This Is The Most Disgraceful Thing I Have Ever Heard

[sephiroth1084]

Apparently it wasn't totally foolish seeing as how an untrained and unequiped woman did it and is no worse for wear. All of these hypothetical arguments are amusing, but the fact of the matter is that it was perfectly safe to try whether they were successful or not.

Didn't the guy end up dying? By the time she got to him, he was likely too weak to fight, or was dead already.

And the result of something doesn't indicate all possibilities. Had someone gone out sooner, maybe they would have been swept under/away, or would have been used for a buoy by the person drowning. We don't know what would have happened if someone had gone out sooner. What we do know is that these regulations are put in place in order to address as many variables as possible.

Would you be so willing to have one of the untrained, unequipped officers dive in to fish the guy out if there had been a storm raging? Or if the man was clearly armed? If he had committed some violent act before ending up in the water? If that particular body of water were known to sport many dangerous riptides or harmful wildlife (sharks, piranha, venomous jellyfish, poisonous corral)? Or if we knew that the officers at the scene, not being trained or responsible for water rescues, were actually very weak swimmers?

[MedicMoore]

<News reports said a woman ultimately tried to save the drowning man, but was too late, and ended up pulling his body to shore.>

That was quoted from the link posted. From what is says it was too late. She pulled his body to shore. No fight there. The other part of the news article said this.

<Two things prevented authorities from taking action, he said. First, because it was a crime scene, the police department was in charge. "They felt that going into the water initially might not be the best idea because they were unsure if this individual was armed, the stability of the individual," D'Orazi said.

Also, "there was a policy in place that pretty much precluded our people from entering the water." >

Law enforcement said the scene was not safe. If it is not a secured scene then it is not safe and we DO NOT ENTER. Policy also states that they do not enter the water. Had they entered and then drowned with the man where would that leave their families. It is easy enough to say they should have done this or that but until you are on this side of the fence you have not the training or the know how to deem what is safe or not. Water rescue is dangerous at the best of times. You add more dangers (swift water, mud, muck, predators, unruly rescuee, rain, etc) and the greater the chance that someone no matter how skilled is going to get killed.

Fire and EMS is not a field people are jumping to get into anymore. We lose skilled people every day to retirement, injury and death. To add stupidity to the list is not a good thing.

[Ganolyn]

Being lucky once is heroic. Being lucky twice is divine. Third time finds a paramedic zipping the body bag stating it is a shame luck ran out. You are not one to dictate that it was safe because a woman jumped in and pulled a body out. She could have just as easily drowned herself. It was her own foolishness that she dove in. Had the patient been alive to thrash and fight her would you still be saying the same thing. Would you be saying how great it was that she drowned trying to save someone else. One of the rules of swift water rescue is that a drowning person will latch on to and try and climb on top of the first thing they can.....the rescuer. Do you honestly think an untrained person could have dealt with a b-med patient that was one actually trying to kill themselves and would have tried to drown her to succeed at it or would have drowned her because she became the first thing he could have latched on too. Before you pass judgement I suggest you walk a mile in our shoes. I have a family to come home to and to provide for. Foolishness is for those who have no regard for their own lives.

Then why didn't the police stop her? It was a declared crime scene. I am in a profession that has to go to crime scenes occasionally and they never let me pass before determining that I really belong there. I have never once in this thread said the police or firemen should have put their lives at risk saving someone who didn't want to be saved. I have pointed out that the Coast Guard was close and accessable to the responders, yet seemed to not have gotten involved either. I have said that it was wrong that they didn't even try to comunicate with this person to find out for sure and that they stood around there when they should have left and gone about their business if they were going to let him wash up on shore by himself.

FYI I have participated in a water rescue once when a member of our rafting group fell out of the boat and was swept down river. It was scary and I hope I never have to do that again. I will reiterate that I live near where this happened and I know the area well. The danger was minimal to go out to talk to this person. I never said they should swim up and grab him and start a scuffle, but with almost an hour to do something they could have at least gotten close enough to find out his intentions and make a real judgement call. Also, the responders said they wanted to try, but were stopped by policy, not water conditions.

[sephiroth1084]

<News reports said a woman ultimately tried to save the drowning man, but was too late, and ended up pulling his body to shore.>

That was quoted from the link posted. From what is says it was too late. She pulled his body to shore. No fight there. The other part of the news article said this.

<Two things prevented authorities from taking action, he said. First, because it was a crime scene, the police department was in charge. "They felt that going into the water initially might not be the best idea because they were unsure if this individual was armed, the stability of the individual," D'Orazi said.

