I just shake my head at this stuff...

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by zeehag

cs--do you know how laws are truly made??? and how on job performance is dictated??
if you did, you would not argue my point on lobbies and the effect on insurance and other allegedly necessary items we used to live without so nicely. brings to mind the extortion rings of old times.
pay or not do.
lobbies made the need for insurance and it has become a scam out of control yet we still allegedly need the services.
lobbies and tort law..both need to be modified massively. until that happens, most good samaritan jobs will remain, and become even more, restricted to within the area of assignment. no leaving your zone to help someone in distress.
the days of good samaritans is over. we are now punished for helping others--yet again. yes--the lifeguards are good sams--why else would they work for so little pay to do so much good for others

Hello???...This has nothing to do with laws, bureaucracy, Insurance, extortion rings or any other conspiracy. It was a young man doing the next right thing and a company making the wrong decision. Had they thought about what their reaction might cause, they probably would not have fired him but instead made him out to be a hero (not that he cared) and reaped the benefits.
I was sued for helping someone in a boat yard in 1987. Big deal! I ended up in court twice and the judge made me pay $300 (the guy wanted thousands). When I asked him why, he stated "So he doesn't take you to court for a 3rd time and waste tax payers money. The $300 was just to get it off the books. Was it right?...no. Was justice done?...no. will I help again?...sure. I'm not going to live under a rock in a foreign country because of a conspiracy of them vs. us.
There's lots of "we hate the gubberment threads on this forum, we don't need to turn this one into another.

[avb3]

Remember the person who died in San Francisco bay, in walking distance from shore, because a bunch of firemen and police "were not trained enough" to help him?

I believe that was last year.

A civilian went out to rescue the person, but it was too late.

I used to be a life guard, and from my perspective, piss on the rules, if someone needs help and I am able to assist, I will. How can those who make comments otherwise live with yourselves knowing a person died, and you could have saved them?

BTW, most jurisdictions have Good Samaritan laws, which would insulate against law suits.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by avb3

Remember the person who died in San Francisco bay, in walking distance from shore, because a bunch of firemen and police "were not trained enough" to help him?

I believe that was last year.

A civilian went out to rescue the person, but it was too late.

I used to be a life guard, and from my perspective, piss on the rules, if someone needs help and I am able to assist, I will. How can those who make comments otherwise live with yourselves knowing a person died, and you could have saved them?

BTW, most jurisdictions have Good Samaritan laws, which would insulate against law suits.

I think it was worse than that, that they were specifically ordered to not save him.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Please, let's not get personal.

Thanks for that - but I am not offended in the slightest (am not entirely sure it is possible to offend me ), and whilst the comments made are harsh I have no problem with that and see that they have merit. Surprisingly I do even agree with the sentiments expressed.

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

"Give me the rules and I will play by them - no matter how dumb they are or that they have unintended consequences".

You have to be joking or simply trying to inspire some keyboard entertainment for your day?

This has to be the dumbest statement on this forum for some time.... Why did you get banned from the other forum 3 times?? Bahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Play by rules no DOJ not you!

(I tidied your quote of me up) - Ok, a little bit of keyboard entertainment / boredom but nonetheless a position genuinely held. I knew before posting that would be something not universally popular.

But in my defence I will say that I don't write the bloody rules! techinically we all do, albeit in practice they largely get written by others to feed self interests.........unfortunately I lack the Mojo to do any of that - otherwise you would all be wearing tinfoil hats on a Friday - officialy in the name of health & safety and all things holy (think of the children and the Penguins ), unofficially because it was a) funny and b) I had the sole contract to sell the official tin foil hats .....obviously these examples are extreme, but the concept well tried and tested.

But, money wise at least, I try to live in the world as it is - not as I may wish it to be. Require me to be stupid and shortsighted and I will be. And my world does adapt to where in the world I am and what the game is (yes, I have no morals - nor any inherent sense of right or wrong. and am "Blessed" (lol!) by having no conscience - but none of that is to say that I go out of my way to harm others, I am just very prepared to look after me and mine. and I sleep well).

You may note from the story that the Company did not prevent the employee from rescuing someone, nor did they actually kill anyone. From some of the comments it is almost as if they did .

