• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fla. lifeguard fired for rescue outside beach zone

notquiteright said:
Most city/county retirement plans are 401(k)s NOT pensions, for the most part that is an old saw drug out to promote 'outsourcing'.

Most public sector unions are quite weak compared to firefighter/police ones. Lawton, the biggest town to me, has a union but also has had 401(k) retirement plans for years.

As I mentioned my wife makes 50% more than a regular employee when she signs on as a contractor. Our insurance costs us $2.50 an hour.

Most reasons for outsourcing are excuses to feed taxpayer money to for profits businesses, so we taxpayers pay more for less.
Click to expand...
No...its not...but it does prove how little you understand about business. Major corporations, government entitities, hospitals, etc regularly contract out employment and service. It is more efficient, requires less HR presence, requires the contracted businesses to maintain training costs, licensing, etc.
 
MaggieD said:
He didn't see a person drowning. In fact, by the time he arrived on scene, the person had been pulled from the water. In the meantime, a 4-year-old girl drowned directly in front of the tower he was supposed to be sitting at. Get it?
Click to expand...

He heard there was a person drowning and needed help. Did a 4 year old drown here? No, and it was mentioned in the article that there were other lifeguards watching the area. So he is supposed to ignore the real and pressing issue of someone needing help just in case there is a chance that another person might drown, and not try to save a life in imminent danger?

edit.. from the linked article in the OP:

Other lifeguards watched Lopez's area during the rescue and were on the phone with 911 operators, the company said.

"The beach remained protected at all times," Ellis said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Case in point. People are constantly looking for a reason to sue.
Click to expand...
Yeah...precisely that. I can only hope he was intentionally being ironic and not tragically moronic.
 
apdst said:
Salaries + payroll taxes + regulatory expenses + insurance + bennies + unemployment insurance+ workman's comp + income taxes + incoporation costs = a big chunk out of 334 g's.

The last thing this company can afford is a million dollar lawsuit.

The national average profit of a corporation is 20% +/-. 20% of $334,000 is $66,800, which is the percentage of the gross, not the net. This company would have to fold up their tents and declare bankruptcy, which would result in everyone losing their jobs, not just one person.
Click to expand...


your right and you just painted the perfect portrait of why lawyers need to be thoroughly spanked and stopped from continuing the rapes they perpetrate
 
VanceMack said:
Yeah...precisely that. I can only hope he was intentionally being ironic and not tragically moronic.
Click to expand...

One of my new docs was a BC ob/gyn.. He delivered a drop in at end stage labor. She'd had no prenatal care.. and had four babies under 6 at home.

She proceeded to bleed out and he transfused her against the wishes of her husband.

Within 20 minutes a lawyer in Atlanta called re: a civil suit for violating her husband's religious beliefs.. Jehovah's Witness.

My CEO told them to pound sand.

You cannot make a young doctor party to a killing.. nor can you tell a lifeguard he has no right to rescue someone in trouble.
 
sharon said:
One of my new docs was a BC ob/gyn.. He delivered a drop in at end stage labor. She'd had no prenatal care.. and had four babies under 6 at home.

She proceeded to bleed out and he transfused her against the wishes of her husband.

Within 20 minutes a lawyer in Atlanta called re: a civil suit for violating her husband's religious beliefs.. Jehovah's Witness.

My CEO told them to pound sand.

You cannot make a young doctor party to a killing.. nor can you tell a lifeguard he has no right to rescue someone in trouble.
Click to expand...
You cant tell them they cant do it...free will and all. You CAN describe rules and parameters and if your employees break those rules enforce those rules. I GUARANTEE it...if someone had drowned while this guy was running down the beach in the area he was SUPPOSED to be watching he would have been sued as well. Lawsuits...its always the first response to everything.

I am empathetic to the guy. I respect his choice. I wouldnt have fired him. I understand both sides. Its not a 'lawsuit' issue, but as was pointed out...whats the FIRST thing someone does here...the guy should...what? Oh yeah...sue.

Classic.
 
muciti said:
Another scenario to consider here. What if while this guy went to save someone outside his zone, someone had drown in his zone? What if that were your child that drown in his zone while he was out saving this guy who went to a spot marked to swim at his own risk? I am not saying the guy did the wrong thing helping someone, but because of the sue happy culture we live in I can't blame the company for protecting themselves. The reality is if someone else had fallen victim while he was out doing the right thing, the injured party (or their family) wouldn't have cared that he was busy saving a life, they would only care that he should have been saving theirs. That is the culture we live in.
Click to expand...
There could have also been a scenario that he was recusing somebody who was in his area and somebody else drowned elsewhere in his designated area. We can play "What if... ?" all day. What if there were three lifeguards on duty in his designated area and four people were drowning at the same time?


