Illinois firefighters stand idle while man drowns [VIDEO]

[Anti Federalist]

There you go folks: on full display.

Exactly where the cowardly, effeminate, emasculated, "Safety Uber Alles" mindset leads to.

Enjoy your brave new world.

 

[brushfire]

That's it!! Pension reform! We need to stop these killers. Pension reform must be rushed through the house, in a special session, on Sunday evening! We have to do this under the cloak of darkness - its for the kids! Ban firefighters.

On a more serious note, its such a shame that they would not permit sumaritans to help. So everyone can now live with the death of this man on their concience, wondering what they could have done, had they not obeyed the "first responders". Tragic for both dead and living.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

[video]http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/illinois-firefighters-stand-idle-while-man-drowns/#ooid=5sd3YyODrOatRa3qr-FyQQ_csVTlo934[/video]

 

[Qdog]

Well, logically, they may have made the right call. If the ice was just too thin, their vain attempts could very well have gotten more people drowned. It makes sense that they would not want passerby's running in trying to help, and then falling in themselves.

However, emotionally, it seems like they should have at least tried SOMETHING, even if it has little hope of working.

Everyone has their own threshold for danger and risk to their safety. But there is a fine line between bravery and foolishness. There was a time back when I was a cop, I was chasing a shoplifter (stole a pair of bluejeans). The guy ran like a a gazelle. I kept up with him for a long time until he ran across a busy 6 lane freeway. I said screw it, and let him go, because my life is not worth a $40 pair of jeans. If he had been a murderer it would have been a different story. There are plenty of guys that would have kept chasing, and just as many that wouldn't have even tried to catch him (lots of fat, slow cops) but that's their choice to make.

 

[torchbearer]

weren't some people rescuing some deer from an ice break just the other day?

 

[phill4paul]

There you go folks: on full display.

Exactly where the cowardly, effeminate, emasculated, "Safety Uber Alles" mindset leads to.

Enjoy your brave new world.

In a world where being an hero will make you an outlaw only outlaws will be heroes.

 

[tod evans]

I suppose the US needs to hire some European women who aren't scared...

 

[Danke]

I suppose the US needs to hire some European women who aren't scared...

What's with the baby stroller?

 

[Seraphim]

Yes but there were people who wanted to VOLUNTARILY HELP.

If a man is in the process of dying and YOU attempt to save him, possibly killing youself in the process, WHO THE FUCK AM I TO STOP YOU?

That's the real piss off...If the FF's didn't want to risk their own necks and made a logic based call...FINE...but to STOP men/women who were WILLING to help...UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE.

Well, logically, they may have made the right call. If the ice was just too thin, their vain attempts could very well have gotten more people drowned. It makes sense that they would not want passerby's running in trying to help, and then falling in themselves.

However, emotionally, it seems like they should have at least tried SOMETHING, even if it has little hope of working.

Everyone has their own threshold for danger and risk to their safety. But there is a fine line between bravery and foolishness.

 

[torchbearer]

here is the story of a deer rescue: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/...r-rescued-from-thin-ice-had-to-be-euthanized/
lots of risk and treasure was spent to rescue an animal they later had to euthanize. they probably didn't even have the decency to donate the meat to a soup kitchen or something.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well, logically, they may have made the right call. If the ice was just too thin, their vain attempts could very well have gotten more people drowned. It makes sense that they would not want passerby's running in trying to help, and then falling in themselves.

However, emotionally, it seems like they should have at least tried SOMETHING, even if it has little hope of working.

Everyone has their own threshold for danger and risk to their safety. But there is a fine line between bravery and foolishness.

I was a volunteer firefighter and I can tell you that insulated wetsuits are not standard gear on a fire truck. For those firefighters to try to jump in and save him would have been about as successful as any one of the bystanders in regular clothing to have attempted a rescue. Should they have let someone else go in and risk their butts if they wanted to? Sure, as long as that person didn't expect to be rescued if they fell in as well. But, liability and the lawyers being what they are these days, I'm almost certain the first responders would have been sued for not 'securing the scene' if someone else had been hurt or died.

I'm glad you seem to understand. Every class I took at the fire department started with the premise that if you cannot save the victim, do not create more victims by becoming one yourself.

 

[puppetmaster]

Well, logically, they may have made the right call. If the ice was just too thin, their vain attempts could very well have gotten more people drowned. It makes sense that they would not want passerby's running in trying to help, and then falling in themselves.

However, emotionally, it seems like they should have at least tried SOMETHING, even if it has little hope of working.

