The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Man drowns... Department Policy verses Ethical Behavior
Posted: 06/05/2011 01:00:49 AM PDT
Alameda Police and bystanders watch the man drown.
An Alameda Fire Engine was video taped driving by the scene.
Department policy prevents firefighters from entering the water...
ALAMEDA -- Only two people went into the chilly San Francisco Bay waters on Monday to help a suicidal Raymond Zack, and neither was wearing a police or firefighter uniform. When Zack, 52, despondent and depressed, walked fully clothed into the Bay at Robert Crown Memorial State Beach to take his own life, at least 10 Alameda firefighters and police officers made the choice not to come to his aid. They stood on the beach and watched, for about an hour.
( Full Story... ©KRISTIN J. BENDER/OAKLAND TRIBUNE )
References:
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_18210604
http://www.washingtonpoliticsnews.com/?p=2002
http://www.whatthefolly.com/2011/06/03/us-news-alameda-ca-drowning-...
Video:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Police said they did not know if Zack, 6-foot-3 and 280 pounds, was violent, armed or had drugs in his system.
This was discussed briefly on this site before a post was removed. In that there were a couple of videos that stated this guy was out 100 yards from shore. While this article doesn't state the (says 50yds) distance it is important to know, especially before judgements are cast about how there should be more done etc, etc.
300 feet (or 150) is a good distance from shore to attempt a rescue without a boat. It is too far to throw a line and it is too far to attempt to swim out and try and bring a suicidal person back. 300 feet is also a good distance to prevent an adequate exchange of voice to effectively communicate to try and talk the person down. As I bolded, this is a big guy and one really doesn't know if the person has weapons, drugs, etc. The guy wants to kill himself, so this is not like a typical water rescue and rescue attempts without proper equipment and/or training can seriously jeapordize the lives and safety of the rescuers on shore.
There was mention about using a kayak, but then again this goes towards inproper equipment as well as training. Hindsight is always 20/20 and naysayers don't have the burden of making such a judgement call by emergency personnel. In the end the funding for water rescue wasn't there, there was a lack of necessary equipment and the distance away from shore is pretty far to make a rescue from shore. In the end I agree with the decision by the fire officials and police. There are just way too many risks at stake, despite the inability to help, such a decison I'm sure did not come easy.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
There is a lot of discussion about this on Curt Varone's Fire Law blog.
There is a lot of uninformed commentary, but there's some good stuff there, too.
Apparently Curt's blog is offline right now, but I'll post some links when it's back up.
-
-
-
Here are some of the 911 incident tapes.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Thanks Ben. I've been out of town camping or the past two weeks. A friend sent me the news clip and asked me what I would have done...
-
-
The best answer is to fund the training and equipment to qualify enough rescue swimmers to make the rescue. In the absence of that training and equipment, I have a hard time agreeing with the uninformed people who demand that the firefighters and cops join in the victim's suicide attempt.
I am also shaking my head in disbelief at the people on the Fire Law blog and elsewhere who claim that the firefighters should have "thrown a rope" to the victim...when the rope is 75 feet long, the victim is 300 feet offshore, and the victim is unwilling to let anyone rescue him.
-
Permalink Reply by Shareef Abdu Nur on
-
At my department, we do not have a boat or any other means to make a distance swim of 300 ft and them have enough stamina left to possibly wrestle an adult male back 300 ft to shore. We do not have any personal floatation devices or even a bull horn or PA system to talk to the victim. Whether he chose to take his own life or not is not my concern. We took an oath to protect lives and property and sometimes we have to protect those we serve from themselves. What we do have is a technical rescue team and mutual aid departments with boats.
As the first due Officer, I would have requested the technical rescue team as well as at least one mutual aid department with rescue boats and we would have at least made every effort with in our capabilities to get the victim into one of the boats regardless of protocol.
-
-
Alameda FD did request a boat - from the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coasties were unable to make the rescue, also due to policy restraints.
-
-
After reading the articles and watching the videos, I'm not sure why they had to completely cut the training program and water rescue response capability, considering the district was bordered by water. My department receives FREE Waterski Crafts from the local dealer annually, used for public relations with the local population and visitors benefiting from the generous gift. Admittedly, there are some costs associated with training personnel. But... when has this stopped a firefighter from attending the training, regardless of monetary compensation.
All of the water rescue personnel with my department do not receive pro pay or any form of compensation for maintaining their water rescue certifications, which are in house and VERY stringent. It's amazing what you can do if you just do it yourself. Perhaps this could be applied to other departments such as Alameda FD's.
Please note that the "Water Rescue Team" consists of members that include more than one agency. All the local fire departments work together, sharing information and again, doing in house training drills on duty. Whether or not your department opts to go for a full blown water rescue program, it sure makes sense to at least plan on getting minimum water rescue training if your response area has any water hazards. Use this example to exemplify what the outcome could be should your department choose to ignore the obvious needs of the community.
At a minimum, with training levels (and courses) approved and commented on by Chief Waller should be identified here in this discussion to enable a firefighter to:
1. Donn a wet suit including flippers, mask and snorkel.
2. Using a surfboard carried on the engine company, enter the water with a life preserver or what is called a "can".
3. From a safe distance, throw the can toward the victim, giving him the option as to whether or not to grab hold of the ring/can/buoyant life preserver, attached to a rope.
4. Should the patient grab hold of the rope, presumably, the cops standing on the sidelines would go into action, removing said psychiatric suicidal subject to a safer location for evaluation and treatment.
Am I naive here? Can a simple approach to providing water rescue be this easy? To be honest, it's how we did it and with one station Captain in charge of the program, reporting to his Battalion Chief, the process is streamlined and simple to run.
a. Firefighters get training, possibly having to foot their own costs for the class and expenses...
b. Go to local surf board manufacturer and ask for a donation for a rescue surf board. They might do it for free. If not, ask one of the service clubs to help raise the money to purchase a rescue surfboard. If you don't ask, you won't get the assistance that someone just might be willing to provide.
c. Go to the local Kawasaki distributor for WaterSki's and ask if your department would be eligible for an annual loaner program, using one of their watercraft as a rescue tool. We did it, and have been getting along just fine, conducting incredible technical rescues, saving lives, and all on a zero budget... Training and refresher information is done in house and on duty.
Finally, I want to remind folks here on the FFN that like all of us, these firefighters are handcuffed by rules made by someone behind the scenes trying to save money, at the publics expense. Can you imagine wanting to do something but having to not do so because it was against department policy? To have another brother or sister say anything negative about the folks involved with this incident is inappropriate and self serving.
Take a look at the bottom photo highlighting the department memo that stated, "The Water Rescue Swimmer Program is on hold and all previously qualified Rescue Swimmers shall not enter the water..."
Hopefully, instead of finding ways to talk trash about Alameda FD, we should instead, collectively, share training information and resources aimed at preventing this type of incident from ever having to happen in the first place. To do so will enable the people we protect, regardless of the politicians, bean counters or Chief officers being forced by others to do things they really didn't want to ever even consider... Let's help one another here and remember, It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Just sayin'
CBz
-
-
One issue with firefighters obtaining certifications and training on their own...
The Fair Labor Standards Act specifies that public employees cannot work full-time and volunteer for the same agancy. If that were allowed, there would be a lot of pressure on the public employees to work overtime for free. Banning it avoids the employer from strong-arming the employees into working without compensation.
If the training and certifications cannot be obtained by local, on-duty training, then there are going to be extra costs to the FD to train the water rescuers. Those costs start with either overtime for the training, backfill to cover the slots for the firefighters who are training, or both.
The FLSA was originally applied to private sector employers who engaged in interstate commerce, but it has been expanded to include public employees since the 1985 Garcia v. San_Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority case was ruled upon by the SCOTUS.
As for the personal watercraft loaner program, not all of the PWC dealers participate, and in an area with lots of FDs and lots of water, there may not be enough PWC dealers to support every FD with a PWC or two. I like the PWC loaner program, but in the Alameda case, a PWC may not have helped, since the victim was suicidal. PWCs are not the best tool for rescuing victims that are either uncooperative or who are severely injured and can't assist in their own rescue.
If you're a FD interested in the best rescue PWC training available, call Shawn Alladio of K-38 Rescue. She's the best in the world. Her company is based in Cali.
-
-
Your thoughts on use of rescue surfboards to gain access to the patient without endangering the rescuer could with a tethered flotation device?
This is one of our easiest to deploy options and our training is all done in house at no extra cost to the department.
-
-
It depends. If you have people who can swim strongly enough and who can be taught to maneuver the boards in the kind of surf/current conditions that each beach or set of tidal flats has, then it's a good option.
Another option is sit-on-top surf kayaks. Tybee Island, Georgia (barrier island offshore from Savannah) uses them off of engine companies, as they're faster and easier to deploy than PWCs, don't require swimming, and can be used as giant can buoys to support several swimmers in trouble until more help (PWCs, Zodiacs) can get to the scene.
The problem as relates to the Alameda situation is the unwilling/suicidal nature of the victim. How do you rescue someone who is uncooperative-to-suicidally uncooperative? Almost no one has a practical SOG for that kind of situation, because the options with any chance of success are very, very limited.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
