First Responders Embarrassed.....Or Should Be

[shatto]

Troubled Man Drown Himself As Firemen Watch
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_1...nclick_check=1
This is more than just a story about a troubled man killing himself as those who "Protect and Serve" failed their jobs to the point of embarrassment.
This is about how America has shifted, away from a "can-do" attitude to a nation of people needing authorization from an 'authority' to do anything.

Some fifty years ago, my dad told me that a big part of the reason we were able to beat the Japanese and Germans was that their soldiers could only function following orders.
Shoot their officers and they were at a loss as what to do; contrasted with the American soldier who was glad to have his officers somewhere else so he could get the job done.

America has reversed roles.
Now our nation is rejecting what made us us.........
Now our people stand on the shore and make no move to save a desperate man, wading in the surf.
Now we don't act because it isn't in our union job-description.
Now we watch a suicide because nobody told us to wade-out and prevent it.
Now.....we fail to think.

[theclencher]

shatto, you may have thought this day would never come, but I agree with you 100%!

Those "first responders" should be paid what they're worth: nothing.

[bowtieguy]

i second that, and would like to add...

i believe this to be THE reason America started her fall(tho accelerated recently, it started long ago). it's bigger than unemployment, corp greed, govt corruption, the falling dollar, the real estate bubble bursting, etc.

but ALL of these can be traced to the original post(theme)!

[VetteOwner]

hmm not sure how i feel,

but several questions are raised for me, if hes in 4 feet of water and not a little person how was he in super need besides emotionally and suicidal? How did he die? (suicide? well cant prevent em all)

how did they know he didn't have a weapon or wanted to drown the person who came to help? alot of weirdos out there.

The training they speak of was it purely water rescue or was it how to deal with suicidal/crazy people?

i dont feel the article has the whole story and clearly puts a bad light on rescue workers...

now after the fact i feel they should have gone in and gotten him but eh article is too crappy and leaves out alot of key details...

[theholycow]

^This. The article that I read, while still presenting it as a shame about funding for equipment and training, did include relevant data that tells me that the guy was actually quite unstable and a major danger to the others. Even if they were trained to save lives in cold water, and even if they were equipped to deal with that particular depth of said water, they shouldn't have to save someone who would deliberately harm them in such a difficult situation.

There were loads of bystanders and none were willing to risk their lives in a mere few feet of water either.

I would rather let a suicidal person have the freedom of choice than put a hero in a severely risky situation for that person.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984

Originally Posted by excerpts

First responders and about 75 people watched the incident

"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."

If he was out there struggling to live I suspect they would have tried to save him despite their lack of training and equipment.

[markweatherill]

Originally Posted by shatto

American soldier who was glad to have his officers somewhere else so he could get the job done.

Unrelated, but I am glad my country's* armed forces have strict rules of engagement and stick to them.

*not the US.

[VetteOwner]

Originally Posted by theholycow

^This. The article that I read, while still presenting it as a shame about funding for equipment and training, did include relevant data that tells me that the guy was actually quite unstable and a major danger to the others. Even if they were trained to save lives in cold water, and even if they were equipped to deal with that particular depth of said water, they shouldn't have to save someone who would deliberately harm them in such a difficult situation.

There were loads of bystanders and none were willing to risk their lives in a mere few feet of water either.

I would rather let a suicidal person have the freedom of choice than put a hero in a severely risky situation for that person.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984


If he was out there struggling to live I suspect they would have tried to save him despite their lack of training and equipment.

exactly my thoughts. can never know what someone who is that emotionally depressed that thier willing to off themselves or what drugs they took, some make you fight to the bitter end.

[shatto]

I swim like a stone, so wouldn't know; but, aren't lifeguards taught how to handle a struggler since they all will try to drown the rescuer? A survival instinct thing lifeguards would have to cope with.

[VetteOwner]

yea but thats different, those strugglers want to live and will eventually realize the lifeguard is helping (or they usually throw thier floating stick or ring or whatever to the person THEN get to them so the person cant physically reach them they have the flotation device as a security blanket and will calm down enough to get rid of that fight or flight response and will accept help and listen to the lifeguard.)

this guy didnt want to live and could have easily taken down the lifeguard, and really 4 feet of water??? doubt they were drowning unintentionally.

[tradosaurus]

I would have thrown that fat lady (shown in the picture at the MSNBC new site) at the guy to use as a buoy.