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.
Budget cuts that mean they had no training or gear(as stated in the article) for a rescue that was in a bay that is known for cold temps and swift currents. Rescuing a man that is comitting suicide is not the same as a rescue of a normal drowing victim.
1.Without any gear, that is going to be difficult considering the body of water temps and currents. No floatation device and no rope to tie off is a very foolish thing to attempt.
2.A man committing suicide is likely to want to take you down with him or fight you, more than an already difficult drowning type rescue. He is trying to die!
3.The bystanders also saw a real the danger in this. It appears to be much more than wading out and retrieving him.
4.I am (along with my Fire Dept engine co. of course) the boat crew for my city for the Mississippi area we cover. No gear, cold swift water, and a suicidal victim equals a likely tragedy for all involved.
5.My experience from news articles\TV reporters that cover incidents I have been involved in, has been that they are very inacurate and tend to leave out important details that make for more drama. Thats as nice as I can put this. We are likely not hearing anything near the full story here.
Thanks for enlightening me.... still sad all the way around.
The article stated they are going to retrain, re-equip, and allow land based water rescues at their discretion (the incident commander) As a nurse, I am not doing anything outside of my scope of practice much the same as this FD on scene. I do know that going into 50 degree water trying to pull an unpredictable 280lb 6'3 man that wants to die, without a wetsuit, safety ropes and other misc safety gear is gonna be a lose-lose. They clearly had none of that gear.
I do put myself in harms way, risking bodily harm, but only with proper training and equipment. Its a calculated risk. Freelancers and cowboys don't do well in these situations and are highly discouraged. These rescuers were faced with something outside of their scope of practice, they weren't trained for and professionally forbid from doing. They calculated the risk and came up with the right answer that day. It was tragic, but for only one victim and not several.
BTW, I didnt read anywhere that he was 50yds out with tide only, no currents. I don't think that would change anything though.
There are multiple stories covering this which provide more info.
The man was standing 50 yards out until his head went under. It wasn't until after the tide brought the body closer to shore that a bystander retrieved the body. If there was any significant current then it would have carried him off long before the tide moved him.
The Fire department is returning to water rescue training, but has also immediately changed their policy to allow rescues before the water-rescue training has occurred. Retrieving someone who is 50 yards out in 6 feet of calm water isn't not a particularly challenging scope of practice to achieve, a summer membership to the local Y pretty much qualifies you.
A large chunk of my friends are firefighters. They make more than I do and they spend most of their time playing ping pong and sleeping, they make the big bucks due to the risk of situations that are typically far worse than this. I don't doubt that the firefighters in this situation had some desire to intervene, but as the stories make pretty clear, this is an issue of policy, not a calculated decision, there was no calculating allowed.
The tragedy is that there was apparently insufficient mental health services for him before he went into the water. Once he waded out 50 yards into one of the most dangerous bodies of water in the country, there was nothing left to do but watch. Or would you have had them all leave and let him die alone? I imagine they were calling out to him, attempting to talk him in to coming in.
US citizens have asked (vis-à-vis 2010 elections) for smaller government. You got it. Now reap what you have sown.
The man was standing 50 yards out until his head went under. It wasn't until after the tide brought the body closer to shore that a bystander retrieved the body. If there was any significant current then it would have carried him off long before the tide moved him.
The Fire department is returning to water rescue training, but has also immediately changed their policy to allow rescues before the water-rescue training has occurred. Retrieving someone who is 50 yards out in 6 feet of calm water isn't not a particularly challenging scope of practice to achieve, a summer membership to the local Y pretty much qualifies you.
A large chunk of my friends are firefighters. They make more than I do and they spend most of their time playing ping pong and sleeping, they make the big bucks due to the risk of situations that are typically far worse than this. I don't doubt that the firefighters in this situation had some desire to intervene, but as the stories make pretty clear, this is an issue of policy, not a calculated decision, there was no calculating allowed.
Ok, I am gonna be a little clearer. I am a fulltime firefighter (the FF of FF-PHRN), I have multiple experiences of water rescues and as part of the boat crew\water rescue of my dept. You dont understand how this is quite the challenge and NOT something a local YMCA can teach. He is 6'3, 280lb, 6ft of 50degree water, he doesnt want to just walk back in. Cant just throw him a line or a life vest that they dont even have. He will need to be forced in. So..this is actually a very challenging scope of practice to achieve.
BTW, We average 15 calls\day, no ping pong, but alot of training though, sleep whenever possible and situations ,as you stated, that are much worse than this. Thats kinda like saying nurses sit around the nurses station eating donuts.
However, I agree this is a policy issue. Were they supposed to break policy and lose their jobs and possibly their lives? They have local coast guard availabilty probably leading the FD cutting water rescue budget.
My point is that this is tragic but there are no fingers to point for the inability to act here. The city council determines budget. Changing the policy, by that chief, was merely a political move until the FD is actually equipped.
Imagine this. Several of the fire fighters decide, "Policy be damned. We can't just watched this guy drown!" Even though they don't have current certification or the proper equipment, they jump in after him. One of them slips on the rocks and cuts his arm. He goes back while three others try to reach the man. They finally get to him. He fights them and knocks out the front teeth of one of the guys. Eventually, they manage to get him back to shore where he collapses on the grass.
FF #1 has nerve damage where he cut his arm. He needs several surgeries and will be off work for about three months. He has to fight to get this treated as a "line of duty" injury because he went against policy. He worries that he might lose his job.
FF #2 won't miss much work, but he needs expensive dental work. He, too, has to hope the policy violation part of things will be overlooked. He's also worried about losing his job.
FF #3 just strained his back and he'll be fine in a couple of days. He thinks he'll be okay jobwise, but he was up for a promotion that might not happen now.
As for the guy with the death wish, he is now suing the department for "wrongful life," and because the men who saved him broke department policy, he might just have a case.
As a final note, I'd like to urge those who have decided the fire and rescue guys lacked basic decency to consider that this incident might have been very wrenching for them because they do care and it is their job to help people. It's easy to judge when you aren't the one who had to grapple with the circumstances.
Even though the guy was just 50 yards out in 6' of water, that water is cold. He's 6'3" and about 280 lbs. I'm not that big. He can fight me, injure me, and possibly kill me. I'm a very good swimmer and have been well trained in water rescues, including dealing with drowning victims. There's no way I'm going to go out to retrieve him until he's actually unconscious. My safety comes first... and I'd have been "just a bystander." Those Firefighters, many of them still remember much of their training, but they have no gear. Their orders are for them to stay on shore. If they break policy, they're up for disciplinary action, possibly to include termination. Given the constraints they have and the fact that all those things that make a rescue dangerous for me also makes it dangerous for them too, if not more so, I do not blame them for not attempting a rescue.
I guarantee that I would have wanted to help as much as those guys, but I'm not suicidal. The bystander that actually went in and retrieved the body did the right thing, IMO, for that specific circumstance.
Ok, I am gonna be a little clearer. I am a fulltime firefighter (the FF of FF-PHRN), I have multiple experiences of water rescues and as part of the boat crew\water rescue of my dept. You dont understand how this is quite the challenge and NOT something a local YMCA can teach. He is 6'3, 280lb, 6ft of 50degree water, he doesnt want to just walk back in. Cant just throw him a line or a life vest that they dont even have. He will need to be forced in. So..this is actually a very challenging scope of practice to achieve.
BTW, We average 15 calls\day, no ping pong, but alot of training though, sleep whenever possible and situations ,as you stated, that are much worse than this. Thats kinda like saying nurses sit around the nurses station eating donuts.
However, I agree this is a policy issue. Were they supposed to break policy and lose their jobs and possibly their lives? They have local coast guard availabilty probably leading the FD cutting water rescue budget.
My point is that this is tragic but there are no fingers to point for the inability to act here. The city council determines budget. Changing the policy, by that chief, was merely a political move until the FD is actually equipped.
If it was just 1 firefighter I'd agree that this would present a potentially challenging situation. But I'm guessing there was more than one firefighter on the scene since they tend to travel in packs (plus police officers and apparently 75 bystanders). Whitewater rescue and surf rescue, particularly when there is only cliff access, does present challenges, this is a far cry from that. If you've got 5 people that can swim, you've got 5 people that can rescue this guy even if he is a fighter, particularly once he's face down and limp.
The policy issue is why I think this is pertinent to nursing. I too often hear nurses revere hospital policy as though it was handed down to Moses and chiseled into stone tablets. All policies should be questioned, and questioned continuously for every possible situation. I've been involved in writing policy, and I can tell you from first hand experience no policy replaces or is even meant to replace thinking, if you come across a situation where the policy is clearly wrong, please don't follow it like a lemming off a cliff. Should they have broken policy? Absolutely, it's the human thing to do.
I doubt the decision to allow some critical thinking to determine when it's appropriate to conduct less complicated water rescues. The political advantage would be in not addressing any changes at this time, this situation already got you funding to restart a small water rescue program, who's to say there's not more funding coming your way if you hold off on any changes.
Imagine this. Several of the fire fighters decide, "Policy be damned. We can't just watched this guy drown!" Even though they don't have current certification or the proper equipment, they jump in after him. One of them slips on the rocks and cuts his arm. He goes back while three others try to reach the man. They finally get to him. He fights them and knocks out the front teeth of one of the guys. Eventually, they manage to get him back to shore where he collapses on the grass.
FF #1 has nerve damage where he cut his arm. He needs several surgeries and will be off work for about three months. He has to fight to get this treated as a "line of duty" injury because he went against policy. He worries that he might lose his job.
FF #2 won't miss much work, but he needs expensive dental work. He, too, has to hope the policy violation part of things will be overlooked. He's also worried about losing his job.
FF #3 just strained his back and he'll be fine in a couple of days. He thinks he'll be okay jobwise, but he was up for a promotion that might not happen now.
As for the guy with the death wish, he is now suing the department for "wrongful life," and because the men who saved him broke department policy, he might just have a case.
As a final note, I'd like to urge those who have decided the fire and rescue guys lacked basic decency to consider that this incident might have been very wrenching for them because they do care and it is their job to help people. It's easy to judge when you aren't the one who had to grapple with the circumstances.
Here's another potential scenario to consider; nobody does anything and he dies.
In your scenario, he would have no case for a wrongful life suit, you should look up what that is.
A cut arm, broken teeth and strained back or even a job are now worth more than a life? Wow, inflation really is out of control.
What a terrible situation for everyone. The firefighters were in an impossible situation, even in the most benign environment, any rescue can be perilous. It is difficult to judge them for their lack of action as we weren't there, and I would be that having to watch that man drown went against every instinct they have.
I am angry that once again someone else attempted suicide and succeeded. Mental health is always placed upon the back burner i.e. lack of access to treatment, negative stigma due to widespread ignorance on mental illness even by those who consider themselves "educated", insurances reducing the amount of psychiatric treatment a patient can receive, etc.
I am also angry that so many people in politics believe it's a good idea to keep reducing the budgets for emergency medical service agencies and law enforcement resulting in less continuing education, fewer supplies, fewer employees, and as this article shows, worse outcomes.
I just hope this man's death will not be in vain, and that we will learn that skimping on these important services can not be an option.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
Budget cuts that mean they had no training or gear(as stated in the article) for a rescue that was in a bay that is known for cold temps and swift currents. Rescuing a man that is comitting suicide is not the same as a rescue of a normal drowing victim.
1.Without any gear, that is going to be difficult considering the body of water temps and currents. No floatation device and no rope to tie off is a very foolish thing to attempt.
2.A man committing suicide is likely to want to take you down with him or fight you, more than an already difficult drowning type rescue. He is trying to die!
3.The bystanders also saw a real the danger in this. It appears to be much more than wading out and retrieving him.
4.I am (along with my Fire Dept engine co. of course) the boat crew for my city for the Mississippi area we cover. No gear, cold swift water, and a suicidal victim equals a likely tragedy for all involved.
5.My experience from news articles\TV reporters that cover incidents I have been involved in, has been that they are very inacurate and tend to leave out important details that make for more drama. Thats as nice as I can put this. We are likely not hearing anything near the full story here.
While I agree with what you have said. I still don't understand that a local fire department has absolutely NO means to secure a water rescue at their disposal. If that is the case then shame on them.....budget cuts or not......somewhere along the line there would have to be some sort of equiptment purchased for this type of rescue considering the water is in their district. NO neighboring or mutual aid dept had anything available to help? Was every first responder a rookie that had never done a water rescue? Is the statement "It's against company policy" accepable when someone is in mortal danger.
As fire fighters....you all place yourselves in mortal danger everyday. FF's run into burning buildings everyday to save even the stupid drunks who fell asleep with a lit cigarette. So why not the guy who feels he is so worthless that even the FF's won't lift a finger to help. For me "due to recent budget cuts" we were rendered helpless......screams "I told you something bad will happen if they did not ante up!" It makes one wonder who developed the policy. FF.... "Well....if they are going to not allow us to buy equiptment and cut our budge....then we can't do xyz"......because now it appears that the policy has changed.
It's like when you live in New England for the winter you better own a shovel and a pair of gloves because speedos and a surf board are useless and won't help you when you have to shovel snow. This community is on the bay. I would think, budget cuts or not, that they would have some sort of water rescue equipment that had been purchased somewhere along the line available or at least a mutual aid department would have a rope or two. I have found drowing victims just can be just as combative strugling to use any leverage to obtain air so much that you pray they pass out just so they stop struggling....so why is the reasoning that "the guy was trying to kill himself" make Ok and therefore it's not worth the risk.
I realize we don't have all the information and that the news usually reports a biased dramatic view. But therein lies the truth. Seventy five people watched as this guy WALKED....I repeat WALKED deeper and deeper into danger. Each time he looked back was he saying...... "Is no one going to try? I must really be worthless if the fire department won't even help." I was never a fire fighter but I was a traumaflight nurse. I have landed in the middle of a highway and laid upside down in a vehicle, in a thunderstorm, at 3 am to start line or intubate to save someone's life who was too stupid and drunk and should have never been behind the wheel of a vehicle. BUt NEVER have I considered that I shouldn't risk it becasue the guys a drunk. So, I get the risk factor but it's also an adrenaline rush....what I really don't understand is how could everyone, especially the trained "professionals" just stand there and do what appears to be nothing.
I think it's a sad reflection of the depersonalization of our society with electronic social media. I believe it's blunting our emotions and our compassion for our fellow man. We just don't feel the same or look at things in the same way because we don't have to come face to face with our consequences, it's become a computer screen. It's tough to look someone in the eye and see the truth of our actions whether spoken or written and deal face to face with the consequences......just my :twocents:
I'm afraid I'm with the firefighters/rescuers on this ... cutting funds for safety is the easiest thing there is. Safety isn't visible until you aren't ... iow until badness happens.
We see it all the time on hospital units: skimpy staffing, shoddy equipment and when something goes wrong, we want to hang a nurse out to dry. Then we all get on here and moan about rich CEOs and "what did they think was going to happen?" Why is this incident any different?
Let's face it ... as an electorate, we've made certain choices about money and this is one of the consequences of those choices. I don't think we should be expecting individuals to pick up the communities' slack by putting their lives, safely and their families' welfare on the line even more than they do now.
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 
If that is the case then shame on them.....budget cuts or not......somewhere along the line there would have to be some sort of equiptment purchased for this type of rescue considering the water is in their district. NO neighboring or mutual aid dept had anything available to help? Was every first responder a rookie that had never done a water rescue? Is the statement "It's against company policy" accepable when someone is in mortal danger. 
This community is on the bay. I would think, budget cuts or not, that they would have some sort of water rescue equipment that had been purchased somewhere along the line available or at least a mutual aid department would have a rope or two. I have found drowing victims just can be just as combative strugling to use any leverage to obtain air so much that you pray they pass out just so they stop struggling....so why is the reasoning that "the guy was trying to kill himself" make Ok and therefore it's not worth the risk.
I was never a fire fighter but I was a traumaflight nurse. I have landed in the middle of a highway and laid upside down in a vehicle, in a thunderstorm, at 3 am to start line or intubate to save someone's life who was too stupid and drunk and should have never been behind the wheel of a vehicle. BUt NEVER have I considered that I shouldn't risk it becasue the guys a drunk. So, I get the risk factor but it's also an adrenaline rush....what I really don't understand is how could everyone, especially the trained "professionals" just stand there and do what appears to be nothing.
:twocents:
elprup, BSN, RN
1,005 Posts
Thanks for enlightening me.... still sad all the way around.