|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Gun sign implementation at a medical center /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1530190813 Message started by Eegore on 06/28/18 at 06:00:12 |
|
Title: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 06/28/18 at 06:00:12 No firearms allowed signs were put up at a medical center that used to allow conceal carry on site, but not open carry. One thing about locations like this is the consistent threats and violence staff deal with, especially in emergency rooms. The ICU is an area of concern as well as it is common (where I worked it averages 6 times a year) for patient relatives to threaten staff with statements like: "If my mother dies so do you." or "I will have anyone that doesn't keep my father alive murdered" In the ER a 16 year old drunk patient threatened a staff member by stating he would "rape you in all three holes". So staff are allowed to protect themselves, unfortunately a staff member would carry a pistol in a small pack on his waist that was unzipped. Multiple requests for him to keep his weapon concealed resulted in him indicating that he has a right and that the medical center cant do anything about it. He was terminated for violating the companies policy on the open carry of weapons. (elderly patients can get confused, and they call security over a man in their house with a gun etc.) The hospital, as preparation for a lawsuit posted no-weapon signs including firearms which then by CO law prohibited conceal carry. The signs were not put up to discourage criminals but to mitigate future lawsuits. Lawsuits are presented weekly, threats about every other month. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/09/18 at 05:10:50 I was able to meet with the local school board this past week. The signs located on school property were implemented district-wide in 2000, just after Columbine. Firearms were listed in the already existing "No weapons" policy that wasn't strictly enforced. I asked if anyone felt that the signs have prevented any shootings on school property over the past 18 years. 100% of staff said no, and they agreed to do a small voluntary survey for 8th grade and above asking simple Yes/No questions regarding if they feel that signs have increased their safety. I notice that a number of people use the argument that signs do not increase safety, which I believe is true. However I do not think that signs were implemented to increase safety to begin with, and I am not sure that many people believe that signs are preventing gun violence. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/09/18 at 08:42:19 Why are you so literal? The signs only exist because of a law. And since the signs are without function other than to advertise the vulnerability of the people who are behind it, the law that the sign represents is stupid |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/09/18 at 10:14:09 There's discussion that Millenials think signs eliminate firearm presence in all capacities. That signs will keep shooters from entering, and that no firearm has been or ever will enter an area that is posted. I feel this is inaccurate, I do not think Millenials perceive a sign with safety but my feelings aren't valid information. A survey is more valid as it will provide insight through data and not through imagined ideas of how youth think. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/09/18 at 14:05:31 6E4E4C44594E2B0 wrote:
Understand, the reason for the hospital to put up, ‘no gun’ signs. No one wants a son, saying to a doctor, “You save my moms life or I will shoot you” And having the means to carry it out. Yet, will a, ’sign’, stop that son from carrying ? Your statement: “…unfortunately a staff member would carry a pistol in a small pack on his waist that was unzipped. Multiple requests for him to keep his weapon concealed resulted in him indicating …” I am taking the, ‘A’, to mean a single person. So because of one persons refusal to follow the companies policy, all the rest are, NOT, allowed to defend themselves. Your statement: “…The hospital, as preparation for a lawsuit posted no-weapon signs including firearms which then by CO law prohibited conceal carry….” That will then, supposedly, prevent, good and bad people from having a firearm. Again, understand why the sign, to, perhaps, stop the son, from doing, ‘… I will kill you’. Because a, ’sign says’, it prevents a CC, or open, from going in. It also, prevents a employee, from defending themselves. Who do you think will comply with the ’sign’, the son, who’s mom is suppose to be all right, or the Doctor/staff ? Does not look like this policy, is to protect, Lives, it looks like it is to protect, money. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/09/18 at 14:50:04 "Does not look like this policy, is to protect, Lives, it looks like it is to protect, money." Yes. I stated: "The signs were not put up to discourage criminals but to mitigate future lawsuits." The "not put up to discourage criminals" section was to indicate that criminals would not be discouraged. The "mitigate future lawsuits" section was to indicate monetary savings. I was aiming to indicate that no gun signs are most likely not intended to stop guns, or increase safety, or to physically protect anything, even though there seems to be that argument. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/09/18 at 14:53:18 "So because of one persons refusal to follow the companies policy, all the rest are, NOT, allowed to defend themselves" They are allowed to defend themselves. They are not allowed to conceal carry. The most prudent action would be to change locations to a facility that allows firearms to be carried by staff. "Again, understand why the sign, to, perhaps, stop the son, from doing, ‘… I will kill you’. " Incorrect. The signage was not placed to stop people from making threats, or to stop them from entering with a firearm. I was attempting to indicate that nobody has stated that they believe a sign will stop threats, guns or anything of that sort. Nobody has stated thus far that they think a sign will stop crime. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/09/18 at 15:24:40 6D4D4F475A4D280 wrote:
First you said: “… He was terminated for violating the companies policy on the open carry of weapons….” So did the company, change, it’s, ‘…companies policy…”, for which he: “…was terminated for violating the companies policy on the open carry of weapons….” Because next post you said “… They are not allowed to conceal carry …” You need to clarify more. ’terminated for volition of open carry’ Now, ’not allowed to conceal carry’. Yet they can defend themselves. (With what, a clipboard and a pen ?) The sign, ’no guns’ is for BOTH, CC and Open. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/09/18 at 16:08:53 "The sign, ’no guns’ is for BOTH, CC and Open." Yes. The company policy has always been no open carry of weapons, no change to that policy has ever occurred. The employee was terminated for open carry, since he refused to enclose or conceal the weapon he was carrying. Terminated means from employment for the company that runs the associated medical centers. When the signs were posted state law then requires no concealed carry either. Thus the statement "They are not allowed to conceal carry" specifically on property where signage is posted, but only after the signage was posted. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/09/18 at 16:23:43 79595B534E593C0 wrote:
So, if a person, (bad or good), cannot carry a firearm, open or CC, How is: "... They are allowed to defend themselves...", Going to happen ? You love 'what if's' so much. Say it is a 96 pound nurse, who is 5',1", tall, and a 250 lb, 6", 4' patient, threatens to kill her with his fist/s. No where to run away. No one around to help, just the two of them. Please explain how, "... They are allowed to defend themselves...". |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/09/18 at 20:29:47 I do not care for "what ifs" which is why I ask for data, or reference that can be cited so discussion can be about factual things and not imaginary things. "You love 'what if's' so much. Say it is a 96 pound nurse, who is 5',1", tall, and a 250 lb, 6", 4' patient, threatens to kill her with his fist/s. No where to run away. No one around to help, just the two of them. Please explain how, "... They are allowed to defend themselves...". She is "allowed" to defend herself if she feels she is in danger of imminent severe bodily injury or death. There is no policy in existence, and has never been, that prohibits staff from defending themselves or others. She can not carry a firearm on the property. If this is a requirement then she must seek employment elsewhere as there is also no policy that says she must work in that particular medical center. To say there is a policy that exists that says she is not allowed, as in she can not, should not, or would be unjustified in - protecting herself at all is incorrect. Nobody has ever said that staff must allow criminals to assault them. So as an example of why I don't care for what-ifs, we can imagine this stuff all day and counter each scenario with another scenario, (for instance the risk of losing the control of a firearm while in close quarters - Tollet principle of reactionary gap) or use factual data. That factual data being that zero firearm signs at this particular facility were put in place to deter crime, or increase safety in any capacity. So far nobody has stated they feel posted signage increases safety. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/10/18 at 09:43:58 1636343C2136530 wrote:
OK, Got your Spin now. You said: “…She is “allowed” to defend herself if she feels she is in danger of imminent severe bodily injury or death. There is no policy in existence, and has never been, that prohibits staff from defending themselves or others….” Then: “… She can not carry a firearm on the property….” I Neglected to say, “On that property/job”, when I asked how one would defend themselves.. Because I am sure, you would have explained it fully, that she/he, (on the job, in that building, under that job policy), is NOT allowed to have Any firearm. Yet if having a State CC, can have a loaded one locked in the car. (Unless that place does not even allow one to have a gun in their car, in their parking lot, so they have to park on the street) So in, “…locations like this is the consistent threats and violence staff deal with, especially in emergency rooms…” That person, is NOT allowed to protect his/her self. (Where it certainly seem like the place of greatest risk) Next: “… That factual data being that zero firearm signs at this particular facility were put in place to deter crime, or increase safety in any capacity…” OK, I would like to see that, “… factual data …” where can I get a copy of it ? Or were you trying to say: ‘The factual data, that a Sign saying, ‘zero firearms in this building’, will stop crime, deter crime, or increase safety in any capacity in this particular facility, is none’. Again it sounds like, Saving Money, (Less Lawsuits), and not caring if, employees defend themselves, (While at Work) It is misleading saying, a person is free to defend themselves, yet NOT mention that it does NOT include the place, where is seems like they are at the most risk. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/10/18 at 10:38:24 "So in, “…locations like this is the consistent threats and violence staff deal with, especially in emergency rooms…” That person, is NOT allowed to protect his/her self." Incorrect. They are allowed to defend themselves, there is no policy that states they must allow crimes to be committed against them. Do you mean to say they can not defend themselves exclusively with a firearm? The answer to that is yes. They can not carry stun guns, pepper spray, knives, canes, swords, nunchuks etc. as a means of defense on company property. These are all legal to carry in the state but not allowed on the property. And yes that can not park on company property with a firearm in the vehicle. "Again it sounds like, Saving Money, (Less Lawsuits), and not caring if, employees defend themselves, (While at Work)" This is correct, as stated in the original post there are more lawsuits than threats: " Lawsuits are presented weekly, threats about every other month." The signs were not put up to prevent crime or increase safety. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/10/18 at 10:41:55 Next: “… That factual data being that zero firearm signs at this particular facility were put in place to deter crime, or increase safety in any capacity…” OK, I would like to see that, “… factual data …” where can I get a copy of it ? I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements from all administrative staff that chose to comment on the issue. The names would have to be redacted and it will take about two weeks to gain the appropriate permissions. There is also a transcript of a brief section of a longer meeting with FEMA that touches on the subject for Joint Commission review, names would be redacted and only the section addressing facility signage would be made available. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/10/18 at 11:12:34 133331392433560 wrote:
Sure, send them to me. Just PDF/RFT/DOC it, then, PM me the info. I will read it, and use the statements, in any way I choose to do so. Thanks ! (eliminating names of people, totally expected) “… Do you mean to say they can not defend themselves exclusively with a firearm? The answer to that is yes…” Ya, the way the discussion was going, believe just about everybody was thinking the same thing. So, the Doctors/Staff, can can defend themselves with what, a pen and a clipboard, against a Gun. The, ‘opinions/meeting transcripts’ you are going to send, say, a sign works, (or was it, they don’t work), well, will find out when you send copies. So, while at work, or walking to their car, in a high risk area, the Doctors/Staff can use a clipboard and a pen, to defend against a gun, which the person with the gun, don’t give one hoot ‘bout what a sign say. Looking forward to reading the meeting transcripts, which the names have been crossed out. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/10/18 at 11:23:47 "The, ‘opinions/meeting transcripts’ you are going to send, say, a sign works, (or was it, they don’t work)," I am not sure how to make it more clear that the signs were not implemented to increase safety. They do not work to increase safety or deter crime. The capacity for a sign to assist in any way with the safety of staff or people onboard is 0% and this is the perception of staff who approved the signage to be placed on property. In no way are no-firearm signs expected to work. The signs ability to be effective in the directive posted on them is 0%. If you want the names of the people on the transcripts I will have to submit permission of distribution requests to all individuals in the transcripts. This could take months but if you need the names I can make those requests. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/10/18 at 12:03:06 5777757D6077120 wrote:
