Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SampleMan
Yes, thanks, I meant post 71 instead of 65. 71 was in response to 65.

Part of playing solo hero is knowing when there are no other options. The British Coastie seems to have had other options considering that he had a team with him and acted without them.

Put another way, the man has principals and ethics that don't allow him to accept crap like that.

If you look at his quotes, he was more concerned with how his life would be if she fell to her death than how she or her family would be. He was concerned with himself, first, second, and last. It seems that he put himself in unnecessary risk so that he wouldn't feel bad later.

That far more people die as the result of hesitation than as a result of a truly rapid response? That requires substantiation for you? OK, start with everyone that has died between the time a second party called 911 and the time the professionals arrived. Take that number and subtract all the people who died as a result of attempting to rescue someone before the professionals arrived.

First you're mixing apples and oranges by comparing response time from a 911 call to hesitation. Then you are speculating without substantiation. You only offer your opinion to bolster your own opinion.

Volunteers do some remarkable things from time to time. Sometimes they get only themselves injured or killed and exacerbate the problem.

It seems that you'd prefer that EMS and other rescue services be manned by those who fly by the seat of their pants and just do what they feel like doing at the time without regard to anything else and screw anyone who criticizes.

Now forget that a professional rescuer faces liability for doing something stupid that any other citizen could get by with. Forget that for a moment. If there are no standards except individual judgments, then how do you train anyone to a standard? How do you improve on performance if there is no standard? And how do you prevent stupid actions if there are no standards?

In this case the amateur sees this guy as Dirty Harry/John Wayne/Steven Segall, etc all rolled up into one vs The Man/The System/Bureacracy/Socialistic Rules etc. and those on this thread with professional level rescue experience see this guy as someone who can't handle the heat he brought on himself for breaking the rules and possibly one not to be counted on in a pinch.

Remember, there is no indication that his coworkers are sticking up for him at all!

120 posted on 01/13/2008 6:59:34 PM PST by Eagle Eye (If you agree with Democrats you agree with America's enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: Eagle Eye
If you look at his quotes, he was more concerned with how his life would be if she fell to her death than how she or her family would be. He was concerned with himself, first, second, and last. It seems that he put himself in unnecessary risk so that he wouldn't feel bad later.

Wow, that is some amazing logic. If someone is ready to fall to their death, and in response I put myself in danger to save them because I can't live with letting them die, while knowing that I could have saved them, then I'm just a selfish oaf.

It would then follow that the person that can accept that they need to be allowed to die, so that others might not be unduly put at risk, is being unselfish.

I just don't know where to start with that.

127 posted on 01/14/2008 7:17:54 PM PST by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson