It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Man arrested for rescuing drowning girl

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

Guess the hero was a code breaker

How much more evidence do we need that we live in a Police State?


I can see the code enforcement side, but the first line, "It is not the duty of the police to protect you."
Good, I can protect myself, can I keep that portion of my tax money that goes toward the 8 police forces with jurisdiction in my town?

(Can you U2U me that case? I live in Tallahassee. Is the case from here, or is that just a similar name?)

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:45 PM
In modern times the term "beyond the call of duty" is something that is politically incorrect because it draws attention to oneself and "deliberately" makes people who are less capable to think on their own two feet look like incompetant idiots(like the sheriff who had this gentleman arrested).

Where is Obama or Al Sharpton on the apparent civil rights violation of this hero?

Oh! I spoke too soon. Obama is playing golf near New Orleans about this time and Al doesn't care because, due to his lack of interest, this hero is probably white.

Good is bad and bad is wonderful in the eyes of our elected officials and authorities.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:00 PM
This thread mischaracterizes what happened.

WHAT DIDN"T HAPPEN: Man jumps in water to save girl who could go down in a raging river and drown at any second while rescue team twiddles their thumbs on the sidelines.

What did happen: Girl was out of the water on the opposite riverbank. Rescuers spoke with girl via bullhorn, she said she was OK. Man swims across river to her against wishes of rescuers.

Yes, she could have a concussion, hypothermia, be in shock, etc. Yes, someone should get to her ASAP. I don't blame the guy given his experience and training for going to her. But he didn't pull her out of the river and save her from drowning. And, it's not a cut and dried abuse of common sense by the sheriff that some might think it is.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by ajkesh]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by ararisq

What do you mean it's "our fault" that some moron wears a sheriff's badge?
Because we hire lawyers?
What kind of agenda do you espouse?
The Sheriff is a chucklehead. He's not necessarily representative of anything else. HE IS a chucklehead. Not every sheriff, not because of lawyers.
Get a grip. all of you.
Sending the insulting emails and publicizing this moron's work is what you should be doing. It may cause the chill effect that we want. Campaign against the fulcrums, not the levers.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by mobiusmale

Yea because an untrained person should do the rescuing, and move a person who has a broken back that makes them paralyzed or set off a host of problems that could of been avoided. If the car isn't going to explode, you leave them be.

Everybody has a knee jerk reaction. Fact is, this hero could of gotten himself in trouble, and then teh resuce teams have to risk their necks to save two people. It is called sensibility. The rescue teams were there, they were doing their thing, the guy should of kept his balls tucked away and let them do their job.

If there are any rescue workers here on ATS, they will be the first to tell you that.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by nixie_nox]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

She didn't have a broken back, she wasn't injured, she had fallen from a boat and there was an ongoing search. The man was himself a rescuer, because he was a river guide.

She was a very tired swimmer however, and her location at the moment was known. In another 5, or 10, or 30 minutes she may have slipped away and been unrescueable. The rescuers take time to assemble equipment and all that assembly time would have been wasted if she drifted away.

The Good Samaritan could have at least swam to her, secured her with his fresh arms and legs, and waited for the rescuers to get to them. At the very least, his efforts would have kept her above water and in one location for the rescue operation. No way that a trained guide, and strong swimmer added any volatility to the situation of a completely exhausted girl clinging to a tree for life. No way his efforts were not helpful. Thank God he did what he felt was right and didn't worry about the repercussions!

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:50 PM
Again, just to make sure this event is properly characterized, which is not being done in this thread with it's terrible title. If all we see is, 'OMG he dove in and pulled a drowning girl out of a raging river and they arrested him, the sheriff is stupid' we are in danger of playing the role of the mindless manipulated muppett, which is set up for those silly enough to "fight" the PTB on their field of battle on their terms.

--the girl was not in the water at the time of the incident.

--She was sitting safely on the riverbank on the opposite side of the river from the rescuers.

--They were in contact with her. She said she was OK. She was in the river for about 5 minutes, swam to the riverbank and had been waiting there for about 30 minutes before she was found by search and rescue.

--The rescue focus was getting her from one side of the river to another. She was not in danger.

That said, she was 13 years old. She may have had internal injuries, concussion, in shock, hypothermia, etc.

The issue to discuss is disobeying a "lawful order". The rafter was told by the sheriff to not go in the water. He thought, given his experience and abilities, he could easily make the swim to the other side and thought the girl needed someone with her, so he swam over. And they arrested him when it was all done.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:59 PM
reply to post by ajkesh

It doesn't say that anywhere in the Full Article? Are you a local there?

It does say that this girl was one of this guides customers and therefore responsibilities. It also says the guides are all "professionals trained and certified in swiftwater rescue." I wonder if the sheriffs department can say the same thing?

It is also apparent that the two guides immediately began the rescue operation, but the sheriffs were only just arriving. Who do you think had a better handle on the situation?

It also says she had swam a half mile! Have you ever swam a half mile? I can assure you that a 13 year old girl who flipped in a raft in swift water, was separated from the group and swam a half mile was certainly not "sitting safely on the shore waiting." I am a grown man, and if I were in that situation, I would not be patiently waiting on the shore, and I would not be safely anything after swimming a half mile in swift water.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by getreadyalready

All the info I posted is gleaned from the comment section of the article you posted, where locals and people who were there and people experienced with that river are discussing the event.

All I'm saying is that it's not a "He saved her from drowning and imminent death" cut and dried situation.

It appears more like the search and rescue authorities believed her to be safe and uninjured and were preparing means to get her back from the opposite riverbank to their side of the river.

The river guide arrived after the authorities and wasn't the actual rafter initially guiding her, but just worked for the same rafting company. Based on his experience and abilities, he thought it better to get over there ASAP and knew he could make the swim across safely. So he did it.

The issue is that the river expert here was given a "lawful order" by the authorities to stand down and let them handle it. He disagreed and disobeyed and was arrested.

He did what he did to help another human being and didn't wait for the authorities to do it for him. I don't find to many problems with that.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by ajkesh

I agree that he did what he did in spite of the order and he is probably more than willing to take his punishment for doing the right thing. My earliest post in this thread said the same thing! I would demand a jury trial and declare my guilt publicily, LOL.

Disobeying a lawful order is different than obstructing a rescue operation by the way. They did not charge him with disobeying a lawful order, that would have been a misdemeanor and been no problem. In my opinion, they charged him with obstruction, because now the county can hold him and his company fiscally responsible for the rescue effort. This wasn't just a jerk cop, this was a planned retribution. Maybe the company and the county have some history? Maybe the county is broke?

Who knows, but the man is a hero for his effort and concern and the girl is safe, that is what counts.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:16 PM
From the way I understand it after reading some of the comments that are on that original article from the local news source, is that they didn't or hadn't know where she was. She was unaccounted for for 30-45 minutes.

Then she appeared on that bank. It doesn't say how long she was there, but no matter what the outside temperature is that water is still COLD. 40's-50's. I used to work in Charleston SC. I work in emergency medicine. I have seen people who were in 88 degree ocean water in the middle of summer with an air temp of 95 degrees who have been in hypothermia.

Remember, the bodies normal temp is 37 degrees Celsius or around 97-99 degrees Fahrenheit. This water is a lot colder than our body's temperature is. If she was still wet, which I'm sure she was, and there was any breeze, this would increase the loss of body heat. It doesn't say anywhere I can see that says the time she was in the water, but it does say she swam a half a mile. She was in the water a while.

The police never said the rafting company didn't have ANY duty to act. As a matter fact, the original article says they said they do have a duty to act in a situation where they actively see the person and hadn't lost contact with them. SO they never said the guy shouldn't have jumped into the water after her. They said he shouldn't have done it after they were there.

There was another member of that group that was apparently in the water further downstream who was going after her too. You only go that much further downstream if there is a chance the person in the water will get past the first rescuer. I still can't clearly see that she was on the other bank, or if she was maybe on a small island in the water.

Either way, he was arrested because he went into the water after the "official" team was there and he got the credit for the rescue. Not them. As soon as the river team left, he could have gone back in that water and not have been arrested. He did not interfere. He did not get in their way. All he did was get her to the proper shore where she could be warmed and evaluated and treated if necessary.

This had nothing to do with him going in the water. It has to do with taking the glory from a water rescue team and limiting their potential to justify their existence.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:40 PM

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I'd like to arrest that Sheriff
for being a stupid SOB.

I'll second that! idiots idiots idiots! I would love to see how they prove in court that saving the girls life somehow obstructed thier rescue operation. Not the brightest bulbs in that department yeah wait till the PR starts hitting the news about how thier operation was death sentence for the girl... Sigh!

Two words: Jury Duty.. don't avoid it, embrace it.. you might end up on a dumb case like this and be the one to ignore the prosecuting attorney clown and vote not guilty.. then go shake the defendants hand and buy him a beer for a job well done.

This case right here is a urinating contest, some "official" rescuer barked out an official "order" that rafting dude promptly ignored.. it made official rescue-man look dumb, useless and silly... so he got his bruised ego panties in a wad and wrote a report which probably consists of "He didn't listen to me, boo hoo".

I would argue official rescue-man was not issuing a lawful order, and to not let petty emotional bureaucrats taint this heroic act.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:49 PM

Originally posted by webpirate
Maybe if he were an out of shape fat guy...

All the out of shape fat guys on the scene wore badges.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Psyagra

I for one would have done exactly what he did and if I snuffed it in the process, so be it -

The problem is is if you had snuffed it,first the girl would be in even more danger,Second you would now need to be rescued. So now the rescuers have to save two people without any safety system instead of one with a safety system.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:25 PM
STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW! your under arrest for saving a life, and the obstruction of saving a life, now you owe me $5,000 and 60-90 days of your lifetime, to think about what you did

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:27 PM
dumb dumb dumb

this world gets more stupid by the fricking day.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:46 PM
It is quite possible the cop is some descendant of Poseidon and had it covered...but most likely not.

I did not see the rescue and recovery credentials on the Clear County Sheriff's dept. website although I have to believe they have them as this would have to be a pre-req to be a cop.

OH! You mean there is not such a certification requirement to be a cop?

I am quite certain there are such qualifications for the guide's organization. Soooooo...who was exactly the accredited professional on scene?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:43 PM
Larry Skutnik comes to mind when I read this story. If you recall, he's the mild mannered budget analyst who ripped off his coat and dove into the Potomac on a frozen day in January, 1982 to save fellow humans, struggling to stay alive after their plane, Air Florida Flight 90 crashed just past the 14th street bridge. He wasn't the only one to venture into the icy river that day, and i'm certain people, maybe even police officers, demanded they not venture in. They went anyway.

Then in 2009, there is the story of Jason Oglesbee, a construction worker who dangled from a crane over the Des Moines River to save a drowning woman whose boat had gone over a spillway and was caught in the churn. The woman's husband died.

Ryan Snodgrass, in my opinion, has just joined the ranks of those that remind us of the very best that is within us all, and I highly doubt that this short-sighted arrest will amount to anything other than a potential career ender for the sheriff involved, particulary if its an elected positoin.

This BUDs for you Ryan Snodgrass.

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in