User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:16:15 AM EDT
[#1]
How about I assign her to restroom sting duty for life I repeat what a cunt she could drop the suit or ask the lawyer to aplologize for that hidious statement |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:18:34 AM EDT
[#2]
Maybe if you were the chief you'd have the foresight, and fortitude to make sure any of your officers that suffer duty related injuries have 100% of their medical bills paid, and get fair compensation while they are recuperating from the injury. Instead of resorting to some dickless back stabbing tactic that doesn't get to the base cause of the problem. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:19:00 AM EDT
[#3]
If I was that family I would ask for an immediate jury trial. Make that bitch sit on the stand and explain why this family that just pulled their kid out of the pool should have taken the time to dry the floor before calling for help.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:20:23 AM EDT
[#4]
I am sure the cheif of police is involved in the city wide insurance plan bids  She hurt her knee shit happens LE is a dangerous job... Notice that she is back to work... Lots of people get injured on the job and don;t sue to recover damages.. I am sure she can do what any honorable person would do and try an work out a settlement with the medical bills but no lets sue a victim to recov... aw fuck I can't go on |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:21:26 AM EDT
[#5]
All that and slip on a puddle of water....Nuts! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:22:54 AM EDT
[#6]
In most states there is what is called the "Fireman's rule".
It says: The "Fireman's Rule" stems from this historical assumption of the risk perspective. Basically, a firefighter (or police officer, paramedic, etc.) is assumed to have voluntarily assumed any risk of injury as inherent to his/her occupation. Following the rule, a citizen who does not intentionally start a fire owes no duty of care to ensure that a firefighter summoned to suppress the fire is not injured. After voluntarily assuming such a risk, as the argument goes, the firefighter cannot then sue the person causing the risk for damages when injured. Similarly, from a public policy prospective, risks to which firefighters are exposed are believed to be inherent in the job and it would be unfair to charge all who carelessly cause or fail to prevent fires with the injury suffered by the expert public servant hired with public funds to protect them. The firefighter/police officer is paid to confront such hazards and workers' compensation benefits exist to protect him/her when an injury occurs as a result. --------------------------- I would be interested to know why the lawyer doesn't think this rule applies in this case. Generally to get it to not apply you have to prove shocking negligence, or intentional wrongdoing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:23:55 AM EDT
[#7]
Ever sit on a witness stand with one? That question doesn't even register anymore. Some people have a messed up head. You can't fix a defective personality. As far as LE being dangerous. It is sometimes thats why the departments should take care of their people. Joe Edit to answer Oly- Maybe to take the settlement that will most likely be offered to avoid the considerable expense of a trial. Just a guess on my part but it isn't unheard of. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:25:29 AM EDT
[#8]
First thing I thought of, well after the inital WTF. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:25:32 AM EDT
[#9]
It seems like they did.. most of her medical expenses were covered from what I can tell. she returned to duty.. when you are hired on you have the chance to look at the benefit plans offered. If you don't like them you should seek employment elsewhere |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:26:32 AM EDT
[#10]
First, you better believe a police chief is involved in WC issues. Both from the manpower side and because of how much WC costs in his budget. Next, unless it is a very small municipality, it's likely they are "self insured" for WC. In dangerous jobs, things like WC are essential workplace protections. There's no way LEO's should be paying out of pocket for medical treatment for duty related injuries or illness. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:27:26 AM EDT
[#11]
No argument from me. The whole thing looks stinky. Joe |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:31:33 AM EDT
[#12]
I agree but Sgt Quickbuck had knowledge or should have upon hire of the benefits offered. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:35:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Yeah, I'm sure the last place you got hired when they said "Full WC coverage" you told them to give you the actual policy, and read it cover to cover................... I'm sure you read the owner's manual for your current car from cover-cover before driving an inch too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:40:09 AM EDT
[#14]
My honor and doing the right thing is more important to me than lost wages..... Suing the parents for water by the pool...... when their kid ended up with severe brain damage.. Just from a practical standpoint its blood from a turnup like the parents have spare money now that they have a lifetime of nursing costs |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:45:50 AM EDT
[#15]
Then unlike what you have just posted, if you were the chief, the honorable thing to do would be to make sure all the officer's medical bills and lost wages were paid by the city. That would be the honorable thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:48:42 AM EDT
[#16]
Another Let's Hate the POPO thread.
 One side  ..................... ................... the other side.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:48:44 AM EDT
[#17]
See my Poll in BOTS I agree the city can and should step in to stop this PR nightmare |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:50:56 AM EDT
[#18]
You're right. Nobody should be outraged by the actions of this person, who just happens to be an LEO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:51:25 AM EDT
[#19]
City should've stepped up long ago, because it's the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:52:38 AM EDT
[#20]
Yup. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:54:45 AM EDT
[#21]
Another Let's Hate the POPO thread. One side ........................................ the other side. She has rights just like any other individual in our society, just burns your ass though don't it. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:57:18 AM EDT
[#22]
How about you go be a troll in someone else's thread... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:58:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Another drama queen LEO who can't stand it when individuals who happen to be officers are railed against for being morons. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:59:32 AM EDT
[#24]
  ................... you of all people pointing fingers.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 9:59:35 AM EDT
[#25]
So let me get this correct: You support the action of suing a 911 caller to recover expenses when there was no intent to cause the injury? Its not like they called 911 while their child was not breathing and waited for the officer to walk by and threw a bannana peel under her feet |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:01:14 AM EDT
[#26]
Truth hurts don't it, you can't stand that a LEO has the right as an individual to do what any other citizen has the right to do. So you and you're ilk have to call names and through a tantrum about it. Sad, very sad. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:02:37 AM EDT
[#27]
Do we know all the facts here or are you jumping to conclusions and getting up on your cop bashing soap box again? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:03:21 AM EDT
[#28]
I'll admit, I was curious as to how someone from Team Apologist would come out swinging. Attacking the victim with the one-year-old was tried by the lawyer and didn't go over so well, so the next best play would be to go after he who posted the story. Now please, if you have nothing to add, get the ever loving fuck out of this thread. Please. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:03:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Drama Queen LEO cleanup in aisle three...bring some diapers and wipes, too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:03:28 AM EDT
[#30]
Predicted life of this thread 20 more posts
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:03:32 AM EDT
[#31]
I support the right of an individual to do what is lawful. It's up to a Court to determine if negligence was present. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:04:26 AM EDT
[#32]
Attack the individual when you can't refute the argument............... it's just so you. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:05:31 AM EDT
[#33]
...but you cry like a bitch when people post on the intraweb.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:06:02 AM EDT
[#34]
I don't say that she doesn't have the right to sue. The ability to win a case has no bearing on the paperwork to file (and she will lose). My outrage is based solely on the classless act of suing this family then having the audicaty to demonize them. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:07:09 AM EDT
[#35]
As do I however right and correct are way off on this one.... I propose: The city is crappy for not taking care of there people hurt in the line of duty The officer shows an extreme lack of judgement trying to sue an individual as opposed to her insuance carrier The lawyer should be choked with his own cock |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:07:19 AM EDT
[#36]
If your a police officer man , are you really defending this action. This shows very poorly of you.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:07:33 AM EDT
[#37]
No he's pretty much right. You're just a cop basher, seems to be all you post.. What is your issue anyway are you just fat and ugly and pissed off at the world or what? Try getting laid it might improve your outlook on life |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:08:01 AM EDT
[#38]
I posted my opinion, being that this is just ANOTHER in a long line of LEO bashing done by the same old tiresome crew and that I didn't give a fuck if an LEO was suing someone. For that you're the one that threw out troll icon. I just pointed out that it's funny when the pot wants to start calling the kettle black. I'll continue to post my opinion in this thread and every one like it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:09:43 AM EDT
[#39]
And if I'm not a LEO it's OK??????????????? Got you pegged. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:10:09 AM EDT
[#40]
10 bucks says she was a "big girl"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:12:08 AM EDT
[#41]
Just what I'd expect from you. Thanks for not letting me down.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:12:39 AM EDT
[#42]
It's funny how the unstable posters can be baited so easy therefore acomplishing the goal of a lock so the issiues are no longer discussed
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:13:17 AM EDT
[#43]
You'd sure think so, anyhow... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:13:21 AM EDT
[#44]
Isn't it though? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:17:25 AM EDT
[#45]
If it was the non-LE/FF neighbor who slipped/fell/injured his/her knee while trying to help the infant would you support the 'citizen' suing the neighbor/insurance company for medical expenses/lost wages? IMO there are two issues here - 1) Is the homeowner responsible/negligent in their action/inaction? 2) Why is a Public Safety employee not being made whole by their employer? If the officer has a lifelong disability she will(?) have part of her retirement as disability and should be tax free. There is more going on here than that little story indicates. Brian |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:17:30 AM EDT
[#46]
Wait, doesn't the officer get worker's comp and disability as part of her job? I would assume so. The story may not have all the details, but it does not sound like the family was negligent or had malicious intent.
If the family did something intentional, then sue the hell out of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:17:37 AM EDT
[#47]
It's wrong either way , but if your an LEO you should hold your self to a higher standard. Not that we should hold your self to one. It you that should I'm sorry if you don't feel like that. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:20:25 AM EDT
[#48]
Have you ever collected WC? You never get all your lost wages back, never.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:21:46 AM EDT
[#49]
SGB is no longer LE. I don't know if his standards have dropped or if they have always been this low. No one has a right to frivolous damages. No one is entitled to compensation at the expense of decency.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:22:34 AM EDT
[#50]
Here we go with that higher standard bullshit. They are bringing it on, they are asking for it, they know the risks,etc. I guess that makes it okay then! Superhuman immortals that should accept getting hurt/killed/maimed/etc just because...right? Is that the same thing you'd tell a stripper that gets raped? She should have held herself to a higher standard? She deserved it? She knew what she was getting into? I don't agree with suing the homeowner...in this case. I would sue my department/insurance company/etc. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
