Rescuers Watch Man Drown, Cite Liability Concerns
This story has been very big in Northern California for the last few days and I suspect it is going to be very big nationally pretty soon.
The basic story is that a woman called Alameda County (Oakland area for non Californians) fire and police telling them that her 57 year old son had threatened to commit suicide by walking into the frigid waters of the San Francisco Bay.
Rescuers arrived on the scene to see the man standing neck deep in water about 150 yards offshore. The water, while cold, was relatively calm but none of the fire or police responders entered the water. The reasong given was that budget cuts had prevented them from recertifying firefighters in water rescue and therefore they could face legal liability for rescuing the man.
Now there are a myriad of reasons this response is, in my opinion (just to protect TMV from liability), idiotic.
For one thing there is a good samaritan law which protects rescuers, and fire and police officials have even greater protections.
In addition, the whole ‘budget cuts’ argument is weak as well. I am not privy to the Alameda county budget but I am pretty sure that there is some fat (say the chiefs reported 300,000 a year salary and benefits package) that could have been cut to provide the recertification training.
Further, it is likely there is fat in the Alameda county budget that could have been trimmed to find the money for the training program. Indeed it is pretty common practice for budget cutters to slice things like libraries, schools, fire and police because this makes the public mad and gets them more money. Meanwhile the county supervisors fact finding trip to Maui stays in the budget (this is just an example, I don’t know such a trip exists, but you get where I am going).
Finally, it is the job of fire and police to rescue people. Indeed in listening to a local radio show this morning I heard many firefighters and police officers call in and express outrage at what the fire chief said, stating that they would all have rescued the man.
And let me be clear here that I am second to none in my deep admiration for firefighters and police. They defend and protect us and deserve our deepest respect. But that respect is, in part, earned by the fact that they take the risks and do not stand around and watch.
Even more amazing is the comments made by the chief during an interview with local TV. The chief is asked what he would do if it was a child drowning and his response was that while he would rescue the child if off duty, while on duty he would ‘comply with the rules’.
The chief it seems was recently appointed to the job.
Fortunately the policy is being changed, but that is of little benefit to the dead man.
Local talk radio has been covering this extensively and one topic of discussion has been the fact that in years gone by this never would have happened. For me the worst part is not the idiot chief who sticks to regulations but that the other firefighters just stood there (in contrast to the responses from other firefighters).
I can’t help but think of a scene from the movie The Time Machine in which dozens of people sat by and watched a woman drowning because it wasn’t their business. I worry how much closer to that reality we might be in 20 or 30 years.
28 Responses to “Rescuers Watch Man Drown, Cite Liability Concerns”
Where on the political spectrum are we to put the blame for thjis kind of thing?
Why does a Representative’s private parts get more attention from the media than this?
Where have shame and humanity gone in this world?
What are we teaching the young?
The community is really torn up about this. I’ve got some mixed feelings about the whole thing. It’s awful that this happened, and absolutely the policy needs to be revised. It was considered a safe cut because there were two systems in place — the coast guard and helicopter police — that the community was told we could rely on. Both those failed in this case, and are controlled by systems in the greater Bay Area, not by Alameda (not county but the City/island of Alameda).
It should be noted that this is what happens when you cut essential services. As more and more communities cut these services, we will see more and more of this happen. Most of the cases will happen more quietly — poor people dying of hunger or lack of health care, etc — instead of dramatically like this. It’s actually a pretty good metaphor for what’s going on with civil services all over the country. There wasn’t the upfront money to do the training or fund the program or fix the bridge, so when someone’s head is bobbing in the water, a bunch of people with neither the proper training nor the proper gear stand around and watch the guy drown. It’s just so tragic and heartbreaking.
I’d also like to add, to those who want to snipe about pay for the cops or whatever, that the police in Alameda generally do and *excellent* job. Alameda is an extrordinarily safe community with extremely low crime rates, somewhere where people can walk drunk in the streets in the middle of the night and feel safe (ahem), where every incident however small is treated with seriousness and urgency. My guess is that there’s a huge amount of heartbreak over this event.
[...] THIS is where overlitigiousness has led us Rescuers Watch Man Drown, Cite Liability Concerns | The Moderate Voice This is idiotic. Totally, f-ing idiotic. There should be no question of liabilty, because there [...]
This wasn’t about service cuts. This was about an idiot who should never have been promoted to chief making excuses for why he didn’t save another idiot who walked into the bay to drown himself.
“Where on the political spectrum are we to put the blame for this kind of thing?”
