I has a mad

[Das Rabble Rouser]

While googling that video of the cop shooting himself in the foot I came across this

A cop shoots himself in the hand and then gets $100,000 in workmans comp and an early retirement.  

[Requiem ex Inferni]

 

[Fresnel]

 

[Maddness91]

accidents happen on the job site everyday... guy forgets to lock his lifeline on when working on a tall scaffolding and falls, breaks his legs... it;s his fault for the accident, but he still gets workman's comp, and maybe even unemployment insurance... that;s the security system so that when accidents happen, u don;t loose ur house... he payed into the workman's comp, and gets the benefits from doing so...
u get insurance, u pay for the insurance, u get hurt, u get compensated, u don;t loose ur house or go hungry as u try to heal ... that;s a good system confused how is this such a rage topic? yeah i understand the "he's a cop and he shot himself, so he should pay for his mistake... etc etc"... but he did, and is... through paying into WC, and not being able to work for X number of months  

[Fresnel]

Maddness91

accidents happen on the job site everyday... guy forgets to lock his lifeline on when working on a tall scaffolding and falls, breaks his legs... it;s his fault for the accident, but he still gets workman's comp, and maybe even unemployment insurance... that;s the security system so that when accidents happen, u don;t loose ur house... he payed into the workman's comp, and gets the benefits from doing so...
u get insurance, u pay for the insurance, u get hurt, u get compensated, u don;t loose ur house or go hungry as u try to heal ... that;s a good system confused how is this such a rage topic? yeah i understand the "he's a cop and he shot himself, so he should pay for his mistake... etc etc"... but he did, and is... through paying into WC, and not being able to work for X number of months

Workman's Comp isn't accident insurance, it's essentially a settlement for when the workplace owner was at fault.  

[Maddness91]

Fresnel

Maddness91

accidents happen on the job site everyday... guy forgets to lock his lifeline on when working on a tall scaffolding and falls, breaks his legs... it;s his fault for the accident, but he still gets workman's comp, and maybe even unemployment insurance... that;s the security system so that when accidents happen, u don;t loose ur house... he payed into the workman's comp, and gets the benefits from doing so...
u get insurance, u pay for the insurance, u get hurt, u get compensated, u don;t loose ur house or go hungry as u try to heal ... that;s a good system confused how is this such a rage topic? yeah i understand the "he's a cop and he shot himself, so he should pay for his mistake... etc etc"... but he did, and is... through paying into WC, and not being able to work for X number of months

Workman's Comp isn't accident insurance, it's essentially a settlement for when the workplace owner was at fault.

no... it is accident insurance while on the job... as long as it's not blatantly your fault (i.e. taking a drill and drilling a hole in ur arm on purpose) because that's not an accident anymore...
"A system whereby an employer must pay, or provide insurance to pay, the lost wages and medical expenses of an employee who is injured on the job." - Law Dictionary on answers.com (with every other quote basically saying the same thing)

and he was injured on the job... while practicing how to handle his gun, which is a piece of equipment directly related to his job, inside a closed shooting range, owned by his employer... it doesn't get much clearer than that to me confused ... and apparently it doesn;t get much clearer than that to the board of people that determined to give him the $100k... the only nay vote was a woman who said that he shouldn't be restricted to the $100k, and that it should be a floating balance, just in case other medical bills came up in relation to the injury that aren't normal, and would cost him more than the $100k... ("Hitchcock did not want to approve the settlement because she believes if a worker has unexpected medical expenses related to the injury, the city should be responsible for it.")  

[Fresnel]

Maddness91

Fresnel

Maddness91

accidents happen on the job site everyday... guy forgets to lock his lifeline on when working on a tall scaffolding and falls, breaks his legs... it;s his fault for the accident, but he still gets workman's comp, and maybe even unemployment insurance... that;s the security system so that when accidents happen, u don;t loose ur house... he payed into the workman's comp, and gets the benefits from doing so...
u get insurance, u pay for the insurance, u get hurt, u get compensated, u don;t loose ur house or go hungry as u try to heal ... that;s a good system confused how is this such a rage topic? yeah i understand the "he's a cop and he shot himself, so he should pay for his mistake... etc etc"... but he did, and is... through paying into WC, and not being able to work for X number of months

Workman's Comp isn't accident insurance, it's essentially a settlement for when the workplace owner was at fault.

no... it is accident insurance while on the job... as long as it's not blatantly your fault (i.e. taking a drill and drilling a hole in ur arm on purpose) because that's not an accident anymore...
"A system whereby an employer must pay, or provide insurance to pay, the lost wages and medical expenses of an employee who is injured on the job." - Law Dictionary on answers.com (with every other quote basically saying the same thing)

and he was injured on the job... while practicing how to handle his gun, which is a piece of equipment directly related to his job, inside a closed shooting range, owned by his employer... it doesn't get much clearer than that to me confused ... and apparently it doesn;t get much clearer than that to the board of people that determined to give him the $100k... the only nay vote was a woman who said that he shouldn't be restricted to the $100k, and that it should be a floating balance, just in case other medical bills came up in relation to the injury that aren't normal, and would cost him more than the $100k... ("Hitchcock did not want to approve the settlement because she believes if a worker has unexpected medical expenses related to the injury, the city should be responsible for it.")

Wikipedia

Workers' compensation (colloquially known as workers' comp in North America or compo in Australia) is a form of insurance that provides compensation medical care for employees who are injured in the course of employment, in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee's right to sue his or her employer for the tort of negligence.

The employer was not negligent in the least here. Also, the story says this cop was alone on the range. The case could be made that it was intentional, in order to have a cushy retirement.  

[Maddness91]

Fresnel

Wikipedia

Workers' compensation (colloquially known as workers' comp in North America or compo in Australia) is a form of insurance that provides compensation medical care for employees who are injured in the course of employment, in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee's right to sue his or her employer for the tort of negligence.

The employer was not negligent in the least here. Also, the story says this cop was alone on the range. The case could be made that it was intentional, in order to have a cushy retirement.

he gave up the right to sue his employer in exchange for a secure cash settlement... just because u give up a right, doesn;t mean that that right came into play... that;s just what is bargained with years earlier when the agreement was written...

ok, so X number of years ago, the union and the employer sit down, and work a deal out that where if someone is hurt while working, they get payed, in exchange for the relinquishment of the right to a suit... this agreement is written up, signed sealed and becomes enacted...

X number of years later, someone gets hurt in an accident, that was not blatantly the fault of the employee, while working, hence they get paid compensation... it's what was agreed upon X number of years before

the point of the "you can;t sue your employer" is so that when compensation is delivered, the employee can't try to double dip by suing the company after they deliver him the cheque... it's protecting the employer in exchange for them guaranteeing protection to the employee

and if he didn;t get WC, a good lawyer would walk into court, and ask why he wasn;t properly supervised by the employer the night of the accident... he was on there property during hours of operation, and hence has the right to a safe and secure workplace...

EDIT: and the fact that his pension is still up for debate kind of takes away from the "i wanted a cushy retirement" debate... why would u cause ur employer a grievance right before they determine how much they're going to give you after u retire? confused  

[Fresnel]

Maddness91

Fresnel

Wikipedia

Workers' compensation (colloquially known as workers' comp in North America or compo in Australia) is a form of insurance that provides compensation medical care for employees who are injured in the course of employment, in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee's right to sue his or her employer for the tort of negligence.

The employer was not negligent in the least here. Also, the story says this cop was alone on the range. The case could be made that it was intentional, in order to have a cushy retirement.

he gave up the right to sue his employer in exchange for a secure cash settlement... just because u give up a right, doesn;t mean that that right came into play... that;s just what is bargained with years earlier when the agreement was written...

ok, so X number of years ago, the union and the employer sit down, and work a deal out that where if someone is hurt while working, they get payed, in exchange for the relinquishment of the right to a suit... this agreement is written up, signed sealed and becomes enacted...

X number of years later, someone gets hurt in an accident, that was not blatantly the fault of the employee, while working, hence they get paid compensation... it's what was agreed upon X number of years before

the point of the "you can;t sue your employer" is so that when compensation is delivered, the employee can't try to double dip by suing the company after they deliver him the cheque... it's protecting the employer in exchange for them guaranteeing protection to the employee

and if he didn;t get WC, a good lawyer would walk into court, and ask why he wasn;t properly supervised by the employer the night of the accident... he was on there property during hours of operation, and hence has the right to a safe and secure workplace...

