'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man die

[SOUSGT 357]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/

Apparently the policy was implemented after budget cuts forced the department to discontinue water rescue training and stop maintaining wetsuits and other rescue gear

[x635 4,066]

While I understand the policy and the danger faced by this type of situation, and this may not be the full story, to just stand there and watch a man die over department politics is disgusting.. I'm sure they at least had something to throw him. For the witnesses to go out and get the guys body they should be ashamed. Again, I don't know the full story, and they may have not wanted to put their own lives in danger due to the situation, I still don't understand. Did they even attempt to use words to save this guy? There seems to be a lot of witness acounts that correlate to the department's inaction.

If you're in a community with water, at least have something to throw to them. I lknow the WEMS 45 Medics carry or used to carry rope bags for this reason. If they have a beach, at least maintain something to throw.

Does anyone remember the "Cops" episode where the worker was trapped in a canal with swift water?I think it was Passaic County Sheriff's in New Jersey. FD hadn't arrived yet, and all the cops had were a life preserver which broke. The officers and bystanders worked together, jumped the chain link fence, to reach down several feet and rescue the guy. The victim was so fatigued, that he was only moments away from being taken down river and dying. That is heroism.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

ok, so here is a stupid question.... when was the last time the FD members trained in this rescue ???? years ? months or weeks ago ? and what was wrong with the equipment ???? was it outdated or not inspected this year? it seems lame to me if budget cuts were from this year and everything stops as of NOW.... so I guess the training they had only stays with them for a limited time... Don't get me wrong, you need to training every day, to keep up the skills you have learned, but this was a guys life.... come on...

But then again,it might have been a policy for years and no one has a clue on this type of rescue, and I would understand... kinda...

[helicopper 1,050]

While the suicide is sad, it would have been even more tragic if additional people, especially rescuers, lost their lives trying to do something for which they are neither trained or equipped. It's more than department politics and it's more than the lack of training and equipment. It's the classic municipal gamble - we'll take our changes that nothing bad will happen rather than properly preparing for it. Now they're stuck with it.

What is the rescue plan for the San Francisco bay? Is there a plan? Is there any nearby department that has rescue capabilities for shallow water settings (the Coast Guard apparently couldn't get in because of the water depth). Where were the air assets from the bay area?

If they get sued they'll have a variety of defenses including that they can not be expected to do something for which they are not trained or equipped exposing themselves to the risk of death or injury. The city may have liability but I doubt it will extend to the individual responders - at least I hope it will not extend to them.

As we come into our "water season" and the rescue calls/drownings have already begun, it's a good time to ask what the plan is in your agency.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

According to the article, I believe this person was standing/floating in the water for an hour before he went face down. That tells me that there probably wasn't a strong current. There has to be resources within 45 minutes that could have helped. There is no way that I am standing there while a crowd of people watches a man kill himself! There is probably a video somewhere that would shed some light on this.

[helicopper 1,050]

ok, so here is a stupid question.... when was the last time the FD members trained in this rescue ???? years ? months or weeks ago ? and what was wrong with the equipment ???? was it outdated or not inspected this year? it seems lame to me if budget cuts were from this year and everything stops as of NOW.... so I guess the training they had only stays with them for a limited time... Don't get me wrong, you need to training every day, to keep up the skills you have learned, but this was a guys life.... come on...

But then again,it might have been a policy for years and no one has a clue on this type of rescue, and I would understand... kinda...

Even if the training was last week are you suggesting that they should defy their orders and do it anyway? As soon as the order was communicated by this policy, that type of operation had to stop.

Then what happens when a rescuer gets killed or injured? The city says, nope, we're not covering him because he was doing something he wasn't supposed to do and the surviving family gets nothing.

Don't tell me that it's unlikely because water rescues have to be one of the most dangerous types of rescues and all to often we hear about even properly trained and equipped responders getting hurt or killed.

[INIT915 1,119]

If they get sued they'll have a variety of defenses including that they can not be expected to do something for which they are not trained or equipped exposing themselves to the risk of death or injury. The city may have liability but I doubt it will extend to the individual responders - at least I hope it will not extend to them.

Actually, less liability then you might think. Courts have generally held that no "contract" exists between the public and emergency services for their action or inaction.

[CTFF 65]

Actually, less liability then you might think. Courts have generally held that no "contract" exists between the public and emergency services for their action or inaction.

what about the company officer or IC who sent his people on a rescue they are not trained for nor equiped for? If one of his crew is killed or hurt badly this may open the city and himself to a lawsuit.

Edited June 1, 2011 by CTFF

[INIT915 1,119]

what about the company officer or IC who sent his people on a rescue they are not trained for nor equiped for? If one of his crew is killed or hurt badly this may open the city and himself to a lawsuit.

Yes, that is entirely different. The Courts have said that the public has very little recourse when an agency fails to respond. It's a "Torts" issue that has held steady for a few decades now.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

Even if the training was last week are you suggesting that they should defy their orders and do it anyway? As soon as the order was communicated by this policy, that type of operation had to stop.

Then what happens when a rescuer gets killed or injured? The city says, nope, we're not covering him because he was doing something he wasn't supposed to do and the surviving family gets nothing.

Don't tell me that it's unlikely because water rescues have to be one of the most dangerous types of rescues and all to often we hear about even properly trained and equipped responders getting hurt or killed.

according to the infor we got from the article, it seems that the FD discontinued the water rescues, training and maintenance of equipment... so from this I believe they had members that were training and operating at " Tech " levels..... you would assume.... so, because the FD can not get money ( over time for on going training ) those members that were trained to " Tech " level, are not allowed to perform rescues they were trained for ??? this is what I have the problem with.... IF... they were, in deed, " Tech " level trained, then the agreement for sending untrained FD members is out the door.... we can only assume what is what...

and if this is the case, knowning that the FD would not be doing water rescues, was a plan and policy in place to call in another agency who could handle the job... in Croton, we do not have " trained " members, so with any Water type rescue, Yorktown's team is call in right away....

it just seems like someone is taking their ball and going home...

[JohnnyOV 2]

While I understand the policy and the danger faced by this type of situation, and this may not be the full story, to just stand there and watch a man die over department politics is disgusting.. I'm sure they at least had something to throw him. For the witnesses to go out and get the guys body they should be ashamed. Again, I don't know the full story, and they may have not wanted to put their own lives in danger due to the situation, I still don't understand. Did they even attempt to use words to save this guy? There seems to be a lot of witness acounts that correlate to the department's inaction.

If you're in a community with water, at least have something to throw to them. I lknow the WEMS 45 Medics carry or used to carry rope bags for this reason. If they have a beach, at least maintain something to throw.

Does anyone remember the "Cops" episode where the worker was trapped in a canal with swift water?I think it was Passaic County Sheriff's in New Jersey. FD hadn't arrived yet, and all the cops had were a life preserver which broke. The officers and bystanders worked together, jumped the chain link fence, to reach down several feet and rescue the guy. The victim was so fatigued, that he was only moments away from being taken down river and dying. That is heroism.

My safety, my teams safety, victims safety.

I understand what you're saying about heroism, but god forbid someone slipped, now your entire team is being swept away. Maybe it worked this time, and maybe it will work next time, but who's to say the next time your entire crew ends up drowning because they are improperly trained, or received no training at all. After training in swift water / moving water/ flood water it is now quite apparent to me how dangerous moving and stagnant water is. It takes so very little for the rescuer to become a victim in a situation like this, that unless you know exactly what you are doing, and do it the right way, you put everyone you work with at risk. You did not put the victim in this situation and 99% of the time in water rescue, it is their own fault. You might feel compelled to jump in and help, but I'm sure you're doing it without a PFD on, or while you're still wearing your bunker pants and coats. Read up on NFPA 1670 and 1952. You'll be very surprised at how many departments do not follow these rules and are completely untrained to preform a rescue.

On a quick question, how many of you would tie a rope to yourself or your PFD while wading or swimming out to a victim trapped in the water? You don't have to answer, but consider yourself dead if you do that. God forbid you slip, the force of water against you and the tension on the rope, will pull you down and under the water drowning you. The father from the Arlington incident the other day was extremely lucky nothing serious happened to him.

Walking through flooded streets in your bunker gear? Hope you don't step onto a manhole who's cover has washed away. You'll be sucked down and hopefully you'll pop up (alive) somewhere down the line.

Water rescue should be preformed only by trained individuals. You wouldn't send an untrained firefighter into a burning building, but why do departments, time and time again, do the same for a water incident?

Edit: Kudos to the IC and the members of this department for standing by their orders and realizing the extremely unsafe nature of the situation, and keeping it from becoming even more then what it was already by endangering themselves.

Edited June 1, 2011 by JohnnyOV

[antiquefirelt 994]

More of these types of incidents are going to come. You cannot keep cutting budgets and subsequently saying you are eliminating services, then go on to provide the service at a lesser cost (albeit improperly equipped to boot). The taxpayers through their elected officials and budget process must understand that with cuts come costs, and in the Fire/LE/EMS realm that means lives and property.

This is why most FD's don't do bomb disposal, right? We're not equipped or trained. So why would we expect the FD to provide any other service they state they do not do and are not equipped for. It's the reality factor finally setting in. The solution would be for the Chief to say, we're not responding to these incidents because it's far to likely that personnel would act impulsively, break rules and make an attempt without proper training, exposing the city to more liability and increasing the life hazard involved.

Saying that personnel should be ashamed or are disgusting for following department policy is out of line. I suppose we should all just suffer any cuts and accept further risk life and limb as staffing, training and equipment dwindles? Hollow threats of reduced services while intending on doing the same with less is foolhardy at best.

Unfortunately there is no easy answer. Having to stand idly by is not easy for most persons in emergency services. The public must be made to understand the risks involved and accept their own decisions.

[FireMedic049 597]

according to the infor we got from the article, it seems that the FD discontinued the water rescues, training and maintenance of equipment... so from this I believe they had members that were training and operating at " Tech " levels..... you would assume.... so, because the FD can not get money ( over time for on going training ) those members that were trained to " Tech " level, are not allowed to perform rescues they were trained for ??? this is what I have the problem with.... IF... they were, in deed, " Tech " level trained, then the agreement for sending untrained FD members is out the door.... we can only assume what is what...

According to the articles I read, the training and equipment for water rescue was discontinued a few years ago. Members of the department did have Technician level training, but no longer had current certifications for such. The articles were vague as to whether or not the department had access to the appropriate equipment for this situation, however it was very clear (at least to me) that there was department policy stating that the department (and it's members) were to no longer engages in any water rescue activity.

and if this is the case, knowning that the FD would not be doing water rescues, was a plan and policy in place to call in another agency who could handle the job... in Croton, we do not have " trained " members, so with any Water type rescue, Yorktown's team is call in right away....

it just seems like someone is taking their ball and going home...

The articles I saw stated that since the FD stopped handling water rescue incidents, the "plan" or "policy" was to notify other agencies for water rescue services. The USCG was one agency specifically mentioned for this and the article clearly stated that the USCG was notified to respond.

[x635 4,066]

This gives a little more insight and "behind the scenes" of this incident. Made me change my viewpoint, and the firefighters were justified in their actions. Sometimes you have to weigh risk vs. benefit, and I think this would have been a clear risk based on the article.

http://alameda.patch.com/articles/alameda-public-safety-agencies-respond-to-beach-death

[JJB531 652]

Excellent posts so far. Also from a law enforcement perspective, this is a suicidal EDP in the water. Little bit of a difference between a "victim" who unintentionally ended up in the water and an individual who purposely placed himself in that position to cause himself harm. Placing a would-be rescuer who may not have the proper training and/or equipment into the waterborne environment is dangerous enough, now put that rescuer up against an individual who may have no problem taking a rescuer and anyone else who tries to interfere with their plans to commit suicide with them.

Edit: I just read the article that Seth posted a link to which discusses the same concerns I just brought up, I didn't read it before posting so I apologize.

Edited June 1, 2011 by JJB531

[helicopper 1,050]

This gives a little more insight and "behind the scenes" of this incident. Made me change my viewpoint, and the firefighters were justified in their actions. Sometimes you have to weigh risk vs. benefit, and I think this would have been a clear risk based on the article.

http://alameda.patch...-to-beach-death

A 25-foot rescue boat was launched from the Coast Guard Air Station San Francisco, the nearest location of such a craft. It arrived in the area at 12:10 p.m., she said.

Unfortunately, because of the boat's size, it was unable to get closer than a mile to Zack, Boehland said.

"Because of the depth of the water where the person was, we were unable to respond and that's why the helicopter was called to the scene," she said.

You'd think that the coast guard would have a greater range of available assets at such a prominent location.

The risk of injury, either from the man himself, or from the Bay's frigid waters, was great, said Lynch.

55 degree water is extremely cold and rescuers would have been at risk without proper equipment. Maybe one of our rescue types can indicate if this is dry-suit weather or what?)

"The difference between rescuing someone who wants to be rescued and someone who is trying to kill themselves is dramatic, and that's something we have to take into consideration as we respond," Lynch said.

Highlights the point made by jjb531.

In 2000s, Alameda developed a comprehensive water rescue program after a 1999 incident in which a teenager drowned and a firefighter was severely injured in an attempted rescue in water near the Bay Farm Bridge.

Hmmm... A firefighter severely injured doing a rescue for which he was not properly trained or equipped. Sounds like the comments we've made so far.

Responding to criticism that the police department is so rule-bound officers wouldn't jump in the water to rescue a child, Lynch said that every situation is different and requires the guidance of training and experience as well as on-scene judgment.

"I can say from experience that many times police officers have put themselves in the water — I have put myself in," he said. "But this wasn't a small child near a dock, this was an almost-300-pound adult male who was trying to kill himself in freezing waters a good distance from the shore."

20 years ago I went into the water to rescue an old man and in hindsight I was wrong and should never have done it. Confronted with the same scenario today, knowing what I've since learned about moving water, I'd never repeat that mistake.

The Coast Guard helicopter that responded was out on a training mission when the call for help came in. It had to return to base at Coast Guard Air Station San Francisco, refuel, get the proper crew – which included a trained rescue swimmer — and come to Alameda.

While there are multiple Coast Guard helicopters stationed at the San Francisco Air Station, it takes time to prep them for flight, Coast Guard's Boehland said.

"When a helicopter flies it has to go through a system of checks," she said. "This was already up in the air, so it was actually quicker to bring it back, refuel it and switch the crew because it had already gone through a preflight safety inspection."

The helicopter arrived at the scene at 12:27 p.m., just about the time the man was being pulled from the water by a woman who was trained in water rescue, Boehland said. The coroner has not yet determined if Zack died from hypothermia or drowning.

The Coast Guard has a mission to rescue people in the water, says Boehland, but a key rule is not to put a rescuer at risk.

"At some point you're putting another life on the line to get in the water," she said. "Safety is our rescuers' top priority. You don't want to create more rescue situations than you have rescuers."

I can't believe the Coast Guard doesn't have a rescue aircraft ready to go, pre-flighted and fueled, at an active Coast Guard Station. I really thought they were a first response agency but this sounds like they make no provisions for a rapid response. Definitely not what I've seen from the USCG on this side of the country.

"This was a tragedy," said Lynch. "But the tragedy could have become a catastrophe very easily."

Well said!

[JJB531 652]

55 degree water definitely calls for donning a drysuit

[x635 4,066]

"The difference between rescuing someone who wants to be rescued and someone who is trying to kill themselves is dramatic, and that's something we have to take into consideration as we respond," Lynch said.

Who are we to play God? I agree it should be taken into consideration for safety reasons, but not be used to judge whether they should rescue the man or not.

[JJB531 652]

Who are we to play God? I agree it should be taken into consideration for safety reasons, but not be used to judge whether they should rescue the man or not.

I don't think anyone is playing God, I think they appropriately weighed the risk of fighting with a suicidal EDP in the water while lacking the appropriate training and equipment to safely effect the rescue. They didn't say "oh he's an EDP who wants to die so we're not going to rescue him", they said, "oh he's an EDP who has a propensity for violence and we don't have the proper equipment and training to effect this rescue safely, so is it worth risking the safety of the firefighters on the scene".

[firebuff860 54]

If they are not trained in water rescue and no longer performing it, why did the IC waste an hour of the crews time watching a guy in the water? I hope that the City Council was advised in writing by the Chief that they no longer performed those services. It certainly sounds like there is more to the story than what was written.

[JJB531 652]

If they are not trained in water rescue and no longer performing it, why did the IC waste an hour of the crews time watching a guy in the water? I hope that the City Council was advised in writing by the Chief that they no longer performed those services. It certainly sounds like there is more to the story than what was written.

What were they supposed to do, pack up and drive away?

[floorabove 13]

I dont run calls I wasnt at, but I will make some observations.

We, the Fire service, tend to over-tech stuff that is very basic. I have not been to the West coast, but along the outer beaches of Cape Cod, that type of rescue is performed every day by college kids on summer break with nothing more technical than a can buoy and a red bathing suit.

In certain areas on the East coast, person in the water calls see the Fire and PD both racing each other for the Grab.

I, and several others in my house, keep wetsuits with our gear. We go and get people out of the water. We are not a certified rescue team.We do train together. Some have Lifegaurd training. I dont need a NFPA certified drysuit to swim in cold water. My winter wetsuit is fine.

I wonder how agressive that department is at other types of incidents. I have never felt as at risk in the water as I have searching above the fire.

The fire service needs to push back against the crippling standards put forth by the NFPA on matters non-fire related. Departments need to make competency, not certification the standard.

My thoughts.

[JJB531 652]

Wow, where to begin.

First off, these type of rescues are NOT performed by "college kids with a can buoy and a red bathing suit" every day in Cape Cod. Granted yes they do perform water rescues on a daily basis, but the are rescuing people who want to be rescued! Swimmers who have ended up in an "oh s**t" situation and want to live. They are not rescuing a potentially violent individual who as we stated may take any lifeguard, firemen, police officer, or Good Samaritan who tries to intervene with their intentions with them. There is a very big difference between rescuing a individual who ended up unintentionally in a precarious situation versus taking an EDP into custody. That's the basic difference here; yes we can say you are rescuing this individual, but you are really taking an EDP into custody. Taking a non-voluntary EDP into custody (which is what they were presented with in this situation because from what it sounds like if this guy was a voluntary EDP he could've just walked back to shore if he wanted to) always has a very high propensity for a very violent encounter, many times requiring the use of less lethal devices and restraint systems to successfully take these people into custody with any injuries to responders and the EDP.

If you received an EMS job for a suicidal EDP in an apartment, would you enter the apartment prior to PD arrival? No, any smart first responder would wait for PD. Why? Because of the propensity for a violent encounter. This situation is no different, other then the water part. I agree that something should have been done to take this individual into custody, but I don't think swimming out there with a can buoy is the right answer.

As far as the whole we do rescues but have no formal training and our personal equipment is fine... Well if it works for you then it works, but I think that you are opening yourself and your agency up to a tremendous amount of liability. All it takes is for someone to get injured, whether it be a responder or a victim, I don't think it's going to matter how good your intentions were, an investigative agency is going to want to see what level of training, who conducted the training, the type of equipment used, etc.

Despite what your personal feelings are about the NFPA, they've still set the standards; standards that hold up in a court of law. To deviate from those standards and freelance, especially when talking about technical rescue, is a dangerous game.

Edited June 2, 2011 by JJB531

[floorabove 13]

Come on Bro.

The victim stopped being an EDP and became a drowning victim once he went face down. Go get 'em.

I am sworn to protect the people in my jurisdiction , not the municipalities insurance carrier.

I am not sure what model of risk v benefit you use, but mine allows me to risk my life to save another's.

NFPA seem to be a convenient shield with which to hide your cowardice.

[JJB531 652]

Come on Bro.

The victim stopped being an EDP and became a drowning victim once he went face down. Go get 'em.

I am sworn to protect the people in my jurisdiction , not the municipalities insurance carrier.

I am not sure what model of risk v benefit you use, but mine allows me to risk my life to save another's.

NFPA seem to be a convenient shield with which to hide your cowardice.

First off, I am not your bro....

Secondly, I said that I agree that he could have been taken into custody, I just didn't agree with swimming out there in a bathing suit.

Thirdly, we all risk our lives to save others. The model of risk vs benefit that I use is one that allows me to conduct a rescue while taking the proper necessary precautions to ensure the highest possibility of success to effect the rescue without placing myself, my co-workers, and my victim in unnecessary harm. Unnecessarily risking your life is utterly ridiculous, a dead rescuer is no good to anyone, especially when the proper training and equipment is readily available.

Cowardice? If you see my respect for the standards that have been established to ensure rescuer and victim safety as cowardice, then so be it, it's not worth arguing. But if you need to prove to yourself what a brave man you are by carrying out "thrown together" rescues for the people you "swore to protect", then I'm sorry but you are a dangerous individual and I just hope you don't get anyone else hurt.

[rob zombie 33]

The guy was a huge mofo.

The water was cold.

The firefighters obeyed a dept order.

Someone posted before, us first, bystanders second,in this case, person who was EDP or wanted to off himself, THIRD!

[Dinosaur 844]

Come on Bro.

The victim stopped being an EDP and became a drowning victim once he went face down. Go get 'em.

I am sworn to protect the people in my jurisdiction , not the municipalities insurance carrier.

I am not sure what model of risk v benefit you use, but mine allows me to risk my life to save another's.

NFPA seem to be a convenient shield with which to hide your cowardice.

All our professions involve risk however none of them expects, or should permit, you to take chances with your own life. There is a differnece. My department managed the risk best it could so I knew that I wasn't putting my guys out in harms way without the best training, equipment, and management avialable. NFPA standards were one way we knew that we were on the right track.

Saying that NFPA is a shield for cowards pretty much says that 99% of the fire service are cowards and that isn't true at all. NFPA is a valuable resource that most chief officers use regularly. I know I did.

And if you went jumping into 55 degree water you'd just become another victim yourself. Is that the answer?

[FireMedic049 597]

NFPA seem to be a convenient shield with which to hide your cowardice.

Please explain how NFPA is a shield for cowardice?

[JohnnyOV 2]

NFPA seem to be a convenient shield with which to hide your cowardice.

The NFPA established regulations that are basically written in blood. Each regulation, pretty much has a death contributed with it of either a firefighter or a civilian. Your ignorance as to why the regulations have been established, is a good example as to why firemen die. I am not here to get myself killed over anyone, and I would never expect anyone on my crew to do the same; that is simply, and quite literally, the dumbest idea ever.

If you think the NFPA created regulations such as NFPA 101, 1001, 1407, 1620, 1670, 1852 , 1982 and 1983 along with every single other regulation out there, (i'll let you look up what each regulation is for) to hold you back, and hamper your ability to be a cowboy on a scene, then you need to re-evaluate how you operate. From your single post, I would never want that attitude operating under my command, or with my crew. I am not an officer, but if i was, I would make sure you never entered a structure with me. You are there to to help someone who already put themselves in a dumb situation and to do so safely; you are not there to put yourself or your brothers in more harms way then they will already be encountering. You being dead, does nothing more then make the guys coming in after you, risk their lives even more.

edit: improper wording

Edited June 3, 2011 by JohnnyOV

[antiquefirelt 994]

The NFPA established regulations that are basically written in blood. Each regulation, pretty much has a death contributed with it of either a firefighter or a civilian.

Either that or because the manufacturer heavy committee sees an angle to make more money. Most FD's don't even come close to meeting all of NFPA's rules. Like so many other things, mostly we pick and choose what to follow, some truly are of great benefit to us, others not so much. Most are written with good intention, though you know where that paved road leads... There are not nearly as many legal cases as have been purported where NFPA was used to to prove guilt on the part of the FD, fire officer or firefighter. So while they should not be ignored, they must be weighed against many other factors.