IL State Troop kills 2 while driving (126MPH) & texting and now wants works comp!

[Beau]

.......

 

[rjstew317]

It's vehicular homicide. 2 counts.

exactly. death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle. recent studies show that reaction times while texting are 35% slower then normal. the same studies show that driving while under the influence (.08) reaction times are 12% slower then normal, yet in many states it is still legal to text and drive (including this one).

 

[j706]

Agree DROSS on him getting his work comp money. What makes me made is the guy "got away" with murder (ie. killing those 2 girls) in my book. Had you or me or Dogman been driving 126 and crashed you can bet the farm he would either be sitting in jail right now or waiting for the chair.

Sorry but I have to disagree. While he was no doubt grossly negligent, what he did is not murder by any reasonable standard and it is sure not murder in the legal definition. As far as worker comp. It happened on duty so as bad as it sounds they need to pay up.

 

[PatriotPride]

how about a firing squad??

Agreed. Deny his unemployment at the VERY least. Apparently he thinks he is above the "common-folk"

 

[PatriotPride]

Sorry but I have to disagree. While he was no doubt grossly negligent, what he did is not murder by any reasonable standard and it is sure not murder in the legal definition. As far as worker comp. It happened on duty so as bad as it sounds they need to pay up.

I DISAGREE!!!!!!!! If ANY of us were to be "on-duty" at work, say a UPS driver, and we were driving over 100 MPH, and we KILLED several people, do you HONESTLY think that we should be paid unemployment when we are fired???????????

It's offensive, plain and simple. If I were to run two people over in my work parking lot going 5 MPH, and I was fired, then you can be damn sure that I'm not getting unemployment.

The fact is that the officer was behaving NEGLIGENTLY. Last I checked, that disqualifies the average person from recieving unemployment.

 

[public servant]

If ANY of us were to be "on-duty" at work, say a UPS driver, and we were driving over 100 MPH, and we KILLED several people, do you HONESTLY think that we should be paid unemployment when we are fired?

Unemployment...probably not. But if you were injured and acting in the capacity of your job you would be eligible for worker's compensation for those injuries.

The fact that he was a cop has nothing to do with the the worker's comp claim.

I don't believe there is any argument that he was negligent in his behavior that resulted in death.

 

[PatriotPride]

Unemployment...probably not. But if you were injured and acting in the capacity of your job you would be eligible for worker's compensation for those injuries.

The fact that he was a cop has nothing to do with the the worker's comp claim.

I don't believe there is any argument that he was negligent in his behavior that resulted in death.

Even though it was his OWN negligence that caused the injury? That's akin to me jumping off a building at work then expecting my employer to pick up the hospital bills. I'll have to try that the next time I need some paid vacation.

 

[dross]

Even though it was his OWN negligence that caused the injury? That's akin to me jumping off a building at work then expecting my employer to pick up the hospital bills. I'll have to try that the next time I need some paid vacation.

That's how worker's comp works. You can't change the rules based on an outcome you don't like.

 

[dross]

It's vehicular homicide. 2 counts.

Does vehicular homicide have a legal definition other than killing someon with a car?

He was convicted of reckless homicide according to the article. That's a criminal offense, but far from murder.

Murder means you intended to kill someone, and did.

 

[PatriotPride]

That's how worker's comp works. You can't change the rules based on an outcome you don't like.

I understand. I just find it unbelievable that I injure myself at work due to faulty equipment and I have to fight for YEARS to get them to just pay the medical bills, and this piece of crap kills people by his idiocy and negligence, and he is wanting workmans comp. He's lucky the family members and friends of the deceased haven't paid him a visit. I'm sure they're just LOVING this.

 

[88GT]

Sorry but I have to disagree. While he was no doubt grossly negligent, what he did is not murder by any reasonable standard and it is sure not murder in the legal definition. As far as worker comp. It happened on duty so as bad as it sounds they need to pay up.

Legal definitions aren't the end-all, be-all of definitions. It was murder. He took their lives because of his actions.

 

[public servant]

That's how worker's comp works. You can't change the rules based on an outcome you don't like.

Exactly. Emotion doesn't play a part in it. And his being a cop plays no part in it either.

Was it wrong? Yes...
Was it tragic? Yes...
Was he negligent? Yes...a jury said he was.
Was he working within the scope of his job? Yes...

Like it or not...he's eligible for those benefits.

 

[Eddie]

I understand. I just find it unbelievable that I injure myself at work due to faulty equipment and I have to fight for YEARS to get them to just pay the medical bills, and this piece of crap kills people by his idiocy and negligence, and he is wanting workmans comp. He's lucky the family members and friends of the deceased haven't paid him a visit. I'm sure they're just LOVING this.

Product Liability is a big money claim with some serious consequences for the defendant if you win. Workcomp is pure insurance; all employers have to pay for workcomp insurance for their employees. It is designed to be easy to win a workcomp case but the payoff is limited. This came about to prevent a situation where one worker gets injured on the job and then sues. One guy wins a big award that shuts down the business and everybody else loses their job; instead they favor insuring against paying lost wages and meds and "points" if a person becomes permenantly disabled. Dross and Public Servant are right: the result sucks but he will probably get a payment because the system is designed to favor the worker.

 

[kludge]

I say the victims' families file a wrongful death suit for every penny he gets from workman's comp. And then some.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Legal definitions aren't the end-all, be-all of definitions. It was murder. He took their lives because of his actions.

Uh...isn't murder the deliberate taking of human life? Or are you opting for the broader "thou shalt not kill"-type definition?

 

[Vasili]

hey, now, guys, let's not be so stingy.
we should be glad to each contribute fifty cents to his pile of donations.

unfortunately, our fifty cents might be the last useable money he'd get.

 

[PatriotPride]

Product Liability is a big money claim with some serious consequences for the defendant if you win. Workcomp is pure insurance; all employers have to pay for workcomp insurance for their employees. It is designed to be easy to win a workcomp case but the payoff is limited. This came about to prevent a situation where one worker gets injured on the job and then sues. One guy wins a big award that shuts down the business and everybody else loses their job; instead they favor insuring against paying lost wages and meds and "points" if a person becomes permenantly disabled. Dross and Public Servant are right: the result sucks but he will probably get a payment because the system is designed to favor the worker.

Thank you for clearing that up. +1

I say the victims' families file a wrongful death suit for every penny he gets from workman's comp. And then some.

I agree. Judging by his actions, I'd say that he just doesn't get it. It'd be something if someone enlightened him.

 

[Indy317]

All sorts of fail on this one!

1) He only got 30 months probation for crash in which 2 teens were killed by him and 2 others were injured while he was driving 126 MPH and texting his girlfriend.

Odd. There is a thread on here about how doing speeds around 126MPH and texting should only be a guidelines, that such actions shouldn't be illegal. This proves why dangerous actions should be illegal, so folks like this can get pulled over and cited. Now with it being a cop, which cop running radar is going to step up and put this fool in his place?

 

[dross]

Legal definitions aren't the end-all, be-all of definitions. It was murder. He took their lives because of his actions.

It's not just a legal definition. There are varying levels of causing someone's death.

1. I plan to murder someone to take their lunch money.
2. I become angry, and in the heat of the moment I kill someone.
3. I do something I know is likely to kill someone, even though I don't intend to kill anyone.
4. I don't intend to kill anyone, but I do something so reckless as to have needlessly put their lives at risk.
5. I do something I shouldn't do, something negligent, but there's no way I could have thought beforehand that my negligent act might kill someone.
6. I do something mildly negligent, but through a set of bizarre circumstances, I kill someone.
7. I kill someone accidentally through no fault of my own.

All of these incidents meet your criteria of "he took their lives because of his actions." Only two of them are murder, however, because murder, whether going by the legal definition or just the definition of reason, requires intent.

 

[John Galt]

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." - Frederic Bastiat

This is just wrong, workman's comp law or not.