An out-of-court settlement is "you give me $X and I drop the lawsuit", or in this case, "agree not to sue". A good lawyer would NEVER offer a settlement on a case he thought he could win, and he would never TAKE a settlement on an empty threat. What could this guy sue for, negligence? HE shot HIMSELF in the hand with HIS gun, which he had decades of experience using, and nobody was there to confirm it wasn't intentional. Company property or no, it was blatantly his own fault, and no jury in the world would find for him, especially if the city's defense lawyer takes the "he shot himself on purpose to get this settlement and ensure a cushy retirement" route. His workplace was perfectly safe and secure. If I go to work, lick an electric socket, and DIE from it, can my family sue the company because I'm a ******** retard and they didn't have child-safety plugs in a workplace full of adults? No. What would a supervisor have done, Superman'd his HAND OF STEEL between this dumbass's hand and the bullet?  

[Maddness91]

Fresnel

An out-of-court settlement is "you give me $X and I drop the lawsuit", or in this case, "agree not to sue". A good lawyer would NEVER offer a settlement on a case he thought he could win, and he would never TAKE a settlement on an empty threat. What could this guy sue for, negligence? HE shot HIMSELF in the hand with HIS gun, which he had decades of experience using, and nobody was there to confirm it wasn't intentional. Company property or no, it was blatantly his own fault, and no jury in the world would find for him, especially if the city's defense lawyer takes the "he shot himself on purpose to get this settlement and ensure a cushy retirement" route. His workplace was perfectly safe and secure. If I go to work, lick an electric socket, and DIE from it, can my family sue the company because I'm a ******** retard and they didn't have child-safety plugs in a workplace full of adults? No. What would a supervisor have done, Superman'd his HAND OF STEEL between this dumbass's hand and the bullet?

it's not an "out of court" settlement tho... it;s an agreed upon protocol following an accident that's been around for X number of years...
think of it this way, ur working for a roofing company, shingling a roof... if you put a nail through your hand, you DO get workman's comp... that;s just how it works...
you can disagree with it (i don;t know why you would), but if you do go to work, have an accident, you will be protected after it, whether you want it or not... you can;t "opt out" of workmans comp... if it;s provided, and your union and you accept it when you sign your contract to work for the company, that's what happens, nothing more, nothing less... and i for one like that system because i don;t like loosing my house or going hungey

the company providing the WC has a interest in keeping the workplace safe, because if you get hurt,there premiums for the insurance go up... you have an interest in keeping yourself safe because a) getting hurt sucks b) the money you get is not "fun money" it;s for medical bills, and those will eat through any settlement in no time and c) you get a 1 time settlement for maybe a life long debilitating injury that will cost you more than the settlement... so under WC, both parties have it in the best interests to stay safe... but if something happens, they are both mostly protected...

if you want to start talking about non-covered jobs (every job in Canada is covered by a gov't WC program, in the usa it;s diff. amiright?) then fine, we can suppose alot of things and not get anywhere really, because it;s judge and jury and lawyer dependent on which side they pick... the "he did it to himself so he could sue and get money" or the "he was not properly supervised by the company, and had an accident because of it"  

[Das Rabble Rouser]

Maddness91

accidents happen on the job site everyday... guy forgets to lock his lifeline on when working on a tall scaffolding and falls, breaks his legs... it;s his fault for the accident, but he still gets workman's comp, and maybe even unemployment insurance... that;s the security system so that when accidents happen, u don;t loose ur house... he payed into the workman's comp, and gets the benefits from doing so...
u get insurance, u pay for the insurance, u get hurt, u get compensated, u don;t loose ur house or go hungry as u try to heal ... that;s a good system confused how is this such a rage topic? yeah i understand the "he's a cop and he shot himself, so he should pay for his mistake... etc etc"... but he did, and is... through paying into WC, and not being able to work for X number of months

Is he also entitled to an early retirement?  

[war_junky 91]

Maddness91

Fresnel

An out-of-court settlement is "you give me $X and I drop the lawsuit", or in this case, "agree not to sue". A good lawyer would NEVER offer a settlement on a case he thought he could win, and he would never TAKE a settlement on an empty threat. What could this guy sue for, negligence? HE shot HIMSELF in the hand with HIS gun, which he had decades of experience using, and nobody was there to confirm it wasn't intentional. Company property or no, it was blatantly his own fault, and no jury in the world would find for him, especially if the city's defense lawyer takes the "he shot himself on purpose to get this settlement and ensure a cushy retirement" route. His workplace was perfectly safe and secure. If I go to work, lick an electric socket, and DIE from it, can my family sue the company because I'm a ******** retard and they didn't have child-safety plugs in a workplace full of adults? No. What would a supervisor have done, Superman'd his HAND OF STEEL between this dumbass's hand and the bullet?

it's not an "out of court" settlement tho... it;s an agreed upon protocol following an accident that's been around for X number of years...
think of it this way, ur working for a roofing company, shingling a roof... if you put a nail through your hand, you DO get workman's comp... that;s just how it works...
you can disagree with it (i don;t know why you would), but if you do go to work, have an accident, you will be protected after it, whether you want it or not... you can;t "opt out" of workmans comp... if it;s provided, and your union and you accept it when you sign your contract to work for the company, that's what happens, nothing more, nothing less... and i for one like that system because i don;t like loosing my house or going hungey

the company providing the WC has a interest in keeping the workplace safe, because if you get hurt,there premiums for the insurance go up... you have an interest in keeping yourself safe because a) getting hurt sucks b) the money you get is not "fun money" it;s for medical bills, and those will eat through any settlement in no time and c) you get a 1 time settlement for maybe a life long debilitating injury that will cost you more than the settlement... so under WC, both parties have it in the best interests to stay safe... but if something happens, they are both mostly protected...

if you want to start talking about non-covered jobs (every job in Canada is covered by a gov't WC program, in the usa it;s diff. amiright?) then fine, we can suppose alot of things and not get anywhere really, because it;s judge and jury and lawyer dependent on which side they pick... the "he did it to himself so he could sue and get money" or the "he was not properly supervised by the company, and had an accident because of it"

He did not have entitlement to worker's compensation, if you dont follow the saftey rules, when you get hurt you dont get compensated. If i didnt wear my kevlar arm band and glove or had my blade extended too far when i was cutting lids off boxes and i slipped i wouldnt have gotten compensation. There is not a single act you can do while firing a pistol while complying with saftey and range rules that puts your hand in front of the gun. Even if this guy was one of those that forget what order to unload their gun before he cleaned it (where they rack it first then drop the mag, there would be no excuse) its a rule you always check the chamber physicaly. Not following the safety rules denies you compensation just like it would if you removed safety guards from machinery and tools and then got hurt by those same tools, saftey rules/gear are there for a reason.  

[Maddness91]

ok well he got a 4-1 vote in favor of getting compensation from the compensation board, and they aren;t in the business of giving away free money to people who don;t deserve it... the only nay vote was in favor of giving him MORE... so idk what else i can say that i haven;t already said...

i can see how you can be mad at someone doing something wrong and having an accident, but i can;t see how u can disagree with compensating a person for an accident, when he had workplace accident insurance...

@war_junky: yeah different insurance programs have different stipulations and conditions... asi said, it;s in the companies best interest to ensure a safe work environment... i.e. requiring arm guards and gloves... and yes, if you don;t follow conditions, you no longer apply... but if you did have the arm guard, and glove, and the blade was short, and u slipped and cut urself in the shoulder (somehow), u would still expect compensation i'd expect... i doubt you would say "woops, my bad, i shouldn't have done _________, so you can keep your $100k" confused
and so far, nothing has been brought up showing that the cop did something wrong... and i doubt anyone can prove he did because he was alone, and 5 out of 5 people on the compensation board agreed with his story, and gave him compensation  

[Orkronos]

*munches on popcorn*  

[Fresnel]

Maddness91

ok well he got a 4-1 vote in favor of getting compensation from the compensation board, and they aren;t in the business of giving away free money to people who don;t deserve it... the only nay vote was in favor of giving him MORE... so idk what else i can say that i haven;t already said...

i can see how you can be mad at someone doing something wrong and having an accident, but i can;t see how u can disagree with compensating a person for an accident, when he had workplace accident insurance...

Suicide denies life insurance claims.

Quote:

@war_junky: yeah different insurance programs have different stipulations and conditions... asi said, it;s in the companies best interest to ensure a safe work environment... i.e. requiring arm guards and gloves... and yes, if you don;t follow conditions, you no longer apply... but if you did have the arm guard, and glove, and the blade was short, and u slipped and cut urself in the shoulder (somehow), u would still expect compensation i'd expect... i doubt you would say "woops, my bad, i shouldn't have done _________, so you can keep your $100k" confused
and so far, nothing has been brought up showing that the cop did something wrong...

Well, he quite obviously POINTED A LOADED GUN AT HIS HAND, which is a violation of every gun safety rule EVER.

Quote:

and i doubt anyone can prove he did because he was alone, and 5 out of 5 people on the compensation board agreed with his story, and gave him compensation

I wouldn't doubt that after thirty-three years on a small-town police force, he had an in with all of them. If it was intentional, he'd be friends with all five.