Cadets Charles Peel and Daniel Brigman; saving the world
WECT6 News reports about JROTC Cadets Charles Peel and Daniel Brigman who charged into a burning home to rescue James and Shirley Parker from the choking smoke and fire;
WECT TV6-WECT.com:News, weather
“It was a really thick, choking feeling,” said Peel. “You couldn’t hold your breath for too long or you would start coughing.” The young men said they found James and Shirley Parker struggling in the smoke.
“She was coughing and wheezing,” said Peel. The boys physically picked them up, with Peel carrying Shirley and Brigman carrying James, and they rushed outside.
“She was startled…she didn’t know who we were or what we were doing. All she knew was that she was being lifted up,” said Peel. “They were definitely shocked,” added Brigman.
The story doesn’t end there. Without her oxygen tank, the cadets say Shirley was having a hard time breathing, so they went back inside a second time to look for her oxygen tank. The boys say they had to feel around in the dark in order to find it.
While many are calling the boys heroes, they say they were just following their instincts and doing what was necessary.
The two cadets credit their physical training at their JROTC unit which gave them the confidence to enter the burning building twice. They’ve both been nominated for the JROTC Medal of Heroism.
Category: Real Soldiers
Well done, lads. This old soldier salutes you both.
I did a year of JROTC in high school; had to catch a bus around 1300 three days a week to a private school several miles away to do JROTC, as my high school did not have a program. We did not have PT as part of our JROTC curriculum, but I got to properly wear a uniform and learned my military left. It helped immensely when I enlisted and went off to the real Army to do OSUT after I graduated high school. kudos to the young cadets…
“‘Just in the right place at the right time,’ said Peel.”
Well, I suppose. But then there’s that issue of, ‘Here I am, there’s the smoke and fire, what do I do?’ Some would do nothing and be on their way. Others would stand and watch and, maybe, hope no one is inside. Still others might start taking a video of the engulfed home witheir cell phone. Not these future soldiers. In they went! Outsatnding.
And they went back into a burning building to find an oxygen tank. Whether they understood the danger of that act or not, that’s some cojones they’re rocking already.
Bravo Zulu, gents!
Well done, ya two knuckleheads!
Young men, you can be proud of what you’ve done. And we are proud of you, also.
There are still good young men out there. Well done Cadets, well done.
” . .that they were just following their instincts.”
#1 We need more (young) men with such instincts!
#2 That’s not instincts, that’s proper training!
Hopefully they won’t be sued for being Good Samaritans. Using the courts to financially destroy Good Humans is the American Way.
@10 I have not heard of too many people being sued for saving someone from a fire. I can’t imagine a lawyer who would try that.
#11: Ambulance chasing lawyers usually sue good samaritans if they can make a case that the victim rescued by a good samaritan suffered additional injuries or death because the good samaritan did not properly carry or lift the victim and/or did not properly carry out life-saving steps (CPR/resuscitation/tourniquets, etc.). This has had a chilling effect on good samaritans trying to save people in accidents/fires/incidents before the cops/paramedics/firefighters arrive. Some states have “good samaritan” protection laws, while other states do not. This is the ambulance-chasing, litigiously chaotic times we live in, unfortunately…
@12 True. One problem with that arguement here — there is no “surviving” a fire, like you might a car accident or a natural disaster. Fire will kill you. Period. You can’t “hurt” a fire victim, because death is their immediate fate anyway.
All states now have Good Samaritan laws and a few actually REQUIRE a citizen to render aid of some sort. The laws originally were installed to protect medical folks who, like the physician’s assistant LT in the other thread, were sued for their well intentioned efforts. From there, some states branched out to shield all Good Samaritans from suit. Of course, if one applies a tourniquet to a victim’s neck to stop blood flow from a forehead gash, there still may be a problem!
#14 Yes, and those Good Samaritan laws are cancelled out by other laws and by the judgement of lawyers appointed/elected as judges.
“A ruling on March 21, 2007, by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3, essentially restricted California’s version of the Good Samaritan Law – the one we think we’re following when we stop at a car crash – to only acts that can be defined as emergency medical care.” (http://firstaid.about.com/od/medicallegal/a/07_no_good_sam.htm)
“Woman Sued for Rescue Effort in Car Crash” (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1)
All comes down to appropriate emergency medical care. Those 4 words have so many, many definitions. And once defined, the Good Samaritan must be judged as having the proper scope of practice to apply the appropriate emergency medical care.
Being cynical has its place, but not in this thread. And the attitude of fear that prevents us from responding to human need is NEVER to be celebrated. The two young men who are showcased in this thread did the right thing. Like the saying goes, “The right thing is always the right thing to do.”
These young men give me a little more faith in our future generation.
I can retire in November with an easier mind knowing these are some of the people coming after me.
Bravo Zulu, Cadets! Well done indeed!
Hold the phone there, DaveO. What it all comes down to is a state’s statutory language. The issue was that California’s Good Samaritan statute covered only persons who rendered medical aid to another. In Lisa Torti’s case, she pulled her friend from a wreck but did not render “medical aid.” Thus, she was exposed under the law as it then existed. Nevertheless, the suit failed at trial but was later reinstated as a result of an appeal regarding the statututory language. The upshot is that the following year, 2009, the law was amended and now covers medical and non-medical aid.
#13: Sorry, I’m purty cynical these days…I wouldn’t put it past one of these stinkin’ ambulance chasers to have tried to sue a good samaritan who rescued someone from a fire but caused a boo-boo to the victim while doing so…
@20 was your truly.
There are those like facebook Ed Page who support illegal immigration and criticize the two JROTC youth. Shame on them.
Apparently the Parker’s couldn’t wait for Democrats or illegal aliens to get there and rescue them…