[solefald]

So, with all the latest talk in OT how cops are protecting public, enforcing the law and generally protect us from ourselves, what do you think about this story?

As some commenters on CNN speculated (great to be an armchair general, right?), the cops did not go in because they thought the man was deranged and may have had a knife. Or would've tried tried to kill them or something, so they ended up just standing on a shore for an hour and watching the man drown from the distance, until a passer-by nurse got in the water and pulled the guy out. Unfortunately it was too late to save his life. But hey, I am glad none of the first responders got wet during this whole ordeal.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/01/cal...ing/index.html

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

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

The events of Memorial Day were "very difficult and very regrettable," Alameda Interim Fire Chief Michael D'Orazi told CNN Wednesday.
Two things prevented authorities from taking action, he said. First, because it was a crime scene, the police department was in charge. "They felt that going into the water initially might not be the best idea because they were unsure if this individual was armed, the stability of the individual," D'Orazi said.

Also, "there was a policy in place that pretty much precluded our people from entering the water."

That has been changed, he said. "We will be putting into effect a new policy which allows our commander discretion after these circumstances."
The firefighters on the beach "were incredibly frustrated by this whole situation," he said, adding that "they wanted to get in, they wanted to take action."

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

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

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

In the interview with CNN, D'Orazi said that if firefighters had chosen to enter the water despite the policies, he "wouldn't have an issue with that." But the situation should not recur, because the policies have been changed, he said.
News reports said a woman ultimately tried to save the drowning man, but was too late, and ended up pulling his body to shore.

[solefald]

inb4allofthecopsweredoingtheirjobscomments

[CollinsE90]

I just cant get my head above this

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by solefald

inb4allofthecopsweredoingtheirjobscomments

So are you saying that if someone expresses that they feel that police officers acted justifiably in one specific scenario, under particular circumstances, that this same person will automatically say that another set of police officers acting in a completely separate, unrelated situation with vastly different circumstances acted justifiably as well?

I don't see the logic in that.

[Vanity]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

So are you saying that if someone expresses that they feel that police officers acted justifiably in one specific scenario, under particular circumstances, that this same person will automatically say that another set of police officers acting in a completely separate, unrelated situation with vastly different circumstances acted justifiably as well?

I don't see the logic in that.

You know what you have to do....

[solefald]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

I don't see the logic in that.

I don't see logic in lots of different things related to law enforcement and alike, yet there is *always* someone who claims that they acted within the law, their power, some unknown policy or the word of god.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by Vanity

You know what you have to do....

Haha Solefald is certainly entitled to his opinion, and I respect it. I was just trying to take the "moderate" position. The discussion interests me.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by solefald

I don't see logic in lots of different things related to law enforcement and alike, yet there is *always* someone who claims that they acted within the law, their power, some unknown policy or the word of god.

Yeah there will always be those on both sides of the equation (they acted appropriately vs. they did not).

[solefald]

Originally Posted by Vanity

You know what you have to do....

Yep, lets ban everyone mods/admins do not like.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by solefald

Yep, lets ban everyone mods/admins do not like.

Haha I don't know if you were insinuating that I don't like you but that's certainly not the case. I think he was probably making fun of me more than you anyway.

[Vanity]

Originally Posted by solefald

Yep, lets ban everyone mods/admins do not like.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Haha I don't know if you were insinuating that I don't like you but that's certainly not the case. I think he was probably making fun of me more than you anyway.

you are much nicer than me...



What I do not understand is the lack of evidence of a knife or weapon. Its one thing if he is waving it in plain sight, but don't police have other ways to sub due crazy ppl? tazer is not an option (water issue), but they have tranq guns or bean bag guns....or here is a crazy idea go old school and hog tie him and drag him out.

[da1nonly]

haha, none of the had adequate training...does that mean none of them knew how to swim???

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by da1nonly

haha, none of the had adequate training...does that mean none of them knew how to swim???

I think more of the lines, how to save a drowning victim and not get sued later for something dumb.

Im suprised none of the by standers that were watching didnt jump in and save this dude. Yet they bitch later that cops and firefighters did nothing.

[MiddleAgedAl]

How much of the background of the situation did the first responders know when deciding how much personal risk they were willing to assume, and whether or not to enter the water ?

IF they knew he was intentionally putting himself in harms way, then it's not unreasonable to assume that would enter into their decision making, at least in a sub-conscious level. Yes it is technically their job to try and help, but if they knew he didnt want help, only the most naive would assume that the would be quite so keen to give everything and risk it all to try and save him (compared to what they may do to try and save someone who ended up in a pickle thru no fault of their own and desperately wanted to live).

If it was a real accident or something (fell out of a boat, or was pulled in by a stronger than expected tide or current, or whatever), and the responders didnt at least make some effort to try and go in and rescue him, then that is a tragedy. Even if a person exercised some monumentally poor judgement and, to nobodys surprise, ended up in trouble, that is still nowhere near the same as if someone intentionally put themselves in harms way.

If he chose to intentionally put himself in that situation, and they didnt risk their own safety because of that, then thats not quite the same deal, IMHO.

The fact that the circumstances of his life led him to think that the only way out was to kill himself is of course sad, and the tragedy may lie in THAT aspect of the story (he didnt have the social support he needed).

The fact that responders chose to not assume quite as much personal risk in that situation as much as they might have in the event of a truly "innocent victim" is not a tragedy, that is actually quite logical. I'd rather they do that and then be healthy and ready to go if a loved one of mine really wants their help later.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by solefald

inb4allofthecopsweredoingtheirjobscomments

They didn't do their jobs, the man was suicidal and a danger to anyone around. They should of shot him from the shore and let the tide carry him out.

[nmulax]

Originally Posted by comeback1

What I do not understand is the lack of evidence of a knife or weapon. Its one thing if he is waving it in plain sight, but don't police have other ways to sub due crazy ppl? tazer is not an option (water issue), but they have tranq guns or bean bag guns....or here is a crazy idea go old school and hog tie him and drag him out.

Seriously... doesn't sound like we know the whole story. What made them think a guy struggling to tread water would be armed?

Originally Posted by da1nonly

haha, none of the had adequate training...does that mean none of them knew how to swim???

On the way to work this morning they said it's something like 25% of Americans who can't swim. Growing up in Michigan (surrounded by lakes), it's scary to think that many people didn't learn to swim as a child.

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

How much of the background of the situation did the first responders know when deciding how much personal risk they were willing to assume, and whether or not to enter the water ?

IF they knew he was intentionally putting himself in harms way, then it's not unreasonable to assume that would enter into their decision making, at least in a sub-conscious level. Yes it is technically their job to try and help, but if they knew he didnt want help, only the most naive would assume that the would be quite so keen to give everything and risk it all to try and save him (compared to what they may do to try and save someone who ended up in a pickle thru no fault of their own and desperately wanted to live).

If it was a real accident or something (fell out of a boat, or was pulled in by a stronger than expected tide or current, or whatever), and the responders didnt at least make some effort to try and go in and rescue him, then that is a tragedy. Even if a person exercised some monumentally poor judgement and, to nobodys surprise, ended up in trouble, that is still nowhere near the same as if someone intentionally put themselves in harms way.

If he chose to intentionally put himself in that situation, and they didnt risk their own safety because of that, then thats not quite the same deal, IMHO.

The fact that the circumstances of his life led him to think that the only way out was to kill himself is of course sad, and the tragedy may lie in THAT aspect of the story (he didnt have the social support he needed).

The fact that responders chose to not assume quite as much personal risk in that situation as much as they might have in the event of a truly "innocent victim" is not a tragedy, that is actually quite logical. I'd rather they do that and then be healthy and ready to go if a loved one of mine really wants their help later.

No no and no!

Suicidal victims need help no matter what the situation is! Other wise according to your flawed logic, we might as well close all mental hospitals and all Pshycotrists quit their jobs!

Now, to make you understand that you are wrong, i want you imagine that the drowing person is your father or your mother! Hows your logic working now??

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by comeback1

you are much nicer than me...

Hah I've got to have thick skin in my line of work so that trickles down to this environment as well I guess.

[1cleanm6]

What a joke!

If I saw someone drowning , I would go after them right away.

Waste of tax money, fire them all.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by KGB7

No no and no!

Suicidal victims need help no matter what the situation is! Other wise according to your flawed logic, we might as well close all mental hospitals and all Pshycotrists quit their jobs!

Now, to make you understand that you are wrong, i want you imagine that the drowing person is your father or your mother! Hows your logic working now??

I never said make no effort to help at all, but I am suggesting that the amount of commitment you are willing to make to help someone who does not want your help is not, and should not, be the same amount of commitment that you should make for someone who would gratefully accept your help.

If the drowning person was my mother and father, and they wanted help, then of course I'd be very upset if no effort was made to try and save them.
If they didnt want any help and wanted to end it, then the finger of blame should be at least partially pointed at me for not offering the needed support earlier and letting it get to that point. Not the first responders fault that things have escalated, to such an extreme situation. Like the parents who blame a rock band if their child kills themself after listening to their music. Guess what folks, it's not the band's fault; obviously something went waay off the rails long before junior hit play on Nirvana for the last time, and the band isnt the guilty party there either.

My argument of course does assume that they knew of his intentions; if they had no way of knowing, and they still made no effort, then that definately is wrong !

My possibly harsh opinions stems from talking with a friend who works as a paramedic in a nasty part of town. I hear stories of them picking up the same damn crackhead every Saturday night, with a different set of stab wounds or OD symptoms, until eventually that person is DOA. How much money is wasted there, when that could be applied to someone who needs the help, wants the help ? Like it or not, we live in a planet of finite resources, folks. Allocating those resources poorly is in nobody's best interests.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

My possibly harsh opinions stems from talking with a friend who works as a paramedic in a nasty part of town. I hear stories of them picking up the same damn crackhead every Saturday night, with a different set of stab wounds or OD symptoms, until eventually that person is DOA. How much money is wasted there, when that could be applied to someone who needs the help, wants the help ? Like it or not, we live in a planet of finite resources, folks. Allocating those resources poorly is in nobody's best interests.

your friend gets paid to help people who need medical attention and not discriminate.

with your logic, if a patient they are picking up is 90 years old, and they already picked up the same patient 3 times this month, wouldn't it be cheaper for taxpayers to let that person die where they at, without transporting them to the hospital and wasting those finite resources?