Lifeguard fired for having rescued drowning man

[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 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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Watch yourself. It's a long fall.

[AVGWarhawk]

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]

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.

[MH]

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

[AVGWarhawk]

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...#ixzz1zrcrh7oJ


He has to go.......

[Penguin]

Did anyone else notice the striking similarity?

[AVGWarhawk]

No, Spock was not much of a smiler.

[Penguin]

I do disagree

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I do disagree

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

[Oberon]

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

[AVGWarhawk]

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...landale-beach/

Fire him anyway....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

And here is another:



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/06...#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.