If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Agreed, but only if someone is physically able to.
I do see it as changing the relationship. I'd hope that you or I would dive in, but I expect police (even PCSO's) or fire to go in, even at some risk.
I think they should have gone in or tried harder, but nobody in here can judge until it happens to them.
I'd agree certain jobs put the person under a duty to take a degree of risk to save others. For people outside those jobs it's a choice, but not for PSCO
Maybe you're right, I'm certainly not sure, which brings us back to that previuos issue of what the PCOs actually are, and if that corrolates to the public perception of them.
But when a life or death situation arises it's entirely possible for people to freeze (and nobody can say they definetley wouldn't unless they've been there), and if that happens then it's not something that should be held against them for the rest of their lives or be told that they've got blood on their hands.
And while I do feel a lot of sorrow for the parents, mistakes happen. This isn't equal to somebody drink driving and killing a child, or somebody legging it when they saw a child in trouble in the river.
I'm sure there's plenty errors of judgement all of the actual Emergency Services make on a regular basis that cost lives (same for the general public for that matter), but they don't get the same level of finger pointing and people taking the moral high ground over it.
I disagree. I think if you're in the uniformed services people can expect a higher standard than a civilian in an emergency. That's not to make them supermen, but it is to say that what's acceptable for a civilian is not for PCSO.
Have the specific officers commented? Sounds like their superiors are backing them up as they would have done anway, and the individual officers could easily have frozen which prevented them going into the lake, but still phoned for help.
Can't emphasise how easy it is for people on here that consider themselves ready-made lifesavers to point fingers after the event. People who save lives in situations like this are heroes, people who aren't trained to do it and don't aren't villans.
They did their jobs properly then, as bad as that sounds. The training they get needs looked at then and if anyone should feel guilty it's the people who decide what the procedures for this type of thing - not the individual officers.
This is my issue. I think that saying "I wasn't trained" does make you a villain, or at least morally bankrupt.
Say that you froze. Say that you were scared. Say that you can't swim.
Don't suggest that you could have done something but chose not to because of training.
Especially when the life, you fail to try and save, is that of a little boy who jumped in to save someone without considering the concept of "training".
As I said though, have the specific officers come forward and said they didn't jump in purely because they weren't trained? I know their superiors are saying that CSOs aren't trained and did the right thing, but that's not the same thing. It's still more than possible that the particular froze (or a better word would be panicked) and phoned for back up, rather than were jobsworths about it and thought they might get into trouble.
Until I hear from the officers directly, I'll reserve judgement.
It's still a very dangerous thing to do, and it takes a certain sort of person to be able to try and do it. If the CSOs aren't trained to do it, then they're no more morally bankrupt than anyone else around the area who didn't have the presence of mind to risk their own lives.
Firefighters need to make a quick judgement on whether it's safe for them to enter a burning building to save lives, and they get training on risk assesment etc. Sounds like the CSOs get none of this training, and you'd demand them to risk their lives just like that, and if they don't then they should feel an immense amount of guilt for the rest of their lives? Can't agree with that, although I bet they're feeling very guilty atm.
Again, just because one becomes a hero doesn't mean the others are villans. The situation sounds like it was different too, the CSOs couldn't see where the victim was and I doubt the boy had the option or the means to get backup on the scene ASAP.
Irrespective of the debate, the last thing I'd want to do is to play down the courage of the wee lad.
Why? You already know my standpoint, as a person I would have jumped in because I can swim fairly well. But what if these 2 were bad swimmers or couldn't swim, being able to isn't a requirement of getting into the police, as a PCSO or as a PC? What if the anglers have both said "we've had a swim around and couldn't find him" and the weather conditions are that poor they've made a judgement call to stay out the water. Jumping into a murky freezing lake is, tbh a very stupid thing to do if you can't even see what you're looking for.
Why is someone who is wearing a uniform EXPECTED to risk/sacrifice their own life for a complete stranger over an ordinary member of public, just because they have a uniform on?
We've discussed this at work, the police aren't lifeguards, we don't work for the coastguard, our job is to prevent crime and where ABLE preserve life.
Chris has just left the specials and joined the regs and one of the stipulations is you must be able to swim. Force to force may be different.
The same reason I'd expect firemen to go into buildings on fire to rescue people, or that the infantry is expected to take out enemy trenches under fire. It's not the physical act of putting on the uniform, it's that the job entails risk for the greater good.
From the article
I'm afraid I find that a disgrace
I agree. It's the same as saying "that's not in my contract" if you're at work and something desperately needs doing in an emergency. Okay you may technically be correct, but would you hire someone who's not willing to pitch in with something that isn't their job in an emergency?
Risking your life to jump into a freezing lake to save someone who seems to be beyond help is a lot different from covering a shift for a mate or cleaning up someones sick in the toilets of the pub you work in.
For the millionth time, the individual officers haven't said "It's not in my contract" or "I haven't been trained", their bosses have, which they would've said in any case. Who's to say thats what the officers themselves thought, I think it's more likely that they did a risk assesment of the situation and called for backup.
Nobody can make a moral judgement until they're in the situation. It sounds like the chances of him being alive at the time were very small, and say the officers in question had their own little kids waiting for them at home? Still so sure they should have the wee lad's death on their conceinse now?