By Brandon via concealednation.org
A police officer went to visit an urgent care facility with an eye problem, only to be held at gunpoint by police and escorted out of the building. The Plymouth officer, Wayne Liggett Sr., called ahead to make sure the facility, Walk In Urgent Care, 1341 S. Trimble Road, had equipment to look at his eye. He stated he was seeing floaters and flashes of light in his vision and knew something wasn’t right. They told him to come in . . .
In a private room, an employee asked him to remove his jacket to take his vitals. As a courtesy, Liggett said he told the person he was carrying his duty weapon under his shirt, in case they would see it. He also had written down on the sign-in form he was employed as a Plymouth police officer, he said.
The employee took his vitals, said the doctor would be in soon and left.
The next knock at the door Liggett didn’t expect.
Several Mansfield Police Department officers told him to come out slowly with his hands up. More than one of them were pointing their firearm at him, he said.
Liggett said he was placed in handcuffs while police verified his identity as an auxiliary officer, which took only minutes. He was carrying his badge and ID in his wallet.
It turns out that Liggett had a tear in his retina and needed surgery, which he received by week’s end after visiting his eye doctor (who was happy to see and treat him).
Even after verification of his identity, he was still asked to leave the building and was refused service. The owner of the facility denied comment. Surprise.
It brings up the valid question: what if this were to happen during a more serious medical need and an officer or concealed carrier came into this urgent care facility? Are they going to refuse treatment and let a person die on the floor?
“Officers carry to be prepared, and citizens do too,” [Plymouth Police Chief Charles] Doan said. “If you have a concealed carry and get hurt, are they going to say, ‘Get him out of here?’ “
No Freedom allowed here, either of thought or of action. We only serve proper subjects. Please take your liberties with you when you leave.
Glad to hear the cops occasionally learn what a PITA people like that are. Name needs to be changed to “walk in without your gun urgent care”
Amen brother! While I do not agree with the actions of the Urgent Care facility, I do think there was some “therapy” gained by the fact that the a LEO was treated like the rest of us who may be carrying.
Therapy? Two wrongs never make a right. It is not therapy, just say what you really believe. You do not like cops and you are happy someone did something wrong against one so you can feel good.
I don’t comment much but after reading your response, and the fact that no one had responded to it yet, I felt a need to say something.
That was just plain mean spirited and unnecessary. How do you know what the person meant by their post? You don’t so why get so nasty and mean for nothing? Try getting out and getting a little sunshine this weekend and maybe you won’t be so grumpy!
The fact that he got the same treatment a any of us is not a wrong. Special treatment for the anointed few is wrong. The ideal would be if there were no obstacles for anyone with a concealed pistol to receive treatment, but this incident is less wrong than if the officer got special treatment while your or I would have been cuffed.
I doubt he was treated like you or I would be. His badge and status got him out the cuffs pretty quick. If it was me or you it would minimum be a nice relaxing stay in the back seat of the police car.
Beyond belief; I’m not usually at a loss for words.
Indefensible, no wonder the owner of the facility denied comment.
Behold, Shannon’s envisioned #gunsense in full display!
The affects of hoplophobic brainwashing all around.
Chicken Little “The Sky is Falling” propaganda wins the day.
I think they just lost some future clientele. After that other 75 year old auxiliary officer recently shot the gun dealer by mistake maybe this doc was a bit hesitant to treat.
Think positive, this just opened up a new market for “Gun Friendly Hospitals and Clinics.”
“Think positive, this just opened up a new market for “Gun Friendly Hospitals and Clinics.””
Already have ’em.
They’re called Combat Support Hospitals. (CSH, pronounced “cash”)
(In a military theater of operations near *you*).
Operators that are no longer operating optimally can be found there…
OOoo! “Optimally”. Gonna have to figure how to work that in.
I wonder what the outcome would have been if the officer were Federal. Suppose, for example, it were a US Marshal in plain cloths. These guys aren’t rebounded for their sense of humor.
I could envision a heightened level of operational focus in the Mansfield area.
…and the denial of service to a federal marshall would have nothing, nothing whatever, to do with the sudden random audit of their Class I, II, and III drugs inventories by armed DEA agents, and the subsequent random tax audit.
Screw the IRS.
The DEA can *always* find something wrong with the paperwork…
From my experiences in the USAF, I got the impression that US Marshals do not take crap from anyone including other LEOs. I imagine if he were a US Marshal, someone would have gone to jail that day.
I’m fairly certain that Urgent care broke a law by refusing to treat him after accepting to see him. Not for certain, but I remember running across a law about that, federally. It might be that I’ve been awake for more than 30 hours and my brain is all muddled, but that would be something…
I think you’re right, but I can’t point to a particular law. As I recall, though, if they get any sort of federal funding at all, they have to treat all comers.
EMTALA. not sure if it applies to urgent care facilities, though.
Savaze, I see your MHI patch there. Not too many people know about them. Seals, special forces, delta, cag, they are all sissies compared to MHI. I think I might have served with Special Task Force Unicorn myself a few years ago, but you can never be sure.
Owen Zastava Pitt. Earl Harbinger. Skippy. Need I go on?
Yes and no. Once you have initiated care of a patient you cannot just stop, it is considered patient abandonment. UNLESS the care giver/s feel as though they are in “danger”. Which can very easily be seen if the nurse was unsettled by the sight of a firearm. Not saying I agree with it, just stating the facts.
Try justifying being afraid of a cop with a holstered gun to a medical board, it wouldn’t go over well. It is and was willful pt abandonment and the licensed medical personnel who made the call need to be reprimanded by the appropriate boards. And he should be able to sue for damages.
I agree especially after he was identified as an LEO and they still refused to continue treatment. I hope they are forced into bankruptcy and I hope the one that deliberately swatted the cop gets prosecuted for filing a false police report.
Maybe something to address with the medical licensing authorities, however.
As much as I don’t like it, if a private business wants to discriminate against gun owners, it’s their right to do so. But calling the cops on a patient who was legally carrying, who told them he was a cop, who didn’t even get asked politely to leave because guns are icky, makes it look like they swatted him. I’m guessing they didn’t even have a ‘no guns’ sign posted. What the clinic did was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Now that I have a problem with.
Whoa now, wait a minute, this is where I draw the line on property owner rights. Hospitals and clinics all over this country are forced to treat indigents/illegals at their, and the taxpayer’s expense, NOT by their choice.
If wedding planners and cake bakers are required to service gay couples, and marriage isn’t even mentioned once in the US (or most state) Constitutions, then guess what goes around that’s coming around?
Yep, you can’t discriminate upon someone for exercising their Second Amendment right to keep & bear on your commercial property either.
This is a good point. In the 1960’s American law took a great leap in barring certain discrimination in rendering service. That leap created selected classes of beneficiaries and applied to certain classes of service providers; i.e., those providing “a public accommodation”. I raise no argument here – one way or the other – whether this law-change was good/bad nor whether it was constitutional/un-constitutional.
The classes of beneficiaries might have seemed reasonable enough. One can not change the color of his skin – it’s a part of his intrinsic being. However, one could change one’s religion – that is a matter of choice and behavior.
A muslim might convert to Christianity or vice-versa. Could a helal butcher or restauranteur deny service to a customer who had converted from Islam to another religion?
A black woman might vote. Could a red neck butcher or restauranteur refuse service to a female (or a black) who had the temerity to engage in the behavior of voting?
A muslim woman might seek service from a red neck butcher or restauranteur while waring a scarf. Could she be refused service while she covered her hair?
Could a pacifist provider of medical services refuse to treat a patient – in an emergency – on the grounds that he is a police officer or a soldier and is armed at the time he appears in need of service?
Prior to the laws protecting the civil rights of selected beneficiary classes in places of public accommodation, the answer to the question posed by all these cases seemed clear: property rights trumped anyone’s claim of a right to service from a private party. Subsequent to these laws, we have great difficulty muddling our way through to a clear-cut answer.
Let’s suppose that a 2A-able person is carrying in a place of public accommodation. Let’s further suppose that he is exhibiting no threatening or disruptive behavior whatsoever; and, is observing meticulous holster discipline. Does he have a civil right to be serviced while exercising his right to bear arms? It is true, he might shoot someone. It is also true that he might say something slanderous – not protected by his right to free speech. He might retrieve his rosary and begin silently saying his prayers to the offense of atheists or adherents to other religious beliefs.
Is the right to bear arms “special” because sticks, stones and bullets may break bones but words will never slander or otherwise offend? Or, is the right to bear arms equally deserving of non-discrimination as the practice of any other right?
If a pacifist doctor can refuse emergency treatment of any armed person, that person should be allowed to shoot that pacifist doctor as many times as it takes to change his mind.
This is what I’ve been squawking about but I don’t think most got it. I’d rather government be completely out of private business but since they aren’t, it has to be all.
I’d be sympathetic if the expectation was that cops should have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.
Exactly. Imagine how much worse the response would have been if he was not an off duty cop, but an ordinary Joe. The news would be reporting the police shooting of an armed maniac at urgent care.
I would choose to frequent this place if only because they treat police equally with the rest of us. when the rules/laws apply equally to everyone, i think the laws would be changed much faster.
The story is interesting; however, I don’t expect it to change anything. The Plymouth chief will probably have a word with the Mansfield chief. The Mansfield chief will probably rebuke the officers who failed to show proper deference to a fellow Only-One. Nothing is apt to impact the clinic.
The whole PC thing to do in this case is to keep it as low-key as possible so that NOTHING will change.
Likely as not, the auxiliary officer was technically outside his jurisdiction and off-duty. Nor was he rushing into this clinic in response to some emergency he observed and was voluntarily responding to. Under such circumstances, I imagine the property owner was entitled to eject him in the same way he would be entitled to eject a civilian carrying under permit.
Accordingly, I don’t think there is enough here to celebrate in dragging a police officer down to the level of a civilian. He – individually – may be mad-as-hell. His chief may be miffed. But, there isn’t enough skin in the game to move the political needle in the legislature.
The Plymouth chief specifically mentioned CHL holders. He broke no law, and this clinic deserves any hate it gets for swatting its own patient.
His enter the urgent clinic indicate while it was noy an emergency it could not wait until he saw a physician visual impairment can be a prelude to stroke or various other life threatening condition. Refusal after accepting the patient and rooming him should be considered abandonment which in my state means someone loses a license .
I can’t speak to the status of other states, but here in Texas, those of us in law enforcement have jurisdiction in the entire state, not just the municipality that hired us. When I was a PO, my jurisdiction went from Brownsville to Dumas and El Paso to Texarkana and all points in between.
“…treat the police equally…?
I suspect the cautious over-reaction by Mansfield was more the result of some low level flack at the Urgent Care clinic making a panicked call to the 911 operator with an overloaded imagination in describing the ’emergency’.
You would support an anti-gun business… are you kidding me? Why not just support docs that treat police and non-police the same way AND won’t throw you out for carrying?
Check your gun rights at the door at;
Walk-In Urgent Care
1341 S Trimble Rd
Mansfield OH 44907
In Ohio? Ugh. What’s the matter with people there?
“More than one of them were pointing their firearm at him, he said.”
Odd how unpleasant it can be having a weapon pointed at you when you are doing nothing wrong isn’t it? The standard overreaction by those in his very profession is only an issue now that it has happened to him. Perhaps we would hear less about following orders and instead see a real push to change things from within if this happened to enough cops. Yes wishful thinking and even then I imagine it would have to be a high percentage.
Agreed Zoss, but it would not be useful for Joe Blow concealed carriers..
Police are ‘special’ people entitled to certain privileges. Joe Blow citizens are not part of that club. So emphasis would be on not treating *police* in such a manner. Lawful concealed carriers would not be included in the…discussion.
In most cases in gun averse jurisdictions, without benefit of ‘the badge’, you can’t win; even if totally legal.
Ain’t that the truth! Unfortunately, some are more equal than others.
His symptoms could have meant he needed surgery within hours for a detached retina. This to save his sight. They spent his time with this?
I had 2 retina tears. Had surgery (laser) within minutes of the good Dr making the discovery. Dr. told me that I was very smart to show up at the ER on the same day that I noticed the floaters. And that if I waited 24hrs, I would have lost the sight in that eye.
For those of you wondering, it was a massive amount of small round floaters and I could see pinkish colors out of that eye.
Moron police & moron doctors. They had his identification and could have verified it before sending police. Also, why would they deny him service after his identity was verified??
Because lefty’s like them hate guns and they hate people who own guns even more.
But they called on *armed* police officers to respond, and allowed them to not only come in but to draw their weapons and wave them around threateningly. The place sounds kind of schitzophrenic to me.
That seems odd. Why didn’t they just throw him out themselves?
I would sue the pants off of the clinic for delay in treatment.
Why should they be forced to? A private business owner should have the right to deny service for any reason or no reason.
Not a medical facility. In fact, I hope his insurance requests an audit of their facility .
The public streets, side walks and power grid should be shut down from accessing their building then.
What if he was having a heart attack? Could they deny him service and refuse to call for an ambulance because he was a cop? At a certain point if they allow someone to die for being an armed cop they could be charged with something such as wreckless negligence homicide or something else that is a suitable charge for deliberately letting someone die.
Clinic’s and hospitals have denied service for years, for all kinds of reasons, mostly Lack of money and insurance!
Under O’bama Care people are provided the cheapest minimalist coverage of all, especially the death clause cases.
Strategy is too milk them till they Die! this particular clinic should be forced out of business starting with a publicity campaign and a Boycott
What happened to “first do no harm”? I would call refusing medical care to someone because of an inanimate object doing harm. At the very least indirectly. As I have always said: Just because you would not, never presume to tell someone else they CAN not. So long as no material harm is done, what business is it of yours?
Sooo hypocratic oath anyone? Don’t you swrear to help people not do stupid stuff that could cost them their vision?