Why does this need to be the first question asked? If we must ask it, I think the blame could go either way, either to conservatives cutting essential services or to liberals nanny-state protecting us through litigation against people who want to help us. But I think either one of those arguments miss the point: I don’t know of any party that doesn’t want to provide basic life-saving services for the community, nor one that wants to pay for services that are already provided for by other means. In this case, water rescue training was erroneously put into the latter category, a serious and yes, idiotic mistake but not a matter of political ideology as far as I can tell. As for the litigation aspect, it would be a fitting twist of irony if the city ends up getting sued over this.
It’s somewhat besides the point, but I wonder if it should make any difference to us that the man was attempting to commit suicide. I think it’s debatable whether anyone, even first responders, are legally or morally obligated to risk their own lives to save someone who does not want to be saved. I’m not making that argument, I’m just saying it’s a debatable point. In any case, it appears it wasn’t part of the decision by the police chief, but I do expect that at least some of the firefighters would have gone in after a drowning child, even if the chief unbelievably told them not to.
[...] illegal alien your kids are welcome to a free education to go along with your free housing. Nice. Rescuers Watch Man Drown, Cite Liability Concerns | The Moderate Voice Of course being green is more important than rescuing citizens Alameda County uses its dollars to [...]
The guy who walked into the bay was not an idiot. He was a human being sufffering so much he felt he had no other options. He needed help. The world definitely needs more compassion. Conservatives believe that social services, such as mental health, unemployment pay, social security payments, etc. should be cut. Most Republicans I know do not feel that others deserve welfare payments, that they should get a job. It’s the lack of respect of and compassion towards neighbors leading us down this path of moral bankruptcy. When people do not value human life and do not believe in investing to ensure we have a stable society then what do you expect?
Thank you StockBoy. Yes.
Idiot is the wrong word true, but frankly I don’t have a ton of time to care for a 57 year old who wants to end it. A confused teenager, sure. But at 57 you know whats up with the world or you don’t. Someone above asked if suicide should affect our attempts to save and I think no, we see someone in danger we help. But after its over with, I certainly lose less sleep over the suicides than the people that wanted to live still.
I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who is trying to kill themselves and trying to do so in a way to endanger others. I also think that the idea thatanyone must place themselves in excessive risk for such a person is stupid. The idea of liability being covered by any “good Samaritan law” is just naive. If a firefighter dies his/her husband/wife could still sue the city and win because they asked his/her husband/wife to do something they were not trained for. The police were uncertain if the person was armed, what kind of suit might happen if a responder was shot? all these things could cost the city millions and how would that affect the ability to provide services? Asking the chief about a drowning child? Disgusting in the extreme. Yes first responders have to make calls on when to run into deaths door and when not to. To try and take some moral high ground when their biggest decision is what to wear is appalling. That being said I think there needs to be some reasonable line between “certified” and reasonable risk. I think this incident has made the city aware and that’s a good thing.
You’re assuming that the 57 year old was 57 years old mentally, too.
That’s quite a leap of faith isn’t it?
* * * * *
@EEllis – Your compassion is quite telling. Are you a Staunch Conservative by any chance?
Ellis,
How is it disgusting to ask about the hypothetical drowning child? It seems to me that question is essential to understanding the decision that the chief made, and also to assessing the potential future danger of the current policy. If I lived in that city with my kids, I’d certainly want to know the answer to that question.
As for the city’s exposure to liability, I think they exposed themselves already when they withheld funds to adequately train first responders. Perhaps, by not responding, the city saved themselves from a suit from a firefighter’s widow for lack of training, but I think they might have opened the door for a suit from the family of the man who drowned.
Patrick, your analogy of the scene in The Time Machine is perfect. It’s that pathetic, that inexcusable, and that horrific.
@adelinesdad
““Where on the political spectrum are we to put the blame for this kind of thing?”
Why does this need to be the first question asked? …”
It is the appropriate question because this is the result of the posturing being done by politicians who care nothing about what happens to the people. All that is at stake is the power to pander to their own paymasters. And I don’t mean their government salary, I mean the Power they derive from seeming to be one of the puppeteers rather than the puppets.
This tragedy was wrong and and the fault was not just with the incompetent Chief or the ‘rescuers’ who refused to act. The fault is that we are continually gulled into putting the idiots into office.
Slamfu, “Someone above asked if suicide should affect our attempts to save and I think no, we see someone in danger we help. But after its over with, I certainly lose less sleep over the suicides than the people that wanted to live still.”
Yes, I agree if we see someone in danger, we help. Your further comment about losing “less sleep over the suicides than the people that wanted to live still” I think is a human response. I think it’s a natural inclination not to value a suicide’s life more than they value their own life, but I think being humans (and not “just animals”) we are given the choice to value, or not value, life. It’s certainly easier to place less value on a life in certain circumstances (such as someone who is depressed with suicidal tendencies), but I think it’s important to fight such reflexes and remember that all lives are valued the same. If people start valuing other lives over others, then where do we stop? It’s a slippery slope that we shouldn’t go down. Who determines the value of a life? Genocide exists because for various reasons one person (with lots of followers) does not believe a certain race should exist and then proceeds to kill everyone in that race. For me the options are we value all life equally (even if we are inclined not to in some cases), or we don’t value life at all or we value some lives over others. I think the last two options are non-starters.
All lives are not of equal value, no way, no how. One of Saddam Hussein’s sons use to drag guys over broken glass, then make them swim in sewage so they die of a total body infection. That kind of monster is worth less than my best friend who is one of the most noble people I have ever met. You clearly lack imagination if you value everyone equally.
adelinesdad I think making up a hypothetical situation as a gotcha when responders do make those terrible decisions, and have to try and live with them, is pretty low. Professionals must at times triage situations and having someone who’s big decision will most likely be what to wear second guess….. feels wrong. The question was asked and answered and I don’t think for a minute the rephrasing of the question with the child now in it was about clarificcation but rather “How can I make this seem like more of a story”
DavidMtem,
So the question was worth asking because the presumed answer fits your preconceived assumptions?
Alameda county voted for Obama 79% to 19%. Are you sure you want to make this about ideology instead of incompetence?
EEllis,
I just have to respectfully disagree. The question is very much a clarifying question. The residents have a right to know if they should expect first responders to attempt to save their child if he or she is drowning. If the answer to that question is anything but a definitive yes, something needs fixing.
It seems to me that the first and only impulse of a human being seeing another human at risk of losing his life—especially if the potential rescuer has had a modicum of training and ability to do so—would instinctively be to try to save the poor soul. The hell with politics, budgets, regulations, recertifications, legal liabilities, whatever.
But what do I know…
Oh, you say, the human being was committing suicide, that he was all of 57, that he was an idiot, that the water was cold. Of course that changes everything…
adelinesdad I think you should take the fire chief saying “We will not go in the water after anyone.” to automatically include everyone. The question was redundant and inflammatory.
EEllis, as a retired Firefighter I will tell you that the only way the ‘troops on the ground’ at this incident did not take action is because the ‘Chief’ [sic] told them that if they did they would have to look elsewhere for employment.
My sympathy is for the guys that were ordered to stand back.
Again EEllis, Are you by chance a Staunch Conservative?
@adelinesdad your remark–
“So the question was worth asking because the presumed answer fits your preconceived assumptions?
Alameda county voted for Obama 79% to 19%. Are you sure you want to make this about ideology instead of incompetence?”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
What does party affiliation have to do with my statement about the failure of pandering greedy political hacks?
You make the preconceived assumption that I have called this crap a tragedy is because I am making some point about the ideology of the President. You are saying more about the failure of your politics than you are about mine. I guess you are implying that Obama lost the county than this wouldn’t have happened.
What would you do to explain this to a child?
Honor and bravery is situational my child. Do what you are told, the best behavior is to keep your eyes averted and your nose clean. And always do what is necessary to keep your job.
David,
I can’t say I fully understand your getting at in your last comment, particularly the last paragraph. I never approved of what the firefighters did or didn’t do.
However, I think I do owe you an apology. I re-read your previous comment and now realize that it wasn’t pointing to one political party over another, but rather politicians in general. I had misread it in the context of some of the other comments that were pointing to conservative ideology as leading to this result, and that’s why I pointed to the decidedly non-conservative electorate in this county.
Although the question “Where on the political spectrum are we to put the blame for this kind of thing?” still implies that you were looking to put blame on a particular ideology, contrary to your last comment. Anyway, my opinion remains that incompetence was likely the primary source of this, not ideology or greed or corruption. Those things cause enough problems on their own, but the man died because of a stupid budget and a stupid policy, and stupid knows no ideology.
Gee Dad why don’t you do something to save that man?
I would child, but I might lose my job. There are rules you know, and bad rules trump what is right.
There were not stupid people involved. There were fearful, shameful cowards.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I didn’t say the firefighters shouldn’t have saved him, did I?
You said we should find out which part of the political spectrum is responsible. Then you said it wasn’t about political ideology it was about greedy and corrupt politicians. Now it’s just about the decision that the individual firefighters made? And you keep telling me that I’m teaching my kids to follow the rules even when they aren’t right, and I have no idea where you got that from.
I probably just haven’t explained myself well enough, or maybe I’m just not thinking on the same plane as you, but honestly I’m not following where you are going with this argument and therefore I can’t give any proper rebuttal. Have a good day.
There were not stupid people involved. There were fearful, shameful cowards.
Wow David. How many lives have you saved recently?