All the Company did was make the employee incur the consequences of his actions in abandoning his post (which I am 110% sure are covered in his Terms & Conditions of employment - otherwise the Company would not have been dumb enough to fire him). The fact that it was for a worthwhile reason (I make no argument over that) is IMO immaterial, it is a question of principal - and the fact that me not doing so opens me up to risk for the next time.

All that has happened is that the guy lost his job (and sounds like he will not struggle for another, and will possibly get a book or movie deal - or at least 5 minutes on TV) for an action he freely took knowing the consequences (or he should have known - if he had read his employment contract / staff handbook). And IMO fair play to him for deciding to lose his job to save someone. Will that put someone else off from doing the same in the future? depends whether they value money over someone else's life (and that a choice each has to make - not someone else, including an employer on their behalf). Should the Company provide free safety cover over everywhere? Should you? or only where "your" representatives (the State? / County?) have decided? Easy to expect others to "do the right thing" (whatever each may decide that is), a lot harder to get folks to put hands into own pocket to make it so.

I make no apology for saving my money over someone else's (saving someone else's life does not even come into it).

and FWIW, I would have fired the bugger to cover my ass in the future when things don't end so well. But I would also have given him a glowing reference personally and (if money allowed) a very good severance package and if possible helped him into another position elsewhere.....and all that even if he was no longer talking to me .

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

.....anyone with this philosophy in life would have no place on my ship or the ship of anyone i know.....piss poor values and quite obviously someone who could not be depended on........nothing more than a liability!

I have no problem with that position - either personally or philosophically.

As I have mention before, on a personal level (the above is just business) I would also measure the degree of risk I would take to "save" someone, close family (that I liked! - not that many!) would get well past the point of even vaguely sensible risk wise, others somewhat less. and some probably barely a shrug (but those don't tend to be aboard my boat, or me on theirs).

Anyway, I hope the thread hasn't been closed since I started typing .

[Starbuck]

Gord May posted: Consider the situation were someone to die, within his patrol area, while he was absent rescuing someone in the unprotected area.

The young man's choice at the moment was between a real victim and a hypothetical victim. Yes, he put his company at risk, for a few minutes, when he left his assigned area, but morally it was the correct choice, and I'm sure he's happy with his decision.

In his mind, apparently, the choice was clear. And there wasn't much else the company could do, except let him go, because of that very "what if…".

[Mike OReilly]

It's an interesting perspective DOJ, but luckily for the human species, and for human civilization, yours is a rare one. You appear to be a psychopath (And I know you won't be offended when I say this ).

(Please note: I am using the term psychopath in the pure clinical sense. It is not meant as an insult).

Research has found that psychopaths make up about 1-2% of the human population. It's a "normal," if somewhat rare, disposition. Therefore, your perspective, while fascinating, has little validity for the vast majority of us.

Interestingly, most modern corporations and large businesses are psychopaths by design. I think this explains the innate disgust most of us have when we hear about this lifeguard story. The systemic issues which result in a company firing this employee come from a moral framework which most of us do not share.

[Target9000]

Apparently he has been offered his job back:

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

[Aussiesuede]

Good on him for telling the shady wankers to bugger off after they offered him his job back.

Lopez told ABC News earlier this morning that he would not go back to work.
"Now that [the firing] is public, they want to fix it. That's shady to me," Lopez said. "If I never said anything, they never would have acted."

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's an interesting perspective DOJ, but luckily for the human species, and for human civilization, yours is a rare one. You appear to be a psychopath (And I know you won't be offended when I say this ).

(Please note: I am using the term psychopath in the pure clinical sense. It is not meant as an insult).

Research has found that psychopaths make up about 1-2% of the human population. It's a "normal," if somewhat rare, disposition. Therefore, your perspective, while fascinating, has little validity for the vast majority of us.

Interestingly, most modern corporations and large businesses are psychopaths by design. I think this explains the innate disgust most of us have when we hear about this lifeguard story. The systemic issues which result in a company firing this employee come from a moral framework which most of us do not share.

Yeah, you are right - am not offended, am also figuring it also doesn't matter (this being the internet).

I defer to those with greater experiance / knowledge of all things opathy - me has always kept away from head Docs. Personally I have a suspicion I am more on the Sociopathic end of things - things do certainly tend to be about me, me, me . and for anyone re-considering any invites to that nice Mr DOJ they met on the internet I will mention that (apparently) most Sociopaths don't eat people etc . and make good pets (ok, I made that last bit up ).

Ironically though I did once get locked up for a while (a week? / 10 days?) in a secure Physchiatric hospital (and funnily enough met a couple of people I knew!) - but that a business dispute rather than a medical thing...........which ended nicely enough in a 12 hour drinking session with the Chief of Police (who had to be carried, comatose, into the back of his pickup truck - and he was a fat bloke!). Me carried on for a couple more days . Oh happy days .

I will however disagree that my viewpoint is irrelevant, with 1-2% of the population the odds of folks encountering those with similar viewpoint as mine even if not so honestly expressed (in addition to companies - which as you indicate are morally neutral by design) are quite high, not to say that the impact involves getting eaten but simply from the interactions as outlined being different to what is expected (demanded?).

Whilst I am "on the couch" one of the funny(?) stories I can share - is when I was told 2 or 3 years back that one of the Clients (at a firm I was passing through workwise) had been murdered. Afterwards I kicked myself for my visible reaction - which was entirely neutral (and I could see at the time they were expecting something more - I just had no idea what!), because the appropriate behaviour had not been learned in this side of the world (apparently some sort of surprise, a vague expression of caring and possibly an enquiry as to WTF happened would be acceptable, it's in the bank for next time) - I had only learnt the reaction in the other side of the world (SE Asia) where the correct reaction is none, admitting ignorance of the event by enquiring further is weakness (whilst brain whirs away of course - mostly about what message is being sent simply by sharing this news, even if usually it's just folks being sociable with someone they know won't have an attack of the vapours ).

Anyway, I suspect I may have queered my pitch in the SSSSM .

[Lagoon4us]

Decent people will react decently to this story with sympathy no different to the majority on this forum.

The others with their quite stupid arguments should imagine that the drowning person was one of their own and ask themselves what position they would then assert..

Here in Australia under the 'Good Samaritan' law (if you like) that was mentioned elsewhere Mr Lopez would be protected from suit. My god if this wasn't the case we may as well become USA's next state!!!

My intention was not to offend DOJ, it was his comment that offended......

The boating community more than any other group should, as many have on this forum, congratulate Mr Lopez's action, style and subsequent style. He is a worthy human being well done.

I take my hat off to him..........

[maytrix]

Originally Posted by sailinman

the fear of being sued is only a small part of it... the bigger issue is the lack of insurance coverage... their insurance would deny claims left and right...

That's the huge part of it. You could save someone and if in the process the get injured, they could turn around and sue you. This is the type of stupid lawsuits that need to be dismissed immediately, but why the company has their policy.

Guy did the right thing though.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by maytrix

That's the huge part of it. You could save someone and if in the process the get injured, they could turn around and sue you. This is the type of stupid lawsuits that need to be dismissed immediately, but why the company has their policy.

Guy did the right thing though.

No judge in the free world will support a "good samaritan" suit, otherwise there would be no volunteer rescue associations, no first aid courses we would be back to the caves.

[Bloodhound]

Litigation issues indeed. What has our society become? One of the reasons we're departing the US of A. Enough is enough.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

My god if this wasn't the case we may as well become USA's next state!!!

shudders

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by zeehag

cs--do you know how laws are truly made??? and how on job performance is dictated??
if you did, you would not argue my point on lobbies and the effect on insurance and other allegedly necessary items we used to live without so nicely. brings to mind the extortion rings of old times.
pay or not do.
lobbies made the need for insurance and it has become a scam out of control yet we still allegedly need the services.
lobbies and tort law..both need to be modified massively. until that happens, most good samaritan jobs will remain, and become even more, restricted to within the area of assignment. no leaving your zone to help someone in distress.
the days of good samaritans is over. we are now punished for helping others--yet again. yes--the lifeguards are good sams--why else would they work for so little pay to do so much good for others

Surprisingly legible for you Zeehag, your persona has noticeable changed