Lifeguard fired for trying to save life

• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1219764 wrote:Broken rule:those who enforce the rules::broken law:those who enforce the laws
  
  That's the parallel.

  Not a great parallel. Rules such as this one are allowed to be bent or ignored or changed whenever the people who enforce and/or make them want. Not the same with laws. Even if Glory Days thinks the jaywalking law is stupid for example he has no power to change it or authority to change how it's dealt with.
• Glory Days

  

  I Wear Pants;1219852 wrote:But of course I didn't. What actually happened is what we should make judgements on. I'm sure you're all for the death penalty for those that dare to jaywalk though.

  no, but by not enforcing the jaywalking, you allow others to think they can jaywalk and it wont have any effect on anything....until there is an accident and someone gets hurt. then its too late.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1219855 wrote:Not a great parallel. Rules such as this one are allowed to be bent or ignored or changed whenever the people who enforce and/or make them want. ...

  They may be "allowed" to be bent or ignored but they are also "allowed" to be enforced are they not?
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1219855 wrote:Not a great parallel. Rules such as this one are allowed to be bent or ignored or changed whenever the people who enforce and/or make them want. Not the same with laws. Even if Glory Days thinks the jaywalking law is stupid for example he has no power to change it or authority to change how it's dealt with.

  I'm not so sure this is the case. There are plenty of examples of those who enforce the laws overlooking things like jaywalking, speeding, driving without a seatbelt, public intoxication, etc. Does that make it obligatory that they excuse the offenders if they, in their own subjective opinion, think that the person is doing it for a good reason?
  
  We make choices. The young man in the story made a choice ... in my opinion, a good one. But that doesn't make him immune to any negative consequence of his choice.
  
  His employers could have shown mercy, given the circumstances, but mercy by definition is not obligatory.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1219869 wrote:I'm not so sure this is the case. There are plenty of examples of those who enforce the laws overlooking things like jaywalking, speeding, driving without a seatbelt, public intoxication, etc. Does that make it obligatory that they excuse the offenders if they, in their own subjective opinion, think that the person is doing it for a good reason?
  
  We make choices. The young man in the story made a choice ... in my opinion, a good one. But that doesn't make him immune to any negative consequence of his choice.
  
  His employers could have shown mercy, given the circumstances, but mercy by definition is not obligatory.

  Con_Alma;1219863 wrote:They may be "allowed" to be bent or ignored but they are also "allowed" to be enforced are they not?

  Didn't claim it was obligatory. Just said it was the wrong thing to do.
  
  If Glory Days sees a guy save a baby from traffic outside of a designated crossing area he isn't obligated to not give him a ticket. But he's a giant dick if he does.
  
  I'm not saying that these guys were/are obligated to ignore the rule. Only that they would do so in this instance if they weren't massive pricks.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1219887 wrote:Didn't claim it was obligatory. Just said it was the wrong thing to do.
  
  If Glory Days sees a guy save a baby from traffic outside of a designated crossing area he isn't obligated to not give him a ticket. But he's a giant **** if he does.
  
  I'm not saying that these guys were/are obligated to ignore the rule. Only that they would do so in this instance if they weren't massive pricks.

  ????
  
  I didn't suggest that you said it was obligatory. I asked if you felt they were "allowed" to enforce their rules. They did. I don't have a problem with that.
  
  As stated earlier I think both parties, the lifeguard and the company, did the right thing.
• O-Trap

  

  I guess I don't see them as necessarily being pricks (maybe they were, but I don't think that's contingent on whether or not they observe strict rules).
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1219893 wrote:????
  
  I didn't suggest that you said it was obligatory. I asked if you felt they were "allowed" to enforce their rules. They did. I don't have a problem with that.
  
  As stated earlier I think both parties, the lifeguard and the company, did the right thing.

  Jesus dude, I included you in the reply because it was a similar question. FFS.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1219904 wrote:Jesus dude, I included you in the reply because it was a similar question. FFS.

  "Jesus dude", I understand that and clarified that I didn't suggest that you said it was obligatory.
  
  I asked you if you felt they were "allowed" to enforce their rules. That's my question to you following you stating they are"allowed" to bend or change them.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1219906 wrote:"Jesus dude", I understand that and clarified that I didn't suggest that you said it was obligatory.
  
  I asked you if you felt they were "allowed" to enforce their rules. That's my question to you following you stating they are"allowed" to bend or change them.

  Of course they're fucking allowed to. Why wouldn't they be allowed to?
  
  All I've been saying is that in this particular instance they are douchebags for doing so.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1219916 wrote:Of course they're ****ing allowed to. Why wouldn't they be allowed to?
  
  All I've been saying is that in this particular instance they are douchebags for doing so.

  I don't know why they wouldn't be allowed to but seeing how you stated they were permitted to change it I thought I would ask if you felt they were permitted to enforce it. That's all.
  
  I understand you don't like that they did. Obviously others including myself believe they should have.
• hasbeen

  

  I Wear Pants;1219852 wrote:But of course I didn't. What actually happened is what we should make judgements on. I'm sure you're all for the death penalty for those that dare to jaywalk though.

  
  But they have the rule to ensure nothing bad happens. It's real easy to say they're douchebags because they enforced it, but if something had happened in his zone would they still be douchebags?
  
  The rule is preventative. This situation the guy is a hero. The next situation could turn out horrible. That's why they have the rule.
• Glory Days

  

  hasbeen;1220274 wrote:But they have the rule to ensure nothing bad happens. It's real easy to say they're douchebags because they enforced it, but if something had happened in his zone would they still be douchebags?
  
  The rule is preventative. This situation the guy is a hero. The next situation could turn out horrible. That's why they have the rule.

  for people who dont like authority/rules, its hard to understand this concept.
• isadore

  of course he could have just stayed in his zone and when asked about why he let that person drowned, he could just say, "I was just following orders."
• I Wear Pants

  hasbeen;1220274 wrote:But they have the rule to ensure nothing bad happens. It's real easy to say they're douchebags because they enforced it, but if something had happened in his zone would they still be douchebags?
  
  The rule is preventative. This situation the guy is a hero. The next situation could turn out horrible. That's why they have the rule.

  No. But that's not what happened so that's entirely irrelevant. What's relevant is what did happen.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1221134 wrote:.... What's relevant is what did happen.

  Agreed. They chose to fire him....and then chose to ask him back...I think.
  
  That's what's relevant.
• hasbeen

  

  I Wear Pants;1221134 wrote:No. But that's not what happened so that's entirely irrelevant. What's relevant is what did happen.

  
  But rules are not based on situations.