Support NeoGAF

[Devolution]

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.

Yeah how lucky of them, we can't even establish if she could be saved because of their refusal to do their job.

 

[Kinitari]

Remember the kid went to two life guards. One left for their break, so he went to another, who said that they would do a check. They didn't. When an adult tells you something at that age, especially one with added authority, you sort of thing "okay, it's going to get done".

He just learned an important lesson that a lot of kids don't learn until much later, everyone and anyone can fuck up.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Yeah how lucky of them, we can't even establish if she could be saved because of their refusal to do their job.

You made a blind assumption out of bloodlust that this was negligent homicide and that we just need to deal with this fact. Sarcasm and an appeal to ridicule aren't going to change you being wrong.

 

[Aylinato]

It's only negligent homicide if the lifeguards were told soon enough to be able to save her, bro. Deal with it.

Man if it takes two lifeguards 3 days to save me I might as well stay out of the water



Also, you r wrong, very wrong. Lifeguards are at fault. As a lifeguard myself you alway have to check out claims even off-duty. It's not just your job but your duty to take care of people.

 

[Gaborn]

You made a blind assumption out of bloodlust that this was negligent homicide and that we just need to deal with this fact. Sarcasm and an appeal to ridicule aren't going to change you being wrong.

Even if they couldn't have saved the woman they had a duty of care to attempt to do so. What if you called 911 because you see someone collapse from a massive brain hemorrhage and the EMTs decided the victim was already dead so they'd go on the call after stopping for coffee? It might be true but it would still be irresponsible because you never know without checking.

 

[Devolution]

You made a blind assumption out of bloodlust that this was negligent homicide and that we just need to deal with this fact. Sarcasm and an appeal to ridicule aren't going to change you being wrong.

Who says they still can't be charged with it or something similar since it's their own reluctance to do anything that caused this? I mean really they still could have helped themselves (at the very least) by trying to save her, even if she had already drowned.

 

[Orayn]

You made a blind assumption out of bloodlust that this was negligent homicide and that we just need to deal with this fact. Sarcasm and an appeal to ridicule aren't going to change you being wrong.

Maybe so, but the guards not responding is inexcusable. If there's even a possibility that someone is in distress, you respond, period. No breaks, no excuses.

 

[LaserBuddha]

*oops*

 

[Blair]

He just learned an important lesson that a lot of kids don't learn until much later, everyone and anyone can fuck up.

This is very true.


As i grew up i realised there is no time when we suddenly turn into 'adults' and that the whole concept of being an adult is a complete myth.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Even if they couldn't have saved the woman they had a duty of care to attempt to do so. What if you called 911 because you see someone collapse from a massive brain hemorrhage and the EMTs decided the victim was already dead so they'd go on the call after stopping for coffee? It might be true but it would still be irresponsible because you never know without checking.

I'm just talking about what kind of charges are appropriate. I'm sure you can find someone else to attribute these additional opinions to that actually has them.

Who says they still can't be charged with it or something similar since it's their own reluctance to do anything that caused this? I mean really they still could have helped themselves (at the very least) by trying to save her, even if she had already drowned.

They can only be charged with this if a timeline can be established that indicates they could have saved her if they did what they were supposed to. If that's not the case then that's not what they should be charged with. If outrage is justification for tossing out the proper application of the law, we might as well not stop there and just lynch them.

Maybe so, but the guards not responding is inexcusable. If there's even a possibility that someone is in distress, you respond, period. No breaks, no excuses.

That's cool, I never offered them any excuses for their behavior.



I think this thread is desperate for an antagonistic poster. Replies to my posts are basically "Well yeah, but you're wrong about <something I didn't say or imply>".

 

[Gaborn]

I'm just talking about what kind of charges are appropriate. I'm sure you can find someone else to attribute these additional opinions to that actually has them.

and all the charges you don't think would be appropriate ARE because a life guard doesn't have the power to assume someone is already dead, they have a duty to the people in the pool to respond to people who may be in distress and that INCLUDES people who happen to already be dead. By NOT doing so you're suggesting that it's ok for the life guard to make a judgment call whether they should bother to go after someone that may be in distress because they could already be dead.

 

[SapientWolf]

First, Devolution is a girl.

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

Don't be silly. Girls don't have beards.

I don't think they believed that there was someone on the bottom of the pool, so they shrugged the kid off. The murky water was a safety hazard that should have been identified long before this incident, so that's not the only case of negligence here.

 

[dojokun]

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.

Thrpe kid witnessed it and told the lifeguards. You're arguing that it's possible the kid waited until the lady was unsaveable before telling the lifeguards? I would think that a jury would not be convinced of that argument without proof. Common sense says he told right away.

 

[The Albatross]

This has been a pretty big story around here. Although, I think the bigger story has been that it took 2 days for them to realize there was a dead person in the pool. It's a tragedy, but so far, most of the talk has not been about negligent body guards... At least, in the papers around here, etc.

.. Fall River.. ugh

 

[LaserBuddha]

and all the charges you don't think would be appropriate ARE because a life guard doesn't have the power to assume someone is already dead, they have a duty to the people in the pool to respond to people who may be in distress and that INCLUDES people who happen to already be dead. By NOT doing so you're suggesting that it's ok for the life guard to make a judgment call whether they should bother to go after someone that may be in distress because they could already be dead.

1.) You can't charge someone with negligent homicide if their inaction didn't cause the person's death. Period. We have a long list of things people can get charged with, so that we can apply the appropriate charge to the crime.

2.) Saying it wasn't negligent homicide doesn't mean they don't have a duty to try help in any situation like this, and I never said otherwise. Again, this is you wanting me to have the opposite view on this whole thing from the view that you have, so that you can argue with someone.

3.) I'm not suggesting that's ok for a lifeguard to make such a judgement call. You're making that up and must have gone through some mental gymnastics to do so. No lifeguard should ever have that mindset. Trying to extrapolate that from my views on what qualifies for the specific charge of negligent homicide makes you look much less intelligent than I know you must be.

Thrpe kid witnessed it and told the lifeguards. You're arguing that it's possible the kid waited until the lady was unsaveable before telling the lifeguards? I would think that a jury would not be convinced of that argument without proof. Common sense says he told right away.

I'm saying that I don't know. How long does it take for a 9-year-old boy to notice that a woman he has no association with has been gone for too long? I don't know. Maybe someone does. Your logic has no place in a court of law, though.

Don't be silly. Girls don't have beards.

I don't think they believed that there was someone on the bottom of the pool, so they shrugged the kid off. The murky water was a safety hazard that should have been identified long before this incident, so that's not the only case of negligence here.

Not investigating the claim was clear and blatant negligence on the lifeguards' part. Even if there's someone at the pool who starts "crying wolf" a lot or something, you still need to investigate every time and address the problem by getting them banned from the pool, not by ignoring them.





Goodness, look at all the people arguing with me, none of which are arguing against the one point I made. It's surreal.

 

[dojokun]

1.) You can't charge someone with negligent homicide if their inaction didn't cause the person's death. Period. We have a long list of things people can get charged with, so that we can apply the appropriate charge to the crime.

2.) Saying it wasn't negligent homicide doesn't mean they don't have a duty to try help in any situation like this, and I never said otherwise. Again, this is you wanting me to have the opposite view on this whole that you do, so that you can argue with someone.

3.) I'm not suggesting that's ok for a lifeguard to make such a judgement call. You're making that up and must have gone through some mental gymnastics to do so. No lifeguard should ever have that mindset. Trying to extrapolate that from my views on what qualifies for the specific charge of negligent homicide makes you look much less intelligent than I know you must be.



I'm saying that I don't know. How long does it take for a 9-year-old boy to notice that a woman he has no association with has been gone for too long? I don't know. Maybe someone does. Your logic has no place in a court of law, though.



Not investigating the claim was clear and blatant negligence on the lifeguards' part. Even if there's someone at the pool who starts "crying wolf" a lot or something, you still need to investigate every time and address the problem by getting them banned from the pool, not by ignoring them.





Goodness, look at all the people arguing with me, none of which are arguing against the one point I made. It's surreal.

The kid didn't know the woman. He wouldn't know to look for her to realize she was missing. He knew she went under because he saw her go under. Why would that not have a place in the court of law? What are your legal credentials?

 

[SapientWolf]

Not investigating the claim was clear and blatant negligence on the lifeguards' part. Even if there's someone at the pool who starts "crying wolf" a lot or something, you still need to investigate every time and address the problem by getting them banned from the pool, not by ignoring them.

Never said it wasn't. Just said it wasn't the only case. Why stop at the lifegaurds? The pool guy at least needs a stern talking to.

 

[Gaborn]

1.) You can't charge someone with negligent homicide if their inaction didn't cause the person's death. Period. We have a long list of things people can get charged with, so that we can apply the appropriate charge to the crime.

2.) Saying it wasn't negligent homicide doesn't mean they don't have a duty to try help in any situation like this, and I never said otherwise. Again, this is you wanting me to have the opposite view on this whole that you do, so that you can argue with someone.

3.) I'm not suggesting that's ok for a lifeguard to make such a judgement call. You're making that up and must have gone through some mental gymnastics to do so. No lifeguard should ever have that mindset. Trying to extrapolate that from my views on what qualifies for the specific charge of negligent homicide makes you look much less intelligent than I know you must be.

The moment you choose to ignore a request for help when you're in that position you're opening yourself up to that form of liability. Their death was ruled to be an accidental drowning. It wasn't stroke, it wasn't a hemorrhage, it wasn't a a heart attack, it was a drowning. I think you would have a point if it was some other cause and it may well have BEEN another cause but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that a life guard should not be held responsible for one of the swimmers in their care DROWNING. I mean, by your logic if a life guard doesn't notice a swimmer that suddenly develops a massive cramp and starts drowning and sees them going under late they wouldn't have a duty to pull them out and try to save them.

 

[LaserBuddha]

The kid didn't know the woman. He wouldn't know to look for her to realize she was missing. He knew she went under because he saw her go under. Why would that not have a place in the court of law? What are your legal credentials?

He saw her go under, but that doesn't mean he sat there and watched for her to come back up. Maybe he saw her go under, and 15 minutes later he noticed that he hadn't seen her since then. Did I say anything to the effect of "seeing her go under has no place in a court of law"? I'm just talking about establishing a timeline, something investigators will need to do to figure out what the appropriate charges are. I didn't even say they weren't guilty of negligent homicide, only that we don;t know if they were or not. How does that not make sense?

Do facts and investigative diligence not matter when we're outraged?

The moment you choose to ignore a request for help when you're in that position you're opening yourself up to that form of liability. Their death was ruled to be an accidental drowning. It wasn't stroke, it wasn't a hemorrhage, it wasn't a a heart attack, it was a drowning. I think you would have a point if it was some other cause and it may well have BEEN another cause but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that a life guard should not be held responsible for one of the swimmers in their care DROWNING. I mean, by your logic if a life guard doesn't notice a swimmer that suddenly develops a massive cramp and starts drowning and sees them going under late they wouldn't have a duty to pull them out and try to save them.

If, hypothetically, she had been underwater long enough to have been beyond help when the lifeguards were notified, then they weren't responsible for her death. Do you just want to cut the crap and tell me how I'm wrong about that? If I am then I'd sincerely like to know.

 

[dojokun]

LaserBuddha also ignores the fact that as lifeguards, it's their job to notice people drowning without being told by a nine year old kid.

 

[LaserBuddha]

LaserBuddha also ignores the fact that as lifeguards, it's their job to notice people drowning without being told by a nine year old kid.

Show me were I ignored that or retract your post.

 

[dojokun]

He saw her go under, but that doesn't mean he sat there and watched for her to come back up. Maybe he saw her go under, and 15 minutes later he noticed that he hadn't seen her since then. Did I say anything to the effect of "seeing her go under has no place in a court of law"? I'm just talking about establishing a timeline, something investigators will need to do to figure out what the appropriate charges are. I didn't even say they weren't guilty of negligent homicide, only that we don;t know if they were or not. How does that not make sense?

Do facts and investigative diligence not matter when we're outraged?

Devolution said they were guilty of negligent homicide and then you said she was wrong. Therefore, you DID claim they weren't guilty of negligent homicide.

 

[dojokun]

Show me were I ignored that or retract your post.

Show you where you ignored the fact that it's their job to notice without being told? Your request makes no sense.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Show you where you ignored the fact that it's their job to notice without being told? Your request makes no sense.

It's only negligent homicide if the lifeguards were told soon enough to be able to save her

Flat out wrong.

 

[dojokun]

Flat out wrong.

Umm, you just proved yourself wrong. You quoted yourself saying it depends on when they were told, and I was saying you're ignoring that it's their job to notice it without being told.

 

[Gaborn]

If, hypothetically, she had been underwater long enough to have been beyond help when the lifeguards were notified, then they weren't responsible for her death. Do you just want to cut the crap and tell me how I'm wrong about that? If I am then I'd sincerely like to know.

Because it's their responsibility to know, or have a good reason not to have seen it. Telling a 9 year old they're "on a break" when informed of a problem is not an acceptable justification for not going in and investigating the concern. Lifeguards have a duty of care, that means they have to be responsive when a problem is reported. I mean, if they're having massive diarrhea and were in the bathroom at the time? Fine, that's understandable. But just being "on a break"? Fuck that.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Umm, you just proved yourself wrong. You quoted yourself saying it depends on when they were told, and I wqs saying you're ignoring that it's their job to notice it without being told.

No, I said that they aren't guilty of homicide unless their inaction caused her death, or they plausibly had a chance to save her at that point. None of which would justify their actions (or rather, inaction) to any degree whatsoever. This is purely a consideration for a prosecutor, after the fact.

Show you where you ignored the fact that it's their job to notice without being told? Your request makes no sense.

Neither does your accusation. I only argued the technicalities of what situations count as negligent homicide. Try as you might, you won't be able to attribute additional views to me.

 

[Neuromancer]

Ugh, that is fucked up. That fucking kid could have done more though being that he knew what happened.

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.

LQX is either a master troll or the most idiotic poster on GAF. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with master troll.

 

[Devolution]

LQX is either a master troll or the most idiotic poster on GAF. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with master troll.

Them 9 year olds need to man-up dude.

 

[Tideas]

Jail? Really ppl?

So you guys are arguing that ppl who don't do their jobs correctly shud go to jail. Not that they did their job wrong, bt they didn't do it, and so they shud go to jail.

Should a firefighter, who's refuses to go into a burningv home, go to jail?

Surethey shud be fired...but jail? Glad u guys ain't ruling the country

 

[LaserBuddha]

Because it's their responsibility to know, or have a good reason not to have seen it. Telling a 9 year old they're "on a break" when informed of a problem is not an acceptable justification for not going in and investigating the concern. Lifeguards have a duty of care, that means they have to be responsive when a problem is reported. I mean, if they're having massive diarrhea and were in the bathroom at the time? Fine, that's understandable. But just being "on a break"? Fuck that.

They certainly do have a duty to care, and no matter how much time has passed (not that they'd even know) it shouldn't have any bearing on taking immediate action. And yeah, fuck that lady for saying she was on break, no sane person wouldn't be disgusted by that. I just don't see negligent homicide being the correct specific charge if it turns out it was already too late to save her when they found out. The details really do matter.

As to why they didn't realize it on their own? It could be due to that cloudy pool. I'm curious as to how much of the responsibility for letting people swim in a cloudy pool is put on the lifeguards, or the facility management, or the inspectors.

 

[dojokun]

No, I said that they aren't guilty of homicide unless their inaction caused her death, or they plausibly had a chance to save her at that point. None of which would justify their actions (or rather, inaction) to any degree whatsoever. This is purely a consideration for a prosecutor, after the fact.


Neither does your accusation. I only argued the technicalities of what situations count as negligent homicide. Try as you might, you won't be able to attribute additional views to me.

This is you in reference to Devolution's claim that they are guilty of negligent homicide:

You made a blind assumption out of bloodlust that this was negligent homicide and that we just need to deal with this fact. Sarcasm and an appeal to ridicule aren't going to change you being wrong.

Claiming that she is wrong means you are claimng they are NOT guilty of negligent homicide. Claiming that we can't be sure would mean saying that we don't know if she is wrong. But you flat out said she was wrong. Therefore, you claimed that they are innocent of negligent homicide.

 

[SapientWolf]

Jail? Really ppl?

So you guys are arguing that ppl who don't do their jobs correctly shud go to jail. Not that they did their job wrong, bt they didn't do it, and so they shud go to jail.

Should a firefighter, who's refuses to go into a burningv home, go to jail?

Surethey shud be fired...but jail? Glad u guys ain't ruling the country

An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.

http://www.answers.com/topic/manslaughter-2#ixzz1RAgfA7Vn

That's the interpretation from West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Sentencing is up to the jury and the judge to decide.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Claiming that she is wrong means you are claimng they are NOT guilty of negligent homicide. Claiming that we can't be sure would mean saying that we don't know if she is wrong. But you flat out said she was wrong. Therefore, you claimed that they are innocent of negligent homicide.

Claiming she is wrong means I am claiming it is not a forgone conclusion that this is negligent homicide, whereas she was trying to assert it definitely was. I directly criticized the haughty assumption that it is , when we don't know if it's true or not. I've discussed in detail how there is a big question mark over that. Stop being purposefully ignorant and trying to tell me what I think/said when the evidence is readily available that you're wrong. You're trying to defend a misinterpretation you made dozens of posts back by ignoring what could have helped you understand it since then.


I think I'm out of here. These lifeguards are guilty of a crime, and that crime is only homicide specifically if their inaction at they time they were made aware made the difference between life and death for this poor woman. Since no one that is arguing with me is arguing against that point, I'm obviously serving as an imaginary villain.

 

[dojokun]

Claiming she is wrong means I am claiming it is not a forgone conclusion that this is negligent homicide, whereas she was trying to assert it definitely was. I directly criticized the haughty assumption that it is , when we don't know if it's true or not. I've discussed in detail how there is a big question mark over that. Stop being purposefully ignorant and trying to tell me what I think/said when the evidence is readily available that you're wrong. You're trying to defend a misinterpretation you made dozens of posts back by ignoring what could have helped you understand it since then.

Umm no. I interpretted your words correctly and you're backpedaling. Her making an assumption doesn't mean she is wrong. You said she's wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to alternate definitions of the word "wrong."

 

[LaserBuddha]

Umm no. I interpretted your words correctly and you're backpedaling. Her making an assumption doesn't mean she is wrong. You said she's wrong. You're entitled to hour opinion, but you're not entitled to alternate definitions of the word "wrong."

I think you're confused. When someone says "It's *this*, deal with it", and I say "No, you're wrong, it's only this if *these conditions* are met", then I'm saying the assumption is wrong. I said promptly and repeatedly that the conditions which would make what happened homicide or not are an unknown to us right now.

This has been my position for the entire thread and I never backpedaled anything. You're trying desperately to convince yourself and everyone else that you didn't interpret my post incorrectly, and I don't really understand why.

 

[Death Dealer]

Those lifeguards are going to jail, there fucking screwed.

They ought to go to jail for something.

 

[dojokun]

I think you're confused. When someone says "It's *this*, deal with it", and I say "No, you're wrong, it's only this if *these conditions* are met", then I'm saying the assumption is wrong. I said promptly and repeatedly that the conditions which would make what happened homicide or not are an unknown to us right now.

This has been my position for the entire thread and I never backpedaled anything. You're trying desperately to convince yourself and everyone else that you didn't interpret my post incorrectly, and I don't really understand why.

Again, you're not entitled to some alternate definition of the word "wrong." You made the assertion that her assumption was wrong and then backpedaled by claiming you were only saying she was unjustified in making the assumption. When called out, you act like saying an assumption is wrong is the same as saying it is unjustified.

Backpedaling.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Again, you're not entitled to some alternate definition of the word "wrong." You made the assertion that her assumption was wrong and then backpedaled by claiming you were only saying she was unjustified in making the assumption. When called out, you act like saying an assumption is wrong is the same as saying it is unjustified.

Backpedaling.

An assumption is wrong when it's unjustified. That's what makes assumptions wrong. I didn't even say "they weren't guilty of negligent homicide" in the first post, I said "It's only negligent homicide IF such and such conditions apply".

At this point I'm inclined to just agree and say that yes, I declared the definitely weren't guilty of negligent homicide, then changed my opinion in every subsequent post, so that you can find some peace.

 

[dojokun]

An assumption is wrong when it's unjustified. That's what makes assumptions wrong. I didn't even say "they weren't guilty of negligent homicide" in the first post, I said "It's only negligent homicide IF such and such conditions apply".

At this point I'm inclined to just agree and say that yes, I declared the definitely weren't guilty of negligent homicide, then changed my opinion in every subsequent post, so that you can find some peace.

Ummm no. Unjustified assumptions are not necessarily wrong. You can jump to conclusions and get lucky and be right.

 

[kittens]

I would fucking rage. Hell, I don't even know her, and I'm already raging.

 

[RoboPlato]

I'm a lifeguard and this story is completely appalling. Granted, I am posting this from my phone while I'm on break but no one is in the pool right now and I'm still watching it from right next to it. I'm working 11 days in a row, full time, and I would never even consider turning down someone that needed help, especially if I wasn't doing anything.

 

[B-Dex]

I'm a lifeguard and this story is completely appalling. Granted, I am posting this from my phone while I'm on break but no one is in the pool right now and I'm still watching it from right next to it. I'm working 11 days in a row, full time, and I would never even consider turning down someone that needed help, especially if I wasn't doing anything.

Negligent Manslaughter Charge incoming.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Ummm no. Unjustified assumptions are not necessarily wrong. You can jump to conclusions and get lucky and be right.

This is a hilarious post, because you don't understand the difference between it being wrong to make unjustified "assumption" (which is putting it VERY kindly, since she presented her assumption as an unquestionable fact) and the conclusion of the assumption turning out to be wrong.

 

[Professor Beef]

I'm a lifeguard and this story is completely appalling. Granted, I am posting this from my phone while I'm on break but no one is in the pool right now and I'm still watching it from right next to it. I'm working 11 days in a row, full time, and I would never even consider turning down someone that needed help, especially if I wasn't doing anything.

He's on break! GET HIM!

 

[dojokun]

This is a hilarious post, because you don't understand the difference between it being wrong to make unjustified "assumption" (which is putting it VERY kindly, since she presented her assumption as an unquestionable fact) and the conclusion of the assumption turning out to be wrong.

I understand it fine. And I understand that you said she is wrong. And I understand you're pussyfooting around it.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Tomorrow's headline:

RoboPlato lets child drown while defending himself from GAF

 

[LaserBuddha]

I understand it fine. And I understand that you said she is wrong. And I understand you're pussyfooting around it.

I'm pussyfooting around something that I explained in detail to you, repeatedly, to no avail? Christ on a cracker, find a better crusade to go on.

 

[SapientWolf]

If two days worth of swimmers and city health inspectors (who inspected twice while she was in the pool) didn't see the woman underwater then two lifeguards probably wouldn't either. That's the real reason why no lifeguards are going to see charges from this.

 

[dojokun]

I'm pussyfooting around something that I explained in detail to you, repeatedly, to no avail? Christ on a cracker, find a better crusade to go on.

If you are going through great lengths to explain the word "wrong," you're pussyfooting with semantics and backpedaling.