Posted on 06/04/2011 12:46:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not just cops and firefighters, either. Spectators watched too, including his elderly stepmother, who was too frail to dive into the water herself.
Weaver noted that a 2009 policy – revoked this week – prohibited firefighters from participating in water rescues. The policy was implemented after budget cuts ended water-rescue training. OK, I counter, but surely some first responders had been trained before 2009. Weaver’s answer: Yes, but they lacked the right equipment.
Weaver assured me that the firefighters who were on the scene feel horrible about what happened. “Every one of our members who was on that scene wishes that the policy would have allowed them to do something at some point,” he explained.
Any firefighter who broke with policy could have landed in a world of bureaucratic payback. That’s the problem. No government worker in America gets fired for following the rules.
As Russo put it, “We need an approach toward public service that is less rule-bound and more willing to take risk.”
That’s Debra Saunders, wondering whether the PD and FD would have been as respectful of bureaucratic rules if it had been a kid out there drowning. Cops note that there was no way to tell whether Zack was armed and dangerous, but of course that’s true for almost anyone attempting suicide. A guy sitting on a bridge rail is as likely to be concealing a weapon as this guy was, yet police will still try to grab him if they can. The city’s not buying the excuses, in any event: Given the national outcry over what happened, they’ve already decided to relax the policy against water rescues.
Wondering how the body was brought back to shore, incidentally? Turns out … a bystander decided to swim out there and get it, once Zack finally went horizontal in the water and started floating face down. Exit question: Isn’t this story just a darker, more tragic version of this one?
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
The reaction of some here, who claim to be firefighters, causes me to lose respect for their opinions as posters here.
I am not sure if this is the union mentality, as your post implies, or just that their responses regard hypothetical situations and avoid what we know to be the facts in this situation.
Perhaps they are in the wrong line of work.
I am in a fire department, I cannot imagine this happening.
Then he didn't need rescuing ...
Ordinary people don't give a damn about rules when it comes to saving lives. There are a million reasons for not doing something, and it takes overwhelming will power to do the right thing.
Standing on the sidelines for an hour while equivocating about what to do is not prudent reserve, it's bureaucratic cowardice.
In your anecdotal study, how many of those rescues were of a threatening man?
Reminds me of Crocodile Dundee and the jumper on the skyscraper.
the article I clicked on specified waste deep water.....something most cops could handle.
Fair enough.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/cpac.html
Shows June 1 to 15 for Alameda to have a water temp of 64 degrees. A wet suit works.
But,
Expected Survival Time in 60 to 70 degree water: 2 to 40 hours; exhaustion or unconscious in 1 to 2 hours.
http://www.ussartf.org/cold_water_survival.htm
Your turn.
Maybe you need to put a first responder every other house along the shore then you wont ever have to rescue anyone!
They did call the coast guard. They sent a boat but it couldn’t operate in water that shallow. The fire dept water rescue unit was called off due to the distance.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inalameda/detail?entry_id=90270
If it were me I would have definitely gone in the water and tried to reason with the guy. If nothing else, someone in the water could have kept an eye on him and known when he was weak enough to be dragged back to shore without much of a fight.
The Safety Officer can and should halt all operations if there is any danger to ANY responder. Sorry for not making that clear before.
“Are you guys ready? Okay. Let’s roll!”
Todd Beamer’s last words heard by operator Lisa Jefferson at 09:55.
someone is getting sued....and they deserve it.
So it could be expected that this guy had plenty of survival time. Deciding to have the State forcibly go out and subvert his will at the very real risk of innocent lives is what you would suggest? No thanks.
BTW, have you seen this?
"Rescue"?
He wanted to die. He did not WANT to be rescued. The ‘government’ is not Mommy.
If he set himself on fire he might still be alive.
This happened in the S.F. Bay Area. You are exactly, precisely, literally correct. The ONLY thing these bystanders - professional and civilian - are upset about is that the utter disgust of the rest of the country might impact the political influence of the left-wing groups they belong to. They are not ashamed of their behavior. They sleep well at night. And they have rightious anger with clear consciences about letting that guy die. They feel NO guilt - none. The professionals followed policy, and the civilians followed the professionals. There is nothing else to them - literally. Nothing else even exists.
There is no humanity in the S.F. Bay Area. None. You might think other parts of the country are just as bad, or worse, but you're wrong. These people feel nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.