc. they assume both corporate and personal liability for persons injured or killed as a result of their decision to disarm.
There can be no reasonable argument made that guns in law abiding citizens hands should be infringed.
Disregarding the occasional accident, 99 times out of 100 good things happen. Criminals and documented Crazies, 99 times out of 100 bad things happen. The solution is obvious.
Not to mention, that criminals don’t pay attention to the law prohibiting them from carrying a gun...
A very important note in the article is how the police strongly supported the psychiatrist in defending himself and others.
Just 10 or more year ago, police would uniformly parrot the statement that citizens “shouldn’t take the law into their own hands by defending themselves, that they should instead always call the police.” Which in retrospect, is obviously wrong.
Many police were initially dead set against an armed public, yet today, having seen what happens with an armed public, they are some of the strongest advocates of having an armed citizenry.
This is because, more and more, the police are seeing with their own eyes that the armed citizenry are very effective in reducing crime, most of the time not needing to fire their guns. In turn, this is a huge help to the police, making their jobs easier, and many times, providing them quick backup when their lives are at risk.
Likewise, the police notice that in gun liberty areas, it is becoming so hard to be a criminal that a lot of criminals are either quitting, or moving to crimes far less likely for them to get shot. Criminals no longer just have to keep watch for police, they have to be afraid of *everyone*.
What’s not to like?
As an aside, there is an irony here that I haven’t heard mentioned. When police are on duty in a gun liberty area, they know where they stand. But they also know that when they enter a gun-free zone, that potential armed civilian backup isn’t there. That gun-free zone might *look* safer, but it is more dangerous.
Doctors yes; teachers.... it depends.
In my experience this adjective is usually indicates a strong anti-second Amendment point of view.
Teachers yes: "educators"?....HELL NO!
Not saying to ‘make rules’ is right nor wrong, but to deny someone their 2nd A. Rights, does such an entity then not make security their responsibility?
Course, using that same logic, I haven’t seen anyone sue the State/Fed gov’t for creating fish-in-a-barrel ala gov’t indoctrination...Oops, ‘schools’
***Doctors yes; teachers.... it depends.***
I remember some students, 55 years ago, who felt their purpose in life was to drive the teachers to the brink of sanity.
QED, Democrats should not be allowed to have guns.
I can point out where I have the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Constitution. Where in the constitution is the right for property owners and employers to remove other constitutionally guaranteed rights? What other rights can they forbid?
Most teachers I know shouldn't be trusted with any potentially dangerous device.
The Constitution forbids government from restricting rights. A property owner can set virtually any rule he or she wants to grant access to their property. Go to work in your underwear and a pair of flip-flops and tell your boss you're just exercising your freedom of speech. Come back and tell me how that works out for you...
The article says the doctor crouched behind his desk and “fetched” his gun. It doesn’t sound like it was on his person, but maybe in a desk drawer?
Since the man has a right to keep and bear arms, and since the situation proved for anyone why that is, I can’t see him violating anything more than a no-gun zone established by a hospital. I’m sure that’s backed up by law of some kind, but what if it’s a ‘no carry’ zone and not a ‘no gun’ zone?
My sense then is that he wasn’t armed, in the classic sense of the word. I’ve never heard the word “fetched” be used about one who took a gun out of a holster or a pocket.
I don’t know what the technicality would be, but this could be a technicality in favor of the doctor, if the gun really was in a desk drawer.
Say a group of ne'er-do-wells sets up a satanic black mass in your front yard. When it's done, they break out in a spontaneous Obama rally with signs and t-shirts proclaiming the virtues of "the won." They can point out where they have a freedom of religion and right to political speech.
He's going to be fired, without a doubt.
The situations are quite different, because of Sovereign Immunity on behalf of the government, but not a private person/company.
A lot those ‘accidents’ are actually suicides.
On the other hand, keeping a gun in an unlocked desk drawer has its own legal hazards.....
Agreed...but moreover, my recommendation is for corporate and personal liability. Whatever administrators, board members, CEO, etc. who are responsible for the "no guns" policy should be considered personally and individually as tortfeasors for their role in the injuries and death.
No one said it was unlocked, but it sounded to me that he “fetched” it pretty quickly. My experience as a counselor is that our desks had locks on all the drawers whether we used them or not. Can’t have people viewing notes, files, etc. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if the drawers all had locks....whether locked at that time or not.
The key may have been in the drawer lock.That is how I would secure something confidential that needed to be accessed quickly.Take the key with me when not in the office.
Doctor may be fired but he is alive to find another job.
It oftens requires a good person with a gun to stop the bad person .The lieberals just don’t want to accept that there are good people. The lieberals believe everyone is going to act on selfish and immature impulses as lieberals do.
I can choose to patronize a “gun free” restaurant, the owner cannot make it safe. I know it’s unsafe when I enter, if there’s a problem I don’t believe I have any recourse with the restaurant. I choose not to patronize “gun free” businesses. In the case of hospitals, medical offices, etc., in most of the country if not all these places are legally “gun free zones”. You cannot protect yourself and they cannot protect you and if something happens you have no recourse. You cannot simply go down the street to the next medical center where you will find a firearms welcome sign. I’m for abolishing gun free zones or as they have here “Weapons free Zones”, I guess they’re afraid I’d bring my hammer but if I did we’d all be more safe.
I think government imposed/declared gun free zones are simply un-Constitutional. Like you, I avoid private entities that declare them, but I still think the property owners have the right to do with their property as they see fit, and their patrons or visitors can exercise their right of association as they see fit.
In gun free zones in places like hospitals where there is a security force that is armed, their rules must be written in a way to allow at least some guns. They would also have to define who could and could not have a gun...security, police, and governmental agents, I suppose, would be the limits of it. Sometimes, though, when they write those rules up, there are holes in the write-up.
I think the hospital’s regulation should be waived for staff who deal routinely with mentally-unstable patents. But there would still be the old tension between having the gun available and keeping it safe. Concealed carry is probably the best solution to that.
>Should doctors and teachers be armed?<
Why only doctors and teachers?
Are they more qualified to go armed than law-abiding citizens with concealed handgun permits?
I pretty much agree with that. There's always the danger of someone relieving you of your gun, but generally, it's useless if locked in a drawer or a locker.
Thea doctor should have had the common decency to just die rather than embarass his betters.
I agree, but there are exceptions. My kids had a HS student adviser who thought he might be the only person in Massachusetts who was a member of both the NEA and the NRA, although he kept the stickers off of his car.
But, I've seen a lot of teachers--who after all, are mostly knee-jerk liberals--who are far too irresponsible to be trusted with deadly force.
I ran the Fire, Safety & Security Department At Philadelphia State Hospital (Byberry) until it shut down. The liberals tried to hang some of my Security Officers (all retired PHilly Police officers) for merely defending themselves by punching or pinning the patients. Some of those libs would have a shit fit over this. BTW, if they hadn’t closed down that snake pit, this may not have happened.
I don’t know about this being a, “Gun rights case being born,” but it does open up a few questions.
Should an employer, if he chooses to make his/her business a gun free zone, be responsible for the safety of all employees?
Not only while at the workplace, but en route to and from it as well. What if I’m on my way home from or to work, while stopped at a red light, and I get carjacked and shot? If my employer had allowed me to carry, it might have ended differently.
Lots of gun owners feel that it’s irresponsible to leave a firearm unattended in their vehicle for fear that it could get stolen. Plus, the business property could ALSO include the parking lot. What then?
With the economy being as horrid as it is, I doubt that anyone wants to become the first test case for this issue.
“Lots of gun owners feel that its irresponsible to leave a firearm unattended in their vehicle for fear that it could get stolen. Plus, the business property could ALSO include the parking lot. What then?”
Many times the business property does include the parking lot. What then? You’re screwed. Which is why these laws were passed in the first place. To disarm the populace.
Alabama actually passed a law that, roughly stated, prohibited businesses from prohibiting guns in their parking lots as long as the guns were out of sight and the vehicle was locked. Lots of handwringing about how “blood would run in the streets” and other non-sense.
Sheriffs were against it. Yep. In the supposedly “most Conservative state” the Sheriffs were against my right to keep and bear arms and self defense. Didn’t surprise me at all as I have had a few dealings with local Sheriff depts. over the years.
It may well have been in a bag that the Doctor carried with him.
A few months ago, a young man knifed a bunch of people in a local hospital where his mother was being treated. He was insane and thought they were killing his mother.
I can’t recall how many died. I guess it didn’t make national news because it didn’t involve a “nasty, dangerous gun.”
They are trespassing. They do not have a constitutional right to trespass and can be removed.
In the spirit of your challenge I suggest you put a sign on your place of business/property line that says "No Blacks, No Irish, and No Muslims allowed" and see what happens.
In the state of Washington, by state law you can’t carry in a court room, school, or bar. Any other place that has a sign and you get caught it is a matter of them asking you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then it gets treated as trespassing.
There was an odd letter written after the Sandy Hook massacre. It was in the form of a letter written to one of the dead teachers. Chastising her for not having a gun on her to protect her children. Went on about how “natural” or God-given rules are greater than some rule that man (the school) sets. It was too harsh in my opinion (the teacher was dead), but it does bring up the point that sometimes man’s rules are not just.
I always have a struggle picking my kids up from school. Bring the gun, or risk having my CCW revoked forever. So far I leave my gun at home.
Honestly, anyone who thinks someone who used a gun to save lives should be punished hasn’t got a shred of logic in them to make them worth debating.
When my Sons went to public school, I’d take my gun to pick them up and drop them off. I’d just stay off of the property. Never had an issue.
What teachers/staff knew me knew I did it, and appreciated it, too.
Definitely. Another good possibility.
What is the rule about a gun in the trunk of your car separated from your ammunition and being on school grounds?
Is that acceptably transporting but at the same time unarmed?
There are both Federal and State laws.
If the firearm is unloaded and locked up, I think it would be alright under Federal law.
State laws vary considerably.
Actually, you have made my point better than I could. The hypothetical devil worshippers/Obama campaigners on your lawn, while engaging in Constitutionally protected activities do not have the property owner's permission to practice their Constitutionally protected activities on his property, and therefore are trespassing. Similarly, when a property/business owner says effectively, "Persons carrying firearms are not allowed on this property," they are denying permission to such persons, and persons carrying firearms on such property are trespassing, although carrying a firearm is, like devil worship, or campaigning for Obama, a Constitionally protected activity.