Geoff said about 1 hour later

Terrible news to hear. We have enough to fear in life, getting a good education shouldn't be one of them. It appears to be only one gunmen? How did he manage to mow down so many people?!? Instances like these make me question the laws of gun control.

---

Kristen said about 1 hour later

Tell me about it! We just heard that the death toll may now be 32!! I've heard rumors from the mom of a student who witnessed the first shooting that the gunman was an angry old boyfriend of a student.....who knows...it's still sketchy if he's even alive.

---

GJ said about 1 hour later

Because if we all had guns, that'd fix the problem, right? OK, not the time for a long discussion about gun control. We'll do that in a couple of days, after the dust settles.

Unfortunately, it was just a matter of time...and it can happen anywhere. Schools are a natural target due to the angst and pressures of growing up sourced from there and their population density.

Cue people blaming it on violent video games in 3,2,1....

---

Kristen said about 2 hours later

We just heard that one of our former students may be a victim...this just sucks!!

---

GJ said about 3 hours later

As if President Bush couldn't lower himself anymore....his spokesperson states "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed."

Ho, that's very sensitive of you, Georgie! Let's make sure we put the NRA before the victims, because, dang it, we take care of those who pay the bills!

(so much for me not getting political about this, eh?)

---

Abby said about 4 hours later

Yeah, I read about that on Yahoo...

I can't imagine what it must be like to personally know someone who was killed by the guy.

---

Geoff said about 4 hours later

Yeah I don't know why anybody should own a gun. Even for recreational purposes, you should have to rent it and then return it when your finished or something. Think of it as going putt-putt. Obviously it isn't quite that simple, and it doesn't guarantee the prevention of tragedies like these, but it sure could help. One can hope that there will be more awareness and action taken on this growing problem.

---

Steve said about 6 hours later

First off, I'm very sorry to hear the news. I'll be praying for the victims and their families.

As a gun owner myself, I understand why some people have guns. I enjoy the shooting sporting clays. That said, if the government decided to ban guns, I'd be fine with that. Just give me a fair price for my gun, and you can take it back.

I've tried having the gun control discussion with one of my friends that owns several guns. He was so proud when he bought a SKS rifle. For those not familiar, an SKS is a semi-automatic rifle that was developed by the Russians, but reproduced in large quantities by the Chinese. It's VERY simple to modify it to become a fully automatic gun. I asked him what in the world he could possibly use it for. His response? Hunting. Uh, yea. The precision of those types of guns is not very good. You'd be better off hunting with a precision single shot rifle. So what did he need the 30 round clip for? Well, for hunting small game, of course. In the past 6 years since he's bought the gun, has he hunted with it once? Nope.

I'd be all in favor of banning all hand guns, and all guns that hold more than three bullets in them at a time. Well, really, I'd support banning guns altogether, if it were suggested. Anyone, anyone, who thinks gun control is not going to help reduce crime, is an idiot. Here's some factrs (albeit old data - 1994) about death rates due to firearms per 100,000 people. Note Northern Ireland - wasn't there a lot of violence going on there in 1994? Well, ok, the IRA called for a ceasefire in August 1994, but there was still violence in the first 7 months. And still, much fewer gun deaths per capita than in the US.

Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

Sorry GJ, I couldn't help get the discussion started early. I'm blown away by the fact that we let a minority of the country rule the gun control lobby. And really, I think that a lot of people might bitch and moan about gun control at first, but long term, they'd find other ways of enjoying themselve outdoors. Every try bow hunting? It requires more skill, so perhaps that's a better challenge.

---

GJ said about 7 hours later

That's quite all right--it appears we're probably all on the same side. Gun nuts have been saying all day, "well, if just one of those kids had a gun to defend themselves, they wouldn't have been sitting ducks."

Yeah, right. Can you imagine a world where everyone is packing heat? The Wild West comes to mind. How many of us would settle our differences with a gun, if it were readily available? Think about it--how many times while driving in traffic have you gotten positively livid at someone? Or you're standing in line for Rush tickets, and somebody buts in front of you and costs you those front row tickets you waited in the rain for all night long? Yeah, methinks that murder by gun would go waaaaay up in this kind of scenario.

The gun nuts (I won't call 'em the wacky right, since the gun nuts are a special breed all by themselves) seem to think that Big Government will institute martial law if we don't have the right to bear arms. Um, right. So, to insure we can keep the governent in check, we're willing to sacrifice 15 people per 100,000 each year. For those of you keeping score at home, this is in the ballpark of 40,000 people killed each year. Figure on over 150,000 injured...whether by domestic violence and suicide (major contributors) to murder and spree-killing (far more rare). That's more than we lose to auto accidents.

---

Kristen said about 8 hours later

I think that all handguns should be banned period. Only police agents and military personnel, with clearance, should be able to carry a piece. I have yet to meet someone who successfully defended themselves from an intruder by having a gun handy in the house.

I think that people could own rifles for hunting/shooting, but there would be an incredibly thorough background check. It would be a real pain in the tush to get your hands on one.

At this point the chances of people taking advantage of guns (like today) and the high numbers of accidents far outweighs the positives of allowing people to own guns.

---

Steve said about 9 hours later

I'd sign on for Kristen's proposal in a heartbeat. Significant background checks to get a hunting rifle or shotgun. No hand guns. No assault rifles. No firearms than can keep more than, say, 3 shells/bullets in them at a time. 3 is the limit for shotguns in most states for hunting birds. If you're hunting deer, let's face it, you get one shot, and one shot only Same with most other animals.

You're right GJ. There have been times in the car where I have been within inches of running someo off the road. Road rage? You bet. I have no patience for idioits on the road. If I knew I could do it without risk of killing the other person, I think I would have done it by now.

---

Kristen said about 22 hours later

In addition to the 1 police officer and 2 security officers that we usually have on campus here, we now have an additional police officer. You know, they don't pay me enough to work in a place where I don't feel safe. I feel like I'm really taking my chances--especially with what I know about the social histories of some of my students. I feel like if something happened it would come back on me. Why didn't I know? Didn't I see any warning signs? I see warning signs everyday! And then I call home and nothing happens! I'm at a loss for how to protect myself and these kids. Do we start profiling kids? The thing is that we have to respect their rights and privacy. There is only so much that school officials and the police can do to prevent these things. It's disturbing to me to see them get blamed.

---

GJ said about 23 hours later

Let's get real, though--this doesn't occur very often, and so far, it's pretty limited in scope. I mean, 30 or so dead in a shooting with a school that has what, 25,000 students...and that's the only spree killing in that school's history. Most schools haven't ever had to deal with this, and never will. Thankfully, the supply of total nutcases is really not that big. However, to Kristen's point--how in the world do you tell the dangerous ones from the not-so-dangerous? What pushes them over the edge? It's understanding this that will make us safer--not locking down our learning institutions like prisons.

And yes, I agree about the blame part, too. We're too quick to assume this is easy to prevent--easy to spot--and it's our fault for not catching it in time.

Fact is, crazy nut cases like this often plan these attacks, sometimes months in advance. They are determined to do whatever it is they are planning, and it's damn near impossible to protect against that in reaction mode at the time of the event. We have to figure out what makes these kind of people tick, but do it in some fashion that doesn't violate basic human rights. It's a tough battle, no doubt.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Update: apparently, it's people like me that are responsible. Ummm, yeah, right on Ken "I'm an idiot" Ham.

---

Steve said 1 day later

What really spooked me is the kid is supposedly an engineering student, and most of the killings happened in the engineering building. While I know a lot of us engineers often talk alot of crap about how stupid others are, and how we hate the way things are being done, I also liked to think that all engineers also had enough knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong, or sanity and insanity. I could see them getting ticked off and going after one person (which could be considered sane, as they probably were getting even with the person), but I don't see them going off and killing people randomly.

---

Kristen said 1 day later

I think he was actually an English major--there's things coming out now about his writings and how he had previously been referred to counseling. Since he was from near me I've been hearing quite a few interviews. Students and neighbors who knew him seem to think he was kind of a weirdo and a stalker...no social skills...he wouldn't respond when spoken to and was just totally disconnected to peers. Probably totally focused on himself and his own misery.

Ironically, this kid claims to have had issues with "rich kids". Funny how he graduated from Westfield HS in Fairfax county--not only one of the wealthiest counties here but also one of the wealthiest high schools. It's a fairly new high school. I actually interviewed with the director of counseling there when I first moved down here. I'm betting his family had some money to be able to afford living in that school district. There's also a huge Asian population near where he lived, so I'm not sure I could buy a 'culture shock' excuse. I think he had been seriously disturbed for some time, and I think quite a bit of thought went into this.

---

Marc said 1 day later

Since he's Asian and a loner(warning of upcoming stereotype), he was likely into anime. Anime is Japanese cartoons that are typically very much based in fantasy and from my experience are very violent. The description of the event reminds me of all my experiences with anime as well. Most anime with violence includes a character using dual pistols, which happened here, and the character is typically calm and serious during their violent actions, which based on eyewitness reports was apparently the case.

Now I know this is bordering the "games cause violence issue", and I'm in no way going to blame this on anime, but I think completely disregarding games and media influences is being closed minded. I, for instance, love to play games where you shoot other people in multiplayer. Why? Because they require little to no brain knowledge (a.k.a. great time waster) and I do it solely for competition. I enjoy playing any time of game though. Some of these kids connect with this media and relate it to real life, and once you combine that with a slightly messed up child or childhood, you start having trouble. Do we ban games/censor media? No, we watch our kids closely. I bet the parents didn't have the best relationship with the kid.

This is completely based on a stereotype, but give it a day or two, I guarantee you'll hear talk about his media influences and I'd put money on being right.

---

Marc said 1 day later

Oh to top it off, a student at RIT was arrested today with criminal possession of two assault rifles. He was caught after a staff member heard him assembling them in his dorm room. There was no ammo in his room, but there was ammo in his car. Here's the CNN story:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/17/tuesday/index.html

And the e-mail from RIT:

On April 17, 2007 at approximately 11:25 AM, a staff member at the RIT Inn & Conference Center reportedly heard a suspicious sound coming from inside a student’s room. The alert staff member contacted RIT Public Safety.

RIT Public Safety and the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office responded to the room, where a student admitted possessing two unloaded illegal firearms that he said he had just assembled. No live ammunition was found in the guns, however the Sheriff’s Office found ammunition inside the student’s parked vehicle. The student was suspended from the university and the Sheriff’s Office investigation continues.

---

GJ said 1 day later

I don't buy for a minute that violent movies or games cause this kind of behavior. A warped individual may pick up ideas from them, but let's face it--they'll pick up violent ideas from just about anywhere. 99.9999% of those of us who watch a violent movie or play a violent game do not go out and kill people later as a result.

What causes this kind of behavior? Three things: genetics, environment during development, and mental trauma. I doubt it requires all three, but spree killers are often assumed to have at least two.

Genetic: some people have an inability to siphon off rage. Perhaps in less civilized times, these folks were the "alpha males." Today, the worst offenders turn into killers, the lesser violaters just end up beating their spouses and kids. Worse, some kids additionally lack any empathy at all--these are the ones who turn into serial and or spree killers. Lacking empathy, they find it easy to dehumanize everyone around them, and think nothing of ending their lives.

Rearing: violence as a solution to life's problems is taught at home. A kid who watches pop beat mom is almost always going to do the same to his spouse / girlfriends. Couple this with that rage problem above, and you've got yourself a powder keg.

Trauma: you could group this with rearing--mental trauma, especially when young, often scars the victim and warps their view of reality. This is typically the result of sexual abuse and/or exploitation. Coupled again with the rage issue, and once again you have a powder keg.

The ease of access to guns simply makes this worse. This kid--total psycho to those around him--lacks any kind of police record, apparently, and is able to act normal enough in the gun shop to purchase a weapon and ammo, and pass the background checks. Of course, if he wants to kill people he doesn't need to use guns, but let's face it--guns make the job far easily and efficient. Add to the fact that it's very disconnected (you're not exerting much energy, there is no physical connection with the victim unlike a knife attack), and you have the perfect way to enable these spree killers.

Marc--one thing the police community is very concerned about are copycats in the coming days. It appears that may have been narrowly averted at RIT. Kudos to that staff member for making a difference--who knows where that may have gone with out it.

---

Kristen said 2 days later

I just had an interesting conversation with one of my students (of Pakistani heritage). He said that during lunch today, all the people at his lunch table were coming up with plans of escape for different scenerios. Like what window they would punch out if somebody came from this or that direction, which hallway they'd run down, what they would do depending on which floor they are on, etc....
These kids should be freaking out over the biology test they have next period or debating who like who, not where they'd run if somebody suddenly brandished a gun!!

---

GJ said 2 days later

Yeah, but honestly--given the circumstances, until things go back to "normal" this will dominate most kids' thoughts, especially those in the 14-20 range. That sucks...but that's how they cope.

---

Abby said 3 days later

I've read anime in the past, and yeah, it is definitely violent at times. But then, it really depends on the anime. The Naruto ones that Trev reads are pretty violent, as well as the TV show, but the Fruits Basket ones that I read are more into the romance neighborhood, with little violence. But then, I've only read the first few, so I'm not totally sure. But hey, they're both very popular animes/mangas.

---

GJ said 4 days later

Addendum: read this by Stephen King about violence in writing in the wake of this incident. Short, but interesting.

---

Steve said 4 days later

That was interesting, thanks for sharing. Key that he points out that you shouldn't necessarily take violent stories as a warning sign, unless there's no talent in the writing demonstrated.

So Marc, is there any work around for the hidden text when I'm typing? Should I just switch to Mozilla until IE7 is fixed?

---

Marc said 6 days later

I'll see about the workaround tomorrow between class, or maybe during if I get bored. :)

GJ said about 1 hour later

Yes, I've heard of it. It is not known to be addictive, not known to cause brain injury, and does not share much in common with the effects of LSD (i.e., no flashbacks, no lingering psycho effects, very limited "high"). It is legal in almost every state in the US, though many pols are trying to ban it on the incorrect basis that it's "just like LSD."

It is a hallucinogen, and it should not be taken without medical supervision. It has possible uses in the medicine field which are still being vetted. The Native American shamans have used this for ages to invoke their sessions with the Great Spirit. It is not a party drug, as it does not appear to increase sociability.

---

Abby said about 6 hours later

Haven't heard of it. And on the subject of drugs and middle schools-

One of the kids that was new to my school a few months ago got expelled yesterday because he was discovered to have 2 grams of pot.

I personally think drugs are rather disgusting, so no danger of me willingly doing them. ^^

Abby said about 7 hours later

Can I have one of those snakes?

PLEASE?

---

Steve said about 14 hours later

If my pet garter snake wasn't too busy keeping my front yard clear of slugs, worms, and the like, I'd let you have him. He's grown pretty big. I just saw him today for the first time this year. He's a lot bigger than he was last year or the year before. Unfortunately, I hear they only live 3-5 years in the wild, so this may be one of his last years visiting me :-(

---

Darcy said 1 day later

Dear sweet Abby--

There will be NO snakes in my house.
Remember-we've discussed this before...So cut it out.

Love,
Your mother

---

Abby said 1 day later

NOOOOOO!!!!!!

I WANT A SNAKE!!!!!!!

(P.S. I think she's afraid of snakes.)
(P.S.S. Hahaha. xD)

---

GJ said 1 day later

Garter snakes rock--especially since they lack the fangs to do any real damage. I lost count of how many times I got bit as a kid....might have something to do with my snake-wrasslin' activites back then.

---

Abby said 2 days later

Can I have a garter snake then?

---

GJ said 2 days later

You have to find one first.

---

Abby said 2 days later

Then where the heck can I find one?

---

Steve said 3 days later

Look in gardens, or also in rocky places, somewhere that they can sun themselves, but also have quick escape routes. Near water is also good, they like to play in the water too. Ditches work really nice for them, as there are always bugs, little frogs/toads, and other stuff they can eat there. But, don't disobey your Mom, you'd probably have to keep him outside, and away from any flower beds she might work in!!

---

Abby said 3 days later

Well, hm... our only garden really doesn't have any flowers. The only ones I can think of are dandelions and those purple ones, which don't need any gardening. ^^

So, no real danger there.

GJ said about 3 hours later

Meanwhile, here in the Capital Region of NY, we are still Wegmansless. Price Chopper sucks!

Marc said about 1 hour later

The Banana Boat Song? :)

---

GJ said about 3 hours later

Nope. Good guess, and great movie. But no.

---

Steve said about 8 hours later

Thirty Thousand Pounds of Bananas by Harry Chapin. Geez Marc, have you blocked out all of your childhood memories? Do you not remember this song from the many trips to NJ? Oh wait, you were probably only 3 years old back when we listened to those songs all the time, along with John Denver and Peter, Paul, and Mary. I have grown to like the first two, but Puff the magic dragon never really caught on with me...

---

GJ said about 23 hours later

Nah, Peter Paul and Mary are just way too liberal for you, Steve. ;)

---

Marc said about 23 hours later

I probably would recognize it, but off hand I have no clue what it is. Puff The Magic Dragon was an awesome song though, although I can't say I listen to it too often anymore.

---

Steve said 1 day later

You bet GJ, but I love listening to Harry Chapin, and he's pretty liberal too!

---

GJ said 2 days later

Yep, he certainly is...but he can write a heck of a ballad.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Here you go Marc. Listen

Steve said about 5 hours later

Not expected, but it's not really to uncommon for it to happen either. Davey Allison of Nascar fame died in a personal helicopter accident. Alan Kulwicki, also from Nascar dies in a personal plane accident.

Also of note, his son, a friend of his, and his friend's son also passed away in the accident.

RIP Colin, I hope you're up in Heaven racing the eternal rally stage against Richard Burns (2001 WRC champ succumbed to cancer a couple years ago) and Jake Himes (a local young rally driver that also succumbed to cancer just last week).

Marc said 23 minutes later

They just want a day off. Maybe the computing industry should get in on this striking business. :)

Then again, we can always "work from home."

---

Steve said about 6 hours later

I don't think GM is too worried about the strike. The UAW is trying to use it as a bargaining tool, trying to pressure GM into caving into their demands. Fact is, on average, GM has a higher than desired vehicle inventory of about 80 days. So let them strike for a month, and get the vehicle inventory down to a reasonable 50 days.

The one thing I hope and pray comes out of this round of negotiations is to change the pension contributions into 401K contributions. Pensions scare me, and in effect, I don't plan to ever see one, because if a company goes bankrupt, that's one of the first things that disappears. And is it likely Chrysler will still be around for the next 50+ years? I'd say that's a 50/50 chance. And I don't like those chances when it comes to my retirement money.

---

GJ said 1 day later

So, what to read into the short strike? GM couldn't have caved that fast, so the UAW must have...right? It sure looks like they did.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Auto bloggers appear to be saying "decisive short term win for GM, but GM still losing the war," and "UAW takes it on the nose." Jalopnik is the only ones who though it was dead even for the two, but they also don't think GM is a dead corporation walking. Most of the financial analysts are so hyped up by this VEBA they're forgetting that GM needs to start making cars people want to buy in addition to addressing quality (which they've sort done already).

---

Marc said 1 day later

Releasing the Camaro sometime before the next millenium would be a start. :)

---

Geoff said 1 day later

They already missed the boat IMO. The Camaro should have came out last year.

---

GJ said 2 days later

The Camaro isn't going to save the General. Even if it came out last year and was the best ponycar, it wouldn't matter. It needs a top flight model in the mid to full size market, and it also needs to drop Buick and GMC and lose about 50% of its dealers. Then make Chevy the place to get cars and trucks, Caddy for luxury models, and Pontiac for performance models. Finally, they need a kick-butt car in the small car segment that is profitable, something they've simply never been able to do.

---

Steve said 2 days later

Um, in case you haven't noticed, the General is coming out with some very nice cars these days, and even the biased car mags are giving them the nod. The Saturn Outlook, Buick Enclave?, and GMC Acadia crossover vehicles are getting great press. As are the Saturn Aura and new Chevrolet Malibu. The trucks always get good reviews. Cadillac hasn't been doing this well since they had fins on the back of them. And the new RWD architecture is also getting good press, even though no one has driven a G8 or Camaro yet, just the Holden version!

Compare that to Ford or Chrysler. Let's see. Ford has the Fusion, which is ok, but not as well received as the Aura. They have their trucks. Um....that's about it. Chrysler has the 300/Charger/Challenger. And their minivans. And their trucks. Um, that's about it from them as far as popular cars.

Of the domestic automakers, GM is by far doing the best where product is concerned.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Great press can be (and often is) paid advertising. The real question is, how are sales? For GM, how are sales NOT INCLUDING SALES TO FLEET? GM's sales have sucked for years, and they've played a numbers game by selling oodles of cars to fleets. Hmmm...what does that do to reward your purchasers? Oh, I know--it kills the residual value of the vehicle! How very rewarding! And people wonder why the resale value of domestics is so bad.

It's not a question of if any of the big 2.5 go bankrupt...it's a game of who goes first. The others will follow suit soon after.

---

GJ said 3 days later

OK, on a related note, check this out. It's hilarious.

---

Steve said 3 days later

Yea, I had to chuckle when the HART (Honda of America Racing Team) pulled up next to me in paddock at the Solo Nationals last week towing their trailer with a Ford F350.

BTW, GM and the rest of the big 3 are trying to slow down sales to fleet. They've finally realized that fleet sales kills resale value for their customers, and those customers won't come back to buy another car if they know the value of the car is going to plummet a year or two into owning it. So watch for rental fees to start going up.

Sales are a tricky thing to watch. You can have a great car, but a crappy reputation, and your sales will suck. GM has some good cars now. Now it will take time for their reputation to be improved, and only then will you see sales start to increase again. Building a great car is only half the battle. The other half is convincing potential customers that you really did build a great car.

---

Steve said 3 days later

Hey, it's not the big 2.5 anymore. Have you missed all the "New Chrysler" ads? It's the "not quite as big 3" now.

---

GJ said 3 days later

nah, haven't seen the new chrysler ads...but I see nardelli isn't doing a torch job (yet) at chrysler, so maybe there is hope yet.

---

Steve said 3 days later

In fact, he's brought on Jim Press (stolen from Toyota, was first American president and CEO of Toyota North America, first American on Toyota's Board of Directors), The woman that was marketing director for Toyota, the guy from GM that is THE main man for selling cars in developing markets in Asia. I'm sure a few more big names are coming, just waiting for the UAW contracts to be signed so they can fire the two remaining DaimlerChrysler VPs (Lasorda and Klegon).

---

GJ said 3 days later

oh, and most of the auto blogs call the us makers...the big 2.8 :)

Marc said 42 minutes later

I was going to post earlier on the blog while watching him speak. The part about homosexuals was absolutely astonishing. He kept asking the question, "Do you not punish criminals? You do have capital punishment, I know you have capital punishment. Do you not punish criminals." The Columbia Univ. President then went on to say, "I was referring to the execution of homosexuals." And then he went off on that whole tangent of not having homosexuals like in your country. The article you grabbed that from said the audience laughed derisively, but from what I heard it was more gasps of astonishment.

Oh and great last line to the post, you had me rollin' :)

Geoff said 24 minutes later

lol thats too good

---

Steve said about 4 hours later

I'm going straigh to he!! thanks to you guys, I couldn't help but laugh at that last line...

---

GJ said about 4 hours later

We're already there if the two of us have lost Pascal's Wager, so see you there!

---

Geoff said about 7 hours later

Yup, we'll have a hell of a good time!

GJ said about 2 hours later

Geoff, read the fine print on ANY health insurance policy. They all say the same thing. This isn't unique to Walmart, it's standard practice for insurance. Basically, this gal won $417k from the trucking company for medical losses. Walmart's insurance paid out more than that, so they are entitled to the $417k. If she had won any money for punitive damages, the insurance company wouldn't be able to touch that.

No story here, move along. If this is a surprise to anyone, I'd suggest reading your insurance policies in detail--auto, home, life, etc. You should be very familiar with these kind of rules on insurance, in case you ever make a claim.

---

GJ said about 2 hours later

Can't believe I'm sticking up for big business here. Steve will love me for this.

---

Geoff said about 3 hours later

Yes, medical loses...who is paying for her medical care now...and in the future? It wasn't like she broke her arm and is now back at work. She's permanently disabled as a result of the accident and the payment was for the prior and future care for this woman. It is absurd for any company, let alone the world's largest retail store, to sue this woman for $470,000 for repayment of medical bills, which is $60,000 more than what she actually received after the $600,000 in legal fees.

What was the point of her paying medical premiums every month? If Walmart wants there money so bad, they too should have sued the trucking company...and foot the legal bill.

---

GJ said about 6 hours later

Let's visit the numbers AGAIN. Walmart had *already* paid $470,000 towards her health care, which they were obligated to under their insurance rules. This woman won a little over $1,000,000 by her piss-poor lawyers, who then took a $600,000 chunk out of it. Walmart's insurer was not likely privvy to that amount, but knew she won $1M. So, they send her a bill to cover their expenses, AS IS SPELLED OUT IN THE INSURANCE AGREEMENT. They are notified that her award was just $417K after expenses, so they get told to knock down the bill to match that amount.

I totally understand she will have future expenses--and guess what? Her insurance with WalMart has to pay for it, unless under the terms of the lawsuit and insurance policy that her policy is considered null and void once a settlement like this is reached. If her family got screwed over by their own lawyers (and it sure sounds like they did), then point the finger at the correct party.

---

Geoff said about 7 hours later

I'm not saying Walmart legally can't ask for the money back...but why would a company who raked in 9 billion for the quarter, screw over this family (the fact that they had to divorce to get more money for Medicaid should tell you these folks aren't financially sound) . I think it is pure crap on Walmart's part...especially for doing this to one of their own employees. I don't even want to get started on the Lawyers...we already know they are all crooks.

Oh, and by spelled out, you mean buried in the footnotes of a 50 page booklet set in 9pt type. Yup, I'm sure she got the memo :)

---

Steve said about 10 hours later

I agree with GJ, technically. As long as Walmart continues to pay the medical expenses, which isn't clear in the report, it's ok with me. Though if thier policy has a limit, it would be nice if they made a "charitable contribution" to support her ongoing expenses.

---

GJ said about 17 hours later

No, I don't mean buried in the footnotes of a 50 page booklet. Odds are, it's in the section titled Exclusions and Limits of Liability, likely one of the first few sections (albeit not on the first page). However, it doesn't matter. It's a legal agreement, and if someone can't bother to read and understand them, why should I feel sorry for them?

Even better--how do you think Walmart got as wealthy as it did? It sure wasn't by charitable contributions to their sick employees. Health care is freaking expensive--this was almost half a million dollars paid out to ONE employee. How many employees do they have? How many are sick like this? And what kind of a precedent would it set to bend the rules on this case?

Health insurance is a business, not a right. So long as this remains a "free-market" system, people like this will "lose."

---

Geoff said about 22 hours later

I can't imagine there are a plethora of permanently brain-damaged former Walmart employees as a result of an automotive accident who are being sued to pay back medical expenses. There is a reason we employees (or employers) pay monthly premiums, so in case something drastic like this does happen, we are covered. From my experience with automotive insurance at least, they go after the person who caused the accident and sue their insurance carrier...which Walmart should have done.

