It's hard to believe.

[Monster2]

I'm just mind boggled that this could have happened. He was in the water an HOUR and they couldn't do anything at all?

‘Handcuffed by policy,’ fire and police crews watch man drown

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.

 

[Korrie]

wow, thats really sad

 

[San2]

Every single person that was present, firefighters, policemen, eyewitnesses and whoever else stood there and did nothing should be charged with manslaughter.

Maybe next time, they'll get their arses into gear.

 

[Emerald1]

Because of budget cuts?..... this is painful.

 

[Sunflower2]

I lose my faith in humanity a little more every time I read shit like this

 

[ChefChiTown]

From what the story says, he was trying to kill himself. Why should firefighters and/or policemen who are untrained and uncertified in water-based rescue risk their own lives to save somebody who is (apparenty) deliberately trying to kill themself?

 

[San2]

So you'd just stand there and watch?

Before they are policemen and firefighters, they are human beings. A human being does not stand there and let somebody else drown. Sorry.

What about the other people who looked on. What's their excuse?

Plus, why should they risk their lives? Because it's their f*cking job, that's why!

 

[Monster2]

He was in the water for an hour. My conclusion: He wasn't that suicidal after all.
I'll see if I can more details on the case.

 

[ChefChiTown]

So you'd just stand there and watch?

Before they are policemen and firefighters, they are human beings. A human being does not stand there and let somebody else drown. Sorry.

What about the other people who looked on. What's their excuse?

Plus, why should they risk their lives? Because it's their f*cking job, that's why!

Actually, considering they are untrained and uncertified in water-based rescue, it is not their job to risk their lives in that situation.

And, if I were there, I would feel obligated to help...but only if I could. We don't know what the water was like. We don't know how dangerous it was. We don't know anything other then what is in the article. So, nobody can say for sure that they would or wouldn't help. Not me. Not you. Not anybody.

As for the onlookers, I will go back to saying that we don't know what it was like, so who are we to judge them?

 

[San2]

Actually, considering they are untrained and uncertified in water-based rescue, it is not their job to risk their lives in that situation.

And, if I were there, I would feel obligated to help...but only if I could. We don't know what the water was like. We don't know how dangerous it was. We don't know anything other then what is in the article. So, nobody can say for sure that they would or wouldn't help. Not me. Not you. Not anybody.

As for the onlookers, I will go back to saying that we don't know what it was like, so who are we to judge them?

It was mentioned that they couldn't launch a boat because the water was too shallow. It took the man an hour to drown. How 'dangerous' does that sound to you?

Well, I would have gone and tried to get him out of there. I can swim. That's all it takes. None of the policemen and firecrew could swim? How convenient.

None of them deserves to even wear a uniform.

And I don't need to know what it was like - if they could stand there and watch for an hour, they could have tried to get him out, no matter the circumstances.

Guess people really just don't care. Little worrying that those who get paid to care don't give a sh*t either.

Maybe somebody should have thrown a donut in the water...that might have made them move.

 

[Monster2]

You know... something as simple as a human chain.... people holding hands... extended out to him to see if he would come in would have been enough to satisfy me. But no one even GOT WET, close enough to show him some real human compassion, and that is disgraceful.

 

[Iain1974]

I've heard a very similar story before from the UK. Shocking but not unique

 

[ChefChiTown]

It was mentioned that they couldn't launch a boat because the water was too shallow. It took the man an hour to drown. How 'dangerous' does that sound to you?

Well, I would have gone and tried to get him out of there. I can swim. That's all it takes. None of the policemen and firecrew could swim? How convenient.

None of them deserves to even wear a uniform.

And I don't need to know what it was like - if they could stand there and watch for an hour, they could have tried to get him out, no matter the circumstances.

Guess people really just don't care. Little worrying that those who get paid to care don't give a sh*t either.

Maybe somebody should have thrown a donut in the water...that might have made them move.

You don't need to know what it was like? That comment right there shows me how narrow your point of view is on this subject. The setting of the scene matters, whether you want to admit it or not. I'm the kind of person who will jump in and get involved to help somebody, but only if I can - only if serious personal damage won't come to me if I do. If I see a man being punched and kicked by a group of 3 dudes, I'm going to jump in and get involved. Now, if that same man is being shot at by a group of 3 dudes with guns, I'm not going to jump in the middle of it - neither would 99.9999999% of other people in the world.

Sorry, but what it was like down at the water most certainly matters. Let me raise a few questions to illustrate the point that nobody knows what the situation was like, other than the very vague description given in the article...

How do you get to the water where the man was located? Were the people standing right at the water's edge or is there a barrier of some sort? A fence? A wall? A ledge? A collection of rocks?

How large is this barrier and how safe is it to cross? If it's a wall, how high is it? If it's a fence, does it have barbed wire? If it's rocks, how safe are these rocks to walk on? Are they jagged? Sharp? Wet and slippery?

What was the condition of the water? Was it calm? Choppy? Wavy? Was the water splashing on any rocks? What's in the water? Are there plants that people can get tangled in? What is the condition of the floor? Is it sand? Is it sharp rocks? Is it coral? Is it safe or dangerous?

The fact is - you don't know. Nobody does except for the people who were there. So, to sit here and act all high and mighty is kind of unwarranted. You don't know what the situation was like, other than a man drowned and people watched.

And, let me raise this point...

The firefighters and police officers stood there and "watched" because they weren't trained or certified in water-based rescue. This indicates that special training (and equipment) is needed in order to safely and successfully involve yourself in water-based rescue operations. Now, if the fire fighters and police officers don't have that specialized training (which, according to the article, costs a lot of money), I'm willing to bet none of the citizens at he scene had training or certification either.

Now, why would you expect any of those people to risk their lives for someone who was apparently suicidal?

 

[Monster2]

Okay. I just found this, more information is out there.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Officials in the town of Alameda, California, are revising rescue procedures after the suicide of a man who waded into the frigid waters of San Francisco Bay and succumbed to hypothermia as firefighters and police watched from shore.

The tragedy unfolded Monday when emergency personnel were called to a public beach in Alameda, a small East Bay island city near Oakland, where bystanders reported a man had walked into the water up to his neck about 200 yards from shore.

Efforts to coax him back proved fruitless, and the U.S. Coast Guard was called to assist. But without a rescue vessel immediately available, no attempt was made to reach the man until after he appeared to lose consciousness and was seen floating face down, police said.

By then, nearly 45 minutes had elapsed from the time authorities first arrived, said Lieutenant Sean Lynch, investigations commander for the Alameda Police Department.

Minutes later, as the surf pushed the man's body closer to shore, a civilian onlooker finally swam out on her own and pulled the man back to the beach, where emergency personnel tried in vain to resuscitate him, Lynch told Reuters.

Shallow waters prevented a Coast Guard rescue boat from getting close enough to help, and a Coast Guard helicopter called to the scene arrived too late, according to spokesman Marcus Brown said.

"Every reasonable effort was being made to save this individual," Lynch said, insisting there was little else emergency personnel could do without risking their own lives. The temperature of the water was 54 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[San2]

Chef, I feel we're not even in the same galaxy on this one. Yes, my view is very narrow on this, and it will not change. Whatever the circumstances - they didn't even try. They hid behind excuses of not being trained - so, any time a police officer or a firefighter comes across a situation they haven't explicitely been trained for, they won't deal with it?
They were standing at the shore, watching a man standing in the water for nearly an hour, slowly drowning. They didn't help because bureaucracy didn't allow them to, and they were either too lazy, too stupid or to apathetic to go against the written word.
Would they have stood there, in the same situation, if a child had fallen in the water and was drowning? Would they really just have watched that happen, and none of them would have had the guts to even try to go out there and help?
The excuse of 'not being trained' doesn't cut it for me, sorry. People who go out there and help others out of dangerous situations aren't trained for it either. Were the people who helped the flood and earthquake victims in Japan and countless other places all trained for that? No. They helped regardless, to the best of their abilities, and yes, they put their own lives at risk. All around the world, every day, people risk their lives for others, for completely unselfish reasons. Just because they can, and they care enough not to hide behind excuses.

Guess that's not the case everywhere though. And as long as there are people who accept, even defend the 'here I stand and leave it to somebody else' policy, that's not going to change.

 

[Emerald1]

"Every reasonable effort was being made to save this individual," Lynch said"

.....false

 

[amy1985]

^ Governmental semantics game. In Sydney about five years ago they revamped the train service, and soon started boasting that they were going from 70% reliability to 95% reliability. How? They redefined "late" (to 10 minutes or more after scheduled time).

 

[ChefChiTown]

From the most recent article Monster posted...

The tragedy unfolded Monday when emergency personnel were called to a public beach in Alameda, a small East Bay island city near Oakland, where bystanders reported a man had walked into the water up to his neck about 200 yards from shore.

"Every reasonable effort was being made to save this individual," Lynch said, insisting there was little else emergency personnel could do without risking their own lives. The temperature of the water was 54 degrees Fahrenheit.

You need special gear to travel 200 yards off shore into water that is only 54 degrees Fahrenheit. An individual could easily die or be victim of serious consequence if they were to attempt to rescue that man without the proper training or equipment.

Keep in mind that 200 yards is a faaaaar distance away from shore. It's not like you can throw a rope at that point. It's not as easy as some people want to make it seem. And, if you don't believe me, go swim 200 yards into the ocean, grab a 300 lb weight that provides resistance when you pull it away from its location, and try to pull it all the way back to shore. Then tell me how easy it would be for any of those people to have rescued this man.

"When you're dealing with a suicidal person, they clearly have shown no regard for their own life or safety," Lynch said. "This is a 300-pound man who is not responding to communication attempts, going farther out into the water. All he has to do is bear-hug an individual and take them down with him.

It turned out that the victim, identified by the Coast Guard as Raymond Zack, 53, had tried taking his own life once before by drowning, Lynch said. On Monday, Zack had told a surfer who paddled out to him, "Go away, leave me alone."

Why would anybody risk their life to save a man who is clearly suicidal?

"We were unable to maintain the training our rescue swimmers needed to make a rescue in the water," he told Reuters. He said after Monday's tragedy, "We've revised our policy to train our rescue swimmers" and to give on-scene commanders the discretion to order a water rescue if needed.

Rescue swimmers are specially trained and highly qualified (for the most part) to handle water-based rescue missions. The average Joe, whether he is a police officer or firefighter, does not have the training (and quite possibly the physical conditioning) required to perform water-based rescues.

I'm willing to bet that none of the 75 or so people who stood there and "watched the man die" were qualified or even capable to rescue that man.

Chef, I feel we're not even in the same galaxy on this one.

HAHAHA, no, we're definitely not.

Yes, my view is very narrow on this, and it will not change. Whatever the circumstances - they didn't even try. They hid behind excuses of not being trained - so, any time a police officer or a firefighter comes across a situation they haven't explicitely been trained for, they won't deal with it?

The excuse of 'not being trained' doesn't cut it for me, sorry. People who go out there and help others out of dangerous situations aren't trained for it either. Were the people who helped the flood and earthquake victims in Japan and countless other places all trained for that? No. They helped regardless, to the best of their abilities, and yes, they put their own lives at risk. All around the world, every day, people risk their lives for others, for completely unselfish reasons. Just because they can, and they care enough not to hide behind excuses.

Guess that's not the case everywhere though. And as long as there are people who accept, even defend the 'here I stand and leave it to somebody else' policy, that's not going to change.

First of all, the volunteers that help with victims of floods, tsunamis, hurricanes (etc) don't need special training. They are simply cleaning up a mess, handing out food or water, building temporary shelters, etc. It's nothing that is life-risking to the victims or to themselves. So, no special training is needed.

Well, unless you're part of the medical personnel - then you are required to be certified to practice medicine. Because, practicing medicine (especially in emergency scenarios) is something that is life-risking to the victims and to the medical personnel attempting to help them.

Secondly, those policemen and firemen aren't allowed to perform water-based rescue missions. What don't you get about that?

Believe it or not, there are laws that have to be followed in the US - even by police officers and firefighters - even while they are in a rescue situation. They aren't allowed to do whatever they want while attempting to resolve a situation. Believe me, I wish they were...but they're not. It's too dangerous. I know you don't see it that way, but it is.

Would they have stood there, in the same situation, if a child had fallen in the water and was drowning? Would they really just have watched that happen, and none of them would have had the guts to even try to go out there and help?

A suicidal man purposely attempting to kill himself via drowning is a completely different scenario than an innocent child accidentally falling into the water. You can't compare the two.

 

[San2]

First of all, the volunteers that help with victims of floods, tsunamis, hurricanes (etc) don't need special training. They are simply cleaning up a mess, handing out food or water, building temporary shelters, etc. It's nothing that is life-risking to the victims or to themselves. So, no special training is needed.

I am not talking about clean-up crews. I am talking about those that went out while the water was rising, simple people who went out there to save other simple people.

Secondly, those policemen and firemen aren't allowed to perform water-based rescue missions. What don't you get about that?

I get it. What I don't get is how a person can just stand there and say 'Well, I'm not allowed to help, so even though I might actually be able to do something, I will not even try'.

A suicidal man purposely attempting to kill himself via drowning is a completely different scenario than an innocent child accidentally falling into the water. You can't compare the two.

Yes, I can, because they would have just sat there and watched the child that fell as well. Because, you know, they weren't trained. Not allowed to. I would like to hear them try to explain that to the parents. Let's hope it never happens to somebody you care for.

The man was in there for over 45 minutes. He repeatedly looked back to the people at the shore. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he was waiting for somebody to bloody stop him. But...they didn't even try. It clearly says that NO attempt was made to reach the man. Reaching him doesn't mean getting close enough to be grabbed, just close enough to communicate.

Hell, they even let an onlooker get the body out of the water. Couldn't even be bothered to clean up the mess they created. It's pathetic, no matter how much you try to sugar coat it.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I get it. What I don't get is how a person can just stand there and say 'Well, I'm not allowed to help, so even though I might actually be able to do something, I will not even try'.

Did you miss the part where the man was 200 yards deep into the water that was 54 degree Fahrenheit? That's extremely unsafe. I don't blame those people for not diving in, head first, to go save that guy.

Yes, I can, because they would have just sat there and watched the child that fell as well. Because, you know, they weren't trained. Not allowed to. I would like to hear them try to explain that to the parents. Let's hope it never happens to somebody you care for.

It's not comparable at all. An innocent child falling into the water is an accident - an innocent life would be at stake. The man who swam out 200 yards into the water was no accident - he was deliberately trying to take his own life. Those two situations are nothing alike.