Community police: derogation of duty?

[Delster]

I was just watching the BBC and this tragic story was broadcast: Police defend drowning death case

There''s an ongoing debate in another thread (here) about a doctor''s liability where that doctor''s ACTION results in a life being CREATED. In this case, a community police officer''s INACTION has resulted in a life being LOST.

LEGALLY the area is grey. The police force in question insist the omission to act was proper as the officers were not trained to deal with the situation. Is this wrong as a point of principle? Legally there is no obligation in the UK on a person to take action to save another person unless there is a parent-child relationship, or a similar duty of care (doctor-patient), or a contractual obligation (say like a childminder). Omissions are not criminalised. Yet surely a police officer, just like a doctor, must owe a legal duty to this child to assist and to protect him? Surely the police force are wrong about this?

MORALLY there is no question here for me, I don''t understand how anyone could stand by and watch a child drown without taking action. The child who drowned was in fact in the water saving his younger sister from drowning.

I am so sorry for his family, what an awful awful thing to happen.

 

[strmrdr]

US law,
nope cops have no obligation to go in neither do fire fighters.
Even if they were trained divers they are not required too do so.


They weren''t cops anyway, similar groups in the US are ordered to report an not get involved in anything that happens.

 

[strmrdr]

in case anyone is wondering the US supreme court has ruled that police officers have no legal requirement too help anyone they don''t have a direct contract with and cant be held liable.
The federal courts have also ruled that fire fighters/EMTs cant be sued or held liable for not going in to an area for any reason.
ie: gang areas, dangerous conditions, or any other reason.

 

[D2B]

Irrespective of your job, how could an adult (or two here), assuming they are competent swimmers, not try and help a child and stop it from drowing.

I just dont understand that.

 

[luckystar112]

This is a sad story.

Perhaps the cops didn't jump in because the fishermen (anglers) were already in there searching for the boy after saving the sister?
In the article it says that the boy was submerged under water. He may not have been visible. The cops may have felt that getting an ambulance there and calling for backup for when he's out of the water was the higher priority.

UGH this story is bringing back bad memories of a situation I was in when I was a sophomore in highschool.

A friend and I were driving to another friend's house, when we got to a bridge and saw a few our of classmates trying to flag us down. We pulled over, and they were extremely panicked. They had been jumping off of the bridge, when one of them (someone in a couple of my classes) never came up from the water. I remember trying to see if I could spot him underneath the water from the bridge, but he wasn't visible at all. It was so eerie. I knew he was under there somewhere, but where?
The kids that were with him were all jumping in and trying to find him while an neighbor called 9/11. Rescuers were able to find him and pull him out of the water, but by then he was already brain dead. He remained in coma for over three years before his family took him off life support and he died.

Sometimes I wonder why I didn't jump in and help them find him....but I think I was just in so much shock, and really--I was scared of the possibility of finding him dead. Plus, it just didn't seem real at the time, and part of me thought that when they found him they'd just give him CPR, he'd cough up some water and be fine like in the movies.

So, I guess I can KIND OF see why the cops wouldn't jump in, but that's not to say that I think it's right.

 

[Shay37]

There is just so much wrong with this story, and I am afraid I have to be the dissenting voice. I do not think that police who arrived on the scene after the boy was already submerged in murky water (how long for?) owe anyone any explanation. They are not a trained dive rescue team which is what was needed here. The OP made it sound as if the police watched while the boy struggled while they ho-hummed around. He was already submerged!!!!!!!! IN MURKY WATER!!!!! maybe they can''t swim. Would I have gone in and attempted to help? YES why? I AM A TRAINED LIFEGUARD!!!!!! Not everyone is able to help in that situation.

One final thought. These parents who are so busy maligning police: WHERE THE HECK WERE YOU WHEN YOUR CHILDREN WERE PLAYING NEAR WATER???????

Why did your son have to try to rescue his sister? Don''t you have some culpability here? Is that the real reason you''re screaming at the police? so that no one sees that you were completely irresponsible as parents to have left a 10 year old to be in charge of an 8 year old and others?

Off soapbox now.

shay

 

[Steel]

Shay,

I''m glad you are off that soap box, there isn’t room for two; and I whole heartedly agree with you. Here here.

An ambulance worker, police officer or army and fire brigade personnel incl reserve/voluntary workers are men and women. It is a job. They are not super human. They do not have a force field or magic regenerative powers. They are simply very caring and hopefully highly trained members of society.

I have heard many views opined of late that this emergency service worker should have done this or that. It’s very easy to point the finger but nobody wants to stand up for the worker.

Get off the band wagon, watch your kids. Leave emergency personnel alone, they have a tough enough job as it is.

_______

As an aside there was a report on the local radio here in Ireland, complaining about a taxi driver who drove a woman home who was inebriated. (Dosen''t sound too out of the ordinary does it?) He got her safely inside and contacted the police and a neighbour to advise them as to her condition. They did nothing. She died.
Moaning minnies are now claiming that the taxi driver had a duty of car to her. Surely he fulfilled this by contacting the authorities and an neighbour? They said he should have called an ambulance. Well if this were the case I see three extreme circumstances.

1. As a taxi driver and not a medically trained professional, surely the taxi driver would have to call an ambulance after every pick up/drop off in case the client had any latent medical condition he may not or could not be aware of, but is now deemed to have constructive knowledge of by virtue of his collection and depositing of the client for a meagre fee?
2. This meagre fee would have to be raised to cover the added insurance taxi drivers would have to undertake to fend off the without merit claims.
3. Taxi drivers would have to call an ambulance to every fare to mitigate against possible litigation. Nobody could say they didnt fulfull their civic duty then could they? But how many fatalities would that result in? All the ambulance would be called to nonsense calls and may not be availabel in time for a genuine emergency.

Yes I have taken this thought for a long walk without a torch, but the sentiment is the same. People cannot hold others accountable for the actions or omissions of others or themseles ad nauseum. Have some cop on.

 

[Stardust]

I'd like to point out that in the UK there is a difference between a Regular Police Officer (PO) and a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO). The two people on the scene were PCSOs who called for backup.

PCSOs

Police Community Support Officer (PCSO)

As a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) you will support the work of your local police force and provide a visible and reassuring presence on the streets. It is a paid role, although you won't have the same powers as a regular officer.

Police Community Support Officers particularly work to reassure the public and to tackle the social menace of anti-social behaviour.
What you'll do as a Police Community Support Officer

Working under the direction of a police commander, you will find yourself fighting a range of crime and disorder problems. Just some of the problems you might have to deal with include:

* contributing to the regeneration of local communities
* increasing public safety
* dealing with truants, graffiti, abandoned vehicles, litter, missing persons enquiries
* confiscating alcohol being consumed in a public place
* helping to support victims
* controlling crowds at major events

PCSOs spend much of their time on patrol in communities and you should approach them with any questions or worries you have about anti-social behaviour or crime in your area.
Police powers

Depending on your role, you may also be given some police powers, including the power to:

* detain someone until a constable arrives
* direct traffic and remove vehicles
* issue fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour
_______________________

Bolding mine. The PSCOs have substantially less training in general. They are mostly a visible presence on the streets - especially on Friday and Saturday nights! - to attempt to keep order.

 

[Delster]

I''ve enjoyed reading everyone''s views on this and I can see all of your points. I understand the argument that emergency services need to be given some leeway to exercise discretion and I absolutely see its merit.

I think I took a different spin on this story maybe. As I understood it from the news article, and from the BBC site, these PCSOs were called to the scene, arrived within five minutes, and then did nothing while they waited for the emergency services to arrive. I can also see that the BBC site article could be read to mean that as soon as the PCSOs arrived on the scene that they radioed for the expert team, who then arrived within five minutes. Actually this was how my BF understood the story. If that is the case then the PCSOs did more than I originally thought and my view would be softened somewhat. I will for sure be following this story. I really hope MY initial understanding of the facts was WRONG WRONG WRONG! Of course no matter, either way, this is an awful tragedy.

Strmrdr and Stardust - I still think that PCSOs or volunteer/special police force members owe a greater duty of care to the community than a passer-by does. They have greater powers (stop, search, seizure) and more rapid access to specialised support and emergency services. That makes for a difference in my view. The point that these officers are ''puppet'' police is so sad isn''t it - no-one should be sent into such a role without extensive training.

Shay - I ABSOLUTELY agree that this child''s parents (or another competent adult) should have been with the children. Children should NEVER be unsupervised around water! I also think the lashing out at the police is probably a desparate wish to find someone to hold responsible - isn''t it all too human to cast around for a responsible target when something this awful happens.

Steel - I''m with you on the taxi driver! He should be applauded for what he did and I would never argue that he should have done more. Was that on Liveline by any chance (just guessing here - sounds like something that might be on Liveline)? Can you remember when? I''d be interested to listen to the article and if you knew when it was I might be able to find it up on RTE...

Luckystar - I''m so sorry about your classmate, that is really sad. Please be gentle with yourself. There was nothing more you could have done.

 

[DMBsGirl]

Totally agree with you Shay.

 

[perry]

In my youth i was a certified "lifesaver." Someone who was trained to save drowning people - or other people who had problems in water.

Everyone in the class was an excellent swimmer - and I failed the first year (along with others) and had to retake the second year to pass (which failed others as well). You really had to know what you were doing to pass this class (at least where and when I took it).

The first thing you are taught - and an item that is emphasized every day during instruction - to be a "lifesaver" is to never ever enter a situation where you could loose control of the "drowning" victum or where you are not sure that you can have control.

Attempting rescue in murky water is setting yourself up to loose control.

If you cannot gain positive and definite control of the drowning person - let go get away and be sure to save yourself.

Lifesavers who loose control end up being drowned (and there are stories after stories after stories on that - and little kids who are out of control have drowned adults who can't control the kid).

I cannot imaging that the training has changed one bit on those points.

Even fully trained - and in good health (which I no longer am) - I would not ever attempt a rescue of a submerged person - of any age - who is submerged in murky water because you do not know what is under there.

Did I not read that this child was attempting to rescue their sibling... and then they drowned (that is not a new story)

Sorry, life is not fair - and you cannot blame anyone for not attempting a rescue in this situation.

I do not blame the mother for not being there - you cannot always watch your children and you have to let them do somethings on their own (besides, what about the father). If there is any blame it would be that the parents did not providing proper water & swimming instructions for their children (and maybe they did and the kids rebelled).

Some things are simply tragic - and you can't really blame anyone. Why are people so quick to assign blame to everything.

It's most likely just tragic.

Perry

ps: Within the US the function of police is to investigate specific crimes and to maintain general public order. The Police are not responsible for preventing crime to any individual citizen (and never have been). They are not responsible to respond to 911 or any other emergency calls dispite the fact that they often do. They may have responsibilities to protect and prevent crimes to "Public Officials" depending on the state you are in.

 

[luckystar112]

Perry, I disagree with your thoughts about the parents not being there.
Sure, you can''t watch your children ALL the time, but their radar should have been WAY up by a pond. I think there is a difference between leaving the room for a second at home and leaving your kids unattended near water! And the timeline is just terrifying--
Daugther starts to drown, no parents in sight.
Son is the one who notices and has to save her because the parents are STILL not in sight...
Fishermen jump in to rescue them because, again, parents are still missing.

How long had they been swimming by themselves? What on earth were the parents doing this whole time?
Obviously THEY weren''t in the water!



I''m just disagreeing with you, not actually mad or anything!

Except at the parents!!!

 

[perry]

Date: 9/23/2007 10:16:40 AM
Author: luckystar112
Perry, I disagree with your thoughts about the parents not being there.
Sure, you can''t watch your children ALL the time, but their radar should have been WAY up by a pond. I think there is a difference between leaving the room for a second at home and leaving your kids unattended near water! And the timeline is just terrifying--
Daugther starts to drown, no parents in sight.
Son is the one who notices and has to save her because the parents are STILL not in sight...
Fishermen jump in to rescue them because, again, parents are still missing.

How long had they been swimming by themselves? What on earth were the parents doing this whole time?
Obviously THEY weren''t in the water!



I''m just disagreeing with you, not actually mad or anything!

Except at the parents!!!

The boy involved was 10 years old. I do not know the age of his sister.

However, by 10 most kids are allowed a fair amount of freedome.

I grew up by a river, and by 10 was walking miles up and down the shore of the river with freinds and/or brothers and sisters - and even skinny dipping in ceratin areas (the safe ones). But I''d been in swimming practices since age 6 and was a good swimmer.

I also had a bycicle too; and rode to freinds houses that were 7 miles away.

Where were my parents. Dad was likely working, and mom was home. There were 7 kids in the house at the time - and we could be scattered all over.

On playing along the river - it was not uncommon for my to go with my younger sister; and then I was responsible for her (and later include a younger brother too). Of course, at times I went with my older sister and older brothers too.

I do remember that a couple times a year though that mom would walk the river with us and tell us to avoid swimming in certain areas due to the danger, and watch for the changing sandbars and changing danger areas.

Oh, by 12 I had my own 22 riffle too... and took it on my bycycle to the shooting range on the other side of the river all the time. No one thought anything of that either. And we could take our canoe down to the river and go paddling for the day (or even a weekend canoe trip down the river and dad would pick us up in a few days at an agreed upon place and time - without phone contact).

I do not fault the parents for not hovering arround a 10 year old who is playing - even if just swiming in the local swim hole.

Perry

 

[Shay37]

Date: 9/23/2007 11:33:52 AM
Author: perry

Date: 9/23/2007 10:16:40 AM
Author: luckystar112
Perry, I disagree with your thoughts about the parents not being there.
Sure, you can''t watch your children ALL the time, but their radar should have been WAY up by a pond. I think there is a difference between leaving the room for a second at home and leaving your kids unattended near water! And the timeline is just terrifying--
Daugther starts to drown, no parents in sight.
Son is the one who notices and has to save her because the parents are STILL not in sight...
Fishermen jump in to rescue them because, again, parents are still missing.

How long had they been swimming by themselves? What on earth were the parents doing this whole time?
Obviously THEY weren''t in the water!



I''m just disagreeing with you, not actually mad or anything!

Except at the parents!!!

The boy involved was 10 years old. I do not know the age of his sister.

However, by 10 most kids are allowed a fair amount of freedome.

I grew up by a river, and by 10 was walking miles up and down the shore of the river with freinds and/or brothers and sisters - and even skinny dipping in ceratin areas (the safe ones). But I''d been in swimming practices since age 6 and was a good swimmer.

I also had a bycicle too; and rode to freinds houses that were 7 miles away.

Where were my parents. Dad was likely working, and mom was home. There were 7 kids in the house at the time - and we could be scattered all over.

On playing along the river - it was not uncommon for my to go with my younger sister; and then I was responsible for her (and later include a younger brother too). Of course, at times I went with my older sister and older brothers too.

I do remember that a couple times a year though that mom would walk the river with us and tell us to avoid swimming in certain areas due to the danger, and watch for the changing sandbars and changing danger areas.

Oh, by 12 I had my own 22 riffle too... and took it on my bycycle to the shooting range on the other side of the river all the time. No one thought anything of that either. And we could take our canoe down to the river and go paddling for the day (or even a weekend canoe trip down the river and dad would pick us up in a few days at an agreed upon place and time - without phone contact).

I do not fault the parents for not hovering arround a 10 year old who is playing - even if just swiming in the local swim hole.

Perry

Different era, Perry. My kids don''t play outside without me with them. I have boys 7 and 5. If they ride their bikes, me and my husband are with them. Why? Cause there are crazy people out their who see children as a means to their torture and sex games. NOT MY KIDS!!!!!!


If I am not directly supervising them and something happens, I do not get to bitch at all the police who are responsible for not saving them. That''s all I''m saying. Think about those poor fishermen put in the position of having to know for the rest of their lives that they could not save them both.

I do agree with the other stuff you said about lifesaving though; and for the most part your insightful responses here are agreed with by me. I just, as a mother of two small children (grew up on a ranch myself with very little supervision outside and around the stock tanks), respectfully disagree with not supervising children in this day and age. I would rather be overprotective and a little (lot) paranoid than have to mourn later that I was a bit too lacksadaisical as a parent.

shay