Now, if Walmart was still covering this woman's long term medical expenses I wouldn't have so much of a problem with them recouping some of the awarded money. However, seeing as Medicaid is picking up some of the tab, me thinks Walmart isn't coughing up much, if any cash. And to kick this lady when her family is really down (husband is recovering from cancer-working 2 jobs, son just died in Iraq, and she rots in a nursing home for the remainder of her life), to me sounds like a pretty piss poor morale decision. Again, goes back to the title of my post....Another Reason to Hate Walmart.

---

GJ said 1 day later

You're a bleeding heart liberal, you realize...far more to the left than I am, apparently. :) That's my logical fallacy for today--an ad-hominem.

Your logic also sucks. I doubt there are a plethora of brain-damaged former Walmart employees. However, there are likely a ton of former Walmart employees who are on permanent medical disability leave. Based on the fact that a) they worked at Walmart and b) they are disabled likely means they are in dire financial straits, not unlike the family in this story. Some will be worse off, many will be better off, but I doubt any of them live comfortably.

So, do you think that if Walmart breaks their insurance rules and drops the lawsuit, they won't immediately be pounced on by thousands of lawsuits demanding equal treatment? That'd be a great idea, don't you think? Or is this soley a moral decision--damn the consequences?

---

Geoff said 1 day later

She didn't sue Walmart, Walmart sued her. Why can't Walmart sue the trucking company who caused the accident like any normal company should do? Tell me that.

I don't know the number of how many disabled Wal-Mart employees who have been sued by Wal-Mart for medical expenses...but something tells me it isn't in the thousands. And if it is, then bring on the lawsuits because in my opinion, this is poor practice on Wal-Mart's part.

The trucking company and Wal-Mart's health care should be paying for this woman's care, not me, which is exactly going to happen because greedy Wal-Mart want's their $200,000 + 90 billion for the quarter.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Wrong again. If anyone should pay for it, it should be the trucking company. It was up to her lawyer to see that done. Her lawyer is now trying to bring Walmart into this case, simply because they have big pockets. If you can't see that, you're blind.

There is nothing unusual about Walmart's lawsuit--this is a common lawsuit, done when a party has not held up their part of the deal for the insurance policy. I'll give you an auto example, since you keep coming back to that type of insurance. If you get into an accident, you are injured, and the other party is at fault as dictated by a traffic ticket issued to the other party, then your insurance company will pay your medical bills and then seek to have the other person's insurance company pay them back for it.

If, however, no ticket is issued, your insurance company has no ground to sue. Instead, you find enough evidence to show the other party was likely drunk--not enough evidence for a criminal case, but probably enough for a civil case. You (or your family) files suit and wins. I guarantee you that any funds won for medical care are subject to claim by your insurance company. They will first send you a letter...and if you don't send them the money, they'll then sue you for breach of contract to claim the funds.

That's what's going on here. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

I'm not debating whether this is right legally, I'm saying I don't agree with this morally. I didn't say shut Wal-Mart down or throw them in prison, I simply said that this is another reason to hate them, which is a personal opinion, not a legal one.

Read this article from the Wall Street Journal. It's a good one about this whole topic...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119551952474798582.html

She got screwed...twice...and it's only going to spread. Maybe there is more to this story than just a lady who didn't study paragraph 2, Clause D, Section III, in Schedule B on Page 13.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Good article, thanks for the link.

It reaffirms that her lawyer sucked. He obviously didn't understand subrogation.

While these lawsuits may be a new thing, this legalese has been in insurance paperwork as long as I can remember. As the economy sours, it surprises me very little that companies will do what they can to minimize health care costs, as they are a major drain on profitability.

And obviously, don't expect moral decisions from a corporation the size of Walmart. :)

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Yup, it's unfortunate. I was unaware such a practice was in place, so it is good to know.

---

GJ said 5 days later

Update on the story--this should make Geoff's day.

---

Geoff said 6 days later

booyah!