Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps because you are making it needlessly complicated. People get fired every day for cause and it is not unheard of for employers to extend both pay and benefits for some limited amount of time post termination. I also hasten to add that while former officer Slager was terminated by his department, absent a final ruling on that termination (much less any criminal conviction) the city of North Charleston could find themselves having to repay Mr. Slager backpay and benefits if it is found that his termination was unjustified or procedurally insufficient, so extending his health benefits for a month really isn't that big of a deal at this point in the process.
It could very well be policy for it to be extended to a pregnant spouse once she's in her second or third trimester.....people are acting like things like that never happen. We really don't know and are only assuming.
It's funny the OP assumes stopping the maternity insurance would immediately FORCE the cop into COBRA coverage.
That's not how it works.
So the OP is inviting the TAXPAYERS to pay for the mother and baby's expenses instead of the more affordable group insurance coverage that is likely already paid for at least until the end of the month.
There are quite a few assumptions being tossed about. Presumably the police department/city has a written policy regarding insurance coverage for employees who have been dismissed. THAT is how this case should be administered, otherwise the city is opening itself up for appeals from former city employees who may feel (and rightly so) their cases have been applied differently.
Another assumption that being tossed around is that Mr. Scott's family will be richly compensated for the actions of the officer. Maybe, maybe not. To be determined, and until such time should have zero bearing on anything at this point. Same applies to the officer. Charges are different than convictions. If the city's policy is that insurance is dropped upon arrest, that's one thing. If the policy is based on conviction, that's another thing. If the insurance had been dropped prematurely then the cop's family has the right to appeal. Bottom line: Hold a bake sale if you're that concerned about the wife's welfare. Regardless of how sympathetic an expectant mother might be, the city's policy must be followed. Let the chips fall where they may.
....but where is all the compassion for the family of the man who was shot in the back eight times? Anyone want to pick up any expenses for his family or do you feel it's okay that his family is "punished" (since that's the word you all keep using).
Maybe reporting was wrong, but it appears the shooting victim was not taking too good care of his family, so why should taxpayers do more.
Not to suggest the shooting in the back was anything but criminal, but when emotions rather than facts dominate your posts you sometimes get pretty tripped up. This is a great example!
Maybe reporting was wrong, but it appears the shooting victim was not taking too good care of his family, so why should taxpayers do more.
Funny thing, he might not have done well by his family in life, but he will certainly do well by them in death. The inescapable fact is that his heirs will collect a healthy sum from taxpayers regardless of what happens to or with the officer charged with his murder.
Maybe reporting was wrong, but it appears the shooting victim was not taking too good care of his family, so why should taxpayers do more.
Not to suggest the shooting in the back was anything but criminal, but when emotions rather than facts dominate your posts you sometimes get pretty tripped up. This is a great example!
Why. Based on various reports, Scott had regularly ducked his child support responsibilities. He certainly didn't deserve to get shot by an out-of-control cop, but I wouldn't put him up there as a Father of the Year candidate either.
MIToBH"He's already not going to be there for the birth of his kid. He'll be lucky to ever hold the child because frankly, his life as a free man is OVER".
it's a good thing the cop hasn't tried to run because apparently suspects there have the right to be shot in the back
Well apparently you are wrong. If that were the case, the Officer would be free and not charged with murder. Do you understand the difference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
