Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Lifeguard fired for trying to save life

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Lifeguard fired for trying to save life
M

MontyBrunswick

Jul 5, 2012 11:46 AM
Obviously the cop should intervene... As should the lifeguard as it is his duty to protect.

That's the point I was trying to make.
Jul 5, 2012 11:46am
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 11:53 AM
LJ;1218925 wrote:He saved someone's life.

Other lifeguards have quit the company over the firing according to the AMA on reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/iama/comments/w24m9/
Whose life did he save? He got there late based on the article I read. Other people saved him.
Jul 5, 2012 11:53am
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 11:55 AM
justincredible;1218926 wrote:According to the mugger. Obviously, the answer is no.

But seriously, what are you asking? Yes, the cop should intervene. Always.
I agree he should intervene. As for the questions I asked, read them again if you aren't clear.
Jul 5, 2012 11:55am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 11:56 AM
Steel Valley Football;1218939 wrote:Whose life did he save? He got there late based on the article I read. Other people saved him.
Lopez said he and a off-duty nurse attended to the man until the city's paramedics arrived.
Jul 5, 2012 11:56am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:02 PM
Kid will have another job in no time, the company that fired him may not last much longer.
Jul 5, 2012 12:02pm
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:03 PM
LJ;1218942 wrote:Lopez said he and a off-duty nurse attended to the man until the city's paramedics arrived.
In no way does that imply he saved his life. There is not enough info to make a determination either way.
Jul 5, 2012 12:03pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:03 PM
Steel Valley Football;1218940 wrote:I agree he should intervene. As for the questions I asked, read them again if you aren't clear.
You asked "according to whom" on whether the cop should intervene.
Jul 5, 2012 12:03pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:05 PM
Steel Valley Football;1218949 wrote:In no way does that imply he saved his life. There is not enough info to make a determination either way.
Doesn't matter if he actually saved his life or not. He saw someone who's life was in danger and he went to help. He did the right thing morally.
Jul 5, 2012 12:05pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:06 PM
Yes, he should have intervened, because he saved a man's life.

Yes, he probably should have been let go (though I don't like the decision), because in saving the life of one, he did put a number (I don't think the article said how many) of waders and swimmers at risk by not keeping watch on them, which was his responsibility.

He'll easily find work elsewhere as a lifeguard.
Jul 5, 2012 12:06pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:07 PM
I agree.

It sounds like everyoe did the right thing...lifeguard and employer.
Jul 5, 2012 12:07pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:08 PM
O-Trap;1218957 wrote:Yes, he should have intervened, because he saved a man's life.

Yes, he probably should have been let go (though I don't like the decision), because in saving the life of one, he did put a number (I don't think the article said how many) of waders and swimmers at risk by not keeping watch on them, which was his responsibility.

He'll easily find work elsewhere as a lifeguard.
They said the other guards covered his area. What happens when a guard goes in after someone in their area? It would be left just as "unattended"
Jul 5, 2012 12:08pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:09 PM
LJ;1218959 wrote:They said the other guards covered his area. What happens when a guard goes in after someone in their area? It would be left just as "unattended"
It's been my experience they all shift a small amount so that they space out and a slightly larger area.
Jul 5, 2012 12:09pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:10 PM
Con_Alma;1218958 wrote:I agree.

It sounds like everyoe did the right thing...lifeguard and employer.
I disagree that the employer did the "right thing". Of course, I would say their policy is not the "right thing". A lifeguard's duty is to protect people who are in the water, that doesn't matter which side of the imaginary line they are on. It's the same thing as off-duty out of jurisdiction cops stopping crimes. As an officer, their duty is to the people, to protect and serve. As a lifeguard, their duty is to the people, to protect and serve.
Jul 5, 2012 12:10pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:11 PM
The thing that will really hurt the company is they cited "liability issues", which makes it sound like they were worried about being sued if something did happen. The should've cited "the well-being of beachgoers" instead.
Jul 5, 2012 12:11pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:11 PM
LJ;1218959 wrote:They said the other guards covered his area. What happens when a guard goes in after someone in their area? It would be left just as "unattended"
I must've forgotten that part.

Inasmuch as they were watching his area for him, the area was still his responsibility.

Liken it to the military. If someone goes AWOL, even for the most noble of causes, it's not going to negate the fact that they went AWOL. Also doesn't mean they should never do it, particularly if they determine that the cause is worthy enough.
Jul 5, 2012 12:11pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:11 PM
Con_Alma;1218961 wrote:It's been my experience they all shift a small amount so that they space out and a slightly larger area.
And that's what they did, but the question was rhetorical. It was meant to show that neither situation would be any different.
Jul 5, 2012 12:11pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:12 PM
O-Trap;1218964 wrote:I must've forgotten that part.

Inasmuch as they were watching his area for him, the area was still his responsibility.

Liken it to the military. If someone goes AWOL, even for the most noble of causes, it's not going to negate the fact that they went AWOL. Also doesn't mean they should never do it, particularly if they determine that the cause is worthy enough.
That's not even the same. He was doing his job as a lifeguard that left his area no more unattended than if the person in trouble was on the right side of the line.
Jul 5, 2012 12:12pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:14 PM
LJ;1218962 wrote:I disagree that the employer did the "right thing". Of course, I would say their policy is not the "right thing". A lifeguard's duty is to protect people who are in the water, that doesn't matter which side of the imaginary line they are on. It's the same thing as off-duty out of jurisdiction cops stopping crimes. As an officer, their duty is to the people, to protect and serve. As a lifeguard, their duty is to the people, to protect and serve.
We disagree. As an employee their job is to follow the company's policy. I understand you discontent with the company's policy.

If the employee acts on his/her own moral compass and it's against the employer's policy and gets fired, then I believe both would have done the right thing.
Jul 5, 2012 12:14pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:14 PM
LJ;1218966 wrote:That's not even the same. He was doing his job as a lifeguard that left his area no more unattended than if the person in trouble was on the right side of the line.
He wasn't doing his job, as his job was to ensure the safety of the beach-goers in his area. That, he did not do in that moment.

Again, I'm not saying he didn't do the right thing. I'm just saying I don't completely blame the employer.
Jul 5, 2012 12:14pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:15 PM
O-Trap;1218964 wrote:I must've forgotten that part.

Inasmuch as they were watching his area for him, the area was still his responsibility.

Liken it to the military. If someone goes AWOL, even for the most noble of causes, it's not going to negate the fact that they went AWOL. Also doesn't mean they should never do it, particularly if they determine that the cause is worthy enough.
I don't think you can compare the two. This was likely a snap decision where he saw a man drowning and reacting. Going AWOL is a thought out process where you have time to weigh the consequences against the gains.
Jul 5, 2012 12:15pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:16 PM
LJ;1218965 wrote:And that's what they did, but the question was rhetorical. It was meant to show that neither situation would be any different.
It could be different but I don't know. It depends on how that particular company handles rescues. Is there a notification process that has to take first so all other guards in the area are aware and shift? Did that take place?

I don't know.
Jul 5, 2012 12:16pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:17 PM
O-Trap;1218970 wrote:...

Again, I'm not saying he didn't do the right thing. I'm just saying I don't completely blame the employer.
Well stated.
Jul 5, 2012 12:17pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:17 PM
se-alum;1218971 wrote:I don't think you can compare the two. This was likely a snap decision where he saw a man drowning and reacting. Going AWOL is a thought out process where you have time to weigh the consequences against the gains.
Does it necessarily have to be so? Why wouldn't a person who, upon hearing of some great and immediate tragedy (hostage situation in a neighboring village), leave in the moment to help?
Jul 5, 2012 12:17pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:18 PM
O-Trap;1218970 wrote:He wasn't doing his job, as his job was to ensure the safety of the beach-goers in his area. That, he did not do in that moment.

Again, I'm not saying he didn't do the right thing. I'm just saying I don't completely blame the employer.
It's completely unfair of the company to put an employee in that position. What if he stands there and watches the guy drown? That could completely screw him up for the rest of his life. What is better publicity for the company, one of their employees helps a drowning man when he didn't have to or company's lifeguard watches man drown due to company policy. It's a terrible policy on the company's part, on many levels.
Jul 5, 2012 12:18pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:19 PM
Con_Alma;1218972 wrote:It could be different but I don't know. It depends on how that particular company handles rescues. Is there a notification process that has to take first so all other guards in the area are aware and shift? Did that take place?

I don't know.
Do you even read the articles before you post?
Company officials said other lifeguards watched over Lopez's area during the rescue
Jul 5, 2012 12:19pm