New Policy after Safety Crews watch Man die in SF Bay

[Feuer Frei!]

It's the right thing to do, right? Wrong!

ALAMEDA, Calif. – Fire officials are changing their water rescue policy after crews did not try to save a suicidal man who waded into San Francisco Bay and died after about an hour in the water.
Alameda Interim Fire Chief Mike D'Orazi said Tuesday he directed staff to write a new policy that would allow commanders at the scene to attempt a water rescue.
The previous policy strictly forbade such attempts. It was implemented after budget cuts forced the department to discontinue water rescue training and stop maintaining wetsuits and other rescue gear.
Witnesses told KGO-TV fire crews and police watched as the unidentified 57-year-old man stood up to his neck in the frigid waters at Crown Memorial State Beach Monday morning. His lifeless body was pulled out about an hour later.


SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110531/ap_on_re_us/us_bay_death_no_rescue_1)


Fire crews and police watched as the man, identified by authorities only as an Alameda resident in his early 50s, stood up to his neck off Crown Memorial State Beach, witnesses told the television station. Perry Smith, another witness, said the man was visible from the shore and was looking at people.
A police official said the decision was difficult, but officers did not have the gear for the cold water and couldn't risk being pulled under.
The water was 54 Degrees.





(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110531/ap_on_re_us/us_bay_death_no_rescue_1)

[Growler]

There is no greater danger to a rescuer than to go into cold water, unprepared, with inadequate or nonexistent training, to face someone who, potentially, doesn't want to be rescued. You end up with dead rescuers that way.

The policy should be rewritten, and the training provided. For LEOs and Firefighters in the Bay Area to NOT have water-borne training is absurd.

That said, I would imagine someone should have thought of notifying the Coast Guard, or perhaps Alameda/SF Fire Department fireboats? I wonder if that happened, and if the boat crews have water-rescue training.

[Herr-Berbunch]

How is the man unidentified, but they know he's 57 years old - or early 50's? :doh:

Nothing worse for a rescuer than to know he's unable to rescue someone. If you really want to commit suicide then do it with as little publicity as possible - go for a walk in the mountains in winter in unsuitable attire. Don't do it in front of families.

[Jimbuna]

That must have been an extremely difficult decision for those people to make.

Rule no1. Never knowingly endanger yourself in attempting to help someone.

It's absurd that the correct equipment/clothing and training is not given.

[Tribesman]

It's absurd that the correct equipment/clothing and training is not given.
That is what happens when budgets are cut.

[Jimbuna]

That is what happens when budgets are cut.

Most definitely...better we cut the budgets of those who impose the cuts.

[Platapus]

I may be jaded and calloused, but if someone wants to commit suicide by walking into the bay and standing there, I would not risk anyone's life in rescuing him. I would just concentrate on retrieving the body when it washes on shore.

At best throw him a line to grab if he so chooses.

But then I am a heartless SOB like that. :yep:

[GoldenRivet]

How is the man unidentified, but they know he's 57 years old - or early 50's?

He is identified.

he is unidentified to the media.

his name has not been released to the news outlets, only that he is a 57 year old male.

generally, until the next of kin / wife and immediate family have been notified the name of victims is withheld from the media.

thus he us "unidentified" in that since

[Rockstar]

There is no greater danger to a rescuer than to go into cold water, unprepared, with inadequate or nonexistent training, to face someone who, potentially, doesn't want to be rescued. You end up with dead rescuers that way.

The policy should be rewritten, and the training provided. For LEOs and Firefighters in the Bay Area to NOT have water-borne training is absurd.

That said, I would imagine someone should have thought of notifying the Coast Guard, or perhaps Alameda/SF Fire Department fireboats? I wonder if that happened, and if the boat crews have water-rescue training.

When I was in we were very well equipped and trained. But a rescue can only be effective if the person in the water really wants to be rescued. Suicidal maniacs are another story. I would be very careful before passing judgement on the F.D. until we know what if anything was said by the man in the water.

I went out on a case where a man swimming around the jetties was claiming to be suicidal. He also threatened anyone if they came close to him. Because of his words we didn't think it wise to jeopardize the rescue swimmer's life. We just kept talking to the suicidal swimmer until he tired. At which time we made the determination we could approach him without danger to ourselves. We went in and hauled his stupid arse on deck, one ounce of resistance was met with a well placed knee and pressure point. Three of us piled on top of him and hand cuffed him so he couldn't hurt himself or us.

As for real water rescue's where people are needing real help in the worst way. There wasn't one of who wouldn't risk his or her life for another. But this nut asked for it, he didn't care about his life it stands to reason he wouldn't care about the rescuers either so nobody wanted to go in and nobody expected us too.



.

[Growler]

I would be very careful before passing judgement on the F.D. until we know what if anything was said by the man in the water.


Sorry that my post read that way; it was certainly NOT my intentional to sound judgmental of those guys at all. On the contrary, I was trying (and evidently failed) to show support for their decision NOT to intervene, while questioning the decisions of the lace-panty-crowd that left the guys on the ground no other safe option.