Florida lifeguard fired for helping drowing man... : Othor Games

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:55 am

A lifeguard who left his section of a Florida beach to help save a man from drowning has been given the sack.

Tomas Lopez, 21, was patrolling part of Hallandale Beach north of Miami when he was told that a swimmer was in trouble in an unguarded area of the beach.

"I wasn't going to say no," the lifeguard said.

But his bosses said he had broken company rules and could have put other swimmers at risk. At least two colleagues have resigned in protest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18715684

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:28 am

A person's life is more important than some arbitrary rules. He should be commended, not fired.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:36 am

A person's life is more important than some arbitrary rules. He should be commended, not fired.

Pretty much.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:51 am

Good man.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:59 am

Wut.

That's crazy.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:52 am

A person's life is more important than some arbitrary rules. He should be commended, not fired.

THIS!
Someone should give him a Medal.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 am

I totally misread the title of this topic. I thought this was about a lifeguard who helped drown a man.

I'm surprised at how little those lifeguards are getting paid. Lifeguards where I'm from get paid at least twice that amount.

» Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:48 pm

Bah, Americans...

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:52 am

The man's a hero, and he's been fired. Ridiculous.

"Liability issues" is the curse of our age.

» Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:21 pm

This is insane...

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:21 am

There's something seriously wrong with a person who sees someone save a man's life and fires them for it.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:33 pm

Only in America.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:14 am

What a [censored] idiot, the guy who fired him. I have a feeling people are going to get mad at him for being a [censored].

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:29 am

And thus, the immeasurable value of a life was put to 8.25 $ an hour.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:52 am

So, when's the next ride off this planet? Because I don't want to live here anymore.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:30 am

So, when's the next ride off this planet? Because I don't want to live here anymore.

Atleast you don't live in Florida.

:facepalm:

Florida

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:25 am

I always dislike stories like this, not because of the content, but because of the complete subjectivity of how they're reported. It's written entirely from the perspective of "guy does totally harmless thing; gets punished for it." Is that really what happened? Was that really the whole story? Or maybe this guy was a punk and a jerk and there were constant complaints about him, and the people were just looking for a reason to fire him. And, as inappropriate as the reason was, they jumped on this situation. Or there could be any number of other circumstances around the event that makes it seem more reasonable.

I refuse to facepalm without better information. Things are never as 'sensationalist' as the news reporters make them out to be.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:44 am

The man's a hero, and he's been fired. Ridiculous.

"Liability issues" is the curse of our age.

Swear I want a law put in place aptly titled "Common Sense Law" which stipulates where common sense prevails a person cannot be at fault. It would also apply vice versa where if a person is a moron/idiot they don't have the capability nor right to file suit against an individual. Still remember that idiot teenager here in Fl that tried to imitate that stunt from JA. Jumped off that apartment roof hoping to land in the pool, instead he hits the concrete deck smashing both his legs. Parents filed lawsuit against the JA show for their son imitating their stupid stunts.

Agree that this guy needs his job back and the person that fired him to be fired themselves for gross incompetence. I mean what is the guy supposed to do? Wave and watch the guy drown while on hold with 911?

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:11 am

Bah, Americans...

Only in America.

Sweeping generalizations are lots of fun.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:30 am

I always dislike stories like this, not because of the content, but because of the complete subjectivity of how they're reported. It's written entirely from the perspective of "guy does totally harmless thing; gets punished for it." Is that really what happened? Was that really the whole story? Or maybe this guy was a punk and a jerk and there were constant complaints about him, and the people were just looking for a reason to fire him. And, as inappropriate as the reason was, they jumped on this situation. Or there could be any number of other circumstances around the event that makes it seem more reasonable.

I refuse to facepalm without better information. Things are never as 'sensationalist' as the news reporters make them out to be.

Still, a lifeguards honor demands he saves a drowning swimmer. He can't just say "not my problem."

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:18 pm

Isn't this why there are lifeguards? I suppose following the rules and just sitting there making people feel safe is more important than actually saving drowning swimmers.

:facepalm:

I always dislike stories like this, not because of the content, but because of the complete subjectivity of how they're reported. It's written entirely from the perspective of "guy does totally harmless thing; gets punished for it." Is that really what happened? Was that really the whole story? Or maybe this guy was a punk and a jerk and there were constant complaints about him, and the people were just looking for a reason to fire him. And, as inappropriate as the reason was, they jumped on this situation. Or there could be any number of other circumstances around the event that makes it seem more reasonable.

I refuse to facepalm without better information. Things are never as 'sensationalist' as the news reporters make them out to be.

What? A man just helped saving someones life, does the circumstances really matter? Saving people's life should always be the higher priority, especially when that's what your job is about.

It doesn't really matter wheter the lifeguard was a jerk or not, he saved someones life and got punished for it. They should honour him if he really played a big part in saving this person's life.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:04 pm

Still, a lifeguards honor demands he saves a drowning swimmer. He can't just say "not my problem."

Of course, I'm merely pointing out there were probably other surrounding circumstances in this story that lead up to this guy being fired. It had little to do with him actual breaking a rule to save the drowning man and more to do with the circumstances that preceded that event. It was just a poor excuse to get rid of him that was then over-exaggerated by the news report.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:00 am

Sweeping generalizations are lots of fun.

As in generalization, the American law system has been proven to be Stupid and the constitution is a complete joke (Citizens have the right to bear arms, and you can carry a concealed weapons if you have a license (Thats a law)...), and a lot of people are complete idiots over there (well everywhere there's idiots, not unique to America)

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:35 am

I saw seven lifeguards quit in protest, and the news crew covering the story watched as an eighth turned in his whistle and shirt.

There will be fallout from this, and I can almost guarantee these lifeguards will be hired somewhere else very soon or rehired by the company that fired them.

I refuse to facepalm without better information. Things are never as 'sensationalist' as the news reporters make them out to be.

According to the lifeguard company (it's some company apparently, not a town or civic department) there's liability issues and they aren't allowed to go beyond a certain point on the beach. According to a lifeguard that quit in protest, the lifguards are really just supposed to sit there and watch someone drown.

» Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:35 am

Of course, I'm merely pointing out there were probably other surrounding circumstances in this story that lead up to this guy being fired. It had little to do with him actual breaking a rule to save the drowning man and more to do with the circumstances that preceded that event. It was just a poor excuse to get rid of him that was then over-exaggerated by the news report.

That sounds a bit cynical. They interviewed the company as well, so it's not exactly a one-sided story.