Also, "there was a policy in place that pretty much precluded our people from entering the water." >

Law enforcement said the scene was not safe. If it is not a secured scene then it is not safe and we DO NOT ENTER. Policy also states that they do not enter the water. Had they entered and then drowned with the man where would that leave their families. It is easy enough to say they should have done this or that but until you are on this side of the fence you have not the training or the know how to deem what is safe or not. Water rescue is dangerous at the best of times. You add more dangers (swift water, mud, muck, predators, unruly rescuee, rain, etc) and the greater the chance that someone no matter how skilled is going to get killed.

Fire and EMS is not a field people are jumping to get into anymore. We lose skilled people every day to retirement, injury and death. To add stupidity to the list is not a good thing.

+1, both for the well thought-out points and as well as a meager token of respect for someone who is out there helping people, sometimes at risk to themselves. Thanks.

[eonfreon]

Then why didn't the police stop her? It was a declared crime scene. I am in a profession that has to go to crime scenes occasionally and they never let me pass before determining that I really belong there. I have never once in this thread said the police or firemen should have put their lives at risk saving someone who didn't want to be saved. I have pointed out that the Coast Guard was close and accessable to the responders, yet seemed to not have gotten involved either. I have said that it was wrong that they didn't even try to comunicate with this person to find out for sure and that they stood around there when they should have left and gone about their business if they were going to let him wash up on shore by himself.

FYI I have participated in a water rescue once when a member of our rafting group fell out of the boat and was swept down river. It was scary and I hope I never have to do that again. I will reiterate that I live near where this happened and I know the area well. The danger was minimal to go out to talk to this person. I never said they should swim up and grab him and start a scuffle, but with almost an hour to do something they could have at least gotten close enough to find out his intentions and make a real judgement call. Also, the responders said they wanted to try, but were stopped by policy, not water conditions.

If the first responders wanted to try and were stopped by policy why are you condemning them as "shameful"? Policy is a very real thing, unfortunately, and to go counter to policy can have real reprecussions and they can be left hanging in the wind if anything had happened. The chief said something to the effect that he wouldn't blame someone if they tried, but he's saying that under intense media scutiny and hysteria. What do you want to bet that when policy was explained to the actual workers before it was told that anyone who didn't follow policy and regulation would be on their own.

If you must find someone to blame then blame the policy makers. Personally, I'm going to wait and get more information before I believe the first "facts" that the media throws out.

You are already tossing out misinformation or at least accounts that contradict some of the stories I've read, especially about the Coast Guard. They tried to respond but couldn't get their boat in because the water was too shallow and their helicopter was needed elsewhere. Unless you were there you don't actually know what happened. I'm sure it's quite possible that things were mishandled. But you are making assumptions and already spreading misinformed rhetoric. Already you've erred when you said the Coast Guard didn't "seem to get involved either". What other possible errors have you or the news reporters made?

[MedicMoore]

Then why didn't the police stop her? It was a declared crime scene. I am in a profession that has to go to crime scenes occasionally and they never let me pass before determining that I really belong there. I have never once in this thread said the police or firemen should have put their lives at risk saving someone who didn't want to be saved. I have pointed out that the Coast Guard was close and accessible to the responders, yet seemed to not have gotten involved either. I have said that it was wrong that they didn't even try to communicate with this person to find out for sure and that they stood around there when they should have left and gone about their business if they were going to let him wash up on shore by himself.

FYI I have participated in a water rescue once when a member of our rafting group fell out of the boat and was swept down river. It was scary and I hope I never have to do that again. I will reiterate that I live near where this happened and I know the area well. The danger was minimal to go out to talk to this person. I never said they should swim up and grab him and start a scuffle, but with almost an hour to do something they could have at least gotten close enough to find out his intentions and make a real judgement call. Also, the responders said they wanted to try, but were stopped by policy, not water conditions.

Why did the police not stop her? Who knows. But it was stupid on her part. Body recover is no reason to risk ones life. As far as the coast guard, cannot give you an explanation there either. Maybe they were contacted. Maybe there was a jurisdiction issue. Maybe they had deployed and were unavailable to respond. Who knows?

Did they communicate with this person? They were out there for an hour as I understand it. I am sure they tried. They deemed it an unsafe situation. We do not know for sure if they tried to talk to him. It is not in the news article.

I have done water rescue in white water myself. I have been the subject of a white water rescue after slipping out of the raft while going down the river. You are right. It is scary. But just because you know the water does not make it safe to rescuer trying to get a person bent on committing suicide or that has put themselves in a situation where they will need to be rescued. That woman could have easily been the other body recovered from the water.

And policy dictates a lot. It sucks but it is life. If the chief tells you not to do something and you disobey it is grounds in most paid fire departments for dismissal. They could have risked there lives to save this man, pulled him from the water, sent him to the ED, been fired for disobeying policy, and watched on the news two weeks later when the man is dead from hanging, self inflicted gunshot, or drowning himself again. It is as I have said horrible that the man died. But I would not have risked my life to go in and get him and left my family with no means of support. Does that make me a bad paramedic. I like to think it makes me one who knows my limitations and that I can do more good saving those I can get to instead of those that I can't.

[MedicMoore]

+1, both for the well thought-out points and as well as a meager token of respect for someone who is out there helping people, sometimes at risk to themselves. Thanks.

Thank you!

[Ganolyn]

If the first responders wanted to try and were stopped by policy why are you condemning them as "shameful"? Policy is a very real thing, unfortunately, and to go counter to policy can have real reprecussions and they can be left hanging in the wind if anything had happened. The chief said something to the effect that he wouldn't blame someone if they tried, but he's saying that under intense media scutiny and hysteria. What do you want to bet that when policy was explained to the actual workers before it was told that anyone who didn't follow policy and regulation would be on their own.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I know that if I had been there I would have said f*** the policy and tried anyway. If they wanted to fire me for it then so be it.

If you must find someone to blame then blame the policy makers.

I do.

You are already tossing out misinformation or at least accounts that contradict some of the stories I've read, especially about the Coast Guard. They tried to respond but couldn't get their boat in because the water was too shallow and their helicopter was needed elsewhere. Unless you were there you don't actually know what happened. I'm sure it's quite possible that things were mishandled. But you are making assumptions and already spreading misinformed rhetoric. Already you've erred when you said the Coast Guard didn't "seem to get involved either". What other possible errors have you or the news reporters made?

I've done work at the Coast Guard base too, they have smaller boats available. They could have placed the cutter as close as was safe, launched a life boat and rowed to him in the time allowed.

[eonfreon]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I know that if I had been there I would have said f*** the policy and tried anyway. If they wanted to fire me for it then so be it.

That's your decision to make. If you don't care about being fired, so be it. Personally I wouldn't risk my life or livelihood to rescue a person who wants to commit suicide. In breaking policy there's also a very real chance that if something were to go wrong and the rescuer were to die that his life insurance policy might be void, leaving his family with nothing.

And here's another report which contradicts some of what you've said, particularly about the Coast Guard's response and about the woman who rescued him:

Man drowns after walking fully clothed into bay off Alameda beach
By Angela Hill
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 05/29/2011 11:00:00 PM PDT
Updated: 05/31/2011 12:15:46 PM PDT

ALAMEDA -- A 57-year-old man drowned Monday afternoon after walking fully clothed into the surf at an Alameda beach and wading in the chilly bay water for nearly an hour, authorities said.

Witnesses said the Alameda man, whose name was not released pending notification of relatives, paced back and forth for several minutes, then walked out into the waves around 11:30 a.m. at a stretch of beach along Shoreline Drive near the Willow Street intersection, raising his arms in the air in chest-deep water for nearly an hour and eventually floating out to about 150 yards from the coast.

Alameda police and fire were called, and subsequently notified the U.S. Coast Guard.

Witnesses said Alameda police and fire crews responded to the scene quickly, but watched from the shore as the man bobbed in the water.

According to a statement released by the police Monday evening, "(the) Alameda Fire Department does not currently have, and is not certified, in land-based water rescues. The city of Alameda primarily relies on the United States Coast Guard for these types of events."

Coast Guard Petty Officer Erik Swanson said, "We launched a small boat from San Francisco and our helicopter, but the boat was unable to get to the man at that location because it was too shallow for the boat to get through. Our helicopter arrived and spotted the man in the water."

Although the boat arrived in just 20 minutes, it took 65 minutes for the chopper to make it on scene because it was out on another mission and had to refuel, police said.

From the helicopter, Coast Guard personnel also saw a woman -- described as an avid swimmer in her late 20s -- swim out when the man was about 50 yards away and pull him to shore. Emergency crews waiting on the beach said the man was unresponsive when he was brought in and was then taken to Alameda Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The man had been in the water for about an hour, Swanson said.

At least two bystanders, including a kite surfer, tried to get to the man. The woman who swam out and pulled the man to shore told witnesses she was a nurse trained in water rescue.

"He was out there very far," said Alameda police Lt. Jill Ottaviano. "Conditions were very cold and choppy. It was a situation where you could see him bobbing up out of the water, then going under. Ultimately, he may have suffered from hypothermia. It was a very unfortunate situation."


So she was a nurse trained in water rescue. Hardly the "untrained person" you portrayed.

Basically, there will be alot of reports that contradict each other as people are quick to point fingers and let media hysteria run amuck.

If you were actually there rather than reading news stories I would put a bit more stock in what you say.

I'll wait a bit before I condemn folks. And remember, rescue workers are supposed to try and save lives, not necessarily risk their own.

[caberonia]

2 words.
Natural Selection.
Enough said.

[MedicMoore]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I know that if I had been there I would have said f*** the policy and tried anyway. If they wanted to fire me for it then so be it.

I've done work at the Coast Guard base too, they have smaller boats available. They could have placed the cutter as close as was safe, launched a life boat and rowed to him in the time allowed.

I know people who have done that and it didn't work out well for them. Losing the job in your chosen field and never being able to work in it again is a hard thing to risk.

As far as the coast guard, once again rowing out to someone is the easy thing. Getting them into the boat without a fight another. Who says they didn't have their small boats out on something else. Who knows.

[Ganolyn]

If you were actually there rather than reading news stories I would put a bit more stock in what you say.

Well, I live here and have swam at that beach and know better, but you are entitled to your opinion. Coast Guard Island is closer than the SF station so it puzzles me why they launched from a base farther away. I'll have to ask someone next time I am there. I'll admit to some hyperbole concerning the woman, but it doesn't change my feelings on the matter.

[sephiroth1084]

Well, I live here and have swam at that beach and know better, but you are entitled to your opinion. Coast Guard Island is closer than the SF station so it puzzles me why they launched from a base farther away. I'll have to ask someone next time I am there. I'll admit to some hyperbole concerning the woman, but it doesn't change my feelings on the matter.

Maybe the CG was busy with other things at the time.
Maybe their smaller boats had been at the other station for some reason.

Try quite a lot of hyberbole, rather than "some."

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't presume to assert that what was done there was somehow reprehensible when you were not present and clearly don't even have all of the media-based information. Similarly, don't you presume to judge the people in this thread as callous because they don't share your venom or desire to throw your own life and career to the winds (or waters) for the elements and your superiors to do with as they please.

As difficult a truth as it may be to swallow, sometimes trying to save a person's life is not the best course of action. Maybe we just have different definitions, but to me a 'hero' is someone who does something above and beyond the norm, not someone who acts stupidly. Oh, we call people heroes for stupid acts of bravery much of the time, but we're often just fooling ourselves, perhaps in an attempt to justify that person's death, or to inspire others to act bravely, if not necessarily as rashly.

For another analogy, go watch any action movie. Invariably, there is some scene where the badguy has someone as a hostage, usually as a human shield, and says that they will release that person if the good guy would just drop their weapon, but we know, as viewers, that the bad guy is going to just kill the good guy and then kill the hostage anyway. Is the good guy a hero for putting his gun down, or an idiot? Is it better to sacrifice two lives than one?

[Ganolyn]

As difficult a truth as it may be to swallow, sometimes trying to save a person's life is not the best course of action. Maybe we just have different definitions, but to me a 'hero' is someone who does something above and beyond the norm, not someone who acts stupidly. Oh, we call people heroes for stupid acts of bravery much of the time, but we're often just fooling ourselves, perhaps in an attempt to justify that person's death, or to inspire others to act bravely, if not necessarily as rashly.

There is a soldier who just received the Medal of Honor for trying to throw an enemy grenade away to save himself and others. He got his hand blown off for his trouble. The president and the entire military consider him a hero, but I guess he's just stupid. Being brave in a dangerous situation is always stupid from a self preservation point of view, but sometimes you just have to do it.

[baddax]

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.

My first thought were how about at least throwing him a rope? You dont have to get to close to get injured, but at least give him the option to "change his mind" by grabbing the rope.

My second thought was the city had the funding for training, the firefighter likely had previously qualified, but due to new budget constraints were no longer given "said qualification".ie paid more for the training and authorization. So it is possible they did nothing to prove a point and become "requalified" ie paid more. Im not stating this as a fact just a possiblilty.

