US

Lifeguard Fired After Violating Policy and…Saving a Drowning Man’s Life

Florida Lifeguard Fired for Saving Mans Life Editor’s note: there’s been an update in the story. Scroll down for additional information.

Don’t let the name fool you: at one beach in Florida, the lifeguards aren’t allowed to save lives if a person is drowning outside a designated area. But when a beachgoer came running to Tommy Lopez on Monday telling him someone was drowning — and that someone was outside his designated area — Lopez did what came naturally and saved the man.

That apparently didn’t matter to his employer. Lopez had violated the rule and was subsequently fired for leaving the section of the beach his company is paid to patrol. The Orlando-based company, Jeff Ellis and Associates, says Lopez violated policy and could have put beachgoers in his section in jeopardy.

“I ran out to do the job I was trained to do,” the 21-year-old Lopez told the Sun-Sentinel. “I didn’t think about it at all.”

“They didn’t tell me in a bad way. It was more like they were sorry, but rules are rules,” he said of his firing. “I couldn’t believe what was happening.”

The story has his fellow lifeguards enraged. In fact, some of them have quit over it — one even did it while ABC News was on site covering the story:

Still, Lopez says he’d do it all again: “It was the moral thing to do. I would never pick a job over my morals.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

UPDATE:

According to ABC News, the head of the lifeguard company Lopez worked for is saying there is a chance the young man could be offered his job back. Jeff Ellis says he is reviewing the situation again to get all the facts straight (which raises the question: Isn’t that what you should do before firing someone?).

“This event caught me by surprise just as much as it did everyone else,” Ellis said. “We’re reviewing everything that has occurred, and we will either concur with that or we will override what happened based on what we find out.”

“If he left his chair and we had a beach full of people and they were left unprotected, that would be one thing,” he added. “If he left his beach and another guard immediately took over and covered so that the beach was protected, that would be an entirely different thing.”

He then concluded: “Once we get all of [the information], we can make an assessment to determine whether or not we acted appropriately.”

Comments (170)

1 2 3 ... 5
  • zoro51
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:21am

    SUE the powners. designated area my fat ass you are trained to SAVE A LIFE… that is what you so id sue the owners n make them pay thru thier ass… i swear wtf has happend to america

    Report Post » zoro51  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:35am

      No need to sue. I disagre with them firing the kid, that was stupid… But why sue? He’ll go right on down the beach and get a better job with another lifeguard company who will appreciate him.

      Report Post »  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:58am

      I once saved two lives at the beach who were caught in a riptide and I was not even a lifeguard but merely a concerned swimmer who heard two boys calling for help. Atleast one of them would have lost his life had I not acted immediately. The lifeguard on duty did respond but not after I had held both their heads above water and they still nearly drowned.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • Rohawk
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:07am

      Normally I wouldn’t agree with suing, but these people aren’t owners of the beach, but service providers; service providers that have a policy of letting their neighbor drown. If they get sued into oblivion they or their replacement might remember that their service is to save life, not punish what could have been good PR.

      Report Post »  
    • 3monkeysmomma
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:37am

      Don’t ya miss common sense?

      Report Post » 3monkeysmomma  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:46am

      Sueing is moronic. It’s a private company, he violated their horrible rules, they decide who does and doesn’t work for them. Simple.

      Hopefully, public pressure will change their minds.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • minorityconservative2
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:50am

      I’ll tell you what has happened to America. We are becoming England where they let a man die in 3 feet of water because of regulations. We are becoming China where they let a baby bleed to death in the street and walk right by her. If we don’t turn back to GOD and stop the abortion, the want to rehabilitate child molesters/abusers and rapists, along with the white liberal guilt for what our white grandaddies did to people of different races then we are doomed. We are desensitized to the humanness of others. We don’t value life anymore.

      Report Post »  
    • De minimus
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 12:45pm

      LAWYERS and MARXISTS and SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS. Oh, and a news and entertainment media that loves everything leftist and manipulates the public 24/7/365.

      Wonder why no one can make a proper decision or vote the way they do? Garbage in, garbage out.

      Report Post » De minimus  
    • schroeder123
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 12:56pm

      I say sue their fat a**. If I was in the water in trouble and the life guard failed to help me, because some idiot made a rule,? I’d sue.

      Report Post » schroeder123  
    • Bluebonnet
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 1:13pm

      IDIOTS………… Has no one in charge of anything got a BRAIN left?

      Yeah, just stand by and let a human being drown because it’s out of your district?

      You bunch of AZZ WHOLES, who do you think you work for? The Government?

      Report Post »  
    • antiprogressive
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 1:24pm

      first off zoro – spellcheck or or at least proof read.
      you sownd lik n idit.

      to all who immediately say sue-
      Do you not realize YET that lawsuits are the biggest problem this country has?
      The company will either go broke or have to increase fees –
      either raising the cost of admittance – or city taxes, depending on how they get paid.
      More people may lose jobs.
      Beaches may be closed until replacements are hired.
      MORE rules and regulations will be written – costing more money.
      You may wind up having to sign a waiver to be allowed on the beach.
      The lawyers will get the majority of money anyway and the CITY will likely change policies.
      You may end up having to wear floaties just to SUNBATHE.

      More lawsuits rules, regulations and restictions is exactly what this country does NOT need.

      Will anyone EVER learn this?????

      You Progressives are already getting what you DESERVE.
      The rest of us are suffering from association and allowing you to LIVE.

      Report Post »  
    • PatrickHenryFan
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 1:40pm

      Zoro,
      With all due respect may I suggest some remedial English courses before your next job interview?
      With your passion to sue may I assume you will start the legal defense fund for this man and throw in the first donation, say $1,000.00?
      Your inane remarks cheapen the story, you look more foolish than the company that did the firing, and that is damn hard

      Report Post » PatrickHenryFan  
    • pebbles
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 3:16pm

      ZORO51 —– I’ll tell u what has happened to America, political correctness run amok and the government taking over our lives. Not to mention the EPA, NAACP, anti-religion groups dictating to the rest of the people in this country, Planned Parenthood, and the list goes on. Oh, and then we have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Jay Carnie, Michele Obama and her “lovely” husband, and the list goes on. Why does this story not shock or surprise me?

      Report Post »  
    • wesinLR
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 3:25pm

      the way to handle this is not to sue but simply organize and try and have the company fired . the beach owners dont want this on their heads.. trust me.

      Report Post » wesinLR  
    • Yoselahonda
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 4:53pm

      I’ll bet more than anything it is the nature of the contract with the city or state that causes most of these types of problems. I have a landscaping maintenance company that has a large municipal contract. In certain areas, our defined areas of maintenance end and are under the maintenance of other City entities or another contractor. In those areas it is very possible that one of my guys could have trash in a horse trail or in the street gutter next to where he is working and in stead of simply picking it up I have to tell him to just leave it there. It makes no sense, but given the way the contracts work the other company or city crew could say my company interfered with their contracted work by leaving our contracted area and could blame us if anything goes wrong in that area. On top of that the city manager who inspects our work could get after me for doing work outside of the contracted area while there are weeds or something else he doesn’t like within the contracted area.

      It’s all messed up, but I’ll bet the lifeguard company has a similarly overly-detailed/rigid/anything-else-that’s-synonymous-with-anal contract. They don‘t want to be paying for lifeguards to watch over areas they aren’t being payed to monitor, and they don’t want to be held liable if something goes wrong within their contracted area while their lifeguards are doing work outside of it.

      Report Post »  
    • slkgej6
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 5:43pm

      Often, companies believe that their insurance will not cover any act of an employee that would increase risk, thereby, increasing indemnity. The question of whether the young man was outside his area of coverage would never have come up, as the insurance company does not know or care about the details of daily lifeguarding. The employer acted rashly for what it wrongly assumed would have endangered the public. The public SUPPORTS lifesaving efforts, but the employer has created an arbitrary set of rules adhering to supposition, not science or fact. Had they failed to go to this person’s aid, and the person died, the company would have been FAR MORE liable than they would be by sending someone a short distance outside of a coverage area. Court cases are rarely decided strictly on law and a company showing that level of callousness would probably know they could not win prior to walking into court. Their insurance company would surely force them to settle for a sum the plaintiff could live with and would require a gag order in exchange. The likelihood is that the company will hire him back because the PR in San Diego is probably killing them and the city of San Diego is likely being inundated. A suit is not necessary. All they have to do is offer him his job back with a simple apology…and a raise. They could be seen as heroes for admitting their mistake and trying to make up for it. They will not lose face or become targets for frivolous suits if they figure this out.

      Report Post »  
    • VoteBushIn12
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:53pm

      You are all complete imbeciles.

      He made a calculated decision to save a man’s life in exchange for the possibility of getting in trouble with his employer. The fact that you agree with his moral compass is irrelevant – the company has rules in place for a reason. Morality is arbitrary, rules are objective.

      If he went out to save that man and 5 children died in his absence then whose side would you be on? Should he be fired then?

      I worked for Ellis as a lifeguard at my local pool. They are extremely strict – no doubt – but they operate efficiently and are the leaders in pool safety. If management deems his actions potentially damaging then I trust them. You are all non-experts with clearly very limited brain power.

      Report Post » VoteBushIn12  
    • Bluefish49
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:03pm

      Did they also fire the life gaurd who was not at his section post so this brave kid had to do his job?

      Report Post »  
    • anOpinion
      Posted on July 6, 2012 at 3:47am

      Kid did the right thing, and the company just needs to update their policy:

      “At his or her discretion, a lifeguard may provide potentially life saving assistance to someone outside the protected area.”

      Its common sense, and I think anyone hiring the company would understand that policy.

      Report Post » anOpinion  
  • N37BU6
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:14am

    I suppose if he left his designated area and someone drowned in it, they would be liable and get sued to death… I can see why he was fired. But he did the right thing, obviously.

    Report Post » N37BU6  
    • castuslonginus
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:15am

      What would’ve happened to him if he had let the person drown? Could he have been charged with negligence,if so the only winner was the guy he saved.He’s right not to go aginst his morals.Maybe theres hope yet.

      Report Post »  
    • bravjim
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:17am

      Well, by firing him, they have just opened the door to a lot of bad PR, the kind of thing that can sink a firm. Allowing a fear of litigation get in the way of saving a life is ass backwards reasoning.

      Report Post »  
    • antiprogressive
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 1:56pm

      i‘m sure ya’ll are right.
      PREVIOUS lawsuits have set all this up to fail.
      More lawsuits will only make it worse.

      Report Post »  
    • Chevalier
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 2:03pm

      The key is, was there more than one Life guard on duty in his area. . .every beach, every pool I have ever gone to had more than one Life Guard, so I am sure this Hero’s area was still protected.

      This is just another example of how screwed up our country is becoming when someone can be fired for doing their job (the HeII with the designated area). . .I salute Tommy Lopez, a true Hero. . .and I hope he gets his job back, or that someone will offer him a better one!

      Report Post » Chevalier  
    • formidable_foe
      Posted on July 6, 2012 at 4:56pm

      Assuming his chair is in the middle of his guard zone, that makes his area AT LEAST 200 yards wide. That is too large an area for one lifeguard to be effective. If you are a true saver of lives, you go when duty calls, especially if you’re not already dealing with a crisis in your area. Policy schmolicy. Maybe Mr. Ellis needs to hire more staff and this problem could possibly be avoided in the future.

      Report Post » formidable_foe  
  • Dismayed Veteran
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:11am

    Mr. Lopez is a brave and moral man and deserves our respect and admiration. He put his life at risk for another which is the highest level of courage.

    He also should have been disciplined by his employer (not fired). He was hired to be to protect the people on a specific stretch of beach. By leaving that area, he removed the protection from the very people he was hired to protect. He violated the employer/employee employment agreement. There are consequences for every action.

    Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • Johnny Cocheroo
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:28am

      Well said & agreed.

      Report Post »  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:32am

      Um… I‘m not here to rain on anyone’s parade, but details matter when any forum is supposed to be reporting the facts. Per other sites, Lopez arrived after the man was pulled from the waters. Even the video glosses over what others are putting forth as the actual sequence of events. It would be nice to hear from witnesses and the man who was in distress.
      It appears this story may be subject to embellishment. Why? I guess getting folks riled up emotionally matters more than facts. Still, the kid appears to have acted in a manner that makes him appear more humane than compliant. Lopez was allegedly never in physical danger, but was certainly subject to the zero tolerance policy of his employer. Per many a pseudo-lawyer, there is no right or wrong, just the rules.
      Hopefully, this story will be clarified. The kid acted in a selfless manner, but he may have never got his feet wet. Details matter… and they appear to be muddled with this tale.

      Report Post »  
    • bigbear_awake
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:40am

      Tommy Lopez for President

      Report Post » bigbear_awake  
    • starman70
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:40am

      Very true, he should have been disclipined. Suspended for a week or loss of a couple of days pay would have been sufficient but FIRE HIM?

      What highly trained lifeguard would sit in his tower and calmly watch a person drown? If one did, he would be the most cold heared person alive (George Soros might).

      While the lifeguard did violate company policy, the company over reacted, way beyond what was necessary.

      Report Post »  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:44am

      Of course there is the problem of two or three people drowning within the designated area and the life guard choosing to save one while leaving the rest of his area unprotected and one or two of those he chose to help next drown before he gets to them.

      We do what we can do. In this era of less and less self reliant people with cell phones there will be plenty of pictures and calls to 911 or a lawyer.

      Are we at least trained to serve cheese with our whine?

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • RRFlyer
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:56am

      OK you are saying if he saw someone in trouble outside his area he should just sit there and watch them drown? That is the problem with some Americans today. “don’t get involved” Gee, don’t save someones life, you may get fired or sued. Better to have them die than to get yourself in trouble.

      Report Post »  
    • Dano.50
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:24am

      I‘m afraid I don’t agree.

      “What if?” is not a valid argument because it’s not like this guy left his post to slack off.

      Some situations, as in the military, are different. In battle you must hold an assigned a position even if nothing is happening in your position because the enemy is intelligent and actively seeking a weak point.

      Swimmers are not the “enemy” looking for an unwatched portion of beach to drown en mass and an accident is not “looking for a place to happen.” (Sorry. Couldn’t resist the pun.)

      Someon drowning has only minutes to live and the man had seconds to decide, and I’d say he did exactly the right thing.

      If we’re going to play the “What if?” game, “What if he had stayed in his assigned area, let the victim die, and nobody drowned in his area?”

      Everybody would be saying, “The guy was dying right in front of you, are you an idiot?”

      I’ll give my scenario a near 100% chance, and the other, practically non-existent.

      Report Post »  
    • Al J Zira
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:19am

      @The Gooch: If details matter then was Lopez 5 feet outside of his “designated area” or 500 yards? I’ve been on beaches many times and a lot of them were very crowded especially on major holidays. But in all that time I’ve never seen an incident where a life guard could be so far out of position that he would put others at risk. If that’s the case then the company providing the service needs to have more life guard stands and close the gap.

      Report Post » Al J Zira  
    • vadale
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:23am

      Right. Just think of the great PR they would get if they gave some corrective action, but kept him since he is clearly a great lifeguard. You don’t have to fire for every action. This was a quick decision thing that you can’t go back on…

      Report Post »  
    • oneshiner
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 1:27pm

      That‘s kinda like a police officer seeing a bad wreck outside his jurisdiction and didn’t have the morals to go help and called the sheriff instead (while he could have helped)
      This borders insanity and lack of caring.

      Report Post »  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 4:11pm

      I am happy to read that his employer is reviewing their termination decision. Termination is too harsh for Mr. Lopez’s act which was not self-serving and represented the best of what Mr. Lopez was hired to do.

      This is the sound of the other shoe.

      Every employee has the obligation to comply with their employer’s job requirements. To decide to do something differently has consequences.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
  • Southernguy
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:08am

    I had a job interview a couple of weeks ago (didn’t get it), here’s why. The job was to transport mentally unstable and drug/alcohol patients from rural areas, back to the clinic. All are on medication and can and have been violent on the transport bus. I asked what I was supposed to do if a man began to beat or choke down a woman. ANSWER: pull over, call 911 and WATCH. Don’t interfere, but watch. I said “watch HELL, I won’t sit back and watch someone die”…………….didn’t get that job, lol.

    Report Post » Southernguy  
    • Tom K
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:41am

      @ SOUTHERNGUY : Under those stipulations, NO ONE should take that job; even in this lousey Obama Economy ! Thanks for having the guts to be true to your principles. Had you taken that job and the worst had happened during a transport, you would have to live with that the rest of your life – I could have helped and I didn’t. Let the lawyers that drew up the companie’s policy do the patient transports. They would ” call 9-1-1 and just watch ” and the victim’s family could sue them.

      Report Post »  
    • starman70
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:11am

      Congrats SOUTHERNGUY for standing up for what is right.

      This non interfereance policy is rampant in America everywhere. A grocery store employee gets fired for stopping a shoplifter, the excuse was “He interfered with a customer”. Same goes for a large retail chain. A convienence store employee gets fired for using deadly force to stop an armed robbery, even though HIS life was in extreme jeopardy and it turns out the robbery suspect had a long record of violent robberies doing bodily harm to store employees and customers.(Why was this guy even on the streets?)

      The list goes on and on. Political Correctness is running rampant and is just another factor in the ruination of the business climate in America.

      Report Post »  
  • The Gooch
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:06am

    Okay. It appears Lopez did no ‘life saving’. By the time he got to the man who was in distress, other folks had pulled the fellow out & Lopez was, by report, never “hands on” with any type of assistance. The title of this article is misleading in that respect.
    Having grumbled about the title, when rules trump human decency, you really have to wonder about the people who embrace process over people. Instead of using this as an impetus to consider policy& procedure, the idea men take the ol’ zero tolerance approach. I could see canning the kid if he was out buying chips or sexing up a beach goer, but this kid is guilty of one thing: Giving a damn about another human being. Well, that won’t be tolerated.
    There is usually no reasoning with the “rules are rules” crowd; it is generally futile to attempt to reason with unreasonable people. There are many people on the right & the left who find any challenge to authority as unwelcome. Better to make an example of the fellow who dared not conform. Everyone must be ready & willing to obey; life should be one big Stanley Milgram experiment… & don’t you forget it.
    Hell, according to a study out of the U of MD, this guy is likely terrorist. “Back to your designated square, peon!”
    As Heinlein said: “Always listen to experts. They‘ll tell you what can’t be done & why. Then do it.”
    Challenge authority when the alternative is to suppress your humanity. ‘I was just following orders’ is bad form.

    Report Post »  
    • Agar164
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:28am

      I worked for Bartlett Tree ( a national company) along with a coworker a few years ago, we were reprimanded and written up for coming out of a tree and performing CPR on an elderly client that died. Thats when I decided it was time to end our business relationship.

      Report Post »  
  • blackfeather
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:02am

    …good for this fellow….screw the “company” that would “prohibit” saving someone’s life if “it was outside the lines”….I hope that company fails miserably….sounds like unions too…congratulations young fellow….keep your scruples, and you will be fine in life.

    Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:48am

      Hmmm, the post I made here earlier and I did see it was apparently deleted. Have no idea, but will try again.
      Can you imagine the media crap storm had Lopez said “no” to those trying to get his help. Lopez was put between a rock and hard place, and I believe made the right decision to at least attempt to help a fellow human in danger. His employer would have been better off by quietly counselling Lopez, then stand back for the local media to praise him, and likely the company as well. May have even had the affect of free advertising too. In other words, cooler heads when life gives them lemons, they make lemonade.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
  • Docrow
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:56am

    Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

    Report Post » Docrow  
  • Secret Squirrel
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:48am

    .
    This guy won’t have trouble finding a job.
    He‘s what’s right with America.
    On the other hand, his boss is what’s wrong with America.
    “It’s not my job, drown, sucka. Where‘s my gub’ment check?”

    Report Post » Secret Squirrel  
  • cjc3usa
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:47am

    they have good common sense,,,thats why they wont vote for obama,

    Report Post »  
  • Krutch
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:43am

    So….he was employed by some government entity? Sounds like that mentality to me. Next there’ll be a tax….no, penalty…..er, punishment….or some contrived way to strip people like Lopez of their common sense and compassion for human life.
    Good thing that thinking wasn’t around when Reagan was guarding the Rock River all those years ago. He might have not made it to the Oval Office if he obeyed those rules.

    Report Post »  
  • watashbuddyfriend
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:35am

    Dang, another case of stupid! A policy like that would only come out of CA, or NYC.

    Report Post »  
  • linderman
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:27am

    If only he had yelled “I’m going on break!” when he ran to save the guy he’d still have his job.

    Report Post » linderman  
  • woodyl1011fl
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:24am

    The people who run this company are despicable dishonorable people they think, sound and act like NAZI’s at Nuremberg, rules is rules I had to kill those people. How can tolerate what they see in their mirror every day, well if you have no moral conscience, decency or regard for other people or human life you like what you see. Must be democrats.

    Report Post »  
  • Dougral Supports Israel
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:14am

    Tommy Lopez can sleep well at night knowing that he acted as a moral person should, he acted to save a life. Only a soulless lawyer could author a policy that commanded someone to ignore a drowning person who is outside an arbitrary boundary, and then fires them when they do what they must do.

    I don’t buy the argument that Lopez endangered the people in his area. How many people drown in a given time period? What would he do if people in different locations in his zone had trouble simultaneously? He can’t be in two places at once no matter how they draw the lines.

    Report Post »  
  • Plojka
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:10am

    We are like the Jewish people of the Old Testament. Letter of the law. Dump the spirit of the law and true meaning of things out the door. (no disrespect to Jewis people)

    Report Post »  
  • HumbleCitizen
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:05am

    We’re being trained to NOT help people, even if death will occur. Firing a person from their job for saving a life (which IS the job of a beach lifeguard!) is a prime example of this training to “mind your own business”.

    First Responders Watch Man Drown, Alameda, Calif.
    Police and firefighters who were called to the scene did not set foot in the bay, “there was a policy in place that pretty much precluded our people from entering the water.”

    Woe to a country to whom bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter for it is confusion.

    Report Post » HumbleCitizen  
  • turbo
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:04am

    So here we have young men with class and American values, all looking for a new job.
    Are you listening Gov Rick Scott.

    Report Post »  
  • Mil-Dot
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:01am

    Atta boy Lopez. Nice work brother. Don’t worry, something tells me that you won’t be out of a job for long.

    Report Post »  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:00am

    Tommy Lopez and your friends who stuck with you…You will go far in life. This closed door will open up a lot of other doors I would hire you in a heartbeat!

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
  • idarusskie
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:53am

    another example of the lawyers screwing things up. Then again the beach where the guy was drowning most likely did not want t o pay for a life guard.

    Report Post »  
  • paulusmaximus
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:53am

    I am happy to see someone who put his moral obligation first and wounder how safe that beach is on any given day if the lifeguards are spread so thin that one moving outside a area where Jeff Ellis co were not being payed to cover jeopardized other swimmers?

    Report Post » paulusmaximus  
  • missaudrey
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:51am

    It’s wonderful to see young people standing up for what is right! Good job boys! You make us all proud!

    Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:59am

      that is the difference between THE U.S. FOUNDED AND THE U.S. THAT HAS BEEN CREATED.

      Report Post »  
  • KangarooJack
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:48am

    {shaking my head} I don’t understa…{still shaking head} No Comment can even BEGIN to show the stupidity of his employers!

    Report Post » KangarooJack  
  • bikerdogred1
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:47am

    Act on whats right,it will always pay off in the long run.GOOD JOB,TOMMY LOPEZ.

    Report Post »  
  • SheriS
    Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:41am

    Another example of how ridiculous people have become in my once great country!

    Report Post »  
    • 000degrees
      Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:49am

      People are good….people are idiots….which one is next to you?????

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love