cmh_sprint Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110601/ts_yblog_thelookout/handcuffed-by-policy-fire-and-police-crews-watch-man-drown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 oh well, fuck it.nobody made his ass go in the water in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Kinda sounds like a win to me. Adult choices and adult decisions were made, forcing adult responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan_Rider Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Fuck him he wanted to die, he got what he wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 I think they saved the fire department millions by not saving him. Think of the lawsuit he could have filed for being rescued by untrained firemen? At least there was a bystander there to swim out and bring the dead body back so it didn't pollute the whole ocean! PETA would have cried baby whales if that happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rctaylor Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Haha!You guys are win! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 He made his choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienpi Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 They handcuffed him in the water, and since he was handcuffed he couldn't swim. And in result of this, he drowned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110601/ts_yblog_thelookout/handcuffed-by-policy-fire-and-police-crews-watch-man-drownI see no fail... he got what he wanted and probably what he deserved and the locals have no reason to be upset I'm sure their voting caused the budget cuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 They handcuffed him in the water, and since he was handcuffed he couldn't swim. And in result of this, he drowned.somebody didnt read the article.nobody handcuffed his stupid ass - he drowned himself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 The way I took it was he went in the water after he was cuffed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 where the hell you guys reading that at? ive read that article 3 or 4 times and i just dont see itthe only mention of cuffs is the guy being quoted that fire and rescue couldnt save him because they were "handcuffed by policy" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Fuck him he wanted to die, he got what he wanted.+1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 An apparently suicidal man waded into San Francisco Bay on Monday, stood up to his neck, and waited. As the man drowned, police, fire crews, and others watched idly from the shore.Why? Officials blamed a departmental policy, stemming from budget cuts, that prevented them from jumping in to save him.Fifty-year-old Raymond Zack spent nearly an hour in the water before drowning. A crowd of about 75 people, in addition to first responders, watched from the beach in Alameda across the bay from San Francisco as Zack inched farther and farther away, sometimes glancing back, a witness told the San Jose Mercury News. "The next thing he was floating face down."A volunteer eventually pulled Zack's lifeless body from the Bay.Mike D'Orazi of the Alameda Fire Department said that, due to 2009 budget cuts, his crews lacked the training and gear to enter the water. And a Coast Guard boat couldn't access the area because the water was too shallow."The incident yesterday was deeply regrettable," D'Orazi said Tuesday. "But I can also see it from our firefighters' perspective. They're standing there wanting to do something, but they are handcuffed by policy at that point."Alameda Police Lt. Sean Lynch also suggested his men did the right thing. "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."But at a City Council hearing Tuesday night, some locals expressed outrage that Zack was left to die. "This just strikes me as not just a problem with funding, but a problem with the culture of what's going on in our city, that no one would take the time and help this drowning man," said one resident, Adam Gillitt.The city said it would spend up to $40,000 to certify 16 firefighters in land-based water rescues.One witness to the event told a local news station that Zack was looking at people on the shore. "We expected to see at some point that there would be a concern for him," said another.the quote about not knowing if hes violent etc leads me to believe they never interacted with the guy to know how his temperment wasalong with the part about "first responders" meaning the dude was probably in the water already when they got there, hence nothing could be done about italso - no mention of police, if the police had caused the incident - that article would be all over it....and i think it would be called an arrest gone wrong, not a rescue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 oops I misread the heading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 understandable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm sure it would have been different if the victim was innocent. And first responders know that putting themselves in a position where they need to be rescued themselves will not help the victim at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idodishez Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Seriously???? Everyone is jumping for joy? He got what he wanted? Wtf is wrong w people? So no one could go in to save him, but they could go on to retrieve his dead body? Makes sense to me! And they were right to not go in because he could have been a threat? Um, so going into a burning building isn't? And none of these 75 bystanders who weren't "handcuffed" so no need to go in? Until after he's dead? Something seriously muffed up w people.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 the only mention of cuffs is the guy being quoted that fire and rescue couldnt save him because they were "handcuffed by policy"this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 And none of these 75 bystanders who weren't "handcuffed" so no need to go in? Until after he's dead? Something seriously muffed up w people.this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Nobody is jumping for joy. But we're not condemning the first responders either.You wouldn't expect a firefighter to run into a burning building without beign properly equipped, right? Why would you send him in the water without gear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monstrosity Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Seriously???? Everyone is jumping for joy? He got what he wanted? Wtf is wrong w people? So no one could go in to save him, but they could go on to retrieve his dead body? Makes sense to me! And they were right to not go in because he could have been a threat? Um, so going into a burning building isn't? And none of these 75 bystanders who weren't "handcuffed" so no need to go in? Until after he's dead? Something seriously muffed up w people.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYeah I've got to agree with you. Last year a lifetime friend of my fathers stopped by his house while I was there. The 3 of us talked cars, bikes, and laughed about shit. Two days later he was found dead in his garage from carbon monoxide poisoning. I never like hearing about suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) He willingly went into the water. He was either looking for death or attention. He got both.If I see a situation where I think i can save someone's life without putting my own at too much risk..I'll do it. But, I'm not about to kill myself to try and save someone who is trying to take their own life. This wasn't a kiddie pool...this was SF bay. I for one can NOT tread water for the life of me. According to Cartman, I have 'big bones' and I sink like a rock. Unless one of my children are drowning, my ass ain't going in the water to save anyone. If you can't grab onto something I might be dangling in the water (see what I did there?)...you're on your own. I have children that depend on me and a water rescue is an unacceptable risk to me. The first responders didn't have the proper gear to get this done....and this guy wasn't exactly in distress when they got there. He's walking...and LOOKING BACK AT THEM. Edited June 2, 2011 by InyaAzz 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWing'R Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 ...He walking...and LOOKING BACK AT THEM.Yeah, suicide is a cry for help. This man wanted and most likely needed help but instead the man died while everyone watched. Most everyone's comments in this thread are equally disturbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Seriously???? Everyone is jumping for joy? He got what he wanted? Wtf is wrong w people?I have ZERO remorse or respect when it comes to suicide. Everyones life sucks at some point but they work through it.Last summer a very good friend of mines brother decided he no longer was able to deal with the effects of his mental illness and took a swan dive off a bridge. Seeing the negative effect it had on so many people absolutely bothers the shit out of me for such a selfish act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.