guns are for girlies ...oh wait

"She was very clear thinking and took care of the problem."

Oh she took care of the problem alright:eek:

I bet she's one of those big nurses that could snap your back with their bare hands...:|
 
I'm surprised she didn't incapacitate him instead of killing him. I mean you really only go mad and completely strangle someone (as in making sure they don't resume normal breathing through becomming unconscious) if you don't have good crisis management skills. It seems a might contradictory then that she was completely in 'crisis mode' when strangling the attacker, but fine after she'd done it. She didn't even try to rescussitate him, like a nurse would an injured person.

Over the top, obviously she went too far, which isn't really a good sign, and the fact she didn't try and bring the guy back to even a breathable state through emergency medical treatment on the spot, shows that... I don't know.
 
Over the top, obviously she went too far, which isn't really a good sign, and the fact she didn't try and bring the guy back to even a breathable state through emergency medical treatment on the spot, shows that... I don't know.

That's true, people in the medical profession sign some kind of legal/medical contract stating that they have to attempt resuscitation for at least 30 minutes on someone who has any chance of living.
A nurse doesn't have the authority to say that they're beyond resuscitation until after those 30 minutes of trying.

So I read anyway.
 
I'm surprised she didn't incapacitate him instead of killing him. I mean you really only go mad and completely strangle someone (as in making sure they don't resume normal breathing through becomming unconscious) if you don't have good crisis management skills. It seems a might contradictory then that she was completely in 'crisis mode' when strangling the attacker, but fine after she'd done it. She didn't even try to rescussitate him, like a nurse would an injured person.

Over the top, obviously she went too far, which isn't really a good sign, and the fact she didn't try and bring the guy back to even a breathable state through emergency medical treatment on the spot, shows that... I don't know.
And then what? She brings him back to life, and you think he's going to say thanks and leave? He'd kill her.
 
And then what? She brings him back to life, and you think he's going to say thanks and leave? He'd kill her.
Reminds me of the BF2 bug where you could kill 'enemies' (friendlies with the wrong skin) and then revive them :p
 
And then what? She brings him back to life, and you think he's going to say thanks and leave? He'd kill her.

He wouldn't be in any position to do anything after just being resusitated.


edit: After reading the article, only she would of been in a situation where she could judge the force necessary to subdue her assailant to a managable level. She most probably panicked, lacked any sort of skills when it comes to self defence and just improvised, meaning that she had no control over her emotions at that time, panicked and strangled the guy past the point of passing out and just carried on until he was dead. But then, that would be an assumption on my part from reading through the limited info in the news report.

What i would of done, would of been to secure the assailant and than started cpr, but then i'm trained in hand to hand combat so my first aim would be to snap the arm and only used strangulation as a last resort and then only do it until they passed out before securing them. If i kill them, then something has gone horribly wrong at my end i.e. emotions overtook me and i lost control or where the guy had little regard for his own safety and only worried about hurting me or my loved ones.
 
He wouldn't be in any position to do anything after just being resusitated.
You can't actually resusitate someone if the've stopped breathing. Best you can do is keep going until a defiblerator comes. Of course she had to use a phone.
 
lol i would like that woman lookin after my in hospital... lol
 
If his throat was crushed, then I don't think there was much help for him.
 
Being a nurse, she should surely know how to disable someone in a non-lethal way. She sounds mad.

kirovman said:
A nurse doesn't have the authority to say that they're beyond resuscitation until after those 30 minutes of trying.
That's true (not sure whether it's 30 minutes or longer or just 'until a doctor says 'they're dead, enough already') but in all cases except total removal of the head from the body you are legally obligated to keep on trying to save someone if you work in a proffession which entails the saving of lives (which you've been trained for) and you are on duty. Pool lifeguards are subject to this rule too.

I'm not sure that law exists in America, but if that happened over here she'd be breaking the law by not trying to revive him.

Although she might be able to escape that if she cut off his head. A loophole!

Solaris said:
You can't actually resusitate someone if the've stopped breathing. Best you can do is keep going until a defiblerator comes. Of course she had to use a phone.
Actually, you can, but it's a very small chance. You're correct in that the point is mainly to be a placeholder for complex machinery and medical know-how.
 
You can't actually resusitate someone if the've stopped breathing. Best you can do is keep going until a defiblerator comes. Of course she had to use a phone.

You can't, there goes my first aid training :x. You don't need a defibulator to restart a heart or to start a person breathing again, it is only the best option of a number of options, cpr and mouth to mouth can work.
 
Being a nurse, she should surely know how to disable someone in a non-lethal way. She sounds mad.

