Fucking Shameful :bleeding::bleeding::bleeding:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/
Quote'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man die
Budget cuts blamed after Calif. first responders look on as suicidal man stands in water for an hour
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 6/1/2011 5:26:21 AM ET
SAN FRANCISCO — Fire crews and police could only watch after a man waded into San Francisco Bay, stood up to his neck and waited. They wanted to do something, but a policy strictly forbade them from trying to save the 50-year-old, officials said.
A witness finally pulled the apparently suicidal man's lifeless body from the 54-degree water.
The San Jose Mercury News reported that the man spent nearly an hour in the water before he drowned. The newspaper identified the man as Raymond Zack.
According to reports, first responders and about 75 people watched the incident from the shore.
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.
'Deeply regrettable'
The previous policy was implemented after budget cuts forced the department to discontinue water rescue training and stop maintaining wetsuits and other rescue gear, D'Orazi said Tuesday.
"The incident yesterday was deeply regrettable," he said. "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."
Advertise | AdChoices
A witness, Perry Smith, told a television station the man was visible from the shore of Crown Memorial State Beach and was looking at people.
"We expected to see at some point that there would be a concern for him," another witness, Gary Barlow, told KGO-TV.
Witness Sharon Brunetti told the Mercury News that Zack's stepmother stopped her on the beach and asked her to call 911, saying he was threatening to take his own life.
Zack "gradually inched out farther and farther" from the shore but occasionally glanced back over his shoulder at the beach, Brunetti said.
"The next thing he was floating face down," the Mercury News quoted her as saying.
Too shallow for a boat
The Coast Guard was called to the scene, but the water was too shallow for a boat, Alameda police Lt. Sean Lynch said. Police officers didn't have the gear for the cold water and couldn't risk being pulled under.
"Certainly this was tragic, but police officers are tasked with ensuring public safety, including the safety of personnel who are sent to try to resolve these kinds of situations," Lynch said.
"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."
D'Orazi said crews may have decided it was too risky to attempt the rescue, even if they had not been shackled by the restrictions on water rescues.
In addition to the new policy, Alameda fire personnel will receive training in water rescues, and rescue equipment will be inspected to make sure it is not damaged, D'Orazi said.
There are no lifeguards at the beach, said Isa Polt-Jones, a spokeswoman with the East Bay Regional Park District. Signs at the park advise swimmers to enter the water at their own risk.
"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," Alameda resident Adam Gillitt told KGO.
The Associated Press and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.
:rolleyes:
What's wrong with this? There's a policy, and if you don't follow it you get disciplined and bankrupted by lawsuits.
In a society crippled by lawsuits, this certainly shouldn't raise any eyebrows.
When I first glanced at the story I figured with San Francisco's progressive attitude toward individual liberties, they were just respecting his wishes.
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2011, 09:11:51 AM
When I first glanced at the story I figured with San Francisco's progressive attitude toward individual liberties, they were just respecting his wishes.
I'm thinking it didn't happen in SF because the Alameda police and fire department are mentioned. :contract:
Alameda was too busy at the range blowing shit up with the Mythbusters.
Should have tased him from the beach. It's the only way to be sure
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2011, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2011, 09:11:51 AM
When I first glanced at the story I figured with San Francisco's progressive attitude toward individual liberties, they were just respecting his wishes.
I'm thinking it didn't happen in SF because the Alameda police and fire department are mentioned. :contract:
:blush: Well then I change 'San Francisco' to 'California' in my post.
They were watching him die for an hour? :wacko: If they couldn't save him, they could've at least just shot him. But I bet that's against a policy as well. :rolleyes:
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.
Were there any nuclear wessels?
Water can't have been that cold if it took him an hour to die.
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2011, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2011, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2011, 09:11:51 AM
When I first glanced at the story I figured with San Francisco's progressive attitude toward individual liberties, they were just respecting his wishes.
I'm thinking it didn't happen in SF because the Alameda police and fire department are mentioned. :contract:
:blush: Well then I change 'San Francisco' to 'California' in my post.
Then your statement becomes inaccurate. ;)
We had a case where someone had a heart attack in a truck. The driver drove him to the nearest hospital and asked for help at the reception. He was told to call an ambulance even though he was already at the hospital. The guy died.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 12:52:54 PM
Water can't have been that cold if it took him an hour to die.
Yep.
A couple other things:
QuoteThe Coast Guard was called to the scene, but the water was too shallow for a boat
If he was in neck-deep water, it may have been too shallow for a cutter, but not for a launch.
And:
Quote"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," Alameda resident Adam Gillitt told KGO.
Bingo.
guy wanted to die and he got to die. win-win.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 01, 2011, 12:30:57 PM
Were there any nuclear wessels?
That was the first thing I thought of when I saw Alameda. :nerd:
Quote from: dps on June 01, 2011, 03:02:30 PM
And:
Quote"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," Alameda resident Adam Gillitt told KGO.
Bingo.
That was the part that made the least sense to me. Easy to whine about others when you aren't doing something yourself.
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2011, 03:33:07 PM
Quote from: dps on June 01, 2011, 03:02:30 PM
And:
Quote"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," Alameda resident Adam Gillitt told KGO.
Bingo.
That was the part that made the least sense to me. Easy to whine about others when you aren't doing something yourself.
Uh, I wasn't there. Kinda hard to pull someone out of San Francisco Bay from North Carolina.
Quote from: dps on June 01, 2011, 04:02:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2011, 03:33:07 PM
Quote from: dps on June 01, 2011, 03:02:30 PM
And:
Quote"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," Alameda resident Adam Gillitt told KGO.
Bingo.
That was the part that made the least sense to me. Easy to whine about others when you aren't doing something yourself.
Uh, I wasn't there. Kinda hard to pull someone out of San Francisco Bay from North Carolina.
I meant the person in the article - although yes it isn't clear if they were on the scene either. :P
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2011, 04:14:47 PM
I meant the person in the article - although yes it isn't clear if they were on the scene either. :P
He had an hour to get to the scene! :lol:
I'm with you - it was an idiotic thing to say. This wasn't a rescue situation. The guy could have come ashore any time he wanted to. An attempt to force him to come to shore would have been fraught with risk, and, as the story notes, the people attempting it would have been neither trained nor equipped for the task (and probably wisely - how often does this occur, as opposed to the measures that would need to be dropped to pay for these measures?) It's like a guy sitting on a window ledge. You don't try to force him back inside, because he may take you with him when he goes.
"Man succeed in committing suicide" is the story here.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2011, 04:14:47 PM
I meant the person in the article - although yes it isn't clear if they were on the scene either. :P
He had an hour to get to the scene! :lol:
I'm with you - it was an idiotic thing to say. This wasn't a rescue situation. The guy could have come ashore any time he wanted to. An attempt to force him to come to shore would have been fraught with risk, and, as the story notes, the people attempting it would have been neither trained nor equipped for the task (and probably wisely - how often does this occur, as opposed to the measures that would need to be dropped to pay for these measures?) It's like a guy sitting on a window ledge. You don't try to force him back inside, because he may take you with him when he goes.
"Man succeed in committing suicide" is the story here.
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". :glare:
Which, incidentally, has happened over here with police officers summoned to assist a person in difficulty in inland waters* but not helping because "they lacked the equipment procedure/policy required" IIRC.
*I think it was a flooded quarry, but I can't recall exactly as the incident was a year or so ago.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 07:19:42 PM
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". :glare:
Since I am not blase about the situation, I am not going to get drawn into some asinine discussion about what level of hysteria need be reached under different circumstances. Had the man been drowning, he would have been rescued (or, at least, a rescue would have been attempted). In this case, he was committing suicide. That's afar different situation than a drowning person, and authorities are rightfully more reluctant to risk responders' lives for suicides.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 07:19:42 PM
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". :glare:
The only thing that can defeat heroes in this world are lawyers. And the "policy" that they would "break" is their only protection left.
