Saving His Son, Wielding a Gun - in a hospital

[1PeaceMaker]

I'm sure this dad was glad to have his right to bear arms that day...

What he did got him convicted of a crime, but he was only interested in saving his son's life.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/father-son-involved-in-hospital-standoff-speak-to-kprc-2

 

[Rusha]

What a wonderful ending.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

What a wonderful ending.

Indeed!

Do you (or others) have, perhaps, an alternate plot line that avoids what the hospital roundly rejected as a means to saving his son? You can read how they responded, and it seems they didn't approve....

I don't really want to see guns needing to be used in hospitals like this either, but the dad was just seriously desperate and out of ideas.

So I totally can give him a pass for what he did. He wasn't trying to hurt anybody. Even a pacifist could pull a stunt like this.

I don't even think he deserved a slap on the wrist.

What do you think?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Did this man deserve to serve time for what he did?

What was the right way to handle this?

 

[Rusha]

Indeed!

Do you (or others) have, perhaps, an alternate plot line that avoids what the hospital roundly rejected as a means to saving his son? You can read how they responded, and it seems they didn't approve....

I don't really want to see guns needing to be used in hospitals like this either, but the dad was just seriously desperate and out of ideas.

So I totally can give him a pass for what he did. He wasn't trying to hurt anybody. Even a pacifist could pull a stunt like this.

I don't even think he deserved a slap on the wrist.

What do you think?

As a parent, I can understand what he did. As an objective observer, I would have to take into account the possibility of whether or not his actions could have harmed another patient or innocent in the hospital.

It could have ended very differently, and I, for one, am glad it did not.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

As a parent, I can understand what he did. As an objective observer, I would have to take into account the possibility of whether or not his actions could have harmed another patient or innocent in the hospital.

It could have ended very differently, and I, for one, am glad it did not.

People don't typically say that when a gun is used to save a life that is being taken.

:think:

I realize this situation is different than most, even though all us parents feel sympathy for the dad.

Should this man have been convicted of a crime and done time as he did?

Should he have a criminal record now?

Does the possibility of risk to others when it's evident he wasn't trying to commit a crime but stop the taking of life in progress, really matter? If it did matter, then why use a gun in any official capacity in government?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Merry Christmas, TOL!

Just wanted to bump this parental-rights/gun-rights/medical liberty topic.

I can't believe no one has answered my questions. I do appreciate Rusha's contribution but I wanted to take this a little farther.

 

[Rusha]

People don't typically say that when a gun is used to save a life that is being taken.

:think:

I realize this situation is different than most, even though all us parents feel sympathy for the dad.

Should this man have been convicted of a crime and done time as he did?

Should he have a criminal record now?

Does the possibility of risk to others when it's evident he wasn't trying to commit a crime but stop the taking of life in progress, really matter? If it did matter, then why use a gun in any official capacity in government?

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier ... I had a Christmas dinner to cook.

Insofar as having a criminal record now, if I were defending him, I would focus on the fact that he is a contributing member of society with no prior criminal history as well as his actions being out of character. Being that this was an isolated incident, I would ask for the charges to be dismissed and go from there.

 

[OCTOBER23]

MOVE TO CANADA

WE DO THINGS SLOWER HERE

AND THE HOSPITAL CARE IS FREE.

We are Canadians, eh---:thumb:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'm sure this dad was glad to have his right to bear arms that day...

What he did got him convicted of a crime, but he was only interested in saving his son's life.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/father-son-involved-in-hospital-standoff-speak-to-kprc-2

Perhaps next time he should stay off the booze?

Hospital staff told police they were concerned about Pickering’s behavior because earlier in the day he was highly intoxicated and belligerent.

How would you have felt if this person who earlier in the day was "highly intoxicated" had used that gun against hospital personnel?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier ... I had a Christmas dinner to cook.

Insofar as having a criminal record now, if I were defending him, I would focus on the fact that he is a contributing member of society with no prior criminal history as well as his actions being out of character. Being that this was an isolated incident, I would ask for the charges to be dismissed and go from there.

It sounds as though you are under the impression that a criminal act or crime occurred. Are you saying that there was anything wrong with the action taken to save the son? If so, what?

PS Sounds like you had a yummy holiday dinner party, then! No harm in living your life, Rusha.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Perhaps next time he should stay off the booze?

Hospital staff told police they were concerned about Pickering’s behavior because earlier in the day he was highly intoxicated and belligerent.

How would you have felt if this person who earlier in the day was "highly intoxicated" had used that gun against hospital personnel?

I'm sure it was frightening for the staff. They should be the ones culpable for the actions and risks taken, if anyone. They were in the act of taking the life of a viable man without his father's consent.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'm sure it was frightening for the staff. They should be the ones culpable for the actions and risks taken, if anyone. They were in the act of taking the life of a viable man without his father's consent.

Obviously you don't believe in the rule of law:

When asked for a response, officials at Tomball Regional Medical Center sent a written statement:

"We appreciate the opportunity to be included in your story. Physicians use their medical knowledge and experience to develop a patient’s plan of care and these actions save lives each day. When a patient’s condition makes them unable to participate in their own care, the appropriate substitute decision-maker has the right to decide whether or not they will move forward with a recommended care plan. However, that decision must be expressed in a way that does not endanger other patients or caregivers..."

The mother and other son were the "decision makers". They, along with highly trained medical professionals, thought that they were making the right decision.

