Again, won't save a drowning man.

Manic Moran

It comes up from time to time, this latest event was all of about a mile from me here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/t/handcuffed-policy-fire-crews-watch-man-die/

Fire crews and police could only watch after a man waded into San Francisco Bay, stood up to his neck and waited. They wanted to do something, but a policy tied to earlier budget cuts strictly forbade them from trying to save the 50-year-old, officials said.

Cliff's Notes version:

Man walks to the beach. Stops a passer-by, and says "Do me a favour. Call 911, I'm about to go kill myself." Then strides off into the water. Right off the bat, some people might say this is more of a call for help and attention than an honest suicide attempt. Plenty of more efficient methods around here to kill yourself. We have some very picturesque bridges, for example.

Police show up. Realise he's in the water, and are under instructions not to effect land/water rescues (Even if previously trained in water rescue). Ditto fire service.

Meantime, the chap's just standing there in the water.

They call a Coast Guard station, there's a major one around the corner. Coast guard send a boat out. 25-footer, like this.


The boat can't get to him because the water was too shallow. (Boat draws 1m of water). Call for a helicopter. The helicopter is on another call and will bee the better part of two hours.

An hour later, the individual succumbs (The water here isn't warm), and is observed floating face-down. A bystander gets fed up, walks out to the body and drags it back onto the shore.

City council now taking a fair bit of flak. Exactly why the Coast Guardsman couldn't climb out of his boat is beyond me. I understand not being willing to dive into a raging river or into rough seas, but a policy so strict that emergency services will sit there and watch for an hour as a guy is standing in waves a few inches tall has a serious problem to it. There's a theory that emergency services on an island (and it's not a big island) probably should be allowed to enter water.

NTM

sdanseo

Forgive me for saying it, but I'm not surprised that was in the US. It would never, ever happen here, and I mean that -because if I could swim I'd have been the first one in. Everything is so by-the-book over yonder. It's actually sickening.

starviewadams

I could never see that situation occurring here,even hearing story's of dangerous water rescues that my cousin and has done in the DFB without coastguard/helicopter assistance etc.

I don't know the in's and out's of procedure's in the state's,but how a few teams of capable trained rescuer's could justify standing-by and watching a another human being drown,protocol or no protocol,is beyond me.There's not really much anybody could say to defend such actions in my opinion.

Hooch

sdonn wrote: »

Forgive me for saying it, but I'm not surprised that was in the US. It would never, ever happen here, and I mean that -because if I could swim I'd have been the first one in. Everything is so by-the-book over yonder. It's actually sickening.

Dont be so sure....i'll wait for a fire service head to pop in an answer it but county guidelines in more than a few services do not allow fire service personnel into water above their knee.......even with a lifejacket. AND.....they will suspend those who go that extra mile.

searescue

Something similar happened in the UK before.

There was an RTC on the motorway and the car left the edge of the motorway which was about 15 feet down but had 2 feet of water. Police/Fire/Ambo called as per normal.

Firemen got a ladder and told one of their men to go down the ladder. Then a Fire Officer arrived and told the fireman to get off the ladder as they weren't insured for this type of incident. So a Coast Guard unit from 40 miles away was tasked but took an hour to come. In the meantime the father of the driver had become aware of the accident and landed on the scene where he saw the ES personnel standing by helplessly (not permitted to do what they wanted to do).

When the Coast Guard arrived the man was dead. The post mortem concluded that he died from drowning - not from the crash impact.

As a result the father was looking to sue the council and fire officer - haven't heard anymore since.

Would I be right in saying that our paramedics are forbidden from going anywhere near water?

Theory being that when the paramedics enters water they becomes useless, as when the man is eventually rescued; there'll be no paramedics to treat him?


I think our last big drowning incident was a while ago in Dublin? Someone went in to the Liffey? Garda jumped in after him, if I recall. Both were taken to hospital; the Garda with minor injuries, but the other man died (in the hospital, didn't drown).

tommy.obr

I have witnesed this happen on two separate occasions with our local fire brigade. Apparently they are only allowed up to their knees in water, despite the fact that they are equipped with full dry suits and personal flotation devices. They've had to stand back as they could do notting. I'm sure there has been times where they have ignored these stupid rules but equally i know there have been times where members of the public have had to step in and deal with a situation and in the process put themselves at risk.

Healt and Safety regulations are written by idiots and its slowly ruining this country...

angelfire9

In Ennis (where i live) there have been lots of rescues of people from the river by the fire service over the years
http://www.clareherald.com/features/clare-video/2569-river-fergus-rescue-drama-as-man-tries-to-evade-gardai.html

There is talk of setting up a water rescue unit in the town
Ennis fire service must do a dozen or so rescues from the river every year (that is a guestimate), the town being essentially an island having a river with a strong current going through the town centre and meandering around the town boundaries

Its a pity Ireland doesn't have anything like this:
http://channelnine.ninemsn.com.au/rescuespecialops/

After all, Dublin, Limerick, Galway and Cork are all river based cities!

Leo Demidov

angelfire9 wrote: »

After all, Dublin, Limerick, Galway and Cork are all river based cities!

And Waterford is a _______ based _______? :p

Civil Defence have recently begun training in Water Awareness with Rescue3/Fire service. Many retained services still do not have this training done, but it permits rescue from the river bank using throw lines/floating hoses etc. Probably not too effective where the vic is intent on suicide.

Afaik, the major cities have trained water rescue technicians who may enter the water to effect a rescue. very highly skilled, but risky nonetheless for the rescuer.

Tabnabs

wexfjord wrote: »

Afaik, the major cities have trained water rescue technicians who may enter the water to effect a rescue. very highly skilled, but risky nonetheless for the rescuer.

Swiftwater Rescue Technician

This is a one week course carried out on the Liffey river which teaches firefighters about the dynamics of water, hazards, rope techniques and of course methods of rescue from bank operations to actually getting into the river/ water source in a safe manner and rescuing the casualty. Equipment now used in Dublin includes, drysuits, lifejackets, inflatable walkways, inflatable hose, throwable floating lines, ropework equipment, boat, boat carrier and launcher in HQ.

