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.
I wouldn't tangle with him either. But I'd wade out, and try to talk to the man. I'd be within five feet so that when he finally did go under I could pull him back and try resuscitation. I'd have an ambulance standing by. Did any of THAT happen?
I am hearing people say that they are appalled that no one did anything. Really? Do you really think that no one did anything? I am guessing that there were things done that were just not reported. I bet that SOME kind of boat crew was called out and if they couldn't get to the guy, they were at least standing by as close as they could in case he got that far out. I bet that there was a police man or FF using a bullhorn to try to talk the guy back to shore. I bet that the citizens that were standing by doing "nothing" were under police restrain to stay on the shore. I bet that someone had one of those life ring things and threw it out to him if he wanted to grab it. This article makes it sound like everyone JUST STOOD THERE WATCHING, when in fact, I bet that's not really what happened, but made the reporter's story more dramatic and a more interesting read. You can't tell me that 75 people, many of which were emergency or law enforcement personnel, whose job it is to ensure peoples' safety, just stood there and did nothing! We are just not hearing the whole story.
I think there are a lot of assumptions being made here about who did what and who did not do what, and why. The truth is we only know what is reported (and the news media is always 100% accurate and would never print anything inflammatory for the sake of a story, right? Right?)
Seems like there are lots of stones being thrown when the only people who truly know what happened that day are the ones who were there.
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.
Have you ever seen or done a contact water rescue? Have you ever submerged your body in 50F water? What your saying is not based in reality. We can probably find some media cliches about nurses as well, doesn't mean they have any more basis in reality than "if you can swim you can rescue someone" (especially if they don't want to be rescued). Would you perform mouth to mouth on a known Hep C patient? Would you willingly place your non-intact skin in contact with the same patient's bodily fluids? Your looking at a similar risk profile (actually the Hep C guy might be safer).
Very simply, the rescuers were put in a nearly impossible position. Even WITH a rescue attempt there's a good chance the man would have drowned. Water rescue is incredibly difficult and dangerous. Policy change or no policy change, any incident commander who allows his charges to put themselves in the position of attempting this rescue is negligent. The risk benefit is simply not there. Your VERY likely to end up with multiple dead rescuers.
As far as mental health and suicide. Yes, it's tragic. BUT. This man lived in San Francisco. I'm fairly certain there's mental health resources available. He didn't seek them out. His family and friends were most likely aware something was wrong. They did not ensure the man above got help. At some point, this has to be considered when placing blame.
It's not like the guy fell in. He wanted to kill himself and these people are supposed to risk their lives to stop him? I didn't see anything which indicated in the long timeframe of the incident that this person tried to get out. Did any of the 'outraged' onlookers do anything? Right call, wrong reason. Sometimes it's not society's or mommy and daddy's fault. Sometimes we simply have to pay the price for our own decisions. So many don't want to acknowledge the facts about these cases and by trying to rescue someone like this person, we all get to feel better and think that 'maybe things will be OK.' Things won't be OK because you saved this guy. Wade into the bay = drown. That's what he wanted, that's what he got. It's the ultimate self-determination.
the on-lookers did try and talk him into coming back into shore, this was his second suicide attempt this week by drowning and the boat could not reach him because of shallow waters. I'm also a fantastic swimmer, having grown up in the area and in the waters of the Pacific, and there is no way I'd attempt this either.
And to the person who stated that there are life guards at the ocean. This is San Francisco, not San Diego. These waters = no swimming on vacation!!!
Specializes in Mental Health, Medical Research, Periop.
Have you ever seen or done a contact water rescue? Have you ever submerged your body in 50F water? What your saying is not based in reality. We can probably find some media cliches about nurses as well, doesn't mean they have any more basis in reality than "if you can swim you can rescue someone" (especially if they don't want to be rescued). Would you perform mouth to mouth on a known Hep C patient? Would you willingly place your non-intact skin in contact with the same patient's bodily fluids? Your looking at a similar risk profile (actually the Hep C guy might be safer).
Very simply, the rescuers were put in a nearly impossible position. Even WITH a rescue attempt there's a good chance the man would have drowned. Water rescue is incredibly difficult and dangerous. Policy change or no policy change, any incident commander who allows his charges to put themselves in the position of attempting this rescue is negligent. The risk benefit is simply not there. Your VERY likely to end up with multiple dead rescuers.
As far as mental health and suicide. Yes, it's tragic. BUT. This man lived in San Francisco. I'm fairly certain there's mental health resources available. He didn't seek them out. His family and friends were most likely aware something was wrong. They did not ensure the man above got help. At some point, this has to be considered when placing blame.
This is totally off subject (sorry OP) I just wanted to say that many mentally ill people do not seek treatment especially if there is no support system in place, in which majority of the time this is the case. That is why so many of our mentally ill make up the homeless population. Some people who are mentally ill, "think" they are okay (it is disease of the brain after all). Besides, who says he had family and friends? Remember, with the stigma that comes along with mental illness, many of the mental ill are cast out by friends and family, leaving them alone (and highly suicidal).
Remember, with the stigma that comes along with mental illness, many of the mental ill are cast out by friends and family, leaving them alone (and highly suicidal).
Which is a societal and familial issue which heaping more blame upon the responders in this case won't fix.
Life's tough. Not everyone can be saved. This man, mentally ill or not, placed himself in an untenable situation. It's no different than an obese patient who chooses to continue to eat things that will kill him or a lung CA patient who continues to smoke. We will do everything practical and safe to help them. However, in this case, there was nothing practical or safe that could be done.
Specializes in Mental Health, Medical Research, Periop.
Which is a societal and familial issue which heaping more blame upon the responders in this case won't fix.
Life's tough. Not everyone can be saved. This man, mentally ill or not, placed himself in an untenable situation. It's no different than an obese patient who chooses to continue to eat things that will kill him or a lung CA patient who continues to smoke. We will do everything practical and safe to help them. However, in this case, there was nothing practical or safe that could be done.
We can go back and forth on this, but I wouldn't compare a mentally ill person with a obese person who chooses to over eat or a Cancer patient that chooses to smoke. Depending on his mental illness, it could have been mentally out of his control, was he hallucinating? Did the voices tell him to jump? I don't know that part of the situation, but in some mental illnesses, the illness causes them to do these things, it is not a personal choice. As for the rescuing him, I wasn't commenting on that. My main issue was that he may not have had family/friends, and just to clarify something about mental illness in general. That's why I said it was "off subject."
Specializes in Infectious Disease, Neuro, Research.
From my response elsewhere:
Here is "The Deal": ...and its true for most services across the country. If a person is drowning/in flood waters/river/etc., Police/Fire/EMS are to wait for the Water Rescue squad, for two primary reasons- 1) if something goes wrong, the family of the victim may sue, stating that the actions of the "untrained" rescuer(s) contributed to or caused the victim's death, and 2) if the rescuer dies, their family may sue the municipality for inadequate training, leading to the death.
From the perspective of a responder, if you attempt a rescue, and succeed, great, the Dept. gives you a medal and a quiet verbal warning not to do that s**t again. If you fail, you'll definitely be fired, and you may lose your license, if the Dept. goes to the State Board and accuses you of "practice beyond competence". Welfare of my family & waste of education and experience by forced career change, vs. trying to save jerkwad who is trying to kill himself....hmmmmm.
Along with that, its typical Cali/urban America- ZERO personal responsibility. We want to be able to sue if things go wrong, but whine and cry when the resulting protective measures that practioners have to have lead to unintended consequences, and we sure as heck won't do anything
"MYSELF!?!?"
Basically, the Dept. is going to allow Responders to attempt rescues until 2 or 3 of them die, then they'll go back to the "no-dive" policy.:icon_roll As a former EMT, and as relayed to me by my captain at the time: "If you don't have a wetsuit on, under your uniform, and if you aren't rapid-water certified, keep your a** outta the water."
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 
canoehead, BSN, RN
6,909 Posts
I wouldn't tangle with him either. But I'd wade out, and try to talk to the man. I'd be within five feet so that when he finally did go under I could pull him back and try resuscitation. I'd have an ambulance standing by. Did any of THAT happen?