Jump to content

Umpire assaulted


The Man in Blue
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 979 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, mark38090 said:

If your kid wife or family member is drowning, I'm going in the water, no matter the consequences, to try to save your the life of your loved one. If your wife child or loved one is being attacked, I'm helping however I can, no matter the consequences. Just my 2 cents...

Your attitude is commendable, but flawed in its application, as @Matt points out. Believe me, I’m with you in spirit, but my experiences have infused me with a step of “calculated caution” when approaching a situation like this. Granted, that caution has no definable period of time. 

I was told a story – perhaps it was anecdotal – of a fight breaking out on a football field. Instead of wading in, trying to separate the jumble of participants, one coach of the home team turned on (or ordered the turning on) the rather effective field sprinkler system. Most of the rabble and peripheral cleared off. Only the real intense entanglements persisted, but not for much longer. 

What I will not, nor ever do is fish out my smartphone and video record any event of crisis, when some sort of solution or mitigation is direly needed. That sort of self-absorbed, narcissistic behavior is beyond reprehensible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

What I will not, nor ever do is fish out my smartphone and video record any event of crisis, when some sort of solution or mitigation is direly needed. That sort of self-absorbed, narcissistic behavior is beyond reprehensible. 

I hope I'll step in and help, but like others have said it would depend on the situation, if my family were with me and I'd be putting them in danger, etc.   But I really hope I'd help...

But this quote above - a thousand times yes!  Words are not potent enough to express my disgust with the cell-phone news media age that we live in that need to record everything.  I'll stop there before I get worked up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MadMax said:

What I will not, nor ever do is fish out my smartphone and video record any event of crisis, when some sort of solution or mitigation is direly needed. That sort of self-absorbed, narcissistic behavior is beyond reprehensible

 

2 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

I hope I'll step in and help, but like others have said it would depend on the situation, if my family were with me and I'd be putting them in danger, etc.   But I really hope I'd help...

But this quote above - a thousand times yes!  Words are not potent enough to express my disgust with the cell-phone news media age that we live in that need to record everything.  I'll stop there before I get worked up.

In principle, I would normally agree.  In fact, I definitely agree that it's wrong to whip out the phone to record stuff when SOMETHING can be done to help...even if it's just to call 911 with that same damned phone.   But keep in mind the general consensus is without cell phone video George Floyd almost certainly does not get justice.   No one gets arrested, let alone convicted.   Not sure if I'd ever be the videographer, but sometimes, I suspect, that's the only thing of value that can be done.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mark38090 said:

If your kid wife or family member is drowning, I'm going in the water, no matter the consequences, to try to save your the life of your loved one. If your wife child or loved one is being attacked, I'm helping however I can, no matter the consequences. Just my 2 cents...

It's a nice sentiment, but there's a saying about good intentions..."No matter the consequences??"  Really?   So, you'll just leave your two-year old alone next to the river to run in and save someone?  Really?  I sure as hell hope not.

There's a reason that First Responders have rules of engagement, practices and procedures, and are trained to assess those "what if's" to make the right decisions before just blindly rushing in.  Cops don't rush into an active shooter situation without at least knowing, or trying to know, how many shooters they're actually dealing with.   If people who do this for a living measure the "what ifs" before performing a rescue, I think it's a pretty good idea for laypeople as well.

My best friend's father and brother are firefighters.  My neighbor is a TAC EMS.  I've got the skinny on what civilians should and should not do.   And Rule Number One is "don't turn one rescue into two".

Before a firefighter rushes into a building there's an assessment done...some prep is done...and, there has to be another firefighter prepared to rescue the first one.   Cops are reprimanded for not ensuring they have backup.

And the stats seem to indicate the approach is warranted.  Sure, sometimes all works out.  In most scenarios, the best case result is the rescuer dies while saving the other.  Usually, both die.   In many cases it's not even a trade off...two, three, four or more people die trying to rescue one...and usually fail.

If given the choice between grieving my wife or grieving my wife AND living with the knowledge that you also died trying to save her, I'd rather you sit back and dial 911, or throw a life preserver.

I never said "do nothing", or in your example, drive by...but if someone falls into the ocean off a cruise ship, diving in after them is probably the worst choice you can make.  There are other things to be done that A) have a higher likelihood of helping and B) won't kill you.

 

Rather than saving my life, I'd rather you live another 50 years, where you can apply, what is at its core, an altruistic heart and caring for your fellow humans, to thousands of other people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...