Crap This takes the piss

[Krazeh]

The logical extension of the should we risk ourselves because hes probably dead scenario is that firemen dont bother to enter a house which is burning because the people inside are probably dead.

No it's not.

 

[soze]

The logical extension of the should we risk ourselves because hes probably dead scenario is that firemen dont bother to enter a house which is burning because the people inside are probably dead.

Only if they can see them through the walls and see they are not moving and not breathing.

 

[rynnor]

Only if they can see them through the walls and see they are not moving and not breathing.

Nah - if a house has been filled with smoke for a while they can surely assume everyones dead and wait for specialist teams and the press officer to arrive?

 

[Krazeh]

Nah - if a house has been filled with smoke for a while they can surely assume everyones dead and wait for specialist teams and the press officer to arrive?

And how can they assume that without any sort of visual confirmation?

 

[soze]

Nah - if a house has been filled with smoke for a while they can surely assume everyones dead and wait for specialist teams and the press officer to arrive?

Ohh I did not know the Fire Men just assumed he was dead my mistake you are right then. I though they saw the guy was not moving at all and made a judgement call you see.

 

[rynnor]

And how can they assume that without any sort of visual confirmation?

Visual confirmations a joke though - you cant tell if someone is dead past reviving with a distant view so why not make the same assumptions about people who have been in a burning house for X minutes.

Once it becomes a health and safety assessment rather than a rescue then youve already lost because fires/drownings etc will always carry an inherent risk.

 

[Krazeh]

Once it becomes a health and safety assessment rather than a rescue then youve already lost because fires/drownings etc will always carry an inherent risk.

Of course they will always carry an inherent risk, which is why judgement calls sometimes need to be made to the effect that no rescue will be attempted. Just because someone decides to fight fires for a living doesn't mean that their life can be recklessly endangered in the pursuit of a 'rescue'.

 

[rynnor]

Of course they will always carry an inherent risk, which is why judgement calls sometimes need to be made to the effect that no rescue will be attempted. Just because someone decides to fight fires for a living doesn't mean that their life can be recklessly endangered in the pursuit of a 'rescue'.

I think we must have very different interpretations of 'reckless endangerment' if you mean wading into a pond...

 

[Embattle]

What? Face down? Part time pearl diver was he? Statistically the emergency services know exactly how long someone can survive face down in water, the depth is pretty much irrelevant. The only story here is that no member of the public made an attempt to fish him out before they arrived.

Sorry to say but this did make me laugh, as for the subject I won't make a overblown statement since I wasn't there and don't trust the media which too often likes sensationalise stories.

 

[Uncle Sick]

What's on the bottom of that pond? Maybe there's a hole/grate somewhere large enough to trap your foot in so you fall over, break your ankle and can't stand up. Fancy walking across that? Or what if there's something in there to cut your leg wide open?

They made a quick risk assessment, which was this - the bloke was almost certainly dead, the pond was a complete unknown, and why risk the life of a valuable emergency services worker to get a corpse?

I guess you're right. Who knows what might have been hiding in that duck pond.
I apologize.

 

[old.Tohtori]

This thread is getting silly.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Better yet;