Not surprised to find no incident record/report listed on the MPD search tool at: http://p2c.mansfieldcity.com/p2c/Summary.aspx so of course nothing ever happened.
The police came in to verify his identity WITH GUNS DRAWN?!!! WTF?! Isn’t that a bit more worrying that getting refused medical service?
Well, to be fair, the police have now established a long and illustrious track record of lethal stupidity.
Look on the bright side of the situation: At least this guy wasn’t at a vet clinic with Fido.
Based on how cops usually react to dogs *these days*, the whole place would have been shot up!
It would help to know what state this happened in.
Yea, that was a big miss on the original piece. Unless you’re highly conversant in cities & towns in the midwest, you’re left with an infuriating question as to “what the hell state was this in!?” by the end of it.
Instead of just asking if he was an officer and asking for identification…
Or if it was a citizen, the same thing, ask for CCW permit…
… and be done with it.
Panicking and calling the police is behaving like a small child crying to his parents.
“Panicking and calling the police is behaving like a small child crying to his parents.” Your remark inspired me to look at this incident in a totally new light.
Heretofore, I had thought: ‘I’m a civilian CC’ier and I just want to be able to go about my life quietly and be left alone. When being treated/serviced while carrying, I want to be responded to in a civilized manner.’ A purely selfish, inwardly directed, perspective.
Now, I realize, that this just isn’t going to work. I may be one of the 3% of adults who CC. Maybe that figure will grow to 6% or 9%, but even with such growth, the hoplophobes in the “civilization” within which I live will continue to behave “like a small child crying to his parents”. No, we can’t expect to just be left alone and treated like normal people.
Our situation wouldn’t change if 50% of adults CC’ied while we left our guns in the car whenever we went to clinics/hospitals. We would still be “in-the-closet”. We would still be catering to the hoplophobic norm of Progressive society.
Until now, I had also thought that as CC’iers became a larger percentage of the population then – in a decade or so – just about everyone would have one or two acquaintances who were CC’iers. This would normalize their reactions. I had thought that the really important thing to accomplish was to penetrate the last 10 Won’t-Issue States so that at first 1% and then 2% and then 3% . . . of these States’ populations would begin to CC, thus creating the acquaintanceship of nearly the whole of their populations.
Now, I realize that this just isn’t going to be sufficient. Gunnies hang-around with gunnies and hoplophobes hang around with hoplophobes. (I’m reminded of the complaints from Democrats when Bush was elected President. Some Democrats were astonished that this could happen because they didn’t know a single person who was a Republican.) Hoplophobes will be astonished – upon encountering a civilian CC’er – because they won’t (in general) know a single acquaintance whom they know to be a CC’ier.
What will it take to normalize carry in our society?
A thought crossed my mind. We routinely see mannequins modeling ladies’ lingerie in store windows; an “unmentionable” that we take-for-granted in polite society. Might we envision the day when sporting goods stores exhibit mannequins modeling IWB holsters and faux handguns over their boxers/briefs? Would that be a vehicle for unmentionable CC to enter into the consciousness of polite society? I do NOT regard THIS thought to constitute the answer; rather, it serves as a vehicle to illustrate the problem we face in trying to normalize guns in polite society.
Another thought occurs to me; OC. Many of us deride OCT and other practitioners of OC in jurisdictions where it is legal-but-unheard-of to OC a handgun. I need not recite that debate here. For present purposes, it suffices to say that the practice of OC is – obviously – ONE way for gunnies to come out-of-the-closet.
Another equally effective way is the Campus Carry movement’s practice of wearing empty holsters; or, holsters carrying a blue-gun or a banana. In contrast with OC’ing a real gun it is obvious that wearing an empty holster (or blue-gun or banana) evokes the idea of carrying without enabling the hoplophobes from exhibiting a tantrum that they are being frightened-to-death.
I think we need to look to analogous in history to figure-out how to bring guns out-of-the-closet. One recent and obvious analogue is that of gay-pride. Another is that of the evolution of women’s fashions; first by “showing a little ankle” up to the mini-skirt of the 1960s. A third is inter-racial marriage.
We can closet ourselves with our guns all we want in the fields, at ranges and at NRA conventions. None of these activities will normalize guns in polite society. In fact, they will serve to ostracize gunnies from polite society. ‘Gunnies gather over there; polite society is everywhere else.’ We can get CC laws changed; that too will have little-to-no impact on society. We can legalize OC in more jurisdictions; still no change.
I’m NOT here arguing that we ought to suddenly lunge hell-bent on an OC campaign. Doing so indelicately is very apt to backfire. I AM saying that expanding the practice of CC might NOT NECESSARILY achieve the goal of normalizing guns in polite society.
We do it here in Ohio by simply OCing everyday. Go about your business while lawfully open carrying. It works and it really is that simple.
As I have commented here before… Generations carried concealed in Ohio without issue prior to about 2000. We relied on a “prudent man” defense if there were problems. I never had any problems and no officer failed to allow me to leave with my sidearm after an interaction. Sometime around 2000, cops started to have a problem with CCers. The people of Ohio apparently forgot how many had CCed in generations before. We got concealed handgun licensing law in 2005 and the no gun signs went up. IMHO, CC does very little to normalize the bearing of arms. OC, however, goes a long way.
If these officers had half a brain they would have gotten his name from the medical people up front, run it through the system and verified if there was even an officer by that name.
From there (would have taken 2-5 mins) they could have decided how to approach the ill officer.
Good idea, but the people at the front desk (very likely the ones who called 911 in the first place) are probably more afraid of HIPAA than guns. (Incorrectly, I might add — on both counts).
I would sue if I was the officer, claim my rights were violated.
Also a cop cuffing another cop is a big deal; it can make some serious beef between departments. I would be royally pissed even as a private citizen.
Actually, if the police had half a brain, they wouldn’t have responded with guns drawn (or at all) to a MWAG report in a jurisdiction where it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm.
This happening is good, maybe they’ll get rid of some bullshit “laws”.
It’s also a breach of oath to deny him, or anyone else, service.
At first, I wondered if Liggett’s being an off-duty, auxiliary officer outside his jurisdiction mattered. According to the newspaper report, it doesn’t. In Ohio, a police officer is authorized to carry anywhere at any time. Liggett had as much right to be armed within the facility as did the officers who checked him out.
I don’t fault the Mansfield officers’ precautions. Very likely, all they were told is that there was an armed man at the facility. Until they verified Liggett’s status, they had no way to know what they were dealing with. It’s significant that they considered the incident too trivial to justify a report.
The facility needs to have its collective butt kicked up between its shoulder blades. At the very least, they should have explained that they had no way to secure his weapon themselves and asked him to store it in his vehicle.
I have read that medical personnel often have a hard-on about guns and gun people. If you are the victim of an assault, they will treat you with sympathy. But, if they learn you were injured while fighting back at your assailant, especially with a gun, they will treat you like dirt. It’s similar to their attitude toward motorcycle injuries. They feel entitled to punish their patient for engaging in an activity of which they disapprove.
Since Liggett already had an eye doctor, I’m surprised he bothered with this place. I have chronic glaucoma which has required surgery. My doctor is part of a large practice. They have a doctor on call to answer emergency questions 24x7x365. I’m sure that if I had a critical, time sensitive complication at 2 am on Sunday morning, they would take care of me as soon as the necessary personnel could get out of bed and drive to the clinic.
The officers that to the office to check out the situation would probably done the same.
How many police and CCW licensees will either die or suffer serious injury as a result of this clinic refusing to treat them. Would this clinic also turn away someone on the basis of race as well.
If they did, it should be their right. To do otherwise is to protect slavery.
If I discover I am catching crap in an emergency room because I ride a bike or carry, they are going to need to check out the shit I give them when they send me a bill.
Liggett had as much
rightprivilege to be armed within the facility as did the officers who checked him out.
Badges don’t confer rights. Rights are inalienable to living humans and not governments. All a government can confer is privilege.
After being asked to disarm when I brought a violent felon in for treatment at a hospital if he had grabbed a scalpel and sliced someone’s throat open whose fault.
Since hospitals have started buying every Dr. Practice around, you would be surprised how many are going back for M.B.A.’s or other degrees. My main doc is a month older he can’t retire for 24 years. He’s going back to college for a degree in history. So not only losing a no b.s. doc, that’s competent and a gun guy too boot. All thanks to Obamacare or lack thereof.
So I can have this clear in my head…
Doctors are allowed to refuse service to armed police officers, because they can defend themselves, but pharmacists aren’t allowed to refuse the delivery of abortifacients to unborn children because they cannot defend themselves.
Thank God I live in Alabama where this craziness is absent.
Direct quote from the article:
“Urgent care owner Muzhar Hussain declined to comment.”
Nothing else needs to be said.
Is that like hussain obama Ralph? This is seriously f###ed up. BTW this OFWG has had “floaters” and they seem to have ceased as I’ve lost weight.It’s not always glaucoma/macular degeneration,etc. But get it checked old guys…
Sometimes it is vitreous detachment, which occurs normally as we age. I had these same symptoms a few years ago and went to my eye doctor immediately thinking it might be a retinal tear. Turned out to be nothing to worry about but still need to have it checked just to make sure.
They had no time to see him but I bet some pencil pusher behind the desk had plenty of time to write up the incident and put it in his medical records as a red flag…. Would anyone else here not be surprised to hear that?
I won’t be surprised if they send him a bill.
Good to see the Plymouth Police Chief call it the way he did!
A private property owner exercised his right to allow access to his property as he saw fit. That is correct and proper. The armed government employee is more than welcome to go elsewhere.
Urgent Care isn’t exactly private property plus its open to provide medical services. They likely get their skids greased by local, state and federal government as well to provide emergency medical services. Plus, there is the issue with them taking insurance money. There is the Oath that Drs. take. Lastly you seem to ignore the “government thugs” that threw down on him and threw him out.
Depending on the State, that’s not necessarily true. Here in Texas, the prohibition of firearms on private property by property owners does not apply to Texas Peace Officers. Prime example is when the Dallas Cowboys tried to enforce the NFL ban on firearms carried by off duty officers at ATT Stadium, the Cowboys were forced to back off the lame attempt because it was a violation of Texas law, and any continued attempt to do so would have exposed the NFL and the Cowboys to serious criminal and civil sanctions. Any Texas Peace Officer can lawfully carry a firearm anywhere in the State with the usual exceptions of a Federal Courthouse, Airport, Military Base, etc., and there’s not damn thing the NFL or the Dallas Cowboys Organization can do about it.
Would they do the same to an on-duty officer that came in as well.
Without asking him they wouldn’t know that nor if it was a result of an injury on the job or off the job.
If he was in a uniform than it would be obvious he was a cop. I am surprised they did not make the cops that came leave due to having a gun.
Does he have a strong case to sue for malpractice consider the fact that the trouble with his eye was an emergency.
Well, that kind of damage needs laser surgery ASAP before serious damage occurs.
Does he have a strong case to sue for malpractice considering the fact that the trouble with his eye was an emergency.
That’s the best guess I’ve heard. Since he was actually inside the facility and was being seen, it sounds like he should consult with a malpractice lawyer, he could possibly change that firearms policy once he owns the business.
Here we go again with common sense. Since the first of the year I’ve had two medical procedures here in Texas that required mild or local anesthesia, and even though as a Texas Peace Officer I can legally carry a handgun in a Hospital, it would be idiotic for me to show up expecting treatment while carrying a firearm and not anticipate the problem it would create with the medical staff. I had enough sense to secure my weapon in my vehicle before entering the hospital for treatment (secure as in your need a rotary cutter or cutting torch to defeat the security device). When an on duty officer is injured the proper protocol is for another officer to take custody of and secure the injured officers’s firearm. No police officer with even the slightest bit of common sense expects to remain armed while receiving treatment in an ER or Urgent Care facility. What the hell did the injured officer expect the medical staff to do with his gun while he was incapacitated during treatment and surgery? Leave it in a bag with his clothes and personal items? Put in a drawer in the treatment room or nurses station? Plymouth Auxiliary Police Officer Wayne Liggett Sr. was responsible for securing his firearm BEFORE entering the medical facility for treatment, and if he is now incensed that his failure to do so caused the incident at the Urgent Care facility, then he is a monumental [email protected]$$ deserving of serious disciplinary action by Plymouth PD.
He was not there for surgery he was there for a diagnosis.
That kind of injury can warrant emergency surgery especially if there is active bleeding. That is why he needed the diagnosis.
His only mistake was not going to an emergency room if that can be considered a mistake. I hope that facility loses all government funding and I hope the staff loses their medical licenses as well as losing it’s business license.
It’s obvious the reason he went to Urgent Care was because he knew his eye was injured and he sought treatment for the injury. Regardless if the injury is minor or severe, any responsible officer with a lick of sense knows not to carry a gun while incapacitated into a medical facility expecting emergency treatment.
Would things have gone differently if he simply flashed his badge and held it in his hand the whole time? If the swat team still came he could have shouted I am a cop here is my badge and likely avoided the cuffs in the first place.
If he had tried to badge his way to treatment while armed, the common sense response of the medical staff should have been to tell [email protected]$$ he needed to secure his weapon in his vehicle or call another officer to the location to take custody of the weapon while [email protected]$$ was incapacitated and receiving treatment. You’re dreaming if you believe Walk In Urgent Care will suffer any repercussions or exposure to civil liability, they were right and [email protected]$$ was wrong.
What would happen if a cop was in dire need of emergency medical care? Are they going to call the police to pick up a dead cop that they refused to treat?
If they did, you know SWAT would show up and execute every employee there – and then plant their tasers next to each corpse.
No borg, they would call the police and ask them to come secure the incapacitated officers firearm. Apparently you’re as lacking of common sense as Officer Liggett if you actually believe it is reasonable for any injured person to remain armed while receiving urgent or emergency care that includes sedation or anesthesia. Nothing wrong with Walk In Urgent Care exercising due caution by not allowing a sedated or anesthetized patient to remain armed, it’s not any different than a hospital not allowing a patient effected by medication to drive themselves home, it’s the responsible and common sense thing to do.
Reading comprehension fail, much? No one was sedated or on drugs. He went in to have his eye checked because he was having vision problems. No on was “incapacitated” in any way. You and the medical staff just went full retard over a person going about their everyday business while having an inanimate object on them.
I’m afraid you’re not only challenged by reading comprehension Publius, but rational thought and reasoning as well. Officer [email protected]$$ was already incapacitated to some degree just by virtue of the fact that a torn retina is a serious and painful injury that necessarily entails pain medication, sedation, anesthesia, or all of the above; any police officer with common sense should know that. The lame suggestion that he dropped by the Urgent Care just to have simple vision problems checked out speaks volumes about your dishonesty and stupidity. Most police officers with such a serious and painful injury would either secure the weapon in their vehicle or have a fellow officer to take custody of the weapon before expecting the medical staff to do what they needed to do to relieve the pain. The fact that Officer [email protected]$$ was an auxiliary officer for some Podunk PD might be a factor in this embarrassingly bone headed stunt due to poor supervision, inadequate training, low standards for selecting and hiring officers, or all of the above.
Quite a number of critics of Officer Liggett seem to fully subscribe to the “Only-One” thesis that guns are so dangerous that only someone highly skilled ought to endure the presence of a gun. This is just so much hoplophobia warmed over. A carrier’s gun is not going to jump out of it’s holster and go looking for a victim just because its owner is incapacitated. We all know that; including those critics who call Liggett a dumb-ass for not locking his gun in his car (where it was vulnerable to being stolen) or having another Only-One take possession of this dangerous artifact while in the company of helpless child-like medical professional hoplophobes.
Throughout my early life the environment in which I lived (my home, father’s store, friends’ homes) there were guns; none were secured. Adults and children came and went and paid no attention to the guns nor to the fact that they were not secured. One family with small children kept guns leaning in the corners of rooms loaded and used the practice to teach their children that guns are always loaded. (I’m not advocating this practice; just using it to illustrate that we needn’t suffer living in a world surrounded by hoplophobes.)
If the officer drove himself to the clinic he wasn’t particularly incapacitated. Nor need he have presumed he would be made incapacitated while being treated. Certainly, that might have developed; in which case, some provision for his gun could have been made. E.g., the hoplophobes might have contemplated that the gun might have some vulnerability of falling out of his holster and having to be picked-up by an untrained employee. Fine. They could have simply asked the officer to unload his gun and put the bullets in his pocket.
The more I read such comments from PotG who ought to know better the more convinced I am that the problem illustrated by this case is that we PotG are not doing enough to normalize guns in polite society.
@MarkPA: Great post. I agree.
The more I read such comments from PotG who ought to know better the more convinced I am that the problem illustrated by this case is that we PotG are not doing enough to normalize guns in polite society.
Concealed carry is important and part of the right that shall not be infringed. The exercise of the right to carry concealed ought not ever go away. However, concealed carry alone, licensed carry even less so, will not normalize the bearing of arms in our society. Firearms must be visible in everyday life for people to become desensitized to their presence.
Her is the location so everyone knows which place to avoid
Walk-In Urgent Care
1341 S Trimble Rd
Let me get this straight – The medical types are all upset because a police officer is carrying a gun, so they call more police, who also carry guns, to deal with the police officer carrying a gun?
I think the next time they call for the police, the police should decline their invitation. After all, they’ll be carrying guns.
Amazing how this discussion seems to be a magnet for folks devoid of common sense to put in their two cents worth. With all due respect RetMSgt, you don’t have to be very smart to figure out that the medical staff were absolutely within their rights to not simply take the word of a patient who claimed he was a police officer but did not identify by showing proper credentials. Even if the officer had properly identified himself initially, the medical staff would have completed justified to request the officer to secure his weapon in his vehicle or by having another officer come to the location to secure the weapon for the incapacitated off duty officer. This entire ridiculous incident is on Officer Liggett, not Walk In Urgent Care.
He told them he was armed & an officer so they wouldn’t freak not likely a non cop is going to do that. Also if he had state insurance another tell, guarantee they verified insurance first. Most Doctors are businesses 1st and hell with the patient. Likely went to doc in a box cause that’s what his plan covered.
Medical care in this country has gone the way of the honest politicians. Had a very large blood clot block 98% of my heart I actually hear the ER guys talking about putting me on a chopper so when I died it did not mess up the stats. If I hadn’t been trained prior to firemen taking over EMS & all relying on computer diagnosis, would have been a nice funeral. Point is medical professionals are going away and socialist social worker questioning is more important than patients and caring for them.Touchy feely garbage.political correctness has ruined this country.
He only verbally identified once in the examination room and about to be treated as he exposed his gun but no badge, the nurse was smart to play it cool and not react once she realized the patient in civilian clothes not displaying a badge or credentials was armed, and the responding officers were right in not taking any chances with the [email protected]$$ and releasing him only after verifying his status as an auxiliary officer from neighboring Podunk PD. Apparently in your past career in law enforcement you never were made aware that armed injured criminals have been known to seek medical treatment and can be dangerous when cornered. Plymouth PD only has 4 full time officers including the Chief and 8 auxiliary police officers, a larger more professional department would have suspended or fired Officer Liggett for exercising such poor judgment.
plenty go to the hospital never had one admit armed. In nearly 30 years of departments from 800 sworn to 3 including the reserve only person that I remember going too private office was a domestic violence victim.If that’s the entire department responding might want to look into disbanding & having the State Police or Sheriff’s office take over.
I do not fault them for not wanting him to be armed while seeking treatment but I do fault them for obviously falsely reporting the situation to the responding police department which could have easily resulted in his being mistakenly shot by one or more of the responding officers. Also whoever falsely reported it should face charged for filing a false police report. Also the fact that they refused to offer medical services rather than demanding that he secure the gun in his car indicates a possible hatred of armed people which in this case may include this particular cop.
My police officer friend from my teen years always carried his gun after a former jail inmate said hello to him from behind while standing in line at a restaurant. He almost wet his pants. The police are needed and most are good people.
If a random encounter with someone he once saw in jail is all it takes to make your friend nearly piss his pants, your friend is a puss, that’s something that routinely occurs periodically throughout a career to any officer who actually makes arrests on a regular basis. It’s more likely than not that officers who aren’t armed when off duty are lazy duds.
“Several Mansfield Police Department officers told him to come out slowly with his hands up. More than one of them were pointing their firearm at him, he said.”
“Officers carry to be prepared, and citizens do too,” [Plymouth Police Chief Charles] Doan said. “If you have a concealed carry and get hurt, are they going to say, ‘Get him out of here?’ ”
So, his boys had guns pointed at someone who had done nothing wrong and he says that? That’s how you get “Eric Harris-ed”.
The facility is lucky that he was not having a stroke or aneurysm instead of a torn retina.
Maybe he should tell is doctor how they refused to treat him and instead swatted him and that he might have been shot if he was not a cop. His doctor can than call people involved with medical licensing so the medical license of those at the facility can be revoked.
You’re delusional borg, there will be absolutely zero repercussions, sanctions, or exposure to civil liability for Walk In Urgent Care, they were right, Officer [email protected]$$ was wrong.
All it takes a lawyer aka liar that is willing to distort the truth and they could be sued. Starting treatment than abruptly ending it like they did is considered patient abandonment under the law which means they could potentially lose their license and/or pay out a judgment.
Like I said, you’re delusional.
I agree with you that any cop that would go to that clinic for treatment instead of an emergency room is a dumba$$. He should have drove to the ER even if it was a longer and more difficult drive. If he was uncomfortable with driving safely to the ER he could have had a coworker drive him and secure his weapon when going to ER. He could also have easily had an ambulance take him and left his gun at home.
Do you believe that any cop that seeks medical treatment while armed is a dumb$$?
Anyone going to an ER or Urgent Care while in pain with a serious injury to the eye knows or should know that pain medication and probably some form of anesthesia is likely, so any person, police officers especially, who lack enough common sense to secure their weapon before entering a medical facility expecting treatment with those or similar circumstances is absolutely a [email protected]$$.
I agree with you. If he went there expecting to be drugged out of his mind he should have not been carrying and unlike some of your previous post I believe he should have left the gun home in a safe since to me if he is to dangerous to be carrying in his condition than securing it in his car is almost as dangerous. For that matter the fact that he seemingly was planning to drive home under the influence is an even worse choice.
If he was having severe vision trouble than he had no business driving himself and putting other innocent people at risk. His being a dumba$$ is not only because he carried as I have just pointed out.
Just. FYI almost all eye surgery involves a topical & topical drops for pain.
My previous ill-informed posts were due to the fact that the story made no mention of this cop experience any pain let alone crippling pain requiring heavy medication.
I just realized that the facility may have made a poor choice by allowing the officer to drive his car in the condition he was in. In much the same way someone would not let a person drive drunk this facility should not have allowed him to put others in potential danger due to his condition.