Lifeguard fired for having rescued drowning man [Archive]

kranz

07-05-12, 07:40 AM

There was a similar case in Poland, around 2 years ago. A young boy was drowning, he was spotted by a 17-18 year old kid who jumped into the lake without much thinking. When he grabbed him in the middle of the lake, they were spotted by a two-policemen patrol. They called an ambulance and....stood on the bank shouting "You will make it". The official response from the police was that they "were not trained in life-guarding, thus their lack of initiative cannot be regarded as any violation of rules, thus their decision not to jump was OK"
I told this story to my friend who is a life guard and I was ofc angry that they did not react. He said that I have no idea about life guarding etc...
It made me re-think the case a bit...obviously, from a "moral" point of view the life-guard's decision was good, but what would happen if somebody had drowned in his zone? Where was the guy responsible for the "southern" zone? Was he fired as well? Besides, these zones haven't been made for "fun". If he decided to work there, he must have been aware of the "zone" policy and "strategies" concerning leaving an outpost in case of emergency. If he deliberately violated these rules...

Herr-Berbunch

07-05-12, 08:23 AM

Plamen Petkov (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/plamen-petkov-the-bulgarian-immigrant-who-died-a-british-heros-death-7805073.html) rescued a five-year-old girl just a month or so ago and then suffered a heart attack. Who knows what underlying conditions we all have that may only be brought to the surface (definately no pun intended!) when we react on instinct.

I'd still rather go this way than be a gibbering wreck whilst my family wait for my telegram from HM King William V. But not for a good few years.

NeonSamurai

07-05-12, 08:49 AM

There was a similar case in Poland, around 2 years ago. A young boy was drowning, he was spotted by a 17-18 year old kid who jumped into the lake without much thinking. When he grabbed him in the middle of the lake, they were spotted by a two-policemen patrol. They called an ambulance and....stood on the bank shouting "You will make it". The official response from the police was that they "were not trained in life-guarding, thus their lack of initiative cannot be regarded as any violation of rules, thus their decision not to jump was OK"

Honestly I would actually side with the police. As someone who did do lifeguard training, trying to save a drowning person is a very risky thing. People who are drowning are usually in a state of total panic, and will do stuff like trying to get on top so they can try to stand on the person trying to save them (there have been several cases of would be life savers drowning with the person they were trying to save for just such a reason).

Tribesman

07-05-12, 11:28 AM

He abondoned his post which endangered those he was tasked to protect.
Sacking is the correct outcome.

Where was the guy responsible for the "southern" zone?
The southern zone was unpatrolled and has signs saying swim at your own risk.

What I do find strange is that only one story says he saved a drowning man, all the others say the swimmer was already rescued and on the beach being treated by a nurse by the time Lopez arrived at the scene.

Garion

07-05-12, 12:08 PM

When I attended The Scottish Police College for basic and a year later for advanced training back in the 70's I was taught life saving up to the bronze medalion level. I still have all my badges and the medal and wonder if such training still takes place at Tulliallan.

Cheers

Gary

AVGWarhawk

07-05-12, 12:30 PM

He abondoned his post which endangered those he was tasked to protect.
Sacking is the correct outcome.

This guy would have been damned if he did or damned if he didn't I would think. What if the man had in fact drowned and said life guard could have saved his life?

Takeda Shingen

07-05-12, 12:36 PM

This guy would have been damned if he did or damned if he didn't I would think. What if the man had in fact drowned and said life guard could have saved his life?

Moreover, what if any of us were in a position to save a man's life? I would like to think that I would do the right thing, regardless of personal consequence. This young man did just that.

AVGWarhawk

07-05-12, 02:36 PM

Tribesman

07-05-12, 05:26 PM

Moreover, what if any of us were in a position to save a man's life? I would like to think that I would do the right thing, regardless of personal consequence. This young man did just that.
Thats the core of the issue right there, regardess of personal consequences means he cannot really moan about the disciplinary action from his employers as iy is a natural consequence of the action he chose to take.

Takeda Shingen

07-05-12, 05:46 PM

Thats the core of the issue right there, regardess of personal consequences means he cannot really moan about the disciplinary action from his employers as iy is a natural consequence of the action he chose to take.

Conversely, although you are legally permitted to take such action as to terminate the individual for acting so, you cannot save your organization from negative publicity when you remove a lifeguard for acting like, well, a lifeguard.

Tribesman

07-05-12, 05:55 PM

Conversely, although you are legally permitted to take such action as to terminate the individual for acting so, you cannot save your organization from negative publicity when you remove a lifeguard for acting like, well, a lifeguard.
But he didn't act like a lifeguard, he abandond the area he was supposed to be keeping safe.
I wonder if he removed the lifeguard on duty flag from his beach when he left it to go elsewhere? Afterall when it comes to water safely you not only have to inform the other lifeguards of what you are doing you also have to consider the swimmers you are supposed to be covering.

Edit to add a question.
If you are swimming on a beach that has lots of lifeguards but has been red flagged do you expect any of them to enter the water if you screw up?

Platapus

07-05-12, 06:14 PM

This company handled this entirely wrong.

The correct thing would have been to publicly commend what he did and then privately council him on the policy and call it square.

Unless this employee had a history of violating company policy, why fire him? You not only lose a potentially good employee but also garner bad publicity.

This company turned this from a win-win to a lose-lose.

Tribesman

07-05-12, 06:32 PM

You miss it entirely Platapus, it wasn't just violating company policy, it was breaking the most important rule which all lifesavers know.
How can he be a potentially good employee if he threw rule #1 out the window to go on a wild goose chase.

Takeda Shingen

07-05-12, 06:37 PM

But he didn't act like a lifeguard, he abandond the area he was supposed to be keeping safe.
I wonder if he removed the lifeguard on duty flag from his beach when he left it to go elsewhere? Afterall when it comes to water safely you not only have to inform the other lifeguards of what you are doing you also have to consider the swimmers you are supposed to be covering.

Edit to add a question.
If you are swimming on a beach that has lots of lifeguards but has been red flagged do you expect any of them to enter the water if you screw up?

But he did act like a lifeguard. He saw a man in danger and saved him. Would you have prefered that he did nothing because the person was past the magical barrier of the duty area? Should he have done nothing and watched the man drown? Or call 911 and then watch the man drown? He can see the man. It is not as though this was happening miles away.

I would answer your question with another question. If you were trained to save lives in a particular manner and see a man in danger pertaining to the particular expertise that you hold, do you do nothing even if he is out of your jurisdiction?

EDIT: And according to the article update, another lifeguard manned his station while he saved this man. His duty was not neglected.

Tribesman

07-05-12, 06:52 PM

But he did act like a lifeguard. He saw a man in danger and saved him.
No he didn't he abandond his post, and no he didn't, the swimmer was already on the beach by the time he arrived.

I would answer your question with another question. If you were trained to save lives in a particular manner and see a man in danger pertaining to the particular expertise that you hold, do you do nothing even if he is out of your jurisdiction?

The particular manner he is trained in is to cover the area he is responsible for.

And according to the article update, another lifeguard manned his station while he saved this man. His duty was not neglected.
How can that be since he didn't save the man?
Where did the fifth life guard come from?

Falkirion

07-05-12, 07:01 PM

I think it's ridiculous that he was fired. He did his job and saved another persons life despite going against company policy and their designated protection area. It really was a catch 22 situation for the lifeguard.

A life is a life, and we all deserve to live ours to the best of our abilities.

AVGWarhawk

07-05-12, 08:03 PM

Tribesman:
The particular manner he is trained in is to cover the area he is responsible for.

In correct. He was instructed to guard a particular area. He is trained to save lives. Saving a life does not know any perimeters that I'm aware of.

I'll say it again Tribesman. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. I will make it a point not to swim in a area you might be guarding. Company policy might prevent you from committing a life saving act! :haha::O:

If he sat and did nothing while the swimmer drowned you would probably believe he was a lout and should have performed his lifesaving despite company policy. Fire him for his inaction!

Takeda Shingen

07-05-12, 08:10 PM

No he didn't he abandond his post, and no he didn't, the swimmer was already on the beach by the time he arrived.

Semantics. He was called upon by another to help. He did what should have been done.

The particular manner he is trained in is to cover the area he is responsible for.

So I will take that as, you would have stood by. Unfortunately, you would now be liable for prosecution for having done nothing.

How can that be since he didn't save the man?

He did administer aid, at least according to the article.

Where did the fifth life guard come from?

I wasn't there. I only told you what the article said. You should consider asking that lifeguard.

Stealhead

07-05-12, 09:22 PM

I think he will have no trouble finding a job as a lifeguard someplace else unless he has a really bad work record.

Tribesman

07-06-12, 01:56 AM

@AVG
In correct. He was instructed to guard a particular area. He is trained to save lives. Saving a life does not know any perimeters that I'm aware of.

Being a lifeguard does have parameters, perhaps you should be aware of that as that is the reason he got fired.

