Fire crews watch man die

aerial

A Whole Different Breed in SAN FRANCISCO

'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man die
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

mickeyrat

Not sure I understand your point in posting your "different breed" comment.


There is specific training and equipment involved in these types of rescues or any for that matter. Due to budget cuts to public safety(the real crime here) , do you think they should have risked their own lives trying to save this suicidal man, not having been trained or equiped to do so??

Cree Nations

mickeyrat wrote:

Not sure I understand your point in posting your "different breed" comment.


There is specific training and equipment involved in these types of rescues or any for that matter. Due to budget cuts to public safety(the real crime here) , do you think they should have risked their own lives trying to save this suicidal man, not having been trained or equiped to do so??

it depends....to play devils advocate....isnt that what firemen are supposed to do?

mickeyrat

Cree Nations wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

Not sure I understand your point in posting your "different breed" comment.


There is specific training and equipment involved in these types of rescues or any for that matter. Due to budget cuts to public safety(the real crime here) , do you think they should have risked their own lives trying to save this suicidal man, not having been trained or equiped to do so??

it depends....to play devils advocate....isnt that what firemen are trained to do?

fixed.


Think theres a reason recruits go through training to begin with? I was in the navy. WE went through shipboard firefighting and because I was aviation side of things , we also were trained in aircraft firefighting.

My brother is Fire Chief of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. Those guys train all the time. Without the training and equipment for that type of rescue they themselves could have been killed.

This isnt about their desire to help. But one of $$$$$$.

qontheboard

aerial wrote:

A Whole Different Breed in SAN FRANCISCO

'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man die
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

Please do explain "A Whole Different Breed in SAN FRANCISCO".

Cree Nations

mickeyrat wrote:

fixed.


Think theres a reason recruits go through training to begin with? I was in the navy. WE went through shipboard firefighting and because I was aviation side of things , we also were trained in aircraft firefighting.

My brother is Fire Chief of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. Those guys train all the time. Without the training and equipment for that type of rescue they themselves could have been killed.

This isnt about their desire to help. But one of $$$$$$.

I see where your coming from but again to play devils advocate....what if this were a child drowning...they likely would have jumped in and saved him or her but because this was a suicidal man...they let him go -the he wants to die anyway mentality-.
I agree this is about money....too bad though.

mickeyrat

Cree Nations wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

fixed.


Think theres a reason recruits go through training to begin with? I was in the navy. WE went through shipboard firefighting and because I was aviation side of things , we also were trained in aircraft firefighting.

My brother is Fire Chief of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. Those guys train all the time. Without the training and equipment for that type of rescue they themselves could have been killed.

This isnt about their desire to help. But one of $$$$$$.

I see where your coming from but again to play devils advocate....what if this were a child drowning...they likely would have jumped in and saved him or her but because this was a suicidal man...they let him go -the he wants to die anyway mentality-.
I agree this is about money....too bad though.

What do certified lifegaurds do with a swimmer in distress, after they've gotten to them? If the rescuee cant or wont calm down to allow the rescue to happen , they'll let go to save themselves. Similar in theory here.

If you've had ZERO training in ocean rescue and no equipment to even try it, would YOU go in after someone?

unlost dogs

So here's the thing, who's idea was it to suspend the water rescue training, which presumably means they no longer had access to the required equipment (dry suits, floatation, rescue harnesses, watercraft) or the necessary training?

I'm married to a firefighter who would raise a hell of a stink if something like that was suddenly eliminated.

Did taxpayers in the town know that they were without that resource?

As someone who lives in a coastal community, who watched the efforts to recover the body of a father and son who drowned one beautiful summer afternoon here, I can tell you that the first person in the water was the first cop to arrive on scene. And the firefighters were right behind him. The cop pretty much dropped his gun and ran in, thinking the dad was still alive.

How could anybody stand there and watch this guy? Unless they somehow didn't realize what was going on?

My little town is fortunate to have a robust water rescue system, between the fire department, police, harbormaster, and the local boating clubs all of whom are quick to respond when someone is in distress. What a shame the same resources weren't in place for this guy.

