Three shot dead at UofA, fourth critical condition

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

well we all know, guns don't kill people, people kill people...

Guns don't kill people, bullets moving really fast kill people.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Does anyone know the psychological testing (if any) is in place for armoured guards and such companies as G4S?

No idea, but my wife's nephew used to work for one of those companies and I could ask him.

My daughter lives five minutes from that border crossing. He would have driven almost right by her place to get there. I've crossed there and with the licence-plate cameras they have, he might have just walked into a police station and surrendered. Same result.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And that's the interesting question. I've been through an RCMP security clearance screening process - for a civilian position that placed me nowhere near a gun. Based on the interviews I took, I would doubt that Baumgartner's process was anything that involved, quite naturally because of cost and time. Personally, I would expect they likely only did a background criminal check and a basic interview. He would also have had to get an firearms license, but I think those focus more on gun safety than anything else, no?

Interesting... I had to do a security clearance for an civilian internship for Canadian military a few years ago. It was pretty straight forward, no interview, I think they ran a background check but I don't remember anything too intense. I worked nearby lots of guns (but of coarse never assigned to one since I was a civilian engineer... though I was a member of a local firing range and went to the firing range a few times with a few of the officers) and worked on instrumentation for active fighter jets.

I ran through more extensive background checks when I worked for Cisco...

[Resolute 14]

The position I applied for required handling of sensitive information, thus the elevated security clearance needed. It was the same clearance level as RCMP officers need to have, which does suggest a considerable difference in how we handle the people we give guns and the right to defend property, depending on job title

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Slava

well we all know, guns don't kill people, people kill people...

[West Karma]

Nm

[krynski]

I used to live in that building. Walked by there every day, and any time of day. My friends residence was pretty much directly above the scene of the crime, and I was there having a beer and watching the flames game just about every chance I got, if not playing the foosball table the three of us co-bought, or crashing on the couch cause I was too lazy to walk a block back to my place. I know exactly which door he stashed the guards behind, and I'm sure I know where they parked the armored vehicle.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by West Karma

I know, I was thinking the same thing - I live on the Transcanada Highway just outside of Chilliwack - he would have drove within 150 yards of my house on a road I drive 2-3 times a day.

Holy crap, I live a block from Macleod trail. If he went through south calgary, via the Macleod trail route, when I was filling up at the Shell station at Chinook Centre, he may been within 150 feet of me at that time. But he was at least a block from my condo. Good thing I was at work likely during that time. It likely saved my life.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by pylon

Holy crap, I live a block from Macleod trail. If he went through south calgary, via the Macleod trail route, when I was filling up at the Shell station at Chinook Centre, he may been within 150 feet of me at that time. But he was at least a block from my condo. Good thing I was at work likely during that time. It likely saved my life.

Thank god we were not in Edmonton.

Likely saved my life.

[FFR]

Just to reply to the comments about the families suing the company - I don't think that they can because of the Workers Compensation Act. It was a workplace incident so the employees will be covered by Compensation Board and won't be able to sue.

[Barnes]

I don't think getting shot and killed at work is the WCB's jurisdiction.

[FFR]

Actually, it is. Any workplace fatality is covered by WCB - I don't think the specific cause matters. It would be the same as a construction site fatality - their families can't sue either. If the victims were considered to be "workers" at the time of the incident - which I'm sure they were as they were working, they are covered by WCB. I'll try and pull up the WC act. I don't know if I can on my iPhone.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FFR

Just to reply to the comments about the families suing the company - I don't think that they can because of the Workers Compensation Act. It was a workplace incident so the employees will be covered by Compensation Board and won't be able to sue.

No, they can sue if they like. If they can show the company was negligent in some way, they might even win. The Workers Compensation Act does not shield companies from lawsuits.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, they can sue if they like. If they can show the company was negligent in some way, they might even win. The Workers Compensation Act does not shield companies from lawsuits.

I think he was talking sueing the "worker" not the company. Although I think the WCB stops "workers" sueing "workers" while they are both in the course of their employement.

So the question is, is shooting you co-workers "in the course of your employment"?

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Does anyone know the psychological testing (if any) is in place for armoured guards and such companies as G4S?

Yes, there is psychological testing during the hiring process. That being said, it's nowhere near as long or indepth as the one that CPS uses or other police agencies.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, they can sue if they like. If they can show the company was negligent in some way, they might even win. The Workers Compensation Act does not shield companies from lawsuits.

I'm fairly certain that the Act does shield companies from being sued. I can't pull up the entire act on my iPhone but the WCB website does indicate that coverage does provide protection for lawsuits.

http://www.wcb.ab.ca/employers/wc_provides.asp


I also found the resource guide for victims' families which says that families cannot sue employers. See page 9

http://www.wcb.ab.ca/pdfs/public/tol...vors_guide.pdf

[FFR]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think he was talking sueing the "worker" not the company. Although I think the WCB stops "workers" sueing "workers" while they are both in the course of their employement.

So the question is, is shooting you co-workers "in the course of your employment"?

Its obviously not in the course of employment for the shooter but the victims all were and are therefore covered by WCB and then cannot sue the employer. Even if there is negligence on the part of the employer. Whether WCB can sue the shooter on behalf of the victims would need to be investigated because if the shooter is also considered a "worker" then they can't.

[topfiverecords]

Uh, murder is not a workplace fatality.

[HOOT]

Any news on the person in critical condition?

[FFR]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Uh, murder is not a workplace fatality.

I think you'd be surprised what is covered under the WCB Act. I work there. I know how it works and what it covers.

In any case, I suppose I've driven this a bit off topic. I'll edit my prior post with the info directly from the legislation when I can access a computer - for those who are interested. Otherwise this tangent can die.