M
MontyBrunswick
Jul 5, 2012 11:46am
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.
That's the point I was trying to make.
S
Steel Valley Football
Posts: 4,548
Jul 5, 2012 11:53am
Whose life did he save? He got there late based on the article I read. Other people saved him.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/
S
Steel Valley Football
Posts: 4,548
Jul 5, 2012 11:55am
I agree he should intervene. As for the questions I asked, read them again if you aren't clear.justincredible;1218926 wrote:According to the mugger. Obviously, the answer is no.
But seriously, what are you asking? Yes, the cop should intervene. Always.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Jul 5, 2012 11:56am
Lopez said he and a off-duty nurse attended to the man until the city's paramedics arrived.Steel Valley Football;1218939 wrote:Whose life did he save? He got there late based on the article I read. Other people saved him.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Jul 5, 2012 12:02pm
Kid will have another job in no time, the company that fired him may not last much longer.
S
Steel Valley Football
Posts: 4,548
Jul 5, 2012 12:03pm
In no way does that imply he saved his life. There is not enough info to make a determination either way.LJ;1218942 wrote:Lopez said he and a off-duty nurse attended to the man until the city's paramedics arrived.
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Jul 5, 2012 12:03pm
You asked "according to whom" on whether the cop should intervene.Steel Valley Football;1218940 wrote:I agree he should intervene. As for the questions I asked, read them again if you aren't clear.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Jul 5, 2012 12:05pm
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.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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jul 5, 2012 12:06pm
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.
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.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jul 5, 2012 12:07pm
I agree.
It sounds like everyoe did the right thing...lifeguard and employer.
It sounds like everyoe did the right thing...lifeguard and employer.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Jul 5, 2012 12:08pm
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"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.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jul 5, 2012 12:09pm
It's been my experience they all shift a small amount so that they space out and a slightly larger area.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"
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Jul 5, 2012 12:10pm
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.Con_Alma;1218958 wrote:I agree.
It sounds like everyoe did the right thing...lifeguard and employer.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Jul 5, 2012 12:11pm
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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jul 5, 2012 12:11pm
I must've forgotten that part.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"
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.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Jul 5, 2012 12:11pm
And that's what they did, but the question was rhetorical. It was meant to show that neither situation would be any different.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.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Jul 5, 2012 12:12pm
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.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.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jul 5, 2012 12:14pm
We disagree. As an employee their job is to follow the company's policy. I understand you discontent with the company's policy.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.
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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jul 5, 2012 12:14pm
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.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.
Again, I'm not saying he didn't do the right thing. I'm just saying I don't completely blame the employer.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Jul 5, 2012 12:15pm
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.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.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jul 5, 2012 12:16pm
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?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.
I don't know.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jul 5, 2012 12:17pm
Well stated.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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jul 5, 2012 12:17pm
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?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.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Jul 5, 2012 12:18pm
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.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.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Jul 5, 2012 12:19pm
Do you even read the articles before you post?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.
Company officials said other lifeguards watched over Lopez's area during the rescue