man drowns as police and firefighters watch

[upflying]

Lots of uproar over this incident in the Bay Area. Blame and finger pointing galore, no one is taking responsibility.

Had it been me on the beach, I would have commandeered a PWC or surfboard, two life jackets and floated out to talk to this guy. A few minutes of sensitive chat and I bet the man would have voluntarily come back to shore.

Unfortunately I would have been fired or disciplined for insubordination and violation of department policy.

Has this world become so scared of liability that bureaucratic decisions prevent saving a life? Madness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110601/ts_alt_afp/uspolicesuicide

[Polo]

Has this world become so scared of liability that bureaucratic decisions prevent saving a life? Madness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110601/ts_alt_afp/uspolicesuicide

 

I'm afraid the answer is "YES".

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Bob

Man commits suicide as police and firefighters watch.

 

We've probably both been in relatively similar situations although most of mine involved being part of the tactical unit.

 

Those that responded did what they were told, by policy, to do. Their agencies did not give them the tools, training and policy to let them respond and attempt a rescue.

It may be that the response was dictated by the fact that a lone individual sought to place himself solely at harm.

 

We can probably agree that the same situation with innocents at risk would have been handled differently I would hope.

 

In answer to your question, yes.

[James Clark]

So an island city doesn't have the capability to conduct a water rescue?

[upflying]

So an island city doesn't have the capability to conduct a water rescue?

Nope, the city council voted to disband the water rescue unit a few years ago due to budget cuts.

[upflying]

Bob

 

It may be that the response was dictated by the fact that a lone individual sought to place himself solely at harm.

 

Ok, but the fire chief was posed this question by the media, "what if the person in the water was a child"?

 

He replied that department policy would prevent rescue of the kid.

[Joel]

From the story: "The police said budget cuts meant no-one was properly trained for shore-to-water rescue."

 

One of the first things we learn as responders is "Don't become the next victim."

 

If he had a gun to his head, should an untrained person be trying to disarm him or talk him down?

 

This is sad and unfortunate outcome, but it was a successful suicide attempt. Blaming police and fire goes too far.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Had it been me on the beach, I would have commandeered a PWC or surfboard, two life jackets and floated out to talk to this guy. A few minutes of sensitive chat and I bet the man would have voluntarily come back to shore.

Unfortunately I would have been fired or disciplined for insubordination and violation of department policy.

Has this world become so scared of liability that bureaucratic decisions prevent saving a life?

 

It may be that individuals whose first responsibility is to feed and shelter their own family are afraid of losing their jobs at a time when it's damn hard to find another one.

 

In the case of a child who is drowning against his will, the departmental policy may have been identical, but it's possible you'd see a different response from someone on the scene.

[ghaverkamp]

This is sad and unfortunate outcome, but it was a successful suicide attempt. Blaming police and fire goes too far.

 

I think blaming even the "bureaucrats" goes too far.

 

I just don't see the outrage here. Stupid person intentionally does stupid thing and dies, without any interference from the government.

 

Maybe the only thing to question is why the police and firefighters didn't drive away until an issue actually arose.

[Mike]

This is sad and unfortunate outcome, but it was a successful suicide attempt. Blaming police and fire goes too far.

 

I think blaming even the "bureaucrats" goes too far.

 

I just don't see the outrage here. Stupid person intentionally does stupid thing and dies, without any interference from the government.

 

Maybe the only thing to question is why the police and firefighters didn't drive away until an issue actually arose.

 

I guess I look at it a little differently--Being suicidal isn't being "stupid." There are a variety of reasons why people get to this point, and often it's due to factors wholly beyond their control: chemical imbalances, PTSD, the unexpected death of a loved one, or chronic illness come to mind. Traditionally, law enforcement or firefighter/rescue personnel have tried to intervene and prevent suicides. Often they're successful and sometimes (I don't know how often) the suicidal person ultimately resumes a life with some semblance of normalcy.

 

Just a guess, but a fair number of people who "attempt suicide" do so in the effort to get help and/or attention, hoping that they won't actually do themselves in. Given these circumstances--a guy who wades into shallow waters and treds water for some time--it seems that there's at least a fair chance that this guy didn't want to die. Convoluted logic, I know, but it's not at all uncommon.

 

But, I also acknowledge that it's ultimately a voluntary act and that the inability to effect a rescue doesn't transfer moral responsibility to any would-be rescuer.

 

Given the choice as a taxpayer, I'd rather that the emergency responders in my community had the ability to effectively respond to a situation like this. If you look at the apparent underlying lack of capabilities to effect a water rescue, it seems that they're missing a significant component of readiness.

[DaveTheAffable]

In the case of a child who is drowning against his will, the departmental policy may have been identical, but it's possible you'd see a different response from someone on the scene.

 

ABSOLUTELY!

 

This person wanted to die. For the moment, the reason doesn't matter. People in that state of mind will often try to take someone with them.

 

A drowning victim (child or adult) may struggle out of fear, but a suicidal person may FIGHT to complete their goal, and take YOU with them.

[ghaverkamp]

Given the choice as a taxpayer, I'd rather that the emergency responders in my community had the ability to effectively respond to a situation like this. If you look at the apparent underlying lack of capabilities to effect a water rescue, it seems that they're missing a significant component of readiness.

 

Given the choice, surely we'd like first responders to have every conceivable training. I gather Alameda was unable to choose that option, so they funded those they deemed most relevant. Now, given the news of this solitary episode, they're funding for this possibility, which presumably is going to leave something else uncovered.

 

"Stupid" or simply freed by some condition to do something stupid, I'm not sure what additional help would have offered this guy had he been rescued. Probably faster and cheaper to let him kill himself on the first attempt in a way that could be quickly investigated.

[scaudy]

Maybe a law should be passed that you can't enter water without a life jacket on and then have the police enforce the law much like wearing a helmet or seatbelt?

[DiggerJim]

So an island city doesn't have the capability to conduct a water rescue?

Nope, the city council voted to disband the water rescue unit a few years ago due to budget cuts.

That's nonsense. Go talk to a Boy Scout troop and find the guy who teaches the Lifesaving or Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge - water rescues (including what to do if the victim resists or tries to take the rescuer with them) are taught everyday for free by people who are on the water everyday. Budget dollars are not necessary unless there's a union rule prohibiting volunteers providing training. Liability concerns can be statutorily addressed by the city council.

 

This is just an excuse for reprehensible conduct.

[ghaverkamp]

That's nonsense. Go talk to a Boy Scout troop and find the guy who teaches the Lifesaving or Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge - water rescues (including what to do if the victim resists or tries to take the rescuer with them) are taught everyday for free by people who are on the water everyday. Budget dollars are not necessary unless there's a union rule prohibiting volunteers providing training. Liability concerns can be statutorily addressed by the city council.

 

Right. Time is free. Equipment is free. Tracking who has and has not received training is free. And then there's the almighty power of the city council over the state courts. I'll just return to the first sentence.

 

This is just an excuse for reprehensible conduct.

 

The reprehensible conduct was a person publicly killing himself.

[beemerman2k]

My vote is that what happened is exactly what should have happened.

 

If we constantly clamor for the government to save us from ourselves, it only moves society to give them more power and the individual less -- the exact opposite of the model our founders envisioned. Already it has been suggested (tongue in cheek I take it) that we pass a law that requires a life vest to get into the water. Don't laugh, that bill may not be far away. More and more regulation on what we can do as once free individuals; the model is changing from the government serving a free and responsible people to the government parenting a highly regulated and irresponsible people!

 

No, if the person is an adult, the right to die has to be a freedom guaranteed by our nations founders, their documents, and their intent. There are some freedoms that do not belong in the hands of others.

[W. Mazelin]

My vote is that what happened is exactly what should have happened.

 

If we constantly clamor for the government to save us from ourselves, it only moves society to give them more power and the individual less -- the exact opposite of the model our founders envisioned. Already it has been suggested (tongue in cheek I take it) that we pass a law that requires a life vest to get into the water. Don't laugh, that bill may not be far away. More and more regulation on what we can do as once free individuals; the model is changing from the government serving a free and responsible people to the government parenting a highly regulated and irresponsible people!

 

No, if the person is an adult, the right to die has to be a freedom guaranteed by our nations founders, their documents, and their intent. There are some freedoms that do not belong in the hands of others.

 

Hear; hear!

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

No, if the person is an adult, the right to die has to be a freedom guaranteed by our nations founders, their documents, and their intent. There are some freedoms that do not belong in the hands of others.

 

The nation's founders had no such intentions. If they had, the founding documents would never have been ratified by the states.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

 

This is just an excuse for reprehensible conduct.

 

BITE YOUR TONGUE!

 

So, suppose that one of the fire personnel commandeered a float and a life vest and went out to talk to this guy. Then, this guys grabs him, wraps him up and drowns him anyway. Said fire person violated the rules of his department, the State Fire Marshall, and OSHA regulations to do what he did. You think he's gonna get Line of Duty Death Benefits for his wife and kids? What if he only got disabled from a partial drowning? You think anyone is gonna pay disability to him? Doubt it. Does a child pose the same risk? No. But it's tough to say what the official decision would be until they're in it...

 

 

[beemerman2k]

No, if the person is an adult, the right to die has to be a freedom guaranteed by our nations founders, their documents, and their intent. There are some freedoms that do not belong in the hands of others.

 

The nation's founders had no such intentions. If they had, the founding documents would never have been ratified by the states.

 

These documents are totally silent on the question of the right to kill thyself -- as far as I know. Perhaps you can enlighten me. However, given the nature of what they promote, the model of a nation of free, responsible, and self-governing adults whose rights stem from a Creator rather than a government (an acknowledgement that human rights are not a government's to give or to take away, but are given from a "higher power"), it paints the picture as that of the individual being primarily and solely responsible for their own lives. Other agents may provide assistance (legal, medical, social, psychological, mechanical -- if you own a BMW or something :smirk:) but I am the Master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. And what I choose to do with this soul is my choice alone.

[russell_bynum]

 

This is just an excuse for reprehensible conduct.

 

BITE YOUR TONGUE!

 

So, suppose that one of the fire personnel commandeered a float and a life vest and went out to talk to this guy. Then, this guys grabs him, wraps him up and drowns him anyway. Said fire person violated the rules of his department, the State Fire Marshall, and OSHA regulations to do what he did. You think he's gonna get Line of Duty Death Benefits for his wife and kids? What if he only got disabled from a partial drowning? You think anyone is gonna pay disability to him? Doubt it. Does a child pose the same risk? No. But it's tough to say what the official decision would be until they're in it...

 

 

Yup. What happened is what should have happened.

 

I do question the logic of people who live on an island not funding their emergency services on water rescue, but that was their choice.

[ghaverkamp]

These documents are totally silent on the question of the right to kill thyself -- as far as I know. Perhaps you can enlighten me. However, given the nature of what they promote, the model of a nation of free, responsible, and self-governing adults whose rights stem from a Creator rather than a government (an acknowledgement that human rights are not a government's to give or to take away, but are given from a "higher power"), it paints the picture as that of the individual being primarily and solely responsible for their own lives. Other agents may provide assistance (legal, medical, social, psychological, mechanical -- if you own a BMW or something ) but I am the Master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. And what I choose to do with this soul is my choice alone.

 

I don't know whether to be snarky or serious...

 

So, ignoring what I'd consider an overly fantastical view of what the founders laid out -- and let's not forget, most, including those most ardently in favor of individual rights, wouldn't have expected you, in particular, to be a person at all, much less a Master or Captain of anything -- the Constitution made no attempt to restrict encroachment on individual rights by the states themselves. And the Declaration before that largely only sought to leave the individual states to govern themselves.

 

These are state matters we're talking about here. The founders had no intentions or plans to interfere with most matters of the states. That didn't really change until the 14th Amendment post-Reconstruction. And that changed everything.

[ghaverkamp]

I do question the logic of people who live on an island not funding their emergency services on water rescue, but that was their choice.

 

Do islands magically tip and drop people off the sides or something? I mean, we're not talking about Guam. (

.)

[russell_bynum]

I do question the logic of people who live on an island not funding their emergency services on water rescue, but that was their choice.

 

Do islands magically tip and drop people off the sides or something? I mean, we're not talking about Guam. (

.)

 

lol.

 

This IS California, so you never know when the land is going to spit us off.

 

[DaveTheAffable]

Nobody said it requires clear thinking or consistency to be alive.

 

In San Francisco they want to be able to abort a child in the 9th month because it's the woman's body and choice.

 

But 9 minutes after it's out of the womb they want circumcision outlawed because the child was given no choice.

 

This guy made his choice.

 

Humans want the absolute right to make make their own choices, while retaining the right to blame authority when they don't like the personal or societal outcome of their choices.

 

The outcry is, "but it's not 'fair' to ME...."

 

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

 

We may not like it, but it's pretty simple.

 

Affably...

[bakerzdosen]

I'm actually kind of ticked they wasted the money flying a helicopter over there... (Well, that and the obvious fact that the guy made such a spectacle about the whole thing. Why can't he just jump off the GG Bridge like everyone else?)

 

I don't mean to sound callous, but I agree that the guy (regardless of the kinds of problems that he had) made his choice and that other people's lives shouldn't be put in danger to save him from himself. The time to do that was WELL before he stepped off the shore.

 

If you're going to complain that no one helped him, why aren't you outraged that no one helped him a week or a month or a year ago?

 

Now, if a child is out there drowning through no fault of their own (other than being a child), and no one steps up to help, well, THAT I have a problem with.

[tallman]

Founding Fathers woulda been using English Common Law that found suicide to be "self murder" and resulted in forfeiture of goods to the Crown.

 

Should we charge those who did nothing with "assisting"?

Later the forfeiture was eliminated but the act was still abhorrent.

 

History

 

Perhaps the motivation to do this came from one of several Hollywood movies where the protagonist chooses to swim off into the sunset.

I probably would've tried to intervene, but would expect resistance from the man. At some point free will would prevail, either mine or his, or both.

 

 

 

 

[DiggerJim]

I probably would've tried to intervene, but would expect resistance from the man. At some point free will would prevail, either mine or his, or both.

Precisely. Rationalizations aside, we demean our humanity when we willing let a man die for no other reason than because he has chosen to do so. Perhaps those who think there's a difference in response required between an adult and a child might consider that maybe he had the intellect of a child. Would it have made a difference if he were markedly intellectually handicapped (Downs Syndrome maybe)?

 

Many are not able to make life decisions competently yet many here are irritated not that no one helped but that there is an outcry against the inhumanity of standing by watching him die...perhaps even how long it took thus wasting helicopter fuel and possible overtime for public workers charged with watching the events unfold...

 

I wonder if next time I am roused out of bed in the middle of the night for an ambulance call for someone who has had an accident if I should pause and evaluate whether they chose to drive too fast or talk on the phone or drink too much and render service appropriate to their decisions. Perhaps their speeding was actually an attempt to take their own life & who am I to interfere?

 

Reminds me of the immortal words of Charles Dickens: If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.

 

Ayn Rand would be proud of those bystanders. Gandhi less so I would suspect.

 

God bless us everyone indeed.

[Lets_Play_Two]

I wonder if next time I am roused out of bed in the middle of the night for an ambulance call for someone who has had an accident if I should pause and evaluate whether they chose to drive too fast or talk on the phone or drink too much and render service appropriate to their decisions. Perhaps their speeding was actually an attempt to take their own life & who am I to interfere?

 

 

Or perhaps when the son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandson or granddaughter of a member overdoses on oxys or roxys. They chose to take those pills.

[DaveTheAffable]

I wonder if next time I am roused out of bed in the middle of the night for an ambulance call for someone who has had an accident if I should pause and evaluate whether they chose to drive too fast or talk on the phone or drink too much and render service appropriate to their decisions. Perhaps their speeding was actually an attempt to take their own life & who am I to interfere?

 

 

Or perhaps when the son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandson or granddaughter of a member overdoses on oxys or roxys. They chose to take those pills.

 

Whoaa... let's rethink this a little.

 

I had 23 years as a first responder. When I got a call for a "person not breathing" or a traffic accident I:

 

- Drove with lights and siren as trained and authorized under policy

- Co-ordinated my efforts with others over the radio as trained and authorized under policy

- Provided tactical support to firefighters while they rendered aid to gang members with bullet wounds as trained and authorized under policy

- Gave CPR to elderly, drug addicts, accident victims, Attempted suicides, as trained and authorized under policy

- Gave unprotected mouth to mouth CPR to a known IV drug user who attempted suicide because I was trained, and the only one available. Later, I was told by some it was heroic, others said I was stupid.

 

TACTICALLY we delayed or managed our response where we were not trained, or there were safety or policy issues.... but NEVER ONCE did I think, "Hmmm... I wonder if this one 'deserves' to die from their choices."

 

In each case I felt SORROW when a death occured, but not RESPONSIBLE.

 

This person was in the water, unknown if weapons, rescue out of policy, and the list goes on and on. There will be (already has been) policy changes and review for a long time to come.

 

But to suggest or imply that a first responder amongst us would not give care to a forum members family member in VERY different circumstances?

 

I beg you reconsider.

 

Affably,

 

 

[BeniciaRT_GT]

Okay, lets look at this in a more intense/extreme way:

 

If the person walks into a burning building, what should a cop do?

 

If there are shots being fired into the street AT a victim, what should a firefighter do?

 

I do find this sad however, suicide or accident.

[DaveTheAffable]

Okay, lets look at this in a more intense/extreme way:

 

If the person walks into a burning building, what should a cop do?

 

If there are shots being fired into the street AT a victim, what should a firefighter do?

 

I do find this sad however, suicide or accident.

 

There are just too many variables, each situation is different.

 

If the person walks into a burning building, what should a cop do? Should the officer chase after the one going in? Or help the 20 who are trying to get out?

