Hard News: Tragedy into Crisis?
232 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
oh and on a side note, personally I think the response time to get the area cordoned off and the AOS on site was pretty bloody good......
Not AOS, just the nearest GD sergeant. Doubtless AOS were paged, but I've seen nothing to suggest that they actually went in and cleared the place. If it was actually AOS, the Otahuhu incident would've helped dramatically.
As for traffic, it was late on a weekend night. Auckland's not a 24/7 parking lot, y'know :P
-
A S,
Dave Waugh.
I haven't advocated suicide by anyone. I suggest you try to refrain from ascribing your interpretation of something to what someone else has said.
I will restate the question I asked above:
Should the general population be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own and that they should not expect any help until the risk to the emergency services is deemed acceptable?
I will even reiterate that if the consensus is that the public should not expect help when there is such a risk, fine.
If this is the case, the public have the right to know that they may not receive any help, preferably before anyone else finds they need to rely on help that isn't doesn't come.
Perhaps that could be a useful public service announcement.
-
Should the general public have an expectation that the Police will help them in an emergency, or should the general population actually be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own and that they should not expect any help until the risk is deemed acceptable?
The latter. And it's not a new circumstance. The same applies for emergencies involving the other services, too. None of them will charge into a situation that's potentially dangerous if they can take steps to minimise/mitigate the risk involved. Had Royd Kennedy left Shirley Young to burn to death under the tanker at Manukau, no fire fighter would've questioned that judgement call. In hindsight it would've been the wrong call, given that she was able to be saved, but at that point in time it would have been reasonable to say that the risk to his life was too great to justify going in after her.
Again, and I'm not the only person who's said it, emergency services workers look out for themselves first. They won't charge in to save you if there's a risk that they consider can be mitigated. You seem to think this is unreasonable, maybe even a dereliction of duty, and that the police have somehow turned into a bunch of pansies who don't want to help people. You're the one using emotionally-charge language, we're just responding to what you're saying. I quote "should the general population actually be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own". You, not me. How else can that be read than that you don't think the emergency services should be allowed to account for their own safety before venturing in to provide aid?
-
I will even reiterate that if the consensus is that the public should not expect help when there is such a risk, fine.
Even if such a consensus is not reached, the emergency services won't change their modus operandi. They will continue to look out for their own safety above all else, and if injured people die as a consequence then that's terribly unfortunate. It's brutal, but no district/regional supervisor wants to be making that phone call/visit.
-
A S,
Funnily enough, the message that if we're in danger you're shit outta luck isn't exactly trumpeted to the general populace is it?
Don't you think that maybe this is something that people should be made aware of?
I'm a bit gob-smacked by it, but maybe I'm just naive.
-
A S,
"should the general population actually be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own". You, not me. How else can that be read than that you don't think the emergency services should be allowed to account for their own safety before venturing in to provide aid?
How else can that be read? Exactly as I asked the question, and without the defensive interpretation by you. That is, should people be clear that in an emergency they are possibly on their own?
You've answered that question, and although I'm somewhat horrified, at least I have a fairly good idea of where I stand if I'm ever unfortunate enough to need help and I will adjust my expectations accordingly.
-
I'm a bit gob-smacked by it, but maybe I'm just naive.
Go and take a first aid course. If you have, you didn't really think that they were joking about taking care of oneself first, did you?
At least we've established that you're not actually as unbelievably callous as you first appear. You just have unrealistic expectations of what people whose lives are on the line on a regular basis will do.
Being in the emergency services in this country is actually extremely safe. We very rarely lose cops or fire fighters in the line of duty, and I don't know if an ambo's ever died on the job. The safety culture is heavily ingrained into all the services here, which is why it's a rare senior officer who has to go and visit a family to tell them that one of their nearest-and-dearest won't be coming home ever again. The anguish seen after Tamahere is a thankfully incredibly infrequent happening.
Part of that is the from-day-one message that they're more use alive than dead. A injured rescuer is another person who needs help. Potentially the original victim will die because the rescuer's medical needs are more pressing. How is that any value? -
and although I'm somewhat horrified, at least I have a fairly good idea of where I stand if I'm ever unfortunate enough to need help and I will adjust my expectations accordingly.
