Let him drown next time!

[Scooter]

This is really not that complicated.

There is a reason why only certain stretches of beach are signed as being under surveillance by lifeguards - because it is impossible to provide lifeguard protection to thousands of miles of coastline. Those who swim outside of those areas are doing so at their own risk. Those who swim within those areas expect and DESERVE to have the full attention of lifeguards trained on the areas so designated. That lifeguard had a duty of care to those people who took heed of which areas were so designated, and he breached that duty. And if there had been an incident within that area when he went galivanting down the beach, and his fellow lifeguards had to deal with it without him and someone had died as a result, they would be singing an entirely different tune. And if it had been your kid that had drowned, you wouldn't buy for a second the excuse that he was busy "saving" some other twit down the beach. You would have expected that he had been where he was paid to be watching.

There is nothing "decent" about abandoning hundreds of people who are relying on your protection so you can go off and play hero whenever the mood strikes.

[Gob]

There is nothing decent about putting corporate liability above human life, which is the reason he was fired.

[Scooter]

What about the human lives of all the people he abandoned? Their lives don't count, I suppose.

[Gob]

Well lets see now; he left them with other lifesavers present, so big fucking deal..

But when Mr Lopez filled out an incident report for his employer, Jeff Ellis Management, he was promptly sacked. The reason: the rescue occurred roughly 1,500 feet outside the "safety area" Mr Lopez was officially supposed to be protecting, where signs tell people they swim at their own risk.

According to a statement from the company, Mr Lopez therefore broke one of the cardinal rules of his job: he left them with a "liability issue". Had the rescue gone wrong, or had another incident occurred in the "safety area," the firm could theoretically have been sued.

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

Mr Lopez has no regrets. Helping the man, who remains in intensive care "was the moral thing to do," he said, adding: "I wouldn't put my job over morals."

Several colleagues agree. Seven have already resigned, saying they refuse to work for a company which puts health-and-safety protocol ahead of saving a human life.

To be honest, I think the guy on the ground is a bit better placed to asses the relative risk than someone in Canada.

[Scooter]

He left them short handed by abandoning his post. And if it was your kid that drowned as a result, no way would you be saying "big fucking deal".

[Gob]

Jeff Ellis, the president of Jeff Ellis Management, told ABC News he had offered Tomas Lopez, 21, his job back today, but he declined.

Ellis was able to confirm that Lopez's post was not left unattended when he ran out to help save a swimmer in an unprotected area of the beach, and so he should not have been let go.

Whoopsy...

[Scooter]

To be honest, I think the guy on the ground is a bit better placed to asses the relative risk than someone in Canada.

And I suppose those whose job it is to determine how many lifeguards should be patrolling that beach don't know their business either.

[Scooter]

Jeff Ellis, the president of Jeff Ellis Management, told ABC News he had offered Tomas Lopez, 21, his job back today, but he declined.

Ellis was able to confirm that Lopez's post was not left unattended when he ran out to help save a swimmer in an unprotected area of the beach, and so he should not have been let go.

Whoopsy...

Not the first time a business has caved to (ignorant) public pressure because it was the path of least resistance.

[Gob]

Not the first time you've cooked up a whole bunch of "what if's," and imaginary events which may or may not have happened, rather than debate what did.

Six of Lopez's coworkers said they would have done the same thing. And now, they've been fired too.

"I can listen to the rule and tell them that I wouldn't help someone who was distressed, but I knew if the incident ever came up I would go," said 19-year-old Brian Ritchie, who was fired today for saying he too would rescue someone outside his patrol zone.

"What we're basically supposed to do is watch them die," said 16-year-old Zoard Janko, who also backed Lopez's decision.

These are decent people.

[Scooter]

So next time someone is on a beach they are supposed to be patrolling, they will know that they cannot rely on that to happen. How very "decent".

[Scooter]

Not the first time you've cooked up a whole bunch of "what if's," and imaginary events which may or may not have happened, rather than debate what did.

Forgive me for recognizing that SOPs exist in order to cover completely foreseeable contingencies. I promise not to do it again.

[Gob]

Well I think we've reached an impasse here, I think he did the right thing, you do not.

Call it quits?

[Joe Guy]

So next time someone is on a beach they are supposed to be patrolling, they will know that they cannot rely on that to happen. How very "decent".

Having come directly to your post to hopefully get the last word on this subject I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Now I have to read more stuff and try to figure out your point...