O-Trap;1219764 wrote:Broken rule:those who enforce the rules::broken law:those who enforce the laws

That's the parallel.

I Wear Pants;1219852 wrote:But of course I didn't. What actually happened is what we should make judgements on. I'm sure you're all for the death penalty for those that dare to jaywalk though.

I Wear Pants;1219855 wrote:Not a great parallel. Rules such as this one are allowed to be bent or ignored or changed whenever the people who enforce and/or make them want. ...

I Wear Pants;1219855 wrote:Not a great parallel. Rules such as this one are allowed to be bent or ignored or changed whenever the people who enforce and/or make them want. Not the same with laws. Even if Glory Days thinks the jaywalking law is stupid for example he has no power to change it or authority to change how it's dealt with.

O-Trap;1219869 wrote:I'm not so sure this is the case. There are plenty of examples of those who enforce the laws overlooking things like jaywalking, speeding, driving without a seatbelt, public intoxication, etc. Does that make it obligatory that they excuse the offenders if they, in their own subjective opinion, think that the person is doing it for a good reason?

We make choices. The young man in the story made a choice ... in my opinion, a good one. But that doesn't make him immune to any negative consequence of his choice.

His employers could have shown mercy, given the circumstances, but mercy by definition is not obligatory.

Con_Alma;1219863 wrote:They may be "allowed" to be bent or ignored but they are also "allowed" to be enforced are they not?

I Wear Pants;1219887 wrote:Didn't claim it was obligatory. Just said it was the wrong thing to do.

If Glory Days sees a guy save a baby from traffic outside of a designated crossing area he isn't obligated to not give him a ticket. But he's a giant **** if he does.

I'm not saying that these guys were/are obligated to ignore the rule. Only that they would do so in this instance if they weren't massive pricks.

Con_Alma;1219893 wrote:????

I didn't suggest that you said it was obligatory. I asked if you felt they were "allowed" to enforce their rules. They did. I don't have a problem with that.

As stated earlier I think both parties, the lifeguard and the company, did the right thing.

I Wear Pants;1219904 wrote:Jesus dude, I included you in the reply because it was a similar question. FFS.

Con_Alma;1219906 wrote:"Jesus dude", I understand that and clarified that I didn't suggest that you said it was obligatory.

I asked you if you felt they were "allowed" to enforce their rules. That's my question to you following you stating they are"allowed" to bend or change them.

I Wear Pants;1219916 wrote:Of course they're ****ing allowed to. Why wouldn't they be allowed to?

All I've been saying is that in this particular instance they are douchebags for doing so.

I Wear Pants;1219852 wrote:But of course I didn't. What actually happened is what we should make judgements on. I'm sure you're all for the death penalty for those that dare to jaywalk though.

hasbeen;1220274 wrote:But they have the rule to ensure nothing bad happens. It's real easy to say they're douchebags because they enforced it, but if something had happened in his zone would they still be douchebags?

The rule is preventative. This situation the guy is a hero. The next situation could turn out horrible. That's why they have the rule.

hasbeen;1220274 wrote:But they have the rule to ensure nothing bad happens. It's real easy to say they're douchebags because they enforced it, but if something had happened in his zone would they still be douchebags?

The rule is preventative. This situation the guy is a hero. The next situation could turn out horrible. That's why they have the rule.

I Wear Pants;1221134 wrote:.... What's relevant is what did happen.

I Wear Pants;1221134 wrote:No. But that's not what happened so that's entirely irrelevant. What's relevant is what did happen.