DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> How sad is THIS? What a couple of heroes ... NOT!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 50, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/21/2007 08:50:49 AM · #1
//www.wigantoday.net/wigan-news/Boy-drowned-saving-sister.3205882.jp

//www.wigantoday.net/wigan-news/Jordon39s-parents-want-answers.3214540.jp

UnFREAKINGbelievable!

me
 09/21/2007 08:58:39 AM · #2
Unable to open

Message edited by author 2007-09-21 09:00:33.
 09/21/2007 09:01:55 AM · #3
Here's another link;

//news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1285248,00.html
 09/21/2007 09:08:29 AM · #4
What can you say..... We are not trained is pathetic! I hope they get fired at least.
 09/21/2007 09:13:22 AM · #5
I'm not trained either, but I damn well wouldn't sit there and watch a child drown. That's just inhuman.

So much for "Protect and Serve"

09/21/2007 09:39:50 AM · #6
The kid who drowned wasn't trained either, but he still tried to help someone in need... and he wasn't being paid to do it! >:-(
 09/21/2007 09:53:42 AM · #7
Were these guys cops? Its in british speak so I dont know if they are or not.

But honestly, they are only going to put themselves in a certain level of risk. I mean if the guy had jumped in, and he died too, along with the kid, would that have been a happier situation for the parent? I wouldn't be surprised if the guy jumped in and the kid still died, the parents would try to sue him for doing something wrong.

09/21/2007 10:00:32 AM · #8
Hard to believe someone could sit and watch a child die without doing anything. I couldn't live with myself if I saw someone die and knew that there was a remote chance I could have done something about it. I think I'd rather die trying then spend the rest of my life wondering if I could have saved them.
 09/21/2007 10:01:09 AM · #9
the guilty these 2 guys will carried around for the rest of their life will most likely insure it won't happen again

if i'm reading correctly, the boy had already drown before they arrived ... i don't believe they just stood and watched it all unfold

the articles don't really give enough information, it's all very sad
 09/21/2007 10:01:46 AM · #10
ajdelaware -- that is exactly why several states have "good samaritan" laws. (I have no idea about the UK)

Maybe the two officers themselves couldn't swim?
 09/21/2007 10:07:45 AM · #11
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Were these guys cops? Its in british speak so I dont know if they are or not.

But honestly, they are only going to put themselves in a certain level of risk. I mean if the guy had jumped in, and he died too, along with the kid, would that have been a happier situation for the parent? I wouldn't be surprised if the guy jumped in and the kid still died, the parents would try to sue him for doing something wrong.


I'd rather die than live with myself after watching a child drown.
 09/21/2007 12:14:46 PM · #12
What makes their lives of any less value then that childs? I mean it sucks, it really does, and I would hate to be into their shoes. But most of us are thinking this simply based on the fact that we read an article and therefore we know what happened exclusively.

I mean if you walked past a house engulfed in flames, would you run in if you thought someone was in there? Or would you call someone that would be better suited for that? I know I wouldn't be going into that house, because I dont know what I would be getting into, because I am not trained to rescue people from fires.

Water can be equally lethal...and these guys were not trained to deal with the scenario so, im assuming, they alerted people who were trained for it.

Heres a better question that nobody is asking. Where the hell were these kids parents while they were out in a lake, Im assuming, not wearing life vests?
 09/21/2007 12:19:00 PM · #13
Originally posted by ajdelaware:


Heres a better question that nobody is asking. Where the hell were these kids parents while they were out in a lake, Im assuming, not wearing life vests?


You mean to say parents are supposed to take responsibility of their children?
/sarcasm off.

Excellent question, and one that will eventually be raised, I should hope.
 09/21/2007 12:20:38 PM · #14
Nope, it wont be. These parents that were off doing anything but paying attention to thier kids have managed to successfully pass their inattentiveness on to other people, thus making themselves the victims.
 09/21/2007 12:50:11 PM · #15
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Nope, it wont be. These parents that were off doing anything but paying attention to thier kids have managed to successfully pass their inattentiveness on to other people, thus making themselves the victims.


When I was 10 years old, my mother used to drive Georgie Zeluff and I and our 8-foot dinghy to the beach on San Diego Bay. We'd take our fishing poles and row out into the bay (this was at dawn) with sack lunches and row around this busy, commercial harbor all day fishing. Georgie's mom would pick us up at 5 PM. We did this almost every weekend. We liked to catch bat rays, very large stingrays (up to 100 lbs or so) which, when we hooked up to them, would literally TOW us all over the bay.

There were no parents to watch over us.

At the age of 11, my family moved to Geneva, Switzerland, where we lived a few miles from the French border. Just over the border was a small mountain with a flat top, the Saleve. There was a cable car to the top. We kids used to ride our bikes across the border into France, take the cable car to the top, spend the entire day exploring meadows and ponds and streams, then ride like the wind down the mountain on a switch-backed road, through the French countryside, over the border, and back home.

There were no parents to watch over us.

We also played all day in an abandoned quarry sometimes, with a lake at the bottom of it. There were no parents watching over us.

This idea that parents need to be there to supervise their children in every activity is, to me, anathema. I think it's a terrible disservice to the children. The best and most worthwhile experiences of my childhood involved being able to live it free of supervision as I explored my limits and pushed them outwards.

So I disagree, violently, with the implied blame being placed on these parents for not being there watching their kids as they played in a community park.

R.
 09/21/2007 12:57:33 PM · #16

Unfortunately, if the child was rescued but ended up with some disability, the rescuer would probably be sued by the family.



It's too bad that things like this happen as it makes people less likely to help.
 09/21/2007 12:59:31 PM · #17
I agree in part with you. Growing up we did everything on our own. But heres the difference. If something happened to us, my parents didn't jump to blame whoever happened to be there.
 09/21/2007 01:03:10 PM · #18
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
I agree in part with you. Growing up we did everything on our own. But heres the difference. If something happened to us, my parents didn't jump to blame whoever happened to be there.


Yes, exactly. I have mixed feelings about this. If my child were drowning and an adult made no attempt to save her, I'd be pretty negative about that adult. But would I BLAME him/her for the death?

I think the problem here is that the adults in question were actually employed by the community in some sort of protective or supervisory capacity. To cop out from attempting a rescue because they "weren't trained in water rescues" seems really lame to me.

R.
 09/21/2007 01:36:44 PM · #19
Yeah but it doesnt sound like they are cops.
Would you want your community watch team to go after an armed house robber? Probably not. Why? Because they aren't trained for it. These people that were there seem more like they are a community watch type thing, and when they realized that they werent trained, they did the right thing.
 09/21/2007 01:47:13 PM · #20
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Yeah but it doesnt sound like they are cops.
Would you want your community watch team to go after an armed house robber? Probably not. Why? Because they aren't trained for it. These people that were there seem more like they are a community watch type thing, and when they realized that they werent trained, they did the right thing.

Actually, they are part of the Police force. They are Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs)

//www.policecouldyou.co.uk/pcso/overview.html

PCSOs have different roles in different forces, but they usually patrol a beat and interact with the public, while also offering assistance to police officers at crime scenes and major events.

Although PCSOs do not have the same powers as regular police officers, they still carry a lot of responsibility, and are a critical part of the police force.
 09/21/2007 02:08:08 PM · #21
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
What makes their lives of any less value then that childs? I mean it sucks, it really does, and I would hate to be into their shoes. But most of us are thinking this simply based on the fact that we read an article and therefore we know what happened exclusively.

I mean if you walked past a house engulfed in flames, would you run in if you thought someone was in there? Or would you call someone that would be better suited for that? I know I wouldn't be going into that house, because I dont know what I would be getting into, because I am not trained to rescue people from fires.

Water can be equally lethal...and these guys were not trained to deal with the scenario so, im assuming, they alerted people who were trained for it.

Heres a better question that nobody is asking. Where the hell were these kids parents while they were out in a lake, Im assuming, not wearing life vests?


It's not a house engulfed in flames where you are assuming that someone might be in there. It was a pond, it was a kid, and now he's dead.

No matter if he had bad parents or not it's still a kid. If you can swim (which these guys might not have been able to) and you see a kid drowning, would you actually sit on the bank worrying about the liability if you saved his life but hurt him in the process?

Message edited by author 2007-09-21 14:08:38.
 09/21/2007 02:19:50 PM · #22
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
What makes their lives of any less value then that childs? I mean it sucks, it really does, and I would hate to be into their shoes. But most of us are thinking this simply based on the fact that we read an article and therefore we know what happened exclusively.

I mean if you walked past a house engulfed in flames, would you run in if you thought someone was in there? Or would you call someone that would be better suited for that? I know I wouldn't be going into that house, because I dont know what I would be getting into, because I am not trained to rescue people from fires.

Water can be equally lethal...and these guys were not trained to deal with the scenario so, im assuming, they alerted people who were trained for it.

Heres a better question that nobody is asking. Where the hell were these kids parents while they were out in a lake, Im assuming, not wearing life vests?


It's not a house engulfed in flames where you are assuming that someone might be in there. It was a pond, it was a kid, and now he's dead.

No matter if he had bad parents or not it's still a kid. If you can swim (which these guys might not have been able to) and you see a kid drowning, would you actually sit on the bank worrying about the liability if you saved his life but hurt him in the process?


As mentioned earlier, had these guys tried to save the kids and failed, they would not be held liable under the "Good Samaritan" law.

Personally, I don't know how these two guys will live with themselves. They sat on their asses, did nothing and watched two children die. That's simply inhuman.
 09/21/2007 02:24:00 PM · #23
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
They sat on their asses, did nothing and watched two children die. That's simply inhuman.


One child actually. The sister was saved.

R.
 09/21/2007 02:37:27 PM · #24
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
I mean if the guy had jumped in, and he died too, along with the kid, would that have been a happier situation for the parent?


For me yeah. Imagine trying to live with the fact these 2 dicks watched 1 of your kids drown while trying to save the other and could not be bothered trying.... I expect more from any person let alone someone who is supposed to be there to serve the public.
 09/21/2007 02:39:23 PM · #25
I think this is the key part;
"Jordon had jumped into the water to help his eight-year-old stepsister Bethany.
Two fishermen were able to rescue Bethany but her stepbrother became submerged."

So by the time these two arrived fishermen had tried, and been unable, to rescue the boy. What more could they realistically do, with no dive equipment and probably no good idea where he even was?
Are the fishermen being blamed? Nope, only the ones in uniform, because they're "supposed to do something", even when there's nothing they CAN do.
They DID do something. They called those with the training and equipment for the situation. It's sad that the boy died, but it's NOT their fault!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 06:33:19 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 06:33:19 AM EDT.