Almost a year ago, I wrote about a lifeguard who was fired because he refused to wear a Speedo for his profeciency exam. While I normally stick up for the rights of individuals and businesses, I simply cannot let an asinine story like this pass me by. You see, a lifeguard in Florida was recently fired for helping to rescue a drowning man.  Yup.  You got that right. There must be a catch, right?  Yes. The catch is that the man was swimming outside of the beach zone that was to be patrolled and secured by the lifeguard’s company.

Lopez said he was sitting at his post at about 1:45 p.m. Monday when someone rushed to his stand asking for help. Lopez said he noticed a man struggling in the water south of his post. The man was previously swimming in an “unprotected” stretch of the beach, city officials confirmed Tuesday.

“It was a long run, but someone needed my help. I wasn’t going to say no,” he said.

Company officials said the rescue took place about 1,500 feet south of the company’s protective boundaries. The unprotected area has signs alerting beachgoers to swim at their own risk.

Like many other things I document here, it seemingly doesn’t pay to be benevolent these days. There was no harm done to anyone in the company’s zone, and, indeed, someone was saved. Better get rid of that guy! Many of the “crimes” I expose on this blog don’t have victims, either…only potential victims. We’ll all be in trouble or without jobs soon if this is our continued mentality.

While zero tolerance regulations in school and workplaces aren’t necessarily illegal, they are symptomatic of a bigger problem (and one that I document here quite frequently), which is the lack of common sense while enforcing laws and regulations across the board. There are times when rules and regulations get put in place for the best reasons. We don’t want any child to get hurt at school, so we have zero tolerance policy on weapons. Well, then, when it is taken to the extreme, you have kids getting suspended for bringing Nerf guns to show-n-tell. We don’t want people to operate dangerous and expensive machinery while intoxicated, so we heartily approve of a zero alcohol policy at the workplace. Well, then, you have people getting fired who happened to have alcohol before bed the previous night and would have been within the legal limits to drive. It’s just my opinion that a workplace policy is a little overboard if the same amount of alcohol would make a cop turn the other direction and let you keep operating a motor vehicle.

Here’s another example of zero tolerance in the workplace — and an example of why it doesn’t pay to do the right thing. A Michigan public works employee was fired after turning a gun into police.  He found the gun while working. The police said he did the right thing by turning it in, but his employer disagreed.

 A check revealed that it had been stolen from a nearby suburb in 2005.

Where he ran into trouble is with his superiors, who saw things rather differently.

A Wayne County spokeswoman told WJBK that according to department rules employees aren’t allowed to possess a weapon on work property.

So after 23 years — just two shy of retirement — Chevilott was fired for violation of department policies, even though he found the gun while on the job and didn’t bring it to work. His foreman, who knew about the incident, was suspended for 30 days.

So, there you have it. Evidently, that’s all you need to know. He wasn’t allowed to possess a weapon on work property, and even though he found it there, he’s in violation of the rule and terminated. Rules are rules.

When will we wake up and realize that regulations have gone too far? On one hand, we’re told to trust the police and turn stuff like this in. But, on the other hand, we are punished for it. Nice. What would the punishment have been if the gun went off and injured or killed someone and he did nothing to prevent it?

The subtitle to this blog indicates that I will occasionally be making posts related to things “people get in trouble for” and not just illegal things.  In my book, anything that has legal, social, or financial ramifications would qualify as something a person got into trouble for.  Previously, I wrote about a bus driver who was fired for making an unauthorized rescue.

Today’s outrage is a 61-year-old man who was fired from his job as a lifeguard for refusing to wear a Speedo.  The Speedo company makes a lot of products (I jokingly say that I’m wearing my Speedo when I wear my Speedo swimming goggles), but in this case, the story refers to the super slim-fitting, smaller-than-most-men’s-underwear Speedo. 

The pool where I work out doesn’t allow men to wear Speedos or women to wear bikinis, and I prefer it that way.  The modest nature of the environment makes more people feel comfortable.  At least, I can speak for myself…and my friend who has told me the same thing.

One funny thing to note about the article: Even though this is being featured on my blog about getting in trouble for stupid things, the man makes the unfortunate comment that it should be illegal for anyone over 50 to wear a Speedo.

If that’s the case, I’ll be making another post in the near future about that!

Click here for the article.

Here is a case of insanity:  A school bus driver, with one child aboard, decided to rescue two police officers during a hail storm.  Then, he was fired.  You see, the passengers weren’t authorized.  The school doesn’t make exceptions for the police.  Either we can assume we shouldn’t trust the police with our children or this rule is out of control.

This blog documents plenty of incidents where laws have unintended consequences for regular citizens that often-times are unintentionally ignored by law enforcement officers.  This time, we have a citizen helping the police and getting punished. What’s next?