I'll say it again Tribesman. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Goes with the job.
Don't like rule#1 then don't take the job.

If he sat and did nothing while the swimmer drowned you would probably believe he was a lout and should have performed his lifesaving despite company policy. Fire him for his inaction!
Do you notice something about the people who take the same view as me on this?

@Tak
Semantics.
No, accuracy.

He did what should have been done.

Not as a lifeguard.

So I will take that as, you would have stood by.
Interesting, what do you base that nonsense on?
Re read your post#11 and look at the two important words which are dealt with in post#13

Unfortunately, you would now be liable for prosecution for having done nothing.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
On what possible basis?:doh:

He did administer aid, at least according to the article.

According to him in the article? according to him he was saving lives? according to one article he also rescued the person from the sea?

I wasn't there. I only told you what the article said. You should consider asking that lifeguard.
I had already pointed out that some of the articles are telling very different stories and the lifeguard iseems to be telling different stories.
If I was to consider asking any of those lifeguards anything I would ask to other two that got fired if they can remember their training and would like to think again before they gave their answer or go through a refresher course to get re certified for the job.

kraznyi_oktjabr

07-06-12, 06:59 AM

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
On what possible basis?:doh:I don't know about Ireland nor Florida but atleast here in Finland we have duty to render assistance - ofcourse within our skills. For example if I - commoner with only basic CPR skills - opted to not help person with medical emergency I would be prosecuted for it. Would I be offduty paramedic and I opted to not help court would treat me much more harshly than if I was just commoner.

EDIT: This part of Criminal Code deals with duty to render assistance in general: Rikoslaki 19.12.1889/39, 15 § (21.4.1995/578) Pelastustoimen laiminlyönti
If I was to consider asking any of those lifeguards anything I would ask to other two that got fired if they can remember their training and would like to think again before they gave their answer or go through a refresher course to get re certified for the job.Articles which I read stated that those another two lifeguard did not get fired but resigned in protest. Could you please point me to article where they were fired?

Jimbuna

07-06-12, 07:38 AM

I agree. It was a split decision. I understand he was given his job back.

Nice one :cool:

Tribesman

07-06-12, 08:03 AM

I don't know about Ireland nor Florida but atleast here in Finland we have duty to render assistance
Terms and conditions apply.
If your duty is to cover and maintain safety in one area you cannot be penalised for not going to another area as doing so would be neglecting your duty so it negates any other duty to render assistance.
Also if a person has chosen to enter an area where it is indicated that they do so at their own risk then they have agreed that they are doing so at their own risk and cannot blame anyone but themselves.

Would I be offduty paramedic and I opted to not help court would treat me much more harshly than if I was just commoner.

Think again but in context, if you was an on duty paramedic doing your job what would the correct outcome be if you left your job to go and do something else?

Could you please point me to article where they were fired?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-lifeguard-follow-20120704,0,4887768.story?page=1

Try this one for size kraznji.
There is a river in town, next to one bridge(this bridge is important) there is the Garda barracks, some of those guards are trained and have equipmeent for water rescues.
At the next bridge down there is the fire station some of those firemen are trained and equipped for water rescue.
Down at the docks there is the lifeboat station, the RNLI are bloody amazing.
Along the sea shore to the West there are lifeguards stationed on the beaches.
Under certain conditions that first bridge gets a rather good standing wave in one section, that wave now contains a jumper.
Who should attempt a rescue and who should not attempt a rescue and who should not leave their post even though it is in the vicinity?

My suggestion to one sergeant who has pulled that particuar "suicide" jumper out of the wave several times is to forget his duty and drown the bastard next time:yep:

kraznyi_oktjabr

07-06-12, 09:05 AM

Terms and conditions apply.
If your duty is to cover and maintain safety in one area you cannot be penalised for not going to another area as doing so would be neglecting your duty so it negates any other duty to render assistance.You are correct.

EDIT: ...or maybe not. I'm not sure how law should be interpreted here. :hmmm:

Also if a person has chosen to enter an area where it is indicated that they do so at their own risk then they have agreed that they are doing so at their own risk and cannot blame anyone but themselves.I agree with this.

Think again but in context, if you was an on duty paramedic doing your job what would the correct outcome be if you left your job to go and do something else?Depends on what resources were available. In medical emergency case if one person could handle (two paramedics in ambulance) first incident and delay would not cause harm to first patient then I would split the team: one goes to assist another emergency while other ask for extra resources and takes care of first patient. If that is not possible I would ask (=effectively order) bystanders it there were any to take care of new patient and request another unit (fire engine, ambulance, police etc.) to assist with new patient.

Articles I have read gave impression that in Mr. Lopez case other lifeguards were aware of situation and moved to cover area now without own lifeguard (some articles are written like Mr. Lopez was just one of two lifeguards in that sector).

Its a bit hard to discuss about this case based on news articles as they seem to be describing different incident.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-lifeguard-follow-20120704,0,4887768.story?page=1
:doh: Read my comment slightly above...
Try this one for size kraznji.
There is a river in town, next to one bridge(this bridge is important) there is the Garda barracks, some of those guards are trained and have equipmeent for water rescues.
At the next bridge down there is the fire station some of those firemen are trained and equipped for water rescue.
Down at the docks there is the lifeboat station, the RNLI are bloody amazing.
Along the sea shore to the West there are lifeguards stationed on the beaches.
Under certain conditions that first bridge gets a rather good standing wave in one section, that wave now contains a jumper.
Who should attempt a rescue and who should not attempt a rescue and who should not leave their post even though it is in the vicinity?Hard to say as I don't know that town.
My suggestion to one sergeant who has pulled that particuar "suicide" jumper out of the wave several times is to forget his duty and drown the bastard next time:yep:Although I know its kinda wrong to do that but I would recommend same thing.

Takeda Shingen

07-06-12, 09:35 AM

AVGWarhawk

07-06-12, 09:41 AM

Tribesman:
Being a lifeguard does have parameters, perhaps you should be aware of that as that is the reason he got fired.

No, life saving does not have perimeters. I'm sure it has parameters.

Tribesman:
Do you notice something about the people who take the same view as me on this?

No I don't to be honest.

Your argument to fire this individual holds no muster over saving a life.

Skybird

07-06-12, 09:43 AM

kraznyi already answered the point, but I will reiterate that there are a series of Samaritan laws that compell a first responder to act in these situations. If he had not acted, he could be civilly and possibly criminally liable in the US.

A little time on Google would have come up with that answer. You were probably too busy spaming :har: to do so.
In Germany as well: "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" is punishable by §323c StGB, penlty up to 1 year in prison and/or financial penalty.

But that is not the issue in this story. The issue is whether it is morally defendable and whether it can be expected from an employee or that he even can get ordered to just look and do nothing when he is fully aware that somebody is dying who possibly could be savedy his intervention, even more so when that employee is a trained recuer himself.

Some of the replies here remind me of the self-justification we have heared in the trials after the Third Reich, i must admit.

Pendantic, murderous bureaucrats speaking.

When indifference is not only demanded by rules, but directly causes the death of people, when murderous indifference becomes mandatory and a duty, then the fault is not just on the cosmetical level, but the smelly brown stuff has sunk deep into the basic structure already.

What the company should have done if they are fearing liabilties? Not making a big story of the event, keeping the public pout as far as possible, asking the employee to keep a low profile over it as well, and unofficially give him a tap on the shoulder and say "Correct decision, very well done".

Penguin

07-06-12, 10:12 AM

I don't know about Ireland nor Florida but atleast here in Finland we have duty to render assistance - ofcourse within our skills. For example if I - commoner with only basic CPR skills - opted to not help person with medical emergency I would be prosecuted for it. Would I be offduty paramedic and I opted to not help court would treat me much more harshly than if I was just commoner.

EDIT: This part of Criminal Code deals with duty to render assistance in general: Rikoslaki 19.12.1889/39, 15 § (21.4.1995/578) Pelastustoimen laiminlyönti

You forgot to add that it's chapter 21 ;) - had to look a little, as in contrast to here you have several §15s. We have a similar law - §323c - here in English (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P323c)
Note that in both our laws they put an emphasis on life threatening situations.
We have a proverb here, "Not kennt kein Gebot" - "Emergency knows no law" - which I find is the moral obligation the guy had.
It is also reflected in the jurisdiction here, if you do damage to a person or property in an effort to help, you are not liable. This is to avoid that people refrain to non-action out of fear of punishment

A non related question about Finnish jurisdiction: As you are a bilingual country and no translation is ever 100% exact. Do you know any cases where a defendant argued to use the law in one specific language - as there may be tiny differences in phrasing?

Terms and conditions apply.
If your duty is to cover and maintain safety in one area you cannot be penalised for not going to another area as doing so would be neglecting your duty so it negates any other duty to render assistance.
Also if a person has chosen to enter an area where it is indicated that they do so at their own risk then they have agreed that they are doing so at their own risk and cannot blame anyone but themselves.

:hmmm: According to this logic, any emergency personnel leaving their station neglects to cover their area... Especially in bigger situations in rural areas you often have services coming from neighboring districts, so they leave their home base uncovered.

As I see it, the area of lifeguard coverage was written in a private contract, which gets void for the greater good. Given the information the guard had to the time he was informed, he had the impression of a life threatening emergency.
The warning signs in the uncovered areas are to prevent the owner of the beach from liabilities like law suits. Like when a borough puts up signs not to walk on frozen lakes, however they aren't allowed to deny emergency assistance when a kid breaks in.

Tribesman

07-06-12, 10:48 AM

kraznyi already answered the point, but I will reiterate that there are a series of Samaritan laws that compell a first responder to act in these situations. If he had not acted, he could be civilly and possibly criminally liable in the US.

Are you mixing duty to rescue laws good samaritan laws and "good samaritan" laws.
Good samaritan compels nothing and is irrelevant and duty to rescue is specific and I have already covered that, plus of course the warning signs give him an extra layer of protection.

little time on Google would have come up with that answer. You were probably too busy spaming :har: to do so.
Perhaps you should have googled yourself instead of your pathetic attempt at trying to insult:yep:

Your argument to fire this individual holds no muster over saving a life.
He didn't save a life and the arguement is that he broke the terms of his employment.
Perhaps you should check what you are arguing about before you say it doesn't muster.

Takeda Shingen

07-06-12, 10:58 AM

Perhaps you should have googled yourself instead of your pathetic attempt at trying to insult:yep:

Watch yourself. It's a long fall.

AVGWarhawk

07-06-12, 10:59 AM

Tribesman:
He didn't save a life and the arguement is that he broke the terms of his employment.
Perhaps you should check what you are arguing about before you say it doesn't muster.

No sir, the terms of employment are only partial of the discussion. As far as saving a life in this incident is immaterial to the discussion. The other part of the discussion, to which you believe he should have sat at his post, was he correct in attempting to help, assist or actually effect a rescue? Your argument does not hold muster in this respect. Saving a life take precedence over terms of employment.

Sailor Steve

07-06-12, 11:51 AM

I think the final argument that the firing was wrong is in the article Tribesman linked himself.
Given those circumstances, Lopez should not have been fired, Ellis said.
"It was not the appropriate course of action to take," he said.
I would say that outweighs any arguments to the contrary.

07-06-12, 12:00 PM

There is only one proper way to act in situation like this...that is to save life.
What is to argue here about:nope:

AVGWarhawk

07-06-12, 12:19 PM

And here is another:

Fran Cheney said he was criticized for his actions by a top fire department official for the rescue of Mary Jackson from a warehouse in the city’s Kensington section on Wednesday. After locating Jackson in a nearby second-floor bedroom, where she was gasping for breath in a smoke-choked room, Cheney gave the woman his mask.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/06/philadelphia-firefighter-reportedly-catches-heat-for-rescue-efforts/#ixzz1zrcrh7oJ

He has to go.......

Penguin

07-06-12, 12:33 PM

Did anyone else notice the striking similarity?

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6347/spockguard.jpg

:DL

AVGWarhawk

07-06-12, 12:37 PM

No, Spock was not much of a smiler. :O: :haha:

Penguin

07-06-12, 12:42 PM

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1201/smile-spock-smile-trek-demotivational-posters-1327100749.jpg

I do disagree :know: :O:

AVGWarhawk

07-06-12, 12:55 PM

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1201/smile-spock-smile-trek-demotivational-posters-1327100749.jpg

I do disagree :know: :O:

But if you read the poster, "It confuses people" Spock is not a smiler. :O:

Oberon

07-06-12, 01:31 PM

When my Granddad was a copper he once arrested someone for attempted suicide... :doh: That was the law back then...

AVGWarhawk

07-06-12, 02:39 PM

Fired lifeguard gets key to city! I believe dessenting opinion would indicate he did the correct thing despite company policy.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/07/06/fired-lifeguard-to-receive-key-to-city-in-hallandale-beach/

Fire him anyway....

Sailor Steve

07-06-12, 02:40 PM

And here is another:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/06/philadelphia-firefighter-reportedly-catches-heat-for-rescue-efforts/#ixzz1zrcrh7oJ

He has to go.......
Since Star Trek has already been tied in with this, I have to relate a very well-written piece of fiction. Part of the novelization of The Wrath Of Khan includes a classroom debate between Admiral Kirk and Lieutenant Savik. The question involve a lifeboat with not enough room, and who should be saved and who left behind. Savik insists that Star Fleet officers should be saved, because they are vital and trained personel are hard to replace. Kirk has to remind her that their whole purpose for existing is to protect the civilian populace, and saving themselves while leaving others behind is the one thing they must never do.

