Police and firemen in Alameda, California watched a man drown on Monday after realizing they did not have proper certifications for water rescue, leaving them open to possible lawsuits if they attempted to save him.
The drowning victim, 53-year-old Raymond Zack, was apparently suicidal, according to a report from the scene. He waded out about 150 yards into cold waters off Crown Beach in Alameda and took about an hour to drown himself.
A crowd of about 75 gathered to watch the bizarre scene, which saw police and firemen just standing at shoreline watching helplessly. After the man had drowned, authorities couldn’t even go into the surf to retrieve the body. They instead recruited a passer-by for the job.
City officials reportedly blamed the incident on budget cuts and said they would have a discussion about why Alameda, an island city, does not have proper authorization to rescue people from the waters surrounding it.
This video is from ABC 7 in San Francisco, Calif., broadcast May 30, 2011.
Here's the real headline: Government bureaucrats allow their customer to die.
Fire and rescue services can and should be privatized. There are many private rescue / ambulance services in the country and even some private fire services.
As a general rule, they do twice as good a job (using very measurable statistics) at half the cost of government services. In other words, they are 4 times better. Same with trash collection.
There is no reason whatsoever for the government to monopolize these things. Doing so puts us all at risk.
Fire and rescue services can and should be privatized. There are many private rescue / ambulance services in the country and even some private fire services.
Right, and folks should have to pay if they want service. Remember that house that was allowed to burn down because the guy hadn't paid his dues? That's the kind of country we should strive to live in.
Collapse in the street, haven't paid your fire/rescue dues, tough luck. Just carry the leeches out to the trash.
Show up at an emergency room. Aren't insured? Too bad, go out on the street.
Elderly and can't afford you care? Life sucks, and it's time for you to die.
Have a child with severe birth defects that you can't afford to care for? Sucks to be you, put them out in the trash.
That, my friends is the conservative vision for america.
Were huge numbers of old people dying in the streets before Medicare and Medicaid? No they weren't.
Were people's houses just allowed to burn down when virtually all fire departments were voluntary fire departments? No they weren't.
Your version of America is akin to an incompetent version of the SOVIET Union where...
15 government bureacrats get to make life and death decisions for all 310 million of us.
Government bureacrats get to keep lifelong jobs even though they are destroying our kid's futures in the government monopoly schools.
On and on...
No thanks.
In a free society, the overwhelming majority of people will take responsibility for themselves and their family members. Government has destroyed that. It has to be restored -- not by government force and not by government incentive programs. Rather by eliminating most of the government and allowing people to regain their sense of humanity.
Yep, but I still have to pay for the government monopoly schools even when I choose a different alternative. That's wrong, immoral, and counter productive for everyone -- especially the kids in the government monopoly schools who don't benefit from the improvements that competition would bring to their lives.
Yep, but I still have to pay for the government monopoly schools even when I choose a different alternative. That's wrong, immoral, and counter productive for everyone -- especially the kids in the government monopoly schools who don't benefit from the improvements that competition would bring to their lives.
I guess what you want is for government to pay for your private school. How do you see that working; California spends $7,500 annually per student, a good private school in this area charges in the neighborhood of $33,000 tuition per student per year.
For the 2009-2010 school year there were 512,826 students in private schools, k-12, in California. Would you give every student a voucher in the amount of $7,500 to spend at the school of their choice? If so, adding more than half a million students into the system would increase state costs (raise taxes) considerably, while still leaving the good schools out of reach for most students.
The other possibility would be to divide the same amount of money among a larger pool of students further stressing the public school system.
Of course we could commit as a nation to making public schools excellent.
(jwpegler) Nope, I just don't want to have to pay for a service (government monopoly schools) that don't work and have failed the country and our children.
(stupid cunt)Okay, now we know what you don't want, how about telling us what you do want.
He wants to not have to pay for a service he's not using, you stupid cunt.
She didn't call you in the first time (my post#83), but once I point out she's avoiding the question, all of a sudden she's insulted and calling you in.
Until this morning MD was the only name in my bozo filter.
He sounds like another one of those Good Conservatives™ who hate the first amendment and 'think' women should give up the vote and not be able to own property.
He sounds like another one of those Good Conservatives™ who hate the first amendment and 'think' women should give up the vote and not be able to own property.
In other words, limiting freedom to himself and his ilk.
He sounds like another one of those Good Conservatives™ who hate the first amendment and 'think' women should give up the vote and not be able to own property.
Know why they call that section between a woman's breasts and her hips a waist?
Because you could easily fit another pair of tits in there!
Who the fuck do you think you're intimidating? You sound like one of those dykes from NOW.
