Water Rescue Failure - SF

[doug86]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

Obviously the person wanted to be rescued, or he would have gone in the water at night.

Lemme see if I have this right: you are applying a sane person's logic to someone who committed suicide?

Suicide is a very complex issue, but most experts agree that a person attempting suicide is under extreme psychological distress and not thinking straight. I don't think you can make any statements about what is obvious to you would have made any sense to him.

[imagine2frolic]

Are you a phycologist? I am not, but many times people are reaching out for help, and because they are not thinking straight they will do it in an absurd way. I stand by my statement he would've done it in the dark if he wanted to really die.

Have you ever dealt with hypothermia? I have trying to rescue my boat after someone drove over a bouy in the dark. It is not something that happens in a flash, but it takes over quick enough, and then you become helpless.........i2f

[David M]

Unless the water is knee deep, it should not be the Alameda Fire Departments responsibility. I agree that neck deep is about 5 feet or so for the typical sized male which is not too shallow for a USCG 25 footer. I see 25 footers all over the SF Bay and this seems to be their primary boat for patrols and rescues inside the Bay

The other aspect is whether or not the government should be involved in stopping a suicide. From the governments perspective, suicide is still illegal therefore it is law enforcement's obligation to stop a suicide. Petition your representatives if you want this law changed.

I know the water there, it is all sand and mudflats that extend out for hundreds of yards when the tide is low. There are no abrupt depth changes or submerged rocks which the Coast Guard would need to worry about. I have run my research boat into that area a number of times along with smaller trailer sized boats for eel grass research and have had no damage to any of the boats.

Isn't it worth taking a little risk to the equipment to save a life? There would have been no risk to personnel by going into shallow water with a sandy/mud bottom and perhaps a little wind chop.

I admire what the USCG does but someone here made a bad decision by choosing not to take a tiny amount of risk in order to save a life.

USCG 25 footer photo...
http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?g2_itemId=626095

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by doug86

Lemme see if I have this right: you are applying a sane person's logic to someone who committed suicide?

Suicide is a very complex issue, but most experts agree that a person attempting suicide is under extreme psychological distress and not thinking straight. I don't think you can make any statements about what is obvious to you would have made any sense to him.

Maybe knowing 'Someone gave a $hit' was all he needed to get past the 'Hump'... I notice the report stated he kept looking back before moving deeper...
then he accepted the simple fact... no one on the shore 'Did give a ****...'.
Farewell Cruel World....

[doug86]

Originally Posted by David M

I agree that neck deep is about 5 feet or so for the typical sized male which is not too shallow for a USCG 26 footer.

You are correct about the actual draft of the small Safe Boats, but the USCG has operating limits for their equipment, and I think that for the 26' boats, it is 6' minimum depth.

Here is a quote from a case last year in TX where the CG didn't respond, in part due to the depths

If the situation were dire, Paulison said, the Coast Guard would not have been able to respond in the shallow waters of Nueces Bay and would have called on the Department of Parks and Wildlife to navigate the 4 foot to 5 foot depths.

Coast Guard: Policy was followed in case of boaters » Corpus Christi Caller-Times

So, the USCG probably would not have responded to this situation in any case, due to the shallow water.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by doug86

You are correct about the actual draft of the small Safe Boats, but the USCG has operating limits for their equipment, and I think that for the 26' boats, it is 6' minimum depth.

Here is a quote from a case last year in TX where the CG didn't respond, in part due to the depths Coast Guard: Policy was followed in case of boaters » Corpus Christi Caller-Times

So, the USCG probably would not have responded to this situation in any case, due to the shallow water.

Thank the gods ye 'Brits' and visitors for the courageous volunteers of the RNLI...
nice to know there's 'Good Guys' somewhere....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ll/6439857.stm

[David M]

Originally Posted by doug86

You are correct about the actual draft of the small Safe Boats, but the USCG has operating limits for their equipment, and I think that for the 26' boats, it is 6' minimum depth.

Here is a quote from a case last year in TX where the CG didn't respond, in part due to the depths Coast Guard: Policy was followed in case of boaters » Corpus Christi Caller-Times

So, the USCG probably would not have responded to this situation in any case, due to the shallow water.

Then the USCG needs to change their depth policy when a life is on the line. Take a little risk. That is their job. Let the coxswain (skipper) use a little discretion.

If the USCG is this risk averse then they should cancel their rescue swimmer program, you know, the guys who jump out of helicopters. This does not seem like one of the safer professions.

[Capt Phil]

With limited resources for rescue both sea and shoreside, I would rather we spent these resources on individuals who value life and want to be rescued than running around with safety nets for folks wanting to fling themselves off cliffs and the like. My son is a professional firefighter who deals with these people regularly. Many who they pull back from the brink find a way to do themselves in days or weeks later.
Sounds like this poor soul wanted to go out with bang, not a whimper. Who knows what demons forced him into that situation, terminal illness? love affair gone bad? mental defect? Whatever it was, let him go in peace... just sayin'... Capt Phil

[sww914]

Authorities make changes after first responders watch man drown - CNN.com

Their protocol says that they can't go in the water apparently.

[rowingdude]

In boy scouts, they taught us to go in after the person passed out. I don't see why they can't take a boat or go out with a float though.

[doug86]

already a thread on this today

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...-sf-61651.html

[David M]

Same topic. Threads merged.

[smurphny]

Forty years ago no one would have worried about "protocol" or being sued for some contorted interpretation of tort law. People would have just grabbed the guy and pulled him in instead of standing around with their fingers up their.... We've all been stifled to the point of inaction by lawyers, their governmental lackeys, and judicial insanity for years.

[imagine2frolic]

Litigation has tied the hands of the potential Audy Murphys. It's not my business, or it's not my problem, and just walk on by. The people standing around watching, and only one stepped up. I read in the news article a great suggestion. The people standing around could've created a human chain out to the person. It's a crying shame what this society is turning into. Sorry, I'll step down now..........i2f

[rowingdude]

I'm sorry, but it's California, what do you expect?