Fired Florida Lifeguard's Coworkers Out After Admitting They'd Save Man Outside Zone

ABC News ^ | July 4, 2012 | ALEXIS SHAW, MATT GUTMAN, CANDACE SMITH, KATIE MOISSE

[dayglored]

Six Florida lifeguards have lost their jobs for backing a coworker's decision to save a man struggling in the surf but outside their jurisdiction.

Tomas Lopez , 21, was fired Monday for vacating his lifeguarding zone to save a man drowning in unprotected waters 1,500 feet south of his post on Hallandale Beach, Fla.

"I knew I broke the rules," said Lopez, who ran past the buoy marking the boundary of his patrol zone to help the man. "I told the manager, I'm fired aren't I?"

Lopez said he jumped into the water and "I double underhooked him…I was worried about the guy and his health. He was blue."

Six of Lopez's coworkers said they would have done the same thing. And now, they've been fired too.

....

[dayglored]

Very well put!

[Osage Orange]

Here's what you wrote: The company has to find some more lifeguards, but they too did the right thing.

No they didn't. And don't give me this rope a dope legal baloney trash.

If you didn't have the guts to say it was wrong in the first place....then just can it.

[yldstrk]

first thing I thought of too

[ilovesarah2012]

My brother-in-law is a state park manager in Florida at a beach. They used to have lifeguards but someone drowned and the family sued the state. They no longer provide lifeguards at the beach. It is strictly “swim at your own risk”.

[dayglored]

> If you didn't have the guts to say it was wrong in the first place....then just can it.

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific initially. You appear to think I am defending the company's position from a moral position. I'm absolutely NOT doing so.

In the case of the company, I meant they did the "contractually necessary" thing, the "legally correct for the liability of the company" thing. Not the "morally right" thing. That is what this whole discussion is about -- I think their contract is terrible.

It is horrifying to me that a contract can be legally made that requires a person to stand by and watch someone die whom they could save.

Therefore it is the contract that is is invalid and immoral.

I appreciate your concern, but you needn't worry about my guts, as my guts are just fine. I posted the article didn't I? :)

[yldstrk]

Save a lot of moola too, in CA the lifeguards are pulling in 100K

[ConorMacNessa]

An absolute outrage! Back in the old days the guiding maxim was "Necessity demands a rescue!" The law then, in the 19th Century, was articulated by a court in Texas in a case whose caption I have long forgotten: "The Law places such value on a human life that it will not impute negligence to an effort to save it." That's not an exact quote but pretty close.

This case is a good example of how low our society has sunk. In a better world, the term of the contract forbidding the lifeguards to pass the boundary of their jurisdiction would, IMHO, be unenforceable on the basis of being "malum in se" (inherently evil, or evil in itself.) The lifeguards, particularly the one who saved the drowning swimmer, deserve medals.

My 16 year-old son is working as a lifeguard in local pools this Summer. I haven't asked him, but I believe he would have gone past the boundary buoy to save a distressed swimmer. If he did not, I'd toss him out in the street as a craven cur.



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[Osage Orange]

I will repost...

If you didn't have the guts to say it was wrong in the first place....then just can it.

[dayglored]

> the term of the contract forbidding the lifeguards to pass the boundary of their jurisdiction would, IMHO, be unenforceable on the basis of being "malum in se" (inherently evil, or evil in itself.)

EXACTLY! You put it very well.

> I believe [my son] would have gone past the boundary buoy to save a distressed swimmer. If he did not, I'd toss him out in the street as a craven cur.

Spot on again. That's what I tried to convey in my third point at the top -- I could not live with myself if did not do so.

[dayglored]

> I will repost...

Ah, well, I see we are at an impasse about my guts. No matter, no great necessity to pursue that. I hope you have a pleasant Independence Day.

[Secret Agent Man]

Take off your uniforms and go in and save him under the good Samaritan law.

[Secret Agent Man]

Official reprimand, unofficial pat on the back and a beer after work.

[ConorMacNessa]

Thanks for the ping, Wagglebee. My young son just got back from work - I posed the question to him. He says he would go beyond the boundary. I guess I'm not a total failure as a parent! :)



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[redgolum]

Good for the life guards. The company is made up of cowards.

[Secret Agent Man]

What do you call 1000 drowned lawyers?

A good start.

Perhaps their own policies will bring this about.

[Rome2000]

Make more sense if there was a rule not to save lawyers from drowning no matter where they are.

[dayglored]

> Take off your uniforms and go in and save him under the good Samaritan law.

Uniforms or not, they probably are still considered "on duty". That would be tantamount to quitting their jobs, I would guess.

Of course, as we all agree, that would have been the morally right thing to do.

I wonder if the fact that the guy at Alameda was pretty clearly suicidal factored into their inaction as well?

[dayglored]

> My young son just got back from work - I posed the question to him. He says he would go beyond the boundary. I guess I'm not a total failure as a parent! :)

Excellent!

[dayglored]

> Good for the life guards.

YES!

> The company is made up of cowards.

And (as pointed out above) lawyers.

[Osage Orange]

Naw, we are at an impasse about your first take. And what you said upon your first take. I get it....And others here probably do to.

Of course....have a great 4th of July!