claimant was employed as a police officer of the village but also on january fourth two thousand and six his job was to go to court and he was scheduled to go to the bridgeview courthouse and up the stairs violating a rule he is still performing he's in the police department for the purpose of retrieving a file to make a court appearance so in other words at the time of his injury he was still performing the duties for which he was in or the vending machine you know the thinking and i mean it's you know i guess in my view it is not a subtle distinction it's a significant distinction the distinction that i see is a distinction between a case where someone is doing something courthouse faster to testify and do his job you know he could have testified to them but if in fact that was true that would fall right along the lines of the saunders the minor who decided he wasn't going to walk he was going to attempt to use some sort of motor to get from one point of the the the mind to another point in the mind faster in the court sa that the violation of the police rules is what takes him outside the scope of his employment but what does the violation of  others involved getting along under anyone's definition that's got nothing to do with your jab a sign that you're getting more than what he's in the police department retrieving the file that is absolutely what he is required to do by his job how he does it and filing a rule what he's doing there has nothing to do with the fact that he's doing his job the same as every other officer when he gets the file with or without a weapon you think that the violation this case reached the same conclusion that the court reached in were marching that the employees conscious violation of c t rule was purely for his own personal convenience in no way required or benefited by using poor and therefore the stated reason of bringing the gun into the courthouse in violation of the court order was not something for his personal convenience and then bringing the gun into the courthouse was he also play station at nine o'clock he has to get the files there there's chain of evidence rules for police officers they can't just take things willy nilly home and bring them a week later or they're kept there custodians office and they're very specific and he's going there to do something for their own personal benefit you know not sure why are you talking about birth of benefit if you're not doing it for the benefit of an employer we don't know what that is or isn't it if you're not doing it for the benefit of the employer was beneficial to the employer or not of these things are violating rules could never be for the benefit of the employer the thing is does the violation take them out of the scope of one but let me give you an example of why your reasoning according to your argument is if somebody that a job site operating heavy equipment and they're listening to music they've got a radio call in some crane falls over and out of them they shouldn't be compensated because the radio  not for the benefit of the employer is that it takes them out of the scope of employment that's what you're going to argue when the crane falls out again no ok well what was the difference the difference is at the time of the event was the individual engaged in an activity for the benefit of yes he was there retrieving a file and that's for the benefit of the employer but but that puts us in a positional risk compensation state and we're not there you know you've got to dropping by after work just to pay a friend a visit you need pulls the gun out because he's that there for a work related purpose he wouldn't be in the course of his employment it's not in the course of everybody who has yet work during work hours shortly before or after or during the course  to be compensable because he was trying to get from one spot in the mine to another spot in the mine and you've got to overrule the moggy and we can't overrule the mining but you've got a week north and  case i mean it was it was they went back and forth the whole time going up it was a four three decision from the supreme court so much i'm not saying this is an easy case all i'm saying is from my perspective the only reason while standing