I'm a first responder on scene ..... but since my budget was cut I'm somehow unable to prevent a suicidal person from drowning themself.

Make sure you grok the implications of that before reading the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/

Quote:Interim Alameda Fire Chief Mike D'Orazi said that due to 2009 budget cuts his crews did not have the training or cold-water gear to go into the water.

So none of these firemen ever go to the beach or spent time in cold weather. California TV frequently shows animals being rescued in situations like this, sometimes worse. This is probably a union thing where they were all told not to go above and beyond or they won't get their budgets restored.

They're trained to go into a burning house but not cold water. Give me a f*cking break.

What does CA have to do with this?

Since this was all covered by my local news, I found an interview with a fireman rather telling. Reporter asked him how he would have handled the situation...he said, I know what I would have done if I was off duty.


The worst part is that a beach goer had to retrieve the body.

(06-02-2011 10:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm a first responder on scene ..... but since my budget was cut I'm somehow unable to prevent a suicidal person from drowning themself.

Make sure you grok the implications of that before reading the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/

I don't see what the problem is. They were just cutting the budget like any good Republican(or Libertarian would do). Besides, if you are a libertarian, why would you have a problem with a person making this decision for themselves without the government getting involved? Ist't that wehat you stand for? I guess you want big government but only when it suits your beliefs.

(06-02-2011 11:59 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 10:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm a first responder on scene ..... but since my budget was cut I'm somehow unable to prevent a suicidal person from drowning themself.

Make sure you grok the implications of that before reading the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/

I don't see what the problem is. They were just cutting the budget like any good Republican(or Libertarian would do). Besides, if you are a libertarian, why would you have a problem with a person making this decision for themselves without the government getting involved? Ist't that wehat you stand for? I guess you want big government but only when it suits your beliefs.

I agree. If someone wants to kill themselves, who am I to stop them?

(06-02-2011 10:57 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Interim Alameda Fire Chief Mike D'Orazi said that due to 2009 budget cuts his crews did not have the training or cold-water gear to go into the water.

So none of these firemen ever go to the beach or spent time in cold weather. California TV frequently shows animals being rescued in situations like this, sometimes worse. This is probably a union thing where they were all told not to go above and beyond or they won't get their budgets restored.

They're trained to go into a burning house but not cold water. Give me a f*cking break.

Yeah, I think you are spot on. It is a Union thing. Moron.

You wouldn't understand the concept of duty. Or courage for that matter. Cowardly bastards, all you know is the tit.

(06-02-2011 12:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You wouldn't understand the concept of duty. Or courage for that matter. Cowardly bastards, all you know is the tit.

I understand those things(courage and duty) just fine. Now what about my post? THey were cutting spending. THe person was making decisions for himself without government intrusion. That sure sounds like what you guys say you want. Now you get angry because I wrote your philosophy?

Btw, I like tits. Though, I prefer smaller tits vs big monster size ones. :)

(06-02-2011 12:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 12:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You wouldn't understand the concept of duty. Or courage for that matter. Cowardly bastards, all you know is the tit.

I understand those things(courage and duty) just fine. Now what about my post? THey were cutting spending. THe person was making decisions for himself without government intrusion. That sure sounds like what you guys say you want. Now you get angry because I wrote your philosophy?

Btw, I like tits. Though, I prefer smaller tits vs big monster size ones. :)

That's a f'n cop-out. Even your fellow DUmmies disagree with you, for the most part:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...39x1208616

(06-02-2011 12:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 10:57 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Interim Alameda Fire Chief Mike D'Orazi said that due to 2009 budget cuts his crews did not have the training or cold-water gear to go into the water.

So none of these firemen ever go to the beach or spent time in cold weather. California TV frequently shows animals being rescued in situations like this, sometimes worse. This is probably a union thing where they were all told not to go above and beyond or they won't get their budgets restored.

They're trained to go into a burning house but not cold water. Give me a f*cking break.

Yeah, I think you are spot on. It is a Union thing. Moron.

You're not from California so you don't understand the California union culture. I'm sure GrayBeard will affirm that there are unions and there are California unions. So if it's not a union thing then who told the firemen to not go in the water? OSHA? No. City leaders? No. Fire Chief? Probably. Why? Cuz saving people who are in cold water is not in the friggin union contract.

Only in San Fransisco can a first responder say "I have not been trained in cold water rescue" as a reason for watching someone die in 60-70 degree water. Last I looked Memorial Day is not the dead of winter. Nothing to do with big gov't. Has to do with the type of person. Maybe in San Fran they only train in rescuing jumpers from Nob Hill gay hotels.I don't know, but I've seen real live rescues where people (not FR) jump into the frigid 20-30 degree water to save people from death's grip after a plane crash. I could go on, I won't. You are clueless.

BTW, if you like the smaller tit, just let some of the air out.

Using the excuse that they were just following orders didn't save Nazi soldiers, so why would save these guys? Besides, these guys are trained to expect the unexpected and adapt. Could you imagine a football defense saying they never trained/practiced against a particular formation so they just stood there instead of trying to do something?

(06-02-2011 12:47 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 12:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 10:57 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Interim Alameda Fire Chief Mike D'Orazi said that due to 2009 budget cuts his crews did not have the training or cold-water gear to go into the water.

So none of these firemen ever go to the beach or spent time in cold weather. California TV frequently shows animals being rescued in situations like this, sometimes worse. This is probably a union thing where they were all told not to go above and beyond or they won't get their budgets restored.

They're trained to go into a burning house but not cold water. Give me a f*cking break.

Yeah, I think you are spot on. It is a Union thing. Moron.

You're not from California so you don't understand the California union culture. I'm sure GrayBeard will affirm that there are unions and there are California unions. So if it's not a union thing then who told the firemen to not go in the water? OSHA? No. City leaders? No. Fire Chief? Probably. Why? Cuz saving people who are in cold water is not in the friggin union contract.

Actually, in this case I think it had everything to do with direct orders from the Municipality. IIRC, the muni's funding was cut so they cut out the water rescue certification program which would have limited the muni's liability. The muni had ordered the employees to Not perform water rescues beyond a certain distance from shore because it could create additional liability.


Your point on Unions is correct, however. The run most of what happens out here, and I woudln't be surprised to find out that they were involved in the decision making at the Municipality level.

(06-02-2011 12:01 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 11:59 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 10:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm a first responder on scene ..... but since my budget was cut I'm somehow unable to prevent a suicidal person from drowning themself.

Make sure you grok the implications of that before reading the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/

I don't see what the problem is. They were just cutting the budget like any good Republican(or Libertarian would do). Besides, if you are a libertarian, why would you have a problem with a person making this decision for themselves without the government getting involved? Ist't that wehat you stand for? I guess you want big government but only when it suits your beliefs.

I agree. If someone wants to kill themselves, who am I to stop them?

Actually, I am mocking these guys for their hypocrisy. :) At least you are being honest!

(06-02-2011 12:41 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 12:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 12:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You wouldn't understand the concept of duty. Or courage for that matter. Cowardly bastards, all you know is the tit.

I understand those things(courage and duty) just fine. Now what about my post? THey were cutting spending. THe person was making decisions for himself without government intrusion. That sure sounds like what you guys say you want. Now you get angry because I wrote your philosophy?

Btw, I like tits. Though, I prefer smaller tits vs big monster size ones. :)

That's a f'n cop-out. Even your fellow DUmmies disagree with you, for the most part:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...39x1208616

Um, I am mocking you guys. You do realize that, right? You guys want individual accountability and less government. Now you flip-flop and complain that the government didn't spend enough money or do enough to save the man.

(06-02-2011 01:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Actually, I am mocking these guys for their hypocrisy. :) At least you are being honest!

Again, limited government =/= NO government, fool. How about paying the damn first responders LESS than 100+ THOUSAND dollars per year? They have budget problems alright. ...and they have to do with unions, overhead, and other bloat. To say, "we weren't trained" only tells me they're ******* who should all be fired. This is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

(06-02-2011 01:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Um, I am mocking you guys. You do realize that, right? You guys want individual accountability and less government. Now you flip-flop and complain that the government didn't spend enough money or do enough to save the man.

You have the reading comprehension of Slingblade.

So Rob, before the budget cuts the firemen were trained and had the equipment. What happened after the cuts, did the stuff go on eBay and they forgot what they learned? Come on bro.

(06-02-2011 01:22 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 01:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Actually, I am mocking these guys for their hypocrisy. :) At least you are being honest!

Again, limited government =/= NO government, fool. How about paying the damn first responders LESS than 100+ THOUSAND dollars per year? They have budget problems alright. ...and they have to do with unions, overhead, and other bloat. To say, "we weren't trained" only tells me they're ******* who should all be fired. This is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Maybe we should just pay them minimum waage? THat way they only "steal" a little of your money. Actually, if you had your way, there would be NO minimum wage and they could pay the guy a dollar a day! Moron.