That's true (not sure whether it's 30 minutes or longer or just 'until a doctor says 'they're dead, enough already') but in all cases except total removal of the head from the body you are legally obligated to keep on trying to save someone if you work in a proffession which entails the saving of lives (which you've been trained for) and you are on duty. Pool lifeguards are subject to this rule too.

I'm not sure that law exists in America, but if that happened over here she'd be breaking the law by not trying to revive him.

Although she might be able to escape that if she cut off his head. A loophole!

Actually, you can, but it's a very small chance. You're correct in that the point is mainly to be a placeholder for complex machinery and medical know-how.

From what i was told, you have to carry on resusitation attempts until:

a) the patient shows any sign of recovery
b) a qualified medical person i.e. doctor, relieves you
c) a qualified medical person i.e. doctr, tells you to stop
d) you are relieved by someone who knows first aid as well
or
e) you can not physically do anything more i.e. you have exhausted yourself to a point of being physically unable to carry on, not just being a little sore and exhausted.
 
You can't, there goes my first aid training :x. You don't need a defibulator to restart a heart or to start a person breathing again, it is only the best option of a number of options, cpr and mouth to mouth can work.
They can and do save lives.
But nothing like in the moives.
 
Solaris: It can, but it's unlikely.

As I understand it, it is entirely possible that you could rush over someone who is not breathing, do your thang for a minute or two and they'd wake up. It's just that...that's probably not going to happen.
Razor said:
From what i was told, you have to carry on resusitation attempts until:

a) the patient shows any sign of recovery
b) a qualified medical person i.e. doctor, relieves you
c) a qualified medical person i.e. doctr, tells you to stop
d) you are relieved by someone who knows first aid as well
or
e) you can not physically do anything more i.e. you have exhausted yourself to a point of being physically unable to carry on, not just being a little sore and exhausted.
Details, details. :p

Yeah, you're right. A is like, obvious, B and C are a doctor saying 'stop' which I mentioned, D makes no real difference because rescusitation (SP?) is not actually stopping, and E I kinda missed out. That's because I never get exhausted! Never!

Still, I remember it being made very clear to us that even if their head was hanging from their shoulders by a few strings of flesh, you're not allowed to stop unless those aforementioned thresh-holds have been reached. D:
 
a) the patient shows any sign of recovery

That's the point that caught me out.

Still, I remember it being made very clear to us that even if their head was hanging from their shoulders by a few strings of flesh, you're not allowed to stop unless those aforementioned thresh-holds have been reached. D:

What if they look like a bit of dried fruit, like Tutankhamen? I'm sure Lord Canarvon skipped his medical duties D:
 
And then what? She brings him back to life, and you think he's going to say thanks and leave? He'd kill her.
If I was strangled, then brought back to life, I don't think I'd be in a state to do anything for a good while. Long enough to be tied up with something suitable.
 
Rofl, I wish I had a kick ass crisis mode like that!
 
what has the thread title got to do with the thread?
 
Instead of just leaving her home to use the neighbors phone, she kills a man.

Yeah we need more bitches like this running around being nurses.
 
I don't really blame her, the guy had a hammer.

She probobly was scared and there was a struggle, and she ended up strangling him to death. Then she went and called the cops.

Its really easy to say, "Oh, she should have revived him" or something like that, but... you probobly would have done the same thing in that position, there really isn't much time for finesse.
 
what has this got to do with guns? the title is stupid.
 
your mama


"if a woman doesnt need to protect herself with a gun when a stranger breaks into her house...."

it's an in joke for some of our pro-gun members
 
Wow. that nurse reminds me of the grandmother nurse from Everwood... strangling a guy with her bare hands in a struggle.
 
loser gun geeks? fun fun fun. who the hell is 'pro-guns' anyway? they kill people, that's their only point. less guns, less dead people.
 
51 year old nurse fighting with 59 year old guy with a hammer. That would have been fun to watch. Glad she didn't get hurt.

EDIT: That should have been that wouldn't have been pretty, I forget my the tone of my voice doesn't travel over the internet sometimes.
 
If someone breaks into your house, you should have every right to beat/kill the sh** out of them. He was armed with a hammer, what do you think he was going to do with that? Put some nails in the wall and hang some pictures he took!? He would have used it to crush her skull if he could have. She had every right to strangle that guy.

Under state statute, a person can use a reasonable degree of deadly force when defending themselves against an intruder or someone who is burglarizing their home.

WTF Resonable degree!?! The guy was tresspassing, and was going to steal everything valuable he could make off with. I think you should be allowed to use ANY degree of deadly force.

GTFO!!! *BOOM* HEADSHOT!
 
yes like flame throwers and tactical nuclear war heads
 
Hmm. That story's pretty cool, but it'd be even more awesome if she used a Mateba.
 
Back
Top