Police, Firefighters watch man drown

[SF-Dano]

Wow, just wow. And the response to the question if a child was drowning. Just unbelievable.

Alameda police, firefighters watch as man drownsMonday, May 30, 2011
ALAMEDA, Calif. (KGO) -- Alameda police and firefighters stood by and watched as a man drowned off Crown Beach in Alameda on Monday. Authorities are now trying to explain why they had no choice but to stand on the shoreline.


Alameda police received a call shortly before noon on Monday from a woman saying her son wanted to kill himself. Raymond Zack, 53, then walked out into the water off Crown Beach.

"I thought it was kind of weird that they weren't going out to bring the guy in, you know, he was out there, his head was above water, he was looking at everybody, there was plenty of time for them to react," witness Perry Smith said.

For more than an hour, Zack stood up to his neck in the frigid surf off of Crown Beach in Alameda.

"Well, we expected to see at some point that there would be a concern for him and somebody would go out there and pull him in," witness Gary Barlow said.

About 75 beachgoers could not understand why Alameda police officers and firefighters stood idly by and watched the man slowly succumb to the 60 degree water.

"We're not trained to go into the water, obviously the type of gear that we have on, we don't have the type of equipment that you would use to go into the water," Alameda Police Lt. Joe McNiff said.

The man was a 150 yards out; it was too shallow for a Coast Guard boat and its helicopter was on another call. It arrived too late.

"It's horrible," Barlow said. "How can we let that happen? How can our emergency personnel allow that to happen? I don't get it, I don't understand it."

The Alameda Fire Department says budget constraints are preventing it from recertifying its firefighters in land-based water rescues. Without it, the city would be open to liability.

" Well, if I was off duty I would know what I would do, but I think you're asking me my on-duty response and I would have to stay within our policies and procedures because that's what's required by our department to do," Alameda Fire Div. Chief Ricci Zombeck said when asked by ABC7 if he would enter the water to save a drowning child.

Alameda firefighters could not even go into the water to get the body, so they waited until a woman in her 20s volunteered to bring the body back to the beach.

"The frustration is certainly understandable and I think the sensibility would be probably that we're going to evaluate our response protocols," Zombeck said.

Alameda fire officials say they are going to have a serious discussion about why Alameda, as an island city, does not have the ability to save people in danger in the water.

[SF-Dano]

Disclaimer: Opinion piece
Ricci Zombeck Would Let Your Kid Drown

Commentary

JUNE 3, 2011

By STEVEN GREENHUT

Alameda Fire Division Chief Ricci Zombeck (the one without the big hat) has told ABC News that he would rather let your child drown to death in the San Francisco Bay than to violate department rules that don’t allow these “heroic” first responders to respond to a potentially tragic event. Zombeck is the epitome of what is called administrative evil — the situation whereby seemingly normal people do evil things when they are members of large organizations. Just following orders, Maam.

ABC asked Zombeck whether he would save a drowning child and he said: “Well, if I was off duty I would know what I would do, but I think you’re asking me my on-duty response and I would have to stay within our policies and procedures because that’s what’s required by our department to do.”

Now if it was one of his fellow firefighting buddies or his kids, I’m guessing his answer would have been different.

Zombeck was being interviewed after his firefighters and the Alameda cops watched for an hour as a man drowned to death in the chilly bay waters. As an excuse, Alameda firefighters complained about budget cuts and said they didn’t have the proper training. The cops were worse. They said they didn’t know if the man — neck deep in water — was armed and dangerous. Here’s what the police spokesman said: “He was engaged in a deliberate act of taking his own life. We did not know whether he was violent, whether drugs were involved. It’s not a situation of a typical rescue.” What a bunch of bureaucratic, inhumane dolts. If they don’t want to deal with troubled people, they should in a different line of work. These jobs are occasionally dangerous, but not as dangerous as jobs such as roofing, taxi driving and fishing.

Let’s get back to Zombeck. He would let a child drown because of the rules. He claims that he would try to save the child if he were off duty. I wouldn’t ever want to be in a position where my life was dependent on the actions of this functionary. But let’s assume he would do as he said and would help if he weren’t at work, but wouldn’t help in his official capacity as a rescuer. What does this say about fire departments?

Something is terribly wrong when we are far safer depending on bystanders — who might jump in and help out of a sense of human decency and obligation — than on the professionals who are being paid to rescue and protect us. Based on Zombeck’s own words, your child is safer when Zombeck and his employees are off duty rather than on duty. Why not shut down these expensive bureaucracies, then?

Seriously, if we have to depend on volunteers any way, why pay for the huge budgets, enormous salaries and $200K pensions. At the very least, Zombeck made the perfect case for privatization. Public agencies will not do the right thing because they are bound by bureaucratic rules. They admit it themselves. Isn’t it time then to come up a public safety system that actually is concerned about the public safety, and doesn’t just exist for the comfort, convenience and benefits of its employees?

[Deb]

Wow, just wow. And the response to the question if a child was drowning. Just unbelievable.

Alameda firefighters could not even go into the water to get the body, so they waited until a woman in her 20s volunteered to bring the body back to the beach.

WTH?!

[SF-Dano]

Newscast video
http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/police- ... -ca-coast/

[ebake02]

I smell a lawsuit.

[Saint John]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

[Andrew]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

You are so seriously insensitive mate...I have to laugh...but it's really kind of sad.

[Saint John]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

You are so seriously insensitive mate...I have to laugh...but it's really kind of sad.

You'd think otherwise if your brother was a firefighter and went out there to help this lunatic, only to get a fatal knife wound to the neck. The guy was voluntarily, but legally, acting foolish, and that's neither a crime nor a rescue situation. It's something that needs to play out with whatever decision he makes. And that's exactly what happened. Again, it's a shame, but no one's at fault. Bury the dude and move on.

[S2M]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

You are so seriously insensitive mate...I have to laugh...but it's really kind of sad.

You'd think otherwise if your brother was a firefighter and went out there to help this lunatic, only to get a fatal knife wound to the neck. The guy was voluntarily, but legally, acting foolish, and that's neither a crime nor a rescue situation. It's something that needs to play out with whatever decision he makes. And that's exactly what happened. Again, it's a shame, but no one's at fault. Bury the dude and move on.

Ever been called to a domestic disturbance, and when you get there you see this battered and bruised woman cowering in the corner - then when you start to stuff and cuff the husband....she hops on your back and screams(while punching the fuck out of you), 'Don't take him, please....what am I gonna do?'

[Deb]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

You are so seriously insensitive mate...I have to laugh...but it's really kind of sad.

You'd think otherwise if your brother was a firefighter and went out there to help this lunatic, only to get a fatal knife wound to the neck. The guy was voluntarily, but legally, acting foolish, and that's neither a crime nor a rescue situation. It's something that needs to play out with whatever decision he makes. And that's exactly what happened. Again, it's a shame, but no one's at fault. Bury the dude and move on.

"Alameda firefighters could not even go into the water to get the body, so they waited until a woman in her 20s volunteered to bring the body back to the beach."

Whatever Dan, seriously though, rules or not what kind of firefighter lets a young woman in her 20s go out and retrieve the body instead???? Not one I would ever want working for the Calgary FD, that's for sure.

[S2M]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

You are so seriously insensitive mate...I have to laugh...but it's really kind of sad.

You'd think otherwise if your brother was a firefighter and went out there to help this lunatic, only to get a fatal knife wound to the neck. The guy was voluntarily, but legally, acting foolish, and that's neither a crime nor a rescue situation. It's something that needs to play out with whatever decision he makes. And that's exactly what happened. Again, it's a shame, but no one's at fault. Bury the dude and move on.

"Alameda firefighters could not even go into the water to get the body, so they waited until a woman in her 20s volunteered to bring the body back to the beach."

Whatever Dan, seriously though, rules or not what kind of firefighter lets a young woman in her 20s go out and retrieve the body instead???? Not one I would ever want working for the Calgary FD, that's for sure.

That's ok, Deb...nobody in Calgary can put out fires anyway....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/boxscore?gameId=310119003

[Saint John]

Whatever Dan, seriously though, rules or not what kind of firefighter lets a young woman in her 20s go out and retrieve the body instead????

Well, I'm in partial agreement with you. There's certainly no hurry or need to retrieve a dead body, but this woman should have certainly been discouraged from doing so. But maybe she was.

[Andrew]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

You are so seriously insensitive mate...I have to laugh...but it's really kind of sad.

You'd think otherwise if your brother was a firefighter.

My dad was...as was a cousin and an uncle.

And I have several good friends that are cops.

Can't see any of them leaving this alone.

[Angel]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

If this man were mentally stable and made a conscious decision then I'd agree with you...but chances are very strong that he's not mentally stable.

[Arianddu]

I can see both sides of the issue - on the one side, how can they just stand there and watch? But on the other side, this isn't someone drowning 'normally' (when people are drowning, the first thing that usually happens is they can't move. All the splashing and waving stuff you see in movies is nonsense.) Which means it's a classic case of panic danger - anyone swimming out to help him was at risk of their life, because he could panic as they get close, push the potential rescuer under, and drown that person. It's actually easier to drown someone who is resisting than it is to forcibly remove someone from the water.

Anyone who does any kind of rescue training is told first and foremost - do not put yourself in a precarious position trying to get to someone; it results in two people dead/needing rescue rather than one. So here is a man *deliberately* out in the water, a classic case of a high risk rescue. He's not going to come out easily, they have no idea of how he's going to react or what state of mind or chemical abuse he's in. Swimming out to him is about the dumbest thing they could do. Pulling him into a boat is the safest bet. But someone swimming out to him is simply too high a risk option.

As for the idea that privatising the system would ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen, who the hell are they kidding? No way would a private organisation take the risk of an employee's family suing them because said employee was injured/drowned trying to rescue this guy by swimming out.

The question I would be asking is why the emergency services didn't have a Rubber Duck (don't know what you call them in the US - inflatable rubber rescue boat with an outboard.) Australia has them at life saving stations all around the country, for exactly this sort of thing. I'd say it's down to budget cuts - the same budget cuts that ensured that the firefighters didn't have the training for a cold-water rescue in the first place.

[Gideon]

The question I would be asking is why the emergency services didn't have a Rubber Duck (don't know what you call them in the US - inflatable rubber rescue boat with an outboard.) Australia has them at life saving stations all around the country, for exactly this sort of thing. I'd say it's down to budget cuts - the same budget cuts that ensured that the firefighters didn't have the training for a cold-water rescue in the first place.

An inflatable dinghy, I believe.

[verslibre]

"Alameda firefighters could not even go into the water to get the body, so they waited until a woman in her 20s volunteered to bring the body back to the beach."

That is fucking insane.

[hoagiepete]

Strange deal. We have people that will risk their life to shimmy out onto a frozen pond to rescue a deer that fell through the ice, only to go out and hunt deer later, but our trained safety officers stand by and let a derranged person slowly kill himself.

What a world we live in.

[marco17]

Like it or not you have to look at this from both sides and that can be hard to do. Yes, any normal human being would want to go out and save the person that is in whatever danger, and they basically state just that. I'll comment on this as a current volunteer firefighter and by going with what much of the current methodologies are and am speaking in general….

It becomes a cost vs. benefit situation, without even taking into account any budgeting constraints that many paid fire departments are under, especially CA. Assuming that training is not the issue, at least on the surface, bureaucracy gets in the way on this particular situation, and it is inexcusable. If they have not been properly trained, you not only risk the life of the victim, but you also risk the lives of those rescuers. One death could ultimately mean three or more. There is no denying that efforts should have been made, but if they lacked training, it could have been a much worse situation. Again, bureaucratic BS to me, and where concerns for specific protocols and not risking being terminated for not following them was valued more than trying to rescue the victim.

From a firefighting perspective, strictly for fire operations…as an example of the cost vs. benefit thought process… the goal is to show up and put out the fire, obviously. If you arrive on scene and know for a fact that there is nobody in the structure it becomes much more of a defensive operation. There is minimal need for an offensive attack, risking the safety of the firefighters, by busting down doors and fighting an interior attack. Most likely today, the insurance agency is going to come in and knock the house or building down anyway [which is what happens around here], so is risking someone’s life for a building that is going to get knocked down worth it? Do you want to be the one who goes to tell the firefighter’s family that their family member was killed for a house or building that is going to get knocked down anyway? Nobody wants to do that.

I could go into more detail, but I don’t want to bore you all. Bottom line, they should have made some type of effort based on the information that is presented in the article.

[SF-Dano]

" Well, if I was off duty I would know what I would do, but I think you're asking me my on-duty response and I would have to stay within our policies and procedures because that's what's required by our department to do," Alameda Fire Div. Chief Ricci Zombeck said when asked by ABC7 if he would enter the water to save a drowning child

This is the quote that really struck me. It is one thing to argue the merits of trying to save a man who is voluntarily trying to kill himself, but this response to a question about saving a drowning child is simply unacceptable and quite frankly disgusting. [/b]

[Red13JoePa]

" Alameda firefighters could not even go into the water to get the body, so they waited until a woman in her 20s volunteered to bring the body back to the beach.

That is absolutely macabre.

You would think human instinct would kick in but I guess it became, as it often does, a kind of group hypnosis.

[Saint John]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

If this man were mentally stable and made a conscious decision then I'd agree with you...but chances are very strong that he's not mentally stable.

Regardless, the guy is out there because he wants to be, and any efforts to rescue him, even though he's out there voluntarily, would most likely put another life or lives in danger. They did the right thing. He simply had to walk out of the water, but chose not to. Sad, but faultless, as far as emergency personnel are concerned.

It's like a guy standing on top of a building. You ask him to come down or prepare a safety net, but you don't go and try to wrestle him down ... because that's just fucking stupid! And these people realized that and kept their asses out of the water. If anything, it's pretty bad that they couldn't have had a boat in the water within a few minutes to bash this guy over the head with an oar in an attempt to knock some fucking sense into him! Either that or to knock him out, drag his unconscious ass into the boat and get him to the loony bin where he belonged. But I just can't imagine any instance where you enter the water and try to wrestle a deranged individual to safety. He was in no uncontrolled imminent danger. He was in danger because he wanted to be. And that's his own fault.

[Angel]

I support the police and firemen in this situation. A guy voluntarily standing in neck deep water warrants no attention, let alone a rescue. No one is at fault here. Bury the guy and move on.

If this man were mentally stable and made a conscious decision then I'd agree with you...but chances are very strong that he's not mentally stable.

Regardless, the guy is out there because he wants to be, and any efforts to rescue him, even though he's out there voluntarily, would most likely put another life or lives in danger. They did the right thing. He simply had to walk out of the water, but chose not to. Sad, but faultless, as far as emergency personnel are concerned.

It's like a guy standing on top of a building. You ask him to come down or prepare a safety net, but you don't go and try to wrestle him down ... because that's just fucking stupid! And these people realized that and kept their asses out of the water. If anything, it's pretty bad that they couldn't have had a boat in the water within a few minutes to bash this guy over the head with an oar in an attempt to knock some fucking sense into him! Either that or to knock him out, drag his unconscious ass into the boat and get him to the loony bin where he belonged. But I just can't imagine any instance where you enter the water and try to wrestle a deranged individual to safety. He was in no uncontrolled imminent danger. He was in danger because he wanted to be. And that's his own fault.

I agree with you 100% that no one should have put their own safety in danger to save this man. I'm just saying that the fact that he was out in the water doesn't mean that he was competent to make the decision that he really wanted to end his own life. People with mental illness don't think the same way we do-their perception is altered.

[Arianddu]

" Well, if I was off duty I would know what I would do, but I think you're asking me my on-duty response and I would have to stay within our policies and procedures because that's what's required by our department to do," Alameda Fire Div. Chief Ricci Zombeck said when asked by ABC7 if he would enter the water to save a drowning child

This is the quote that really struck me. It is one thing to argue the merits of trying to save a man who is voluntarily trying to kill himself, but this response to a question about saving a drowning child is simply unacceptable and quite frankly disgusting. [/b]

Where as I saw a senior official in Protection Mode while talking to the media. They're in a shitty situation - if he says 'different circumstances, of course we'd have done it differently' the next thing he gets to say is 'hello enormous law suit'. I seriously doubt that's his actual real feelings.