'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man drown in neck deep water

[11B4V]

Would you be so blase if it had been a case of accidental drowning rather than deliberate self-harm? After all, the apparent implication of this policy is that the same response would be applied in that case - they would have just stood and watched such a person drown rather than "break policy".

The only thing that can defeat heroes in this world are lawyers. And the "policy" that they would "break" is their only protection left.


Meh, pass. Easier to let the Fire Department take the hit.  You shouldn't have gotten your dumb ass shot/stabbed/t-boned.

We had to get rid of our slim jims.  Used to be, every patrol car carried a slim jim to help people who locked their keys in their cars on calls for service.  Well, fuck that.  Help somebody unlock their door because their keys were in the ignition...then get a $800 bill AND a discourtesy complaint to Infernal Investigations 2 1/2 months later because "the po-po dat showed up done busted up my locks, yo, he di'int hafta do all dat'n bus' up my shit."  Now you call Pop-A-Lock, bitches.

There'd be a lot less suffering in this world, and a lot more good works accomplished, if it wasn't for the existence of lawyers.


And water rescues, in standing water or not, is a very dangerous, very specialized effort.  Which this particular incident was not.
I'm sure as shit not dropping my gun belt and taking off my shoes to wade out to somebody that could very easily take my ass with him.  Fuck you think I am, Flipper?

Hit the nail on the head. Hell, we dont even give people a "jump" anymore in my department.

[grumbler]

Why do you persist in picking out one tree ("incident") from the forest ("policy"), thus missing the point completely?

To quote the article -

Interim Alameda Fire Chief Mike D'Orazi said Monday's incident is troubling. He has directed staff to write a new policy that would allow water rescues in the city of about 75,000 people across the bay from San Francisco.

Why do you persist in picking out one tree ("policy") from the forest ("a man died"), thus missing the point completely?

This isn't a story about a policy, it is a story about a death.  Sure, the paper wants to sell more copies, so they choose an angle that sells papers to gullible dupes, who think the "forest" of things is policies. 

This guy didn't die because of policies.  He died because he killed himself.  He could have saved himself no matter the policy, and no policy could have saved him.

The problem was the location, not the act. So how is the situation different from a drowning person if they choose to "follow policy" because that way is the "safe" option, as they did here?

The problem was the suicide.  Had he been an accidental drowning victim, there would have been at least an attempt at a rescue, of that I am certain.

Which, I repeat as I note you chose not to quote that part of my post, has actually happened on this side of the Atlantic in similar circumstances.

Which you assert, but which I assert has no bearing, since this is all just stuff you are throwing out here.  There can be no comparison between this case and "some other case about which we know nothing other than it involved a drowning in the presence of authorities of some sort."  Sticking to facts, the fact is that this guy killed himself, and no policy was going to save him from himself.

I repeat, would you have been so blase in your response had the incident concerned an accidental drowning rather than the deliberate attempt at self-harm that it actually was?

Don't keep repeating silly and already-addressed questions.  I am not blase about this, but neither am I hysterical.  This incident didn't involve an accidental drowning, and I am sure it would have ended differently had this been an accidental drowning.  We would certainly have seen the stories if it didn't.

And "asinine"? Hysteria? Your fundamental contempt for your fellow posters is really starting to show through, dear boy. It's really starting to take the shine off your claim to "never be the first to resort to insults".

   For fucks sake!  Do you really have to nail yourself up on that cross?  Frankly, no one gives a shit for your telling me what i am like, blah blah blah, "resort to insults," nail, nail, nail 

Save it for a forum where they give a shit.

[Eddie Teach]

...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...

This is Languish. You're not supposed to say things like that unless you're being sarcastic.

[Agelastus]

...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...

This is Languish. You're not supposed to say things like that unless you're being sarcastic.

CdM? That was meant as a compliment, nothing else.

[Agelastus]

Why do you persist in picking out one tree ("policy") from the forest ("a man died"), thus missing the point completely?

This isn't a story about a policy, it is a story about a death.  Sure, the paper wants to sell more copies, so they choose an angle that sells papers to gullible dupes, who think the "forest" of things is policies. 

This guy didn't die because of policies.  He died because he killed himself.  He could have saved himself no matter the policy, and no policy could have saved him.

Dear boy, dodging the issue by focusing on the actions of the man in the water rather than the non-actions of the fire department doesn't help your case at all.

The problem was the suicide.  Had he been an accidental drowning victim, there would have been at least an attempt at a rescue, of that I am certain.

I would hope so myself. I am, however, nowhere near as certain of this as you due to events in my country. I would also note that since the local authorities seem to think the policy needs revising, they may not be as certain of this as you are either - that is, of course, purely my own inference based on the article.

Which you assert, but which I assert has no bearing, since this is all just stuff you are throwing out here.  There can be no comparison between this case and "some other case about which we know nothing other than it involved a drowning in the presence of authorities of some sort."  Sticking to facts, the fact is that this guy killed himself, and no policy was going to save him from himself.

Your inability to see the validity of the comparison is not my problem, and is, in fact, rather startling on the face of it. The example I gave is simply the next stage up from what happened here. The man who was not helped in this incident had placed himself in peril deliberately, the man in the incident I brought up did not place himself in peril deliberately.

As such, given the question I asked, it was a germane and essential portion of my post whose implications you chose to avoid having to respond to by means of "selective quoting".

Don't keep repeating silly and already-addressed questions.  I am not blase about this, but neither am I hysterical.  This incident didn't involve an accidental drowning, and I am sure it would have ended differently had this been an accidental drowning.  We would certainly have seen the stories if it didn't.

Thank you for finally answering the question I posed. As I said above, I am not as certain of this outcome as you are.

   For fucks sake!  Do you really have to nail yourself up on that cross?  Frankly, no one gives a shit for your telling me what i am like, blah blah blah, "resort to insults," nail, nail, nail 

Save it for a forum where they give a shit.

Dear boy, in your own words, you obviously "give a shit". Don't like the company on that "cross" of yours?

[dps]

...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...

This is Languish. You're not supposed to say things like that unless you're being sarcastic.

CdM? That was meant as a compliment, nothing else.

I thought it was a compliment, and I agree that it was an informative post.

[Eddie Teach]

I also found it informative. Which is why Age's compliment looked like a compliment rather than a snide remark.

[sbr]

I expected Age's post to be sarcastic after seeing

...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...

myself as well.

[garbon]

It is very odd that Agelastus so rigidly adheres to whatever the press reports (MSNBC article by way of the San Jose Mercury news...).

[CountDeMoney]

I also found it informative. Which is why Age's compliment looked like a compliment rather than a snide remark.

Which is why I accepted it at face value--despite the English accent--and didn't respond with "Oh yeah, well...fuck you." 

[Zoupa]

I bet the union demanded a bunch of overtime pay for water rescue training, did not get it, so now insist that nobody is allowed to go in the water.

Well I bet you the opposite.

[citizen k]

I bet the union demanded a bunch of overtime pay for water rescue training, did not get it, so now insist that nobody is allowed to go in the water.

Well I bet you the opposite.

The union demanded no overtime pay for water rescue training, got it, and now insist that everybody go in the water.

[Zoupa]

Exactly.

[grumbler]

Dear boy, dodging the issue by focusing on the actions of the man in the water rather than the non-actions of the fire department doesn't help your case at all.

Pretending that the man wasn't committing suicide doesn't advance your argument.  The fire department decision-maker on the scene knew this was a suicide, so pretending it doesn't matter doesn't fly.

I would hope so myself. I am, however, nowhere near as certain of this as you due to events in my country. I would also note that since the local authorities seem to think the policy needs revising, they may not be as certain of this as you are either - that is, of course, purely my own inference based on the article.

Your doubts don't create facts.  My inference based on the facts has been outlined already, and your response was a red herring hypothetical.

Your inability to see the validity of the comparison is not my problem, and is, in fact, rather startling on the face of it. The example I gave is simply the next stage up from what happened here

.
I thought you couldn't give an example?  If you have an example, let's see the link so we can draw conclusions based on facts, not suppositions and unreliable partial memories.

[Berkut]

I don't understand why rescuing him would be so hard.

OK, so he is trying to commit suicide, so he might be irrational and dangerous. Seems pretty simple to just go out there, taze him a couple, thee/four times, then drag him back to shore.

See, and I didn't even need any special training to figure that out!