4 ms·

I was blown away watching the local news the other night. A man in Oakland was in the water drowning while the Fire Department watched because they didn't have

I was blown away watching the local news the other night. A man in Oakland was in the water drowning while the Fire Department watched because they didn't have the "resources" for proper training and certification for land-based water rescues. A random woman eventually had to go out into the water to retrieve the body. This is unbelievable. http://sfist.com/2011/05/30/man_drowns_in_bay_off_alameda_beach.php http://sfist.com/2011/05/30/man_drowns_in_bay_off_alameda_be...

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
equark 15y ago
This is a perfect example of where blind training and lack of common sense kills. I had a similar experience a few years ago. I arrived a local pond and immediately saw a man slapping the water and grunting. He was just past where he could stand. My lifeguard training kicked in and I immediately realized he was drowning. I starting yelling for help and jumped in the pond to save him. Then I stopped. My training said I was never supposed to go into the water without a floatation device. Without evaluating if that made sense in this case -- the pond was perfectly flat and the guy was maybe 3 feet past where I could stand -- I jumped out of the water and tried to find a floatation device. I ended up with an inflatable couch, which was absolutely enormous and would not have helped at all. Luckily at that point another guy had heard me yelling and started swimming toward the drowning man. He got to him within a few seconds and with two strokes was back to where he could stand. Everybody was fine. Training is a blessing and a curse. There are plenty of cases where people jump in fast moving water to save somebody and die as a result. I'm sure firefighters are told endlessly about such cases: never enter a burning building, go on ice, jump in water, etc. But these dangers don't always exist or are often remote. In my case, the training taught me to recognize the signals of drowning, but also taught me not to use common sense. It turned out okay, but could very well have gone differently.
stretchwithme 15y ago
Most civil servants and people working for utilities and transportation systems (like the airlines) are going to be rule-driven people. They aren't going to be thinking outside the box or improvising. And that's to be expected. Those that do think outside the box left the box a long time ago. You're never going to convince a flight attendent that you can turn off the network and keep using your smart phone until one of the people who make the rules gets an iPhone and learns about the magical "airplane mode". And it sort of should be this way. You want these people following rules, not making them up as they go. Its really the higher ups and ultimately the citizenry that need to change the way they think.
cridal 15y ago
what a bunch of f*&%en pussies...
- twakefield 15y ago
  I would tend to agree. When they interviewed one of the FD guys, he said if he wasn't on duty he would have rescued the guy. However, because they aren't certified, it opens the department up to lawsuits if something goes wrong. That's great. So now we have public officials that are doing more harm than good because of the lack of resources to train them and the fear of liability if they don't successfully save someone's life. I'm not sure which is more frustrating.
  - mbreese 15y ago
    It's the same reason why doctors aren't supposed to stop to help people at the side of the road - they aren't protected by good samaritan laws. If something goes wrong, they could be liable for it, even if the person would have died without intervention. That being said, I think most doctors would do it anyway.
hugh3 15y ago
There are a few weird gaps in that story, though. The guy was wading fully clad in chest-high water for nearly an hour, which (a) suggests he was probably mentally ill and didn't necessarily want to be rescued, and (b) suggests he didn't seem to be in any immediate danger. As for how he progressed from wading in chest-high water to drowning, I'm not really sure -- that part is missing too. So I'm not sure if they behaved quite right, but the article makes it sound less bad than the summary. Rescuing someone who is not thinking clearly and doesn't want to be rescued can go bad in all sorts of ways.
jinushaun 15y ago
Sounds like you can thank California and their affinity for lawsuits for that. No one wants to be held responsible for anything lest they get sued.
matthewn 15y ago
Alameda is the city next door to Oakland. Aside from being reported in the Oakland Tribune, what does this story have to do with Oakland?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

equark 15y ago

This is a perfect example of where blind training and lack of common sense kills. I had a similar experience a few years ago. I arrived a local pond and immediately saw a man slapping the water and grunting. He was just past where he could stand. My lifeguard training kicked in and I immediately realized he was drowning. I starting yelling for help and jumped in the pond to save him. Then I stopped. My training said I was never supposed to go into the water without a floatation device. Without evaluating if that made sense in this case -- the pond was perfectly flat and the guy was maybe 3 feet past where I could stand -- I jumped out of the water and tried to find a floatation device. I ended up with an inflatable couch, which was absolutely enormous and would not have helped at all. Luckily at that point another guy had heard me yelling and started swimming toward the drowning man. He got to him within a few seconds and with two strokes was back to where he could stand. Everybody was fine. Training is a blessing and a curse. There are plenty of cases where people jump in fast moving water to save somebody and die as a result. I'm sure firefighters are told endlessly about such cases: never enter a burning building, go on ice, jump in water, etc. But these dangers don't always exist or are often remote. In my case, the training taught me to recognize the signals of drowning, but also taught me not to use common sense. It turned out okay, but could very well have gone differently.

stretchwithme 15y ago

Most civil servants and people working for utilities and transportation systems (like the airlines) are going to be rule-driven people. They aren't going to be thinking outside the box or improvising. And that's to be expected. Those that do think outside the box left the box a long time ago. You're never going to convince a flight attendent that you can turn off the network and keep using your smart phone until one of the people who make the rules gets an iPhone and learns about the magical "airplane mode". And it sort of should be this way. You want these people following rules, not making them up as they go. Its really the higher ups and ultimately the citizenry that need to change the way they think.

cridal 15y ago

what a bunch of f*&%en pussies...

twakefield 15y ago
I would tend to agree. When they interviewed one of the FD guys, he said if he wasn't on duty he would have rescued the guy. However, because they aren't certified, it opens the department up to lawsuits if something goes wrong. That's great. So now we have public officials that are doing more harm than good because of the lack of resources to train them and the fear of liability if they don't successfully save someone's life. I'm not sure which is more frustrating.
- mbreese 15y ago
  It's the same reason why doctors aren't supposed to stop to help people at the side of the road - they aren't protected by good samaritan laws. If something goes wrong, they could be liable for it, even if the person would have died without intervention. That being said, I think most doctors would do it anyway.

hugh3 15y ago

There are a few weird gaps in that story, though. The guy was wading fully clad in chest-high water for nearly an hour, which (a) suggests he was probably mentally ill and didn't necessarily want to be rescued, and (b) suggests he didn't seem to be in any immediate danger. As for how he progressed from wading in chest-high water to drowning, I'm not really sure -- that part is missing too. So I'm not sure if they behaved quite right, but the article makes it sound less bad than the summary. Rescuing someone who is not thinking clearly and doesn't want to be rescued can go bad in all sorts of ways.

jinushaun 15y ago

Sounds like you can thank California and their affinity for lawsuits for that. No one wants to be held responsible for anything lest they get sued.

matthewn 15y ago

Alameda is the city next door to Oakland. Aside from being reported in the Oakland Tribune, what does this story have to do with Oakland?