This Is The Most Disgraceful Thing I Have Ever Heard

[Ganolyn]

As I live in Alameda County I am very disturbed by this. Why does it always take someone dying to change stupid and thoughtless policies? Not one of these guys said "Screw it, there's a life at stake!" They let him sit there for almost an hour and did nothing. A civilian woman had to try it for them and was too late. Just disgraceful.


Emergency Responders Stand By And Watch Man Drown

Policy Changes After Rescuers Watch Man Drown


"(CNN) -- Alameda, California, has immediately changed its policies after first responders watched a man drown in San Francisco Bay and did nothing to rescue him.

The man was apparently suicidal, CNN affiliate KTVU reported. After he entered the bay off Alameda Beach on Monday and stood in neck-deep water, then treaded water, police and firefighters who were called to the scene did not set foot in the bay.

The events of Memorial Day were "very difficult and very regrettable," Alameda Interim Fire Chief Michael D'Orazi told CNN Wednesday.

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."

That has been changed, he said. "We will be putting into effect a new policy which allows our commander discretion after these circumstances."

The firefighters on the beach "were incredibly frustrated by this whole situation," he said, adding that "they wanted to get in, they wanted to take action."

Local officials said that because of a lack of funding for shore-to-water rescue, firefighters had no one properly trained to go into the water, KTVU reported.

"It's muddy out there. We don't want them sinking. We don't want them in distress," Alameda Interim Police Chief Michael Noonan said in the KTVU report.

One local resident, addressing officials at a meeting about the incident, said, "It just strikes me as unbelievably callous that nobody there with any sort of training could strip off their gear and go and help this person."

In the interview with CNN, D'Orazi said that if firefighters had chosen to enter the water despite the policies, he "wouldn't have an issue with that." But the situation should not recur, because the policies have been changed, he said.

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

[joneb1999]

This situation has occurred in the Uk as well for apparently health and safety reasons and I believe the law/regulations were recently changed since the last tragedy.

[Kovalas]

We need to change the way we eat, we need change the way we live and we need to change the way we treat each other, cause the old way isnt working so its on us to do what we need to do, to survive.... 2pac RIP

[DrunkenBuddha]

I agree that we all wish someone would have done something; however, from the city/county's perspective, I can understand why they forbid them to do anything. Rescuing someone in good conditions is one thing, undertaking a rescue in more adverse conditions heightens the risk, both to rescuer and rescuee.

Here, due to funding, they did not have either the requisite equipment or training to safely attempt a rescue under such circumstances. If the rescuer died attempting to rescue this suicidal person, who likely would have resisted thereby further complicating any rescue - what to do about the rescuer's family? Rescuer, while brave, disobeyed standing orders, in place for valid reasons, to do what he thought right. Is his family entitled to compensation, retirement, benefits, etc? Sure the PR would be a nightmare, but the policies are in place to mitigate damage and injury. They aren't prepared to deal with this fact pattern. They are aware of it. They wish they could change it but don't have the financial means to do so.

In retrospect, I am sure everyone laments the loss of a life due to money, but that is what it boils down to in this instance.

[NaturalHazard]

Its actually more dangerous for that single woman to go in and try and get him, someone bigger than you, and yes maybe not in his right mind can be dangerous esp to a single person of drowning them as well. They should of gone as a group, a group of strong men should of had no trouble of going in there and dragging him out and even restraining him if needed.The only danger would be if he had a weapon or something. They definately should of gone in when that brave woman went in at least, but maybe they where afraid of getting into trouble or something?

[Bodic]

It is not good by any means to watch someone die, and know you could do something about it, but can't.

There are far worse things that have happend and are happening still.

Thanks to Video games ,Youtube, and TV we are as a whole socially less caring of others plight to respond with help rather than watch from afar.

[dingal]

It is not good by any means to watch someone die, and know you could do something about it, but can't.

There are far worse things that have happend and are happening still.

Thanks to Video games ,Youtube, and TV we are as a whole socially less caring of others plight to respond with help rather than watch from afar.

This.

[sephiroth1084]

You know I can't really get behind the idea that we don't have enough safe havens from flooding in the United States ... if you live in another country, then maybe you do not. Additionally, when you say "we" don't have the resources ... do you live in a flood plain? Because I do not ... so I would think that I'm not part of the "we" you are referring to ... unless you deem it society's job to relocate these people. I'm not sure why my resources would go to move people that do? Those locations that flood often are often as well very fertile farm land ... and can be valuable to some, but are typically cheap due to the risk. I don't see why I should subsidize someone elses risky choices.

I do, however, live in tornado alley. But ... statistically they don't have something like the "two, five, ten and fifty year tornado zones" Tornadoes come every year, but they don't typically hit highly populated regions and cause minimal damage and loss of life compared to a flood for some reason ... even though people can usually tell when a flood in coming days ahead of time.

