• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Lifeguard’s controversial firing under review (we all know what state it is)

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vermillion

Banned
Yahoo said:
Amid a public outcry, officials in Florida say they plan to review whether the firing of a lifeguard who left his "zone" to help save a swimmer was justified.

Tomas Lopez, the 21-year-old lifeguard, was fired on Monday after he left his station to help a man who had been pulled out of the water in an unprotected area of Hallandale Beach. According to the Orlando Sun Sentinel, Lopez and an off-duty nurse tended to the man, a 21-year-old from Estonia, until paramedics arrived. The man—who is recovering at a local hospital—was in a "swim at your own risk" area of the beach about 1,500 feet south of the boundary lifeguards are expected to patrol.

"I was on stand, and guests came up to me and told me there was someone drowning, that people were screaming and so I started running in the direction," Lopez told NBC Miami. "I ran out to do the job I was trained to do—I didn't think about it at all."

Lopez' dismissal sparked near-immediate criticism; two fellow guards quit in protest.

"We are not a fire-rescue operation," Jeff Ellis, head of company that manages the lifeguards, told the paper. "We are strictly a lifeguard organization—we limit what we do to the protected swimming zones that we've agreed to service." The company has provided lifeguards for the area's public beaches and pools since 2003.

"We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area," Lopez's supervisor, Susan Ellis, told WPTV. "What he did was his own decision. He knew the company rules and did what he thought he needed to do."

"If we find our actions on the part of the leadership team were inappropriate, we will rectify it based upon the information that comes forward," Ellis added. The review is expected to be completed Friday.

"We take the safety of all visitors to our beaches very seriously," Hallandale Beach City Manager Renee Crichton said in a statement. "Whether they are in a protected area or unprotected area, we believe aid must be rendered."
Click to expand...

Source

I mean, the man saved a life. Have a heart.

No, I am NOT trying to find news on Florida, it just happens this way, front page
 
R

ReturnOfTheRAT

Member
There was a thread about the initial firing yesterday. It definitely has to be under review because the rule is flawed. Anyone with commonsense would be outraged over the dismissal.
 
C

Chuckl3s

Member
We should start a indiegogo.

On a serious note, that life guard doesn't deserve his job taken away. He did what he was trained to do.
 
Mikey Jr.

Mikey Jr.

Member
People: Lifeguard! Help! A man just drowned! You need to save his life!

Lifeguard: I am sorry. I need to stay in my designated zone. He has to die.


Is this what those fucks wanted?
 
T

TheJollyCorner

Member
daycru said:
Saving lives is bad for business. Fuck off.
Click to expand...

or "saving lives could cost us a lawsuit!" Unfortunate and understandable from a business perspective, since everyone loves to sue these days, but obvious exceptions should be made. A situation like this is a no brainer. The guy's a lifeguard, he saved a life... it was just 'outside of the normal parameters' or whatever wordy bullshit they feel like using.

Good on Mr. Lopez.
 
C

Cubsfan23

Banned
Work or no work, it's your natural instinct to go after people who need help, especially if you're trained for it.


it would be like an off duty police officer saving somebody in another state, and getting reprimanded for it.
 
M

massoluk

Banned
Fire the company, hire another company with more humanity. I wouldn't trust the company that doesn't put human life above all else.
 
D

Deified Data

Banned
Tough call. Were there people swimming in the lifeguard's area of juristiction? Could they have been at risk if his attention were diverted?

I obviously don't think he should be fired. He probably shouldn't have left his post, either. So what, let the person drown? I can't pretend to know what the right choice would be.
 
W

winjet81

Member
I'll guarantee that a shady law firm is going to seek out the person who was saved and then find a way to sue both the lifeguard company and the city.
 
E

Enco

Member
Fired for doing your job of saving people. Cool.

Yes it was risky but it's in the fucking title. Life GUARD. Jeez. Like a cop not stopping a mugging because he's on his break.
 
E

echoshifting

Banned
massoluk said:
The drowning victim can't shoot back at the lifeguard or hurt other patrons, so probably not.
Click to expand...

In fairness, however, a person could feasibly be injured in the area the lifeguard is supposed to be monitoring while he was engaged elsewhere. This would be a much different story under those circumstances.

I still think he did the right thing, but the comparison is apt. There is a chance, however remote, for bodily harm which the company would be held liable for.
 
S

sangreal

Member
he was offered his job back but he is too busy milking the media atm. there is already a thread on this story with a few hundred posts. probably on the first page too


balladofwindfishes said:
this is a non-issue, he alerted other guards that he would be out of his patrol, that they should keep an eye on it
Click to expand...

If that is sufficient then they didn't need him in the first place
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
sangreal said:
he was offered his job back but he is too busy milking the media atm.
Click to expand...

why would he want to go back to a place that puts money above human safety? Obviously they do not share the same values he does

sangreal said:
If that is sufficient then they didn't need him in the first place
Click to expand...

Because obviously there are NEVER any times at all when having just two life guards instead of three while one goes and saves someone's life means that beach never ever ever ever in a million years needed three life guards and it was a better investment to just wash money away. Nice!
 
G

Ghost_Protocol

Member
The Faceless Master said:
so this is basically like the store employees that chase down thieves against company policy?
Click to expand...

No, chasing down thieves is something completely unnecessary and dangerous and something every retail employee knows they aren't supposed to do. A lifeguard leaving his "zone" to save a drowning man is not the same thing.
 
M

Marty Chinn

Member
Ghost_Protocol said:
No, chasing down thieves is something completely unnecessary and dangerous and something every retail employee knows they aren't supposed to do. A lifeguard leaving his "zone" to save a drowning man is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

But isn't the end result the same? Liability issues that can cause a huge lawsuit.
 
Freshmaker

Freshmaker

I am Korean.
TheJollyCorner said:
or "saving lives could cost us a lawsuit!" Unfortunate and understandable from a business perspective, since everyone loves to sue these days, but obvious exceptions should be made. A situation like this is a no brainer. The guy's a lifeguard, he saved a life... it was just 'outside of the normal parameters' or whatever wordy bullshit they feel like using.

Good on Mr. Lopez.
Click to expand...
I don't really get their thinking here.

Not saving the guy wouldn't result in a lawsuit?
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Marty Chinn said:
But isn't the end result the same?
Click to expand...

uhh... no?

In one situation the end result is that the innocent stands to harm himself or others by irresponsibly chasing after a criminal he should not do, over some money. If he didn't chase after the criminal, only money is lost.

In the other, the man is trained to rescue someone. Had the person been a few meters to the left, he would have had no problems saving him, and it's his job to save people. If he didn't save the man, the innocent man drowning stood a high chance of dying.

So unless you're saying some cash register money is the same as a guy's life, then no, the end result is absolutely not the same.
 
M

Marty Chinn

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
uhh... no?

In one situation the end result is that the innocent stands to harm himself or others by irresponsibly chasing after a criminal he should not do, over some money. If he didn't chase after the criminal, only money is lost.

In the other, the man is trained to rescue someone. Had the person been a few meters to the left, he would have had no problems saving him, and it's his job to save people. If he didn't save the man, the innocent man drowning stood a high chance of dying.

So unless you're saying some cash register money is the same as a guy's life, then no, the end result is absolutely not the same.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is in both cases there are liability issues that can cause a lawsuit to the parent company. Regardless of right or wrong, the issue is liability. That is why these people are fired; not because the parent company wanted the person to drown. The problem is people can't separate the two. Morally it was the right thing to do, and everything turned out ok, but what happened if it didn't? The liability the parent company would be under is huge and that's why they have these policies that seem dumb to others. Let's say he went and saved the person and then someone drowned that was within his area that he's normally responsible for, you don't see how that is a problem? There are many instances where people don't do the right/moral thing to do because of liability.

Freshmaker said:
How does that prevent them from being sued by a grieving family if the lifeguard was right there?

The lifeguard would end up like those paramedics who were on break.
Click to expand...

The lifeguard might be sued, not the company who hired him.
 
G

greepoman

Member
j_k_redtail said:
Since when do we fire people for supererogatory behavior? Give that man a medal.
Click to expand...

Fear of lawsuits does strange things. I wouldn't be surprised if some people saw this story and then plotted to re-create this by having a decoy person pull a lifeguard away then have another person "almost" drown in the official area then sue because they didn't have the proper # of lifeguards watching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Baldur’s Gate 3’s Patch 7 is live, huge patch notes!
2
66
5K
Cyberpunkd replied
Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
143
11K
BadBurger replied
Hidetaka Miyazaki Guardian interview: "I have always felt that the world was a harsh place"
6
1K
March Climber replied
Phil Spencer interview - Says that their intent is for all Xbox games, including Call of Duty, to be available on Xbox Game Pass Day One
2 3
102
9K
Kenneth Haight replied
  • Poll
Et tu, Brute?
Poll 2
51
4K
TrueLegend replied
Top Bottom