That's why, when I was with the Po-Po, we never got recertified for First Responder Adult CPR after the academy. Had to get it per state requirements in the academy in order to be an accredited institution, but the city tossed the requirement for the force afterwards. Why? Got tired of dealing with the lawsuits.
Respond to the scene.
Shooting/stabbing/car accident victim requires CPR.
Render emergency aid prior to Medic arrival.
Victim expires despite best efforts.
8 months later, the responding officer, his sergeant, his shift lieutenant, his district commander, the Operations Bureau commander, the Training Bureau commander, the Police Commissioner and the Mayor of Baltimore listed as civil defendants for the $9 million dollar wrongful death civil suit.
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?
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 07:34:53 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 07:19:42 PM
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". :glare:
Since I am not blase about the situation, I am not going to get drawn into some asinine discussion about what level of hysteria need be reached under different circumstances. Had the man been drowning, he would have been rescued (or, at least, a rescue would have been attempted). In this case, he was committing suicide. That's afar different situation than a drowning person, and authorities are rightfully more reluctant to risk responders' lives for suicides.
:lol:
Why do you persist in picking out one tree ("incident") from the forest ("policy"), thus missing the point completely?
To quote the article -
QuoteInterim 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.
The policy, according to the information presented in the article, concerns water rescues, not people committing suicide. 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?
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.
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?
--------------------------
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".
Shouldn't you accent blasé, or at least put blasé in italics?
I'm surprised it isn't pronounced "wallywomper" in their godawful accent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...
The same situation is happening over here; consider volunteer "First Aiders", for example. Apparently, current advice over here so limits what they can do (for fear of being sued) that there's no point in them having taken 95% of their certification.
It's a sad, sad world. :(
I'm disappointed that everybody stood by (in the case I mentioned over here, a bystander actually rescued the person who was in difficulty in the water) but I can, sort of, understand it. It doesn't make it right though. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2011, 07:56:40 PM
Shouldn't you accent blasé, or at least put blasé in italics?
Yes, you're right, but I've never learned the keyboard well enough to produce accents where needed. I'm a (badly) self-taught typist. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 07:19:42 PM
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". :glare:
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 07:54:58 PM
:lol:
Why do you persist in picking out one tree ("incident") from the forest ("policy"), thus missing the point completely?
To quote the article -
QuoteInterim 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteWhich, 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteAnd "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".
:bleeding: 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.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 08:06:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...
:lol:
This is Languish. You're not supposed to say things like that unless you're being sarcastic.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 08:46:03 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 08:06:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...
:lol:
This is Languish. You're not supposed to say things like that unless you're being sarcastic.
:hmm:
CdM? That was meant as a compliment, nothing else.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 08:34:22 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 08:34:22 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 08:34:22 PM
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".
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 08:34:22 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 08:34:22 PM
:bleeding: 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?
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 08:47:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 08:46:03 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 08:06:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...
:lol:
This is Languish. You're not supposed to say things like that unless you're being sarcastic.
:hmm:
CdM? That was meant as a compliment, nothing else.
I thought it was a compliment, and I agree that it was an informative post.
I also found it informative. Which is why Age's compliment looked like a compliment rather than a snide remark.
I expected Age's post to be sarcastic after seeing
Quote...Fascinating and informative post by CDM...
myself as well.
It is very odd that Agelastus so rigidly adheres to whatever the press reports (MSNBC article by way of the San Jose Mercury news...). :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 09:19:28 PM
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." :P
Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2011, 12:21:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2011, 01:07:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2011, 12:21:51 PM
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.
Exactly.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 09:01:35 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteYour 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.
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!
