An apparently suicidal man waded into San Francisco Bay on Monday, stood up to his neck, and waited. As the man drowned, police, fire crews, and others watched idly from the shore.
Why? Officials blamed a departmental policy, stemming from budget cuts, that prevented them from jumping in to save him.
Fifty-year-old Raymond Zack spent nearly an hour in the water before drowning. A crowd of about 75 people, in addition to first responders, watched from the beach in Alameda across the bay from San Francisco as Zack inched farther and farther away, sometimes glancing back, a witness told the San Jose Mercury News. "The next thing he was floating face down."
A volunteer eventually pulled Zack's lifeless body from the Bay.
Mike D'Orazi of the Alameda Fire Department said that, due to 2009 budget cuts, his crews lacked the training and gear to enter the water. And a Coast Guard boat couldn't access the area because the water was too shallow.
"The incident yesterday was deeply regrettable," D'Orazi said Tuesday. "But I can also see it from our firefighters' perspective. They're standing there wanting to do something, but they are handcuffed by policy at that point."
Alameda Police Lt. Sean Lynch also suggested his men did the right thing. "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."
But at a City Council hearing Tuesday night, some locals expressed outrage that Zack was left to die. "This just strikes me as not just a problem with funding, but a problem with the culture of what's going on in our city, that no one would take the time and help this drowning man," said one resident, Adam Gillitt.
The city said it would spend up to $40,000 to certify 16 firefighters in land-based water rescues.
One witness to the event told a local news station that Zack was looking at people on the shore. "We expected to see at some point that there would be a concern for him," said another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110601/ts_yblog_thelookout/handcuffed-by-policy-fire-and-police-crews-watch-man-drown

This made me sick.
Eh, just another person. Doesn't really matter. We can just sit here and watch this poor man commit suicide - "HEY! HOT DOG VENDOR! Toss one over here. Great, thanks. Here's a $1 tip."
Now I can watch in luxury.

Oh, I'm a service person, who is supposed to keep the society safe?
Too bad for this man. I have a bromance party at the strip club that I need to go to after my shift.
Can't miss that.
"Hey dude! Can you speed this up? I gotta go home and make myself pretty for the ladies!"

When does a person's life become important, even if you don't know them?
Reminds me of the video of when people walked past and watched that guy die on the sidewalk.

That's not really fair. The article attempts but probably fails to describe the complexity of the situation. 80 people probably wouldn't stand around if grabbing him out of the water was an easy task. It does require gear, training, etc. If it was as easy as running into the water and grabbing the guy, surely, they would have.

Yeah. I mean, the article really simplifies it down to being an "idle" crowd watching on, but do you really believe not one citizen standing on that shore lacked even one shred of humanity? They were probably at a loss of what to do, if the water was treacherous, the access point into the water was high up, about how to grab a man who doesn't want to be saved and swim him to shore. What if he fought? Even 3 men trying to save him would've been hugely difficult if he resisted, seeing as they were in the OCEAN.

@Birrrdy - My humor is kind of ... not right, so I agree it wasn't really fair of me to say that. It's just how I view society nowadays.
But, what if he DID want to be saved? He stood in the water for an hour, watching people and waiting, and even looked back as he walked out.
The most they could have done was tried to talk him out of it, instead of just standing there and watching.
Or else grab a back board from the fire truck (which floats) and tried to throw it out to him to try and save him.

It just made me upset to read that no one did anything, and that people agreed that standing around and watching was a-okay and reasonable.

I agree. The word 'idly' is an inappropriate assumption for sensationalist purposes.

Drowning cases are incredibly complex. In all first aid training I've done, we are taught very explicitly not to jump into the water to rescue a drowning person, because you would simply make it worse and both drown together. Sounds harsh, but better that one person dies than several. Besides, if they lacked equipment and training, then their families would get no compensation if they died, and if they lived and the drowning man died, they would have no support in a court case, because they officially weren't allowed to try to save the man.

Er... that was a reply to birdyyy's post on the first page! We need a restructuring of forum layout!

I know that we are covered by public liability insurance as lomg as what we do is in 'the scope of our duties' - you have a good point in that they may have found themselves personally liable had something gone wrong. Blame red tape and procedures.

That's sad. It shows just how ridiculous some 'policies' are, as are the people who choose to blindly follow them. At what point do you say "enough is enough"? If they weren't gong to help, they should have left.

That's not fair at all. They didn't not save him because they didn't want to, or were lazy or wanted to be at a strip club instead! Saving him would potentially have meant risking their lives. If policy meant they weren't permitted or equipped to enter the water that is the fault of those providing the funding of the services. If they'd ignored that and died trying to save him, their own families likely would have gotten nothing by way of compensation. I don't think they had any choice. It's still very sad though.

God forbid they risk their lives doing a job that's inherently life-risking.

Apples and oranges. Their duty is for a specific risk. They're firefighters, not the coast guard. How many firefighters go through water rescue training? It's not as simple as "dive in and swim them to safety." 50 degree water, strong rip currents, and a likely combative "rescue" means it's more likely that the untrained firefighters would have been burying one of their own.

How many cops are trained to respond to a nuclear crisis? How many soldiers are trained to mine coal?

Kein mitleid, stop making sense. We shall have none of that here!

So nobody had the ability to save a man from drowning? We're heading into semantics drive here; these guys didn't do anything about the drowning because of policy, not because they were unable.

Going in the water to save someone without a flotation device or proper training is a huge no no. It's not as simple as knowing how to swim. Can you swim carrying 150 lbs? How about a thrashing 150 lbs? Going in the water after that guy would have been equally suicidal.

Ok, but does the article not state that he "inched farther and father away?" I'm sorry, but this is a terribly WRONG situation. SOMEONE could have at least went in and TALKED to the man.

"Talk to him? We don't know what kind of state of mind he was in, or if he was on drugs!"

Well of course you don't, because no one CARED enough to risk the chance that maybe he just wanted someone to say his life was worth living. I wouldn't have even CARED what the risks were. I would have personally went into that water, rip tides and all, to attempt to save this mans life. And I wouldn't expect anything in return.

Would you not have thought about your girls? I know my family is always the most important to me and I know how much your girls mean to you as well.

This situation was tragic, but dont forget, no one threw him in the water, He chose to be there.

Yes, my girls would have been the first thought on my mind. However, if I were there, and I would have died saving a man's life or even attempting to save his life I would still do it. Because ultimately it would teach them that life is precious.

Yes, he wanted to be there. But why? No one will know because again no one cared enough to get in there and ask him. I attempted suicide at 15. I almost died. I swallowed 115 sleeping pills and 25 aspirin. For the few weeks after that NO ONE really asked why I wanted to die. No one knew until years later that I was the victim of years of sexual molestation.

How do we not know that this guy was facing tragedy in his life that made him feel like his life wasn't worth it? When truly every life is worth it.

I would die to save my children - without a thought. But to save someone else and forever deprive my children of me?

No.

And no one knows why he did what he did and no one ever will. Maybe my job HAS made me hard about this kind of thing. But people make choices everyday and this is the one this poor person made.

And I have been very touched by suicide - as recently as two weeks agi when a longtime family friend hung himself and set it up so that his daughter found him. She will never ever be ok now. And thats selfish - not an act of love towards your child.

Everyone has different views on life. Yes, suicide is selfish in ways. But for some it seems to be the only way of coping and of relieving themselves of certian situations.

Again, I have been there. I guess I have a soft heart for people that think they aren't worth life because I was there. When I attempted suicide my thoughts were not selfish. I was in complete and utter despair. I was a victim of a horrific crime and thought that no one could understand or that no one would believe me; and I was in so much pain that I just wanted to die.

So again, we are all different. I would have jumped in.

I reread the article, and it doesn't say that no one attempted to talk to him. It doesn't say anyone did. I cannot speculate on if they called out to him.

Even going in the water just to talk would have been dangerous though. I'm not saying his life wasn't sacred. I'm not saying his life was sacred. I just don't blame his death on the service men. The blame lies with him. And maybe he did need someone to say his life was valuable, but no one can make decisions for him. He made a choice.

All right, so we're on the same page, I'll break down my train of thought on the issue in a more exacting manner.

1) The firefighters are not trained for water rescue, and likely do not receive such training because of budget cuts. 2) Firefighters generally will receive some form of compensation, or their families will receive insurance money, should the firefighter be injured or killed while operating within the line of the job. 3) Since water rescue is not trained, water rescue is not considered "covered" under the line of duty, and thus, the policy exists. 4) The firefighters were not "prohibited" from helping, but rather, if they had, and something happened, they would receive no compensation.

The policy exists as a CYA method, essentially stating in exact terms what services the firefighters are to render, and what services are not considered, for insurance liability purposes.

I rather believe I already said this. Just in fewer words. ;)

Honestly- your attidtude towards emergency service people makes me sick.

Who do you call when someone steals your Iphone? Or breaks into your car? Give that some thought.

The service people I WORK WITH are selfless, giving and work l
ong hours, without overtime, depriving themselves of their families for weeks at a time. In fact- we bury one Tuesday.

Google Damian Leeding. Then come back to me with your shitty attitude.

The article says they didn't have training or equipment. It's possible that they didn't have a proper flotation device available. I learned not to go in the water after someone without a flotation device. He might have started struggling and taken another life with him.

I don't exactly feel bad that he died, since he committed suicide. And he had an hour to change his mind. I feel worse for the service men on duty. I bet they felt like shit, wanting to help and do their jobs, but unable to.

So, my question is - if a 20 year old was able to swim to the man (too late by the time she got there) was able to do it, exactly what was the training problem? The police and firefighters were CLEARLY stronger than the girl who jumped in, so they may have even been stronger swimmers. I just don't get the entire situation. It seemed like a needless death.