I understand your point jpinpb and I think it is incredibly valid. My snarkiness in the original post was not appropriate for the level of tragedy this story amounts to. My point for linking the story was not to show that the firemen or police are bad, so much as the unionized bureaucratic litigative culture that is spreading like a cancer through some of our most beloved, important, and fundamental city sevices.
These people, I am sure, became police and fire because they wanted to serve and protect. But the rules are so corrupt that they are turned into monsters.
That is how they acted on that day, laws be damned. I would even venture to guess that most police or firehouses in the state would not act like this.
A freaking bystander waded in to fish the body out after he had drowned.
edit: The firemen and medics I know would not act like this! But we can not continue down this path.
So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.
And the city “restored funds” for training.
Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”
And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.
So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.
And the city “restored funds” for training.
Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”
And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.
So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.
And the city “restored funds” for training.
Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”
And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.
So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.
And the city “restored funds” for training.
Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”
And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.
Author
Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1,696 through 1,710 (of 1,771 total)
.