BTW, according to the fire chief (see http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/06/01/interview-city-of-alameda-fire-chief-on-why-personnel-didnt-attempt-rescue-of-drowning-man/)
QuoteThe police decided a rescue attempt was not safe because the man in the water "could have been armed, could have had a weapon. That was what was discussed."
As I have said all along, the fact that he was a suicide made this different from an accidental drowning.
I don't understand why the Coast Guard didn't attempt a rescue. All of their larger craft have zodiacs aboard, as far as I know, and zodiacs are designed to go right to the beach.
Coast Guard probably doesn't have the necessary tazers though.
Maybe they could allocate some Homeland Security funds to get zodiac mounted tazers so tragedies like this won't happen again.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 07:44:32 AM
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!
:lol: exactly. Tazers work as well underwater as on land, and suicides almost never take anyone with them.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
Coast Guard probably doesn't have the necessary tazers though.
Maybe they could allocate some Homeland Security funds to get zodiac mounted tazers so tragedies like this won't happen again.
Maybe train some sharks with frikkin' tazers on their heads?
I can see the underwater thing being a problem. Perhaps sharks with tazers on their heads?
Is it too much too ask for some fucking sharks with tazers mounted on their heads????
DAMNIT!
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2011, 07:45:43 AM
BTW, according to the fire chief (see http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/06/01/interview-city-of-alameda-fire-chief-on-why-personnel-didnt-attempt-rescue-of-drowning-man/)
QuoteThe police decided a rescue attempt was not safe because the man in the water "could have been armed, could have had a weapon. That was what was discussed."
As I have said all along, the fact that he was a suicide made this different from an accidental drowning.
I don't understand why the Coast Guard didn't attempt a rescue. All of their larger craft have zodiacs aboard, as far as I know, and zodiacs are designed to go right to the beach.
correct
From what I can glean online -
-Someone was sending a chopper to get him but it came to late.
-SF has the only personnel currently trained for water rescues.
-Alameda used to have training but cut it for budget reasons.
-San Jose is now bringing back training as an agreement was reached with the Firefighter union, but the union chief states (backed up by evidence) that even when not trained, the SJFD has attempted rescues of drowning victims.
Quote from: citizen k on June 02, 2011, 01:55:16 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2011, 01:07:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2011, 12:21:51 PM
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.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 07:44:32 AM
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!
:lol: Except maybe 5th grade Science class.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 07:44:32 AM
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!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V4ZQvRnllI Because I like trotting out this video of the local police anytime anyone mentions tazers.
Also that should be Tasers, Dammit. Actually I think it's an acronym for Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle.
I like the term Conducted Energy Weapon. :cool:
Why didn't they just tackle him before he waded out?
Just out of curiosity, was this a public beach or was this guy trespassing? If he was trespassing, perhaps they could have shot him. I think California has a Castle doctrine law. This would have solved the problem for everyone.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 02:13:31 PM
Just out of curiosity, was this a public beach or was this guy trespassing? If he was trespassing, perhaps they could have shot him. I think California has a Castle doctrine law. This would have solved the problem for everyone.
Indeed - and since I am pretty sure suicide is a crime, shooting him would even protect him from committing a crime as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
That video doesn't really show anything interesting.
My video was better.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related)
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
That video doesn't really show anything interesting.
No. I guess you'd think that.
To me, tasing a guy holding an infant is still shocking. Pun not intended. ;)
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related)
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
That video doesn't really show anything interesting.
No. I guess you'd think that.
To me, tasing a guy holding an infant is still shocking. Pun not intended. ;)
ZOMG WHY YOU GOTTA BE A CUNT???
Really, you cannot tell from the video why the cop is tasing him, what the result of the tasing is, whether that is actually a child he is holding, nothing. There isn't any sound, and no context.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 02:57:20 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related)
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
That video doesn't really show anything interesting.
No. I guess you'd think that.
To me, tasing a guy holding an infant is still shocking. Pun not intended. ;)
ZOMG WHY YOU GOTTA BE A CUNT???
Really, you cannot tell from the video why the cop is tasing him, what the result of the tasing is, whether that is actually a child he is holding, nothing. There isn't any sound, and no context.
The way he's carrying it, I don't think it's a baby.
Quote from: dps on June 02, 2011, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 02:57:20 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related)
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
That video doesn't really show anything interesting.
No. I guess you'd think that.
To me, tasing a guy holding an infant is still shocking. Pun not intended. ;)
ZOMG WHY YOU GOTTA BE A CUNT???
Really, you cannot tell from the video why the cop is tasing him, what the result of the tasing is, whether that is actually a child he is holding, nothing. There isn't any sound, and no context.
The way he's carrying it, I don't think it's a baby.
I have no idea. And while tazing someone carrying a baby is probably a bad idea, I could certainly imagine circumstances where it is warranted. Was this one of them? Who knows? You can't tell from the video.
Is there more information some where that would make slargos likely faux outrage make more sense? Or is he just channeling Marty again?
The article is right there with the video.
Of course, it could be slander and lies.
Pics or it didn't happen, right?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20266747/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/defiant-father-tasered-while-holding-newborn/
But I guess that could be a lie aswell.
Eyewitness or it didn't happen.
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 03:39:53 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20266747/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/defiant-father-tasered-while-holding-newborn/
But I guess that could be a lie aswell.
Eyewitness or it didn't happen.
There are eyewitnesses. Their stories are conflicting though. Who are you choosing to believe?
I think they all agree that he was holding a child. Motivations and outcomes are not irrelevant, but I would think he'd need to be actively strangling the kid to make tasing him acceptable.
I wish I could find that video of that Swedish chick sing her national anthem while getting fucked by a black dude.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 03:15:42 PM
ZOMG WHY YOU GOTTA BE A CUNT???
Really, you cannot tell from the video why the cop is tasing him, what the result of the tasing is, whether that is actually a child he is holding, nothing. There isn't any sound, and no context.
I remember that; it was an alleged non-custodial baby snatching down in Houston at Mother's Hospital. And it wasn't a security guard, it was an off-duty Houston PD working for the hospital, which tells you all you need to know.
It's not like he was going anywhere; when the baby leaves the unit, the baby Low Jack sets off the alarm system, the stairwell doors lock down, and the elevators are disabled. He wasn't going anywhere.
Stupid Houston PD.
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
Lame, the dashcam from Ian Burke's shooting would push your agenda more........ :blurgh:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 02, 2011, 08:18:16 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related)
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
Lame, the dashcam from Ian Burke's shooting would push your agenda more........ :blurgh:
I don't have an agenda. I'm just creeped out by the kind of daily atrocities your nation produces.
That one was pretty bad aswell. Why do you do these things?
Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:11:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 02, 2011, 08:18:16 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related)
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
Lame, the dashcam from Ian Burke's shooting would push your agenda more........ :blurgh:
I don't have an agenda. I'm just creeped out by the kind of daily atrocities your nation produces.
That one was pretty bad aswell. Why do you do these things?
We are the greatest country on earth.
Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:11:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 02, 2011, 08:18:16 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 02, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6vBVUusmP0&feature=related)
Sometimes I think you Americans have long since lost any right to existence.
Lame, the dashcam from Ian Burke's shooting would push your agenda more........ :blurgh:
I don't have an agenda. I'm just creeped out by the kind of daily atrocities your nation produces.
That one was pretty bad aswell. Why do you do these things?
300+ million people, with lots of video cameras and a very free press.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 02, 2011, 11:27:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2011, 07:44:32 AM
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!
:lol: Except maybe 5th grade Science class.
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 12:41:21 PM
I like the term Conducted Energy Weapon. :cool:
I don't like it.
Then again, I have the same problem with "neutral particle beam."