[quote]SAN FRANCISCO — Fire crews and police could only watch after a man waded into San Francisco Bay, stood up to his neck and waited. They wanted to do something, but a policy tied to earlier budget cuts strictly forbade them from trying to save the 50-year-old, officials said.
A witness finally pulled the apparently suicidal man's lifeless body from the 54-degree water.
The San Jose Mercury News reported that the man, later identified as Raymond Zack, spent nearly an hour in the water before he drowned.
According to reports, first responders and about 75 people watched the incident on Monday from a beach in Alameda, a city of about 75,000 people across from San Francisco.
Interim Alameda Fire Chief Mike D'Orazi said that due to 2009 budget cuts his crews did not have the training or cold-water gear to go into the water.
"The incident yesterday was deeply regrettable," he said Tuesday. "But I can also see it from our firefighters' perspective. They're standing there wanting to do something, but they are handcuffed by policy at that point."
But Tuesday night, after hearing from angry residents at a City Council meeting, the city promised to spend up to $40,000 to certify 16 firefighters in land-based water rescues, KGO-TV reported.
"This just strikes me as not just a problem with funding, but a problem with the culture of what's going on in our city, that no one would take the time and help this drowning man," KGO quoted resident Adam Gillitt as saying.
A witness, Perry Smith, said Zack was visible from the shore of Crown Memorial State Beach and was looking at people.
"We expected to see at some point that there would be a concern for him," another witness, Gary Barlow, told KGO.
Witness Sharon Brunetti told the Mercury News that Zack's stepmother stopped her on the beach and asked her to call 911, saying he was threatening to take his own life.
Zack "gradually inched out farther and farther" from the shore but occasionally glanced back over his shoulder at the beach, Brunetti said.
"The next thing he was floating face down," the Mercury News quoted her as saying.
Too shallow for boat
The Coast Guard was called to the scene, but the water was too shallow for its boat. A Coast Guard helicopter arrived more than an hour later because it had been on another call and had to refuel.
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."
There are no lifeguards at the beach, said Isa Polt-Jones, a spokeswoman with the East Bay Regional Park District. Signs at the park advise swimmers to enter the water at their own risk.
The Associated Press and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.[/quote]
:siren:Before anyone blames the firefighters, the first thing every first responder learns is if you aren't trained to do it, DON'T DO IT.:siren:
I don't give a shit if they weren't trained. they should've at least tried to save him.
if I was just some bystander out there I would've at least TRIED to help the guy
Bureaucracy saves the day yet again
First after 6 lines I actually knew what was going on..
Reading the headline thinking "Fire crew, so he burned to death?"
waded into San Francisco "So he walked into a fire department and ignited himself?"
suicidal man's lifeless body from the 54-degree water. "Did he kill himself in hot water?"
hour in the water before he drowned. "Cooked.. Then drowned?"
cold-water gear to go into the water. "Oooooh 54 degrees F :downs:"
Assholes.
Also, avatar.
[QUOTE=wewt!;30182422]Bureaucracy saves the day yet again[/QUOTE]
You could replace half of the bureaucracy with a laptop and some printers, and it would be 50% more efficient.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182376]I don't give a shit if they weren't trained. they should've at least tried to save him.
if I was just some bystander out there I would've at least TRIED to help the guy[/QUOTE]
If he was suicidal he may have been combative if someone did try and help him. If this was someone who wanted to be rescued I'm sure they could have figured something out but because of the high chance of the patient being combative it wasn't worth the risk.
I like how the title of this thread is "Fire Crews Watch Man Die" and OP is telling people not to blame the firefighters.
Next time try something like "Fire Crews Can Only Watch as Man Kill Himself in San Francisco Bay". With the title you have, you're making the Fire Crews look like a bunch of terrible people when it's not their fault.
While his death was regrettable, what is even more regrettable is that the town is gonna drop 40 grand to train the crew to save people from a situation that 99.9% of the people in the area they serve are never going to be in danger of. Call me what you will, but that is a horrid waste of money in a state that is ridiculously poor and bankrupt. Any non-suicidal person in that situation could have been tossed a rope and pulled out, the guy was trying to kill himself, and if he didn't do it in the cold water he could have tossed him self off a building top. Are they gonna spend 40 grand to put suicide-proof railings on the buildings in the city too?
[QUOTE=Acesarge;30182561]If he was suicidal he may have been combative if someone did try and help him. If this was someone who wanted to be rescued I'm sure they could have figured something out but because of the high chance of the patient being combative it wasn't worth the risk.[/QUOTE]
so you're saying it wasn't worth trying to save another person's life?
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182581]so you're saying it wasn't worth trying to save another person's life?[/QUOTE]
Not if it puts even more lives at risk.
[QUOTE=TheBrokenHobo;30182566]I like how the title of this thread is "Fire Crews Watch Man Die" and OP is telling people not to blame the firefighters.
Next time try something like "Fire Crews Can Only Watch as Man Kill Himself in San Francisco Bay". With the title you have, you're making the Fire Crews look like a bunch of terrible people when it's not their fault.[/QUOTE]
ignore the firefighter part for a second. they, as human beings, should've at least TRIED to save him.
if I was a firefighter in that situation then I wouldn't give a shit about what the policy is. a human life was at stake, and that should override any kind of policy.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30182552]You could replace half of the bureaucracy with a laptop and some printers, and it would be 50% more efficient.[/QUOTE]
Bureaucracy is the worst crime against humanity since politics.
Nothing was stopping all those concerned bystanders, who had as much training as the fire/police guys(none), from helping the guy.
I don't see the problem. Somewhere, someone decided to save money on training, well this is what happens. So either spend the money or live with your choices. There is no real blame here, except of course for the suicidal guy, he gets plenty. If you've reached 50 years old, you've made it far enough that you can't blame others for not risking their lives to save your dumbass.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182607]ignore the firefighter part for a second. they, as human beings, should've at least TRIED to save him.
if I was a firefighter in that situation then I wouldn't give a shit about what the policy is. a human life was at stake, and that should override any kind of policy.[/QUOTE]
This:
[QUOTE=Acesarge;30182342]:siren:Before anyone blames the firefighters, the first thing every first responder learns is if you aren't trained to do it, DON'T DO IT.:siren:[/QUOTE]
what good will it do, if you with no experience in cold water rescues jumps in the water and drown yourself?
I even learned that while taking my drivers license:
If I get into an accident where it's dangerous to safe someone, then get the fuck out of there.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182376]I don't give a shit if they weren't trained. they should've at least tried to save him.
if I was just some bystander out there I would've at least TRIED to help the guy[/QUOTE]
So, you would have drowned and/or froze to death saving some guy who wanted to die anyways?
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182607]ignore the firefighter part for a second. they, as human beings, should've at least TRIED to save him.
if I was a firefighter in that situation then I wouldn't give a shit about what the policy is. a human life was at stake, and that should override any kind of policy.[/QUOTE]
Because fuck the fact that he was more than likely to combat them if they went in.
It's not like they just stood there laughing and going "Look at that asshole, someone sign him up for swimming lessons."
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182607]ignore the firefighter part for a second. they, as human beings, should've at least TRIED to save him.
if I was a firefighter in that situation then I wouldn't give a shit about what the policy is. a human life was at stake, and that should override any kind of policy.[/QUOTE]
You are an idiot and naive if you think it is worth gambling on the life of someone who
A) Wants to live and isn't suicidal
B) Has had CONSIDERABLE money invested into their training
C) Will live on to help people who actually want their help
In exchange for the chance that you might save some miserable sop who wants to die and might very possible fight and injure or kill the firefighter attempting to rescue them in the process that might not even save him.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;30182610]Bureaucracy is the worst crime against humanity since politics.[/QUOTE]
Red tape everywhere.
I'm still gonna blame the firefighters because they did nothing to attempt to save the guy, and that's despicable
their job nature involves saving others, and they failed miserably in this case
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182607]ignore the firefighter part for a second. they, as human beings, should've at least TRIED to save him.
if I was a firefighter in that situation then I wouldn't give a shit about what the policy is. a human life was at stake, and that should override any kind of policy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but then somebody would have taken you to court, you would lose your job and be sued 40,000 for causing "XYZ" then after this probably get some more problems from the inflexible bureaucracy.
