Lowell police officer, city head to arbitration over injury claim

What? You aren't on duty. Your driving home from work. If every cop in the world was able to to this the world would have no money. Come on man protect and serve but don't get greedy. It's just a job.

Just another arrogant,useless,lazy Lowell cop.The whole force should be fired and replaced.

I have a lot of respect for LPD, the job they do is a hard one. But guys like this give them a bad name, and the union for protecting this guy gives all of them a bad name. If the union told this guy to stop wasting time and get back to work and drop the lawsuit people would see them in a better light. However fighting for a guy obviously trying to scam the system only hurts them.

Frank wrote:

I have a lot of respect for LPD, the job they do is a hard one. But guys like this give them a bad name, and the union for protecting this guy gives all of them a bad name. If the union told this guy to stop wasting time and get back to work and drop the lawsuit people would see them in a better light. However fighting for a guy obviously trying to scam the system only hurts them.

Very true. When a union backs a bad egg, they lose creditability. This was also the case with the Boston Firefighter’s union.

Joey wrote:

<quoted text>
Very true. When a union backs a bad egg, they lose creditability. This was also the case with the Boston Firefighter’s union.

Exactly.
Well only agree to drug tests if we get paid for it. I thought the union was for protecting their members, having a drunk or high FF along side of a clean one isn't really protecting them.

I would like to know what Susan Clickners statutory rape charge of a child has to do with this article? Neither if these incidences involved the man whom the article is referreing to. I find it dissapointing that you could not site relevant case law rather than a sensational example that took place 17 years ago in another town. Your article was VERY bias'd and does not include the fact that other officers have been granted injury benefits under similar circumstances. The Sun used to be a reputable new source, what happened?

If he is on duty "24 hours day" as he stated, does that mean I can call him anytime I need him? If he falls in the shower, the city pays for that? This is another shining example of a police officer abusing the system, sad, very sad

really? that's what bothers you about this article? not the cop trying to scam the system?

Nice! Another article and another chance for everyone to bash all police officers for another day! This is definitely a double edged sword because if he was driving home from work and witnessed someone in medical distress and DID NOT act because he was NOT on duty then he could be sued civilly as well. I'd argue you can't have it both ways. I am a PO and have stopped to assist in minor accidents or incidents on the commute before and considered it more an issue of the right thing to do than being on duty, but then I'm normal and therefore in the profession's minority

I agree just another useless lazy lowell cop. I used to go out with one who is now in jail. What does that tell you about them.

Frank wrote:

really? that's what bothers you about this article? not the cop trying to scam the system?

Its one of the things that bother me about the article. News is meant to be presented in an un-biased manner. There are many other relevant cases to cite to shed light on both sides of opinion. If that officer came upon a crime even if he was at his mothers birthday party he is obligated to act it falls under "duty to act" or he and the city could get sued. ALL civil servants are bound to this. Its easy to judge something or someone when your only presented with half truths. I want a valid news story not one that is geared to slander.

Does this mean, if he has a beer he can be fired because he is on duty.
Please… greed like this is why we are failing as a country.

Christina Liakos wrote:

<quoted text>
Its one of the things that bother me about the article. News is meant to be presented in an un-biased manner. There are many other relevant cases to cite to shed light on both sides of opinion. If that officer came upon a crime even if he was at his mothers birthday party he is obligated to act it falls under "duty to act" or he and the city could get sued. ALL civil servants are bound to this. Its easy to judge something or someone when your only presented with half truths. I want a valid news story not one that is geared to slander.

Un-biased news? Where would you get that?
So in your opinion, a officer no matter how he gets hurt should be able to collect tax free money because of "duty to act"? He wasn't helping someone when he got hurt, he was driving home.
Cop painting his house falls and breaks his leg and he should collect tax free money? You got to be kidding, as it is right now there is abuse of actual on duty injuries and pay, I can only imagine if they were covered 24/7/365.