Everyone has their own threshold for danger and risk to their safety. But there is a fine line between bravery and foolishness. There was a time back when I was a cop, I was chasing a shoplifter (stole a pair of bluejeans). The guy ran like a a gazelle. I kept up with him for a long time until he ran across a busy 6 lane freeway. I said screw it, and let him go, because my life is not worth a $40 pair of jeans. If he had been a murderer it would have been a different story. There are plenty of guys that would have kept chasing, and just as many that wouldn't have even tried to catch him (lots of fat, slow cops) but that's their choice to make.

They made the wrong call regardless of ice thickness. I have seen rescues with identical circumstances and this man could have been saved. I too was a police officer and your comparison is not even close to the same event.
Being located in Illinois would make it seem like proper ice rescue training would be standard procedure.
I was trained in these types of rescues living in Alaska and looking at the video, it shows that a rescue would have been possible or at least attempted.

 

[angelatc]

Well, logically, they may have made the right call. If the ice was just too thin, their vain attempts could very well have gotten more people drowned. It makes sense that they would not want passerby's running in trying to help, and then falling in themselves.

However, emotionally, it seems like they should have at least tried SOMETHING, even if it has little hope of working.

Everyone has their own threshold for danger and risk to their safety. But there is a fine line between bravery and foolishness. There was a time back when I was a cop, I was chasing a shoplifter (stole a pair of bluejeans). The guy ran like a a gazelle. I kept up with him for a long time until he ran across a busy 6 lane freeway. I said screw it, and let him go, because my life is not worth a $40 pair of jeans. If he had been a murderer it would have been a different story. There are plenty of guys that would have kept chasing, and just as many that wouldn't have even tried to catch him (lots of fat, slow cops) but that's their choice to make.

Maybe that's true, but how do you justify the police stopping mundanes from making the right choice?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I was a volunteer firefighter and I can tell you that insulated wetsuits are not standard gear on a fire truck. For those firefighters to try to jump in and save him would have been about as successful as any one of the bystanders in regular clothing to have attempted a rescue. Should they have let someone else go in and risk their butts if they wanted to? Sure, as long as that person didn't expect to be rescued if they fell in as well. But, liability and the lawyers being what they are these days, I'm almost certain the first responders would have been sued for not 'securing the scene' if someone else had been hurt or died.

I'm glad you seem to understand. Every class I took at the fire department started with the premise that if you cannot save the victim, do not create more victims by becoming one yourself.

and no one had a rope? It seems to me they were all too afraid or too busy filming to do anything

 

[Anti Federalist]

Well, logically, they may have made the right call.

That's the problem...

Almost all of what we hold precious, every value that we as, for want of a better term, "freedom folks" hold dear, is illogical when approached from a "safety first" mindset.

Liberty is messy and dangerous at times.

Totalitarianism is "safe".

Which is why Safety Uber Alles has been so relentlessly propagandized and sadly, accepted wholesale.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

+

Im sure there was some of this laying around somewhere in one of those trucks,or something similar

 

[green73]

Flashback
Police and Firemen Rescuers Look On As California Man Drowns

 

[phill4paul]

I was a volunteer firefighter and I can tell you that insulated wetsuits are not standard gear on a fire truck. For those firefighters to try to jump in and save him would have been about as successful as any one of the bystanders in regular clothing to have attempted a rescue. Should they have let someone else go in and risk their butts if they wanted to? Sure, as long as that person didn't expect to be rescued if they fell in as well. But, liability and the lawyers being what they are these days, I'm almost certain the first responders would have been sued for not 'securing the scene' if someone else had been hurt or died.

I'm glad you seem to understand. Every class I took at the fire department started with the premise that if you cannot save the victim, do not create more victims by becoming one yourself.

No wet suit needed. It would have taken less then 10 minutes for someone to have swum in with a lifeline. Around themselves and one to throw to him.

It was not like they were in the wilderness. Heat was immediately available after recovery.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Maybe that's true, but how do you justify the police stopping mundanes from making the right choice?

30 years ago they could have, but in this day and age they'd have had to print legal waivers for people to sign before venturing out on to the ice. It's sickening, but look at how quick people were to assign responsibility of the victim's life to the firefighters.

WTF was he doing out on the ice to begin with?

You know reading some of these comments sounds like? A sense of f*cking entitlement.

The guy was responsible for his own situation and here on this forum we've got an overwhelming number of critics who seem to have forgotten that, and just expect someone else to come bail them out of a tough situation. This is why Lew Rockwell gets on my nerves sometimes. I didn't know it was possible, but he tends to be so libertarian he ends up somehow coming full circle and then isn't anymore, lol. Expecting someone else to rush in and save you from your mistakes sounds more like liberalism.

 

[phill4paul]

Expecting someone else to rush in and save you from your mistakes sounds more like liberalism.

However, expecting someone you PAY to rush in and save you is a different animal entirely.