Cop texts while driving, kills 2 girls, gets probation and seeks workers comp.

Wow, no shame... disgraceful.

World class douchebag right there.

Idk why but I cant imagine that guy texting anyone

How the hell did he get such a light sentence? He killed 2 girls and was at fault for it. He even filed for worker's comp? The nerve of this jackass.

Why the hell is he getting such a light sentence? That's BS.chessmaster1989

Some liberal probably fought for his "rights" in court.

Wow that's low.

How the hell did he get such a light sentence? He killed 2 girls and was at fault for it. He even filed for worker's comp? The nerve of this jackass.

jiggaloj

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Why the hell is he getting such a light sentence? That's BS.chathuranga

Some liberal probably fought for his "rights" in court.

Really, come on now. Blind partisanship is poison to our political process.

The years he spent as a public serviceman compensate for the accidental killing of those two girls. Hence, he should walk away scot free.

more proof that texting is bad...if only it was this cop that does it

The years he spent as a public serviceman compensate for the accidental killing of those two girls. Hence, he should walk away scot free.

BluRayHiDef

That guy made 68K as a cop. We pay those guys way too much money for what the job they do. wstfld

When cops do their jobs properly, they earn every penny of that money. This guy is a jerk no soubt, but that doesn't devalue the work of the police as a whole

[QUOTE="wstfld"]That guy made 68K as a cop. We pay those guys way too much money for what the job they do. BuryMe

When cops do their jobs properly, they earn every penny of that money. This guy is a kerk no soubt, but that doesn't devalue the work of the police as a whole

There's nothing wrong with him recovering damages. That's strict liability, and it's why workman's comp exists. Virtually no jurisdiction in the United States still operates under a modified comparative negligence standard. He was injured while commissioned by and, acting on behalf of, his employer.....he gets money...maybe less than he would have gotten if he wasn't texting, but he still gets money. It doesn't mean that guilt on his part is abolished.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"]That guy made 68K as a cop. We pay those guys way too much money for what the job they do. wstfld

When cops do their jobs properly, they earn every penny of that money. This guy is a kerk no soubt, but that doesn't devalue the work of the police as a whole

And why does a person need a degree or special skill to earn more than a certain amount? The service they provide is of great value to society, and so they should be compensated for it...

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"]That guy made 68K as a cop. We pay those guys way too much money for what the job they do. wstfld

When cops do their jobs properly, they earn every penny of that money. This guy is a kerk no soubt, but that doesn't devalue the work of the police as a whole

Serious question?

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]Seriously?

When cops do their jobs properly, they earn every penny of that money. This guy is a kerk no soubt, but that doesn't devalue the work of the police as a whole

BuryMe

And why does a person need a degree or special skill to earn more than a certain amount? The service they provide is of great value to society, and so they should be compensated for it...

There's nothing wrong with him recovering damages. That's strict liability, and it's why workman's comp exists. Virtually no jurisdiction in the United States still operates under a modified comparative negligence standard. He was injured while commissioned by and, acting on behalf of, his employer.....he gets money...maybe less than he would have gotten if he wasn't texting, but he still gets money. It doesn't mean that guilt on his part is abolished.

Communistik

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The years he spent as a public serviceman compensate for the accidental killing of those two girls. Hence, he should walk away scot free.

BluRayHiDef

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The years he spent as a public serviceman compensate for the accidental killing of those two girls. Hence, he should walk away scot free.

BluRayHiDef

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

So if I save someone from 2 house fires and then kill them later on, can my defence be that I saved him twice and killed him once, so my good deeds over ride my bad one?

And it doesn't matter what you think of the girls that died (and we really know nothing about them, so your claim is completely unfounded,) he was speeding (which is illegal) on the wrong ide of the road (which is illegal,) and texting while driving (which is also illegal.) What part of that makes it reasonable for him to go free?

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The years he spent as a public serviceman compensate for the accidental killing of those two girls. Hence, he should walk away scot free.

BluRayHiDef

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The years he spent as a public serviceman compensate for the accidental killing of those two girls. Hence, he should walk away scot free.

BluRayHiDef

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"] sarcasm? BuryMe

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

So if I save someone from 2 house fires and then kill them later on, can my defence be that I saved him twice and killed him once, so my good deeds over ride my bad one?

And it doesn't matter what you think of the girls that died (and we really know nothing about them, so your claim is completely unfounded,) he was speeding (which is illegal) on the wrong ide of the road (which is illegal,) and texting while driving (which is also illegal.) What part of that makes it reasonable for him to go free?

He's a cop who risks his life everyday to help and protect people. He made one mistake which resulted in the deaths of two girls who probably would have never done half of what he's done for society. He should be excused.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"] sarcasm? SaintLeonidas

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

It depends on which sister it is.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

BluRayHiDef

So if I save someone from 2 house fires and then kill them later on, can my defence be that I saved him twice and killed him once, so my good deeds over ride my bad one?

And it doesn't matter what you think of the girls that died (and we really know nothing about them, so your claim is completely unfounded,) he was speeding (which is illegal) on the wrong ide of the road (which is illegal,) and texting while driving (which is also illegal.) What part of that makes it reasonable for him to go free?

He's a cop who risks his life everyday to help and protect people. He made one mistake which resulted in the deaths of two girls who probably would have never done half of what he's done for society. He should be excused.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

There's nothing wrong with him recovering damages. That's strict liability, and it's why workman's comp exists. Virtually no jurisdiction in the United States still operates under a modified comparative negligence standard. He was injured while commissioned by and, acting on behalf of, his employer.....he gets money...maybe less than he would have gotten if he wasn't texting, but he still gets money. It doesn't mean that guilt on his part is abolished.

nervmeister

Yea...I'm sure all the new recruits can't wait to accidentally drive into other cars and kill a few passengers. Give me a break.

If you want to blame something or someone for encouraging reckless or negligent behavior on the job, blame Workman's Compensation and tort law decisions that gave rise to it. Workman's Comp is mandatory for every business of a certain size in most states, including government entities like police departments. It essentially covers any tortious act committed by employees that isn't intentional, and it covers injuries sustained by employees as long as they aren't sustained during the committment of a tortious or illegal intentional act. That's a pretty broad spectrum, not to mention police officers almost always receive the benefit of the doubt at Common Law.

He's a cop who risks his life everyday to help and protect people. He made one mistake which resulted in the deaths of two girls who probably would have never done half of what he's done for society. He should be excused.

BluRayHiDef

And you are in no position to judge what the girls would or would not have done with their lives. You quite literally know nothing about them.

The hell?

Seriously?

What a terrible story. Cell phone use while driving or operating another vehicle is so dangerous-- both talking without a headset and texting while driving are illegal here in California. Cell phones have caused disasters before here-- in September 2008 (so actually 2 years ago), a Metrolink train engineer ran a red light on the track and collided with a freight train in Chatsworth, killing 25 people. The engineer was found to have been texting.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]Wow :|

So if I save someone from 2 house fires and then kill them later on, can my defence be that I saved him twice and killed him once, so my good deeds over ride my bad one?

And it doesn't matter what you think of the girls that died (and we really know nothing about them, so your claim is completely unfounded,) he was speeding (which is illegal) on the wrong ide of the road (which is illegal,) and texting while driving (which is also illegal.) What part of that makes it reasonable for him to go free?

Solid_Snake325

He's a cop who risks his life everyday to help and protect people. He made one mistake which resulted in the deaths of two girls who probably would have never done half of what he's done for society. He should be excused.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

BluRayHiDef

So if I save someone from 2 house fires and then kill them later on, can my defence be that I saved him twice and killed him once, so my good deeds over ride my bad one?

And it doesn't matter what you think of the girls that died (and we really know nothing about them, so your claim is completely unfounded,) he was speeding (which is illegal) on the wrong ide of the road (which is illegal,) and texting while driving (which is also illegal.) What part of that makes it reasonable for him to go free?

He's a cop who risks his life everyday to help and protect people. He made one mistake which resulted in the deaths of two girls who probably would have never done half of what he's done for society. He should be excused.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

No. Also, more than likely the two girls he hit were nothing more than you're typical shallow teenage Americans. This generation has gone down the hill. Heck, he did us all a favor.

BluRayHiDef

So if I save someone from 2 house fires and then kill them later on, can my defence be that I saved him twice and killed him once, so my good deeds over ride my bad one?

And it doesn't matter what you think of the girls that died (and we really know nothing about them, so your claim is completely unfounded,) he was speeding (which is illegal) on the wrong ide of the road (which is illegal,) and texting while driving (which is also illegal.) What part of that makes it reasonable for him to go free?

He's a cop who risks his life everyday to help and protect people. He made one mistake which resulted in the deaths of two girls who probably would have never done half of what he's done for society. He should be excused.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]Wow :|

So if I save someone from 2 house fires and then kill them later on, can my defence be that I saved him twice and killed him once, so my good deeds over ride my bad one?

And it doesn't matter what you think of the girls that died (and we really know nothing about them, so your claim is completely unfounded,) he was speeding (which is illegal) on the wrong ide of the road (which is illegal,) and texting while driving (which is also illegal.) What part of that makes it reasonable for him to go free?

Solid_Snake325

He's a cop who risks his life everyday to help and protect people. He made one mistake which resulted in the deaths of two girls who probably would have never done half of what he's done for society. He should be excused.

Do you know how dangerous it is for a state trooper to pull someone over on the side of a high way? The person they pull over can be carrying a loaded weapon. There's also the possibility that the trooper can be clipped by an on coming vehicle and killed or severely injured. That happens pretty often. Though he may not have experienced dangerous situations while on the job, the fact is that he's willing to risk his life in case it does happen. The possibility of danger is part of the job. Heck, even his normal (non-dangerous) routine is beneficial to society. He deters people from speeding (oops!) and committing other traffic violations and handles any other emergency which may come his way. Hence, he's beneficial to society. He enforces the law.

I'm curious as to why someone's contributions to society should judge their right to live over another's.SmittyPeppers