Budget cuts force Calif. police and firemen to watch man drown

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


police drowned ?? Is there another title OTHER than the one being used .. if so .. what is it .?? Shouldn't Google have brought up AT least one MSM ?? besides abclocal ????

every time I google a title to check for consistantcy .. i get no less than 10hits of the same title from the MSM because they're the first ones to report it .. I guess.. ??

reply to post by Komodo


Key word searching when you're looking for bigger results.

Exact title searching when you're looking for narrow results.

To see where the small came from I always look big.

By looking big you'll see far more sources.

When you find the thing you want then you can begin to narrow the field.

Simple searching man. Simple searching.

The simple fact is that not every article will have the exact same title even though it's about the same thing.

Shouldn't Google have brought up AT least one MSM ?? besides abclocal ????

So here's the search you did: www.google.com...:en-USfficial&cl ient=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=Budget+cuts+force+Calif.+police+and+firemen+to+ watch+man+drown&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5ba4c460f65e2ada&biw=1152&bih=701

If you narrowed by "News" on either the top or the left you would have gotten here: www.google.com...:en-USfficial&cl ient=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=Budget+cuts+force+Calif.+police+and+firemen+to+ watch+man+drown&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5ba4c460f65e2ada&biw=1152&bih=701

Google is great if you actually use it.

Something is DEFINATELY not right with this story .. IMO..

the US Coast Guard DOES have Jusidiciion because they are based right on the island ITSELF. Seriously .. they're like 1 min away ~!!

Coas t Guard in Alameda CA

and he just 'waded' 1,800ft in to the ocean.. right ?? "waded' .. ?? or got sucked under..

I'm currently looking for the shore line depth to drop off point.. hmmm.. having a tuff time thus far..

To me 1,800ft which is about 1/3 of a mile appox is a good distance to be wading..

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I SAID>>>>>> ~!!

I pasted the title of this thread into Google and CNN not 1 min ago was reporting this .. NO LINKS 1-2 mins ago were on first 3 pgs of hits..

it was the exact TITLE ...................and yes troll .. i used Google .. if you didn't even read my post..

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

police drowned ?? Is there another title OTHER than the one being used .. if so .. what is it .?? Shouldn't Google have brought up AT least one MSM ?? besides abclocal ????

every time I google a title to check for consistantcy .. i get no less than 10hits of the same title from the MSM because they're the first ones to report it .. I guess.. ??

edit on 1-6-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

Well, you could just click the link the OP provided and then in that blog post click the link that takes you directly to the ABC local affiliate story.

Originally posted by Komodo
Something is DEFINATELY not right with this story .. IMO..

the US Coast Guard DOES have Jusidiciion because they are based right on the island ITSELF. Seriously .. they're like 1 min away ~!!

Coas t Guard in Alameda CA

and he just 'waded' 1,800ft in to the ocean.. right ?? "waded' .. ?? or got sucked under..

I'm currently looking for the shore line depth to drop off point.. hmmm.. having a tuff time thus far..

To me 1,800ft which is about 1/3 of a mile appox is a good distance to be wading..

edit on 1-6-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

I lived near there. This is not the ocean, but the Bay. It is very shallow and you'd need to wade out far to get even neck deep.

reply to post by pajoly


didn't see the in post link.. I clicked the link to the RAWSTORY..

Here's the FULL report to those interested..

ALAMEDA, Calif. (KGO) -- Alameda police and firefighters stood by and watched as a man drowned off Crown Beach in Alameda on Monday. Authorities are now trying to explain why they had no choice but to stand on the shoreline.

Alameda police received a call shortly before noon on Monday from a woman saying her son wanted to kill himself. Raymond Zack, 53, then walked out into the water off Crown Beach.

"I thought it was kind of weird that they weren't going out to bring the guy in, you know, he was out there, his head was above water, he was looking at everybody, there was plenty of time for them to react," witness Perry Smith said.

For more than an hour, Zack stood up to his neck in the frigid surf off of Crown Beach in Alameda.

"Well, we expected to see at some point that there would be a concern for him and somebody would go out there and pull him in," witness Gary Barlow said.

About 75 beachgoers could not understand why Alameda police officers and firefighters stood idly by and watched the man slowly succumb to the 60 degree water.

"We're not trained to go into the water, obviously the type of gear that we have on, we don't have the type of equipment that you would use to go into the water," Alameda Police Lt. Joe McNiff said.

The man was a 150 yards out; it was too shallow for a Coast Guard boat and its helicopter was on another call. It arrived too late.

"It's horrible," Barlow said. "How can we let that happen? How can our emergency personnel allow that to happen? I don't get it, I don't understand it."

The Alameda Fire Department says budget constraints are preventing it from recertifying its firefighters in land-based water rescues. Without it, the city would be open to liability.

" Well, if I was off duty I would know what I would do, but I think you're asking me my on-duty response and I would have to stay within our policies and procedures because that's what's required by our department to do," Alameda Fire Div. Chief Ricci Zombeck said when asked by ABC7 if he would enter the water to save a drowning child.

Alameda firefighters could not even go into the water to get the body, so they waited until a woman in her 20s volunteered to bring the body back to the beach.

"The frustration is certainly understandable and I think the sensibility would be probably that we're going to evaluate our response protocols," Zombeck said.

Alameda fire officials say they are going to have a serious discussion about why Alameda, as an island city, does not have the ability to save people in danger in the water.

Source

Personally, I'd SUE their asses OFF due to the Good Samaritan Law; unless they're exempt from all laws pertaining to CA.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Jepic
Don't blame them for they are mindless drones, my friend. Mindless drones.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)

Mindless drones who don't deserve to be police or fire fighters.

Please stop attacking the Firefighters caught up in this and don't be a mindless drone.

I am retired Fire/Rescue. When you are not certified for something and that person dies while you tried open heart massage, or anything you are not certified for you do not just get sued if that person dies.

You go to prison.

Just as to how you are reacting the jury reacts even worse if you screw up. The prosecutor will come out and treat you like a loose cannon of the worst kind because you were supposed to protect, not kill people.

Certification covers mistakes when it comes to criminal pursuit. IF you lose a patient and you are doing something you are not certified for you will go to prison for manslaughter.

Its the nations law that are screwed up not the men and women out the trying to save YOUR lives everyday.

This is an interesting story. What about the good Samaritan laws? Do they not apply to all equally? If I recall correctly some of the laws say that you HAVE to do something, other protect people from lawsuits if they do something - see the last episode for Seinfeld for a comedy version of this problem. So what we have here is the notion that the policy enforcers are simply not people, but some form of machine subject to rules that, had they not been wearing uniforms, would be out from under.

More interesting, folks believe the policy enforcers are there to help them and they MUST do so no matter what. This is isn't the case, they are there to protect the interest of the state's policies - policy - police, and in this case it wasn't in the interest of the state to save this man.

Where things get problematic in these types of situations is when those who do try to help are then punished by the policy enforcers for interfering with the policy enforcement, even when it seems naturally reasonable to do so.

reply to post by bg_socalif


The man needed psychological help. Suicide is an act of desperation and the person rarely actually wants to do.The person simply can not find another way out of a situation. I think many people have had these thoughts once in their lives. Where would we be now as a society if all the sucidal people had suceeded?

Originally posted by searching411
I think this is about the unions saying "see what happens when we do not get what we want". Once again it is about our "authority figures" not being held accountable for their actions. This was a power play in that they let people die because the union is trying to manipulate the public for more power and more money. What stone hearted people we have become.

This an extraordinarily bizarre twist of reality. Did you read any where that a local union boss was telling them not to do their jobs? No, you didn't. You might though have read that the cops prevented the firemen from going in. So if your weird assertion is correct, than it would seem there is no issue with the firefighter's union, but a problem with the cop's union since they prevented the rescue. Make sense? No? Exactly, either does your theory.

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by pajoly

 

didn't see the in post link.. I clicked the link to the RAWSTORY..

...and in that RAWSTORY story is the embedded link to the ABC affiliate's article and video.

reply to post by pajoly


It doesn't have anything to do with a union.

Read my above post. It is about being charged with manslaughter if the patients dies when you are not qualified for a certain incident.

Its the nations law that are screwed up not the men and women out the trying to save YOUR lives everyday.

Thanks, but I can do without this level of "saving [OUR] lives." Like the Chief said, if he was on duty and it was a kid, he' have to let the kid drown too. Hey, it is policy right?

F the policy. Buddy, when "policy" controverts reason it is time to ditch it. I hope the firefighters and cops on the scene have horrid night mares for the rest of their lives. Maybe they'll dream their young daughters are drowning an none of their brothers dipped a toe in, because well, it's the policy.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by pajoly

 

It doesn't have anything to do with a union.

Read my above post. It is about being charged with manslaughter if the patients dies when you are not qualified for a certain incident.

I completely get and agree that we've let lawyers run wild in this country and that courts permit WAY too many frivolous lawsuits. But, guess what: the liability question would never have superceded my moral imperative to do the right thing.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

I am retired Fire/Rescue. When you are not certified for something and that person dies while you tried open heart massage, or anything you are not certified for you do not just get sued if that person dies.

You go to prison.

This is the worst kind of deflection. Are you seriously comparing saving a drowning man to open heart massage? Since you are insisting that you are not a drone, then one should be able to, giving you the benefit of the doubt, presume you know the difference between swimming and open heart massage. In order to perform open heart massage one must first open up the thoracic cavity and then compress the heart manually with their hands. How is this action comparable to saving a drowning man?

Just as to how you are reacting the jury reacts even worse if you screw up. The prosecutor will come out and treat you like a loose cannon of the worst kind because you were supposed to protect, not kill people.

Now you are suggesting that saving a drowning man is comparable to killing them? Drone much?

Certification covers mistakes when it comes to criminal pursuit. IF you lose a patient and you are doing something you are not certified for you will go to prison for manslaughter.

Given that iatrogenocide - that is death by doctoring - is the third largest killer of Americans, it is fair to say your precious certification is nothing more than a license to kill.

Its the nations law that are screwed up not the men and women out the trying to save YOUR lives everyday.

It is not the nations laws that are screwed up, it is the plethora of legislative acts acting under color of law, and accepted with the full force of law by people like you that is screwed up. There is no possible way you can lawfully be imprisoned for saving a drowning man. If you save a man from drowning you will not be charged with manslaughter. If you swim out into the ocean and attempt to save a drowning man but he drowns anyway, even then, in order for you to be convicted of manslaughter, one of the primary elements the prosecution would need in order to get a conviction is mens rea.

Mens rea is the mindset of the person being charged with a crime. The prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew you were acting criminally when attempting to save the drowned man.

I have no doubt there are overzealous prosecutors out there who would attempt to charge a person with a crime for simply being a good guy, but to cave in and watch a man drown simply because of this is just giving into bullies. Give them your lunch and milk money pal. Don't do what is right, just cower away.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by pajoly

 

It doesn't have anything to do with a union.

Read my above post. It is about being charged with manslaughter if the patients dies when you are not qualified for a certain incident.

I remember years ago, early in the morning outside the office I worked there was a loud crash. I and others in the office park ran outside to see what happened. I was a bit behind others. When I got on scene it turns out an industrial-sized dump truck wandered into the oncoming lane and hit a small compact car coming the other direction. The speed limit was 45 mph on this then semi remote ex-urban country road. The truck driver was fine; the other guy, not so much. Everyone was standing around, no one was helping. The man, who looked to be in his late 30's/early 40's was clearly unconscious, his head cocked way back. He was gasping involuntarily, with blood bubbling up with every gasp. Blood was coming out of his ears and nose too. No one was doing anything. I moved to the driver side, but the door was wrenched shut. I moved around to the passenger side and climbed in. The man was clearly drowning in his own blood. I went to move his head to let the blood drain out. On lookers yelled at me not to touch him, don't move his neck, it might paralize him. Others told me to be careful of the bIood; it might be infected. I snapped back, that so what, he was drowning, everything else was secondary. It took paramedics a long time to get there. Meanwhile, I positioned him so the blood drained out, then I held his hand and talked quietly and as reassuringly as I could. yes, I knew he was not conscious, but on some level I hoped he'd hear.

I remember to this day looking around the car as I awaited the paramedics and holding his hand. An empty breakfast biscuit wrapper from Speedway was on the floor, as was an ejected Shania Twain cassette. All I could think was that was his life, he was just driving to work, minding his own business, jamming to his pop country, eating a biscuit. After the paramedics took over. I gave a statement to the cops and then quietly walked away, pretty well emotionally drained and covered in blood. I took that day off and spent it alone at home. No one said a thing as I passed them, but they moved aside and I am certain many felt guilt for their lack of moral courage.

I found out later he died from his injuries in the hospital. But I was able to speak to his widow. Gut wrenchingly, she thanked me because she was able to be by his side when he died. He had two teenaged daughters and he'd just retired from the military and was beginning his civilian life. My actions did not save him, but it was the right course of action regardless. My sense of morality demanded I not worry about the blood, demanded that I make a decision and take action. NO WAY I could have been like the others on the side or road and peeking in the car, doing nothing. This does not make me any sort of great person, but it damnsight makes me a better man than all those cops and firefighters who watched, like spectators, that man die in the Bay yesterday.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while
oh yeah! we're not going to save him because we dont have a piece of paper proving we can, so let him drown
although this would be a great way to spite the government for cutting your budget, now with enough complaints from people the money can be funded right back. sounds like a bunch of BULL.

i dont believe in the "if you fail to save him its manslaughter" kind of crap, this isnt a surgery. anyone could have hopped in the water and attempted to save him and there would be no blame if you fail
they should, however, be charged to manslaughter for idly sitting by watching him down though (assuming this is their job)