Lifeguard fired for having rescued drowning man

[Platapus]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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]

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]

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

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

@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?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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

Nice one

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.