# Bureaucracy at its "finest".



## Tgace (Nov 26, 2004)

*Injured Colo. Deputy Denied Worker's Comp. For Trying to Rescue Baby When Off Duty*

11/24/2004



The Associated Press

DENVER, Colo. (AP) - A deputy praised as a hero for trying to rescue a baby from a burning home said he was told that worker's compensation won't cover his medical bills because he was off duty at the time.
George Gatchis was turned back twice by thick, choking smoke when he tried to crawl through a suburban Aurora home to reach 3-month-old Reginald "Donovan" King on Thursday. Donovan, who was in day-care at the home, was found dead about 15 feet from the front door.

Gatchis was on his way home from his overnight shift with the Denver Sheriff's Department when he saw smoke and tried to help. He nearly lost consciousness once and suffered smoke inhalation in the rescue attempt.

Gatchis said Monday his supervisors told him he must use his health insurance to cover his medical bills because he was not on duty.

"My opinion is that we're on duty 24/7," Gatchis said. "In uniform or not, you're still trained to react to something; you're going to do it. You're going to try and make it right. Unfortunately, we may be left out to dry."

Gatchis said supervisors first told him he would have to take vacation time or sick leave for the days he missed but later told him he could take paid administrative leave.

Workers' compensation would cover all his bills, but his insurance will leave Gatchis with deductibles and copays.

"He will be left with a pretty hefty bill," said Mike Britton, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 27, which gave Gatchis $500 to help cover his bills.

"This man was in full uniform, going home, and responded to an emergency. Does the public expect George Gatchis to walk away from that fire? This man did a heroic act, and they say, 'You're on your own."'

The Denver sheriff's office, part of the combined city and county of Denver, is governed by city rules that limit worker's compensation to on-duty injuries, sheriff's Sgt. Darryle Brown said Tuesday.

"In this case, even though it would make sense for us to enable him to be eligible, unfortunately at this time it is out of our hands," Brown said.

Denver City Attorney Cole Finegan said whether Gatchis was eligible for worker's compensation would depend on what jurisdiction he was in and whether he was doing duties he was legally empowered to do.

"He certainly is entitled to apply," Finegan said Tuesday.

The cause of the fire was still under investigation.

Three other children and a woman escaped unharmed. Their names have not been released.


----------



## Baytor (Nov 26, 2004)

Wow.  Way to punish someone for doing the right thing.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 26, 2004)

Sadly, this happens all the time to cops and fire fighters most of all, especially volunteer fire fighters.  
And you bet if he didn't stop and someone found out he would be berated and possibily even disciplined for not responding to the emergency.
Hopefully some publicity will cause either people to come to his aid and help cover the bills or help him sue and get him convered by worker's comp.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 26, 2004)

There should be a "good Samaritan" clause for anybody who gets hurt while trying to help save somebodies life.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 26, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> There should be a "good Samaritan" clause for anybody who gets hurt while trying to help save somebodies life.


I think there is a law that says you can't be sued for trying to help someone if you are unable to save them or unintentionally hurt them more.  But nothing about you qualifying for workman's comp if you get hurt in the process.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah...you cant be sued, but you can be screwed.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 26, 2004)

In Lancaster, Massachusetts, a volunteer firefighter was killed on the job and the town voted against establishing a fund last November to help his widowed wife and family. A one-time tax I believe of $300 / yr.

This, from one of the most left-leaning states.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 26, 2004)

A lot of people are free with the "we respect the sacrifices of our servicemen/firefighters/LEO's etc." sentiments. But when the rubber meets the road...........


----------



## Baytor (Nov 26, 2004)

....the cops and firefighters get burned.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 26, 2004)

I don't know... Seems to me that Worker's Compensation is pretty clearly spelled out to the scope of what is covered and when.

Perhaps he should seek some compassionate conservatism at a local faith based organization.


----------



## Vadim (Nov 26, 2004)

It never ceases to amaze me when I hear stories like this one. The deputy was simply performing his duty regardless if he was on duty or off. This deputy deserves a commendation and to be covered by workman's comp. I certainly hope his FOP reps fight tooth and nail for him. 

-Vadim


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> In Lancaster, Massachusetts, a volunteer firefighter was killed on the job and the town voted against establishing a fund last November to help his widowed wife and family. A one-time tax I believe of $300 / yr.
> 
> This, from one of the most left-leaning states.


From Lancaster Massachusetts ... http://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/

Vote to over-ride Proposition 2 1/2 to fund an annuity for the family of Marty McNamara.

Yes Vote - 1597
No Vote - 1615

And, from one of the 'most left-leaning' states.

