Thursday, 5 July 2012

Lifeguard fired after rescuing drowning man on Florida beach

quote [ A young lifeguard in Florida has lost his job after rescuing a drowning man in a section of beach he was not assigned to patrol, local news media reported Wednesday. ]

Fired from his $8.25 an hour job for saving a man's life. He needs a new job. And since he is a proven go getter and problem solver, a hefty raise.
[by * (The Asshole FKA Morris)@4:18pmGMT] [+10 WTF]

Comments

feldenglas said @ 4:32pm GMT on 5th Jul
If he let the man die, would they have kept him on?
incpenners said @ 12:34am GMT on 6th Jul
Who, the dead guy?

I'm pretty sure they would have buried him.
incpenners said @ 12:40am GMT on 6th Jul [Score:3 Informative]
In all seriousness, I would strongly suggest reading 'Drowning Doesn't Look Like Drowning' if you never have.
incpenners said @ 12:51am GMT on 6th Jul
Fuck it, here's the article.


Drowning Doesn’t Look Like Drowning


The new captain jumped from the deck, fully dressed, and sprinted through the water. A former lifeguard, he kept his eyes on his victim as he headed straight for the couple swimming between their anchored sportfisher and the beach. “I think he thinks you’re drowning,” the husband said to his wife. They had been splashing each other and she had screamed but now they were just standing, neck-deep on the sand bar. “We’re fine, what is he doing?” she asked, a little annoyed. “We’re fine!” the husband yelled, waving him off, but his captain kept swimming hard. ”Move!” he barked as he sprinted between the stunned owners. Directly behind them, not ten feet away, their nine-year-old daughter was drowning. Safely above the surface in the arms of the captain, she burst into tears, “Daddy!”


How did this captain know – from fifty feet away – what the father couldn’t recognize from just ten? Drowning is not the violent, splashing, call for help that most people expect. The captain was trained to recognize drowning by experts and years of experience. The father, on the other hand, had learned what drowning looks like by watching television. If you spend time on or near the water (hint: that’s all of us) then you should make sure that you and your crew knows what to look for whenever people enter the water. Until she cried a tearful, “Daddy,” she hadn’t made a sound. As a former Coast Guard rescue swimmer, I wasn’t surprised at all by this story. Drowning is almost always a deceptively quiet event. The waving, splashing, and yelling that dramatic conditioning (television) prepares us to look for, is rarely seen in real life.


The Instinctive Drowning Response – so named by Francesco A. Pia, Ph.D., is what people do to avoid actual or perceived suffocation in the water. And it does not look like most people expect. There is very little splashing, no waving, and no yelling or calls for help of any kind. To get an idea of just how quiet and undramatic from the surface drowning can be, consider this: It is the number two cause of accidental death in children, age 15 and under (just behind vehicle accidents) – of the approximately 750 children who will drown next year, about 375 of them will do so within 25 yards of a parent or other adult. In ten percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch them do it, having no idea it is happening (source: CDC). Drowning does not look like drowning – Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard’s On Scene Magazine, described the instinctive drowning response like this:

1. Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled, before speech occurs.

2. Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.

3. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water, permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.

4. Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.

5. From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.

(Source: On Scene Magazine: Fall 2006 (page 14))



This doesn’t mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn’t in real trouble – they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the instinctive drowning response, aquatic distress doesn’t last long – but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc.
Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water:

• Head low in the water, mouth at water level

• Head tilted back with mouth open

• Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus

• Eyes closed

• Hair over forehead or eyes

• Not using legs – Vertical

• Hyperventilating or gasping

• Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway

• Trying to roll over on the back

• Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder.

So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK – don’t be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don’t look like they’re drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, “Are you alright?” If they can answer at all – they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents – children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why.
(See a video of the Instinctive Drowning Response)


___________
incpenners said @ 12:51am GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
Bleh. Too much scotch, go with the link.
Anti-fuites said @ 12:56am GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Informative]
And for our visual learners, found this on the same guy's facebook page


Drowning signs aren't like the movies: wivb.com

happiest_sadist said @ 9:08am GMT on 6th Jul
It was amazing to me to see how fast that lifeguard came in.
Crap, I thought I was a quick swimmer. He hit that guy like a life-saving orca!
incpenners said @ 11:40am GMT on 6th Jul
I was a lifeguard for six years. The greatest danger to a lifeguard is that the drowner is in a panic and will try to 'climb' you out of the water. You have to catch them by surprise and overpower them, or you're dead too.
KingPellinore said @ 12:19pm GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Informative]
I was swimming at a lake a few years ago. It had a roped off section that was more or less like a beach area. As there was a drop off outside the roped off area, going outside the ropes was a no no. But, you always have people who like to flout the rules.

This guy and his girlfriend decided they wanted to swim out to a buoy some 20 or 30 yards past the rope. Apparently, she wasn't a strong swimmer, so they put her on an inflatable raft and he pulled her behind him.

The raft tipped. She panicked.

He was dead when they brought him out of the water. She was alive because she did exactly what you describe. Climbed him like a ladder, except she did't go up. He went down.

I only know that much from asking around after the incident. In actuality, I didn't know anything was wrong until they brought him out of the water.
Ubie said @ 2:14pm GMT on 6th Jul [Score:2 Informative]
Yup, pretty much rule one is to always approach a drowning victim from behind, and failing that from below and behind. We were also taught that if they do 'latch' to take them underwater and if the don't immediately let to go physically attack them. A drowning person is freakishly strong and at that point it becomes a you die or they die situation until you can regain control.

IIRC our physical test requirements were something like:
Swim 500 meters in under 10min
Swim 50 meters underwater in under 30 seconds
Swim 100 meters sidestroke while holding a 20lb brick in under 90 seconds
Tread water while holding a 20lb brick above your head with two hands for 120 seconds
While blindfolded find a 20lb brick in 12' of water and surface with it in 30 seconds

In addition to all the physical rescue simulation tests. I'm sure other programs had similar and probably tougher requirements, my class was geared toward pool and lakeside guarding, not ocean.
incpenners said @ 11:42pm GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
That's basically the program I had.

For the 'final' test we had to pull the instructor out of a 22' diving well. He weighed about 190, I weighed about 135. He started as 'dead weight', then 'snapped to' and started to fight. You had to do the under & up on him, or he'd fail you.

The job had many perks. Awesome tan. Tips when you worked private parties. Tons of very attractive girls, dressed in next to nothing.

I mainly worked apartment complexes and public pools and was able to keep the heroics to a minimum. I did keep the letters from grateful parents of the kids I plucked out.

About 6 or 7 years ago I came upon a storm-swollen river that some dipshit adventurers got into, way over their heads. I was barely... barely... able to get them out by going in after them, with help of people on shore. I've learned two things: one, you never forget that training, to the point that you're never relaxed around water. And two, if you're fool enough to jump into a raging river at my age, you're glad you had the training, because without it you'd be dead.

KingPellinore said @ 12:09am GMT on 7th Jul
You know, for all your douchebaggery, I respect that story. I owe you a beer.
mrcucumber said @ 1:50pm GMT on 7th Jul
I don't understand. The contradiction is ....?

You pride yourself on, and espouse ideology of self sustaining individual responsibility yet you recount stories of saving people from drowning in water. They simply either made a mistake, or "got in over their head"(pun intended). Why would you have to cover for their miscalculation? Is it the accolades? You are the authority figure?

It just doesn't make any sense. Where do you get the humanity to aid those in need(of having their lives saved), yet when it comes to economics, poverty, or social issues you want to let the weak and disenfranchised die off - with no responsibility on your part. It's ok then to create a society that allows a slow death, but a quick one is unacceptable?

I don't get it.
cb361 said @ 2:30pm GMT on 7th Jul
Unfortunately yo can't trust anything he's ever said about policits. It reminds me of v@tsol's 'where were you on 9/11' story. You can't act like a caricature, and then expect people to forget about it when you decide to open up. And you can't blatantly mislead about shit, and then expect people to believe you when you tell the truth. If someone wants to play games like that, they ought to have separate handles for their troll and friendly accounts.
incpenners said @ 6:01pm GMT on 7th Jul
Forgive me if I don't live up to the stereotype that you've constructed in your head.
cb361 said @ 8:16pm GMT on 7th Jul
It's the stereotype you've created.
happiest_sadist said @ 6:15am GMT on 8th Jul
Do you mean the one you have created in others' heads?

How about some personal responsibility here?
happiest_sadist said @ 6:20am GMT on 8th Jul
Presumably he was paid to be a lifeguard. Saving lives and rendering aid comes with that job. It can be a good-paying job, well worth having. It ought to be, since in some cases the required certifications cost a lot to earn. Also, in some circumstances a holder of such certifications has a Duty to Rescue as mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Of course this varies with jurisdiction, elapsed time, and other factors.

Of course, it's entirely possible that in that river-rescue story he might well have been no longer certified or otherwise not under any legal duty, and just gave those poor "dipshit adventurers" a freebie. That dirty, life-saving slut.
happiest_sadist said @ 6:53am GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Thanks penners, this stuff is important to know.
endopol said @ 5:24pm GMT on 5th Jul
Good because he knew he might be fired and still did it. and because the public outcry will probably lead to better regulation of private contractors in the health & safety sector.
theolypse said @ 9:37pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
This is cute. You really mean this? Remember, it's Florida.
backSLIDER said @ 10:55pm GMT on 5th Jul
If I was a smart guy with a life guard co. In california I would be on the phone with him right now. You can buy that good press.
TheThirstyMonk said @ 10:57pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
Right, but this is Florida...
scojam said @ 5:53pm GMT on 5th Jul
No initiative will go unpunished. In a Hollywood movie the guy he saved would have turned out to be multi-millionaire and hired him to be a lifeguard for his pool. The Porno industry would have a sequel out one day after the release.
cool_drool said @ 6:16pm GMT on 5th Jul
The guy screwed up. He didn't follow his corporate policy. Wah...

In reading, their policy is if the LG can see the person, to assist in the rescue. This guy ran 600 yards down the beach, because someone told him there was a drowning person. He couldn't see that far away. It could have just as easily been high school kids punking him, to see how far they could make the LG run. Had someone in his "area of responsibility" actually of drowned while he was 600 yards away chasing down a prank, everyone on here would have been agreeing he deserved to get fired.

After running 600 yards, would he be fit to swim out 100+ yards to save someone? Beach patrols are quite common in the summer in Florida. I'm guessing that calling 911 and having them dispatched to the location is probably just as fast as him running 600 yards, seeing someone too far out for him to safely get to / rescue, and having to go ahead and call 911 at that point, the entire time leaving his assigned area unprotected.

It's the city's fault anyway, for only contracting for certain stretches to be guarded, in an effort to save money in their budget.

Bottom line, blame the guard, blame the city, but it's not his employers fault they had those stipulations.
saranated said @ 6:34pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
I agree that fault lies with the city and not the employer. I completely understand their position.

However, I'm apprehensive to blame the guard at all. He was in a job where he was charged with protecting beach-goers. I think there is a certain psychology of responsibility that goes along with such a job. Someone came up to him and asked him for help because someone else was in mortal danger. That is an incredibly difficult situation. Either he can risk the death of some unknown person he is capable of helping or leave his stretch of beach derelict for what will probably be a significant amount of time to try to save someone. Either way, he has to live with those consequences and I, personally, would have a very difficult time dealing with someone dying while I was on duty as a lifeguard.
GordonGuano said @ 6:34pm GMT on 5th Jul
I think I saw that episode of Baywatch but something else crowded the relevant details out of my mind...
theolypse said @ 9:38pm GMT on 5th Jul
It would have to be pretty large. I mean, those are some juicy, uh, details.
atter_cob said @ 7:26pm GMT on 5th Jul
What do you mean "blame the city"?? Do they have an unlimited budget to post lifeguards along the whole coast? What about all the lakes and canals? Have you been to Florida? You can't walk 30 feet without running to some sort of body of water.

If people want a multitude of lifeguards then they can vote to pay the taxes to pay them. Barring that option, the cities need to set aside a reasonable budget and then chose where to put them.

If that means some areas of the beach have no life guards, then why should that be a problem? Does the mere existence of coastline compel people to go swim there? Is there some reason they can't look at the sign saying "swim here at you own fucking risk" and then not move 500 yards to a place where there is a lifeguard?

IMO the person at fault here is the guy who chose to swim where there was no lifeguard. If you're going to do that then 1) make sure you are a good swimmer, and 2) have a buddy along to help you if something happens.
cool_drool said @ 8:00pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
I forgot to blame the guy drowning.... Good catch :) Thanks. He was at the top of my list, I just over looked his culpability.

arrowhen said @ 8:22pm GMT on 5th Jul
Stupid victims! Jerks!
ENZ said @ 8:23pm GMT on 5th Jul
I forgot to blame the guy drowning

You sound like a truly repugnant individual.
b said @ 8:28pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
You sound like a guy that missed the joke...
ENZ said @ 8:38pm GMT on 5th Jul
His posts follow the pattern of chastising a dude for saving a life, even if that one was meant to be sarcastic I stand by my claim.
theolypse said @ 9:39pm GMT on 5th Jul
He was sarcastically pointing out that atter did, in fact, blame the guy drowning, in all seriousness.
atter_cob said @ 9:51pm GMT on 5th Jul
Well, if you ignore a warning sign, and then get into trouble then why is it not your fault?

It's not like he was the victim of a crime where he was attacked by some asshole. In that case blaming him is a shitty way to try to shift responsibility from the criminal to the victim.

Here there was no criminal, just nature. I guess you could blame god it you wanted. Personally, I think people need to take responsibility for their own actions.
insanemonkey said @ 11:36pm GMT on 5th Jul
So he should have just sat there and watched them die? Is that what you would have done?
atter_cob said @ 1:17am GMT on 6th Jul
No, as you can see posted elsewhere, I think the lifeguard did the exactly correct thing: he got someone to cover his post and ran to investigate the person in distress to whom he then rendered aid. I'm just objecting to the people who think it's reasonable to "blame" the city for not posting lifeguards all along the coast.
theolypse said @ 1:30am GMT on 6th Jul
I wasn't speaking on or against your behalf. Just addressing some confusion elsewhere.
lilmookieesquire said @ 12:53am GMT on 6th Jul
That's the joke. Haha.
arrowhen said @ 8:18pm GMT on 5th Jul
I remember a couple occasions swimming in Florida where I'd look up and realize that while I'd been happily bobbing in the waves like the world's fattest, hairiest rubber ducky, the current had carried me half a mile down the beach from where I started. So the dude could very well have started off in guarded water and not realized how far he'd drifted
It's not like they paint big yellow lines on the surface of the ocean.

Either way, when someone's life is on the line you help first and worry about the details later, just like you'd want the other guy to do if it was you going under.

Also, FUCK I miss living in Florida. :(
atter_cob said @ 9:46pm GMT on 5th Jul
Yeah, I agree that if you see someone in danger then you try to help unless it would endanger you more than is reasonable. (For some reasonable definition of "reasonable".)

But, if you get in the water then you do take a certain responsibility for what happens to you. That means you need to be aware if you're getting to deep or far from the lifeguard, or whatever. If things go wrong you can't just go blaming other people for it... because at some level you have to be responsible for yourself.

It's not like a crime where the attacker is clearly the person to blame and blaming the victim is totally inappropriate. Shit happens in nature and aside from blaming an imaginary god, the best you can do is see if people took reasonable precautions.
endopol said @ 7:32pm GMT on 5th Jul
If people were drowning left and right on his stretch of beach, then he could be faulted for taking the 5 minutes or so to investigate a reported drowning. We don't know, even roughly, what sort of risk he was taking. I don't think the company policy that got him fired was a result of a careful weighing of risks, but instead a lawsuit-shy observation of their nominal responsibilities to the city.

Also, I think that your average lifeguard/emt doesn't spend much time worrying "Am I being punked?"
cool_drool said @ 8:01pm GMT on 5th Jul
I know I used that as the example, but it's not so much am i being punked, it's that 600 yards is one hell of a sprint. I don't think anyone is in much condition to do alot of saving after sprinting 600 yards, and if you aren't sprinting the 600 yards, you're probably better off calling 911.
Dioxin said @ 8:10pm GMT on 5th Jul
So you're saying because he might not have been in pristine physical condition to save someone after sprinting 600 yards, he should have let this person drown.
theolypse said @ 9:40pm GMT on 5th Jul
He's saying that, as responsible as saving a life was, it seems even more responsible to radio ahead to persons better situated to save that life.
Dioxin said @ 4:41am GMT on 6th Jul
How does he know anyone's better situated? It's just a guess that there's "probably" someone close by, versus the certainty of how fast he could make it over there.
theolypse said @ 1:57am GMT on 7th Jul
As elsewhere on this post, I'm not taking a side, merely translating.
Silent said @ 11:00pm GMT on 5th Jul
What if he didn't start the run knowing it was going to be 600 yards?
EPT said @ 5:01am GMT on 13th Jul
"and if you aren't sprinting the 600 yards, you're probably better off calling 911"

By the time you've dialed 911 and gotten through and described your second-hand version of events, you're already halfway to 600 yards. Point is, the lifeguard is emergency services for that particular task. Anyone 911 has to dispatch still has to get there, still has to establish a first-hand version of events.

Besides, when a person is asphyxiated, there is absolutely no time to lose - why gamble that 911 just happens to have a paramedic nearby? What if the paramedics are in a busy spot at the moment?
spite48 said @ 8:00pm GMT on 5th Jul
Firing him was probably an over-reaction that they will regret.
smoug said @ 8:07pm GMT on 5th Jul
I don't think anyone here would typically claim he'd deserved to get fired in any of the aforementioned hypothetical scenarios. In fact, I think the only scenario most people here would've gotten truly upset about would be if the man had done what he was 'supposed' to do and ignored the out-of-bounds drowning man.
happiest_sadist said @ 7:28am GMT on 6th Jul
From the posted article it's not clear whether he actually saw the victim drowning or not. There's no reason to assume the guy can't see 600 yards. Granted that's really fucking far but then it's mostly flat, probably well lit, and (being a lifeguard) he's probably got an elevated vantage (the guard stand).
Unfortunately, the posted article doesn't address these details so much. In particular, it doesn't mention that the lifeguard ran to rescue based on someone else's information rather than his own sighting.
If you have sources of better information, can you post them please?

Also, I suspect the "600 yards" figure might not be entirely accurate. The link is to the Toronto Globe and Mail, and while their staff writers are probably capable of converting metres to yards, that's really fucking far again. Maybe there's a 'telephone game' situation going on.
atter_cob said @ 6:19pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:2]
The private company makes money by the linear foot for beach they are guarding. If someone dies then there would be an outcry of we need more lifeguards and they would make money. If the guy saves someone then they don't make money.
willrogers said @ 9:11pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
I think it's more that they are contracted for one area of the beach and their insurance policy only covers the for which they've been contracted. If one of their employees does something civilly actionable on beach upon which they don't have a contract, then they are opening themselves up to a liability that isn't covered by their insurance.

That said, I don't see how this excuse would actually protect them and prevent them for being sued by someone drowning in adjacent, uncovered waters. A jury is likely going to rule in favor of the plaintiff(s) because the lifeguards are trained professionals that could have saved the person(s) life but chose not to in order to protect themselves from some nebulous financial risk.

It's kind of like an armed security guard doing nothing to stop a rape because it's happening a few feet off his employer's property. He has the skills and tools to save the victim, but does nothing out of some stupid corporate legal policy.
lilmookieesquire said @ 12:27am GMT on 6th Jul
I'm pretty sure that that management is protecting themselves from liability.
I'm also pretty sure that two guys probably in the past gotten together on a beach and fake a drowning incident on one part of the beach while someone from another part of the beach files a lawsuit against the lifeguard company for not being knowingly 100% protected blah blah blah.

Still though, the company handled it really poorly in that:

1) Managment came off as absolute dicks in being so cd blooded about it.

2) It's a really really horrible PR and as a company, they were probably realistically better off just sweeping it under the carpet and exposing themselves to a little risk.

Still though, from a company pov, this improbably the right path. Exposing yourself to being huge assholes and ensuring not being sued still bring in profit. This stuff will likely blow over in three years and if it doesn't they can change their name etc.

The outrage is all good and fine, but at the end of the day, the state o Florida is going to hire the company that hires the most low paid lifeguards and cover th most beach area at the cheapest price not the company that hires less of the best.

And while I don't like this explanation or logic, it's probably a more realistic explanation than "omg the company wants people to die"

TL;DR: The real tragity is that the manager didn't explain anything in an appologetic manner to the employees or the media (but I secretly want to hope that the manager is acting the part of the asshole so the lifeguard gets his day in the media for being the awesome lifesaving glorious bastard he is- but my money is on lazy PR incompetence/indifference.
Supreme_Coconut said @ 1:14am GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
This all sounds like a wonderful reason to make lifeguards employees of the city/county. That's how it is in South Carolina and it seems to work out okay. You also have the knowledge that those lifeguards are certified to hold that job (there's an intense physical test).
theolypse said @ 1:32am GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Are you drunk? Is your keyboard drunk?
lilmookieesquire said @ 4:28am GMT on 6th Jul
Yes and yes actually.
zarathustra said @ 3:01am GMT on 6th Jul
There would be no jury. As a matter of law, one does not have a duty to go to the aid of another unless they caused the problem or they stand in a special relationship to the person ( parent-child, doctor-paitent). While a lifeguard can come under that, it wouldn't apply to one that someone has to go fetch and wouldn't have even been aware of the problem as it was happening somewhere else.
atter_cob said @ 3:47am GMT on 6th Jul
That's not what the Seinfeld finale taught me....
eIfish said @ 7:07pm GMT on 6th Jul
They had to go out-of-town to find one of the only places in America with a Good-Samaritan-Law, IIRC.
foobar said @ 5:11am GMT on 6th Jul
Legally, that's not always the case. Morally it never is.
zarathustra said @ 11:55am GMT on 6th Jul
The only duty to rescue in Florida that exceeds what I have said is that if you see a sexual battery you should report it. The few states that require you to help someone in general danger also only require you to notify the police. So, yes, in the US it is always the case.

Seinfeld is not a valid source of legal information.
ENZ said @ 7:01pm GMT on 5th Jul
+1 good because this guy did the right thing in saving someone's life, and his 15 minutes will guarantee him a much better job where he'll be appreciated for his work.
citizenQ said @ 9:15pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:2]
"A lifeguard who was fired after leaving his assigned area on the beach to save a drowning man has been offered his job back after nine of his colleagues quit out of solidarity.

But Tomas Lopez, 21, said he does not plan on returning to the role at Hallandale Beach, Florida."
atter_cob said @ 9:38pm GMT on 5th Jul [Score:2 Informative]
More details:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57467101/fired-florida-lifeguards-wont-take-jobs-back/

Particularly relevant: "... other lifeguards had attended to Lopez's post when he ran off to the far-a-way swimmer. In those circumstances, Ellis said, he should not have been fired."

Ubie said @ 2:13am GMT on 6th Jul
I used to be a lifeguard and was 100% ok with this guy being fired until i found this part out. Now I'm unsure as i don't know why he didn't send one of the covering lifeguards instead of abandoning his post.
backSLIDER said @ 2:51am GMT on 6th Jul
My only guess is he was the guy who could run 600 yards in the sand and still swim out to someone. I've never been a life guard but I imagine some are in better shape then others. Maybe he was the bad ass for the job.
bruceski said @ 3:12am GMT on 6th Jul
I'd expect it to be more instinctual, "I'll go, you cover me." There's not exactly time to debate and discuss. Or the lifeguards who covered for him were not right there and so ran to his post while he ran to the drowner.
atter_cob said @ 3:48am GMT on 6th Jul
Either way is reasonable IMO. In both cases someone is going to aid and someone is watching the assigned area.
damnit said @ 1:38am GMT on 6th Jul
With liability contracts, someone will have to get fired. The lifeguard will be honored in some way, but if they kept him, the manager or the company could be fired or could tank.
backSLIDER said @ 2:58am GMT on 6th Jul
Yeah I think the insurance company could be called the dicks but really I think any system that makes life saving a for profit venture is going to have these problems.
kylemcBitch said @ 3:06am GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
When caught in a riptide, you have to swim parallel to the beach. What is someone in the lifeguard's zone was caught in such a tide and pulled into a portion not monitored by his company. Would he stop at the invisible line painted in the water and shout to the person they were on their own now?

Anyone who has taken First Aid can tell you that you are taught to render assistance, and to continue rendering assistance until the danger to a victim's life has passed. Good Samaritan laws state that anyone trained enough to offer assistance are free from negative legal consequences of such. Florida has these laws. In fact, Good Samaritan laws are typically written in such a way that if you DO NOT help when you are trained to offer assistance, you are liable for negative legal consequences.

This incident does nothing but prove that lifeguards should not be employed by private entities, but instead be part of government public service. There would no imaginary line, and the overhead would actually be less to the tax payer.
bruceski said @ 5:17am GMT on 6th Jul
In fact, Good Samaritan laws are typically written in such a way that if you DO NOT help when you are trained to offer assistance, you are liable for negative legal consequences.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. At least not for civilians who happen to have some first aid training and such. My Boy Scout merit badge does not obligate me to rush to everyone's aid like a superhero.

I think if you start rendering assistance you may be obligated to continue, though, on the basis that your helping may discourage others from coming forward.
kylemcBitch said @ 6:42am GMT on 6th Jul [Score:1 Informative]
Florida has a Duty to Rescue Clause in their good Samaritan laws.

A duty-to-rescue law requires individuals to either administer aid or contact emergency medical personnel when they see another person in immediate danger. In every state, this duty applies to:

- Parents and other caretakers in regard to the children in their care

- Married couples (if a person sees his or her spouse in danger, he or she must take action)

- Emergency workers while on duty (Lifeguard??)

Florida law takes this policy one step further by imposing this duty on all individuals in regard to all other individuals.
zarathustra said @ 1:17pm GMT on 6th Jul
The duty to rescue clause of the good samaritan act only applies to medical personal working at medical facilities. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=768.13&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.13.html

The rest of the duty to rescue referred to is only an expansion of the common law that says, yes even those who didn't cause the problem or stand in a special relation should help or call 911. This duty only applies if the person can act with no danger to themselves. The lifeguard who was not on duty in the area the issue occurred and only heard about it second hand had no duty to act. The fact that he did was a moral act, not an act required by law. However, once he took action he was required to continue.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.




Members

Registered: 24545

Classifieds

Heaven666
What has been seen cannot be un-seen


BOOBLE
Search sites, pics, movies, personals.


Best Porn
Reviews of the best porn sites with pics, vids, scene desription and member area preview


LONELY GUYS
Meet Women Near You