Cosmo

There were 75 people that stood by and watched. Not all 75 were cops and firefighters.
It has nothing to do with cops and firefighters or city politics or budgets... it has everything to do with the lack of compassion to give a shit and DO something... instead of sitting around and complaining that 'Someone should do something'.

mickeyrat

this link is a year old but it states a pretty relavant fact.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23878342/detail.html



this a seasonal time of more dangerous riptides.

Again I ask, having THAT info, are you still willing that someone should have done something? Care for them to die a "heroes" death?

snow_board_rider

Sometimes you have to just be a human being and help a person. All who stood there will have to answer for their inaction. Karma can be a bitch.

BinauralJam

unlost dogs wrote:

So here's the thing, who's idea was it to suspend the water rescue training, which presumably means they no longer had access to the required equipment (dry suits, floatation, rescue harnesses, watercraft) or the necessary training?

I'm married to a firefighter who would raise a hell of a stink if something like that was suddenly eliminated.

Did taxpayers in the town know that they were without that resource?

As someone who lives in a coastal community, who watched the efforts to recover the body of a father and son who drowned one beautiful summer afternoon here, I can tell you that the first person in the water was the first cop to arrive on scene. And the firefighters were right behind him. The cop pretty much dropped his gun and ran in, thinking the dad was still alive.

How could anybody stand there and watch this guy? Unless they somehow didn't realize what was going on?

My little town is fortunate to have a robust water rescue system, between the fire department, police, harbormaster, and the local boating clubs all of whom are quick to respond when someone is in distress. What a shame the same resources weren't in place for this guy.

Jeanwah

Cosmo wrote:

There were 75 people that stood by and watched. Not all 75 were cops and firefighters.
It has nothing to do with cops and firefighters or city politics or budgets... it has everything to do with the lack of compassion to give a shit and DO something... instead of sitting around and complaining that 'Someone should do something'.

Right. What a fine line there is between "obeying the law" and "doing the right thing". Only the courageous would have done the right thing here, when the majority are too concerned with either "someone else stepping up", or "we aren't allowed to go in the water, by law". What a sad example of humanity.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

all this hero bullshit. the "would they save a kid" question. Of course they would. A kid, depending on age and/or size, wouldn't be as much of a danger to the rescuer.

maybe this is selfish, but I have no problem admitting that I'd rather my kids still have a Dad than be dragged to a watery grave trying to help someone who wanted to die anyway. my kids don't need a dead hero. they need a living dad. (it's different if it's your job and you are equipped and trained to save people)

and even if they didn't want to die, and it was an accident, if the risk outweighs the benefit, who's going to take care of my kids?

Blockhead

Cosmo wrote:

There were 75 people that stood by and watched. Not all 75 were cops and firefighters.
It has nothing to do with cops and firefighters or city politics or budgets... it has everything to do with the lack of compassion to give a shit and DO something... instead of sitting around and complaining that 'Someone should do something'.

Its called the bystander effect (social psychological) and its pretty common...
everyone is waiting for someone else and or interpreting others reactions.

Blockhead

Dave Eh wrote:

all this hero bullshit. the "would they save a kid" question. Of course they would. A kid, depending on age and/or size, wouldn't be as much of a danger to the rescuer.

maybe this is selfish, but I have no problem admitting that I'd rather my kids still have a Dad than be dragged to a watery grave trying to help someone who wanted to die anyway. my kids don't need a dead hero. they need a living dad. (it's different if it's your job and you are equipped and trained to save people)

and even if they didn't want to die, and it was an accident, if the risk outweighs the benefit, who's going to take care of my kids?

After having children of my own, this is exacly how I feel.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

not only that, but trying to save a drowing person that isn't unconscious is pretty much a death sentence for both.

markin ball

"As for police, they didn't have the gear for the cold water and couldn't risk being pulled under.
"Certainly this was tragic, but police officers are tasked with ensuring public safety, including the safety of personnel who are sent to try to resolve these kinds of situations," Alameda police Lt. Sean Lynch said.
"He was engaged in a deliberate act of taking his own life," Lynch told the Mercury News. "We did not know whether he was violent, whether drugs were involved. It's not a situation of a typical rescue."

Taken from the article.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

You have to read more then the headline, sometimes. Or more than the subject line of the email forward your ignorant associate sent you.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

markin ball wrote:

"As for police, they didn't have the gear for the cold water and couldn't risk being pulled under.
"Certainly this was tragic, but police officers are tasked with ensuring public safety, including the safety of personnel who are sent to try to resolve these kinds of situations," Alameda police Lt. Sean Lynch said.
"He was engaged in a deliberate act of taking his own life," Lynch told the Mercury News. "We did not know whether he was violent, whether drugs were involved. It's not a situation of a typical rescue."

Taken from the article.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

You have to read more then the headline, sometimes. Or more than the subject line of the email forward your ignorant associate sent you.

exactly.

blackredyellow

Not really sure what should have been done in that situation. Without being there (and basing this on just reading the article), I'm guessing they were yelling at him to come back... It wasn't like the guy fell off a bridge or something, he "gradually inched out farther and farther" and he "spent nearly an hour in the water before he drowned."

Even if someone did walk out there after him and he didn't want to come back to shore, what are you supposed to do? club him over the head and drag him back? If someone is standing on a ledge of a building threatening to jump, do you go out there with him and grab him without being harnessed? That's the danger that someone would put themselves into if they went in after him.

Jason P

They would have needed a lasso or something to do it safely. If I was a bystander, I probably would not have risked my life considering police and firefighters were on the scene. I'm not a strong swimmer and there is no way I'm dragging a 300 lb man back to shore especially if he puts up a struggle. The S.F. bay is nasty cold and dangerous.

The weird thing is that although the Coast Guard ship couldn't get close due to shallow water, I know those boats are equipment with Zodiac rafts that could have gotten close.

gimmesometruth27

Dave Eh wrote:

not only that, but trying to save a drowing person that isn't unconscious is pretty much a death sentence for both.

yes most people who are drowning would want to be saved. this guy was deliberately trying to kill himself. i would bet that a struggle would have ensued and we would have had multiple fatalities, including firefighters and emts...

cincybearcat

All rescuers are trained to first evaluate scene safety and their own safety. That is all that was done. They did the right thing.

While it sounds heartless, you would much rather watch one person die then watch a person and their attempted rescuer die.

whygohome

mickeyrat wrote:

Cree Nations wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

Not sure I understand your point in posting your "different breed" comment.


There is specific training and equipment involved in these types of rescues or any for that matter. Due to budget cuts to public safety(the real crime here) , do you think they should have risked their own lives trying to save this suicidal man, not having been trained or equiped to do so??

it depends....to play devils advocate....isnt that what firemen are trained to do?

fixed.


Think theres a reason recruits go through training to begin with? I was in the navy. WE went through shipboard firefighting and because I was aviation side of things , we also were trained in aircraft firefighting.

My brother is Fire Chief of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. Those guys train all the time. Without the training and equipment for that type of rescue they themselves could have been killed.

This isnt about their desire to help. But one of $$$$$$.

And there's your answer, folks. Discussion over.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Dave Eh wrote:

not only that, but trying to save a drowing person that isn't unconscious is pretty much a death sentence for both.

yes most people who are drowning would want to be saved. this guy was deliberately trying to kill himself. i would bet that a struggle would have ensued and we would have had multiple fatalities, including firefighters and emts...

it's usually a struggle with people who want to be saved as well. there are countless examples of the drowner panicking, ends up going down and taking the rescuer with them.

Cosmo

I've thought about this... It all depends on the situation. I don't know, because I wasn't there.
What was the tide like? Was it a trecherous riptide or a mild ebb?
What was the terrain like? Was it rocky or sanded? Were the people watching from a cliff overhead or from across a smooth asphalt parking lot.
What was the victim like? Was he acting crazy? Was he big or little?
...
I don't know what I would have done... Am i really willing to risk my life going into choppy, riptides on a rocky beach to wrestle a big, fat crazy stranger that might drag me to sea with him?
I'm guessing... there's a good chance that I would have been the 76th bystander that day.