Skip to main content

She was killed and her vehicle set on fire south of Lake Livingston and east of Huntsville, TX.
According to the news, so far, she was driving a rural route in her personal vehicle

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    3/16/2003 Meet The Press: Dick Cheney re: Iraq: We will be greeted as liberators.

    by cosette on Sat May 18, 2013 at 01:02:21 AM PDT

  •  Houston Chronicle story: (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WakeUpNeo, ciganka, Rogneid, LSmith, marina, Lujane

    Link
    RIP

    3/16/2003 Meet The Press: Dick Cheney re: Iraq: We will be greeted as liberators.

    by cosette on Sat May 18, 2013 at 01:11:07 AM PDT

  •  I can see links for 'Death in Service' for USPS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Rogneid

    employees...
    ...listing the filings and benefits.
    Nothing about the numbers of workers that have died/ were murdered in service as a mail carrier...
    as this rural carrier woman was.

    3/16/2003 Meet The Press: Dick Cheney re: Iraq: We will be greeted as liberators.

    by cosette on Sat May 18, 2013 at 01:44:55 AM PDT

    •  There's no evidence (so far at least) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane

      that this had anything to do with her being a postal worker per se.

      So her occupation could just be a coincidence; akin to the census worker who was apparently murdered in Appalachia (and that was played up considerably on this site and elsewhere) but then it turned out to be a suicide (obviously the current situation is not a suicide, the comparison is that the death was not related to the person being federal government employee).

      OTOH, googling "postal workers killed on the job" does turn up several homicides that may have been job-related.

      •  If you're killed on the job, it's job-related. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        historys mysteries, OldSoldier99

        The converse of the principle, correlation-does-not-imply-causation, is that lack-of-causation-does-not-refute-correlation.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Sat May 18, 2013 at 07:01:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not necessarily, imagine that somebody (0+ / 0-)

          had a "hobby" that went bad . . . .  (maybe running a meth lab and selling the product).

          And a disgruntled customer for one reason or another went and offed him or her at their legitimate place of employment.  Let's say that's a church.  So, should we blame religion for this?  Meh, I say not (although I'm usually one who's totally on board with the approach!)

          •  You aren't getting it. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy

            Causality != correlation.

            If you are on the job, and you die, it is a job-related death. Nobody is saying anything about what the relationship might be -- but it is absolutely job-related. Period. If you are walking to work, and a sign falls on your head and kills you, it is a job-related death. If you are sitting in your USPS vehicle, and you die, it is a job-related death. If you are sitting at your desk and the aliens launch a massive, random nuclear attack on the planet, and you are vaporized where you sit -- it is a job-related death.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sat May 18, 2013 at 08:34:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  By "job related" I obviously meant (from the (0+ / 0-)

              context) that they suffered these insults specifically because of their job (and would not have been targeted if they had a different job, oh let's say beekeeper or bookkeeper as absolutely randomly picked examples).

              In the situation described in this diary, "job related" would mean something like they were targeted because somebody out there hated postal workers (or perhaps more generally federal government employees).  Or maybe simply because this person, like Cliff Claven or Newman, did a piss poor job of delivering the mail.

              I could discuss your examples in more detail, but this one is legally inaccurate:

              If you are walking to work, and a sign falls on your head and kills you, it is a job-related death
              in that there was a local case recently when a cop was driving to work, was in a car accident, and badly injured, and had to go on permanent disability.  The courts ruled that this was not "job related" (the issue is that if it had been, this guy would have received considerably more generous benefits).
              •  I know that's what you meant -- and I'm (0+ / 0-)

                arguing forcefully that you shouldn't apply the term in that fashion.

                As to the law -- "job related" as defined for legal purposes with respect to a particular and narrow realm of jurisprudence is simply technical jargon.

                Apart from which, even granting you the leeway to define job-related in some sort of causal fashion, you are grossly over-constraining its meaning. If your job involves going around to peoples houses, and you end up dead because you go to the wrong house at the wrong time, it is rather a stretch to argue that it isn't job-related, just because anybody else walking up to the house at that moment might have suffered the same fate. If your job exposes you to greater risks by making it more likely that you will be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then it is a very great stretch to suggest that ending up on the wrong side of those dice is not job-related. If your job is so soul-destroying that you kill yourself, how could someone argue that the suicide is not job-related? When a flight attendant gets cancer as a result of being exposed over and over again to higher radiation, it doesn't matter that the radiation wasn't targeted at flight attendants -- that's clearly a job-related fatality. For that matter, if some non-airline employee takes 300 flights a year because it is a necessary part of that person's job, and that person gets cancer from the additional exposure ... how can you suggest that the cancer is not job-related?

                This woman was killed for a reason, either by herself or by someone else or by the fickle finger of fate. She was killed in her USPS vehicle, in some context, apparently, related to doing her job. The odds that there isn't a fairly direct relationship between among these facts is quite small -- even if the fairly direct relationship is simply that the person who wanted to kill her knew when she would be somewhere that she could be killed. If her job put her at higher risk, simply by providing opportunities to an enemy, then her death is, by any meaningful interpretation of the word "relation", related to her job.

                To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                by UntimelyRippd on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:32:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, but I am arguing 10% more forcefully (0+ / 0-)

                  that just because something happens at the job, it is not necessarily "job related"

                  For example, we routinely get emails admonishing us to only use the internet and cell phones for "job related" purposes when at work.

                  But your definition, those memos would be entirely moot.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site