Interesting, you have interrupted my saying: “… (eliminating names of people, totally expected)…” To mean, “… If you want the names of the people on the transcripts …” How exactly did you do that ? This: “…the signs were not implemented to increase safety….” Perhaps in those, ‘opinions/meeting transcripts’ you are going to send, I will find the reason that, while they all said, a sign would not work, to stop, ’Bad’ guys/gals with a gun. They decided to put up the signs anyway. Wondering if the reason was, to, stop the, Good, Guys/Gals, with a gun, from working their ! But I will have more insight, after reading the ‘opinions/meeting transcripts’ you are going to send. And Yes, I believe it is perfectly OK to cross any name of a person who appears on that transcript you are going to send. Just to make it perfectly clear. You said: “…I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements from all administrative staff that chose to comment on the issue. The names would have to be redacted and it will take about two weeks to gain the appropriate permissions….” Then in another post: “… If you want the names of the people on the transcripts I will have to submit permission of distribution requests to all individuals in the transcripts. This could take months but if you need the names I can make those requests….” (Which, having the names, I NEVER asked for, yet out of the blue, you said I did.) And NOW, a PM, about ‘more’ information, where I am to Call a ’security’ officer ? Just do, what you said you will do. send the ‘opinions/meeting transcripts’ with the names of people crossed off. Ya know, years ago, remember a saying, "Put up or .... .." Do you remember that last part ? Ya know I still have that Double Blade Paddle, ya sure you don’t want it ? |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/10/18 at 15:09:13 "(Which, having the names, I NEVER asked for, yet out of the blue, you said I did.)" I did not say you asked for names. I asked if you wanted them. This was in response from a question asking: "OK, I would like to see that, “… factual data …” where can I get a copy of it ?" What is being offered is an amended transcript of a meeting, however how can this be verified? You would need to contact the people involved to verify their presence, and statements, but we need their permission to start this process. The initial contact for this information is security and archives, then public relations. I offered to expedite this process by allowing you direct contact with the staff that would be involved, if you do not wish to do that I understand. Even if the position of staff was to use signage to force staff members to leave it would still not change the fact that the signs were never meant to reduce crime or increase safety. The very thing that this topic is supposed to be about. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/10/18 at 17:02:07 6444464E5344210 wrote:
In about 2 weeks, When I ask you to deliver what you said you would, “…I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements from all administrative staff that chose to comment on the issue. The names would have to be redacted and it will take about two weeks to gain the appropriate permissions. There is also a transcript of a brief section of a longer meeting with FEMA that touches on the subject for Joint Commission review, names would be redacted and only the section addressing facility signage would be made available…” You can come up with a fourth excuse why you can’t. And no, a, “… amended transcript of a meeting,…”, is not at all acceptable. As it is, NOT, what you said: “I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements…” Now to be precise. ‘Amended’ as to, removing the names, Perfectly OK. Not, ‘amended’, to say something that was not said, or remove something that was said. This part: “… You would need to contact the people involved to verify their presence, and statements, but we need their permission to start this process….” Please explain, (you have already said, several times, the names will be removed, which I said several times, not a problem) If I do Not have the names, how would it be even possible to contact someone to verify their presence ? A Copy of the Minutes/Transcript/Report, of that private meeting, which you stated you would get to me. With OUT, ‘Amending’, what someone said. Is expected. Done that sort of thing many times, just make a copy. Cross out the names with a black marker, then make another copy. Then send that copy. After that copy machine, their is nothing more than a black line on the copy, where the name was. (Kinna thinking you have done that before) OH, OH, OH, (like: Car 54 where are you), Bot is now going to call me ‘racist’, because I called a, ‘line’, ‘black’. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/10/18 at 19:33:04 "You can come up with a fourth excuse why you can’t" I offered you contact with the very people that will be handling this, I wouldn't even be involved to stop it from happening and that's an excuse. Any alteration of a transcript is considered amended. Redaction of names is considered amendment, and would reflect as such on each paper. "If I do Not have the names, how would it be even possible to contact someone to verify their presence ?" That is why I asked if you wanted me to have someone pursue this process. How can you verify the document is accurate if you do not have the ability to contact the people represented in it? Do you want the people in the amended transcript to be contacted, and get permission for their names to be released to you? I can not say how each person will respond, maybe yes, maybe no. You said no, but then asked how you would contact them, so I'm just clarifying. I don't know how these are excuses, I'm literally going out of my way to provide you information, or to provide you direct contact to people that will. Its like you are trying to be confrontational about this for some reason and all I want to do is share information. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/11/18 at 13:09:28 7F5F5D55485F3A0 wrote:
Incorrect, you, offered: “…I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements from all administrative staff that chose to comment on the issue. The names would have to be redacted and it will take about two weeks to gain the appropriate permissions….” On post #13, this is response to post, #19. “…Any alteration of a transcript is considered amended. Redaction of names is considered amendment, and would reflect as such on each paper…” Entirely depends on who you talk to. Redacted, is removing, ’sensitive’ information. Which were the, ’Names” ! As in your statement: “…The names would have to be redacted…” Amending is to, alter, modify, rephrase, the content. And to add to or subtract to the content. as in your later statement, "...What is being offered is an amended transcript of a meeting,..." “…That is why I asked if you wanted me to have someone pursue this process. How can you verify the document is accurate if you do not have the ability to contact the people represented in it? …” You, ’say’ you didn’t understand what my meaning was, yet I believe you fully did understand what I said. “…Do you want the people in the amended transcript to be contacted, and get permission for their names to be released to you? I can not say how each person will respond, maybe yes, maybe no…” This will be the 3rd time I said I do not need the names.. “… You said no, but then asked how you would contact them, so I’m just clarifying….” Really ? After I stated I don’t need the names, then you, surmised, I did need them, then when you asked again, I said NO. Now, you are saying, If I want them, it will take much longer. “… I don't know how these are excuses, I'm literally going out of my way to provide you information, or to provide you direct contact to people that will. …” In the first post, (that started this), you stated you would provide the information, leading to the decision of why the, ’no guns’ sign/s. Now, their are more and more conditions on receiving that information. Ya know, it’s almost like, you don’t have it, or have no authority to give it out, which you said you do: “… can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements…” “… Its like you are trying to be confrontational about this for some reason and all I want to do is share information….” Not at, just do what you said you will do, send the ‘opinions/meeting transcripts’ with the names of people crossed off. Again the suggestion, Just print out the transcripts of the meeting, just make a copy. Cross out the names with a black marker, then make another copy. Then send that copy. After that copy machine, their is nothing more than a black line on the copy, where the name was. “…I am not sure how to make it more clear that the signs were not implemented to increase safety. They do not work to increase safety or deter crime…” Yet they were installed! This is why I am so interested. I want to see the comments, of so many people, that you have said, said, ’Signs Don’t Do Anything”, and why/how, the ‘Signs’, came to be put up anyway. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/11/18 at 14:18:47 " I offered you contact with the very people that will be handling this, I wouldn't even be involved to stop it from happening and that's an excuse. ..." This statement was in reference to the PM I sent that explained that it would be more efficient to handle this over the phone, with the people that will be doing it. That's not an excuse, that is literally a faster method, as in the near opposite of what an excuse is. When I say "I can send you" that does not mean that I will actually fly to the location and do someone else's job for them. I mean I can get that information sent to you, and its faster if you cooperate by talking to the people that will be retrieving this information and approving its distribution. "Now, their are more and more conditions on receiving that information." What are the conditions? I asked if you wanted a non-amended transcript for verification that the people in it were present, and if you wanted direct contact to the individuals that will do this for you. Those are not conditions, those are questions. I was asking, not demanding anything. "Yet they were installed! This is why I am so interested. I want to see the comments, of so many people, that you have said, said, ’Signs Don’t Do Anything”, and why/how, the ‘Signs’, came to be put up anyway." I explained that in the very first post. There are more lawsuits than threats. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/11/18 at 14:45:48 18383A322F385D0 wrote:
Then please tell me what is does mean, when you said: "... I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements from all administrative staff that chose to comment on the issue. The names would have to be redacted and it will take about two weeks to gain the appropriate permissions...." as a answer to: "... I would like to see that, “… factual data …” where can I get a copy of it ?..." |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/11/18 at 16:41:24 I answered that already: When I say "I can send you" that does not mean that I will actually fly to the location and do someone else's job for them. I mean I can get that information sent to you, and its faster if you cooperate by talking to the people that will be retrieving this information and approving its distribution. To clarify this means that I will have the amended transcript delivered to you. I will not do this myself, I will have the appropriate person(s) do it. I will be the one making the request, and having the process initiated, however I will not be the one taking the steps needed personally. Why do you care who does this? I tried to make it easier and you complain. What I should have said was that I could initiate the appropriate steps to get an amended transcript into your possession by means of multiple persons. I have never actually had anyone care if I was involved as long as they got the material. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/12/18 at 08:42:21 537371796473160 wrote:
“…Why do you care who does this? …” I don’t care if you, or someone under your employ, or subservient to you, does this. Never said I did. If you tell someone else to do it, again, Don’t Care ! I use the reference to, ‘you’ doing this, Just the same as telling the owner of a Auto Repair shop, "Put in new brake’s”, I don’t care, if he tells one of his workers to, and they do it. Again, I don’t care. “…I tried to make it easier and you complain….” Incorrect, You change from, You, (You meaning, you assigning the work to someone under your employ, etc) To ME, doing the work, and calling the people. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/12/18 at 14:21:26 "(You meaning, you assigning the work to someone under your employ, etc) To ME, doing the work, and calling the people. " This is optional, it is not required, it is not an excuse, it is just faster. This was a recommendation, or an alternate means of achieving the same result. I could have them call you for that matter. It was a suggested method to speed up the process, that is all it was. Its not uncommon for people that want information to contribute to the process, take it or leave it, I have no idea why this appears to be offensive to you. It was not my intention to indicate that this process was required. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/20/18 at 09:49:37 735351594453360 wrote:
How's it going ? Today is 10 days after you said you would do something, in 14 days. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/20/18 at 11:29:04 I did not say 14 days. I said about two weeks which may be 14 days, or more, or less. I offered a more efficient method that was optional, not required or a stipulation, which you declined. If it helps you feel better I can have someone provide daily updates here assisting you with this countdown, this might save you the trouble of making sure I am aware of the timeframe that this activity is taking place in. I do however have an update: "the transcript can be provided as per the provided description but we would have to manually type in the names for the print copy and then black them out for the second print copy. These are audio recordings so the names would only appear during the meeting start when everyone states their names and department position or whatever." Do you require blacked out paper copies or will a transcript of the audio with some redaction of private information be acceptable? |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/20/18 at 14:48:58 6E4E4C44594E2B0 wrote:
“…I did not say 14 days. I said about two weeks which may be 14 days, or more, or less. …” 2 weeks, are 14 days, and yes you said, more or less, what is, ‘more of less’ ? Would 3 weeks be enough, of, ‘more’ ? “… I offered a more efficient method that was optional, not required or a stipulation, which you declined. …” You offered, to have me, to do the work, which you said would be faster, by contacting the people, who, you said I don’t get the names of, so I can get their permission to know what their words were, and not know their name ? (Remember the Movie, ‘Catch-22’) “…If it helps you feel better I can have someone provide daily updates here assisting you with this countdown….” You know full well, a, ‘daily’, countdown is not necessary. “… I do however have an update: "the transcript can be provided as per the provided description but we would have to manually type in the names for the print copy and then black them out for the second print copy. These are audio recordings so the names would only appear during the meeting start when everyone states their names and department position or whatever.” …” Looks/Sounds like the “ ..” part, was someone else reporting to you. Lets see, it is a, ’tape’, recording. So the person, typing the, ’tape’ recording, has to type in the names, then black them out ? Is it another Catch-22, why not just, Not, type in the names in the first place ? “…Do you require blacked out paper copies or will a transcript of the audio with some redaction of private information be acceptable? …” Paper, typed, transcript, with ONLY the names removed, NOT, rearrangement, removal, or change, of what the People said, or their position. AND, as long as the originals are a .WAV, (or like) file. send that as well. so I can compare. After all, that is actually, less, than you stated you were going to do in the first place. "... I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements from all administrative staff that chose to comment on the issue. The names would have to be redacted and it will take about two weeks to gain the appropriate permissions. There is also a transcript of a brief section of a longer meeting with FEMA that touches on the subject for Joint Co ..." |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/20/18 at 15:30:20 "You offered, to have me, to do the work, which you said would be faster, by contacting the people, who, you said I don’t get the names of, so I can get their permission to know what their words were, and not know their name ?" No. I offered to get you in contact with the person(s) that will be obtaining the information and then approving the release of information: "Hello, EIC transcripts are not public record however I can get you in contact with the security/archival officer at the medical center that can begin the process. A phone conversation would be the most efficient if you are ok with that. Just let me know." There is a typo there, "officer" should read "office". This was meant to convey that you could be in direct contact with the people in control of this information, not the people present in the EIC meeting, that's a different process. "Lets see, it is a, ’tape’, recording. So the person, typing the, ’tape’ recording, has to type in the names, then black them out ? Is it another Catch-22, why not just, Not, type in the names in the first place ?" That's what they were asking. I sent a copy of your request to have printed copies blacked out, however this method hasn't been used in almost a decade since phones and PC's started recording voice and translating that to digital file. I don't even own a copy machine anymore because what would I do with another paper copy? It would be more efficient to have the digital file checked for private content and send that. But if you want them printed, blacked out and re-copied then scanned I can have that done. This is optional and not a stipulation, demand or request. An audio file will contain private information and will have to be edited by a third party as the office does not offer that service. This can possibly be arranged if you need the audio files for comparison, this has never to my knowledge been done as the only audio files released have been for use in court of law and may not be edited. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/20/18 at 16:40:30 You are being purposely and deliberately Obtuse, about this. It is irrelevant, if it is a hand written copy of the meeting, then transferred to a ’typewriter’ copy, than china marker crossing off the names, than the ’Thermo-Fax’ copy of that made, which is sent on. OR, it is a Digital Audio recording, and voice recognition software is used, than someone, ‘deletes’, Just The Name/s. It is the, Point that you Said you would. It is the Point, I want to see with my own eyes, employees, agreeing to limit their, freedom, in defending themselves, while at work, or in the, ‘work’, parking lot. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/20/18 at 20:27:00 "It is irrelevant, if it is a hand written copy of the meeting, then transferred to a ’typewriter’ copy, than china marker crossing off the names, than the ’Thermo-Fax’ copy of that made, which is sent on." I didn't think it needed to be this way but since it can be done it doesn't hurt to ask. I sent your request as a copy/paste quote so the question came about. I've never needed this information so I wasn't aware of how the transcripts are made. "It is the Point, I want to see with my own eyes, employees, agreeing to limit their, freedom, in defending themselves, while at work, or in the, ‘work’, parking lot." They can defend themselves. There is no policy that states they must allow crimes to be committed against them no matter how many times you say it, it is not true. It is intentionally misleading to say people do not have the freedom to defend themselves. Some might call that Spin. There are limitations for instance they can not carry grenades, knives or skateboards on their person on company property. They have the freedom to defend themselves, they also have the freedom to work elsewhere, they also have the freedom to try to change law, they have the freedom to try to change company policy. Employees didn't agree. It is company policy, always has been, or at least has been documented in writing since 1939 that weapons can not be on company property. The meeting is about the signage being put up which then prohibits by state law the concealed carry on company property. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/21/18 at 16:31:46 Instead of going point by point. Will just hit the high stuff. First, I am sure, your, ‘Other’, or someone who does not read other posts. Does not know that, I have meant, have always meant, have implied, and a person reading, should imply, that I do not believe a, ‘clipboard and a pen', is a sufficient defense against a Gun, Knife, Stun gun. A, ‘other’’, who has never heard me say:”…“On that property/job”, when I asked how one would defend themselves..." Because I am sure, you would have explained it fully, that she/he, (on the job, in that building, under that job policy), is NOT allowed to have Any firearm….” So tell your, ‘other’, no need to keep, ’spinning’, by saying: “…They can defend themselves. There is no policy that states they must allow crimes to be committed against them no matter how many times you say it, it is not true…” Next: “… It is company policy, always has been, or at least has been documented in writing since 1939 that weapons can not be on company property…”, see I don’t know this, because in your Very First Line, in your, Very First Post, on this subject you say: “…No firearms allowed signs were put up at a medical center that used to allow conceal carry on site,…” So which is it ? I have been going on all this time, that, CC was Allowed, as you said ? Now you, (or other), for the first time, say it was Never allowed ? See this is the really frustrating part: “…They can defend themselves. There is no policy that states they must allow crimes to be committed against them no matter how many times you say it, it is not true. …” As I have said, many times before, the, ‘Defending’, is on the property/work, place. NOT at their home to any other place. And ‘Defending’, with a clipboard/pen, against a gun, I do not consider a defense. (Gee, a hole on the clipboard, than the hand, then the head), But he/she, ‘defended’, him/herself ! Now the, ‘freedom’, to work their or elsewhere. Yep; Place A, ’No Guns’. Place B, ‘guns allowed', Agree a choice. So a ‘gun’ person, chooses place B. NOW, place B, AFTER, they are chosen by the person, because they are, ‘gun’ friendly. Suddenly decide, despite the employees stating, ’NO’, they BAN Guns. Well guess what, under a ‘free’ society, that is their right. YET, in a, ’Considerate’, society/company, The person, who likes guns, yet can NOT HAVE ONE, when at work, because the policy changed, despite what they majority of the employees say. Would get some sort of consideration, on finding a new place to work. Is that being offered to the people, who can now, NOT, Defend themselves, at their work, in the the parking lot, going to or coming from, with a firearm, knife, stun gun, or skateboard ? To conclude. Despite the miscommunication, in the, ‘others’, reading/responding, to these posts. The Information, of the Employees Words, where they said, 'do not want to’, give up their freedom, yet the company did so anyway. In any form, that is available, say in the last 5 years. Not in a form, that is unreadable, because it is in a form that needs the Latest and Greatest software, that just came out last week, to read/see/hear. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/21/18 at 20:34:53 Other people are not responding to this forum, I am. Only I am, other people are not formulating responses. I indicated in another post that "In most cases" I do not read them myself. As in with my eyes, but I do have them read to me, so I gain the information by hearing. I do not usually use another person to read or dictate, only occasionally. They do not formulate a response on my behalf, they would type what I say. They type my words, not theirs. My intention was to convey I do not follow people who post as I do not read the posts. I listen to them. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/21/18 at 20:38:55 "“…No firearms allowed signs were put up at a medical center that used to allow conceal carry on site,…”" "So which is it ? I have been going on all this time, that, CC was Allowed, as you said ?" I addressed this already. State law prohibits conceal carry on property where signs are posted that firearms are not allowed. Concealed carry was allowed, because they were concealed, but now since there are signs, concealment is not allowed. Nobody pat searches employees, if they conceal a weapon there is not a method being used to find out, and law did not prohibit it. Now by law it is not allowed. "The Information, of the Employees Words, where they said, 'do not want to’, give up their freedom, yet the company did so anyway. In any form, that is available, say in the last 5 years." I do not have access to employee documentation that is less than five years old that states they do not want to give up carrying firearms to work. What I have is information stating that the decision to implement signs was due to lawsuit mitigation and not safety concerns. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by eau de sauvage on 07/22/18 at 20:33:42 Here's your problem with any dickhead being able to carry a gun... https://tinyurl.com/florida-stand-your-ground-law Here a known provocateur, that is someone who has taken it upon himself to police handicapped parking spots in the past, is mouthing off at a woman with a small child. He has a gun in his pocket. A man comes out of the supermarket see some douché intimidating his wife, and pushes him to the ground. He's backing away and the man down pulls out a gun and kills him. This is perfectly acceptable under the stand your ground law. Guns encourage anyone to be a Wild West hero, looking for outrages to defend. In this case the brave murderer was simply standing up for the rights of the handicapped. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/22/18 at 21:06:45 I agree that some people will abuse the law, and kill people if given the chance. This guy appeared to be homicidal, but was smart enough to do it in a way that he was legally protected. A friend of mine had the same thing happen to him in the stairway to his flat in the UK, except the weapon was a crock pot. Or a "cooker" as they called it. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/26/18 at 07:24:18 This is the transcript amended to remove names and it appears one section where the audio was not clear. 9 people were present, 7 were providing input on the topic. :alright so we can move along :our next issue is signs and I’m not sure why we have this on our agenda :its an EIC (amended/corrected from “each eye see”) issue :that’s right we had two or three activations last month? :three in the past thirty days all related to guns pistols on staff and one visitor :I didn’t know about a visitor :me either :security can you give us some in for on that? :yeah PBX (amended/corrected from “pee be next”) initiated an EIC protocol after receiving a call from PD (amended/corrected from “peavey”) dispatch that they received a phone call from visitors in the surgical waiting area that there was a man with a gun under his jacket wandering around the area. He was verified to be a visitor and informed that his weapon was visible to the public and causing concern. He indicated he was within his right to carry and became moderately confrontational even though security staff was not asking him to leave or or put the gun in his car etcetera he demanded the names of the people who called security on him and at that time we initiated a safety response and began removing visitors to another area police arrived and talked to him he then agreed to leave his weapon in his vehicle [REDACTED] staff did not ask him to remove or further conceal the weapon it must have been done by PD :this I assume isn’t the norm :no :how often is EIC activated for this type of thing :a few times a year I have exact numbers available :still its not :we don’t I’m sorry go ahead :I was just going to say its not the type of thing we should have to deal with regularly :agreed we don’t need to be evacuating areas of the building because of this type of thing :alright yeah so that’s one of the reasons why signage is in this meeting and not facilities slash safety :the other about [REDACTED] right :lets all be on the same page security or HR (amended/corrected from “acre”) want to cover that :ok um mister [REDACTED] is the ex employee that had a gun in his um I guess what you day call a fanny pack or one of those belt pack things and he didn’t zip it up so patients and family would see it when he was treating them he was given a verbal counseling the first time without an issues or comments but then when it happened again he said it’s his second amendment right and that management cant infringe I think the word was on um :we have the report available here, he stated management can not infringe on his second amendment rights and that he will be in contact with his lawyer we are an open carry state so his interpretation was we were violating his rights not allowing him to have his pack unzipped in the workplace :right that sounds right um so after that he was terminated this was after extensive conversation about how many calls were made after people saw his gun and that one patient even transferred to [REDACTED] :exactly the real issue isn’t the gun on property per see even though technically its violating the [REDACTED] safety in the workplace policy regarding weapons on sight the issue is that when people see the weapon on a credentialed caretaker taking care of their family member they request a change of facility and begin to file suit against us this has happened in the past it creates a lot of negative impact :so what we are looking at is if our nursing or see //inaudible// (CNA assumed) staff are brandishing or whatever weapons then transfer to another provider and sue us :yes :looks like it :also from a care side the patients often are dealing with dysphoria or dementia and think someone with a gun is in their house things like that :right and we have the reports compiled from PBX and in [REDACTED] that shows the calls from scared patients to the main board that get transferred to security the numbers aren’t high but in all actuality that number should be zero :well that’s an issue for sure we uh well we can’t do anything about visitors but we definitely can mitigate most of this with proper staff management. :why are our employees carrying guns in here anyway :uh you want to address that :protection or exercising rights there’s a plethora of reasons :ok but we have rules policy that’s not being followed :that’s true but if someone is carrying a pocketknife here and it stays in their pocket then they may be in violation of policy but nobody knows it’s like sleeping on the job that’s against policy but it only applies if you get caught :we also have discretion so each event does not require the exact same discipline procedure it’s not a zero tolerance policy :alright alright we don’t need to get into motivations and the like let’s just stick to the signage issue and make a decision the proposal is to place no weapons allowed signs on each public access doorway to the main and satellite buildings and one on the ambulance bay doors :that wont stop anyone :nope :that’s not the idea you are right these will have the same impact as say our no smoking signs that people stand under to smoke this is a mitigation step for legal actions against the hospital :legal isn’t here we should have made sure they were brought in but we have some info from central office :we can conference someone maybe :no its ok we know we are being sued by two families the specifics aren’t important for a decision about putting up signs :is this a fluke or have we had this before :its happened before and not just a legal problem for us but the ah general response process is costly and we respond to this type of thing about six or seven times a year :I have numbers here on the second page they are almost exclusively visitors or patients :ok so we put up signs to say we did as part of our legal defense that’s the positive what are the negatives uh besides cost that’s incredibly low in contrast to legal cost even if nothing goes to trial we could put probably seven or eight thousand signs up for the cost of one lawyer on one case review :I need to transfer to legal :yeah me two :so once we place signs nobody can conceal carry on property including parking lots and the lake hangar this includes employees :how many employees are carrying guns to work? :we don’t frisk people hear :its not relevant to this topic so let’s just stick to the positive and negatives on the signage alone :yeah so um nobody would be allowed to carry a weapon concealed on property according to state law the see are us is on the last page there :so with the incident up at surge with the man carrying on with his gun visible we would then be in the right to ask him to leave or at least remove the weapon from the property :yeah instead of having to move twenty visitors away from him and watching that explode on face book :this is private property just to be clear we have the ability to ask people to remove weapons or anything else including themselves from the property :well uh yeah yeah it’s just easier to have the signs and sight the law and a lot less likely to be sued that way :agreed :well how does that work exactly since we under suit be patients due to staff having a pistol but we already have the no weapons policy :in both of the current lawsuits and if I remember right two in the past the lack of signage was present in the complainants case and as legal said that argument held a lot of ground it makes us look negligent or complacent to a jury :look it’s not like we have metal detectors or actively search employees for weapons and we have no obligation to do that some people are going to carry weapons to work but if they expose that weapon there’s going to be consequences and now with signs on the doors part of [REDACTED] action or justification will include the state law directives :so we are currently and historically dealing with a cost margin related to legal defense and a patient standard of care reduction due to forearms in the building and no incidents of a needed lethal level of force on the property by staff it seems clear to me that we should take steps to resolve the reoccurring problem then examine options for mitigating issues that well may never happen :I don’t know how I feel about employees bringing guns to work :well we can address that as a separate issue I don’t really care as long as they have the correct permit :yeah if they have the license :it’s a permit :sure permit whatever it’s called then I’m fine with it :I am too even though discharging a weapon in the building would be an absolute nightmare but whatever let’s just get the signs up :state law removes our discretionary process so we can no longer allow carrying guns concealed or not once signs are up :so it becomes zero tolerance :no we still have certain levels of discretion but we can not just look the other way so to speak we must inform staff of the law and request they stop carrying instead of asking them to conceal better :yeah yeah I sea :ok so we have some impact on our staff and we might have some issue with an active shooter or similar but in contrast we have lost and may continue to lose court case if we don’t put up the signage does that some it up :looks like it :yeah :definitely more imminence on the legal front :are there any further comments or questions :any further reports or documentation submitted for review :no :lets finish this up then so for the immediate implementation of no weapons allowed signage to be placed on all public doorways the ambulance bay and the hangar yay or knee :yes :yes :I concur :yes :yeah :lets do it :yes :yes :you have to say yes or no for the thing :yes :alright so we go through who on this do we just let facilities know :there’s an implementation process through the city :the city :yes there’s only so many square feet of signage allowed but this falls under public information so it won’t be an issue :I will take care of it :lets move on END OF REPORT |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/26/18 at 14:33:44 Great, a very Raw, Computer voice, to a computer AI, to type. Thanks anyway, can still get through it. First notable thing, “…threats about every other month…” Came from the Transcript where someone said: “…its happened before and not just a legal problem for us but the ah general response process is costly and we respond to this type of thing about six or seven times a year…” Yet that is quite different than the Transcript saying by (apparently), a different person, and very early on: “…three in the past thirty days all related to guns pistols on staff and one visitor…” A number of 7, vs 36, is quite the disparity. Then: :why are our employees carrying guns in here anyway… :uh you want to address that… :protection or exercising rights there’s a plethora of reasons… :so what we are looking at is if our nursing or see //inaudible// (CNA assumed) staff are brandishing… :how many employees are carrying guns to work?… :I don’t know how I feel about employees bringing guns to work… Sounds like, ‘anti-gun’, people are making the decisions. 9 people, (out of 9 people), voted to, Not Allow, their employees to use, guns, stun guns, pepper spray, knives, canes, swords, nunchuks in their personal Defense. 9 out of 9 people Voted to throw away the safety of employees, in lew of spending less money on Lawsuits. 9 out of 9, said, (to the like), a ’Sign’ won’t do anything for safety. Didn’t see anybody in that transcript, that, defended, the right of someone, to defend themselves with firearm, knife, etc. 9 out of 9, voted for Money over Safety. In the next transcript you said you would send, is that where, people, defended the right to defend someones life with something other than a pen and a clipboard, have voiced their views ? (Why does a :o replace the 'O' at the start of a sentence ?) |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/26/18 at 14:54:53 "“…three in the past thirty days all related to guns pistols on staff and one visitor…” A number of 7, vs 36, is quite the disparity." Three in the past thirty days does not mean three every thirty days. The notice of firearms in a semi-public building are not on a typical schedule as the public access is not limited or otherwise directed based on if they are carrying a weapon. If 7 firearm related events happen in one day then there are 7 events in one year and 7 in one month, one week and one day. If seven firearm specific events happen in 6 months there is still seven events in one year. "Sounds like, ‘anti-gun’, people are making the decisions." That is one person which in this amended transcript you could not tell, but even if we added the anti-gun questioning there are two. If we used the above calculation of a different person per response then there are 4 people that are ok with employees carrying firearms on property: ":well we can address that as a separate issue I don’t really care as long as they have the correct permit :yeah if they have the license :it’s a permit :sure permit whatever it’s called then I’m fine with it :I am too even though discharging a weapon in the building would be an absolute nightmare but whatever let’s just get the signs up" Why was the pro-gun section left out of the evaluation? |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/26/18 at 14:59:08 "Didn’t see anybody in that transcript, that, defended, the right of someone, to defend themselves with firearm, knife, etc. 9 out of 9, voted for Money over Safety" Yes. That is that I said in the very first post. The decision was based off of lawsuit mitigation and not safety. "The signs were not put up to discourage criminals but to mitigate future lawsuits." "In the next transcript you said you would send, is that where, people, defended the right to defend someones life with something other than a pen and a clipboard, have voiced their views ?" No. I have never stated I had, would have, or could obtain this information. To my knowledge nobody even spoke up about the signs that carried. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by MnSpring on 07/26/18 at 15:23:29 436361697463060 wrote:
Your right, you never said you 'would send', you said: "... There is also a transcript of a brief section of a longer meeting with FEMA that touches on the subject for Joint Commission review, names would be redacted and only the section addressing facility signage would be made available. ..." |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 07/26/18 at 16:25:22 "is that where, people, defended the right to defend someones life with something other than a pen and a clipboard, have voiced their views ?" No. FEMA reports are not employee interpretations of law or policy. This report is a brief document that outlines in part of it the implementation of no firearm signs as part of procedure that is not to be listed as a safeguard, safety procedure or to be designed as a potential reduction of physical or other forms of violence. It basically indicates that the signs are not to be considered a safety measure of any kind. Zero percent of the assessment process is directed towards safety. Again something said in the very first post that for some reason has not been acknowledged. I did not ever indicate I had employee statements of any kind. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 08/16/18 at 15:22:10 Excerpt from the FEMA report: Additional signage is to be considered "Public Notice" and not "Public Safety" The aforementioned addition of weapon prohibition signs on REDACTED property consisting primarily of adhesive signage on doors or within 24 inches of doorways accessible to the public and facing the exterior are for public notification of REDACTED policy only. There is to be no consideration of this change in any drill activity, including tabletop games due to the nature of the intent and applicability of the signage. This was approved, and furthermore shows what was stated in the original post. The signs are not intended to reduce firearm presence on the property. They never were considered a safety feature. The following selected quotes from this thread may indicate the same, even though they were not acknowledged: 1: The signs were not put up to discourage criminals but to mitigate future lawsuits. 2: I was aiming to indicate that no gun signs are most likely not intended to stop guns, or increase safety, or to physically protect anything, even though there seems to be that argument. 3: I was attempting to indicate that nobody has stated that they believe a sign will stop threats, guns or anything of that sort. Nobody has stated thus far that they think a sign will stop crime. 4: That factual data being that zero firearm signs at this particular facility were put in place to deter crime, or increase safety in any capacity. 5: The signs were not put up to prevent crime or increase safety. 6: The capacity for a sign to assist in any way with the safety of staff or people onboard is 0% and this is the perception of staff who approved the signage to be placed on property. 7: In no way are no-firearm signs expected to work. The signs ability to be effective in the directive posted on them is 0%. 8: Even if the position of staff was to use signage to force staff members to leave it would still not change the fact that the signs were never meant to reduce crime or increase safety. 9: What I have is information stating that the decision to implement signs was due to lawsuit mitigation and not safety concerns. 10: Zero percent of the assessment process is directed towards safety. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by verslagen1 on 08/17/18 at 07:44:36 I would think that it could be argued that if the administration put the signage up with the intent to disarm their employees it would make it their responsibility to provide adequate protection. And in the event of an incident, they would be wholly responsible for the safety of all involved. |
|
Title: Re: Gun sign implementation at a medical center Post by Eegore on 08/17/18 at 11:25:44 The problem is that its state law that prohibits the concealed carry, not the medical center. The no weapons policy has been in effect for decades, the signs didn't go up to "disarm employees", I have provided ample documentation to show this, they went up to mitigate lawsuits. There is no obligation for any company to lose money in order to maintain the safety of an event that has never happened. Nobody has ever needed to use lethal force in the medical center, no patient has ever been killed by a firearm in self defense, but lawsuits due to employees having weapons happen regularly. Also patients change facilities, more cost, more profit loss. Cost measures must be reasonable, for instance installing and staffing a metal detector at every public entrance would cost millions and while that may increase safety it is not a reasonable expectation that a company lose millions, potentially costing jobs in the process in order to prevent a crime that has no precedence. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |