• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Boy begs two lifeguards to save drowning woman, told they're "on a break"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kosmo

Banned
spiderman123 said:
Lifeguards my ass....more like Don'tGiveAShit Guards.....lock them up and throw away the key.

WTF, seriously. If anything, the problem lies with this pool being murky as hell - looks like they are swimming in skim milk, Yeah, they should have been more on top of it, but if you have ever gone swimming at a public pool, you'll know these are probably 17 or 18 year old kids as lifeguards. You seriously want to lock them up for 20 years?
 

dispensergoinup

Gold Member
LQX said:
I'm not blaming the kid but some of you are acting as if 9 years old's are idiots. I'm just saying I figured a nine year old would have a bit more common sense to try harder to get help for someone he knew was under the water.

Yeah I would have gone to look for a lifegua...oh wait.
 
Kosmo said:
WTF, seriously. If anything, the problem lies with this pool being murky as hell - looks like they are swimming in skim milk, Yeah, they should have been more on top of it, but if you have ever gone swimming at a public pool, you'll know these are probably 17 or 18 year old kids as lifeguards. You seriously want to lock them up for 20 years?

They're designated lifeguards. It's their responsibility and as such they should be held accountable for their actions. Maybe "locking them up and throwing away the key," is a bit of an over emotional response but I do believe they deserve jail time ( not 20 years)
 

threenote

Banned
Kosmo said:
WTF, seriously. If anything, the problem lies with this pool being murky as hell - looks like they are swimming in skim milk, Yeah, they should have been more on top of it, but if you have ever gone swimming at a public pool, you'll know these are probably 17 or 18 year old kids as lifeguards. You seriously want to lock them up for 20 years?
Yeah, let's not blame the people who are paid to SAVE PEOPLE FROM DROWNING.
 
LQX said:
I'm not blaming the kid but some of you are acting as if 9 years old's are idiots. I'm just saying I figured a nine year old would have a bit more common sense to try harder to get help for someone he knew was under the water.
He went to lifeguards, you know the trained professionals that are drilled into little kids head to go to when at the pool.
 
Kosmo said:
WTF, seriously. If anything, the problem lies with this pool being murky as hell - looks like they are swimming in skim milk, Yeah, they should have been more on top of it, but if you have ever gone swimming at a public pool, you'll know these are probably 17 or 18 year old kids as lifeguards. You seriously want to lock them up for 20 years?

If your job involves a life and death situation, and you refuse to do it. Then yes?
 

Kosmo

Banned
spiderman123 said:
They're designated lifeguards. It's their responsibility and as such they should be held accountable for their actions. Maybe "locking them up and throwing away the key," is a bit of an over emotional response but I do believe they deserve jail time ( not 20 years)

Were they negligent? Yes.
Should they ever be life guards again? No.
Should they perform some sort of restitution - e.g. some community service? Yes.
Is this the type of person putting behind bars would serve ANY purpose? No.
 
GhettoGamer said:
He went to lifeguards, you know the trained professionals that are drilled into little kids head to go to when at the pool.

And lets not forget the fact that most kids put a great deal of trust/faith into adults/professionals.
 
Kosmo said:
Were they negligent? Yes.
Should they ever be life guards again? No.
Should they perform some sort of restitution - e.g. some community service? Yes.
Is this the type of person putting behind bars would serve ANY purpose? No.


Then obviously we are at an impasse good sir. Arguing my point any further is futile and as such I respect your opinion and will leave it there.
 
Kosmo said:
Is this the type of person putting behind bars would serve ANY purpose? No.
Course it would serve a purpose. It would set an example.

If your job is to prevent people from dying, and you fail to do it, then you're going to be in deep deep trouble.

A woman died because the person responsible for her safety ignored their job. If a baby drowned in a tub because the mother was busy talking on the phone, would you hold her responsible and demand jail time? Of course you would. This is the same thing.

These people had an important job to do, and they didn't bother to do it. Throw the book at them for all I care.
 

low-G

Member
Kosmo said:
Were they negligent? Yes.
Should they ever be life guards again? No.
Should they perform some sort of restitution - e.g. some community service? Yes.
Is this the type of person putting behind bars would serve ANY purpose? No.

I agree, execute them immediately.
 

Iadien

Guarantee I'm going to screw up this post? Yeah.
LQX said:
Ugh, that is fucked up. That fucking kid could have done more though being that he knew what happened.

That kid did exactly what he should have done. The lifeguards did not.
 

(._.)

Banned
Wouldn't be gaf ot without some sad news and a few people exposing in their posts just how mentally immature they really are.
 

Koburb

Banned
That is some 3rd world level shit right there. No civilized person who with even the slightest bit of compassion would have refused to save the women. Those "lifeguards" are pure evil and should be put to death for mankind. Eliminate any possibility of these evil subhuman scum from multiplying. Where to people like that come from? How did they get a job and who raised them to be so evil?
 

Kosmo

Banned
spiderman123 said:
Then obviously we are at an impasse good sir. Arguing my point any further is futile and as such I respect your opinion and will leave it there.

Good day. I can see how someone could hold the opposite opinion, I just disagree and think our jails should be used sparingly and for good cause (e.g. psycho murderers).
 

Zzoram

Member
That pool was operating illegally. It is illegal for a public pool to be murky, precisely because it prevents drowning people from being spotted. The pool operator is going to get a huge ass fine and maybe go to jail.
 
Kosmo said:
Good day. I can see how someone could hold the opposite opinion, I just disagree and think our jails should be used sparingly and for good cause (e.g. psycho murderers).

It's negligent homicide bro. Deal with it.
 

ampere

Member
Kosmo said:
Were they negligent? Yes.
Should they ever be life guards again? No.
Should they perform some sort of restitution - e.g. some community service? Yes.
Is this the type of person putting behind bars would serve ANY purpose? No.
I sort of agree with this, but they should definitely have this severe negligence put on record or something.

Shit, they shouldn't ever be allowed to hold any sort of safety related position.

And the community service needs to be a very large amount. The damage they're done is very large.

This incident is terrible, but it's also a reminder that lifeguards at neighborhood pools are often young kids who:
a) Don't care about their job and don't expect anything to happen
b) Probably didn't pay attention to training and couldn't actually save anyone
 
1. You should be able to see the bottom of any pool. You should deffinately be able to see a body at the bottom. It must have been poorly maintained.

2. Those lifeguards suck, but it is probably a reflection of poor leadership/management.

I have noticed a big difference between municpal recreational pools/YCMA pools; and the sort of pools you see at hotels. Sadly, hotel pools often don't have the same funding and qualified people to operate at the same standard as the city pools.
 

Zzoram

Member
Drkirby said:
Yep, this is somewhat old news. Different focus though:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=435861&page=2

Of some interest from the other topic:

Not sure what the law is in the US, but in Canada inspectors are supposed to immediately call swimmers out and shut down a pool if the water is murky enough that they can't clearly see the bottom of the deep end. However, inspecting only happens like 3 times a year because there are usually not enough inspectors for the number of public pools in operation.
 
LQX said:
I'm not blaming the kid but some of you are acting as if 9 years old's are idiots. I'm just saying I figured a nine year old would have a bit more common sense to try harder to get help for someone he knew was under the water.
He went to the proper people for assistance - the people that would be trained for water rescue... Pretty smart on the kid, too bad he was met with complete idiots that rightfully should have their lived ruined with litigation. 9 years old puts you in what, 4th or 5th grade in elementary school?
 

smurfx

get some go again
everything about this story is fucked up. this place should be closed down forever. negligent lifeguards and the pool is not maintained at all. the owner of this place is fucked.
 

Moppet13

Member
This thread is truly amazing. I read the article and never imagined that anyone would blame the 9 year old. Then again... these things happen quite often.
 

ampere

Member
Deadbeat said:
I wouldnt want ANYONE involved in this doing any community service. They have done enough service already.
Community service can be picking up trash in parks or beside the highway
 

Deadlock

Member
If I was 9, I sure hope I would have done all I could to save someone if I thought they were dying.
Truly tragic about what happened. Hopefully the boy doesn't have severe trauma.
 
LaserBuddha said:
It's only negligent homicide if the lifeguards were told soon enough to be able to save her, bro. Deal with it.

They weren't? Oh well we won't know because they did absolutely nothing.
 

dojokun

Banned
LaserBuddha said:
It's only negligent homicide if the lifeguards were told soon enough to be able to save her, bro. Deal with it.
First, Devolution is a girl.

Second, what makes you think they weren't told soon enough?
 

Orayn

Member
As a person who spent several years as a lifeguard at a very persnickety community center pool, this really pisses me off.

1. The water should never, ever be so cloudy that you can't see the bottom. Optical interference and waves are bad enough, but having the actual water be less than transparent is ridiculous.

2. Lifeguards don't get breaks, strictly speaking. The pool usually has several positions where a guard is stationed for 20 minutes to half an our at a time, and one or two "off" positions where you're walking around, doing minor cleaning stuff, and attending to guest questions/concerns. If there's a problem, you're still required to respond immediately, regardless of what you're doing.

3. These "lifeguards" should be fired immediately, and possibly brought up on charges as well. It's terrible that there wasn't a someone watching the area in the first place, but as soon as you know about something like this, you move as fast as you safely can and get in the fucking water. Unnecessarily jumping in, or even clearing the pool is always preferable to not responding. Lives are at stake, and you don't have the luxury of sitting on your ass.
Freshmaker said:
That's what min wage buys you.
Lifeguards require more training and thus have more qualifications than your average fast food or retail employee, and get paid more as well. I was making close to $11/hour when I went off to college and my pool decided they didn't want me back.
 
dojokun said:
First, Devolution is a girl.

Second, what makes you think they weren't told soon enough?
I know devolution is a girl. I was mimicking her cockiness about something she was wrong about/assuming.

Maybe you need to read my post again. I never said anything to suggest they weren't told soon enough. I said that it's only negligent homicide if there was a chance to save her at that point. No one here knows how much time passed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom