Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In the infamous Boston Marathon bombing clip where the elderyly gentleman is knocked down by the blast, if you look at the bottom left of the screen in that video, you will see a uniformed Police Officer who is facing the finish line. Upon the first blast occurring, he turns back and heads toward the first blast. As soon as the second blast occurs, he turns and runs away from the blast sites, while others continue to run towards the first blast site, which would be the, correct, right thing to do, as it regards to scene safety (2 blasts close together -- get the hell out). So what would you have done in that situation; Go towards the injured/dismembered who are bleeding to death, or seek safety until all is clear ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My training says leave.... but instinct says help the people who need it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been in the situation so I can't say. I would hope that I would do the RIGHT thing (right for myself, right for my family, and right for my patients), but I haven't been there yet so I can't say. Like everybody else, I'm just as susceptible to making the emotional, WRONG decision myself...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone can truly say what they would do unless they have had to make that decision before. I would like to think I would help, but given recent life changes, I would likely be selfish and put my own safety above all else. 2 years ago, I may have made a different decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the thought comes to flee the scene: How does one know where to go that will not be the place of the next explosion.

Terror 101 manual says to place multiple delayed devices spread around a given target to take out the follow on responders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd run toward the first blast, for the simple reason that for maximum damage, a second device is unlikely to be placed in close proximity to the first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd run toward the first blast, for the simple reason that for maximum damage, a second device is unlikely to be placed in close proximity to the first.

But if the goal is to take out first responders, wouldn't a second one be close to the victims so that it can reach the responders as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many attacks have specifically targeted first responders though? I've heard of a few IED cases in the middle east that might qualify, however, I still contend that even the first responder fatalities during WTC attacks were an unexpected collateral that terrorists realised after the fact that they could capitalise on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean just the first responders as the main targets, but as part of a second wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...