Lifeguard fired for trying to save life

• Con_Alma

  LJ;1219054 wrote:When my appendix almost burst, the EMT's from the next township over came and got me because my EMT's were in a different township. They all help each other out. They don't follow strict boundries.

  I think that's great. I also think it's great that the lifeguard chose to go and try and help the person in immediate need....and I don't have a problem with him being fired for doing so.
• Con_Alma

  LJ;1219055 wrote:And I wholeheartedly disagree. Why do we have to keep rehashing the same thing we did 30 posts ago?

  We don't have to. We are choosing to because it's the most interesting thread on here. I understand you position and I think you understand mine. In my first post I stated that we disagree. We still do.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1219058 wrote:... Doing the right thing can still have costs associated with it.

  Indeed. May we all be courageous enough to do the right thing even when those costs are weighing against us.
• O-Trap

  

  LJ;1219054 wrote:When my appendix almost burst, the EMT's from the next township over came and got me because my EMT's were in a different township. They all help each other out. They don't follow strict boundries.

  
  And if they have agreed to do things that way, and they have an organized system set up for such things, then fine. The point is, that's still a structure set up, and agreed upon (apparently), by the local EMT units. Inasmuch as that is the case, there is still an order or structure to what they're doing. There wasn't in the story.
  

  LJ;1219055 wrote:And I wholeheartedly disagree. Why do we have to keep rehashing the same thing we did 30 posts ago?

  I didn't think we had discussed the issue of duty. "The right thing" and "the obligation" aren't synonymous, in my opinion.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219030 wrote:You're just mad because it answered the question of "according to whom"

  Huh, what? In what way?
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1219063 wrote:Indeed. May we all be courageous enough to do the right thing even when those costs are weighing against us.

  QFT
• hasbeen

  

  LJ;1219051 wrote:I understand where he was, but that's like saying "you should understand that building is in the county not the nearby city, so response time is 20 minutes vs the city 5 minutes away. If you die, it's your fault."

  If you knowingly put yourself in danger, you are taking the risk you might die. Whoever said if he was a guy jumping off a cliff, everyone would be saying "go darwin award winner" was right.
  

  LJ;1219054 wrote:When my appendix almost burst, the EMT's from the next township over came and got me because my EMT's were in a different township. They all help each other out. They don't follow strict boundries.

  Well the other beach doesn't have lifeguards, therefore if the protected beach needed help the other wouldn't help. "You help us, but we won't help you." What's that sound like?
• O-Trap

  

  hasbeen;1219069 wrote:Well the other beach doesn't have lifeguards, therefore if the protected beach needed help the other wouldn't help. "You help us, but we won't help you." What's that sound like?

  Sounds like a friend of mine.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ is ignoring the fact that if this private company were sued it would likely result in the elimination of their lifeguarding services, which is almost never the case with civil servant organizations like police departments.
• LJ

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219066 wrote:Huh, what? In what way?

  Seriously?
  

  According to the department? To the cop? To the victim? To me? To you?

  
  
  These police and EMT's were dispatched (they didn't just happen upon the call) to something outside of their jurisdiction. Answering your question with the response of "according to the department"
  
  It was a pretty simple question.
• LJ

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219075 wrote:LJ is ignoring the fact that if this private company were sued it would likely result in the elimination of their lifeguarding services, which is almost never the case with civil servant organizations like police departments.

  I'm not ignoring anything.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219076 wrote:Seriously?
  
  
  
  These police and EMT's were dispatched (they didn't just happen upon the call) to something outside of their jurisdiction. Answering your question with the response of "according to the department"
  
  It was a pretty simple question.

  The original question was "should the cop intervene out of his jurisdiction". When he happened upon it. You are talking about being dispatched to the scene, so in what way is that similar? If they were sent out of their jurisdiction then it must have been in line with department policy, unless there was dispatcher error. Which, in that case, the responding officers would be cleared.
  
  So, apples and oranges.
• LJ

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219083 wrote:The original question was "should the cop intervene out of his jurisdiction". When he happened upon it. You are talking about being dispatched to the scene, so in what way is that similar? If they were sent out of their jurisdiction then it must have been in line with department policy, unless there was dispatcher error. Which, in that case, the responding officers would be cleared.
  
  So, apples and oranges.

  Not really, since department policy is to assist outside of their jurisdiction. CPD on Beech Road is not dispatcher error.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219079 wrote:I'm not ignoring anything.

  Other than that fact I stated.
  
  You are suggesting a "break the rules at all costs to save a life" method of lifeguarding when that method could result in the elimination of lifeguards altogether, in this case. Hence the rules and the dismissal.
• LJ

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219087 wrote:Other than that fact I stated.
  
  You are suggesting a "break the rules at all costs to save a life" method of lifeguarding when that method could result in the elimination of lifeguards altogether, in this case. Hence the rules and the dismissal.

  It did not result in the elimination of lifeguards. It resulted in saving a man's life. The area was covered, just the same as if he went after someone inside the imaginary line.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219085 wrote:Not really, since department policy is to assist outside of their jurisdiction. CPD on Beech Road is not dispatcher error.

  So wtf are you talking about then?
  
  The PD dept policy is to assist outside of the jurisdiction. The lifeguard company's policy was not to.
  
  The question he asked was "should a police officer stop a mugging outside of his jurisdiction?" to which I asked according to whom.
  
  To the dept? Depends on policy.
  
  To the victim? Yes, of course.
  
  To me? My opinion is irrelevant.
  
  To Justin? His is as well.
  
  Which was my way of saying I'm not going to answer an open ended question without more info, expecting him to add more info. Then you jumped in.
• se-alum

  

  I guess my whole thing is, zero tolerance policies are for the weak and lazy. I'm for looking at each individual situation. In this situation, there was no harm done. The lifeguard was acting as a human being, there should be some wiggle room in a policy for such things.
• LJ

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219098 wrote:So wtf are you talking about then?
  
  The PD dept policy is to assist outside of the jurisdiction. The lifeguard company's policy was not to.
  
  The question he asked was "should a police officer stop a mugging outside of his jurisdiction?" to which I asked according to whom.
  
  To the dept? Depends on policy.
  
  To the victim? Yes, of course.
  
  To me? My opinion is irrelevant.
  
  To Justin? His is as well.
  
  Which was my way of saying I'm not going to answer an open ended question without more info, expecting him to add more info. Then you jumped in.

  You asked a question, an answer was given. Get over it.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219093 wrote:It did not result in the elimination of lifeguards. It resulted in saving a man's life. The area was covered, just the same as if he went after someone inside the imaginary line.

  Except that rules and policies are set up using "what if" scenarios, usually police and private protection companies alike. Hence, the company policy and the dismissal. They are not set up in an "ends justifies the means" manner, which is what you are suggesting right now.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219101 wrote:You asked a question, an answer was given. Get over it.

  Except it can vary by police department and by state. So, you really didn't give a very good answer. Get over it.
• LJ

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219104 wrote:Except that rules and policies are set up using "what if" scenarios, usually police and private protection companies alike. Hence, the company policy and the dismissal. They are not set up in an "ends justifies the means" manner, which is what you are suggesting right now.

  Except that "what if" scenario was only determined by imaginary boundries. Nothing more.
  

  Except it can vary by police department and by state. So, you really didn't give a very good answer. Get over it.

  My answer was not incorrect. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.
• LJ

  

  This isn't going anywhere. Enjoy your love of zero-tolerance policies.
• queencitybuckeye

  LJ;1219107 wrote:Except that "what if" scenario was only determined by imaginary boundries. Nothing more.
  
  My answer was not incorrect. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

  Nothing imaginary about the boundary.
• O-Trap

  

  se-alum;1219100 wrote:I guess my whole thing is, zero tolerance policies are for the weak and lazy. I'm for looking at each individual situation. In this situation, there was no harm done. The lifeguard was acting as a human being, there should be some wiggle room in a policy for such things.

  The problem with wiggle room is that it is then left up to the judgment of the individual, and I doubt this company wants to stake the safety of those that have entrusted themselves into the care of the lifeguards on a given person's judgment at the time.
  
  Nobody was hurt, no, but do the ends justify the means? What if something HAD happened? Would that have made his or the company's actions any more or less justifiable? At that point, it may be too late to nip any potential problem in the bud.
• Sykotyk

  

  The question then you should answer is what if the guy was 10 feet outside the boundary line?
  
  I mean, after all. There is a line you're drawing pretty clearly. It seems you'd rather just let everyone die because 'protocol must be followed' to protect your employer.
  
  If you're a courier, and your boss tells you this package needs to get from Youngstown to Cleveland by noon, and you see a horrific car crash, and a person flies out of the car and skids across the road in front of you as you slam on the brakes, should you A) not be late, and drive around their dying body, B) stop, be late, and do the right thing, or C) hope that a miracle happens where both outcomes happen?
  
  If your boss fires you due to liability of a contract for doing 'the right thing', then your company doesn't deserve the contracts they're holding. Money over people is not the way ANY person or business should run.