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 FETC on
-
I have to disagree with the title of this thread. Let's step aside from the emotional side of the terrible incident. This guy was attempting to commit suicide. So his mindset was "unstable" and the scene was NOT secure.
My first thought as a fire officer is how is this incident any different than a suicidal guy standing in the street with a handgun? Or another person who climbs atop the support structure of a large bridge (out of reach of your aerial) and wants to jump?
It's not any different, it is simply a police matter until the scene is secured.
If the FD or EMS decided to enter the water to pull him to shore, either by foot, by boat or by swimming, how could they assure this suicidal man doesn't have a weapon on him (under water, out of sight) or if he didn't have a weapon, how can you assure a struggle won't ensue that affords a rescuer being injured or possibly drowned in the process?
You can't. Even if you could throw this guy a rope, or shoot a line from a line gun, he is not going to grab hold of it. He wants to commit suicide. Otherwise he would have walked back to shore, the same way he walked out there.... willingly. I did note some history in an interview, this guy's mother pleaded while watching, she mentions that he had attempted this before, and I suspect walked back to shore on his own otherwise the FD or PD would have had experience. That bit of information is a factor in the decision making process, we were not there.
If the FD did attempt a rescue and a firefighter were to have been stabbed, or died in during the swimmer rescue, all of the armchair quarterbacks would have bashed this department for attempting something they were not trained for or without being a secured scene.
Here is my thought on the training and budget, (an excuse) besides it doesn't cover rescuing suicidal victims. I have done alot of swift and ice training and calls, all of my training was for people who are asking to be saved. Even then you have to be careful the stricken and panicked victim doesn't drag you under while they are trying to stay afloat. Reach, Throw, Row, Go, is how most everyone does water rescues, none of which were appropriate in this case of an unsecured scene, unstable victim. Heck even the coast guard who only do water rescue didn't have a policy on suicidal victims.
What I think is terrible is how the FD did a very poor job handling the PR side of the media. They focused on money and refresher training thus came out looking like the bad guys (public trust-loyalty-credibility was definately reduced) and they should have explained the reasons why, even if they had a funded and ready water rescue team in place, that this was not a pre-planned. trained for, "willing victim" in a usual "water rescue" incident.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Whether or not the suicidal subject grabs the rope or not is subjective on anyone's part. No one gave the guy a chance to change his mind. There is a fine line between one being suicidal verses depressed. It's not uncommon for people to have a change of heart when it gets down to the last minute. Using any means to shorten the distance between the victim and a life preserver is a good thing. Public perception, especially during the current fiscal problems we all face dictate that we do something. To sit and watch because of beauracratic decisions does no one any good and makes the fire service look heartless. I feel really bad for the engine company that was forced to do nothing. Like others, I would love to see the bean counter(s) take full responsibility for their neutering of the fire departments response capabilities... All to save a buck. Was it worth it? I think not.
CBz
-
-
Coastal beaches where I am located are served by State Park Lifeguards, with some of the lifeguards also being state park rangers, which are peace officers. Mutual aid agreements include their response upon request, or through automatic aid agreements.
As far as the title of this thread, it captures the essence of this incident. A man drowned because of a department policy that prevented firefighters from giving the guy a second chance.
Had the inexpensive option of using a surfboard to enable throwing a flotation device been attempted, this discussion would never occurred. Firefighters would not have been in harms way and even if the guy never took the flotation device and drowned, the public would have seen that we tried everything possible to save this mans life.
Was the guy suicidal or depressed? Know one will ever know. Someone made the decision to discontinue a program in a community with water hazards. Sure glad I am not that person...
CBz
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Mike, I didn't say that it was worth it.
I was just pointing out that Alameda didn't have the capability to rescue this guy on scene, they called for help from the Coast Guard, who they expected to be able to make the rescue, and found that the Coasties couldn't make the rescue, either.
I also disagree - situationally - with your "Using any means to shorten the distance between the victim and the life preserver is a good thing." There have been numerous rescuer deaths when trying to shorten that distance.
The fact is that any technique that doesn't REACH the victim is wasted effort. If that wasted effort also endangers rescuers who are untrained, un-equipped, and/or unable to complete the rescue, then the effort doesn't get even a "D" as a risk-benefit analysis grade.
I'm with Bill (FETC) on this one. The Alameda FD has a PR problem, but they didn't do anything unethical. In fact, they did the most ethical thing they could - they didn't needlessly endanger their people for a rescue that they KNEW they didn't have the capability to do themselves.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Using any means to shorten the distance between the victim and a life preserver is a good thing
As to how? This guy was still a distance from shore in water that is reported to be about 55 degrees, which is very cold. The distance from shore prevents effective communication to try and talk the person down, there is no boat to get close, the water is cold to risk putting personnel in it without proper equipment. Using a kayak, surf board etc, especially is untrained or unskilled to use it can be potential life hazard for the rescuer. Then you have a guy without regard for their own life, let alone others potentially. It is unkown if there was a weapon, how he would react when people did appraoch etc. In the end the fact remains the risks outweighed the benefits.
-
-
Mike,
Does anyone even know if the firefighters and cops on scene could swim?
A lot of people in this discussion (FFN, FireLaw, Statter911, and elsewhere) apparently assume that they could. However, that assumption hasn't been proven accurate as far as any of us knows right now.
I think it's premature to pound the surfboard option without knowing if the people who were actually on scene could actually swim or not.
There are many beachfront or island fire departments that don't require a swim test as a condidion of hire. Many of those same departments don't require water entry rescue capability from all - or in some cases, any - of their firefighters. If you have agency specialization for water rescue, maybe it's more appropriate for the fire department to not respond at all.
Why aren't we questioning "where were the lifeguards" in the Alameda case?
Why aren't we questioning why the Coast Guard showed up with a boat whose draft was too deep to get close enough to the victim to rescue him - the same Coast Guard that is responsible for knowing the hazards for littoral waters, knowing the tide and current state, and whose well-known mission is rescue from salt water?
After all, no lifeguards showed up at all. The Coast Guard showed up and effectively did nothing. Yet, all the heat is on the Alameda firefighters and cops. Isn't that a double standard, especially for agencies whose primary mission is WATER rescue?
-
-
One of the news clips showed a sign that stated no lifeguard on duty. And the focus is on the cops and firefighters because they were there on scene, looking at a sign that said lifeguards were never gong to be an option... The expectations from the public was that the fire department would do something... Anything but just driving by... It's not a double standard but instead an action that a reasonable person could find offensive. Whether we like it or not, the public has expectations when they call for help and in this case, no one answered the call, because of budget shortfalls? Knowing my state, this will become a legal nightmare for the Fire Chief. Glad to not be this person...
CBz
-
-
Just living in your state has become a legal nightmare, hasn't it?
In this case, the public got EXACTLY what they paid for - the fire department's reduced ability to rescue people from places other than buring buildings.
-
-
To be a company or chief officer in this state means that you have to be prepared to deal with problems both internally and externally when it comes to living and working in the litigious state of California... Glad I'm retired now...
-
-
Pretty much everyone has to be prepared to deal with legal issues the way things are everywhere. Some places have it more intensely than others.
Most of the people I know from SoCal are moving to Arizona.
Most of the people I know from NoCal are addicted to San Fran.
-
-
Having just returned from a 16-day geology field studies trip with the local college, I had the chance to interact with many different fire departments by choice. Nothing new stopping by fire stations to say hi and see how they do things. With the exception of this discussion and my former employer, legal issues in the fire service is non-existent and not even close to being on the radar.
Maybe this is why people are leaving California and opting for Nevada and Arizona? And anyone who has been to San Francisco more than once has to be addicted... It's just to cool a place to explore. At least that's been my experience so far! I was in SF this past March, concurrent with the Japan Tsunami that hit the coast. Every time I visit SF, it's something new. Guess I'm addicted as well.
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Hansen on
-
doing a little research on the net and so far I've found:
1)a letter to a local news organization from someone claiming to be a firefighter, that stated the reason the FD got into water rescue was because of the lack of funding for lifeguards. In his letter that person states there is no life guard for the entire beach.
2) A reference from a news organization to budget papers on alameda's web site that showed the FD expected 8 water rescues this year and 10 next year. How were they going to handle the 8-10 calls that they were expecting?
3) According to transcripts from the PD the person was reported in the water at 1130 and was reported floating by a person on the second floor of a nearby building using binoculars at 1205 and then the USCG arrived on scene. When requested initially USCG reported a 45 minute ETA.
4)about 1225 a police officer requested alemeda county search and rescue but cancelled that request because a civilian entered the water. Why almost an hour delay in requesting the SAR team?
5) Before everyone wraps themselves up in the fact of responder safety please take a look at Firehouse Heroism awards, there are numerous examples every year of firefighters placing themselves in extreme personel peril that results not in anyone condemning them but awarding them a medal and money for heroism. One example was an officer from a ladder company who entered a burning structure knowing that no engine was on scene and that the first 3 engines that were first due were unavailable. We hold this officer up as a hero (he did rescue 2 civilians)but use the excuse that one of us might get hurt to justify inaction? We make big medal days and posters for these heros for public acclaim but then try to tell the public they dont understand...we created this particular problem, we have to deal with it.
6) Just because it was a suicide doesnt mean we automatically stand and do nothing...Chicago FD rescues man after jumping from a bridge 12/17/10, Benton Harbor FD and USCG rescue woman after jump from bridge 12/23/10, Siuslaw Fire Department rescues man after jumping off hillside lookout. We as a service handle this type of situation almost routinely.
7) In the 2009 memo that the FD produced stating that personnel were not to enter the water it also stated that funding was available for training and it should start in 30-60 days in 2009, but that training was never started.
8) The FD was listed in the city's hazard mitigation policy as the primary water rescue agency...maybe someone should have mentioned then that they couldnt do that.
9) Im sure that over the last few year the city council has decided to cut funding to all city agencies thinking that nothing will happen but I cant find the necessary references in the little amount of time I had to research.
While this is a PR disaster for all involved it was a disaster in the making since at least 2009 with many people (elected/hired)responsible for it. You cant fault the lifeguards as there were none, or the USCG for arriving too late when they stated they had a 45 minute ETA. This disaster rests soley on the PD, FD and the elected officials of the city of Alameda.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