Bush Vote - 1651
Kerry Vote - 1653

Leaning Way to the Left, it seems.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 27, 2004)

OK, so when he's off-duty, he can arrest someone and draw his firearm, correct?  And if I go attack him, I'm arrested for assaulting a police officer, right?  I agree that a cop is a cop 24/7 and a cop is a civil servant.  What better way to serve the civilizatin than to save lives?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> OK, so when he's off-duty, he can arrest someone and draw his firearm, correct? And if I go attack him, I'm arrested for assaulting a police officer, right? I agree that a cop is a cop 24/7 and a cop is a civil servant. What better way to serve the civilizatin than to save lives?


So, in the town budget, we can do away with that line item for Police Officer Overtime pay?


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 27, 2004)

First, let me say that I am in LE and I think that this stinks.  BUT, as Mr. Edwards has pointed out it's WORKMAN'S comp.  This is what medical insurance is for when he's off duty.  That is also one of the things that the FOP is for is to help out fellow officers when things like this happens.  The FOP should send out emails and ask other depts for donations to help him out, or the local PD should make his situation known and ask the community to help with this.  

Yes, he risked his life and yes he did a great thing by doing what he did.  But, here is another situation that is arising that happens alot too that doesn't make the press as much.  Places are hiring "off-duty" cops to work security, and the cops wear their uniform while doing so and the "theory" is that they are joe-citizen until they have to make an arrest and then they are fulltime LEO's on the job.  What happens if they get hurt? Is it department workmans' comp or is it the place who he is working the OT at?  Also, if he arrests someone and has to go to court do the taxpayers pay his OT for his court?  This is why workman's comp has very specific things that they cover and when you qualify.

What if this guy wasn't a cop, would people say he should get workman's comp if he was a fire insurance salesman?


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> From Lancaster Massachusetts ... http://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/
> 
> Vote to over-ride Proposition 2 1/2 to fund an annuity for the family of Marty McNamara.
> 
> ...



Well, the further from the armpit of Massachusetts you get, the less left leaning. Of course, untill you hit the back orifice called Amherst.

Perhaps people would be willing/able to donate more if they weren't forced at gunpoint/jail/loss of property to pay the rediculous taxes they have already.

Then again, Lancaster isn't exactly known for it's high levels of poverty. With all that money, perhaps the Kerry crowd just doesn't practice what it preaches?  :idunno:


----------



## TonyM. (Nov 27, 2004)

Licenced EMTs in New Hampshire are required by law to assist in any situation you encounter, off duty or not. This makes sense to me. You don't drive by a fire or an accident and say "well I'm not on duty". It makes sense for LEOs as well.
As a former correctional officer, volunteer fireman and EMT I can tell you that the callous way I was treated, particularly by the dept. of corrections had a lot to do with me retiring from all public service in '99.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 27, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> There should be a "good Samaritan" clause for anybody who gets hurt while trying to help save somebodies life.


Tom, what is the oath that you took?  Is it standard, or does it vary from department to department?  Is there a caveat within the oath that it applies only during hours scheduled to work?

This guy needs a good lawyer.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, in the town budget, we can do away with that line item for Police Officer Overtime pay?


What do you mean by this?  I don't understand the inference.


----------



## Baytor (Nov 27, 2004)

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/twincities/news/8024470.htm

Here's a link to an incident that occured here in Minnesota.  The short version is this:  An off duty St. Paul cop is drinking at the club.  He doesn't have his badge or gun.  A shooting occurs and someone dies.  The officer makes sure that someone called 911 and then left.  This caused many, including the chief, to wonder why he didn't stay to render aid.
*Officers are discouraged from carrying their weapons while drinking, Finney said. But they are still officers, he added.*

*"Not to respond is not an option," the chief said.*

Also:
*"I am not a happy chief," said Police Chief William Finney, adding that he did not expect the officer to go after the gunman in some sort of "Hollywood action."*
*Still, officers are trained to help others in need and be observant witnesses to help investigations, the chief noted.*

The officer was fired, but got his job back and faced some disciplinary action. (http://www.realcities.com/mld/pioneerpress/8728548.htm )


----------



## Baytor (Nov 27, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> What do you mean by this? I don't understand the inference.


He's saying that if a Police office is considered always on duty, then we shouldn't get overtime pay.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> What do you mean by this? I don't understand the inference.


Baytor is correct. 

Perform a 'Google' search on 'Police Overtime Costs' to further understand the impact on the community and state.

The supposition was put forth that being a civil servants should consider their vocation a 24-hour-a-day responsibility. If this premise is to be accepted, I would assume that those choosing this vocation would similarly accept the premise that their remuneration should not be subject to the rules of 'over-time'. How can you work 'Over-Time' in a 24-hour-a-day field of work?

Further this leads back to the original premise. That 'Workers' Compensation' program should cover the individual when he is *not* working because it is a 24-hour-a-day job, or if you prefer, subject to a 'Good Samaritin' clause.

Either, he is working, or he is not. If you want the Workers' Compensation for injuries sustained because it is '24-hour-a-day vocation', then let's remove that overtime compensation.

I think I would be in favor of expanded Workers' Compensation liability in lieu of overtime compensation.

I do not think that the taxpayers should be subject to Law Enforcement Officers 'Having their Cake' and 'Eating it too'.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 27, 2004)

Baytor said:
			
		

> He's saying that if a Police office is considered always on duty, then we shouldn't get overtime pay.


There is a difference between working overtime and always being on duty.  In other jobs you can be on call and have to come back to work and that's just considered part of the job with no extra pay, but if you have to work say 4 days in a row, that's like overtime and should be paid as such.  
When you work overtime you are at your job every second, for a police officer, they can leave work for the day, go home, and be spending time with their family and suddenly have to do like this guy did and try and rescue someone.  He shouldn't get overtime for it because up until that second he was helping out he wasn't specifically working, but he should be covered by WC cause helping to serve and protect is part of his job.  He was working at that moment, he was on duty and should be treated as such.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2004)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> There is a difference between working overtime and always being on duty. In other jobs you can be on call and have to come back to work and that's just considered part of the job with no extra pay, but if you have to work say 4 days in a row, that's like overtime and should be paid as such.
> When you work overtime you are at your job every second, for a police officer, they can leave work for the day, go home, and be spending time with their family and suddenly have to do like this guy did and try and rescue someone. He shouldn't get overtime for it because up until that second he was helping out he wasn't specifically working, but he should be covered by WC cause helping to serve and protect is part of his job. He was working at that moment, he was on duty and should be treated as such.


I understand your argument. I do not, however, subscribe to it. 

It can not be both, either his is working or he is not. 

If he is working whenever the need arises, then he should have access to Workers' Compensation but not access to overtime, as the requirement of 'overtime' is equal to the 'need' to serve and protect as part of his job.

If he is not working, then the overtime compensation plans negotiated by police unions are in force, but the workers' compensation should not be.

The 'Heads I win, tails you lose' argument should be rejected.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

Of course you dont subscribe to it.  Her point is valid though. (  ) Off duty im not patrolling the neighborhood, conducting traffic stops, directing traffic, taking reports, answering radio calls etc. Off duty im only acting when the need is dire. Unless you would like us to be able to stop you on the road in our personal vehicles (maybe I can get a radar unit in my olds).

If my employer wanted to work out a salary agreement where I was "always on duty" and wouldnt have to sign in and out everyday fine. I believe part of the issue is probably labor law bureaucrats. They like to have a working/not working situation.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

What about volunteer firemen (since everybody likes firemen) who get hurt when they respond to an emergency while "off duty" i.e. they are driving along outside their district and come across an emergency.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

http://www.overtimepay.com/police.htm



> The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal law that requires employers to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation (under specific circumstances) to their employees. Since the FLSA became applicable to state and local government employers in 1986 following a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, many public employers have attempted various ways to _avoid_ paying overtime compensation (i.e., time and one-half pay) to fire fighters, rescue service, emergency medical service (EMS) and law enforcement personnel as the law requires. If an employers overtime pay practices are in violation of the FLSA, employees may file a lawsuit against the employer and obtain back pay (which may be _doubled_ to include what is known as "liquidated damages"), reimbursement for attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Various circumstances in which public employers are required to pay overtime (after a specific threshold is met)and in which many public employers try to avoid paying overtimeare described below:
> 
> 
> ......
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Of course you dont subscribe to it.  Her point is valid though. (  ) Off duty im not patrolling the neighborhood, conducting traffic stops, directing traffic, taking reports, answering radio calls etc. Off duty im only acting when the need is dire. Unless you would like us to be able to stop you on the road in our personal vehicles (maybe I can get a radar unit in my olds).
> 
> If my employer wanted to work out a salary agreement where I was "always on duty" and wouldnt have to sign in and out everyday fine. I believe part of the issue is probably labor law bureaucrats. They like to have a working/not working situation.


And who gets to decide when the "need is dire"? 
Are "traffic stops" dire or not? If they are not dire, why are they performed at all? Is "answering radio calls" a dire activity? If not, why do it at all?

The argument you are making seems to be: "the judgement as to whether my actions are covered by my negotiated contract, or not, is something to be decided on in a moment by moment situation." 

Are there any other occupations where this is acceptable?

Perhaps, I should be able to decide on a moment by moment basis, if I should be subject to societal rules. On what items am I given authority and judgement? Traffic Rules? Narcotic Ingestion? Weapons Usage?

To me, it smells of 'We, Law Enforcement Officers Know What's Best For You'.

Who watches the watchers?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

Ummm...stopping a car without a taillight isnt "dire" (although it could lead to a dire situation) . I dont go lights and sirens to a broken window call. Its pretty simple to figure out. People dont expect me to write parking tags when im at the mall with the kids. They would expect me to act if a guy started stabbing his girlfriend in the parking lot....

Setting up a dwi checkpoint while off duty would be pretty silly dont ya think? When we are in the same restaurant and a robber starts shooting and Im off duty with my weapon on me...thats dire.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 27, 2004)

If I may interject, I believe the issue is better framed in terms of liability.  Worker's Comp. doesn't apply to actions done while off the job simply because, at that time, the officer wasn't acting as a police officer, he was acting as a citizen.  A damn brave and damn moral citizen, but a citizen nonetheless.  

Try and address this question.  If the police department is to cover the officer for liability for injuries incurred by his good actions, what about injuries incurred during his bad actions?  Specifically, if the police department were required to pay Workers Comp for his attempting to save a child from a burning building and thereby incurring injuries (since, after all, he is a police officer), should the police department also be held liable for, say, his wife's injuries while the police officer, in a drunken rage, beats her up?  Or say, he injures someone during a drug deal?  I don't think Worker's Comp should be applied to off-duty actions, simply because the Department would then be liable for all kinds of things, both good and bad, that it has no control over.  

You have a good point about him being in uniform though, and perhaps some type of representation clause might be acceptable, but that would require a lot of though in application.  So yeah, my 2 cents.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And who gets to decide when the "need is dire"?
> Are "traffic stops" dire or not? If they are not dire, why are they performed at all? Is "answering radio calls" a dire activity? If not, why do it at all?
> 
> The argument you are making seems to be: "the judgement as to whether my actions are covered by my negotiated contract, or not, is something to be decided on in a moment by moment situation."
> ...


Uhhh..I was talking about doing those tasks while "off duty" wasnt I. Are you saying I should be carrying my summons book on me while Im going to the store to buy milk? 

Im going out to the garage to install the lightbar on my minivan.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 27, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im going out to the garage to install the lightbar on my minivan.



Finally, a police vehicle I can actually outrun.  :lol:


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> If I may interject, I believe the issue is better framed in terms of liability. Worker's Comp. doesn't apply to actions done while off the job simply because, at that time, the officer wasn't acting as a police officer, he was acting as a citizen. A damn brave and damn moral citizen, but a citizen nonetheless.
> 
> Try and address this question. If the police department is to cover the officer for liability for injuries incurred by his good actions, what about injuries incurred during his bad actions? Specifically, if the police department were required to pay Workers Comp for his attempting to save a child from a burning building and thereby incurring injuries (since, after all, he is a police officer), should the police department also be held liable for, say, his wife's injuries while the police officer, in a drunken rage, beats her up? Or say, he injures someone during a drug deal? I don't think Worker's Comp should be applied to off-duty actions, simply because the Department would then be liable for all kinds of things, both good and bad, that it has no control over.
> 
> You have a good point about him being in uniform though, and perhaps some type of representation clause might be acceptable, but that would require a lot of though in application. So yeah, my 2 cents.


Good points. As devils advocate though, does that mean I should be able to sit back and watch a guy beat somebody to death and do nothing because Im "off duty"? As was mentioned before, some cops have faced job action for failure to perform while off duty.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 27, 2004)

Well in that case I'd agree that there's a hell of a double-standard going on, and in my opinion, the department should regard an off-duty cop as a citizen in all situations, despite how heartless it may seem.   

Now, in the case of the off-duty cop who fails to respond, I'd say treat him with the same standards as a normal citizen doing the same thing, and if the courts or statutes say a citizen is liable for that, then so should the cop be held liable.  

You gotta understand, I'm in law school right now, so I'm thinking in terms of nothing but "liability" and "standards" and "reasonableness" and...oh, 'tis scary indeed.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

Trouble is, we LEO's (in many, but not all states) have full police powers while off duty. If you have that power can you truly be treated as an "average citizen" while off-duty and a "situation" arises?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 27, 2004)

You have full police powers, but do you have full police duties?  Are you required to enforce those powers while off-duty, or are you simply allowed full police powers at your choice to enforce them while off duty?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

Yeah I see your arguement, but "with power comes responsibility". Thats why people get all upset with "off-duty" cops who fail to act in emergency situations. And if I do "choose" to use them, am I not acting "under color" of authority and no longer "joe citizen"? If so am I covered?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ummm...stopping a car without a taillight isnt "dire" (although it could lead to a dire situation) . I dont go lights and sirens to a broken window call. Its pretty simple to figure out. People dont expect me to write parking tags when im at the mall with the kids. They would expect me to act if a guy started stabbing his girlfriend in the parking lot....
> 
> Setting up a dwi checkpoint while off duty would be pretty silly dont ya think? When we are in the same restaurant and a robber starts shooting and Im off duty with my weapon on me...thats dire.


Well, then, if "its pretty simple to figure out", it shouldn't be hard to codify. Once "its" is written out, it could be presented to each of the stakeholders for discussion and action. 

'Til then, however, 'The Rules is The Rules'. It's pretty simple to figure out, don't you think?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 27, 2004)

I was asking you a factual question.  You said that, even off-duty, a cop maintains full police powers.  I'm assuming this is by some police oath or law or something.  Just yes or no, does the same law or rule, or another law or rule, give them full police duties?  That would seem, in my view, to clear up a whoooole lot of this issue.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I was asking you a factual question. You said that, even off-duty, a cop maintains full police powers. I'm assuming this is by some police oath or law or something. Just yes or no, does the same law or rule, or another law or rule, give them full police duties? That would seem, in my view, to clear up a whoooole lot of this issue.


NYS Criminal Procedure Law Sec. 2.20-3

A peace officer, *whether or not acting pursuant to his special duties*, who lawfully exercises any of the powers conferred upon him pursuant to this section, shall be deemed to be acting within the scope of his public employment for purposes of defense and indemnification rights and benefits that he may be otherwise entitled to under the provisions of section fifty-k of the general municipal law, section seventeen or eighteen of the public officers law, or any other applicable section of law.


Even if it dosent spell out duties, the simple fact that an LEO possesses these powers sets him/her to a different standard of action. Once a person uses these powers he /she should assume some sort of responsibility and some sort of protection.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

An interesting paper by the Canadian Gvt. regarding "On Duty/Off Duty" issues.

http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/2000/Off%20Duty%20Police%20Conduct%20--%20Ceyssens.html

While the case law isnt pertinent to US LEO's, many issues are the same.

Looks like they get it right...


> In _Love_ v. _Saanich (District)_, a police officer investigated a noise outside his home late in the evening, and discovered that someone was attempting to remove a stereo from an automobile parked in his driveway. He was casually dressed and was armed only with a bamboo tomato stake. The police officer was injured in the course of apprehending the suspect, who was convicted of attempted theft and assault. The Workers Compensation Review Board concluded that the injury arose "out of and in the course of" his employment within the meaning of the term in the _Workers Compensation Act_. The Board reasoned that the police officer objectively had embarked on a criminal investigation at the point at which he saw the open car door, despite the fact that he was on his own property: "[o]nce he saw objective evidence of a crime in progress, his police officer role was engaged." A similar decision resulted in a West Vancouver case in which an off-duty police officer attempted to apprehend a person unlawfully entering his residence.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, then, if "its pretty simple to figure out", it shouldn't be hard to codify. Once "its" is written out, it could be presented to each of the stakeholders for discussion and action.
> 
> 'Til then, however, 'The Rules is The Rules'. It's pretty simple to figure out, don't you think?


It is "codified" in my dept. We are told in the event of a property crime or petty offense, to be a "good witness"; get descriptions, plates, direction of travel, follow if possible. In the event we come across a situation where human life is in danger, then we get involved. To "codify" any further is a little silly. Street situiations are fluid and to break it down any more would be counterproductive.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 28, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> It is "codified" in my dept. We are told in the event of a property crime or petty offense, to be a "good witness"; get descriptions, plates, direction of travel, follow if possible. In the event we come across a situation where human life is in danger, then we get involved. To "codify" any further is a little silly. Street situiations are fluid and to break it down any more would be counterproductive.


Perhaps it would be counterproductive to 'break it down' further.

However, it would seem that all stakeholders should know what is assumed. 

Does being a "good witness" also demand the oversight and accountability of the town's workers compensation program? Are those member of the town council/board of alderman/mayor's office who are responsible aware of the ramifications of that codification? Do *they* think you are covered? Do *they know* that is what they are voting for when the town budget is passed?

Apparently, the authorities in Denver, Colorado had a different understanding of their local civil servant contracts than you. Perhaps they have different 'codifications' than Cheektowaga, New York.

It still smacks of "I want different rules for me". 

Incidentally, I much prefer the new avatar, but it also seems to me to be saying "Look at Me, See these Stripes, That Means I'm the Boss of You." Very Smokey and the Bandit of you.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It still smacks of "I want different rules for me".


The way I see it, when these folks are afforded different powers, and handed different responsibilitites than Joe Citizen, different rules must apply.  How can different rules apply in some situations and not others?  

I would expect that most of the officers that are off duty who would engage in some sort of "dire" law enforcement activity would rather be supported by worker's compensation than concern themselves with remuneration for such activities.  They'd likely be satisfied with getting paid for only the hours for which they are scheduled.  In fact, I would even go so far as to say that most cops would rather never ever need to work overtime in the first place.  

However, given that many forces are shamefully understaffed and woefully underequipped, that overtime is necessary in order to get the job done.  The saddest part of the entire affair is that taxpayers are unwilling to pay for what they want - they always want more services than they are prepared to fund.  It always boggles me when someone uses the argument (not to suggest that you are here) that their property taxes should be lower in their fancier neighborhood because they use the police services less frequently, yet are the first ones howling if the cops don't respond to a vandalism call within an hour.  Why do they suppose it took so long?  Yeah, lets take MORE money out of the system, that's the solution.  

However, this relates somewhat to the argument at hand.  You cannot reasonably expect an officer to apply the powers that they are given when off duty if you are not prepared, as a community, to support them financially should they become injured.  The work is dangerous in nature, and carries a high degree of risk.  

Who watches the watchers? Internal affairs supported by The Canadian Police Act in Canada, I'm not sure about the American situation.  





> Incidentally, I much prefer the new avatar, but it also seems to me to be saying "Look at Me, See these Stripes, That Means I'm the Boss of You." Very Smokey and the Bandit of you.


I really don't see how this was necessary to the discussion.  Let's remain civil, please.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 28, 2004)

The argument has been put forth that the civil servants should consider their positions 24/7 jobs.

The argument has been put forth that 'dire need' can call a civil servant to duty beyond their regularly scheduled hours.

The argument has been put forth that the 'higher level of responsibility' demands civil servants take action beyond that of an ordinary citizen.

The question I pose is WHO GETS TO DECIDE when it is appropriate for a civil servant to step beyond their 'normal' duties, and what remuneration should be included for these actions. The answer to my question seems to be, the civil servant decides when he is responsible and when the municipality should be responsible for his actions.

Although in his recent post, Tgace has shown the written instructions for his municipality. If Denver Colorado has the same written instructions, then the officer in question should be covered by the workman's compensation program. If however, Denver does not have the same written instructions, to assume, and demand coverage where it is not specified is unfair.

This argument is 'We are all equal, except some are more equal than others.'


----------



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2004)

Who gets to decide? Well, you may not want to hear it, but we have to make decisions everyday. Decide who is telling us the truth and who is lying. Decide to use an appropriate level of force. Decide to arrest. Shoot or dont shoot. Decide if getting involved in an off duty incident would be more dangerous to the family we are with than the victim involved. Decide if I can handle a situation solo or should call for aid and just observe. Most of these decisions have to be made in seconds and then are deliberated over by lawyers and juries for weeks/months.







> Incidentally, I much prefer the new avatar, but it also seems to me to be saying "Look at Me, See these Stripes, That Means I'm the Boss of You." Very Smokey and the Bandit of you.


Personal attacks? Wow. Is this about the issue at hand or me? Nothing implied with the avatar. Just what I wear on my sleeve.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 29, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> OK, so when he's off-duty, he can arrest someone and draw his firearm, correct? And if I go attack him, I'm arrested for assaulting a police officer, right? I agree that a cop is a cop 24/7 and a cop is a civil servant. What better way to serve the civilizatin than to save lives?


 
Good point.

If this was him off duty/out of jurisdiction and trying to stop an armed robbery or something would he be getting the same treatment?

His general health coverage should kick in for now at least.  My only hope is that his supervisor and fellow LEO are working with him better than the 'system.'

I don't know if workman's comp is the right thing to cover this situation - or that workman's comp is set up to deal with this 'compassionately' might be the better way to say it.

Do any of these 'Fraternal order of...' or 'Friends of LEO xyz' organizations have any private plans that parallel workmans comp or do unions lobby for just such a situation?


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 29, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This argument is 'We are all equal, except some are more equal than others.'


In this case I would say that we are not 'equal' in job description, accepted risks, and authority, so we are not talking about blind equality but proportionate equitability.  I think there is some confusion about 'fair' and 'equal' in this case.

Taxes are suppose to be 'equitable' (huh!) because they are proportionate (though the proportions shift based on bracket) to income.  If the idea is blind equality, do we just charge everyone the same tax amount regardless of income level?  That may be 'equal' but it isn't fair or proportionate.

You are dead on that if the clause isn't there for Col. then he may have to do some negotiating.

I would say that there may be some discord between inference and implication with regard to other issues.....do I hear an ax grinding ....


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personal attacks? Wow. Is this about the issue at hand or me? Nothing implied with the avatar. Just what I wear on my sleeve.


Yes and congrats again on the promotion...

I know Tom won't really toot too much (at least his horn....) but he is the youngest (in age AND seniority) Sgt.  promotion in his department to date...way to go man.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 29, 2004)

Well, maybe seniority wise....Im not all that young anymore. (and you arent far behind)


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 30, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well, maybe seniority wise....Im not all that young anymore. (and you arent far behind)


Uhhhhh why are you talking about my behind?


----------



## dearnis.com (Nov 30, 2004)

Michael- might I suggest you try volunteering with your local fire company, perhaps on an abmbulance?  You might find it very eye-opening.


----------



## dearnis.com (Nov 30, 2004)

And on a more substantive note... I am required, usually one week, but sometimes as many as three a month, to be on call and instantly available.  The department's preference is that I operate their car at these times so that I am ready to go....now, even though I am off duty I am operating a police vehicle, and as a result have a somewhat higher duty to act that if I am simply armed off duty.  I take it that I should have neither workman's comp coverage nor any renumeration for events that I should happen to be involved in?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 30, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> And on a more substantive note... I am required, usually one week, but sometimes as many as three a month, to be on call and instantly available. The department's preference is that I operate their car at these times so that I am ready to go....now, even though I am off duty I am operating a police vehicle, and as a result have a somewhat higher duty to act that if I am simply armed off duty. I take it that I should have neither workman's comp coverage nor any renumeration for events that I should happen to be involved in?


If this question is directed to me, my point is that either is acceptable, as long as it is discussed and known in advance by all stakeholders. I point out that you are, perhaps, not as 'required' as you think you are. Most places in America have an 'at will employment' policy. If you choose not be 'required' to do something, you have the choice to leave your job. 

If you expect for workmans' compensation rules to be available during this 'off-duty time', I would suggest that you check with your employer to see if that is also his understanding. If there is a difference in understanding, it would be better to resolve it before it is required. 

Again, concerning monetary compensation, you should have a clear understanding of when an 'event' is going to trigger compensation and / or benefits. 

My point is that to assume you are covered by your employment benefits when you are not acting on behalf of your employer is kind of silly. But, if your are defining when you are working by the *activity*, rather than the *time-table*, it would be best if all parties involved agree on it before hand. 

Concerning your suggestion that I volunteer on a fire truck or ambulance, I pay taxes for those services. I believe that qualifies me to have opinions with eyes opened or closed.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 30, 2004)

"Hmmm...man was armed with a beer bottle and not a gun???" (Bureaucrat shuffles through papers) "Nope not covered. Article 354 section 3 subsection 1 of the "stakeholders" agreement clearly states in "street encounter flowchart #7" that an off duty apprehension of an armed felon may only be initiated when the perpetrator is armed with a deadly weapon as classified in article 322." NEXT!

-or-

"Officer, I dont care if you did have your 3 young children with you at the time. When the suspect pulled out a shotgun and held up that diner you were "required", under "Stakeholder provision number 6", to act. Your failure to do so will result in your immediate suspension while a full investigation is conducted."


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 30, 2004)

But, Tgace, wasn't it you who told us that "It's really quite simple"?

Ahh .. here's the exact quote ... 



			
				[b said:
			
		

> Tgace][/b]
> _Ummm...stopping a car without a taillight isnt "dire" (although it could lead to a dire situation) . I dont go lights and sirens to a broken window call. *Its pretty simple to figure out.* . . . _


----------



## Tgace (Nov 30, 2004)

It can be....you are the one who seems to want a flowchart of acceptable situations. And a mandate of when an LEO can or cant act off duty. Things are fluid. You cant be a pedant. The situation should be investigated and then determine if the action is covered. Not just outright refused because you were "off duty".

IMHO if im performing my duty (which I view as a "duty" first and a "job" second) I should be covered. My oath wasnt to "protect life and property while on the clock". The Canadians seem to have no problem with the concept.

If its a petty offense or property crime and you dont reasonably believe action is necessary, be a good witness. Even then, what if I get hit by a car (drivers fault) in the mall parking lot while following a suspect to get a license plate? covered? Its my "duty" to be a good witness.

If human life is at stake take reasonable action. And yes, In my job its our responsibility to determine what is "reasonable" on the spot knowing we will be second guessed and accused down the road.

Again, what about a volunteer fireman who comes across a "situation" and is injured?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 30, 2004)

BTW that example is about "routine" police work vs. emergency response situations. What calls would you go lights and sirens to and which ones wouldnt you? Is that a better question??

And in my last example wouldnt you call each situation "dire"? Should the officer have been "required" to act in each? Neither mentioned a parking ticket or a lost dog search....which wouldnt have been "dire". Simple.


----------



## dearnis.com (Nov 30, 2004)

> Concerning your suggestion that I volunteer on a fire truck or ambulance, I pay taxes for those services. I believe that qualifies me to have opinions with eyes opened or closed.



Whether or not you pay taxes has nothing to do with whether you have an opinion; the suggestion was a first step towards developing an informed opinion.  But you position seems clear here; you don't like having your tax dollars pay for emergency services, and you have clear disdain for those who work in the professions.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 1, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Whether or not you pay taxes has nothing to do with whether you have an opinion; the suggestion was a first step towards developing an informed opinion. But you position seems clear here; you don't like having your tax dollars pay for emergency services, and you have clear disdain for those who work in the professions.


I find it odd that my opinion seems clear to you, because you have missed my opinion entirely. I have no problem with emergency services. I have no problem with taxes. I have no problem with a portion of my taxes going to pay for emergency services.

My opinion is that there are rules governing things like 'workers' compensation'. Those rules should be followed. I find it offensive that some feel they should decide when those rules will be applicable to themselves.

In the specific instance listed, it appears that the benefit 'workers' compensation' has been set up to cover town employees when they are working based on hours of performance. Because the worker performed a work-type-task, it is being argued that he should have his work benefits. Except, that is not the way the rules are written today. 

I have no problem if people wish to change the rules so that the 'work-type-task' is covered by benefits. But don't do that behind closed doors. The employer must be involved in that discussion (taxpayer).

Anything else smells of Soviet Oligarchy.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 1, 2004)

Lifesaver cop falls on hard times after injury

Shelby Township resident denied pay because he was hurt in off-duty rescue

PUBLISHED: July 22, 2004

By Gordon Wilczynski
Macomb Daily Staff Writer

Friends of Hamtramck Police Officer Christopher Garon believe he should be hailed as a hero instead of getting the short end of the stick from his financially troubled city. 


The city has refused to pay Garon while he recovers from a back injury sustained while saving an ice fisherman and his son from drowning in Lake St. Clair 18 months ago. The city has claimed Garon was off duty and not performing official duties as a Hamtramck officer during the rescue. 

Garon, 40, and a Shelby Township resident, and the Hamtramck Fraternal Order of Police believe Garon is a police officer 24 hours a day and should receive workers' compensation for the injury sustained Jan. 19, 2003. 

The Thin Blue Line of Michigan, a police organization, will hold a fund-raiser Friday to raise funds to offset Garon's lost wages. The 5 p.m. event will take place at the Warren Fraternal Order of Police Lodge at 11304 14 Mile Road and will feature food, drinks and music. Tickets are $20. Call (313) 876-7827. 

Garon's worker's compensation attorney, David Cooper of Lansing, said Garon lost his family income because he saved someone. 

"We're barely making it from week to week," said Garon, whose wife, Amy, works full time to help make ends meet for the couple and their three children. "I never thought twice about saving these people, and I would do it again." 

The near drowning occurred near the Department of Natural Resources access east of Rosso Highway in Anchor Bay. A sheriff's deputy responded to the call in which Michael Goode of Harrison Township and a younger boy, believed to be his son, fell through ice while snowmobiling. 

Garon, who was ice fishing nearby, pulled Goode and the boy from the water. Garon said he hurt his back while pulling Goode out of the water. 

"The older guy was heavy and it wasn't easy pulling him out of the water," Garon said. "I felt something snap in my back and I just thought I pulled a muscle. You know, I had all of that adrenaline going and all I could think of was to get this guy out of the water before he froze to death. Eight days later when I went to work, I couldn't walk any more." 

Bill Barnett, Hamtramck city controller, said it appears a judge will decide whether Garon is entitled to compensation for the off-duty injury. He said the city believes Garon should not be paid because he was not working for the city at the time of his injury. 

"A judge will determine whether it falls within the guidelines of worker's compensation," said Barnett, an Eastpointe resident. "At present we are requesting Officer Garon's medical records." 

Hamtramck Detective Michael Szymanski, spokesman for the police union, said the city isn't paying Garon because it cannot afford a $600,000 bill. Szymanski said the amount includes 18 months of back salary and medical treatment of five surgeries. 

Szymanski said the union has filed a grievance against the city. 

"If you save two people from dying in a frozen lake, isn't that acting in the capacity as a public safety officer, which Chris is?" Szymanski asked. 

Garon served the city for 19 years. His late father, Al, also was a Hamtramck police officer. 

"I'm not asking for $100,000 extra because I don't deserve it," said Garon. "I am only asking for the city to pay my back pay when I was off work and my doctor bills, nothing more." Donations for Garon can also be sent to: Officer C. Garon c/o TBL of Michigan, P.O. Box 415 Howell, MI 48844-0415.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 1, 2004)

Denver Deputy Hurt in Rescue Attempt Now Told to File For Workers' Compensation
11/25/2004


The Associated Press

DENVER, Colo. (AP) - A Denver sheriff's deputy initially told he was ineligible for workers' compensation after trying to rescue an infant from a burning house, might be able to receive benefits after all, authorities said.

George Gatchis, 32, was nearly rendered unconscious and suffered smoke inhalation during the rescue attempt Thursday at the home day care center in Arapahoe County. He was off duty at the time, and his supervisors had told him he would have to use his personal health insurance to pay for his treatment.

On Tuesday, however, Denver Undersheriff Fred Oliva urged Gatchis to file a workers' compensation claim and said his department would support it.

"When the officer takes something like this on himself, I don't think there is a reason he shouldn't be covered," Oliva said. "We will be in full support of him before the workers' compensation board."

Denver City Attorney Cole Finegan had said he was puzzled about why Gatchis was told he could not get workers' compensation, because the review process usually takes several days.

Fire investigators have not determined the cause of the fire.

Three children and a woman escaped unharmed, but firefighters found the body of 3-month-old Reginald "Donald" King inside the house.

If he had to use his own health insurance, Gatchis would be responsible for deductibles and co-pays, while workers' compensation would cover all his medical bills. The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 27 donated $500 to help him cover those bills.


----------

