I'd like to make sure I understand your post regarding the tourniquet. As I've understood from the article, he believed he had a choice between applying a tourniquet, which guarantees the loss of the limb, and not applying the tourniquet but potentially bleeding to death.
Perhaps it all depends on how bad the bleeding was but it seems as though he made the correct decision? Am I at least understanding correctly that the decision saved his leg?
It seems as though the Leroy Petry story is significantly different in that the limb (or the hand) was already lost. In other words, Petry was not faced with the same decision and it was obvious that he needed to apply the tourniquet.
I'm very interested in your thoughts and want to make sure I understand why you said "he exposed himself to the risk of bleeding to death...for no benefit".
