If I'm reading right, it was out of everyone's zone. You can't go past a certain distance in the ocean to save a person.

 

Gotcha.

 

And if you ever wanted to know what your life is worth on a beach it's $8.50/hr.

Gotcha.

 

And if you ever wanted to know what your life is worth on a beach it's $8.50/hr.

 

Dang, I'll remember that next trip to Myrtle Beach.

No chance at a wrongful termination suit. As silly as it sounds he broke a rule and that would be enough to justify his firing in a court of law.

 

Not for him, for the others that got fired for simply saying they would do the same thing.

Question, if he is a certified life guard does he not have a civic duty to save anyone that is drowning any where regardless of where it is?

 

Kinda like if you are CPR certified, and someone is in need, you have an obligation to administer CPR. Every CPR class I have ever been in has said that if someone were in distress and we (being CPR Certified) did not step in to administer CPR we could be found liable.

Question, if he is a certified life guard does he not have a civic duty to save anyone that is drowning any where regardless of where it is?

 

Kinda like if you are CPR certified, and someone is in need, you have an obligation to administer CPR. Every CPR class I have ever been in has said that if someone were in distress and we (being CPR Certified) did not step in to administer CPR we could be found liable.

 

Civic duty, possibly. However, that doesn't mean the lifeguard company you work for can't fire you for breaking the rules. I would bet the rule was set by an insurance company.

I was a lifeguard for 5 summers - one on the beach and four at pools. Only had to make 3 saves in 5 seasons, but the thought of letting someone drown because they were "out of bounds" (even though that phrase didn't apply where I worked) simply does not make sense to me.

Question, if he is a certified life guard does he not have a civic duty to save anyone that is drowning any where regardless of where it is?

 

Kinda like if you are CPR certified, and someone is in need, you have an obligation to administer CPR. Every CPR class I have ever been in has said that if someone were in distress and we (being CPR Certified) did not step in to administer CPR we could be found liable.

Probably not if you have to put your life in danger to do it. If you were on a rooftop and you saw someone in need of CPR on another rooftop and the only way over there is to try and shimmy across a tv line to get to them, are you obligated to attempt it? I know it is a ridiculous example, but of course you wouldn't try that.

 

So I think we all would agree that there has to be some limit to the risk you'd be expected to accept in an attempt to save another person. If not then all too often you'd end up with two drownings instead of one. The million dollar question is "What is the limit?"

 

If that swimmer was beyond the established limit where the powers that be say it would be too dangerous to attempt a water rescue, then I understand the rule. Still, as a former life guard, it would be incredibly difficult, maybe even impossible for me personally to sit back and watch somebody drown.

 

Do we know how far out the "safe zone" ended in this case?

And if you ever wanted to know what your life is worth on a beach it's $8.50/hr.

 

:lol:

Gotcha.

 

And if you ever wanted to know what your life is worth on a beach it's $8.50/hr.

 

Wow. The lifeguards at the Newport Vets pool make more than that.

Probably not if you have to put your life in danger to do it. If you were on a rooftop and you saw someone in need of CPR on another rooftop and the only way over there is to try and shimmy across a tv line to get to them, are you obligated to attempt it? I know it is a ridiculous example, but of course you wouldn't try that.

 

So I think we all would agree that there has to be some limit to the risk you'd be expected to accept in an attempt to save another person. If not then all too often you'd end up with two drownings instead of one. The million dollar question is "What is the limit?"

 

If that swimmer was beyond the established limit where the powers that be say it would be too dangerous to attempt a water rescue, then I understand the rule. Still, as a former life guard, it would be incredibly difficult, maybe even impossible for me personally to sit back and watch somebody drown.

 

Do we know how far out the "safe zone" ended in this case?

I think this is correct. I was also a former life guard (maybe that can be my next screen name) and I'd have taken the firing. Lifeguard jobs aren't hard to get nor do they pay much. Lot easier to deal with losing one versus knowing I let another human die when I could've prevented it.

Has there been a response from their former employer? I'd be interested to see their response aside from "a rule was broken".

Has there been a response from their former employer? I'd be interested to see their response aside from "a rule was broken".

 

Just saw at Fox News that he was offered his job back and he has since declined saying he doesn't want to go back to the job for personal reasons. If I had to guess he probably got about a dozen different job offers within hours of this going viral and which ever job he chose is probably paying a good bit better than the $8.25/hr he was previously making.

Probably not if you have to put your life in danger to do it. If you were on a rooftop and you saw someone in need of CPR on another rooftop and the only way over there is to try and shimmy across a tv line to get to them, are you obligated to attempt it? I know it is a ridiculous example, but of course you wouldn't try that.

 

So I think we all would agree that there has to be some limit to the risk you'd be expected to accept in an attempt to save another person. If not then all too often you'd end up with two drownings instead of one. The million dollar question is "What is the limit?"

 

If that swimmer was beyond the established limit where the powers that be say it would be too dangerous to attempt a water rescue, then I understand the rule. Still, as a former life guard, it would be incredibly difficult, maybe even impossible for me personally to sit back and watch somebody drown.

Do we know how far out the "safe zone" ended in this case?

 

Unless it was the insurance company and/or lifeguard company "big-wigs".:lol:

Company supervisor Susan Ellis previously told WPTV that Lopez was let go for violating company policy.

 

"We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area," she told the TV station. "What he did was his own decision. He knew the company rules and did what he thought he needed to do."

 

Lopez said he started the $8.25-an-hour job four months ago and had hoped to continue working there when he goes to Broward College in the fall.

 

"I have no doubts I did the right thing," he said Thursday. "I believe I did what was right, and that if someone needs help you're going to go help them, regardless if you're a lifeguard or not."

 

Florida lifeguard says he's been offered his job back - CNN.com

Glad some people still do the right thing with no regard for themselves. He gave up a job to save a life, that will pay off in the end.