Kosher Ham Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 He got what he wanted. I don't have a problem with them not saving him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 **** that. People are saying "Who wouldn't" and all I can say is "Who would want to?" I wouldn't mind being a hero, but then again, it did seem to be awfully cold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The Bay is really cold, especially this year. I'm guessing about 58 degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 If it was too shallow for a boat, and shallow enough for the man to wade out there, why the heck can't any of the 75 people watching, wade out there ?I guess the message the government is sending is :"If you want to try to drown yourself, and wish for someone to attempt to save you, then you must make said attempt in deep waters" You're right. We should base our judgments of all government decisions on whatever is the most sarcastically inaccurate way of describing said decisions as possible. If he had fallen off a boat or was out there accidentally, I'd care. But since he wanted to die, I am not finding this to be all that awful.~Bang Bingo. The guy went out of his way to drown himself. And I think a telling sign about how obvious the whole thing was is the fact that 75 people just stood there and watched. I'm not a strong swimmer at all, but if I see someone out there who's fighting for his/her life, ****, I'll do something. I'll try to find one of those flotation-devices-on-a-rope that some lifeguards have, I'll try to round up a bunch of said lifeguards, I'll steal a Big Inflatable Floating Thing from a kid and try to get out there... whatever seems possible. I almost drowned in the ocean once when I was nine, so the sight of a potential innocent drowning victim terrifies me. I have to imagine that this guy was making it abundantly, excessively clear that he absolutely didn't want to make it back to shore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Something is really weird about this story, even with the update. There's definitely more too this. The first rescuer on the scene is automatically the incident commander and commandeers the handling of any emergency situation. There is absolutely more to this story, the water conditions, etc. that no one, not even one of the 75 spectators went in to save this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailinginSeattle Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Bull****, so ok, you want to die, die who cares, right? Bull****. There was a very similar scenario that I've seen a few times on tv where a guy was on a bridge for a while over some water and eventually dropped into the water and drowned. Plenty of cops, firefighters around and not one soul attmepted to help him, the time he spent on the bridge and they sent no boat or anything just in case he jumped. Two civilians jumped into the river and swam a good 50-100 yards to save this guy, they got to him brought him to shore (all while the cops, fire department, etc. watched). Unfortunately it was too late and he died. Have some humanity. So anyone who tries to commit suicide, jump off a building or whatever should not be helped? We shoud turn our heads? "Oh he wants to die, ok **** him, die then". Disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Is it true a onlooker had to volunteer to go retrieve the body?.....seriously ****ed up situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Christians help Real men help If you watched: you failed both, no discussion needed about intent or mental ability of the individual. (I know, don't stand between a woman and her children, but thats a different topic) The onlooker that volunteered to retrieve the body should give the 'officials' remedial training in humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub- Grover Glenn Norquist I hope someone drowning made this guy happy as a result of government cut backs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 2, 2011 Author Share Posted June 2, 2011 Who retrieved the dead body ? If it was the firefighters, that would be a violation of policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RM52 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 why is this such a big deal? the POS wanted to kill himself and he got what he wanted. why risk the lives of the rescue workers that dont have proper training for some idiot that doesnt value human life. those cops and firefighters have families to go home to at the end of their shift. how could a mother/father tell their child that mommy/daddy isnt coming home because he died trying to save an ingreat that wanted to kill himself? and as a firefighter, i can say it would be a hard decision to make, and one that will probably haunt those on scene for some time. but in the end, the people that appreciate life all got to go home to their families at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 why is this such a big deal? the POS wanted to kill himself and he got what he wanted. why risk the lives of the rescue workers that dont have proper training for some idiot that doesnt value human life. those cops and firefighters have families to go home to at the end of their shift. how could a mother/father tell their child that mommy/daddy isnt coming home because he died trying to save an ingreat that wanted to kill himself? and as a firefighter, i can say it would be a hard decision to make, and one that will probably haunt those on scene for some time. but in the end, the people that appreciate life all got to go home to their families at the end of the day. Plus since you aren't certified, he could sue you for everything you have. Then you tell your family you're moving out of your house into your in-laws place because you have nowhere to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 2, 2011 Author Share Posted June 2, 2011 why is this such a big deal? the POS wanted to kill himself and he got what he wanted. why risk the lives of the rescue workers that dont have proper training for some idiot that doesnt value human life. those cops and firefighters have families to go home to at the end of their shift. how could a mother/father tell their child that mommy/daddy isnt coming home because he died trying to save an ingreat that wanted to kill himself? and as a firefighter, i can say it would be a hard decision to make, and one that will probably haunt those on scene for some time. but in the end, the people that appreciate life all got to go home to their families at the end of the day. You're only thinking of the family members of firefighters (whose job is to risk their lives). But also think of the family members of the dead guy. He certainly has numerous family members who are saying and crying to themselves, "My dear Zack would still be alive, and perhaps get the help he needed, if just one of those 75 had an ounce of courage" And BTW, not all suicidal people are POS's. That's way too harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Plus since you aren't certified, he could sue you for everything you have. Then you tell your family you're moving out of your house into your in-laws place because you have nowhere to live. No good deed goes unpunished these days. That's for sure. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 "Certainly this was tragic, but police officers are tasked with ensuring public safety, including the safety of personnel who are sent to try to resolve these kinds of situations," Alameda police Lt. Sean Lynch said. "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." Seems like every year the idea that risking their lives for the public they serve is becoming a thing of the past. We didn't know.... so assume the worst. This is pretty much national policy now isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 2, 2011 Author Share Posted June 2, 2011 Makes you wonder, would they really have tried to save the guy, if it was not suicide, and he was trapped there involuntarily ? Or would they have used the policy excuse, on that, as well ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RM52 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 You're only thinking of the family members of firefighters (whose job is to risk their lives).But also think of the family members of the dead guy. He certainly has numerous family members who are saying and crying to themselves, "My dear Zack would still be alive, and perhaps get the help he needed, if just one of those 75 had an ounce of courage" And BTW, not all suicidal people are POS's. That's way too harsh. maybe if his numerous family members would have cared enough to get him help, it wouldnt come down to risking someone elses life to save his own, that he clearly had no use for. maybe not all suicidal people are POS's, but i have zero sympathy. everyone has problems in life, its not like he was the only one that was suffering or struggling. suicide is a cop out if you ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Its puzzling reading the reaction to this case vs the fire dept watching a house burn to the ground because the resident didn't pay a fire tax. What's the difference? Why is one acceptable and the other not? Seems inconsistent to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Its puzzling reading the reaction to this case vs the fire dept watching a house burn to the ground because the resident didn't pay a fire tax. What's the difference? Why is one acceptable and the other not? Seems inconsistent to me. I thought of that, but saving a life is different than limiting damage to a home. Unless of course I'm shooting someone to defend property...or enabling the right of a mother to kill her fetus flip a coin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Its puzzling reading the reaction to this case vs the fire dept watching a house burn to the ground because the resident didn't pay a fire tax. What's the difference? Why is one acceptable and the other not? Seems inconsistent to me. Well, if the guy set fire to the house himself on purpose with the reason to burn it down, then it would be equal. But he didn't, and this guy went out there with the purpose of killing himself. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Its puzzling reading the reaction to this case vs the fire dept watching a house burn to the ground because the resident didn't pay a fire tax. What's the difference? Why is one acceptable and the other not? Seems inconsistent to me. It occurs to me that as soon as a fee-supported Fire Department saves houses of people who had refused to pay the fee, then no one will pay the fee in the future and the whole thing collapses. :whoknows: I'm not defending what happened here in Alameda, heck I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. But I don't see those two situations as very comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 It occurs to me that as soon as a fee-supported Fire Department saves houses of people who had refused to pay the fee, then no one will pay the fee in the future and the whole thing collapses. :whoknows:I'm not defending what happened here in Alameda, heck I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. But I don't see those two situations as very comparable. It would only be comparable if the suicidal guy hadn't paid a coldwater-saving fee that most of the city's residents had paid. But since no one paid for the training (or gear) to save people from these situations, then it's not a comparable situation. ---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 11:33 AM ---------- I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub- Grover Glenn Norquist I hope someone drowning made this guy happy as a result of government cut backs I know quite a few people who wouldn't mind drowning Grover Norquist in a bathtub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Well, if the guy set fire to the house himself on purpose with the reason to burn it down, then it would be equal.But he didn't, and this guy went out there with the purpose of killing himself. ~Bang He set the house on fire by not thinking clearly....the jury is out on the wader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 Gotta hand it to him, tho. That's a ballsy way to die. Drowning is one of my biggest fears of how to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam@section118 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 maybe if his numerous family members would have cared enough to get him help, it wouldnt come down to risking someone elses life to save his own, that he clearly had no use for. maybe not all suicidal people are POS's, but i have zero sympathy. everyone has problems in life, its not like he was the only one that was suffering or struggling. suicide is a cop out if you ask me That is incredibly unfair, as you are assuming all parents/family members know when a person is going through depression and or other life problems. People can hide depression very well, and I have seen first hand how much of a shock it can cause to have someone around you attempt/commit suicide. More often then not it is out of the blue. As for the case, things are just not adding up. I want to here more, but the bottom line is of the 75 people you would hope someone would have stood up and offered assistance. As a paid first responder, I will say that I would not have gone in, even though it would have killed me inside. To much liability from lawsuits, internal dscipline, not to mention if you are not trained properly you could end up getting injured or killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.