Sorry to burst your bubble so brutally. Your previous perspective on the importance of your life in an emergency is pretty much the exact mirror image of any trained personnel who come to assist you. You want to get out alive, at any cost. So do they.
Hopefully you'll never be in such a situation. They don't occur terribly often. Normally the circumstances are such that an immediate rescue can be effected, or at least emergency first aid given while the resources to carry out a difficult rescue are mustered.To nail it right home, though, the emergency services have protocols for terminating a rescue attempt. If the danger to the lives of the rescuers becomes too great, they will be ordered to pull back. They'll be dragged out by their feet, kicking and screaming, if need be. It's most common in structural collapses, where the pile begins to shift or behave unpredictably and the risk of death to rescuers becomes unacceptable. They're there to save lives, not give their own.
-
A S,
Well Matthew, I guess thats where we differed, I thought the callous part was not going to the assistance of someone who got shot.
-
This has been a real good discussion.
My thoughts are similar to Matthew Poole's. Emergency services are no good to anyone if they are hurt doing their duty, and they have a just expectation of being able to go home that night.But the words from Leigh Kennaway, miles upthread, are still ringing in my head. We all look for someone else to blame or take the responsibility when things turn ugly. The present govt has set itself up to be such an easy scapegoat as well. It is a pity that most people cannot take responsibility for their actions and start to look inward for solutions, but I'm not naive enough to think that is going to happen any day soon.
-
I thought the callous part was not going to the assistance of someone who got shot.
Callous on whose part? The ambulance officers who obeyed their protocols, and doubtless the orders of the police officer-in-charge, and waited at the SFP until given the all-clear? Or the police who, mindful of their duty to protect the responding medics and also of their own safety, wouldn't allow the ambulance officers to approach until they had ascertained that the scene was secure?
-
A S,
Matthew, different perspectives.
From the perspective of the poor sod whose been shot (and not to detract from what you've said), leaving him until it is safer to enter could be seen as pretty callous from his perspective, couldn't it?
As I said, different perspectives.
-
Then yes from that perspective, you are callous to expect anyone else to (potentially) die in order to come help you.
-
From the perspective of the poor sod whose been shot (and not to detract from what you've said), leaving him until it is safer to enter could be seen as pretty callous from his perspective, couldn't it?
Oh, of course. As I've said, it sucks that such choices are necessary. Thankfully I've never been on the sharp end and had to make that kind of decision, but I can't imagine too many things harder for people who spend their time helping others.
-
Its called Post traumatic stress disorder.
I'd actually call it a particularly shabby appeal to the authority of 'victimhood' that I'm well and truly over. A couple of weeks ago, my PAR piece was scornful of the Sensible Sentencing Trust parading around Lesley Elliott in a sledgehammer attempt to lever National into supporting the Criminal Procedure Bill root and branch. And it appears to have worked.
And, once more we're seeing the depressing (and depressingly predictable) domestic equivalent of South Park's infamous Paris Hilton/Mr Slave Whore Off. (**STRANGELY ENOUGH LINKED CLIP SERIOUSLY NSFW - OR PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE ELSE**) Seriously nasty, but you just can't look away...
As far as I can tell, the evil firewater angries up the blood of the niggers and po' white trash -and too many stores too close together just makes 'em wrose. Thanks Helen... Like IdiotSavant, I won't hold my breath waiting for the reality-based argument. But if Labour doesn't get a 3-5 point poll bounce out of this, they're doomed. And that's what really matters, right?
-
Had Royd Kennedy left Shirley Young to burn to death under the tanker at Manukau, no fire fighter would've questioned that judgement call.
These high-profile cases, where an emergency services worker puts his life at risk and does something heroic to save the life of another, do you suppose we've started to take them for granted?
They are a staple of fiction. Even when someone tells the cop not to go in - "It's too dangerous!" - he will go in because, dammit, there's a kid in there.
And of course it's the real life cases of emergency services bravery that (usually!) get the attention.
Have we become so used to this as being "normal" behaviour from emergency services that when they go and follow procedure and don't rush in and don't put their life at risk, we're puzzled and wonder why they aren't doing their jobs properly?
