• 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

ecofarm said:
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'.
The article I read noted that he rendered assistance with a nurse until rescue arrived. The day wasn't saved yet.
Click to expand...
Perhaps...and perhaps he had gotten there in time and ACTUALLY saved the guy. It doesnt change the reality of what he was hired to do, by who, and consequences. And again...I dont BLAME the guy...I would say MOST people would respond in a similar manner. Like a lot of things...it could have been handled better.
 
marduc said:
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.
Click to expand...
So everyone is in agreement that the guy did what MOST would do, that the company was within its rights, and it could have been handled better. At the end of the day...that makes for a lousy news story...
 
What could have been handled better?
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well Vance all I can say is that my feeling and gut has served me well over many years and got me through some really rough spots...and Im still here....Ill stick with my gut...:)
 
marduc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, that very situation is covered in their training, as it is for military, bank and security guards. As "mean" as it may sound, they are expected to stay on post and to do their job. If they do not, as he was told IN ADVANCE, they will be terminated for cause. The end.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, that very situation is covered in their training, as it is for military, bank and security guards. As "mean" as it may sound, they are expected to stay on post and to do their job. If they do not, as he was told IN ADVANCE, they will be terminated for cause. The end.
Click to expand...

So he should have ignored it, or should he have gone to help knowing full well that it likely would result in his termination?? I guess the better way to get a more accurate clarification of your position is this: If it were you would you have stayed put, or gone running?
 
re: potential lawsuits

Even without a potential 4 yr old drowning in his area... if someone runs up and says, "There's a guy drowning down there (outside your area) that needs help!", and he just sits there, and the guy does die, he and/or the company could still be sued. The sign labeling the distinction would possibly be viewed as arbitrary. The beach/water, as literal entities, know no boundaries (in that area). It will be portrayed by the plaintiffs that there was a lifeguard on duty at the body of water and that lifeguard refused to do their lifeguarding.

One can be sued for ANYTHING. The plaintiff does not have to be legally correct. They may lose, but cases like this are emotional, and juries love emotion, so you never know. More likely, a settlement would be reached before it even got that far. Either way, the company (and/or the company's insurance company) is paying out money... for defense and/or settlement.

As has been mentioned: A no-win situation.
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
Well Vance all I can say is that my feeling and gut has served me well over many years and got me through some really rough spots...and Im still here....Ill stick with my gut...:)
Click to expand...

Give your brain a shot at some input every once in a while and you might have a hell of a combo! ;)

I get the feeling part. "in the moment" everyone reacts.
 
Last edited:
His contract probably has something like...


Section C: You are not a 911 emergency responder. Behaving as such around town is end of job.
 
radcen said:
re: potential lawsuits

Even without a potential 4 yr old drowning in his area... if someone runs up and says, "There's a guy drowning down there (outside your area) that needs help!", and he just sits there, and the guy does die, he and/or the company could still be sued. The sign labeling the distinction would possibly be viewed as arbitrary. The beach/water, as literal entities, know no boundaries (in that area). It will be portrayed by the plaintiffs that there was a lifeguard on duty at the body of water and that lifeguard refused to do their lifeguarding.

One can be sued for ANYTHING. The plaintiff does not have to be legally correct. They may lose, but cases like this are emotional, and juries love emotion, so you never know. More likely, a settlement would be reached before it even got that far. Either way, the company (and/or the company's insurance company) is paying out money... for defense and/or settlement.

As has been mentioned: A no-win situation.
Click to expand...

I agree with you for the most part. In our country these days anyone could be sued for anything. Especially if you are a company or government agency. It is freaking rediculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom