Again, won't save a drowning man.

zenno · 04-06-2011 08:39PM

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 · 04-06-2011 08:46PM

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 · 04-06-2011 09:39PM

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 · 04-06-2011 09:50PM

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 · 04-06-2011 10:05PM

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 · 04-06-2011 11:13PM

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 · 04-06-2011 11:38PM

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 · 05-06-2011 12:13AM

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 · 05-06-2011 09:04AM

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 · 05-06-2011 10:18AM

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 · 05-06-2011 07:46PM

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 · 05-06-2011 08:55PM

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 · 07-06-2011 01:52AM

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 · 07-06-2011 03:11AM

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 · 07-06-2011 06:10AM

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 · 07-06-2011 06:37AM

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 · 07-06-2011 11:39AM

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 · 07-06-2011 04:30PM

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 · 07-06-2011 05:28PM

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 · 07-06-2011 06:46PM

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

Manic Moran · 07-06-2011 07:00PM

Eru wrote: »

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.

That is not what I wrote, and there is no reason to break the chain of command. Whoever is the ranking person onsite can make the no-go decision. I am not lambasting the officers or firemen who were at Alameda for failing to break the policies put into place by their superiors, I am lambasting the superiors for putting in overly-general policies which may result in easily avoidable loss of life.

It is NOT within the remit of police or paramedics. Its not our jobs.

Neither is it within the job description of members of the public to do many things which we would be expected to do out of simple human decency or the overall benefit of society. It's not my job to fly a Cessna for search and rescue in the mountains, but the rules specifically permit me to do it at my discretion (it's one of the few exceptions to the requirement for a Commerical rating to be recompensed financially). Should I really confine myself to my business only and not help others who may need helping? Fine, I won't go do first aid at the next RTA I see, as it's the job of the paramedics who are doubtless better at medical tasks than I am. No, on second thoughts, I will. If the fuel tank blows up, so be it, it wasn't my day.

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.

The policies do not make that distinction. Do they not insult them just as much?

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.

Not at all. I'm just saying that your rather definitive statement is wrong. I do not deign to speak for 195 countries and have no idea if USCG is in a minority or majority on the matter.

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.

Alameda. And the policy letter put out by the fire department specifically applied even to personnel who had received water rescue training.

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?

California Penal Code section 402 controls the actions of "Every person who goes to the scene of an emergency, or stops at the scene of an emergency, [...]unless it is part of the duties of that person's employment to view that scene or activities"

He can go for a swim. But the police would have the authority to stop him from going a swim at that part of Alameda at that moment and time.

Further, there may also be applicable use of 'danger to yourself' laws such as CWIC 5150, or other laws which my research has not uncovered.

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?

Most people will work on the basis that the emergency services are presumed to know how best to resolve a situation. That they will refuse to resolve the situation doesn't enter into common thinking and will result in there needing to be quite a bit of 'pressure' to override the natural deference to the emergency services.

That is a textbook case for the lifeguard. Im hard pressed to find a scenario hat fits them better.

I agree. But it is unrealistic to expect a lifeguard on every beach in the US's several thousand miles of coastline. As a result, either the individuals are abandoned to their fate, or a 'good enough' solution using alternate resources is required. It is instructive to note that the policy for Alameda has since been reversed. Apparently they don't agree with you that it's not their job.

If there was no lifeguard there to rescue a drowning man in the sea, blame the lifeguard or the person who made that policy.

Close. I'm blaming the administrators of the emergency services who made the policy. Who have since reversed themselves in the case of Alameda, or who apparently don't follow through with their policy in the case of the Met. Both of which are positions I personally happen to approve of.

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".

How would you describe it, then? It can't be the overriding function of your life, otherwise you wouldn't be putting yourself in hazardous situations for the betterment of others. The public know the risks that people such as firemen or lifeboatmen take, that's why they get huge amounts of respect (or at least they do in the US, I can't imagine that they don't in Europe).

NTM

Eru · 07-06-2011 08:41PM

I don't agree with anything you just said and think your taking info incorrectly so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

take care of yourself out there batman

mcmoustache · 14-06-2011 05:43PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

Ass coverage.

If a rescue worker died in the line of duty, the next of kin might sue. Having a policy that forbids front line rescue workers from putting themselves in danger allows an organisation to point at their policy and show that the worker failed to follow it, thus relieving the organisation of culpability.
At the same time, not punishing people who fail to follow policy allows workers to rescue people who might otherwise be left to die due to H&S regulations.

It's the best of both worlds and a wonder of bureaucracy.

Manic Moran · 09-07-2011 07:39AM

The incident came up on the radio news again today, as I was driving home. Alameda now have 58 water-rescue trained firemen, 12 more to go, two instructors to be trained, and they've bought a nice shiny new 14-foot rescue boat.

Also an independent investigation was launched about two weeks ago.

Almost always takes a death before things are fixed.

NTM

Celticfire · 09-07-2011 11:05AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Almost always takes a death before things are fixed.

NTM

Nothing new there... unfortunately.

Again, won't save a drowning man.

Comments