Ok, so from what I read, the water was 50 some odd degrees with rip tides. It's not wise to go after someone who doesn't want to be saved when you don't have life saving equipment. He likely would have taken more lives with his own. I doubt this story is as cut and dry as this one article tries to make it seem.

It really is not easy to save a drowning person. Say the person is only 100 pounds (which this man prob was not) then you add pounds and pounds of wet clothes (have you picked up soaking wet jeans??) and factor in a man who may or may not have wanted to be saved. People who are drowning by accident flail their arms about and its happened on several occasions that these people who did want t be saved, took their rescuers down with them from shock and reaction to the situation - even in a pool. If you aren't properly trained to swim a person to shore in cold water, tides, and currents, difficult wouldn't even begin to describe the rescue situation. Let alone, the situation of a man in the water of his own choice and commitment to ending his life. Also, I doubt no one tried to talk him out of it.

Sure, the policies could and should be better, but most of them are in place for the safety of the service people. Sure, the police and firemen should be able to rescue someone from the water to a degree, and the coast guard should have been able to get there. Unfortunately, they weren't able for lack of training, funding, equipment, and policy. All of those things take hundreds and thousands of dollars to provide - but we(generally speaking about the people) complain about taxes being too high already and a majority of us do not donate to fundraisers for our service people. If you(again, speaking to the general people) don't like the policies, or you think they should have the equipment and training - by all means donate your money or your time, I highly encourage it.
Also, the people in those lines of work (fire persons, police persons, coast guard, etc) choose those professions because they want to help people. It is what they feel they have been called to do in life, how they contribute to society. I highly doubt there was a single service person there that did not feel horrible, or even guilt, about not being able to save the mans life. That is the nature of their very being.

similar thing happened in my town, there was a man in the pond but because they hadnt had the training to go in, noone did anything until the specialist crew could get there after 40 minutes. the pond was barely a meter deep. once they got him out there was no chance of recussitation etc. ridiculous!

You know what?
He wanted to kill himself - ler him.
But do not expect other people to risk their lives to save someone so hell bent on taking his own.

It is sad that they couldn't do anything to stop this man. But y'all(this is a wide spread y'all, not meaning people in this forum) seem to think "Hey they are firefighters, & police they should be doing something! It's their job to serve & protect." But what y'all seem to be missing is the fact that they've never been trained for this situation because of lack of money which put the policy into effect. They didn't not do it because policy said so, they didn't do it because they had NO TRAINING. That is the key point. Firefighters hardly, if ever, have to go into the water to save someone. Police are the same way. There is a reason we have the Coast Guard. Y'all want to get pissy with someone get pissy with the Coast Guard not finding a way into the water. And another thing, the guy WANTED to die. I don't know about about the people reading this article but for me, I'm not going to risk my life for someone that doesn't want his anymore. If he wanted to be saved, he never would have gone in in the first place.

I work as a triple zero operator - same as a operator. In my job I have become desensitized to this, I HAVE to or else I would not be able to be effective in my job.

And arent we all relying on that wonderful myth that newspaper tell the TRUTH? We know they dont. they tell what sells papers. Saying he inched away is far more dramatic - and therefore newsworthy - than saying he swam out of reach. Dont always believe what you read.

And stop disrespecting police and fire fighters for risking their lives EVERY DAMN DAY to help yours.

@ ~*Pagan*~: I agree with you. The papers want to make money, well they make their money by making stories worth reading. They aren't nessessarily(sp?) lying, but they strech the truth.

All of us commenting were not there, therefore we don't know for sure what happened. Whether or not he looked back, whether or not he truly wanted to die, he could have caused harm to who ever wanted to try to help. Hell he could have been looking back to make sure no one was following him. He had a chance to change his mind & he didn't. The condition of the water, lack of training for the firefighters & police, & the people standing there obviously didn't have the training either, makes it not so smart to go out there. Just because you are willing to go out and risk your life not only with the water but the fact that he may fight you tryin to save him & take your life with his, doesn't mean the rest of use, who have taken that into account are horrible human beings or that we don't care. People think things through or process decisioins differently. You're assuming that no one standing there cared. Unless you were there or have talked to people who were there, how can you even begin to know how they felt or what they thought?

@queenbutterfly - I would have been right behind you, trying to save the man's life. Maybe if one person stepped up, another would have followed.
And no one will truly understand until they have been in that situation.

It's kind of awful and strange that the service people are the ones we have to rely on for safety and security, but yet sometimes they act like they don't know what to do.
Whatever happened to the day when people used their voices and their own minds to persuade others - such as if a person is holding up a bank with civilians inside.
Do the police or whomever just stand around, staring at the building? Or do they get a plan of action going to save the people inside?

No you bloody idiot. They get shot. Refer my previous comment to you.

No need to call anyone names - that really does not better your comment back to me.
... and not every service person gets shot when dealing with a situation like that...
I think you take life a bit too seriously, if you are getting so worked up over a hypothetical situation and someone questioning you on your views.
Maybe it's time for you to take a step back and maybe view this from the offending person's point of view.

You don't always have to be right.

This situation was not hypothetical.
Neither was the one I faced a week ago.
And no, I dont always have to be right. But how about you put your money where your mouth is? If you are concerned, then become a firie, or a police officer, or campagin politicians for more funding so the correct training CAN be administered.

They don't act like they don't know, they seriously don't know. If you aren't trained to do something you not only risk the life you are trying to save but yours as well. Lets say they did & the man was saved & all went well. Okay they get suspended from their job or get fired because they went against company policy, so to speak. Or it goes horribly wrong, they both die & the firefighters family gets no compensation. Seems like that's a lot to risk for one man who purposely walked into 50 some odd degree water with rip tides. Have you ever gone into 50 degree water? It's a shock to the body & not in a pleasent way. If you feel that the firefighters & police officers should have gone in then fork out some money to help them get the training that they need because the only reason they don't have it is because there's no money for it in the budget.

I have to say it kind of surprises me that there are grown mothers on here who would willingly risk their own lives and completely disregard the fact that their children could be left motherless to save the life of someone who was hell bent on killing themselves. You are either super careless, stupid, or lying. Why on earth do the lives of your own children not trump the life of someone who is so nonchalant about their own? This wasn't a person bleeding on the side of the road. He was in frigid water fraught with riptides and went in with the intention of taking his own life. Life IS meant to be valued, but sacrificing your own doesn't instantly add more value to yours. Good for you for claiming (on an internet forum) that you would have jumped in to save him, but don't get down on those who wouldn't foolishly throw their own life away in the off chance that they *might* be able to save someone. Was it sad? Yes, absolutely. But you can't save everyone. That doesn't make me callous, that makes me a realist.

And a mother who puts her children first.

@Beatifulbrowneyes: Beautifully said. I don't get it either, and I've known people who've killed themselves and I don't think it's a simple as being selfish, I think depression/suicide is more complex than that. However, it is still a choice a person has made for themselves. And they are accountable for that decision. And I'd try and save someone if I could... But not at the expense of my own life, particularly if I had children.

I just talked to the guy who posted this article originally on his Facebook, and he made a couple viewpoints:

"First, and foremost, no person deserves to die. I understand the policies that they had in place, and I understand the First Responders need to secure their own safety (you can't save anyone if your in danger, or worse off). But there comes a point when you have to do something. There is a bare minimum standard on this.

I understand why no one felt comfortable with going in. At the very least though, they could have tossed him a life ring (a back board would also work, as most are made of plastic, and float), or a rope (standard on most fire trucks), or lowered a latter to him (again, standard on most fire trucks, and also happen to be bolted to them). At least he could have changed his mind about dying, and had a floatation device to grab on to. He could of held onto a rope until help arrived (which would of posed no danger to the responders if tied off to the bridge). He could of climbed up the ladder himself (which would have been bolted to the fire truck, and posed no threat to the responders).

The truth of the matter is that people are to damn ignorant about what can be done, and only see what they can do. Policy dictated that they couldn't go in, because they didn't have the necessary skills to save him, without jeopardizing themselves. However, policy did not restrict other possible options, which were not excluded from the realm of possibility in this article."

But I have a feeling that people are too set in their ways to even consider anything else.
When you have an emergency and are dying, and the service people are standing there watching you die and a crowd of people are standing there watching you die, I don't think I could stand there and watch you die.
I would walk away. I wouldn't try to help you in any way possible because policy says not too.

There are ways without laws and policies to save someone.
It just takes a bit of thinking and common sense.

not to offend everyone that's saying they'd have gone in and saved him, but how good are you at swimming? do you do it everyday? are you good at treading water hours at a time? are you strong enough to swim through a rip? do you know how to handle someone that is drowning? generally when someone drowns, they panic. even if this guy wanted to die, his survival instinct would've kicked in at some point and panic would make him flail about trying to stay afloat. i don't know if you've ever had a frightened person try to use you as a floatation device, but i can assure you it's not pleasant. they claw at you, push you down to try to stay afloat, though without meaning to or perhaps even realising. it's commendable that you'd have wanted to help, but honestly you'd have probably either drowned as well, or been unable to save the man.

i would not have gone in. i can't swim well. i can tread water without panicking long enough for the life guards manning the beach to spot me. i've had a panicking person cling on to me whilst they struggled in a rip. it's scary.

it's sad that this man drowned. it's sad that as far as i can see from this one article, they didn't attempt to throw him rope, or have a helicopter or a small boat sent out to him. i think policy/budget cuts coupled with not wanting to risk drowning themselves or being fired is what this boils down to. it's unfortunate, but i would've probably done the same. why should i risk my job or my life for someone that isn't interested in their own any more? it would've been nice if they had the training, or known if he was violent, etc.

really, it's unpleasant that he died, and unpleasant that 75 people watched it happen. i don't think any of them would be the same again. it's easy to be critical about this stuff on a forum. imagine telling this to one of the people involved.

To alot of people's responses in the forum mentioning ethics and policies and why didn't anyone ignore them and jump in? First off, I wouldn't. I'm not going to save a person who doesn't want to be saved. First of all when "policies" are in place and you break them. You risk being fired. For those who don't care about their job. Fine. But honestly, saving that persons life isn't going to pay my pills and help me survive. I don't see it as a valuable life. I see it as a waste of time. Want to kill yourself? My sympathies are far and few between. There are few circumstances I would jump in to try and make them stop. One being my mother. My family. Otherwise, Knock yourself out.

What kein mitleid said. My sister got caught in a rip once, when swimming about two metres offshore. She was wearing a swimsuit, nothing heavy or difficult. My brother and dad nearly died rescuing her. That was TWO METRES. It's not easy to drag someone out of the sea.

Why do you expect the emergency services to save someone determined to die? (Ethical question, not rhetoric)

On the crowd's reaction, experiements show that in crowd emergencies, everyone assumes someone else has called the emergency services, so sometimes nobody does. In the UK, the first thing they teach you in first aid/rescusitation class is to PHONE AN AMBULANCE, because it gets overlooked quite often.
And if the services are there, they assume everything's under control. If I was a witness to an emergency situation and the emergency services were visibly in attendance, I wouldn't interfere. Would you? Honestly?

On the ethical side of things... should people even bother trying to save a suicide? I think so. Sorry to get a bit personal, but I'm thankful every day that people thought I was worth saving.