There is no-place to go that is completely safe ... but you can't just make silly choices all through life and expect it to be someone else's burden. The real root of the problem seems to be people's attachment to their homes ... that is the problem. People love stuff too much ... way too much. They can't use their mind, their words, or their imagination to remember and cherish the things that are important. It's just stuff.

No? Remember that rives are important lanes for trafficking goods and services, and, as you say, often surrounded by fertile arable land. We (society) needs those avenues maintained, and needs those crops grown, harvested and dispersed. Sure, living in a home right on the beach on stilts (for example) is a pretty foolish idea, since it is so susceptible to flooding and storms, but we also have to consider where else people might live. Should the entire west coast be moved elsewhere because it is at very high risk of being decimated by an earthquake?

As for people's ability to move away from the area during the more dangerous seasons, the land may be cheaper, but so, too, may their wages be lower. In any case, it's fairly difficult for most individuals and families to maintain two homesteads, especially if the two are so far apart as for one to be outside of an at-risk from X zone.

Whether it is society's place to subsidize these people is a separate issue, but I'll say that there are many people who perform necessary services or tasks who are at risk from one element or another so that we may be more comfortable, and in many cases they do so for a rather meager reward. Should we be benefiting from their sacrifices as highly as we do without returning something to them?

It is not good by any means to watch someone die, and know you could do something about it, but can't.

There are far worse things that have happend and are happening still.

Thanks to Video games ,Youtube, and TV we are as a whole socially less caring of others plight to respond with help rather than watch from afar.

I disagree. Western society on the whole seems to be more concerned with the plight of random individuals than it had been in the past. We have countless programs in place to aid the sick, the hungry, the poor, the homeless...hell, we spend so much time, money and effort on people we've never seen, on people who don't even live within out own countries, that it's astounding!

You might make the argument that the average person is less sensitive to violence, but I'm not sure that we're less inclined to help others than our forefathers were. Certainly, the upper class is more willing to help those less fortunate than those in power had been in the past. This is not universally true, obviously, but I cannot believe that we've taken the downturn that so many claim we have, unless you're comparing society now to, say, society in something like the 50s, and even then, I'm not so sure.

[Lithic]

You don't send untrained people into dangerous situations. Sure it might have saved this one guy (who may very well have been trying to kill himself), but how many other similar situations might result in rescuer casualties?

Anyone whos taken first aid knows that the first step is to make sure the area is safe for you to go help. If you have any doubt, you don't go near the person in trouble.

In the alberta oil patch, we take H2S courses due to a poisonous gas that might occur while drilling. In this course, they tell us about one situation where one guy was in trouble. So his untrained friend ran in to help him. The friend then passed out on top of the first guy. The one person nearby that had both the proper training and equipment went in as per his training, and got the 2nd guy out to safety (training dictates you get the top/last in out first as they have the best chance of survival, unless they are obviously dead or dying). Instead of helping his friend by running in, the 2nd guy actually killed him as the trained personel had to waste time rescuing him.

In this case there could have been a ton of dangers the people there weren't trained for. What if the drowning guy panics and drags the rescuer down? What if theres a strong undertow? Guy has a knife? Sharks, or other dangerous sealife? And thats just off the top of my head. Seems to me the people on site followed a reasonable procedure even if they weren't happy, but the media blew things out of proportion and the policymakers caved to public pressure. Hopefully things turn out for the best in the future.

[MartinusWyllt]

...

Anyone whos taken first aid knows that the first step is to make sure the area is safe for you to go help. If you have any doubt, you don't go near the person in trouble....

That's the first rule for EMTs, too.

If he refused help and was able to answer and refuse help then you can't try to help until they lose consciousness, essentially.

"Local officials said that because of a lack of funding for shore-to-water rescue, firefighters had no one properly trained to go into the water, KTVU reported. "

If you're not properly trained you don't do it. The "crime scene" thing sounds more like an excuse. You can take any action a "reasonable person" would take....going in the water w/o at least flotation to help someone likely to try to hurt you (as panic set in) would not be reasonable.

[NaturalHazard]

That's the first rule for EMTs, too.

If he refused help and was able to answer and refuse help then you can't try to help until they lose consciousness, essentially.

"Local officials said that because of a lack of funding for shore-to-water rescue, firefighters had no one properly trained to go into the water, KTVU reported. "

If you're not properly trained you don't do it. The "crime scene" thing sounds more like an excuse. You can take any action a "reasonable person" would take....going in the water w/o at least flotation to help someone likely to try to hurt you (as panic set in) would not be reasonable.

I think fire fighters should have some training in shore to water rescue esp in a coastal city. I dont know I guess im biased because ive lived most of my life on/in/by the ocean and I was supprised that some people cant even swim when I left home and traveled.

[NaturalHazard]

You don't send untrained people into dangerous situations. Sure it might have saved this one guy (who may very well have been trying to kill himself), but how many other similar situations might result in rescuer casualties?

