TMF

Yep, don't like it when they do that. Before they would discharge my son after his birth I forced to watch a video lecturing me on not shaking a baby and then sign an "agreement" stating that I won't kill my child in a fit of rage. Overstepping? Yeah, seems like it is totally acceptable now. But hey, it's the patient that is wrong if he/she doesn't want to be treated or talked to like a child. I know the difference between right and wrong, and generally what is wrong would be classified as "unethical." I don't need a list to tell me that. Whether or not a medical provider has the right to ask you questions that have nothing to do with treatment, then refuse treatment when you don't want to answer said question is a quack and should be rejected by the medical community. What's to stop a doctor from asking your political affiliations? It is well within their rights to refuse treatment if you don't answer, right? But it is somehow okay because some made up code of ethics says that it is? No. Like I said, I know the difference between right and wrong, and this is wrong and unethical. Using the example of performing abortions doesn't make sense either, because that is a procedure that the doctor must perform. If the doctor doesn't believe in performing that procedure he doesn't have to. The patient owning firearms doesn't automatically force the doctor to condone gun ownership, nor does it make him a gun owner.

I had a Draw Tight put on by U-Haul on a car about 12 years ago. Coulda done it myself but half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at. They did a fine job, and at least if they didn't I could hold somebody accountable other than my own lack of knowledge.

I wouldn't be up in arms about it either, but it's the principle of it. I would have no problem answering that question, but some might not want to or feel that the question is prying into their personal beliefs and doesn't pertain to treatment or routine scheduled care for children. Even still, it seems severe to dump a patient for not answering a question unless it directly relates to a medical issue that the patient is being treated for. To me that sounds like activism, which should have no place in a patient/doctor relationship, which leads to my feeling that the practice is unethical. What if the doctor inquires about religious preference? If you refuse to answer would it be ethical to get dumped by the doctor? A doctor may feel that their religious preference has bearing on the childs health. For example, the doctor might feel as if certain sects of Mormanism are dangerous for a child due to child marriages being conducted at that FLDS compound. I believe the scenario you painted above (domestic violence or history of) would be a reasonable case for a medical provider to inquire about gun possession, but if the question is unrelated to an existing condition I don't see it's relevance.

I never suggested that it should be illegal, but certainly would be unethical. I believe that a doc has the right to "dump" a patient, however, even if the patient is suffering from a non-life threatening ailment I would think it would be unethical unless the reasons were just, such as policies on insurance or the patient being a disturbance or threat to staff or other patients or the patient is a script junkie. I understand the angle that the doctor was going for here; if there are guns in the house then the children are at a greater risk of gun related injuries. But that has nothing to do with the doctor. One could reason that kids that live in a trailer are more likely to be exposed to meth, but I would think it unethical to refuse treatment if a patient doesn't want to discuss their living conditions with the doctor, unless it is relevant to an existing ailment (i.e. the existance of lead paint or toxic chemicals that could contribute to symptoms being presented). To me this is highly unethical. I don't see how the medical community could support this practice. It's one thing to ask; it's completely another to deny treatment for refusal to answer an irrelevant and imposing question.

The doctor can ask whatever he/she wants. This story mentions, however, that the doctor in Ocala refused treatment of a child because the child's mother refused to answer his question regarding gun ownership. Where does that end? Surely there is recourse within the medical community for a doctor that refuses to treat a child based on not answering personal questions that the patient feels has nothing to do with treatment. Sounds very unethical to me.

More than 60 witnesses testified during the inquest. Many of those were either Costco employees or patrons. Unless all 60 witnesses were involved in this "cover up" I would say that the officers were justified. In fact, this is what the lead investigator into the shooting had to say: The family of the deceased was allowed to present their own witnesses. So far the only witness that has supported the claim that Scott was complying appropriately with officers' demands is the girlfriend of the deceased. She did not testify, nor did the family manage to get anyone to testify in support of her original claims. Why? I have to say, I was intrigued by this story due to the deceased's background, as it doesn't fit the behavior witnesses claimed (to include the testimony of 3 of his doctors). But some people fall, and some fall hard. I think this story is a tragedy. I don't believe Scott had any intention of being a threat to those officers that shot him, but his behavior and actions would lead any reasonable person to fear for their life and they acted appropriately. If he hadn't been under the influence at the time of the incident he would probably be alive. IMO, he was impaired to the point that he couldn't process the situation or the orders being given to him. Hell, even a clerk who he encountered an hour before the shooting said he couldn't fill out simple paperwork because he was so impaired and that his girlfriend had to do it for him. This clerk went so far as to inform her supervisor of Scott's behavior. If he couldn't fill out simple paperwork how would he be able to process the situation he landed himself in? Ultimately he is at fault. This is an example why you aren't allowed to carry while under the influence. I think this situation is tragic for all, but blaming the officers for what any reasonable person would do doesn't make sense. Yes, his pistol was still in his IWB when he was shot, but if someone pulls a gun out and points it at you are you going to be trying to process that? These officers had a split second to make a decision, which in their mind was a choice of Scott's life or theirs. If you found yourself in the same situation where someone acted as Scott did, you would be cleared of wrongdoing. Why should these officers be any different?

Little bit....

That almost never happens.

Aahhhhh..... bet you feel bad about that joke earlier!

The article makes mention of the coroner clearing the shoot as justified (not sure how a coroner can do that) but no mention of drugs in his system. This is more what I was referring to: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/testimony-focuses-erik-scotts-use-prescription-dru/ Here we see that perhaps there is more to the story than cops just gunning down a permit holder. Even an independent witness testified that he seemed "out of it" when officers confronted him. I don't think this man had any intention of harming the police, I think he was probably just really intoxicated and unable to process the situation and understand where is actions might lead. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it's easy to see that perhaps he wasn't a threat. However, the responding officers don't know that. If the witness testimony was accurate, anyone of us would have been justified in shooting him regardless of the circumstances. Those responding officers didn't know what was going on. All they knew is there was an armed threat and that threat produced a weapon in a manner interpreted as hostile. A tragic situation all around; for the family and I'm sure for the officers that put him down.

Sounds to me that there was no shortage of witnesses. This all went on during a mass exodus of the establishment. If this was a coverup then that would mean a lot more people would have to be involved than the PD. I don't know what happened, but the article posted is clearly slanted against the PD. I'd be interested to read the PD's side of the incident as well as some of the other factors involved, such as drug use of the deceased along with coroner's report. If the only information I had about this shooting was the article I'd believe that this was manslaughter. However, there is other information out there that challenges this article; enough, apparently, to stop the family from suing the PD.

Eh, I interpret improper postings to be either ignorance of the law or a way to appeal to the sheep while allowing HCP holders to carry concealed. I've seen a bunch of improper postings, but I've also seen postings with verbage indicating "no unlawful carrying of weapons" which I interpret to mean that only lawful carry is authorized. It would be nice if those businesses that are improperly posted had signs that read in such a manner, however, they probably don't put as much thought into it as you and I or see it as a big deal.

From the article Dave posted: What is going on with journalism today? Are these articles written by 5 year olds? What the hell is "two methamphetamines"? Anyway, I don't see what the story is other than the fact that this Rep has a meth whore for a sister. Hardly a sinister plot. If there are any alterior motives to the SWAT team being deployed for a few trailer park meth heads I would say it was to justify their budget and hopefully get their own reality show like the other 500 PDs in Texas with their own SWAT show on Tru TV. God forbid I ever hold a public office and one of my dirtbag relatives does something stupid that makes the news. I have a few of them in the family and I don't see how their actions reflect on mine. I have an uncle that's been in jail more times for drugs than Robert Downey Jr but I still see him at Christmas. It doesn't mean that I'm hitting him up for a dime bag.

Why come to this country just to hate it? I'm guessing the penalties for such crimes in the country they come from are severe.

The only reality show that isn't scripted is Cops. Everything else is like watching pro wrestling.

Which is why Texas needs amphibious hovercrafts with a quad-M2, a few Dillons, a couple kegerators and topless morale officers from the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleading Squad. Show the Mexeecaans what 'Merica is all about.

Well I recall during my wife's pregnancies the only thing the doctor would authorize was the actual pseudoephedrine product, not the other stuff on the shelf. I almost always buy the other stuff because even before the law many places didn't have it on the shelf, so it was just easier to grab what was available. I don't notice the difference, but that's me. I don't care for having to go through the BS. But then again, I don't think the drugs are the problem. People are the problem. The war on drugs has been going on for a long time and hasn't made a difference. There are better ways to invest our time and resources into to curb the rising tide of sh**baggery that is the lower rung of the US. Unfortunately the ways to address these problems at their root will never happen so we're left to strategies that just shovel back the tide. Nothing against LEOs, they are dealt the hand they get and have to do the best they can with what they got. The problem won't be solved by them or even curbed by them. The problem is cultural.

The Department of Public Safety bought their Troopers belt fed machine guns.... sweet. At least they're matched up to the cartels on the other bank of the river.

No, but I don't think folks get arrested for that in Clarksville often. Usually it's unlawful possession which is usually set at $500. There were no other charges on this cat at the time, but perhaps he made a scene which is what led to the popo showing up in the first place. So possession while drunk is only a misdemeanor?

Not in Clarksville. Here DUI is usually 500 unless it's a repeater or there are circumstances.

Well, if they get rolled up packing heat and stinkin of booze they deserve what's coming to them. Just had one in Clarksville the other day who got arrested for boozing and carrying... 10,000 bond.

I think the legal implications are going to matter if the DA decides to prosecute. Just because someone breaks into your home doesn't mean you can't defend yourself because you've had a lot to drink, but it also doesn't mean that it won't be used against you in court. If the shoot looks suspicious and the DA decides to press charges, you can bet your butt that alcohol is going to be a big factor in the evidence against you.

That's why I leave my gun at home if I'm going to be drinking. I thought most others did the same. I could be wrong on this but I thought at .04 you could be arrested for possession while intoxicated. I don't carry around a breathilyzer with me so I don't know at what point I become a .04, but I would estimate after two beers or one of those really big ones that are so tasty.

This is the way to go. There sure are idiots out there that don't understand gun safety and are likely to have an ND trying to unholster and unload a weapon in a gun store. I seen some pretty shaky people handling loaded weapons that I don't want to be around. I'd be interested to know how many gun stores have had ND incidents in their history. I'm aware of one at a LGS. If it stays holstered there is nothing to worry about. On the firing line observe the rules; if not, may the hammer of justice fall swiftly.