 

In any case, decisions at the time of the incident are made dynamically... then we all sit around with our favorite beverage, the beneft of hindsight, and unlimited amounts of time to think it thru... again. And again. And again.

[DiggerJim]

Okay, lets look at this in a more intense/extreme way:

 

If the person walks into a burning building, what should a cop do?

I believe the wisdom of the board is that the cop lets him die (he chose to walk into the burning building after all - clear case of suicide and attempting to waste municipal resources by making the cop take the time to save him, not to mention costs of cleaning the uniform, possible workers comp for burns or injuries the cop might suffer and of course the potential he'd drag the cop into the flames & they'd both die).

 

If there are shots being fired into the street AT a victim, what should a firefighter do?

Nothing at all. Let the shooter kill whoever he wants because self-preservation trumps any duty to intercede.

 

A few of us might disagree but we appear to be misinformed. Now if either were a motorcyclist, well, then we ought to do something 'cause you gotta help a biker out. It's all situational don'cha know.

 

[DaveTheAffable]

...attempting to waste municipal resources by making the cop take the time to save him, not to mention costs of cleaning the uniform...

and

...Let the shooter kill whoever he wants because self-preservation trumps any duty to intercede...

 

Both of those comments feel a little incendiary, so I wont comment. (pun intended )

 

Feel free to pm me if you want to hear anything I might have to offer as a first responder.

 

Affably,

 

[Quinn]

What I'm reading here is that a suicidal man drowned before the Coast Guard could reach him. And lots of people watched from shore. Some of them were police or fireman that didn't have the training to help.

 

----

 

 

 

 

[upflying]

As I understand it, the shore in Alameda is shallow and first responders could have waded out to this guy. Is training needed to wade in water? The shore is also flat with no wave breakers or undertow.

Some cops are also trained in crisis negotiation. Sometimes first responder common sense decisions trump bureaucracy.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

In some respects, this issue begs the question: is being a hero a part of the job description for public safety personnel? It seems to me that the source of the outrage is that these people acted like city employees and not like social heros.

 

Is it reasonable to expect our police, fire, and EMT personnel to be our social "super-hero's", or should we see them simply as trained professionals who can only provide assistance, and only that when feasible?

 

Of course, I love that movie, "The Incredibles". In it, the super hero's are rejected by society because "Mr Incredible" saved a man's life as he was in the process of commiting suicide.

 

"I saved your life!"

"no, you ruined my death!"

 

The man filed a lawsuit against the "supers", and therefore they had to cease and desist any heroic activity from that point forward :smile:

[marcopolo]

.. Sometimes first responder common sense decisions trump bureaucracy.

 

 

I think that sums it up well for me, based on what I know of the situation (and there could be more we don't know, obviously). Given some of the comments in this thread, some people could rationalize anything. You can always find a hundred reasons not to do something. Sometimes you just need a single reason to act. I would be outraged if the police and fire departments in my city acted in such a manner, and I suspect most others in my city would be as well.

[DaveTheAffable]

I cannot defend the actions of the fire and police because I was not there. My behavior, your behavior, may or may not have been different. To the best of my knowledge, none of us were there.

 

What I can say is that there were some VERY significant issues that led up to the decisions of both.

 

The man was alive for many years. Family, friends, co-workers, medical care givers. What was their contact and conduct with the man like before the final event? Why didn't they do something? Or was this a split second decision on this man's part to die?

 

The first responders have been alive for many years. They have had training, education, contact with other suicidal people, policy reviews. They too have family, friends. What were the influences on them? How did they get to this day, this event? Was this a split second decision that they all came to, "This guys life has no value, let him die."

 

In either case let's try to clear. The influences and people in the life of the victim and the decisions he made led to his death. It's likely the responders had never met him before.

 

In my very limited opinion, having not been there, responders might have intervened in his death, but they did not CAUSE his death. Had no one been there to see him walk into the water, the man would likely still have died.

 

Let each side, the ones who knew the victim for YEARS before that day, and those that were there for a few hours, examine their part.

 

I was not there.

 

Good postings! I'm done with this one.

 

 

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

Like I said earlier; Alameda did not pay to have a water rescue program. Therefor, there is no water rescue program.

 

It is as simple as that and anyone who argues otherwise does not understand the nature of the beast.

[Mike_H]

I read the story and from what I can tell this is one of the most disgusting displays of human behavior I've ever heard of. Was the city policy bad? Not for me to decide ... the city itself already said so and changed it, so yes it was bad. City policy or not, if I were there I would've done everything I could have for this man. What has our society become? Reminds me of that funny video of the people "stuck" on an escalator when it stopped.