START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Quote:

An apparently suicidal man waded into San Francisco Bay on Monday, stood up to his neck, and waited. As the man drowned, police, fire crews, and others watched idly from the shore. Why? Officials blamed a departmental policy, stemming from budget cuts, that prevented them from jumping in to save him. Fifty-year-old Raymond Zack spent nearly an hour in the water before drowning. A crowd of about 75 people, in addition to first responders, watched from the beach in Alameda across the bay from San Francisco as Zack inched farther and farther away, sometimes glancing back, a witness told the San Jose Mercury News. "The next thing he was floating face down." A volunteer eventually pulled Zack's lifeless body from the Bay. Mike D'Orazi of the Alameda Fire Department said that, due to 2009 budget cuts, his crews lacked the training and gear to enter the water. And a Coast Guard boat couldn't access the area because the water was too shallow. "The incident yesterday was deeply regrettable," D'Orazi said Tuesday. "But I can also see it from our firefighters' perspective. They're standing there wanting to do something, but they are handcuffed by policy at that point." Alameda Police Lt. Sean Lynch also suggested his men did the right thing. "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." But at a City Council hearing Tuesday night, some locals expressed outrage that Zack was left to die. "This just strikes me as not just a problem with funding, but a problem with the culture of what's going on in our city, that no one would take the time and help this drowning man," said one resident, Adam Gillitt. The city said it would spend up to $40,000 to certify 16 firefighters in land-based water rescues. One witness to the event told a local news station that Zack was looking at people on the shore. "We expected to see at some point that there would be a concern for him," said another.

I have a few but cannot say them. >:(
thanks for posting this. It has bothered me all day.
thebb

So how damn hard is it to go in the water and pull someone out? That just don't make sense to me.

An HOUR and NOBODY could get in the water! What have we become? This is an outrage! Hands tied? That's BS! What about HUMAN? You let a man die because you're not CERTIFIED? BS!

These people are totally NUTS!

I don't necessarily hold the firemen to any higher standards than I hold the other 75 people standing there that let that man drown.

Alas a sign of the times...

Similar story from here in the UK where 2 Police Community Support Officers (PCSO- not fully qualified police officers) came upon some young lads who had been playing in a pond, one of the lads got into difficulty but because the PCSO's were not fully trained in life saving and was not part of their remit neither entered the water and the young lad drowned.

Regardless of health and safety and all other legislation...what ever happened to offering those in need a HELPING HAND?

HOW can 75 people stand and watch???

Evil thrives on this planet.

Everybody stands around and waits and watches and does nothing because "somebody" else is gonna take care of the problem.  Meanwhile, while we wait for that "somebody" the person in need dies.

On soap box now:  We, US citizens decry the fact that our government is hugely in debt and we want that debt reduced.  But, just don't reduce it in our pockets, so we look for and ask for reductions in spending in areas that won't affect us.  Cannot happen.

When are the US citizens going to realize that this country cannot continue spending at the rate we are and that serious cuts are necessary?  When are US citizens going to realize that those necessary cuts in spending will impact their lives and that they may have to give up things they hold dear and pay more to retain them.

We all have to give up something.  Are we going to stand and watch a man drown or are we doing to jump into the water to save him?

Your choice.

OK, sorry, off soap box now.


Sandy

Blind devotion to the rules rather than common sense.

75 people can watch because the article kinda skips the part mentioning he was 150 yards out in 50 degree water.  An exhaustive hypothermic wrestling match with a suicidal meth-head in water over your head?

You think he would have been more likely to say 'got me' and follow you back in, or grab a handful of your hair and see how long it takes for you to stop trying to come up for air?   

Quote:

waded into San Francisco Bay 75 people, in addition to first responders, watched from the beach in Alameda across the bay from San Francisco

I'm not familiar with the surroundings there, but this reads like these people were on a beach across the bay, and possibly not on the beach he waded in from, which might be a good distance.




*I'll take it he waded in from the Alameda side of the San Francisco Bay, which is probably across the bay from the city of San Francisco.

Lobster wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:09pm:

75 people can watch because the article kinda skips the part mentioning he was 150 yards out in 50 degree water.  An exhaustive hypothermic wrestling match with a suicidal meth-head in water over your head? You think he would have been more likely to say 'got me' and follow you back in, or grab a handful of your hair and see how long it takes for you to stop trying to come up for air?

Learning how to stay afloat and swim at the age of 2, taking training as a lifeguard and working as a lifeguard in high school, yes, I would have dove into 50 degree water swam 150 yards and tried to reach the man.  Once I reached him, through my training, he would have not dragged me down to drown.  There is no "wrestling match".  He could have been saved whether he wanted to or not.

Sandy

A good example of fear taking over. Not fear of doing the act but fear of the consequenses. A shame but it's all over the place.

Charlie

Quote:

I don't necessarily hold the firemen to any higher standards than I hold the other 75 people standing there that let that man drown.

  I do. They are first responders, they had the training and equipment, they simply had a policy change that did not allow them to get their feet wet.
Policy smolicy, what they did was not right in my opinion.
Yep still bothering me today.
all the best ;)
the bb

wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 4:10pm:

Quote: I don't necessarily hold the firemen to any higher standards than I hold the other 75 people standing there that let that man drown.   I do. They are first responders, they had the training and equipment, they simply had a policy change that did not allow them to get their feet wet. Policy smolicy, what they did was not right in my opinion. Yep still bothering me today. all the best ;) the bb

I too hold the first responders accountable.  However, according to the original posted article, they did not have the training or the gear required to go out there into the water and get his man. 

This tells me that those first responders have not had any water lifesaving training, because this man could have been saved by anyone with a minimum of lifeguard training (been there, done that).. 

As to "gear", you need none if you are trained for a water rescue. Nothing is "needed".  Yes, things like flotation devices, floating boards are extremely helpful, but bottom line, all anyone need is someone trained for water rescue.  I find it difficult to believed that with all of the first responders there that nobody could simply swim out about 150 yards, and with appropriate training, bring this man in.

If this IS  the case with the first responders, then they need to re-think and re-train their personnel.



The first responders were not trained.

Sandy

Quote:

The first responders were not trained.

;)what training, throw a rope, knock im in the head, hold on to rope, hold on to saved guy. Dry off. Have a beer. :D

wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 9:58pm:

;)what training, throw a rope, knock im in the head, hold on to rope, hold on to saved guy. Dry off. Have a beer. :D

For an hour he was in no more than five to six feet of water.  The difficult part is that the police and fire fighters together would have probably reacted differently if they were simply off-duty bystanders at the time by organizing help among the crowd.  It seems the crowd showed no initiative on their own, swayed by the department's compliance with budget-cuts and decision of non-assistance, which became a bad example.


Quote:

Witnesses say an apparently distraught Raymond Zack, 53, paced back and forth along the beach just before noon on Memorial Day. He then waded into the frigid San Francisco Bay. Zack stood about 50 yards offshore in neck-deep water for about an hour before ... Adding to the outrage was the fact that even after the tide brought Zack's dead body back near the beach, an unidentified passerby had to swim out and pull him ashore. ... Gilmore also said the city council would restore funds for training in such emergencies. Thus far, 16 firefighters have volunteered. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

All too wrong.

I was shocked after hearing the news about a guy died in freezing waters in San Francisco Monday. Firefighters and a crowd of around seventy-five spectators stood viewing what transpired. The initial responders were forbidden from acting by the police, which considered the cold-water rescue too unsafe. Here is the proof START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE. And after reading this thread I'm still bothered, how could saving a person's life is against the rules. So sad how a lost soul's life was wasted.

1) Take a frog, stick it in a pot of water, put it on the stove.  Apply heat in slow small increments.  Frog will not jump out of pot - it doesn't know the heat is being turned up.  Welcome to your cooked frog.

2) Welcome to a litigious society - "I'm not going to help, I'll get sued"

3) As an RLSSC (Royal Life Saving Society of Canada) certified instructor and bronze medallion lifeguard, and having grown up next to a body of water and witnessed 3 drownings my own father attempted to prevent, there is very little required for an open water rescue - the training helps - but by far the best method I've ever seen in open water (especially cold water) rescues is "knock em out, bring em back".  There is also something called a human chain, while most people wouldn't likely know what it is, anyone living near any large body of water should have at least a basic understanding of water safety etc.

4) Unintended Consequences - now a banned book in both the US and Canada - I'm going to find some pigs then off to live with John Galt.

If I were to post the direct links to the Titles in the US Code, the Federal Regulations, DoD Directives and Instructions, multiple government agency regulations that I have been researching this past week, and the dots were connected as easily as I connected them, it still wouldn't make a damn - cause the frogs already cooked, and we watched with eyes wide shut.

No words?  That is correct ma'am.  They've been taken away from you in every way that matters except your ability to think them.

I fear our failure to future generations cannot be reversed.

*shaking head in sadness and disgust*

Cat

<end rant>

A good op-ed on this.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Quote:

Surely, they became firefighters because they wanted to be heroes. But somehow, in some sad way, they turned into bureaucrats.

Mike

catlind wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:43am:

4) Unintended Consequences - now a banned book in both the US and Canada - I'm going to find some pigs then off to live with John Galt.

This is OT, but holy crap! :o  I just checked the price of this book off Amazon, and it'd be $89.93+ shipping from a used book seller (Goodwill out of FL).  Insane!

Melissa wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 8:14am:

catlind wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:43am: 4) Unintended Consequences - now a banned book in both the US and Canada - I'm going to find some pigs then off to live with John Galt. This is OT, but holy crap! :o  I just checked the price of this book off Amazon, and it'd be $89.93+ shipping from a used book seller (Goodwill out of FL).  Insane!

We had 2 hardcover copies - each is worth almost $300 USD - we loaned one to my brother, and it was lost in the house fire he had this past fall - insurance won't cover the book because it's banned.  *sigh*
We have been unable to locate the 2nd copy we had - not sure if it got 'lost' by the movers, or simply disappeared. 

Regardless of it's supposed dollar value, and/or censored status, it's a damn good book and story line.  Guess it will go the way of "The Hitman" too - or Way of the Warrior.   

Makes me wonder if they are going to start banning a certain sci-fi author who several years back wrote a book with a story line about a plane flying into and wiping out Congress..... oh wait, that fiction story already came to pass (more or less) *sigh*   

Up next:  The Thought Police, and Can I See Your Papers will be showcased alongside the Science Channels Healthcare in the Future series!

Hmmm guess my rant wasn't quite over...  :-X

Quote:

No words?  That is correct ma'am.  They've been taken away from you in every way that matters except your ability to think them.

That is the truth and a shame all in one. Without so much as a demonstration. Just the fact a book is banned in our country makes my blood boil. Apparently you cant dance in the Jefferson Memorial either. :-?