It seems that you're being purposefully obtuse. You've taken a portion of a question of a hypothetical situation and mashed it into a place in a real situation where it dos not belong. By your logic (as displayed above) if the closest victim was fifteen minutes away across the bay then it would be proper for the guard to go to that victim. You're not seriously suggesting such a thing, are you?
I'm not forgetting anything. And a lifeguard is not supposed to help anyone, anywhere while on duty. Take, for example, the situation of an indoor pool enclosed within glass walls. The lifeguard sees someone on the outer side drop to the ground for no apparent reason. What do you think the lifeguard should do? What if the guard is the only person staffing the pool? What if there is a backup guard on off-rotation in the office? What if the other person is the pool manager but he's gone off the recreational complex office to finish some photocopies? (This is one of the many hypothetical question I pose to my candidates when we discuss "lifeguarding and the law" and "Lifeguarding ethics").
Yes it does. We have policy and procedure for a reason. We have standards for a reason. We have certification bodies and international conferences on standards, procedures, statistics, and best practices for a reason.
What you suggest isn't logic. It's emotional. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but you're approaching this situation from the latter, while claiming the former.
A silly rule to you. Do know why the rule is in place? Do you have any experience lifeguarding? Have you ever studied the theory of lifeguarding, or the practice of lifeguarding? Do you have any idea of why a lifeguard may need kick a victim in the chest or face (this one I ask simply because it is also something that seems "logical" and "simple" that a lifeguard would never do)?
He may have acted correctly if he waited for cover from his adjacent guard; however, you seem ill-qualified to make such a blanket conclusion.
I'm done arguing with you, me and everyone else see your side as wrong. Common sense sees your side as wrong.
You can think you're right, and thats your opinion but in my opinion a life guard failing to act is a ****** life guard and I think everyone else would agree.
Not to mention your rule doesn't seem to be a rule at all, a quick google shows many cases where companies leave it up to the discretion of the lifeguard of where to save someone. Like here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/tampa-bay-lifeguards-have-freedom-to-save-lives-no-matter-where-they-sit/1238911
Glad to see that place uses common sense.
Last edited: