Death of Raymond Zack - 53-year-old man who intentionally drowned at Crown Beach by standing neck deep in water roughly 150 yards offshore while rescuers watched for almost an hour (en.wikipedia.org)

submitted 2 years ago by decadentrebel@lemmy.world to c/creepywikipedia@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago

wow, after his family sued the agencies responsible, " In early 2013, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying public safety officials had no legal duty to save Zack."

what in the actual fuck is wrong with these people?

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 2 years ago

it's really hard to know exactly what happened.

Imagine that one of the first rules of being a rescue person is not to endanger yourself.

There's plenty that could go wrong rescuing someone who's potentially violent and doesn't necessarily want to be rescued and neck deep in the ocean.

It sounds like an easy rescue but it would be very difficult to defend yourself if things went the wrong way.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

I was BSA lifeguard certified when I was a kid and a bigger part of the training than you'd think was about how to make sure that a panicking, drowning person doesn't kill the both of you. One of the things they drill into your head over and over is that it's really easy to get overwhelmed because in the water there's nothing to push off of, and if you let yourself get overwhelmed two people are going to die instead of one.

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

They had moral duty, but apparently not legal duty. I see nothing wrong with this ruling, if this is what the law says.

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 years ago

Actually I found this:

"The court finds that under the circumstances presented, there was no moral blame attendant to the conduct of the responding officers and firefighters," Hernandez said in his ruling at the Hayward Hall of Justice.

https://www.officer.com/home/news/10877921/judge-rules-that-alameda-calif-police-had-no-legal-duty-to-aid-drowning-man

The reporting is a mess though. Hard to know exactly what happened.

[-] Deftdrummer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yep. Has been case precedent since 89' ya dummies. DeShaney v. Winnebago. No duty to protect legally speaking.

[-] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

Police officers also have no legal duty to help anyone, as fucked as that ruling is. Thanks, Supreme Court.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

A lot of American firefighters are volunteers. Telling them that they can be personally liable in civil court if someone comes along after they try to rescue someone and thinks they could have done a better job is a great way to make sure that each and every one of those volunteer firefighters quits tomorrow.

[+] jet@hackertalks.com -16 points 2 years ago

I feel for the guy, and the agencies didn't exactly coordinate well, but he was the one who wanted to die... so mission accomplished.

Bad form for his family to sue.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 20 points 2 years ago

Oh fuck off. For all you know it could have been a cry for help, and when no one helped, he followed through. A crowd of people had formed on the beach ffs, if you're depressed and you realize there's a whole crowd waiting for you to die, that's going to fucking suck.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Bad form are the “public safety” officials, the legal system, and all of the bystanders that did nothing. Bad form is your lackadaisical response to this tragedy, as if it’s okay to just shrug off someone’s life as “mission accomplished”. Shame on them, and shame on you.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago

Bad form are the “public safety” officials, the legal system, and all of the bystanders that did nothing

I'd like to point out that several civilian bystanders prepped to go out and help him, only to be told by the police to not enter the water. Even once he collapsed, it was a young civilian woman ignoring police orders who entered the water a retrieved his body.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago

Even once he collapsed, it was a young civilian woman ignoring police orders who entered the water a retrieved his body.

I'd also like to point out that they only waited until the guy collapsed (and ultimately drowned) before someone actually did something, despite being told not to do it.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago

That's assuming they were there the whole time? Also, it's pretty well known that people are susceptible to the bystander effect, especially when someone of perceived higher authority is at the scene.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I understand the emotional reaction people are giving me. It's sad when someone leaves us.

He was wading... he could have walked back at any time, with no issue. Individuals from the shore who go out to him could get involved in a struggle and drown, so I understand why first responders didn't wade out with rescue line like they would with someone trapped in a flood.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago

He was wading... he could have walked back at any time, with no issue.

Spoken like someone who's never helped anyone during a mental health crisis.

Individuals from the shore who go out to him could get involved in a struggle and drown

That is the same exact risk that anyone trying to prevent a drowning faces. Anyone with basic water rescue training knows that they have to expect to struggle with the person they are rescuing.

I understand why first responders didn't wade out with rescue line like they would with someone trapped in a flood.

Why are we forced to pay for these people's jobs, if there's no consequence of them not doing their jobs? If you don't want a job that forces you to endanger your health for the sake of others......don't become a fist responder.

[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

That is the same exact risk that anyone trying to prevent a drowning faces.

You're negating the fact that non-suicidal people being rescued will not actively try to harm you or prevent their own rescue once the panic subsides. Many people in this thread do not understand the risk a rescuer would face in this situation. Your first duty is ALWAYS to your own safety so that, at minimum, you don't compound the problem.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago

You're negating the fact that non-suicidal people being rescued will not actively try to harm you or prevent their own rescue once the panic subsides

I'm guessing you have zero experience or training on this subject? Drowning people usually don't stop panicking until they loose consciousness, or are back on land and have stopped hyperventilating. You literally just put them in a headlock and something to grab at that isn't you.

You are also conflating suicidal behavior with homicidal behavior, just because someone is having a mental health crisis doesn't mean they are inherently violent.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023

85 points (96.7% liked)

Creepy Wikipedia

5090 readers

1 users here now

A fediverse community for curating Wikipedia articles that are oddly fascinating, eerily unsettling, or make you shiver with fear and disgust

Guidelines:

Follow the Code of Conduct
Do NOT report posts YOU don't consider creepy
Strictly Wikipedia submissions only
Please follow the post naming convention: Wikipedia Article Title - Short Synopsis
Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails.
Please refrain from any offensive language/profanities in the posts titles, unless necessary (e.g. it's in the original article's title).

Mandatory:

If you didn't find an article "creepy," you must announce it in the thread so everyone will know that you didn't find it creepy

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

decadentrebel@lemmy.world

CoachDom@lemmy.blahaj.zone