-
Felix: If you want to pay David Haywood for using a five-word quote, be my guest (I'm sure he has something he can spend the money on), but legally, you don't have to. New Zealand and international copyright law recognises such a thing as "fair use" or "fair dealing" for the purposes of criticism, review, and news reporting. In NZ, for example, s42 of the Copyright Act 1994 allows fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events provided the original source is acknowledged. Most bloggers don't reproduce entire stories; they quote short excerpts, and if they surround them with sufficient added content (something beyond the classic "indeed") and link to the original, they're legally in the clear. As for AP, or anyone else who wants royalties by the word, they can kiss my arse.
-
Craig "But if Labour doesn't get a 3-5 point poll bounce out of this, they're doomed. And that's what really matters, right?"
Yip - it's shameless.
-
I am reminded of a situation here in the UK a couple of years ago. In the Midlands iirc. Family having a suburban BBQ, ex partner of one arrives, shoots her with a shotgun and iirc at least one other person and leaves.
They ring for assitance and the police set up a cordon and will not let the ambulances attend. The people and their neighbours were all ringing and saying he was gone. Still they wait. One of the shot bled to death, it is possible but not conclusive that she could have been saved. BUT the police did not know that the offender was for eg in the house and pointing a firearm at the people telling them what to do 'or else'. The helicopter cannot see him if he is there for eg.
Same public incomprehension. Mind you if it had been the Met they would probably have charged in and shot everyone else there, especially if they were Glaswegian.
-
Should the general public have an expectation that the Police will help them in an emergency, or should the general population actually be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own and that they should not expect any help until the risk is deemed acceptable?
If the public should not expect help, fine. But it is something that would be nice to know before anyone else finds they need to rely on help that isn't likely to come.
Personally I can't say that I was ever under the impression that emergency services would come to my rescue immediately, no matter what the situation.
And I've never felt the need for a public service announcement to confirm that, it just seemed like common sense to me.
-
And if the police had just opened up the boot because it seemed like a good idea, nothing they found in the car would be admissible in the up-coming trial. Nothing, nadda, zilch.
Again, you're confusing American cop show plotlines with reality...
They have procedures around searches for a reason, and it's so that the likes of Chris Comesky can't get evidence turfed on a technicality.
And there's the other staple: slimey lawyers* setting the guilty free via loopholes....
the offender was for eg in the house and pointing a firearm at the people telling them what to do 'or else'
Sorry, are you saying the gunman was in the house, or the Police didn't go in because it was possible he was in the house forcing the hostages to tell the cops it was all clear???
*BTW: I'm not suggesting Chris Comesky is slimey but I'm wondering if you are. Genericly of course, since all defence lawyers are slimey right? What with all that getting their clients off, and all that. I mean the cops wouldn't have arrested them if they weren't guilty, right?
-
Obviously that it was possible he was. It was simply an example as to why the police cannot trust what someone at the scene tells me implicitly. They may literally have a gun at their heads.
-
A S,
Personally I can't say that I was ever under the impression that emergency services would come to my rescue immediately, no matter what the situation.
And I've never felt the need for a public service announcement to confirm that, it just seemed like common sense to me.
Does that put you in a minority? Do you think the rest of the populace is aware?
I don't know many who would have assumed they shouldn't expect help, and I'd previously dismissed the few I knew who did think that way as cranks with issues.
-
As for AP, or anyone else who wants royalties by the word, they can kiss my arse.
I didn't know you were so keen on corporate rim-jobs, Idiot. :) But less snarkily, there's something else about 'fair use': I don't know any bloggers that pull quotes without attirbution and linkage. When blogs break stories, MSM outlets aren't quite so good at repaying the courtesy.
-
If an off-duty cop had been in the store, called 111 and identified themselves and stated that the scene was secure, and still the police had waited, then I'd be asking some hard questions. In the absence of any such scenario, though, I cannot fault the police for their actions.
I find I'm still a little bemused by this. Who actually could have made the call? What about an on-duty cop? Since s/he was not supposed to be there, as an important health and safety meeting was going on outside, it might have been improper for him/her to make the call. How about a bishop, or a justice of the peace? Maybe a ship captain or an airline pilot, on or off-duty? Or the local MP? How about a council officer, or an elected councillor? A bank manager? A scoutmaster? A barrister? A High Court Judge? A Notary? A Chartered Accountant? Any serving member of the Armed Forces, or only an officer above the rank of captain? A coastguard? The president of the surf life-saving club? A veterinarian? I think we should be told.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.