Bottom line is that I agree - if your purpose for having a job is to save lives, then saving a life is more important than anything else, including the possibility of losing another life, especially when it is nothing more than a possibility.

kraznyi_oktjabr

07-06-12, 03:01 PM

Redloc

07-06-12, 03:02 PM

Its simply an HR issue. He should be praised of course, but the company must have its employees follow its rules, and it must show consistency in its response.

Skybird

07-06-12, 03:10 PM

Since Star Trek has already been tied in with this, I have to relate a very well-written piece of fiction. Part of the novelization of The Wrath Of Khan includes a classroom debate between Admiral Kirk and Lieutenant Savik. The question involve a lifeboat with not enough room, and who should be saved and who left behind. Savik insists that Star Fleet officers should be saved, because they are vital and trained personel are hard to replace. Kirk has to remind her that their whole purpose for existing is to protect the civilian populace, and saving themselves while leaving others behind is the one thing they must never do.

I remember that scene from the book. For some reason, I LOVED the Star Trek novels by Vonda N. McIntyre, ST2, where the mentioned scene is from, I have read several times both in German and English. I still own them.

Another great ST novel is "Spock'S world".

Time to brag a bit :D: over 20 years ago, I even wrote a ST novel myself, set in the time between the movies ST5 and ST6. It was entitled Blutsschatten, got distributed via the German fandom, and was done on an Amiga 500 with 1 MB RAM and with Beckertext word processor where I had to load every chapter individually, since the RAM did not hold more pages than that: the novel had some 600 pages in normal book format. - It was not good enough to consider a professional release, but for a fan's work it was nice, I think, and had a good reputation for some short years in the fandom. I wrote several different things, but no other work I enjoyed to do as much as this one. It was great fun to write, although I needed to write almost one half of it two times, and parts of that even three times, to delete inconsistencies emerging when ST6 finally came to the cinemas.

:D Bragging over. It was a fan's fun. I know some people here are pro writers, I do not wish to compare it with their standards, of course. I wrote only two things that I had indeed considered for publication, a short novel of 90 pages named Picknick in Avalone, a story of self-discovery of a young British women after WWI into which i also injected a hommage to Ray Bradbury, and a re-translation of the Tao Te King.

kraznyi_oktjabr

07-06-12, 03:21 PM

... Time to brag a bit :D: over 20 years ago, I even wrote a ST novel myself, set in the time between the movies ST5 and ST6. It was entitled Blutsschatten, got distributed via the German fandom, and was done on an Amiga 500 with 1 MB RAM and with Beckertext word processor where I had to load every chapter individually, since the RAM did not hold more pages than that: the novel had some 600 pages in normal book format. - It was not good enough to consider a professional release, but for a fan's work it was nice, I think, and had a good reputation for some short years in the fandom. I wrote several different things, but no other work I enjoyed to do as much as this one. It was great fun to write, although I needed to write almost one half of it two times, and parts of that even three times, to delete inconsistencies emerging when ST6 finally came to the cinemas. ...Where can I find its English language edition?

Sci-Fi fan forever! :D

Skybird

07-06-12, 03:24 PM

Where can I find its English language edition?

I don't volunteer for that job. :O:

Tribesman

07-06-12, 07:09 PM

Watch yourself. It's a long fall.
Firstly take a look at terms and conditions applicable to the specific laws you are trying to throw around willy nilly.
If you are unable to then retire from the debate for being clueless then so be it.
If however you are ready to enter debate on the subject please explain how the terms of employment and conditions of employment rules do not apply in the arguemetnt you are trying to establish in regards to the proceedure and the laws covering itas the legal example you cite allows for those terms and conditions.....simple isn't it.

Fired lifeguard gets key to city! I believe dessenting opinion would indicate he did the correct thing despite company policy.

No that implies public consensus based on ignorance and media stories. How many people on this forum have claimed he saved a life by rescueing someone from the sea?

I think the final argument that the firing was wrong is in the article Tribesman linked himself.

Quote:

@steve
No that arguement is that the private company caved to totally uninformed public opinion, in terms of life saving that arguement has absolutely no validity.
There is only one proper way to act in situation like this...that is to save life.

terms and conditions apply MH
which if you look at any of the real laws Tak tries to use through google they are well catered for as its a serious issue:yeah:

@ AVG
No sir, the terms of employment are only partial of the discussion.
No the duty to rescue ("good samaritan") not good samaritan is entirely dependant on terms and conditions relating to employment.
It is the purpose of the law.
@Krnznji
Hard to say as I don't know that town.

It reinforces the point(I happened to be having dinner with that sergeant this evening) procesesess have to be followed as life saving is a bloody risky business.
At no point and under no circumstances should any beach lifeguard even consider the rescue I outlined and any that abandoed their post is guilty of gross neliigence of duty. any guadai or any fireman not designated trained and equipped for water rescue is likewise screwed. the RNLI are likewise contained as unless they can beat the designated police or fire service up river onshore then their job is to cover past the bottom bridge in the lifeboat for recovery.
Its a bit hard to discuss about this case based on news articles as they seem to be describing different incident.

Its the same incident but many people seem to be argueng for a fictional incident where they are getting an emotional angle on it:know:

Hard to say as I don't know that town.

I chose that as it is a good example, I could have picked a dozen other examples without going past Silver Strand any of which comes down to really bloody basic stuff, slack tide at Spanish Arch is another classic lesson which can easily be applied worldwide for Lifeguards or any other competant person.

Let me restate my position for anyone like Tak who missed it by a mile.
As a person Lopez did an action that may be justifiable even tough he didn't save a life and didn't rescue any one.
As a lifeguard he screwed up big time with no justification and has no recourse apart from the public opinion and bad publicity from people that don't understand what a life guard is.
Some people are letting their emotions rule their minds, I can undertand that on a snap decision but it doesn't make it right.

Takeda Shingen

07-06-12, 07:16 PM

I don't think that we're talking about the same thing anymore, Tribesman. Missed it by a mile indeed. You'll figure it out, but I am afriad it will be too late by that point. I hope I am wrong.

It's not your argument. It's not that you are right. It is the style of argument that you engage in. It's the emoticon spam and petty insults designed to inflame that are the problem. It's labeling people's efforts as pathetic that is the problem. To be totally honest with you, you're on pretty thin ice on this forum. You really need to keep the barbs and elbows out and the content in. Your content is always good. We could just use a whole lot less of the former.

Peace to you.

Sailor Steve

07-06-12, 08:06 PM

@steve
No that arguement is that the private company caved to totally uninformed public opinion, in terms of life saving that arguement has absolutely no validity.
When everyone disagrees with you, including the owner of the company, maybe it's time to admit that just once you might be wrong.

Let me restate my position for anyone like Tak who missed it by a mile.
No one missed anything. We simply agree that you are so tied up in the letter of the law that you're missing the spirit.

As a person Lopez did an action that may be justifiable even tough he didn't save a life and didn't rescue any one.
He had no way of knowing that. Someone pleaded for helped and he tried to help.

Conversely, while the company had the right to take the action they did, they were wrong to do so.

Some people are letting their emotions rule their minds, I can undertand that on a snap decision but it doesn't make it right.
It could equally be argued that you are doing the same. You took a stand, which is good, but now you are clinging to it as if you're afraid to even consider the other side.

Tribesman

07-07-12, 12:35 AM

When everyone disagrees with you, including the owner of the company, maybe it's time to admit that just once you might be wrong.

Its nothing new for me to be wrong, however I take water safety very seriously and Lopez was wrong to complain about the personal consequences of his actions and the media was wrong to convey his actions as something they were not.
The owner caving in due to public opinion sends out a worse message about his company than the initial dismissal does.

We simply agree that you are so tied up in the letter of the law that you're missing the spirit.

The spirit of the law is to make it clear when the letter of the other laws can be seen as contradictory. It is why it is totally different for Lifeguards in comnparison to police fire or ambulance crews.

I don't think that we're talking about the same thing anymore, Tribesman
It all hinges on those two words in post #11, personal consequences.
Likewise with your following post, he wasn't acting like a lifeguard, he was acting like a decent member of the public.

kraznyi_oktjabr

07-12-12, 08:17 AM

A non related question about Finnish jurisdiction: As you are a bilingual country and no translation is ever 100% exact. Do you know any cases where a defendant argued to use the law in one specific language - as there may be tiny differences in phrasing?Forgot to answer into this. I haven't heard any of such case. I have no idea what would be done if defendant pointed out such an minor but significant enough difference and at my knowledge there is no statute declaring precedence to either language in case of conflict.

Penguin

07-13-12, 10:48 AM

Forgot to answer into this. I haven't heard any of such case. I have no idea what would be done if defendant pointed out such an minor but significant enough difference and at my knowledge there is no statute declaring precedence to either language in case of conflict.

Thanks for the answer - I had forgotten about the question, either ;). Just had the idea when I read through the Swedish version of your code.
So I won't have a back door when I choose to become a criminal in Finland. :O:

kraznyi_oktjabr

07-13-12, 03:51 PM

Thanks for the answer - I had forgotten about the question, either ;). Just had the idea when I read through the Swedish version of your code.May I ask which languages you understand? :hmmm:
So I won't have a back door when I choose to become a criminal in Finland. :O:Unless you kill someone you most likely either get fines, probation (get-out-of-prison-card) or in worst case get short prison sentence. Consider it crash course into Finnish language without distractions from chasing skirts. :O:

Penguin

07-14-12, 11:52 AM

May I ask which languages you understand? :hmmm:
Besides German and English, I understand some Swedish.
I get along in France, learned some Spanish a long time ago, but without training, a language dries out.
I am trying to get the concept behind Finnish (did someone say logic?:88)), but manipulating my brain to be able to do so will probably keep me occupied the rest of my life - with much effort I might be able to say 'perkele' on my death bed :DL

Unless you kill someone you most likely either get fines, probation (get-out-of-prison-card) or in worst case get short prison sentence. Consider it crash course into Finnish language without distractions from chasing skirts. :O:
lol, well I would have the fear to be able to attend the course because I am chased by fat Matti who is not into skirts...
If you are a violent criminal, feel welcome in Germany.There may be punishments as severe as getting a lecture, for repeated offenders even with a raised index finger! :huh:
Be aware that while damaging persons is fine, don't damage property - or even worse finances. Robbing a bank, or tax fraud are serious offences - better kill someone here.

kraznyi_oktjabr

07-14-12, 01:28 PM

Besides German and English, I understand some Swedish.
I get along in France, learned some Spanish a long time ago, but without training, a language dries out.
I am trying to get the concept behind Finnish (did someone say logic?:88)), but manipulating my brain to be able to do so will probably keep me occupied the rest of my life - with much effort I might be able to say 'perkele' on my death bed :DLIn Central Finland Central Hospital there is one male nurse who has a bit strange accent in his otherwise clear finnish. He was from Germany and his excuse for moving to Finland and learning finnish was "Naiset". I let you to translate that and figure out what you could do to improve your finnish skills. :DL
lol, well I would have the fear to be able to attend the course because I am chased by fat Matti who is not into skirts...Just be carefull with soap. :03:
If you are a violent criminal, feel welcome in Germany.There may be punishments as severe as getting a lecture, for repeated offenders even with a raised index finger! :huh:
Be aware that while damaging persons is fine, don't damage property - or even worse finances. Robbing a bank, or tax fraud are serious offences - better kill someone here.It doesn't matter if you steal ***8364;20.00 or ***8364;2,000,000.00 punishment is essentially same but if you commit tax fraud you are the enemy of society #1.

There is one gentleman in finnish prison system who is serving his third life sentence for murder. He killed one person and got his first life sentence. After about 15 years in prison he got paroled. Within a month he was again arrested and convicted of murder. Another about 15 years goes on and he gets paroled again and within one WEEK police again arrest him for murder. Now he is serving his third so called "life sentence" and is "eligible" for customary parole within 10 years. :doh: It will be interesting to see to see what will happen next time...

Platapus

07-14-12, 06:36 PM

So Finland does not have any "continued detention" rules like some other countries in Europe?

kraznyi_oktjabr

07-15-12, 04:20 AM

So Finland does not have any "continued detention" rules like some other countries in Europe?There is no "continued detention" rule because only way inmate service life sentence can get out is by receiving either presidential pardon (earlier only way) or court mandated pardon (which in my opinion shouldn't have been introduced). In practice its customary to pardon/parole inmate roughly after 15 years this varies somewhat to both directions. Problem is that finnish juridical system treats criminals with very soft hand. As result we get cases like this: Jammu Siltavuori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_Siltavuori)

It have not always been that way. My father told me about case in 1960s where group of eight men was drunk and partying. Drunk brawl resulted in one of them dying. In court nobody was willing to tell who did it and therefore court was unable to determine which one of seven suspects was responsible. Instead of dismissing case court decided to share responsibility and everyone ended up serving 10 year sentence for homicide.

I don't say that latter case is optimal but its much better than what we have now! :nope: