<font color="blue"> I forget what they call it, but there is a term for attractions like that </font>
There is normally no particular care required of property owners to safeguard trespassers from harm, but an attractive nuisance is an exception. An attractive nuisance is any inherently hazardous object or condition of property that can be expected to attract children to investigate or play (for example, construction sites and discarded large appliances). The doctrine imposes upon the property owner either the duty to take precautions that are reasonable in light of the normal behavior of young children--a much higher degree of care than required toward adults--or the same care as that owed to "invitees"--a higher standard than required toward uninvited, casual visitors.
Having been on the fire dept. and involved in several MAJOR wild land (forrest) fires in calif. and nev. and other "rescues". I have first hand experience in "good doer's" (people saving animals, houses etc). On the fire dept. we made a choice to put our lives in the line for others. We do so with proper training and understanding of all the risks involved. This training lessons our risk of loosing our lifes. Most "civilians" do not have this training and operate more on instinct than skill. Most wind up as victims themselves. Some put the "rescuers" in further danger with their actions. When we arrive on scene of a rescue of "one" person, we do not want to be distracted by those trying to help, or becoming a "second" victim, or worse, making us the second victim. Doing so usually results in the loss of the "first" victim too.
In one case, we were called to a 'water rescued" at an old ****. Originally there was one victim who dove in and did not surface. A second "rescuer" dove in and hit the same underground rock as the first and lost his life. When we arrived, family and friends wanted us to dive in and "rush" to the rescue (like the seond guy). When we did not, we were pelted with rocks and angry words. It sucked to say the least.
So....when the responsible people arrive, they will make an "educated" opinion as to the value of your help, and at what risk you are in providing it. Most cases it will be accepted without question. Other times, you might be asked to step aside. If so....just please step aside. Molify your ego, the ego of the cop or firefighter (or whatever) and accept what you did in your own heart and move on. Nobody has the time for a "fight" when a rescue is involved.
It sounds cold...but we often say "if a person put themselves in harms way, its not worth your life to save theirs".
Sure, I agree that if you want to be able to help someone you should be able to, etc... but if you become another victim and end up taking away time from the rescuers having to save you AND the original victim, you end up causing more problems than there originally were.
The guy was a strong swimmer and thought he could help. He probably did help. The guy he helped said he would have died had he not been helped. That's all fine and good and I hope someone like that is around if I or my loved ones are in a precarious situation.
However, rescue personell were there and threw him a bouy and he threw it back and swam to the other side of the river. What does that tell us about the guy?
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...............
However, rescue personell were there and threw him a bouy and he threw it back and swam to the other side of the river. What does that tell us about the guy? )</font>
I don't recall any of the articles saying that rescue people were there. I do recall it saying that someone threw him a buoy, but that could have been anyone, and the man knowing the river, might have felt that the buoy would be a hindrance in this situation. Without more facts we will have to wait the outcome of this. Everything that I have read tells me that he is a stand up guy that cares about his fellow human being and that he is being persecuted for doing so.
I did some "diving" in the Army (deepest dive was 280', decompression of course), and in cilvilian life am a certified divemaster (which includes search and resuce/recovery).
Consider myself a "decent" whitewater kayaker, have done the Upper Gauley over 5,000 CFS, North fork of the Payette around 2k, fish creek in Idaho over 15k (one of the highest runs of that time in the late 90's), and some"pretty hard" steep creeks in W.V, upstate N.Y, Vermont, Colorado, Idaho and Montana (highest waterfall was 37'). Overall about 120 different "hard" rivers consider by most to be class 4 and up.
Also a river guide.
I have saved two people from death (entrapment) on the river (one guy had to be taken out by helicopter, only way).
Sort of my "credentials" so to speak.
When I worked on the river, firemen and police were always the "worst" customers.
Most fire departments have no clue what a "swiftwater resue" is, even when they "practice".
Most civilian resue divers are SEAL wantabes.
There are people who do know what they are doing pertaining to water rescues, but they are few and far.
On that same note, there are some police officers who have no clue about the operation of their firearm, and would be lucky to be able to hit the broad side of a barn if they tried to shoot at one.
This hits a nerve because I came upon a "scene" where two inexperienced kayakers drowned, and was informed by the rescue people at the scene not to intervene in a "recovery attempt" on the two bodies. To make a long story short, two firemen (who were "rescue divers") DIED while trying to recover the bodies.
You would be surprised how quick a long rope can kill in moving water.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ... i vaguely remember a TV show or movie in which someone got in trouble with the law for not taking action and standing by idly.)</font>
Seinfeld, last episode of the series. I remember reading at the time that some states have such laws. Sounds like KY is one of them. Still sounds like you're d***ed if you do and d***ed if you don't.
Several times I've read in the last few years of guys pulling victims out of car crashes while fuel was spilling and getting them out just before the vehicle exploded, and before any official rescue personnel arrived. Thankfully, the law treated them as heros instead of arresting them.
On the other hand, I've also heard of crash victims who had cracked neck vertebrae, but no spinal cord damage. When a civilian rescuer pulled the victim out, it caused the head to move, damaging the spinal cord and causing permanent paralysis. Don't know whether any gas was leaking from this vehicle or not. I suppose if it was, pulling him out was reasonable. If no gas and victim was breathing, he should've been left until rescue personnel arrived.
Maybe emergency first aid, CPR, and related issues should be a required course in high school. So many high schools require community service now. Such a requirement could enable citizens to make better informed "community EMERGENCY service" decisions if faced with these kinds of situations at a future point in life.
No one should flame you for the truth. Many law enforcement and fire personell are not trained in moving water rescue. There is an excellent school in South Bend, IN for training. Rive Rescue School
Toss somebody a rope and pull them in, fine. Toss somebody a rope, tell them to tie it on or it wraps around their body and then the other end gets hung up on something and watch them drown as the water pushes them under and you and 3 other guys aren't strong enough to pull them out(I've seen it happen twice. The victim's lived without damage, fortunately).
As to people not knowing how serious this stuff is, I think the police did know how serious it was and that's why they wanted the guy out of there. They have no idea if this guy is trained, can do it, is drunk or sober, etc... I also think that is why the police didn't jump in. They knew it was serious and they could not help.
While it is admirable that the guy didn't give it a second thought as to helping the victim, it is also admirable that the police (or whoever it was) did not want him to become a second victim. Don't fault the police on this one. In my opinion, they did the right thing. They do the same thing at fires. You run inside after they tell you to stay out, you get in trouble.
For anyone that is interested in reading about rescue personell becoming victims, read this .PDF file titled "The Drowning Machine". It is a tragic tale of two rafters getting caught in a current below a low-head dam and the awful events that followed. There are many stories about this and other rescuers losing their lives trying to help others.
Seems to me some "Common Sense" should be applied in the aftermath of all this, Regrettably there seems to a " Short Supply" of it available anymore. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif