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 Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Watching one of the news videos, the Rescue Boat was shown in dry dock, moth balled because of budgetary issues quite some time ago. What a shame... I fully concur with your observation that through donations and volunteerism, a water rescue program, although minus the bells and whistles, could have been a positive factor regarding the outcome and PR nightmare generated from this incident.
-
-
What an interesting insider view of the things that go on behind the scene...
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
I've had to live with that kind of reality for 36 years. Budgets are not just a financial document - they're also a planning document. However, it is impossible to forecast the next year with 100% accuracy. That's why budgets always have some flexibility - priorities change during the budget year due to those unanticipated things that occur.
Assuming that budget money that wasn't spent in the line item for which it was appropriated isn't realistic. It's not wrong or unethical to do it - as long as there's a good reason for it, moving the money can be a no-brainer.
I don't know if that kind of thing is what occurred to AFD's water rescue budget or not. It's also possible that they had less revenue than expected 6 months later, did a midyear budget cut, and the water rescue training money was simply eliminated from a later budget document that might not have shown up on the internet yet.
-
-
Still seems awfully cavalier to not have some sort of scaled down bare bones plan in place. Could a department rely on volunteer training certs and donated equipment? I'm pretty sure it could... My department has operated that way, sharing resources through mutual aid and donated equipment. No boats, just donated water-skis, surfboards and wet suits. It can be done. Just ask a firefighter...
Once again, failure to prepare is preparing for failure... We all need to be better prepared based on realistic hazard assessment, like having coastline as a part of your first in district.
Can you imagine Hilton Head island or the beaches of Santa Barbara with no water rescue capabilities? It's absurd to think otherwise just like it's unbelievable to think that a department would create such a liability for their jurisdiction. After the legal system gets done with them, it will be painfully evident that they totally blew it and should have found a way to mitigate ALL the potential hazards threatening their community.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Still seems awfully cavalier to not have some sort of scaled down bare bones plan in place
Who is to say there isn't? There could be some shore based training and such, but let's face reality here, the guy was out 150 to 300 feet from shore, which as such is outside the range of the bare bones planning.
Could a department rely on volunteer training certs and donated equipment? I'm pretty sure it could
It may, but such things also raise many issues from a safety aspect and planned approach as well as legalities and so forth. Basically it can be too much of a headache to deal with to even take on such an endeavor.
Once again, failure to prepare is preparing for failure... We all need to be better prepared based on realistic hazard assessment, like having coastline as a part of your first in district.
And along those same realities lies in the money factor as well. In my district we do have a lot of coastline, with a river and a bay, yet up until a couple years ago the water rescue was severly lacking, and it still is for the amount of coastline.
Can you imagine Hilton Head island or the beaches of Santa Barbara with no water rescue capabilities? It's absurd to think otherwise just like it's unbelievable to think that a department would create such a liability for their jurisdiction. After the legal system gets done with them, it will be painfully evident that they totally blew it and should have found a way to mitigate ALL the potential hazards threatening their community.
Where in though does it dictate that the FD is the agency tasked with being the water rescue agency? Nowhere. In fact there are many areas where the FD has no hand in water rescue whatsoever. While above I mentioned about our capabilities with a lot of coastline, but to expand the Sheriff's dept, Police, DNR, and Coast Guard also has more capability to respond to many issues. In fact the dive team here is operated by the PD despite the FD having better capability to handle it.
Point is that just because the FD was dispatched in this case, does not mean it "must" jeapordize personnel in such incidents. The FD water rescue program was cut, as such the community deemed the Coast Guard would be the primary agency. In this case the CG couldn't get in and was too late when a helo was dispatched. Those are the facts. If budgets are cut so severe and incidents like this occur, the FD hands are tied, especially if the politicians and bean counters deem another agency will take over.
Oh and let's not forget the simple fact here as well, this was a SUICIDAL man, already intent on ending his own life, not a water rescue. Approaching any suicidal person is a cautionary approach and should be sized up accordinly and risk to personnel be very minimized. A suicidal person can be very unstable and can take out others with them, there is no need to put rescuers at extreme risks. So really THIS incident is NOT a typical water rescue.
-
-
shore based rescue thoughts: one rescuer on a surfboard swims toward the victim and throws the rescue can attached to a rope. if the guy wants to die, you did everything possible. if he wants to live, tow him back toward shore and let the cops deal with the guy.
volunteer based training certs: In CA, certs are certs, regardless who pays for the class. All of our water rescue folk paid for their own training, and certification. They came back and developed an in house shore based water rescue training program for all the engine company personnel. We got donated life preservers, one for each post position, as well as a flotation device tied to a rope.
fire departments and water rescue: you have to keep in mind that my culture includes providing water rescue, and this includes both swift water rescue from swollen creeks and rivers as well as ocean rescue. Remember Baywatch the TV show? The lifeguards in Los Angeles County are under the County Fire Department. Again, it's my culture and it's just a normal thing, probably like Miami/Dade, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, etc. We have found out that relying on the feds or other agencies can cost lives because of the delay in response.
I here you as far as the budget cuts, but for me personally, I would find it impossible to watch someone die without trying to do something. We get paid for out of the box thinking. To have an off duty nurse haul the body back to shore... while we watched?
Suicidal Subject? Do we know for sure the guy was absolutely suicidal or was he severely depressed. The later often times is seen with last minute oh shit moments where they change there mind, or rather return to their senses. I think we should give everyone a chance to change their mind, as long as you can do it safely. Having a firefighter donn a wetsuit, swim toward the victim, but not within contact distance, throw him a flotation device. He again would be given the option, you might be able to buy yourself the time needed for the Coast Guard to arrive by just talking to the dude. Inexpensive simple options offered here that would have saved a life potentially.
Is their a typical water rescue? When I supervised a water rescue for the UCSB Fire / Police Department, we had a number of calls, none the same and some just outright bizarre. Suicidal subjects in the water is not a new thing. But then again, I live and have worked in wacky California for decades and nothing surprises me anymore.
I responded to a suicidal subject on the fire rescue and a weapon was involved. We work with our SWAT team and just like the water rescue program, rely on mutual aid and combining resources and talents. I was able to convince the guy (over the phone) to wrap himself in tinfoil, pointing in a Western direction at all times to prevent the aliens from getting inside his mind. Who's to say that the guy in the water wasn't just another wacky out there Californian?
I'll just shrug my shoulders at this point, smile and remind you that it takes one to know one... whoops, I said too much.
CBz
-
-
shore based rescue thoughts: one rescuer on a surfboard swims toward the victim and throws the rescue can attached to a rope. if the guy wants to die, you did everything possible. if he wants to live, tow him back toward shore and let the cops deal with the guy.
So now are you referring to this incident alone or in general? Here in WI, you really don't see surfboards. If talking about the incident, then hindsight is 20/20, besides if there was a water rescue in place prior and funding dried up, the fact remains the powers at be decided water rescue was not important for the FD and thus relied on another agency.
We got donated life preservers, one for each post position, as well as a flotation device tied to a rope.
Same thing on all our rigs, yet still doesn't mean we would go in for such an incident.
you have to keep in mind that my culture includes providing water rescue
Fine if it is your culture, but the facts remain that it isn't everyones. Staffing, training, equipment, and so forth does cost money, be it tax dollars or donations, but when outside the realm of paid services, consistency can vary. Yet, as this incident shows us, consistency can vary even with paid services. Point being is there are many other factors at play that go beyond personal culture.
I would find it impossible to watch someone die without trying to do something. We get paid for out of the box thinking. To have an off duty nurse haul the body back to shore... while we watched?
I'm sure the crews had a hell of a time to watch as well. Who is to say they weren't thinking outside the box, but still handcuffed by policy and final decision? Now you sound just like those who have no clue about the job saying responders did nothing, yet don't understand all the circumstances involved. The "off-duty" nurse is also key here as well, off-duty, meaning not constricted by the policy they may fall under while on-duty.
Suicidal Subject? Do we know for sure the guy was absolutely suicidal or was he severely depressed. The later often times is seen with last minute oh shit moments where they change there mind, or rather return to their senses. I think we should give everyone a chance to change their mind, as long as you can do it safely. Having a firefighter donn a wetsuit, swim toward the victim, but not within contact distance, throw him a flotation device.
Do we know for sure? No, do we have to error on the safety of responders and the public? Absolutely. It doesn't matter if he was truly suicidal or depressed, the fact remains he was beyond the reach of emergency services, he was at a distance prohibiting effective communication. As public safety we can't just allow anyone to just go up either because we don't know what the guy is thinking.
Have a FF don a wetsuit and swim towards the victim....once agin, wetsuits are not a widespread issue of equipment. Just going in can also go beyond command and decisions, going in can constitute freelancing and put the rescuer as well as other responders at risk. Especially if not properly equipped, nor trained to do this. It is just too easy to use 20/20 in hindsight after the fact.
I responded to a suicidal subject on the fire rescue and a weapon was involved...... Who's to say that the guy in the water wasn't just another wacky out there Californian?
And every situation is different. The fact is that this guy was still quite a distance from shore hindering effective communication to be talked down. There is no water rescue program by the FD due to cuts, the CG was unable to get to the guy due to water depth and it took awhile to dispatch a helicopter. In the end, there really wasn't a good way to truly mitigate without risking the lives of responders. The simple fact remains the guy was suicidal, he is in the water, he could be under influence of drugs, could have a weapon and so forth. In the end reponders MUST error on the side of caution and protect themselves first.
-
-
Wisconsin obviously is not the first place one looks for surfboards, admittedly. It's also a given that most of your firefighters, compared to our own their own wet suits because in SoCal, surfing and firefighters are synonymous. We have the time off to stay in shape doing physical activities such as surfing and ocean related things.
In regard to some of your posed questions:
• I am referring to this incident specifically, not water rescue in general.
• Chances are pretty good that a chief officer made the call, not one of the line guys and we both know that sometimes, gold can be toxic, causing momentary lapses in judgement and common sense sometimes, regardless of the budgetary problems, to ignore a blatant community hazard such as your district have coastline is absurd.
• Your department culture to not go in and deal with a water rescue is much different than how we look at things. My department considers themselves an "all risk" department. When someone calls for help, we do just that and are not bound by someone trying to make a point by completely cutting a rescue program and leaving nothing in it's place.
• The personal culture issue is just that. We are very much different and I'm not sure where the consistency thing comes into play. As mentioned, we took care of the problem ourselves without a dime of funding. We train our own folks, using Ca State Water Rescue response standards in concert with Firescope. As professionals, we are always consistent in our methodology, approach and outcome. All risk departments don't get to decide what they want to get involved with. In fact, I find it silly to even consider not ALWAYS trying to find a way to mitigate problems. It's what we get paid for doing. That is what makes us professionals verses volunteers. We solve problems verses making excuses why the job can't get done.
Now you sound just like those who have no clue about the job saying responders did nothing, yet don't understand all the circumstances involved.
Gee, now you sound condescending John. What I read and saw on the news pretty much said it all. Additionally, the information posted on this site should be enough to illustrate my understanding about this incident.
Aloha,
CBz
-
-
"shore based rescue thoughts: one rescuer on a surfboard swims toward the victim and throws the rescue can attached to a rope. if the guy wants to die, you did everything possible. if he wants to live, tow him back toward shore and let the cops deal with the guy.'
Mike, I think we need to define terms here. Any rescue that requires the rescuer to be in - or on - the water is not a "shore-based rescue". Shore-based rescues limit the rescuers to remaining on shore.
Any rescue that requires a rescuer to enter the water - even paddling a board - is a swim-based rescue.
Any rescue that requires a boat is a boat-based rescue.
Any rescue that includes swimming, paddling a board, or operating a boat is a potential swim for the rescuer(s) involved.
As my old friend Jim Segerstrom used to say, "If you go out in a boat, be prepared to come back without the boat."
-
-
The issue here is that AFD and APD were not equipped to make any rescue that required them to enter the water, nor to deal with a suicidal subject 300 meters offshore.
I'm all for fire departments being involved in water rescue. I'm also all for the departments that do it being properly equipped and trained. Most importantly, I'm strongly against tag-team suicides that involve would-be rescuers.
-
-
No one expects the fire department to do all types of water rescue where I work.
Several agencies here do a variety of water rescue functions.
The beach lifeguards do most of the surf rescue and also operate PWCs.
The sheriff's office operates a patrol boat that's also used for rescue.
The U.S. Coast Guard operates a medium-draft cutter and several FAST boats (the new patrol/security/rescue RHIBs) from the nearby USCG Tybee Island station and several helos from a nearby military airfield.
We have two nearby Marine Rescue (USCG Aux.) squadrons.
Fire and Rescue trains all firefighters in shore-based water rescue. Every engine and truck has PFDs for all crew members and shore-based water rescue equipment. Fire and Rescue also operates two shallow-draft boats that are primarily in waters too shallow for the other agencies' boats.
I prefer an all-hazards rescue approach, but some departments have to limit their involvement, either through a lack of funds, a lack of personnel with the interest or ability to do certain types of specialty rescue, or due to statutory limitations on where they can respond.
Remember, many municipal jurisdictions end at the mean high water mark. It's going to be pretty tough for a fire chief to explain why firefighters were sent into the water outside the city limits for a rescue if one of the firefighters unfortunately doesn't get to go home. I did some research and can't determine if Alameda's city limits extend into the bay or not.
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Hansen on
-
Ben,
here is a link to the city of alameda's application to be annexed by county ems district (http://www.acgov.org/lafco/documents/supporting_docs_2011_05_12/Ite...). Page 7 of the pdf shows a map of the area to be annexed. This map was provided by the city and it appears that the city boundary extends over water on all sides, with a significant extension into the bay. In doing a little further research it seems that alameda has gone through a number of fire chiefs over the last few years, with near constant turn over at the top position it's plausible that this fell through the proverbial crack. One letter to an editor stated almost 10 chiefs in 10 years, this becomes more of a politician problem if their hiring process does so little to find potential problems.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