Mr Callahan should not be paid as said

as said by Karen Gagnon he was not working

any other citizen that is not working regardless

of what they do for a living should not be paid

if they are not working at that moment forget

about the $19,000

That is not what I said. I said there is more than one side to the story. It would be nice if as a public we demanded responsible news reporting versus sensationalistic articles. Why is the one case that is cited from 17 years ago? Detailing an officer who was intoxicated, out of his area and caused the accident? Why not find recent case law that exists and show both sides of the story. Its public record, they are out here if people only wanted to look. Its easy to judge when you don't know what you are talking about. As far as tax free money, if you don't like it talk to City Council it's in their contract. I have no opinion what-so-ever on if it should be allowable, that is for the city to decide. However, I hate to see articles that are irresponsibly presented in a manner meant to sway public opinion without presenting all the facts. If you want to be make and "informed opinion" make sure you have all the facts.

well talking about lazy i got in a crash because some one rn a stop sign and call the cop he didnt write a report why he say thats not his job? im paying his lazy as to work im a tax payer he should do his job any how i got a laywer this is a case that need to be look @ cops or no cops if its ur job you must do or leave who cares about these lazy cops..

Christina Liakos wrote:

I would like to know what Susan Clickners statutory rape charge of a child has to do with this article? Neither if these incidences involved the man whom the article is referreing to. I find it dissapointing that you could not site relevant case law rather than a sensational example that took place 17 years ago in another town. Your article was VERY bias'd and does not include the fact that other officers have been granted injury benefits under similar circumstances. The Sun used to be a reputable new source, what happened?

The Sun always pulls this crap. It is like the reporter goes through the archives to see if anything has ever happened to anyone ever involved in even the most tangential way.

Just the other day, there was a story about a local sub shop and a murder that happened there. The Sun article said the current owner has owned the place for the past 10 years, but then the reporter couldn't resist putting into the article the past owner's name and the fact that she is married to a former Lowell police officer.

Sad thing is that they weren't even married when she sold the business, he has been retired for over 10 years now and never had anything to do with the business, but it gave the
"audience" the opportunity to take shots at them for something that had nothing to do with the right time of day - and of course some of the mental midgets that post here couldn't resist doing that.

That is the problem with a one-newspaper city. No accountability for the newspaper.

Christina Liakos wrote:

That is not what I said. I said there is more than one side to the story. It would be nice if as a public we demanded responsible news reporting versus sensationalistic articles. Why is the one case that is cited from 17 years ago? Detailing an officer who was intoxicated, out of his area and caused the accident? Why not find recent case law that exists and show both sides of the story. Its public record, they are out here if people only wanted to look. Its easy to judge when you don't know what you are talking about. As far as tax free money, if you don't like it talk to City Council it's in their contract. I have no opinion what-so-ever on if it should be allowable, that is for the city to decide. However, I hate to see articles that are irresponsibly presented in a manner meant to sway public opinion without presenting all the facts. If you want to be make and "informed opinion" make sure you have all the facts.

As a civil servant, "tax free money" is a law not just in the contract. This is clearly an abuse of the system, I have to wonder how many times this officer has taken advantage of this clause in the contact. The city needs to protect the citizens of the city and the taxes they pay. Paying officers for a scam is a injustice to all and should be taken seroiusly. If this officer were to be out drinking and driving and seeing that he is on duty 24/7/365 and where to be injured because the hit a tree, is that being injured on the job? I wonder? In your senerio he would be.

Just as in Iraq you only hear about the bad things that happen. The off duty police officer who stops at a minor traffic accident to help. Or the officer who stops to help fix a flat on an elderly persons car. Are never made pulbic. But come on getting into an accident when you are off duty and trying to get paid for it. That's is like Larry the cable guys say "It's like wipping your behind before you poop. It just don't make sense." Just as getting into an accident and wanting to get paid for it when you are off duty.

Christina Liakos wrote:

That is not what I said. I said there is more than one side to the story. It would be nice if as a public we demanded responsible news reporting versus sensationalistic articles. Why is the one case that is cited from 17 years ago? Detailing an officer who was intoxicated, out of his area and caused the accident? Why not find recent case law that exists and show both sides of the story. Its public record, they are out here if people only wanted to look. Its easy to judge when you don't know what you are talking about. As far as tax free money, if you don't like it talk to City Council it's in their contract. I have no opinion what-so-ever on if it should be allowable, that is for the city to decide. However, I hate to see articles that are irresponsibly presented in a manner meant to sway public opinion without presenting all the facts. If you want to be make and "informed opinion" make sure you have all the facts.

You complain about facts and say I should talk to city hall about the cops getting tax free money? You sure about that? Think that is a Lowell only thing or maybe a state thing? get back to me on that.
Obviously you have a personal connection to the 17 year old story. If you know of another case the Sun could have used please state it. Can you do that?
The main point is he wasn't on duty, he got hurt, he is trying to scam the system. He is wrong.