At this stage (Dec 2008) over 300 firefighters are qualified Swiftwater Rescue Technicians with over all firefighters trained in water awareness.
source

And here's their boat
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52271937@N04/4984212141/

The_Snapper

Manic Moran wrote: »

Police show up. Realise he's in the water, and are under instructions not to effect land/water rescues (Even if previously trained in water rescue). Ditto fire service.

Suicidal male. I wouldn't have gone in either.

He indicated he was going to take his life, and did. Who's to know he didn't have a weapon on him at the time. I agree with their course of action in this case.

dvpower

The_Snapper wrote: »

Suicidal male. I wouldn't have gone in either.

He indicated he was going to take his life, and did. Who's to know he didn't have a weapon on him at the time. I agree with their course of action in this case.

Yep. Could be dangerous. Same when the police are called to a burglary or a violent attack. They should just watch 'till the danger has passed:rolleyes:

The_Snapper

dvpower wrote: »

Same when the police are called to a burglary or a violent attack. They should just watch 'till the danger has passed:rolleyes:

Well, not entirely true. Assess the situation and then act when/if safe to do so. It's called self preservation.

Manic Moran

The_Snapper wrote: »

Suicidal male. I wouldn't have gone in either.

He indicated he was going to take his life, and did. Who's to know he didn't have a weapon on him at the time. I agree with their course of action in this case.

His actions were not those of a man committed to suicide. Unless you plan suicide-by-cop, usually you don't call the police beforehand to let them stop you. This was a last-ditch call for help, which he did not receive.

Note that the position of the administration was that no rescue was effected due to the water policy, not out of concern for the man trying to kill one of the responders.

NTM

The_Snapper

Manic Moran wrote: »

His actions were not those of a man committed to suicide. Unless you plan suicide-by-cop, usually you don't call the police beforehand to let them stop you. This was a last-ditch call for help, which he did not receive.

Note that the position of the administration was that no rescue was effected due to the water policy, not out of concern for the man trying to kill one of the responders.

NTM

I'm not suggesting suicide by cop at all. Suicidal persons are dangerous to themselves and others. I hear what you are saying though and I still wouldn't have gone in under the circumstances, policy in place or not for the reasons outlined in my last post re weapons. The incident was unique. He didn't receive help for a good reason tragic and all, he died and by his own doing.

Taken from the link."He was engaged in a deliberate act of taking his own life," Lynch told the Mercury News. "We did not know whether he was violent, whether drugs were involved. It's not a situation of a typical rescue."

MagicSean

dvpower wrote: »

Yep. Could be dangerous. Same when the police are called to a burglary or a violent attack. They should just watch 'till the danger has passed:rolleyes:

Police are trained to deal with that. They are not trained to rescue a man from a river, especially a man who does not want to be rescued.

Manic Moran

They are not trained to rescue a man from a river, especially a man who does not want to be rescued.

That's just it, though. If he really wanted to kill himself, he (1) wouldn't have asked for someone to call the police before he did the deed and (2) he wouldn't have picked what is probably the most inefficient and slowest manner I can think of.

I think he did want to be rescued.

NTM

CaseyRyback

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's just it, though. If he really wanted to kill himself, he (1) wouldn't have asked for someone to call the police before he did the deed and (2) he wouldn't have picked what is probably the most inefficient and slowest manner I can think of.

I think he did want to be rescued.

NTM

Are you for real? Have you had much experience in dealing with those attempting suicide because based on the level of ignorance displayed in your above post I'm guessing not.

Persons who call emergency services when planning to kill themselves can do so for a multitude of reasons. If you think for one second that the person concerned will not kill themselves or wants 'rescuing' simply because they've dialed 999, you may well be shocked when the exact opposite occurs and have to explain yourself to the powers that be.

As for your second point; he did kill himself, so I'm guessing the method used wasn't so inefficient after-all, was it.

The mindset of a person at the point where taking their own life is an actual choice, is not something anyone can appreciate or predict. It is entirely subjective.

As an aside, a common theme in your posts is 'how I'd have done it better than the police'. Are you a failed/wannabe Garda or something because the sour grapes certainly suggests that?

discus

First of CaseyRyback, Manic_Moran (IMHO) stimulates some great debate on this forum, so take a step back before you jump down his throat.

Secondly, I don't know how modest he is, so I'll give you a brief on his credentials. He's a former Irish Army reservist, now a US National Guardsman. He's an officer, with tours overseas under his belt. On top of that, he seems to be a top guy. He's certainly no "failed guard" or keyboard warrior.

RMD

CaseyRyback wrote: »

Are you for real? Have you had much experience in dealing with those attempting suicide because based on the level of ignorance displayed in your above post I'm guessing not.

Persons who call emergency services when planning to kill themselves can do so for a multitude of reasons. If you think for one second that the person concerned will not kill themselves or wants 'rescuing' simply because they've dialed 999, you may well be shocked when the exact opposite occurs and have to explain yourself to the powers that be.

As for your second point; he did kill himself, so I'm guessing the method used wasn't so inefficient after-all, was it.

The mindset of a person at the point where taking their own life is an actual choice, is not something anyone can appreciate or predict. It is entirely subjective.

As an aside, a common theme in your posts is 'how I'd have done it better than the police'. Are you a failed/wannabe Garda or something because the sour grapes certainly suggests that?

This suicide rings exactly of what has been said. The man wanted help, he asked a by-passer to call the emergency services and he chose an extremely slow and inefficient method whereby there was enough time for the services to show up, see they weren't allowed rescue him and go through all the crap involved of getting other services involved. It was an extremely insufficient method which IMO was screaming for help, if he wanted to do it efficiently without looking for help he would have shot himself, hung himself, jumped from the many bridges available or used suitable pharmaceuticals. Drowning is not an efficient method by any means at all, it's also one of the most painful and psychologically challenging.

And as Discus pointed out, Manic is a hell of a lot more than a failed Garda. He's an Officer with 8 tours under his belt who's had to go through various situations and make decisions which far outweigh anything the average Garda has dealt with.

goldie fish

8 tours?

CaseyRyback

discus wrote: »

First of CaseyRyback, Manic_Moran (IMHO) stimulates some great debate on this forum, so take a step back before you jump down his throat.

Secondly, I don't know how modest he is, so I'll give you a brief on his credentials. He's a former Irish Army reservist, now a US National Guardsman. He's an officer, with tours overseas under his belt. On top of that, he seems to be a top guy. He's certainly no "failed guard" or keyboard warrior.

He has already widely publicised his reservist experience, but thanks for the bio.

I am more interested in his experience in dealing with emergency response to suicides and mental health crisis based on what he has said above.

The tone of his posts towards the Gardai/Police may be something he is entirely unaware of, or may be loser's scorn, i.e sour grapes, hence my question. It is a running theme in his posts on this forum.

Eru

Just so I understand this.

1. A man enters cold water and stands still
2. He asks someone else to make a phonecall to the police.
3. He stands in the water looking at the police who are looking at him.
4. He eventually dies from cold.

This is correct isnt it?

Now, permit me to suggest:

A, He could have rang samaritans or walked into a number of centres including a police station to obtain help.
B, He could have made the call himself like many do.
C, He could have walked out of the water at any time into the hands of the police at any bloody time.

Its a running theme the world over to blame the mythical 'emergency services' beast but when all is said and done, its the person who took the killing action that killed, not the people who didnt stop them.

And for those that would suggest he couldn't do any of this because of his mental state, being depressed is not a form of madness. You do realise your depressed, you do still have all your functions about you and you can still take reasonable and logical steps. He had the foresight to get dressed, travel to the beach, make the plan and then ask someone to make the phonecall so clearly had a plan of action which would result in his rescue. Im loath to call a suicidal person selfish but on this occasion theres no other word.

Eru

RMD wrote: »

And as Discus pointed out, Manic is a hell of a lot more than a failed Garda. He's an Officer with 8 tours under his belt who's had to go through various situations and make decisions which far outweigh anything the average Garda has dealt with.

Well as suggested, 8 tours of what? Disneyland? But moving on and without getting into a fight with manic (as I have nothing against the chap) but being a national guardsman is a soldier in the US and not a police officer, fireman or any other emergency service.

You say he has made decisions and been where no garda would ever face? The National Guards were called up in support of police during 9/11. Maybe we should look at that as a test of Guardsman compared to police? Or another example where they meet is on UN duty and peacekeeping. The National guard are deployed on various UN duties in many of the same countries that An Garda Siochana are such as Kosova and Afghanistan. So your theory that he has made decisions no garda would ever need to make is pretty much what I would expect, an uneducated opinion.

People need to stop the boring army V police because in my experience its only 'civilians' that think like that and by and large both groups work together just fine when needed.

the_syco

Manic Moran wrote: »

Man walks to the beach. Stops a passer-by, and says "Do me a favour. Call 911, I'm about to go kill myself." Then strides off into the water.
<snip>
Police show up. Realise he's in the water, and are under instructions not to effect land/water rescues (Even if previously trained in water rescue). Ditto fire service.
<snip>
They call a Coast Guard station, there's a major one around the corner. Coast guard send a boat out. 25-footer, like this.

<snip>
Call for a helicopter. The helicopter is on another call and will bee the better part of two hours.
<snip>
An hour later, the individual succumbs (The water here isn't warm), and is observed floating face-down.

I think the man knew exactly what he was doing. He planned to commit suicide in a public place where no-one would be able to stop him.

My first query would be if someone he knew well, or was related to him, died due to lack of action by the emergency services (caused by red tape or otherwise)?

Manic Moran

I am more interested in his experience in dealing with emergency response to suicides and mental health crisis based on what he has said above

A fair amount, you may be surprised to discover. One of the biggest problems facing the US military today is that of suicide.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2011/01/suicides_double_in_national_gu.html

On Wednesday, the Pentagon announced that suicides doubled in the Army Reserve and National Guard in 2010. The number of active-duty suicides dropped, but the spike in the National Guard and Reserve has Army leaders attempting to figure out how to address the mental health issues of men and women who often live far away from their assigned units.

Particularly in the year after a return from a combat tour. As a result, we get a substantial amount of training in suicide awareness, the nature of suicides, and what to do with it. And when a soldier in theatre goes and has suicidal ideations, there are no emergency services to call upon. Just us. Often times all you can do (and we did) is simply separate him from his weapons, and give him suitable on-base taskings, but the important thing is to identify the ideation before it has time to fester to a point where it will be carried out.

It gets even worse in the last month before return, when the Dear John letters start arriving, and then when people return home to find their jobs or wives gone (in one case, the wife was still there, but so was another man and the trooper's belongings were in boxes in the garage), or have other issues with returning to normal life. We lost no soldiers on the tour, since our return, we've lost a few by either suicide (eg jumping out of a Vegas Casino window), risky behaviour (eg high speed motorcycle crash while street racing) or in one case, which doesn't really count, he was a Sheriff's deputy killed in a gunfight, but it still affected us. This is unacceptable, and it is incumbent upon us to be able to identify and act on individuals identified as at risk.

If I may give an example, one of my mechanics last February quit his job one day, went around the back, and started cutting on himself. Turned out they were more cat scratches than a serious attempt, but it was certainly a warning sign, so we directed him to some help. He didn't take up on it. Then two months ago, he, again, quits his job, posts on Facebook saying "That's it, this is the end", and is last seen walking out to the hills with a bottle of whiskey and a case of anti-freeze. As you can imagine, we start quite the search party. This is in Nevada, remember, one of the States were most everyone has access to firearms. We find him 36 hours later. He's not very happy, doesn't want to talk to us, but we basically sit on him and drag him to the VA. There he expresses a willingness to harm both himself and members of the Guard, particularly his leadership (i.e. me, amongst others).

Yes, it's a threat to take seriously. As a result, next drill I made sure that some people were carrying concealed firearms. However, we also did not abandon him, and he is now taking a course of medication and psychiatric assistance whlst remaining in the unit. He has a better chance at life now than if we had just said "Oh well, he wants to kill himself" and not gone to the efforts (and expense, flying military helicopters isn't cheap) to help him.

We very much consider that we would bedelinquent in our duty had we not taken the effort and risk in trying to reintegrate this man. With that duty comes the hours of mandatory suicide training that we have to take. Honestly, I'd prefer that we spent that training time training to kill people and break things, but I can't deny that the training is applicable and can save lives. I don't know how much training an average cop gets in such matters, but I would be surprised to discover it's more than the Army has given me, and very surprised to discover many average cops who have actually closely dealt with persons with suicidal ideations.

He's an Officer with 8 tours under his belt

8? Two. I've done two of Disneyland too, actually.

I think the man knew exactly what he was doing. He planned to commit suicide in a public place where no-one would be able to stop him.

I doubt the average person not aware of the policies of first responders could possibly fathom that they couldn't rescue him within a few feet of water and a couple of score yards from the shore. I would never have thought so, and it seems from the public reaction that most are in a similar situation to me.

If I may quote from this government website:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001554.htm

Suicide attempts that do not result in death are much more common than completed suicides. Many of these suicide attempts are carried out in a way that makes rescue possible. These attempts often represent a desperate cry for help.

As for your second point; he did kill himself, so I'm guessing the method used wasn't so inefficient after-all, was it.

It took over an hour. I call that inefficient. Within his line of sight was the Golden Gate Bridge, suicide attempts from there are far more frequent, terminal, faster and harder to stop. As are firearm attempts, which are also not overly uncommon around these parts. It was effective, yes, but hardly an efficient way of doing business.

As an aside, a common theme in your posts is 'how I'd have done it better than the police'

I believe my last debate of any note was actually "This is how Dallas police did it better than the Irish police" (the Cork airport incident). I try to keep definitive personal statements into areas I either have experience or training in. Otherwise, I tend to rely on the precedent of others.

You will note that at no point have I blamed the police, fire service or Coast Guard for the man's death. As has been pointed out, it was his actions that put him there. However, I do have serious issue with policies which prevent actions from being carried out which could save lives. We don't know why the man never called the Samaritans. Maybe he thought he would be taken more seriously if he actually put himself in a dangerous position as opposed to just getting on the 'phone. Regardless, it is known that many people do go the route of getting the police involved, and they are viewed as the last, fall-back, safety net facility to stop a suicide attempt if it can be stopped.

NTM

amacachi

Eru wrote: »

A, He could have rang samaritans or walked into a number of centres including a police station to obtain help.
B, He could have made the call himself like many do.
C, He could have walked out of the water at any time into the hands of the police at any bloody time.

Its a running theme the world over to blame the mythical 'emergency services' beast but when all is said and done, its the person who took the killing action that killed, not the people who didnt stop them.

And for those that would suggest he couldn't do any of this because of his mental state, being depressed is not a form of madness. You do realise your depressed, you do still have all your functions about you and you can still take reasonable and logical steps. He had the foresight to get dressed, travel to the beach, make the plan and then ask someone to make the phonecall so clearly had a plan of action which would result in his rescue. Im loath to call a suicidal person selfish but on this occasion theres no other word.

Wonderful stuff that post.

RMD

Manic Moran wrote: »

8? Two. I've done two of Disneyland too, actually.

You said in the MoH thread over in the military forum you've done 2 in Iraq and 6 in Afghanistan?

Edit: I know see you were talking about Sgt. Petry, my mistake.

Eru wrote: »

Well as suggested, 8 tours of what? Disneyland? But moving on and without getting into a fight with manic (as I have nothing against the chap) but being a national guardsman is a soldier in the US and not a police officer, fireman or any other emergency service.

2 tours of the Middle East, I'm not sure of which specific country. I didn't mention anything about his experience of being an emergency services employee, I was pointing out to Casey he's a lot more than a failed / wannabe Garda.

You say he has made decisions and been where no garda would ever face? The National Guards were called up in support of police during 9/11. Maybe we should look at that as a test of Guardsman compared to police? Or another example where they meet is on UN duty and peacekeeping. The National guard are deployed on various UN duties in many of the same countries that An Garda Siochana are such as Kosova and Afghanistan. So your theory that he has made decisions no garda would ever need to make is pretty much what I would expect, an uneducated opinion.

Quote me on where I said no Garda, I didn't. I said the average Garda which I think is a fair statement, I doubt the average Garda will have to face the challenges of working in a warzone. To make a blanket statement though of "no Garda", well that would be idiotic.

People need to stop the boring army V police because in my experience its only 'civilians' that think like that and by and large both groups work together just fine when needed.

I'm not arguing "the army is so much better than the police!!!!@!!!!" type crap, I made the point that he's a lot more than just a failed / wannabe Garda. I never once said he's better than the average Garda or the army are better than the police, I don't even know where you got that idea from to be honest.

Manic Moran

Can we now move off the topic of what I have or have not done in my life, and return to the two concepts of what, if any, duty the emergency services have to aid a person with suicidal ideations (I believe that it should be part of the job description), and the merits of safety policies which prohibit the emergency services from acting in apparently reasonable cases, whether the guy wants to be saved or not? (I believe that part of the job involves making judgement calls on scene, especially by a person of rank, not having hands tied by administrative decisions in broad terms)

NTM

Eru

RMD wrote: »

2 tours of the Middle East, I'm not sure of which specific country. I didn't mention anything about his experience of being an emergency services employee, I was pointing out to Casey he's a lot more than a failed / wannabe Garda.

Thats it in a nutshell, hes not nor are you an emergency services employee. Fighting a war brings its own decisions, needs and training. Being a soldier in no way means said soldier can comment on what and how a fireman or paramedic deals with a situation.

And while Im not suggesting he is, moving to the US and joining the national guard in no way means someone is not a failed or wannabee Garda. Theres plenty of people that join an alternative service having failed to or while trying to join AGS. Some of these later do join.

Its also fair to say that responding on a military base to a soldiers attempted suicide is not going to be the same as a fireman / paramedic or cop responding to a civilian situation


QUOTE=RMD;72584122]
Quote me on where I said no Garda, I didn't. I said the average Garda which I think is a fair statement, I doubt the average Garda will have to face the challenges of working in a warzone. To make a blanket statement though of "no Garda", well that would be idiotic.[/QUOTE]

Your making a lot of assumptions about a person you have never even met or know. As for challenges. I would consider the daily decisions made by Gardai above the daily decisions made by a soldier. Iraq for a soldier is more dangerous without a doubt but is it less dangerous than being an Iraqi police officer? And what decisions? they are more or less exempt from Iraqi law and can shoot people.

But you know what Im getting sidetracked here, what I deal with, what casey deals with and what manic deals with is still nothing that YOU can talk about.

Manic wnated to return to topic, well the topic is a man that made a decision to enter water and stay there until he died. Freewill and personal responsibility as an adult. No paramedic or cop is to blame, the man is plain and simple.

searescue

As said earlier, if we are paged and find out it's the suicidal person who has called it in - we are even more cautious.

Do they have a weapon? Have they other motives. We wont risk ourselves.

It's sad but true - if they're going to do it and we are concerned for our own safety - let them off. Better one person than two!

zenno

that was a cry for help forsure. if you are going to end it you would not tell a soul or you would just write a letter.

yeah that notorious bridge. that is the bridge between life and death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwsvRgFcFAg

anyway you are all doing an excellent job. and it's not an easy job in any mans language.

CaseyRyback

Manic Moran wrote: »

A fair amount, you may be surprised to discover. One of the biggest problems facing the US military today is that of suicide.

NTM

Thanks for the link. However my question was what experience and training do you have in relation to 911 response to suicide/MH calls? As a reserve military officer I would suggest you've probably read a powerpoint or two on suicide within the military.

So best you leave critique on topics, as discussed here, to the professionals, and though anyone is welcome to comment on any topic on this forum, sometimes STFU is an option you can avail of? Feel free to do so next time around you feel the need to slag off the cops for no valid reason.

*salutes*

Wait. Out.

Manic Moran

well the topic is a man that made a decision to enter water and stay there until he died. Freewill and personal responsibility as an adult. No paramedic or cop is to blame, the man is plain and simple.

I refer you to Searescue's post. Does that same logic not apply to a decision as an adult of a fireman to enter the water to rescue someone? Why, then, should some administrator somewhere remove the ability to exercise the freewill and personal responsiblity of that fireman?

To what extent should responders place themselves at risk to help anyone? If the guy had a windsurfing accident and was stuck offshore, should he not be helped because he made the conscious decision to go windsurfing? Mountaineering beyond one's skill level, maybe?

Its also fair to say that responding on a military base to a soldiers attempted suicide is not going to be the same as a fireman / paramedic or cop responding to a civilian situation

In what way? Granted, military bases tend to have fewer large bridges to jump off, but otherwise, I can't think of many causes or methods which are available to soldiers and not civilians, or vice versa.

And for a reservist, often times we're not on the military base anyway. My mechanic wasn't. And part of the reason we were doing the searching ourselves was that the police wouldn't get involved in the first place as he'd not been missing for long enough.

As a reserve military officer I would suggest you've probably read a powerpoint or two on suicide within the military.

I would submit that this is understating the matter a tad.

Feel free to do so next time around you feel the need to slag off the cops for no valid reason.

Where on this thread (or any other) did I slag off a cop? I expressed gross disappointment with the policies that they operate under, laid out by the administrators and politicians above them. Only to the extend that some of the administrators are cops would I acceed to slagging one off.


(BTW, Wait Out implies that you're going to continue in a bit. Apologies for not waiting my turn)
NTM

RMD

Eru wrote: »

Freewill and personal responsibility as an adult. No paramedic or cop is to blame, the man is plain and simple.

I'll agree that the death was the man's own fault obviously, but this suicide just screams as a call for help to me. If he wanted to do it efficiently, he would have done a far quicker and easier method. If he wanted to shock people, he would have done a lot worse than drown himself as they looked on. As I said, this just screams "help me" and that's exactly what didn't happen, they didn't (well couldn't technically) help. I know this man put himself in deliberate danger, but then again if we deny help to those who put themselves in danger then should we deny help to people who drive recklessly, take part in dangerous sports or do something knowing there's a good chance of getting hurt? It's a poor comparison, but I can't really come up with a better one.

CaseyRyback

No worries for you jumping in before I'd finished, it just means I've to reply without specific thread titles as to how you regularly attempt to belittle the police on this forum, if you are unaware of that then food for thought, n'est pas?

As regards suicide/MH, I'd rather you didn't refer me to anyone else's posts in answering the points I've raised, I have professional, military and LEO experience. You've yet to divulge your experience of MH/Suicide crisis intervention. I'd be interested to hear about this.

As for your more general query regarding slagging off the police/gardai....if that is news to you, it may be worth reviewing your posts to see if you can glean some hints as to why you might be less than popular with the local constabulary.

RMD

CaseyRyback wrote: »

As for your more general query regarding slagging off the police/gardai....if that is news to you, it may be worth reviewing your posts to see if you can glean some hints as to why you might be less than popular with the local constabulary.

Why make accusations of "slagging off the police" when you wont provide any evidence of it happening, even after being asked to prove your point?

You seem to get angry very quickly with anyone who holds a different view to your own.

Shield

Mod note: Guys, generally speaking, and not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, can we dial back the needless confrontation I've seen on this thread? We're all supposed to be professionals, so can we change the style of posting to an 'exchange of views and experiences' as opposed to 'well what would you know' because ultimately that will get peoples' backs up and nobody will be any the wiser.

Let's be respectful, mature, engaging and level-headed.

Thanks, and back on topic.

Manic Moran

Let us move away from the circumstances of this particular incident and address two separate general points.

1) Is it part of the job description of the emergency services to respond to suicide attempts? Should it be?

2) Is it appropriate to have policies and procedures put in place to remove the authority of persons on the scene to exercise their best judgement as to what may or may not be an acceptable course of action in any particular circumstance?

Another example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2512401.ece

Officers like Sergeant Craig Lippitt, who attempted to rescue Jordon by stripping off and diving in of his own volition, were acting against instructions, although they would not be disciplined for rescuing someone, the spokeswoman said.

Firefighters who attempt the same are not necessarily so fortunate. In March a 42-year-old firefighter, Tam Brown, saved a woman in the River Tay. He was later informed he could face disciplinary action.

<snip>

Paddick said that officers in the Met were supposed to call for back-up from the fire brigade or a lifeboat if they encountered someone drowning, but he said most had the “self-confidence” to ignore the rules if a life was in danger.”

If the Met's policy is to not punish someone for beaking policy and having the self-confidence to go rescue someone, what's the point in having a policy prohibiting it in the first place?

NTM

Zambia

Manic Moran wrote: »

1) Is it part of the job description of the emergency services to respond to suicide attempts? Should it be?
NTM

Yes , well sadly no one else really has the resources.

RMD

Manic Moran wrote: »

1) Is it part of the job description of the emergency services to respond to suicide attempts? Should it be?

2) Is it appropriate to have policies and procedures put in place to remove the authority of persons on the scene to exercise their best judgement as to what may or may not be an acceptable course of action in any particular circumstance?

1) The emergency services are there to help someone who is hurt or in danger. A suicidal person despite bringing the hurt on themselves are a person in danger and IMO it's their role to help prevent it. When do they help? Leave the person to try and then help if they don't succeed?

2) I don't think so, if a person is capable of rescuing someone and knows they wont be insured if they get injured in the process, they should be able to exercise their best judgement and help if they're willing to.

999nobody

RMD wrote: »

1) The emergency services are there to help someone who is hurt or in danger. A suicidal person despite bringing the hurt on themselves are a person in danger and IMO it's their role to help prevent it. When do they help? Leave the person to try and then help if they don't succeed?

QUOTE]

The PRIMARY responsibility of a member of the emergency services is to protect themself and their colleagues from harm. Only after this should they attempt to help someone else. Losing ones own life attempting to prevent a suicide would be the real tragedy.

McWotever

DFB are called to psych/suicidal attempts every day, but the ordinary ambulance crew or fire crew have no training to talk the person down or out of it. It comes down to the individual personality of the crew member talking to the "patient". That can be very hit and miss and has been known to make the situation worse

Our EMS service is primarily involved in treating the patient after the event not before hand. Its a reactive service not preventative. We're simply not trained councilors.

I personally see the prevention of suicide attempts in the first instance with the patients GP, and health authorities. But if the person is already on the balcony or road bridge the previous has failed. So I think the next step in the process is the Gardai, who have trained negotiators, be it few and far between. The EMS (in Ireland) can only pick up the pieces when all else fails.

In the majority of cases, however, ad hoc negotiations work, which more often than not results in the patient being brought to the A&E waiting room, where he/she is free to walk out when they get bored and start it all over again.

Eru

Manic Moran wrote: »

1) Is it part of the job description of the emergency services to respond to suicide attempts? Should it be?

That depends on what department. Police? No, I dont believe it should be. Paramedic? Yes to offer medical assistance but not rescue. Outside of that it would depend on the circumstances who should respond.

Manic Moran wrote: »

2) Is it appropriate to have policies and procedures put in place to remove the authority of persons on the scene to exercise their best judgement as to what may or may not be an acceptable course of action in any particular circumstance?

Yes, its called accountability and supervision. Otherwise we would have a situation where people could do anything they wanted based on 'best judgement' despite not being in a position to make that judgement. In theory the policies are based on expert opinion and sound planning.

If we may go back to this scenario, we had police, paramedics and the coastguard. The police are law enforcement, paramedics are emergency medical care and on this occasion the rescue fell to the coast guard who was unable to perform the rescue. A simple question, this was in the swimming water of a local beach. Where was the lifeguard?

Therefore its not a case of the es doing or not doing something but a case of having the correct es personnel in adequate numbers to handle the situation.

audidiesel

in my own opinion, if the es feel that they can rescue someone without causing risk to themselves then they should do so.

ive gone as far as pulling people off bridges. but if they go into the shannon, i know im not a good enough swimmer. so i rely on other services to take over the rescue at that point.

in the original case, if one of the es people there felt confident that they could effect a rescue, then of course they should be able to do this without being reprenanded.

but having said that, if any of them didnt feel confident going in, i wouldnt hold it against them at all. id put it on the head of the dead guy. he chose to do it and he could have come back at any point up to near the very end.

Manic Moran

Yes, its called accountability and supervision. Otherwise we would have a situation where people could do anything they wanted based on 'best judgement' despite not being in a position to make that judgement

Given that every situation is going to be different, the people who are best in a position to make the judgement are not going to be people sitting around a conference table six months before an incident occurs.

In theory the policies are based on expert opinion and sound planning.

A military truism is that no plan survives first contact. I would be very surprised if such a truism does not exist in the emergency services either. I presume, for example, that the decision on when to pull firemen out of any particular burning building and to abandon attempts to either salvage the building, or worse, rescue people, is one which is made by an individual on the scene, not as the result of a policy meeting. If fire crews are capable of making that momentous a decision, then why should they be prohibited from deciding if they can go into a duck pond?

Therefore its not a case of the es doing or not doing something but a case of having the correct es personnel in adequate numbers to handle the situation.

Have you always had all the correct equipment and the numbers of personnel that you wished you had at an event? Saying "in theory this can be handled by" may well fall flat in practice.

A simple question, this was in the swimming water of a local beach. Where was the lifeguard?

Most beaches in the US don't have lifeguards. There's far too many miles of beaches, and Alameda isn't known for being a great bathing spot. Water in SF Bay is far too cold. (Part of the reason Alcatraz worked, despite otherwise being within swimming distance from the mainland)

NTM

mikemac

I know nothing about boats
But post 1 has the boat couldn't enter the shallow water and the boat draws 1 metre of water
But the man was up to his neck in water and your average man is over 1.7 metres or so. Why couldn't the boat make it in?

On another note, walking home one day in Dublin a girl sat on the bridge railings on the Liffey, by Jervis.
Not sure what she was trying to do, the tide was out so at worst you'll end up in mud and break your legs but you won't drown. Three gardai swiftly on the scene and pulled her off the bridge after a few seconds of talk.

