Lifeguard fired for having rescued drowning man

@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.

On what possible basis?

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

On what possible basis?

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

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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/bro...8.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

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/bro...8.story?page=1

Read my comment slightly above...

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Although I know its kinda wrong to do that but I would recommend same thing.

[Takeda Shingen]

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 to do so. In any case, I am out of this one. I don't care for your style of argument; never have.

[AVGWarhawk]

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.

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 to do so.

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

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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 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]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

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
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?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Penguin

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]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

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.