Again: Had the father not been "highly intoxicated and belligerent earlier in the day" (i.e. had he expressed himself in a reasonable manner or had an attorney who could have come in with a court order), I would have respected the man.

Happy ending: no one was killed.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Obviously you don't believe in the rule of law:

That's a wild assumption to make.

The mother and other son were the "decision makers". They, along with highly trained medical professionals, thought that they were making the right decision.

They were making multiple mistakes. They were wrong and in the process killing an innocent man who had a defender.

Again: Had the father not been "highly intoxicated and belligerent earlier in the day" (i.e. had he expressed himself in a reasonable manner or had an attorney who could have come in with a court order), I would have respected the man.

Personally, I fail to see the reason that his intoxication made him a criminal. He was reacting to a traumatic, serious, present-danger type threat to his child. This kind of thing isn't the sort of occasion where the Bible would be critical of intoxication, and I couldn't be, either.

"Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter." Proverbs 31:6

Happy ending: no one was killed.

The fruits of his actions justify the man. Not only was no one killed, someone's life was saved by a belligerent, drunken father defying a foolish medical staff - no less - with a gun.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Obviously you don't believe in the rule of law:

That's a wild assumption to make.

I presented other alternatives, yet you still stand by your claim that an armed man who was highly intoxicated and belligerent earlier in the day was right to take hostages in a hospital.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The mother and other son were the "decision makers". They, along with highly trained medical professionals, thought that they were making the right decision.

They were making multiple mistakes. They were wrong and in the process killing an innocent man who had a defender.

And there are lawful ways to go about dealing with people who are making "multiple mistakes" (I mentioned hiring an attorney that would have gotten an emergency court order, but it appears that booze took priority in this man's life).


Quote:
Again: Had the father not been "highly intoxicated and belligerent earlier in the day" (i.e. had he expressed himself in a reasonable manner or had an attorney who could have come in with a court order), I would have respected the man.

Personally, I fail to see the reason that his intoxication made him a criminal.

Chances are if he was "highly intoxicated earlier in the day", his judgment still would have been skewed due to the intoxicant.

If you had a loved one (a wife or a daughter) that faced this intoxicated gun-toting man, would you still be his defender?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Obviously you don't believe in the rule of law:



I presented other alternatives, yet you still stand by your claim that an armed man who was highly intoxicated and belligerent earlier in the day was right to take hostages in a hospital.

I think he was right to save his son. I think it's wrong for me to judge a man spiritually, for being intoxicated. We don't know if he was already drunk when the call came in about his son - we have so little info.

I don't see evidence that he just chose a traumatic route for the heck of it. He was already traumatized from previous medical emergencies with his son; he'd been down this road before.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The mother and other son were the "decision makers". They, along with highly trained medical professionals, thought that they were making the right decision.

What they thought doesn't matter. Maybe some thought it would be fair to let Solomon cut the baby in half, too. A mother abandoned her child to prevent his death more than once in the Bible. The man here did what others could not. He got the right outcome, and never intended to hurt anyone.

And there are lawful ways to go about dealing with people who are making "multiple mistakes" (I mentioned hiring an attorney that would have gotten an emergency court order, but it appears that booze took priority in this man's life).

An emergency court order is one of the alternatives that would be good to bring up as a POLITE response to one of my previously posted questions.

I'm interested in other ideas. This one I really like, as it works with the system.

I'm a pacifist, BTW, who prefers to get along with others as far as it lies in my power, meaning, I don't encourage criminal or risky behavior.

But the question is - should any of us see this man as a criminal in this instance, and why would we judge him?

Again: Had the father not been "highly intoxicated and belligerent earlier in the day" (i.e. had he expressed himself in a reasonable manner or had an attorney who could have come in with a court order), I would have respected the man.

I've personally learned to cut people a little slack in traumatic situations. Good people can be pretty belligerent/panicked in the process of saving lives. That further cuts down on higher brain functions and useful solutions.

Hence this discussion ahead of any medical emergencies of a similar nature that we might face.

Chances are if he was "highly intoxicated earlier in the day", his judgment still would have been skewed due to the intoxicant.

If you had a loved one (a wife or a daughter) that faced this intoxicated gun-toting man, would you still be his defender?

Yeah!

And I'd have a long talk with my kid about end of life choices and medical rights afterwards, too.

 

[Rusha]

It sounds as though you are under the impression that a criminal act or crime occurred. Are you saying that there was anything wrong with the action taken to save the son? If so, what?

Public intoxication and threats via a deadly weapon. The choice to become intoxicated was a BAD choice. Depression, anger, booze and guns are a dangerous mix, and he is actually lucky he didn't end up on the other end of a bullet.

Again, I am glad he and his son are okay. Insofar as what my reaction would have been had I been a cop on the scene, I would have tried to disarm him with whatever force necessary.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Public intoxication and threats via a deadly weapon. The choice to become intoxicated was a BAD choice. Depression, anger, booze and guns are a dangerous mix, and he is actually lucky he didn't end up on the other end of a bullet.

Again, I am glad he and his son are okay. Insofar as what my reaction would have been had I been a cop on the scene, I would have tried to disarm him with whatever force necessary.

So the public intoxication thing, that's prosecutable. Okay. :idunno:

I would be more interested how you would respond to the situation as the parent trying to save their kid's life under similar conditions.

The threat via deadly weapon - was it a criminal threat or a threat to stop a crime in progress? It's not a crime, for example, to stop a rapist by threatening with a gun.

We should force hospital policy change, because something is wrong with their methods. That's where the real problem is, in this particular scene, I think.