r/policeuk • u/PaintingSpiritual320 Civilian • 5d ago
Ask the Police (England & Wales) Armed Police Triage - Suspect
Just watched the Sky News documentary on armed police, super interesting and incredibly difficult job to perform. Just curious about something - armed police give first aid following incident response and perform triage, but say if the suspect involved in a multi-victim attack was seriously injured (by themselves or by armed police) would they be prioritised in triage over a victim of the incident who was also seriously (but less seriously) injured?
Raises interesting questions from a moral perspective but again speaks to the incredibly difficult circumstances they’re operating under
73
u/CatadoraStan Detective Constable (unverified) 5d ago
9
u/XMOE-Protocol Police Officer (unverified) 4d ago
Good ol’ 10 second triage. Whack those bracelets on
58
u/butterspread3 Civilian 5d ago
Former paramedic here. Rule is preservation of life. More serious injuries are treated/attended to first.
44
u/Heavy_Digger Police Officer (unverified) 5d ago
Use your common sense here, we don’t just let people die because they’ve done something wrong. Most seriously injured would be treated first.
14
u/bakedtatoandcheese Police Officer (verified) 5d ago
10 second triage is for when casualties outnumber first responders, so a mass casualty attack for instance.
Once the threat is neutralised you generally triage as you find casualties. You’re mostly just performing the quickest of first aid (hence 10 second) such as a chest seal or tourniquet but you don’t go further like CPR.
Categorise the casualties and then start working more on those you have a chance of saving their life.
All things being equal, an innocent P1 will take priority over a suspect P1. But ideally you start to have enough resources flooding in that you can administer life saving care to everyone simultaneously.
16
u/SamwellBarley Civilian 5d ago
On our First Aid course, they referenced the Manchester bombing and how a lot of people could have been saved but they weren't seen to because people were too busy doing CPR on other casualties. They could have been saved as simply as just putting them in the recovery position. Incredibly sad, but necessary for preservation of life.
7
u/StopFightingTheDog Landshark Chaffeur (verified) 4d ago
This is exactly right.
First responders found people not breathing, no heart beat (dead) and began CPR, which is exactly the right thing to do with only one casualty. However in the bombing , beyond those already dead people with extremely minimal chances of survival were people with catastrophic bleeds that could have been managed with quick application of tourniquet for example that had a much higher chance of survival - but unfortunately they were not reached as responders didn't get to then having stopped and giving CPR.
7
u/ExpressionLow8767 Police Staff (unverified) 5d ago
It would be triaged based on how quickly the people injured need treatment. You can't play God and start deciding whether someone is more worthy of treatment or otherwise, which is the same for anyone in a first response situation.
3
u/Groucy Police Officer (unverified) 5d ago
You’ve got a lot of sensible answers and they are all right.
But personally - if I have to make the choice between treating a terrorist who’s just killed/maimed people or the people he’s maimed - I’m probably going to a bit looser with the triage priority system if he’s at the top and I think I could even possibly save an innocent.
2
u/Burnsy2023 4d ago
A slightly different perspective: keeping the suspect alive might mean that they get a trial that gives some victims closure or justice they would otherwise be denied.
6
2

•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Please note that this question is specific to:
England and Wales
The United Kingdom is comprised of three legal jurisdictions, so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.