Anyone whos taken first aid knows that the first step is to make sure the area is safe for you to go help. If you have any doubt, you don't go near the person in trouble.



In this case there could have been a ton of dangers the people there weren't trained for. What if the drowning guy panics and drags the rescuer down? What if theres a strong undertow? Guy has a knife? Sharks, or other dangerous sealife? And thats just off the top of my head. Seems to me the people on site followed a reasonable procedure even if they weren't happy, but the media blew things out of proportion and the policymakers caved to public pressure. Hopefully things turn out for the best in the future.

You are right in a lot of ways we dont have enough information on what happened and what the conditions where like to really say anything.

[DrunkenBuddha]

Was in the navy where we heard the stories of oxygen displacement in storage places and how it manages to kill a couple of would-be rescuers before someone who knew what they were doing came in with an OBA.

[Ganolyn]

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.

Another story I read on this said the water was too shallow for a Coast Guard ship to enter, but what about a small boat or the rescue helicopter? There is a Coast Guard base just a few miles from where this happened. The fact that it took so long for anyone to do something is the most problematic. Whole towns used to band together to fight fires with buckets of water and all these people couldn't have formed a human chain to at least try to talk him out?

[MartinusWyllt]

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....

Not at all. It is the responsibility of the rescuer to keep themselves as safe as possible first. This is not analogous to combat.

[Ganolyn]

Not at all. It is the responsibility of the rescuer to keep themselves as safe as possible first. This is not analogous to combat.

I live about five miles from where this happened so let me set you guys straight about a few things:

1) The water there is very shallow, so shallow in fact you can walk about a half mile into the bay at low tide.

2) About the only shark you will see in the bay is a thresher shark, which don't attack humans. There are no other dangerous animals in that area.

3) The two most dangerous things are the cold water and the mud, which can really suck you in, but only at low tide when you would have no buoyancy.

4) The emergency responders know everything in 1-3 above.

5) An untrained woman with no special gear got to him and pulled him out with no help at all, pulling 240lbs of dead weight.




It was safe to attempt a rescue.

[SilkofDrasnia]

I live about five miles from where this happened so let me set you guys straight about a few things:

1) The water there is very shallow, so shallow in fact you can walk about a half mile into the bay at low tide.

2) About the only shark you will see in the bay is a thresher shark, which don't attack humans. There are no other dangerous animals in that area.

3) The two most dangerous things are the cold water and the mud, which can really suck you in, but only at low tide when you would have no buoyancy.

4) The emergency responders know everything in 1-3 above.

5) An untrained woman with no special gear got to him and pulled him out with no help at all, pulling 240lbs of dead weight.




It was safe to attempt a rescue.

i think this sounds like the case too.

the others have a point aswell tho, about them not being able to help if its unsafe etc etc

that said it seems unfortunate that our society seems to be becoming a society of pencil pushers ( and i dont mean that in a insulting way some are needed ) but we also need to use common sense which nowadays we dont seem to use( or we ignore it) for various reasons.

hmm are we turning into Vogans from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, need to have them papers filled out properly n filed n signed all in triplicate just to protect our arses ?

[awang20]

I live about five miles from where this happened so let me set you guys straight about a few things:

1) The water there is very shallow, so shallow in fact you can walk about a half mile into the bay at low tide.

2) About the only shark you will see in the bay is a thresher shark, which don't attack humans. There are no other dangerous animals in that area.

3) The two most dangerous things are the cold water and the mud, which can really suck you in, but only at low tide when you would have no buoyancy.

4) The emergency responders know everything in 1-3 above.

5) An untrained woman with no special gear got to him and pulled him out with no help at all, pulling 240lbs of dead weight.




It was safe to attempt a rescue.

If the water truly was that shallow, the man wouldn't have been able to drown himself. I draw from the story that the man wasn't standing in the water. Any rescuer could've been pulled under and drowned if the man was able to drown himself.
I don't think it's fair to view number #5 as a valid argument. In retrospect, it could've been safe to attempt a rescue, but even after the fact, that's still speculation. It's also possible that untrained woman with no special gear could have been pulled under by 240lbs of live and resistant weight.

[Ganolyn]

If the water truly was that shallow, the man wouldn't have been able to drown himself. I draw from the story that the man wasn't standing in the water. Any rescuer could've been pulled under and drowned if the man was able to drown himself.
I don't think it's fair to view number #5 as a valid argument. In retrospect, it could've been safe to attempt a rescue, but even after the fact, that's still speculation. It's also possible that untrained woman with no special gear could have been pulled under by 240lbs of live and resistant weight.

The man stood in the water until it got up to his neck. It took almost an hour for him to go under. You can drown in two inches of water. It is possible that the woman could have been pulled under by a resistant 240lbs man and it is also possible that she would have given up the attempt in that event. We'll never know. My disgust is for the ones who didn't even try before deciding it was too dangerous.

[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.