As a lawyer who primarily defends EMS providers, I spend a large portion of my professional life watching paramedics and EMTs have their split-second decisions dissected months — or years — later by people who were not there.
Those decisions, made in chaotic and often dangerous environments, are later evaluated in the calm of conference rooms, courtrooms, news studios, and the uninformed and anonymous trenches of social media. In that environment, hindsight becomes a kind of counterfeit expertise.
Everyone suddenly knows exactly what should have happened.
The tragic death of Dyshan Best in Bridgeport, Connecticut, has understandably generated outrage and difficult questions. Reports indicate that after Best was shot by police, the first arriving ambulance transported a police officer who was reportedly experiencing an anxiety attack, while Best awaited the arrival of another unit.
| MORE: Report: Conn. EMS crew directed to transport officer with ‘anxiety attack’ ahead of wounded suspect
That fact alone has fueled a narrative that EMS somehow “chose the cop over the victim.”
Before anyone rushes to that conclusion, everyone needs to understand how emergency scenes actually work — because the public narrative about these situations is often wildly detached from operational reality.
Who actually “runs the scene”?
One of the most persistent misconceptions about emergency response is that police “run the scene” and therefore control everything that happens there.
They don’t.
Emergency scenes operate under a division of authority.
- Law enforcement is responsible for scene safety and criminal investigation.
- Fire departments manage hazards such as fire suppression, extrication and environmental dangers.
- EMS providers are responsible for patient care.
Those medical decisions are not made under police authority. They are governed by policy, protocol and physician oversight — medical control.
In Connecticut — as in most states — paramedics operate under statewide treatment protocols and the supervision of a licensed medical director. When EMS providers decide which patient to treat first, how to triage multiple patients, or whether someone requires transport, they are exercising medical judgment delegated by physicians.
In other words, triage is medicine — not law enforcement.
What triage actually requires
In a real multi-patient incident, EMS providers rely on triage — the core emergency medicine principle that requires providers to prioritize care based on medical need. Whether this was actually a multi-patient incident is unclear, but we can only evaluate the facts as presented.
Under ordinary circumstances, that means the most critically injured patient gets attention first. In a vacuum, a gunshot victim would almost always take priority over someone experiencing anxiety without physical injury.
But EMS never works in a vacuum.
Providers arrive at scenes that may still be unstable or dangerous. Officers may be actively searching for suspects. Weapons may still be present. Crowds may be gathering. Information is incomplete, contradictory or wrong.
And until law enforcement declares a scene safe, EMS providers may not even be allowed to approach a patient.
This is the part of emergency medicine that rarely makes it into the headlines.
The reality of operational deference
Even though EMS retains authority over patient care, paramedics often happily defer to law enforcement on violent or chaotic scenes. Not because police legally control triage. Because scene safety comes first and is not optional.
When armed officers are still working to secure a location, EMS providers often operate within restrictions placed on them for their own safety. Police may relay information — accurate or not — about injuries, threats or suspects. Those reports shape how EMS providers perceive the urgency and safety of the situation.
This dynamic is sometimes called operational deference.
It is not about surrendering medical authority. It is about navigating in a volatile environment where safety considerations and incomplete information influence decision-making.
What actually matters legally
From a legal perspective, cases like this rarely hinge on the emotional reaction to the outcome. Courts do not ask whether the result was tragic.
They ask a different question:
That legal concept — reasonableness under the circumstances — is the backbone of negligence law.
To establish liability, a plaintiff generally must prove four things:
- Duty: EMS providers had a duty to provide care
- Breach: They violated the applicable standard of care
- Causation: That violation actually caused the harm, and that harm was foreseeable
- Damages: The harm resulted in measurable injury or death
The second element — the alleged breach of the standard of care — is where most EMS lawsuits live or die.
And here’s the critical point:
It is what a reasonably trained EMS provider would do given the same information, condition, and constraints at that moment.
That includes factors like:
- Scene safety restrictions
- Information relayed by law enforcement
- The number of available units
- Whether EMS had the opportunity to assess all patients
- Communications with dispatch or medical control
- Department policies and protocols
In the Bridgeport case, the key questions investigators will ultimately examine include:
- Did the EMS crew have an opportunity to medically assess both individuals?
- What information were they given about Best’s injuries?
- Was the scene secure when they arrived?
- Were they directed by law enforcement to transport the officer immediately?
- Did they believe another ambulance was already enroute to Best?
Those answers — not internet commentary — will determine whether the providers acted within the standard of care.
The hard lesson for EMS providers
For EMS providers reading this, the takeaway is not abstract legal theory. It’s practical.
Violent scenes create legal risk because they blur operational roles. When police are issuing directions and EMS providers are trying to make medical decisions in a rapidly evolving environment, the lines can become unclear.
That is where documentation and communication become your protection.
When possible:
- Document scene restrictions. If police limit access to a patient, write it down.
- Document information you were given. If officers report that a patient is stable or that another unit is responding, record it.
- Document your triage reasoning. Even a brief note explaining why a patient was prioritized can matter enormously later.
- Contact medical control when conflicts arise. A quick physician consult can provide both guidance and legal protection.
These steps do not eliminate risk. But they create a record showing that your decisions were based on the information available at the time — not on negligence or indifference.
Tragedy and accountability
None of this analysis diminishes the tragedy of Dyshan Best’s death. Any loss of life under circumstances like these deserves careful investigation.
But accountability requires accuracy.
Paramedics and EMTs routinely make life-and-death decisions under conditions most people will never experience. They do so with incomplete information, evolving threats, and enormous time pressure.
Judging those decisions requires more than hindsight.
It requires an honest understanding of the environment in which they were made.
And if there is one lesson cases like this should teach EMS providers, it is this:
The job is not to deliver perfect outcomes.
The job is to make reasonable medical decisions in unreasonable situations — and to be able to explain how you made them.
That is not just good medicine.
It is also your best legal defense.
