This Is The Most Disgraceful Thing I Have Ever Heard

[Red_Tlaloc]

I sat a little and tried to think of an inoffensive way to articulate my thoughts on this ... but, really, that would be a waste of time.

The few minutes I sat and thought about how to do that was likely more than this suicidal man thought about the risk he potentially put others into when he decided to kill himself. Someone who does that does not deserve to be saved ... though, it is disappointing that they stayed and watched. They should have packed up and went to help someone who wanted help, not just attention. That's the true tragedy here.

It's so easy for people ... especially in California ... to say that things should have gone this way or that in retrospect. To blame things on the firefighters, or the police, or the city, or the plumber, or the taco guy, etc... is easy when the only risk you put yourself in by saying that is to suffer my inept wrath. That's right, blame the people who actually DO go out there and risk their lives every day for this nonsense ... not, well, yourselves for running a state into the ground through poor voting, senseless litigation, corruption and an overall sense of entitlement. My understanding is that those police and firefighters on the scene were not properly trained due to budget shortfalls ... I'm sure that is Joe Firefighters fault and responsibility making 40k a year ... and you would be right, it is just as much his fault as every other person in CA ... no more.

I kid you not. It is entirely likely that I would have seen this occurance, turned to the police and firefighters and thanked them for doing the work that they do ... for next to nothing, and walked away.

[Hendrik]

Do not read this, if you have not been exposed to suicide victims...you will not understand, and i'm quite calloused to it because of my volunteer work with things like this as a young man...also, know that this is not always the case...some people with the right treatment and amount of caring can be helped....

But..




If people think of themselves as being useless or they hate life so much, that they feel the need to take their own lives and ruin the lives of those who love them, then let them die..... I've been around many people like this throughout my life.... If you want to kill yourself then do it right...its not that hard to do.... Otherwise the hardship and misery of holding your hand and protecting you from yourself for the rest of my life is just ridiculous.


..what about the guy who threw himself in the water to either really kill himself or just get some extreme attention..... He would have put all the lives of everyone who tried to save him at risk...if he didnt care about his life, then why would he care about theirs....

I've risked my life to save people in the past..... Only for one guy to shoot himself in the head weeks later.... At least he saved the taxpayers millions in medical and institutional bills.


Again, I would not have just idly sat by and watched, but I would not expect others to put their lives at risk for someone who did not value his own life or theirs.

You do not know the conditions of the water, the men, the equippment or even if they could even swim...so be careful of who..you judge...and how.

Bolded for emphasis.

Think of it as Evolution in action.

[Taters214]

Lithic, agree with you completely, mate. If they're not trained for it, they shouldn't attempt it. Firefighters sign up for a dangerous job, but that doesn't mean that their lives are meaningless and they certainly shouldn't risk throwing them away to save the life of someone who was trying to kill himself. Now if the situation were different, and the person weren't trying to kill himself and was just "honestly" drowning, then maybe they might have more motivation to do something. But again to the first point, they aren't trained for it, so they shouldn't attempt it. And I like the point about how disobeying an order could lead to no survivors benefits. Insurance companies and those who have to foot these sorts of costs will look for any excuse not to have to pay out dough, and this would be a very good one.

Which leads me to this:

Do not read this, if you have not been exposed to suicide victims...you will not understand, and i'm quite calloused to it because of my volunteer work with things like this as a young man...also, know that this is not always the case...some people with the right treatment and amount of caring can be helped....

But..

If people think of themselves as being useless or they hate life so much, that they feel the need to take their own lives and ruin the lives of those who love them, then let them die..... I've been around many people like this throughout my life.... If you want to kill yourself then do it right...its not that hard to do.... Otherwise the hardship and misery of holding your hand and protecting you from yourself for the rest of my life is just ridiculous.

..what about the guy who threw himself in the water to either really kill himself or just get some extreme attention..... He would have put all the lives of everyone who tried to save him at risk...if he didnt care about his life, then why would he care about theirs....

I've risked my life to save people in the past..... Only for one guy to shoot himself in the head weeks later.... At least he saved the taxpayers millions in medical and institutional bills.

Again, I would not have just idly sat by and watched, but I would not expect others to put their lives at risk for someone who did not value his own life or theirs.

You do not know the conditions of the water, the men, the equippment or even if they could even swim...so be careful of who..you judge...and how.

I agree with many of these points, too. I don't care how heartless it may sound (and if it is, then I'm heartless, too, because I agree) but why would we want to put everything on the line to save the life of someone who simply wants to kill himself anyway? Viewed strictly from a humanistic point of view, these sorts of individuals are dead weight on our species and society; if evolution is truth, and survival of the fittest is law -- as many would have us believe -- then our species gains no benefit from investing untold resources in preserving the lives of those who would rather die, and who by living result in only a drain on resources. Humanistically, life has no value beyond its ability to contribute to the survival of the species, after all.

Now, do I subscribe to these humanistic notions? Of course not. However, if our liberal media is going to promote humanism and evolution, then they must be prepared to carry these ideas and theories to their natural conclusions. And one of these is the inherent lack of any value whatsoever of a human life. So why go into an uproar when another human dies? Because inside we all know that these humanistic ideas are rubbish...

Wow, sorry for the rant, but it seemed applicable... I think.

[sephiroth1084]

To me this is analogous to soldiers refusing to fight because the enemy is shooting at them and they might get killed. Police and firefighters know what they are signing on for and if they can't handle the parameters of the job they need to find a new career.

No, it's not. There's a big difference between risking one's life in the line of duty and risking your life doing something foolish. The regulations are in place for a reason.

Basic lifeguard training: if someone is drowning, you approach if you can and make sure the person drowning isn't a threat to you. As it stands, someone completely in their right mind and not wishing to drown is likely to seize you and try to escape the water by using you as a buoy, which puts your life at risk. If you die, at best one life was traded for another, and at worst (and more likely) you just replaced one drowning victim with two.

In a swimming pool where there's a bottom not far below, clear water and likely more help just a moment a way, this isn't a major risk, which is why pool lifeguards typically don't require accessories, but in a lake, river or ocean, where help may be minutes or more away, where visibility can be low (or nonexistent), and where you must contend not only with the person drowning but also with the currents of the body of water, the rescuer must consider his or her own safety before leaping in or approaching the drowning person, part of which entails making sure you have the proper equipment on hand. You ever watch Baywatch? Those red flotation devices aren't there just for show, nor the cords they're attached to. They're there so that you can safely buoy someone who is drowning while keeping your distance and ensuring that they don't drag you under.


Now, in this specific instance, I don't understand the outrage. From what I've read, the person was trying to drown, right? I don't know about you, but I have no desire to see our emergency responders throwing their lives away recklessly in order to save someone who, for one reason or another, took active steps to kill themselves. Maybe the person is unwell, and needs medical treatment, maybe they just really wish to no longer live. The police, firefighters and paramedics who serve and protect us can go only so far to protect us from ourselves.

[game5551]

Few things:
1st) I second what Lithic said about untrained rescuers, you do not make the situation worse. If you are a paid employee, and not trained, you do not do it, simple as that. If one of the firefighters went in, I would expect disciplinary action. I am a lifeguard, a panicking person in the water is a dangerous thing, not to be taken lightly. Couple that with waves, tides, and deep sucking mud and it is a serious life threatening situation.

2) You can never know how a person will react in that situation. Will the man in the water be compliant? Will he panic? Will he try to take you down as he tries to climb over you? Will he hang on to you, wrapping you up so that you cant use your arms or legs to stay up? Just because the woman could get him to shore does not mean that the man never would have done one of the more dangerous things, and it also says she was too late, which either means he was dead and could not risk her life or that he was greatly weakened.

3) You cannot trust standing up. You can slip, there can be a drop off, or the tide can come in (which is what appears to happen since it says he started treading water)

4) Firefighters, EMTs, and police officers are not trained to do water rescues. On top of that they do not carry flotation devices with them.

Now the second side:
1) This took ONE hour! I dont think it is shameful that the firefighters did not go in, but it is shameful that in one hour the coast guard (they do train for this) could not arrive in a major coastal city. Doesn't Angel Island which I think is about 15 min away have a station?

Edit: Doh, sephiroth1084 posted much more elegantly why a person needs training and equpment while I was typing...

[TheKaige]

Do not read this, if you have not been exposed to suicide victims...you will not understand, and i'm quite calloused to it because of my volunteer work with things like this as a young man...also, know that this is not always the case...some people with the right treatment and amount of caring can be helped....

But..




If people think of themselves as being useless or they hate life so much, that they feel the need to take their own lives and ruin the lives of those who love them, then let them die..... I've been around many people like this throughout my life.... If you want to kill yourself then do it right...its not that hard to do.... Otherwise the hardship and misery of holding your hand and protecting you from yourself for the rest of my life is just ridiculous.


..what about the guy who threw himself in the water to either really kill himself or just get some extreme attention..... He would have put all the lives of everyone who tried to save him at risk...if he didnt care about his life, then why would he care about theirs....

I've risked my life to save people in the past..... Only for one guy to shoot himself in the head weeks later.... At least he saved the taxpayers millions in medical and institutional bills.


Again, I would not have just idly sat by and watched, but I would not expect others to put their lives at risk for someone who did not value his own life or theirs.

You do not know the conditions of the water, the men, the equippment or even if they could even swim...so be careful of who..you judge...and how.

This.

Someone has as much the right to take their life as they have the right to live theirs.

And we shouldn't expect someone else, a bystander, to risk their life to take that right away.

[sephiroth1084]

Now the second side:
1) This took ONE hour! I dont think it is shameful that the firefighters did not go in, but it is shameful that in one hour the coast guard (they do train for this) could not arrive in a major coastal city. Doesn't Angel Island which I think is about 15 min away have a station?

This I certainly agree with, though it's possible other issues (emergencies) were occupying their time. Still, an hour...?

Edit: Doh, sephiroth1084 posted much more elegantly why a person needs training and equpment while I was typing...

Not more elegantly, I think, just differently.

[Ganolyn]

Now the second side:
1) This took ONE hour! I dont think it is shameful that the firefighters did not go in, but it is shameful that in one hour the coast guard (they do train for this) could not arrive in a major coastal city. Doesn't Angel Island which I think is about 15 min away have a station?

No, Angel Island is not where the base is. It is much closer, on the same side of the bay just down the same freeway where this happened. Everyone seems to think this man was suicidal, which may have been the case, but he might also have been disoriented or in need of medication that he needed or many other reasons.

My problem is not that they followed proceedures that tied their hands, it is that they made a determination of the events with no real basis for them. If they had a least tried and he told them to get lost or even got out a bullhorn and asked if he was in distress and he indicated no, I would be fine with it.

Based on some of the attitudes presented here it seems many people would be fine with emergency responders deciding that tornado and hurricane victims should be left to die because they were stupid enough to live in an area that is known for violent storms and that people die from them on a yearly basis. Flood victims deserve no compassion either because the places they live have flooded in the past and will again. Or maybe the people in Japan should have been left to suffer because earthquakes and tsunamis are common there. All these people must be idiots right?

One thing you heartless types are failing to consider is that there will most likely be a lawsuit because of this that will cost the county and taxpayers a lot more than a measly $40,000 even if they win. Most likely a settlement will be paid out so that everyone can forget the whole thing.

[Talon_Moonshadow]

A great many would-be-rescuers have died in many situations becuase they went into a dangerous situation without taking the correct cautions or without the right equipment.

If the water could kill one guy, it could also kill anyone who tried to save him.


Also, because of how people are so quick to blame someone who makes a mistake, many supervisors are reluctant to take responsibility in dangerous situations, and would rather take no action than to order an action that led to more casualties.

[Red_Tlaloc]

. Flood victims deserve no compassion either because the places they live have flooded in the past and will again ... All these people must be idiots right?.

Sorry, I understand your point ... but my understanding (from the sensationalist media) is that he was clearly and evidently suicidal.

And yes ... many flood victims deserve little compassion. How can you live in what is termed a "two-year" or "five-year" or "ten-year" flood plain and be shocked when it .... FLOODS??? This would not typically apply to flash flood victims and/or visitors ... they get a pass. I'm so saddened that I will forever have the vision of "Flood victim guy" sitting on a roof shooting off rounds a rescue helicopters. That guy really brought on some bad PR for all flood victims.

[fuzzy1guy]

On one hand. I have no problem with this. Darwin approves!


On the other hand. Not cool for our 'public servants' to do things like that regardless of what the rules say. Everyone likes to play by the rules until it screws them over. And then its a big deal. We should be working to prevent it from ever happening to anyone.



On the third hand. Yeah i got 3. This thread will get locked here quick anyway.

[Ganolyn]

Sorry, I understand your point ... but my understanding (from the sensationalist media) is that he was clearly and evidently suicidal.

No, he was "apparently suicidal". No one bothered to ask.

[sephiroth1084]

Based on some of the attitudes presented here it seems many people would be fine with emergency responders deciding that tornado and hurricane victims should be left to die because they were stupid enough to live in an area that is known for violent storms and that people die from them on a yearly basis. Flood victims deserve no compassion either because the places they live have flooded in the past and will again. Or maybe the people in Japan should have been left to suffer because earthquakes and tsunamis are common there. All these people must be idiots right?

Again, big difference. Emergency responders in a tornado zone are likely trained to deal with that situation, or, more likely, do all they can while the thing approaches, seek shelter until it is gone, then head out and do what they can for whomever is left. It would be fairly idiotic for emergency personnel to be driving around trying to help people with a major tornado beating down right on top of them.

You're not setting up a direct comparison. In the case of your flood, tornado or tsunami victims, the emergency crews likely worked to prevent the event from occurring, tried to help people any way they could before the storm or whatever did its damage, and then went out to rescue anyone they could once the main danger had passed.

In the case of the drowning victim, had one of the untrained, unequipped emergency responders rushed out to save him, it would have been like an emergency crew driving around during the tornado or standing in the street directing traffic while flood waters bore down on them. No one does any good for others dead. What song would you be singing if someone had rushed out to help the guy and the person drowning had pulled down his would be rescuer with him, killing them both, or if an undercurrent had pulled them both underwater? Would you have called his rescuer a hero?

The real question is whether the first responders had any idea that it would take so long for better-equipped help to arrive.

One thing you heartless types are failing to consider is that there will most likely be a lawsuit because of this that will cost the county and taxpayers a lot more than a measly $40,000 even if they win. Most likely a settlement will be paid out so that everyone can forget the whole thing.

A lawsuit? **** lawsuits! People sue everyone they can over absolutely everything, without ever taking responsibility for themselves or considering the full weight of what occurred and why. I'll bet that the people who sue in this situation would have been outraged had the person drowning not been someone they knew and had pulled down their rescuer with them. Or maybe they wouldn't have cared if it were someone unknown to them and the emergency service crew had stood their ground waiting for those people who are supposed to take on these tasks, because it would make sense to them then.

Fear of being sued should not be what drives people to act or not, and really, there is no safe ground there. If someone is in distress on the side of the road and an off-duty EMT helps them, but, due to lack of proper equipment or assistance, the person dies, the EMT probably gets sued. Hell, even if they do everything right they probably get sued, just because people want someone to blame. If that same EMT were to stand by and watch the person die without helping, because they knew they could not render the proper care, and might do more harm than good, they'd get sued.

[sephiroth1084]

And yes ... many flood victims deserve little compassion. How can you live in what is termed a "two-year" or "five-year" or "ten-year" flood plain and be shocked when it .... FLOODS??? This would not typically apply to flash flood victims and/or visitors ... they get a pass. I'm so saddened that I will forever have the vision of "Flood victim guy" sitting on a roof shooting off rounds a rescue helicopters. That guy really brought on some bad PR for all flood victims.

Part of me wants to agree, but part of me also thinks that there are many more people living in this world than there are havens safe from all such disasters...or certainly that we don't have the resources to relocate everyone who is at risk.

Ideally, we'd have all those people living in the tornado belt during the tornado off-season to farm or do...whatever it is of value that they're doing there, and then would have them relocate during the tornado season to somewhere safer, but the world doesn't really work like that. Too many people to move at too great an expense. And even if we could accommodate them all, I'm sure many would choose to stay behind. People get attached to their homes, their land, despite the dangers.

I live in NY, where we're relatively free from such concerns, but we still get hurricanes that kill people, the occasional weak-ass tornado that may kill people (or at least ruin their homes), floods, heatwaves, coldsnaps, blizzards... Most are relatively tame, compared to the impact these things have in the places that are known for them, but they claim victims all the same. Where can we go?

[Ganolyn]

What song would you be singing if someone had rushed out to help the guy and the person drowning had pulled down his would be rescuer with him, killing them both, or if an undercurrent had pulled them both underwater? Would you have called his rescuer a hero?

Yes. I would call anyone a hero that risked their life to save another, regardless of outcome. The 911 responders knew they might die running into those towers and they did anyway. They are still heroes in my book.

A lawsuit? **** lawsuits! People sue everyone they can over absolutely everything, without ever taking responsibility for themselves or considering the full weight of what occurred and why. I'll bet that the people who sue in this situation would have been outraged had the person drowning not been someone they knew and had pulled down their rescuer with them. Or maybe they wouldn't have cared if it were someone unknown to them and the emergency service crew had stood their ground waiting for those people who are supposed to take on these tasks, because it would make sense to them then.

Fear of being sued should not be what drives people to act or not, and really, there is no safe ground there. If someone is in distress on the side of the road and an off-duty EMT helps them, but, due to lack of proper equipment or assistance, the person dies, the EMT probably gets sued. Hell, even if they do everything right they probably get sued, just because people want someone to blame. If that same EMT were to stand by and watch the person die without helping, because they knew they could not render the proper care, and might do more harm than good, they'd get sued.

You cannot be sued for honestly trying to help someone. It is called the Good Samaritan Law. I'm betting you can be sued for standing around and not doing your job when you could have possibly helped though. My point is that if they had spent the $40,000 to train and equip them originally (the money seems to have magically appeared since they started taking heat for this) they might have saved a life and a lot more money that they will spend "fixing" this.

[fuzzy1guy]

You cannot be sued for trying to honestly help someone.

YES! YOU CAN!
it happens. and it's a major failing of the people and the system. we let it get that way.


Your life can be destroyed and ruined forever. Just because you tried to help someone.

[eonfreon]

No, he was "apparently suicidal". No one bothered to ask.

Well, considering it was "apparently" his mother who called and said he was suicidal, I would think that is probably the case.

I think we need to give more time for facts to come through before the hysteria sets in.

I don't blame the first responders. They didn't have the equipment or training. They are not required to risk their lives to save the life of someone who wishes to die.

I would blame the city officials who decided to cut the training program.

But really, before I'd worry about whom is to the blame I'd wait until the media hysteria dies down.

[ColdNapalm]

You cannot be sued for honestly trying to help someone. It is called the Good Samaritan Law.

True in 49 of the 50 states. The one state where this is false is California...where this happened. We have actually had 2 cases where somebody was sued for helping. The state apellate court up held it, the 9th circuit refused the hear appeals so as of now, in california, the good samaritan law no longer applies so no, you can't help others here. You can call 911, have then show up and do nothing. This is also the state where the courst said that the police has no obligation to protect you if you call them for help. So yeah this state is F*ed up.

[Ganolyn]

YES! YOU CAN!
it happens. and it's a major failing of the people and the system. we let it get that way.


Your life can be destroyed and ruined forever. Just because you tried to help someone.

Only if your serious misconduct as a professional emergency responder is indicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

Good Samaritan laws are laws or acts protecting those who choose to serve and tend to others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. In Canada, a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment. Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as do their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.

The principles contained in good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia. In many countries that use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.

Good Samaritan laws take their name from a parable told by Jesus commonly referred to as the Parable of the Good Samaritan which is contained in Luke 10:25-37. It recounts the aid given by one traveler (from the area known as Samaria) to another traveler of a different religious and ethnic background who had been beaten and robbed by bandits.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. However, in the United States, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

[sephiroth1084]

Yes. I would call anyone a hero that risked their life to save another, regardless of outcome. The 911 responders knew they might die running into those towers and they did anyway. They are still heroes in my book.

The rescuers who went into the twin towers were acting in their trained capacity: guiding people from a burning building, etc... No one, as far as I'm aware, had an idea that the buildings would collapse as they did. Their actions were not foolish. And again, very different from the scenario in the OP where dangers the people were clearly not equipped to deal with were evidently present.

Try equating this scenario to something of similar scale and circumstances, rather than adding yet another set of clinging hands to the specters of September 11th and the recent tsunami that struck Japan.

You cannot be sued for honestly trying to help someone. It is called the Good Samaritan Law. I'm betting you can be sued for standing around and not doing your job when you could have possibly helped though. My point is that if they had spent the $40,000 to train and equip them originally (the money seems to have magically appeared since they started taking heat for this) they might have saved a life and a lot more money that they will spend "fixing" this.

You are incorrect. The Good Samaritan Laws (they differ from one place to the next) are not a blanket protection for anyone attempting to save another person.

You seemed to have skipped some important bits:

From the wiki page on the GSL: Good Samaritan provisions are not universal in application. The legal principle of imminent peril may also apply.[9] In the absence of imminent peril, the actions of a rescuer may be perceived by the courts to be reckless and not worthy of protection. To illustrate, a motor vehicle collision occurs, but there is no fire, no immediate life threat from injuries and no danger of a second collision. If a 'good Samaritan' elects to 'rescue' the victim from the wreckage, causing paralysis or some other injury, a court may rule that good Samaritan laws do not apply because the victim was not in imminent peril and hold the actions of the rescuer as 'reckless' and unnecessary.

These laws also typically exclude emergency service personnel, which is why we hear of so many instances of EMTs or police officers standing by while someone dies: they are not protected by this law, and the risk of getting sued, or ( for those more high-minded individuals) of doing more harm than good keeps many people from acting. The ubiquitous response of filing a lawsuit against someone whenever anything goes wrong is one of the most contemptible practices of modern formal society.