When I was in Galway, there were quite a few deaths on the Corrib. Mainly students and the stories were that they would lean over the bridges while drunk to vomit and then fall in, the Corrib moves very swiftly at times. Sadly everyone just accepted they'd wash up in the bay in a few days and that's exactly what happened. I think there was talk of installing railings or a guard under the bridges, don't think it happened in the end

Eru

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that every situation is going to be different, the people who are best in a position to make the judgement are not going to be people sitting around a conference table six months before an incident occurs.

Perhaps, perhaps not but the decision made at the scene should be based on sound planning and training not an ad hoc spur of the moment one. If the plan is "dont kill yourself trying to save someone thats in the act of killing themself" I would tend to think thats a sound plan made with the various aspects considered. Again, its not a case of people not being allowed make decisions, its limiting those decisions. Thats standard across the board of es, military and private sector. You don't plan a war and your terms of engagement are set in advance. Its no different. How often are armed UN personnel unable to intervene as a result of the set engagement rules? They could save lives but have orders and would probable only die in the effort. (I know, I know, thats the cowards approach not the heroes). What your not getting here is that we all agree with the standing order because its taking officer safety into consideration, something thats all to rare. I personally would not have entered the water either.

Manic Moran wrote: »

A military truism is that no plan survives first contact. I would be very surprised if such a truism does not exist in the emergency services either. I presume, for example, that the decision on when to pull firemen out of any particular burning building and to abandon attempts to either salvage the building, or worse, rescue people, is one which is made by an individual on the scene, not as the result of a policy meeting. If fire crews are capable of making that momentous a decision, then why should they be prohibited from deciding if they can go into a duck pond?

Perhaps the military are just incompetent and badly trained with bad promotion systems leading to bad management? Or perhaps they just have bad organisation in general? In all honesty I wouldnt be so quick to mention the US military if I were you.

Its FIRE crews by the way, not suicide in water crews. Big difference and really its the same as above, limited decision making. fire and rescue personnel, in fact anyone trained in rescue scenarios is always told to abandon the rescue if you meet resistance. A suicidal person who wont simple walk out of the water is in my mind, not going to be helpful to his own cause.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Have you always had all the correct equipment and the numbers of personnel that you wished you had at an event? Saying "in theory this can be handled by" may well fall flat in practice

No US cop I have ever met would tackle an armed robbery unarmed, dozens have told me that they wouldn't even be cops without being armed. No soldier would enter battle without a weapon, correct? If your not equiped for the job, you dont do the job. Im unarmed but trained to deal with criminals. Should I die foolishly and leave a family behind because I tried handling something I was completely unprepered and not equiped for?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Most beaches in the US don't have lifeguards. There's far too many miles of beaches, and Alameda isn't known for being a great bathing spot. Water in SF Bay is far too cold. (Part of the reason Alcatraz worked, despite otherwise being within swimming distance from the mainland)

Your point here is that SF doesnt bother appointing lifeguards so the police should become ad hoc life guards. If SF decided to sack all the police should paramedics start arresting people? Or police performing surgery because SF doesnt have doctors in most hospitals?

I cant really see any other way to say this, we agree with the decision. We arent employed to die or even risk death saving a suicidal person who is standing in water. Its not our jobs and no spin, words or lack of employment in SF is going to change that.

To be honest, I find it crazy that people cant see the forest for the trees here. The police could have walked in? He could have bloody well walked out FFS!

Manic Moran

Eru wrote: »

If the plan is "dont kill yourself trying to save someone thats in the act of killing themself" I would tend to think thats a sound plan made with the various aspects considered.

I certainly agree that "Go home alive" is a key task for anyone. I would argue it's not the mission, but if nothing else, simple self-preservation would indicate that taking risk is not something that a person would take lightly without considering the possible consequences.

How often are armed UN personnel unable to intervene as a result of the set engagement rules? They could save lives but have orders and would probable only die in the effort. (I know, I know, thats the cowards approach not the heroes).

There are three different factors at play in such a situation. The mission, the rules of engagement, and the local decision. Is the mission of the UN force to intervene? Do the rules of engagement in force permit the UN force to intervene? If not, but the mission says 'yes', then there is a serious problem with the policies in place. I have such an opinion on the circumstances surrounding Srebenicze, for example: Mission and restrictions were not compatible, and this dichotomy has been justifiably slated. Finally, even if the rules permit the accomplishment of the mission, is it a good idea anyway? If he had been permitted to, should the Dutch commander have put up a fight, or would he have been committing suicide for his whole battalion? As the man locally in charge, he would have the discretion to make that decision.

What your not getting here is that we all agree with the standing order because its taking officer safety into consideration, something thats all to rare. I personally would not have entered the water either.

If officer safety were the sole and only reason for doing or not doing anything, I submit that they shouldn't get involed in armed robberies, riot control, or anything else which may result in harm. There is a difference between being bullheaded about risk, and taking a conscious risk decision.

Perhaps the military are just incompetent and badly trained with bad promotion systems leading to bad management? Or perhaps they just have bad organisation in general? In all honesty I wouldnt be so quick to mention the US military if I were you.

I don't think it's too bad. We do the best we can with what we've got.

Its FIRE crews by the way, not suicide in water crews. Big difference and really its the same as above, limited decision making.

The policy in question, however, did not cover solely suicides. We have ample examples to chose from, from road traffic accidents which put a car in water through the boy drowning in the duck pond while two officers watched.

fire and rescue personnel, in fact anyone trained in rescue scenarios is always told to abandon the rescue if you meet resistance.

Unless they're US Coast Guard I guess, but what would they know about water rescue?

The manual for the rescue swimmer is here:
http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3710_4C.pdf

If survivor is not cooperative, the RS shall take control of the situation by executing a surface dive and swim under survivor. While surfacing, place thesurvivor in a controlled cross-chest carry. (Refer to Paragraph 2.C.4. for a description of the controlled cross-chest carry.

Should the survivor be aggressive, the RS shall lock their free hand under the survivor’s armpit in a controlled cross-chest carry

A quick scan of the manual does not indicate that a rescue should be abandoned due to the un-cooperative nature of the rescuee. Even if the rescuer needs to break free by submerging with the guy strangling him, the manual does not indicate that he should abandon the rescue but simply that he should re-assess how to approach the problem.

Of course, they're very well trained rescue swimmers, I don't expect the average person to be able to conduct such maneuvers, but it does address the definitive statement you make.

If your not equiped for the job, you dont do the job.

How important is your job? You will recall much brouhaha about the US or British Armies being in Iraq with soft-skin vehicles designed for anything but dealing with roadside bombs. My HMMWV for several months was one of the infamous Hillbilly-Armoured ones before being replaced by a proper armoured vehicle. Not as if we refused to go out because we didn't have the right equipment. Where's the line between foolishness and dedication?

Again, why cannot the decision be made by the man on the spot? I'm fairly sure no right-thinking person would think of wading into a rushing river without being tied with safety lines and probably wearing a helmet, and armed with the knowledge of how to use them.

I submit that the policy should be a passive, not an active one. Instead of saying "Don't do this under any circumstances or there will be punishment" say "No punishment shall come to you if you choose not to rescue someone in these circumstances." That way there will be less 'obligation' for someone to walk into the duck pond, without the blanket prohibition which exists everywhere.

Should I die foolishly and leave a family behind because I tried handling something I was completely unprepered and not equiped for?

The Alameda incident was finally resolved by a member of the public walking off the beach. If it was so inherently dangerous due to unforseen possibilities, why then did the police on the scene not prevent the man from going to retrieve the body? Either they were incompetent, suddenly decided that their job wasn't that important after all, or they realised that the danger really wasn't all that great. And as an incidental, by the time the body was face-down, any arguments about the suicidal nature of the victim and how much he was going to resist rescue would probably be a little irrelevant.

Your point here is that SF doesnt bother appointing lifeguards so the police should become ad hoc life guards.

Or Fire Rescue. The level of expectation obviously would not be the same. Indeed, per the video, Alameda Sheriff actually does have a rescue boat, it was in storage due to budget cuts which resulted in the no-water policy to begin with. The acquisition of the boat indicates that the police did see such activities as within their remit.

To be honest, I find it crazy that people cant see the forest for the trees here. The police could have walked in? He could have bloody well walked out FFS!

Who's looking at the tree? What if the exact same location involved an individual who had ended up in such a situation by falling off his windsurf board, breaking both his legs so he's sitting down in a meter of water and unable to move? The policy would prohibit rescue attempt in such a situation as well.

But post 1 has the boat couldn't enter the shallow water and the boat draws 1 metre of water
But the man was up to his neck in water and your average man is over 1.7 metres or so. Why couldn't the boat make it in?

Two possibilities. One is a sandbar between the boat and the man, or the other is that the guy decided he'd walked out far enough and wanted to sit down. I've not seen a definitive article on which.

NTM

Eru

Manic Moran wrote: »

As the man locally in charge, he would have the discretion to make that decision.

Your advocating every person making solo decisions and acting by themselves, you either accept and abide by a chain of command or your in the wrong job and no superior should have the authority to order his officers into a dangerous situation THEY ARE NOT PAID FOR. It is NOT within the remit of police or paramedics. Its not our jobs.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The policy in question, however, did not cover solely suicides. We have ample examples to chose from, from road traffic accidents which put a car in water through the boy drowning in the duck pond while two officers watched.

Dont insult genuine victims by putting them in the same bracket as this person. Dont insult es staff who have risked their lives saving genuine victims because we wont die for this person.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless they're US Coast Guard I guess, but what would they know about water rescue?

A lot less that the hundreds of rescue agencies form the remaining 194 countries in the world it seems but sure if the US says its correct the world must be wrong.

Manic Moran wrote: »

How important is your job? You will recall much brouhaha about the US or British Armies being in Iraq with soft-skin vehicles designed for anything but dealing with roadside bombs. My HMMWV for several months was one of the infamous Hillbilly-Armoured ones before being replaced by a proper armoured vehicle. Not as if we refused to go out because we didn't have the right equipment. Where's the line between foolishness and dedication?

2 things here and please, try to get the first one because its been said a dozen times now and your still repeating the same dogma:

A, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE TO PERFORM WATER RESCUES. I am double sure of this in this scenario because the Alahama police DO NOT receive water rescue training.

B, So either US and British soldiers are too stupid to raise a hand and ask a question or they blindly follow orders. Either way thats nto my problem.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Alameda incident was finally resolved by a member of the public walking off the beach. If it was so inherently dangerous due to unforseen possibilities, why then did the police on the scene not prevent the man from going to retrieve the body? Either they were incompetent, suddenly decided that their job wasn't that important after all, or they realised that the danger really wasn't all that great. And as an incidental, by the time the body was face-down, any arguments about the suicidal nature of the victim and how much he was going to resist rescue would probably be a little irrelevant.

Im sorry but can you explain what power the police have to stop a sane man from walking into the sea and going for a swim? I thought the US was the land of the free?

The incident was resolved by the mans death, perhaps the member of the publci should have been a bit faster or thought it was too dangerous?

Again, he stood stock still and simple allowed himself to die, he didnt need rescuing as he was not under any pressure or distress. How many suicide bombers and terrorists have you saved?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Who's looking at the tree? What if the exact same location involved an individual who had ended up in such a situation by falling off his windsurf board, breaking both his legs so he's sitting down in a meter of water and unable to move? The policy would prohibit rescue attempt in such a situation as well.

That is a textbook case for the lifeguard. Im hard pressed to find a scenario hat fits them better. Again, police are not water rescue and in fact in this case, dont recieve any water rescue training. If there was no lifeguard there to rescue a drowning man in the sea, blame the lifeguard or the person who made that policy.

I have to say, not only am I beginning to agree with Casey about you but your making me question my admiration for the armed forces so Im simple going to leave you to it.

Paulzx

Manic Moran wrote: »

I certainly agree that "Go home alive" is a key task for anyone.
NTM

A "key task"?

I attach slightly more importance than that to getting home to my kids. Outside of the whole debate thats going on about the drowning incident i find it laughable that not getting yourself killed is described as a "key task".:eek:

Sound like a quote straight from a manual