[QUOTE=StormHammer;30182647]You are an idiot and naive if you think it is worth gambling on the life of someone who
A) Wants to live and isn't suicidal
B) Has had CONSIDERABLE money invested into their training
C) Will live on to help people who actually want their help
In exchange for the chance that you might save some miserable sop who wants to die.[/QUOTE]
yes, they're a "miserable sob" for suffering from mental illness and not thinking rationally. fuck 'em, they don't deserve any help :downs:
you're an asshole
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182652]I'm still gonna blame the firefighters because they did nothing to attempt to save the guy, and that's despicable
their job nature involves saving others, and they failed miserably in this case[/QUOTE]
You are as naive as a child. That is like saying a teller at a bank should throw themselves on an armed gunman because they are hired to protect your money, the situation in the OP is just as risky and just as dangerous. People sign on as firemen, doctors, cops, soldiers, and other risky jobs understanding [B]COMPLETELY[/B] that there are going to be times when they have to accept that they can't save somebody and they have to think of their safety and the safety of their fellows.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30182666]Yeah but then somebody would have taken you to court, you would lose your job and be sued 40,000 for causing "XYZ" then after this probably get some more problems from the inflexible bureaucracy.[/QUOTE]
why the fuck would someone take you to court for rescuing a person? their job is to save people.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182581]so you're saying it wasn't worth trying to save another person's life?[/QUOTE]
No, I am saying that without the proper equipment and training, there was a good chance whoever went in to try to help him would have died to. I would rather one person die then two.
[quote]While his death was regrettable, what is even more regrettable is that the town is gonna drop 40 grand to train the crew to save people from a situation that 99.9% of the people in the area they serve are never going to be in danger of. Call me what you will, but that is a horrid waste of money in a state that is ridiculously poor and bankrupt. Any non-suicidal person in that situation could have been tossed a rope and pulled out, the guy was trying to kill himself, and if he didn't do it in the cold water he could have tossed him self off a building top. Are they gonna spend 40 grand to put suicide-proof railings on the buildings in the city too? [/quote]
Ok, while we're at it, lets just get rid of the fire department completely. It's not like most people's homes catch fire on a regular bases.
[QUOTE=StormHammer;30182696]You are as naive as a child. That is like saying a teller at a bank should throw themselves on an armed gunman because they are hired to protect your money, the situation in the OP is just as risky and just as dangerous.[/QUOTE]
one of the worst analogies I've ever seen
bank tellers aren't hired to protect your money lol
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182709]why the fuck would someone take you to court for rescuing a person? their job is to save people.[/QUOTE]
Because you as a fireman did something you aren't trained to do getting yourself into unnecessary risk and if you do get in danger, more people have to help you because you didn't do as you have been taught.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30182677]yes, they're a "miserable sob" for suffering from mental illness and not thinking rationally. fuck 'em, they don't deserve any help :downs:
you're an asshole[/QUOTE]
No, because mentally unstable people like that man are more than likely to be violent.
It's not like you're going to go in there and he's just going to come out easily, he's going to fight back and you're most likely going to die too.
[QUOTE=Acesarge]
Ok, while we're at it, lets just get rid of the fire department completely. It's not like most people's homes catch fire on a regular bases.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that you intentionally misunderstand what I'm saying.
[QUOTE=Acesarge;30182714]No, I am saying that without the proper equipment and training, there was a good chance whoever went in to try to help him would have died to. I would rather one person die then two.[/QUOTE]
not necessarily
[editline]1st June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheBrokenHobo;30182739]No, because mentally unstable people like that man are more than likely to be violent.[/QUOTE]
most mentally ill people are NOT violent
[QUOTE=TheBrokenHobo;30182739]It's not like you're going to go in there and he's just going to come out easily, he's going to fight back and you're most likely going to die too.[/QUOTE]
baseless claims
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.