My last thought was that the city did not have the money in the budget, but then mysteriously "found" the money. Where did this money come from? Santa?Easter Bunny? Likely it was always there just some bean counter found a better use for it. I put the majority of the blame on the city who decided that a human life is not worth whatever this X amount of funding is. Also the city will be shorter on cash after they pay for whatever litigation is to fallow. Likely they will have to Raise taxes on us citizens to pay for all the extra millions it will cost + the money they tried to save from the budget. This is a perfect example of much of americas government thinking today imo.

[eonfreon]

Well, I live here and have swam at that beach and know better, but you are entitled to your opinion. Coast Guard Island is closer than the SF station so it puzzles me why they launched from a base farther away. I'll have to ask someone next time I am there. I'll admit to some hyperbole concerning the woman, but it doesn't change my feelings on the matter.

Sure you live there but you weren't there when it happened, were you? You know better than what? Than me, sure, you at least know the area. But I'd get more facts if you're trying to claim you know better than the emergency crews and police officers on the scene.

At least two reports I've read mention bystanders who tried to get to the man. If it was such a simple task, why couldn't they get to him and save him? One was a kite boarder, apparently. Kite boarders are generally in pretty good shape and good swimmers.

I'd want to get a lot more information before I start pointing fingers and calling "shame".

Once you said they should have done more to find out his mental state. That he was only "apparently suicidal" and that they didn't even try to find out more. Obviously, you missed the fact that is own mother called in and said he was suicidal according to at least a couple of reports I read. How do you know what they did to determine his mental state?

Perhaps it all really did unveil as you described, but considering I've already seen a bit of contradicting reports from your version, I want more facts before I make up my mind.

In the end though, I can't see blaming the rescue crews and trying to make them feel even worse than they probably already do.

[baddax]

And policy dictates a lot. It sucks but it is life. If the chief tells you not to do something and you disobey it is grounds in most paid fire departments for dismissal. They could have risked there lives to save this man, pulled him from the water, sent him to the ED, been fired for disobeying policy, and watched on the news two weeks later when the man is dead from hanging, self inflicted gunshot, or drowning himself again. It is as I have said horrible that the man died. But I would not have risked my life to go in and get him and left my family with no means of support. Does that make me a bad paramedic. I like to think it makes me one who knows my limitations and that I can do more good saving those I can get to instead of those that I can't.

Sometimes you have to say Screw policy. I am not saying that this is 100% one of those times. But those firefighters have to live every day remembering the actions they did or did not take. If they can sleep well at night with what they have done then so be it. If they could have done more then i really feal sorry for them because that is a burden i would not want to carry for the rest of my life.

[LordPiglet]

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.

Except, as was pointed out, the Firefighters were not trained for water rescue, they contacted the coast guard to perform the rescue.

The average firefighter most people think of, is trained for urban structural fires and traffic accidents. This includes analying the structing of a building and determining if it's safe. Certain search and rescue procedures. They also carry equipment for those situations, from what I understand they didn't even have proper equipment for a water rescue.

You couldn't take a fire fighter off the streets of new york and send him to fight forest fires in California as the equipment and training is vastly different. Also, have you not noticed that when the tsunami struck, or large earthquakes, they send specialty search and rescue crews there, often from all over the world? One's that are specifically trained to work inside collapsed buildings and rubble?

[caberonia]

Except, as was pointed out, the Firefighters were not trained for water rescue, they contacted the coast guard to perform the rescue.

The average firefighter most people think of, is trained for urban structural fires and traffic accidents. This includes analying the structing of a building and determining if it's safe. Certain search and rescue procedures. They also carry equipment for those situations, from what I understand they didn't even have proper equipment for a water rescue.

You couldn't take a fire fighter off the streets of new york and send him to fight forest fires in California as the equipment and training is vastly different. Also, have you not noticed that when the tsunami struck, or large earthquakes, they send specialty search and rescue crews there, often from all over the world? One's that are specifically trained to work inside collapsed buildings and rubble?

doesn't matter. Guy had a mental defect that was best left out of the gene pool and he offed himself. I'm happy firefighters didn't drag this guy back into the gene pool. Its not like this guy was out swimming and ran into trouble. He made a decision to off himself, so fine let him off himself.

[eonfreon]

doesn't matter. Guy had a mental defect that was best left out of the gene pool and he offed himself. I'm happy firefighters didn't drag this guy back into the gene pool.

Hey now. It's one thing to not want to risk your life to save someone who wants to commit suicide, it's another to just be callous.

Things happen and people change. We don't know what the guy's problems were. And how he may or may not be able to get through it. For all we know he might've been the one who could've discovered the cure to some deadly ailment.

At the very least he was someone's son. He doesn't deserve to just be thought of as a worthless person.