MaggieD said:
He didn't see a person drowning. In fact, by the time he arrived on scene, the person had been pulled from the water. In the meantime, a 4-year-old girl drowned directly in front of the tower he was supposed to be sitting at. Get it?
Click to expand...
No, because that did NOT happen. It could have, but it didn't. Plus, as has been noted and confirmed, that there were other lifeguards on duty as well, so his beach was not left unguarded.
 
marduc said:
If I saw a person drowning, I don't give a **** what I am paid to do. I would not put my job or its "directives" above another person's life, nor would I expect anyone else to.
Click to expand...

But, of course, that was NOT the case. The person "helped" was ALREADY on the CLEARLY MARKED AS UNGUARDED beach being assisted by others, and paramedics were already on their way. When this "hero" arrived, after running about 1500 feet, he did exactly WHAT?. In the mean time, the guarding of the INTENDED public beach was diminished, by the voluntary absense of one of the assigned and PAID personnel.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
But, of course, that was NOT the case. The person "helped" was ALREADY on the CLEARLY MARKED AS UNGUARDED beach being assisted by others, and paramedics were already on their way. When this "hero" arrived, after running about 1500 feet, he did exactly WHAT?. In the mean time, the guarding of the INTENDED public beach was diminished, by the voluntary absense of one of the assigned and PAID personnel.
Click to expand...


if the lifeguard's assistance was not actually needed then why were his services summoned?
 
The lifeguard did what he was trained to do....its just like the COP standing on the border of his town and the next town and sees a crime in progress against a person that can cause harm...HE STOPS IT and his town covers him legally. Same with EMTs and fire they cross make believe lines all the time to save people.

This is absurd really...if your ass is up out of the water and your head was under and you needed a lifeguard to pull your head out of your ass YOU WOULD ALL BE HAILING THIS GUY A HERO and not defending anything else..
 
justabubba said:
if the lifeguard's assistance was not actually needed then why were his services summoned?
Click to expand...
Tyhe reason kind of illustrates the point, Bubba. Dood was 1500 feet away. Someone sees the guy in trouble and runs 1500 feet to tell the lifeguard "HEY...someone is drowning down there!" So the guy jumps down from his station and Baywatches it 1500 feet...thats 5 football fields to you and me...only to find that someone has already saved the day. Meanwhile, his section of beach is now at risk.

Its not an easy scenario...but again...its understandable WHY the lifeguard company has the rules.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But, of course, that was NOT the case. The person "helped" was ALREADY on the CLEARLY MARKED AS UNGUARDED beach being assisted by others, and paramedics were already on their way. When this "hero" arrived, after running about 1500 feet, he did exactly WHAT?. In the mean time, the guarding of the INTENDED public beach was diminished, by the voluntary absense of one of the assigned and PAID personnel.
Click to expand...

So he was supposed to magically know someone else was going to beat him to the scene when someone ran up to his station to tell him someone was drowning?

So what you expect the guy to sit on his ass and say "ohh someone is drowning.. I really hope someone else is able to save him. If he dies its his fault, I will just sit here and let it happen"
 
lpast said:
The lifeguard did what he was trained to do....its just like the COP standing on the border of his town and the next town and sees a crime in progress against a person that can cause harm...HE STOPS IT and his town covers him legally. Same with EMTs and fire they cross make believe lines all the time to save people.

This is absurd really...if your ass is up out of the water and your head was under and you needed a lifeguard to pull your head out of your ass YOU WOULD ALL BE HAILING THIS GUY A HERO and not defending anything else..
Click to expand...
No doubt...and thats not the point. Perhaps your problem is you are so overwhelmed with FEEELING that you simply miss the logic and reason. I dont see too many people unsympathetic to his plight.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That makes NO sense. Consider what we have HERE in THIS CASE. Two beaches, one guraded (at taxpayer expense) and one not guarded (and clearly posted as such). The PAID life guard LEFT his assigned post, at the supposed to be GUARDED beach, to "assist" in guarding the the clealy marked UNGUARDED beach. WHY was the distinction made in the first place? If I pay taxes for my "public" services, then I expect them to be used AS DIRECTED, thus they should remain guarding the assigned beach, AS THEY ARE PAID TO DO, and not to VOLUNTEER my (tax supported) services for the UNGUARDED beach instead.
Click to expand...
:lamo Dude, you are seriously amusing me now. I have this vision in my mind of you sitting at your computer, spittle running down your chin, because you are so angry to the point of cyber-yelling... probably even yelling out loud as you write... because you have been unable to "one up" me.

Enough of my amusement, though, let's examine what you wrote: Apparently, it's not even about corporate liability, it's about what YOU pay for as a taxpayer? Let them all die otherwise? Really? I can't argue "logic" like that. I won't even try to argue against this point. It's impossible. Wow. Just... wow. You're a peach. :roll:

If it will help your blood pressure, you are can consider yourself the victor, and are free to proclaim to all your Facebook friends how you beat me in this debate.
 
marduc said:
So he was supposed to magically know someone else was going to beat him to the scene when someone ran up to his station to tell him someone was drowning?

So what you expect the guy to sit on his ass and say "ohh someone is drowning.. I really hope someone else is able to save him. If he dies its his fault, I will just sit here and let it happen"
Click to expand...
How is it possible for you...lpast...and others to miss the blatant reality of the situation? No one is saying they BLAME the guy for responding. But...he was hired to guard a section of beach. The reason they HAVE lifeguards on the beach is for the 'what if' scenario. Now...what if...after running 5 football fields outside of his area of responsibility there was a REAL drowning IN his AOR? Some 4 year old gets swept out by an undertow...whatever. What does the company say to the family with regard to liability? "Well...Im SORRY junior drowned, but our lifeguard left the area he was supposed to be keeping safe to respond to a guy half a beach away that was luckily already pulled out of the water by others. Phew...right? That could have been REALLY tragic!"
 
radcen said:
There could have also been a scenario that he was recusing somebody who was in his area and somebody else drowned elsewhere in his designated area. We can play "What if... ?" all day. What if there were three lifeguards on duty in his designated area and four people were drowning at the same time?



No, because that did NOT happen. It could have, but it didn't. Plus, as has been noted and confirmed, that there were other lifeguards on duty as well, so his beach was not left unguarded.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. In our culture this man put this company at risk and all of his coworkers at risk, the other people on the beach at risk. He put the city at risk. This is the reality of his choice. What ifs are appliciable because the city and this company could have been sued. More people could have lost their jobs than just him because people want to award money for anything they can think of. You dont like companies making decisions like this, then the lawsuits in this country have to stop. Until that happens, you cant blame companies for protecting themselves.
 
justabubba said:
if the lifeguard's assistance was not actually needed then why were his services summoned?
Click to expand...
Right. Just because others pulled the guy out the water before he got there does not mean that the lifeguard's aid was no longer needed. In fact, he was probably the best qualified to render aid of anyone else there. Plus, according to the tv news report I had originally watched, the victim spent time in the hospital in critical condition, so it was obviously still serious even if the guy was on the beach and no longer in the water.
 
muciti said:
You are missing the point. In our culture this man put this company at risk and all of his coworkers at risk, the other people on the beach at risk. He put the city at risk. This is the reality of his choice. What ifs are appliciable because the city and this company could have been sued. More people could have lost their jobs than just him because people want to award money for anything they can think of. You dont like companies making decisions like this, then the lawsuits in this country have to stop. Until that happens, you cant blame companies for protecting themselves.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't miss the point, and if you go back and re-read what I have written thus far, it's not that far off from what you just wrote here. I acknowledge the company has real liability concerns. I acknowledge the company has real lawsuit concerns. I have clearly said, at least twice, that tort reform should be the major focus resulting from this incident.
 
radcen said:
No, I didn't miss the point, and if you go back and re-read what I have written thus far, it's not that far off from what you just wrote here. I acknowledge the company has real liability concerns. I acknowledge the company has real lawsuit concerns. I have clearly said, at least twice, that tort reform should be the major focus resulting from this incident.
Click to expand...

I gotcha. Sorry if i misunderstood.
 
VanceMack said:
How is it possible for you...lpast...and others to miss the blatant reality of the situation? No one is saying they BLAME the guy for responding. But...he was hired to guard a section of beach. The reason they HAVE lifeguards on the beach is for the 'what if' scenario. Now...what if...after running 5 football fields outside of his area of responsibility there was a REAL drowning IN his AOR? Some 4 year old gets swept out by an undertow...whatever. What does the company say to the family with regard to liability? "Well...Im SORRY junior drowned, but our lifeguard left the area he was supposed to be keeping safe to respond to a guy half a beach away that was luckily already pulled out of the water by others. Phew...right? That could have been REALLY tragic!"
Click to expand...
There have been a couple people in here who are blaming the guy for responding. Shoot, as I read it, there was a post or two that even blamed the drowning guy for drowning.
 
radcen said:
There have been a couple people in here who are blaming the guy for responding. Shoot, as I read it, there was a post or two that even blamed the drowning guy for drowning.
Click to expand...
I dont think you blame the drowning guy for drowning...but you DO accept certain levels of responsibility when you go to a beach that is posted NO LIFEGUARD just as you do swimming in a hotel pool posted NO LIFEGUARD. And I guarantee you...GUARANTEE you...you are singing a different tune if that what if scenario involved someone drowning because the guy that was responsible for overseeing that area was off someplace else.
 
radcen said:
And I don't discount that. Liability concerns for a company are indeed very real.
Click to expand...

Even without liability, a reputation of condoning responsibility taken outside the property is not good. More often than not, it results in getting in someone else's business and thus complications beyond the job site. Basically, the policy is: "look, you can do it but then you gotta find another job, so you better make sure it's worth it." That prevents screwin' around. The dude was convinced and said 'see ya'.

VanceMack said:
only to find that someone has already saved the day.
Click to expand...

The article I read noted that he rendered assistance with a nurse until rescue arrived. The day wasn't saved yet.
 
radcen said:
:lamo Dude, you are seriously amusing me now. I have this vision in my mind of you sitting at your computer, spittle running down your chin, because you are so angry to the point of cyber-yelling... probably even yelling out loud as you write... because you have been unable to "one up" me.

Enough of my amusement, though, let's examine what you wrote: Apparently, it's not even about corporate liability, it's about what YOU pay for as a taxpayer? Let them all die otherwise? Really? I can't argue "logic" like that. I won't even try to argue against this point. It's impossible. Wow. Just... wow. You're a peach. :roll:

If it will help your blood pressure, you are can consider yourself the victor, and are free to proclaim to all your Facebook friends how you beat me in this debate.
Click to expand...

Nobody died, noody was sued and nobody was "rescued" by the volunteer "hero" lifeguard. Someone was fired for leaving their assigned job, nothing more and nothing less. There are REASONS for designating, and guarding public swimming beaches, and there are REASONS for designating other areas as unguarded, and for posting "swim at your own risk" signs. Those too dense to recognize the difference, are not kept on as paid lifeguards. Chill yourself out, there Skippy.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
How is it possible for you...lpast...and others to miss the blatant reality of the situation? No one is saying they BLAME the guy for responding. But...he was hired to guard a section of beach. The reason they HAVE lifeguards on the beach is for the 'what if' scenario. Now...what if...after running 5 football fields outside of his area of responsibility there was a REAL drowning IN his AOR? Some 4 year old gets swept out by an undertow...whatever. What does the company say to the family with regard to liability? "Well...Im SORRY junior drowned, but our lifeguard left the area he was supposed to be keeping safe to respond to a guy half a beach away that was luckily already pulled out of the water by others. Phew...right? That could have been REALLY tragic!"
Click to expand...

ohh, I understand the what if's. I still do not blame the guy for what he did, I would do the same thing, and I would hope others did as well.

As I said earlier.. even if it did mean I were to get fired I would not sit on my ass and let this go without responding.

And it does seem that twtt is upset and is blaming the guy because the guy did try to save his life, and is blaming him for leaving the guarding of the beach 'diminished". It seems he expects the guy to do nothing because tax dollars are involved and that tax dollars were more important and he shold have sat on his ass - I say **** that the guy did what he thought was right, and I would fully expect anyone in his shoes to do the same and not sit on their ass when they might be able to help.

What if a 4 year old drowned? that would be tragic, but as said in the article there were other lifeguards there and the beach was NOT left unprotected. If you have a chance to save a life, or think that you are needed to save a life you are to ignore it based on what if's?? You respond to what is on your plate at the time.

I understand the liability issue for the company, but I also understand the humanity issue for the individual, and he determined it outweighed the rules. I agree. I also agree that the company was int heir right for firing him, as I alluded to in previous posts. He did what he had to do, they did what they had to do. Its an unfortunate situation, but it all worked out for the best.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nobody died, and nobody was "rescued" by the volunteer "hero" lifeguard. Someone was fired for leaving their assigned job, nothing more and nothing less. There are REASONS for designating, and guarding public swimming beaches, and REASONS for designating other areas as unguarded and posting "swim at your own risk" signs. Those too dense to recognize the difference, are not kept on as paid lifeguards. Chill yourself out, there Skippy.
Click to expand...

Alright Skippy, so do you or do you not expect people to ignore someone in need of help because it is outside their designated area? Someone ran up to the guy and said "someone is drowning" should he have sat on his ass and not tried to help when he thought it was needed? the fact that it all turned out for the best is irrelevant here, he had no way of knowing this at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom