davethevol
Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful......
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 17,539
- Likes
- 21,540
Yes and he and the other idiot is this latest one are accused of cavity searching a guy on the side of the road for weed. I don’t understand how people like this are passing the psych exams. If Joe Q Citizen held minors against their will and sexually assaulted them they’d be under the jail.Same deputy...
This is allowed to go on because we allow this fake ass war on reefer/drugs to continue. May was well throw in war on terror, also. This gives these cops the ability to circumvent your rights and dignity in order to get some grass off the streets.Yes and he and the other idiot is this latest one are accused of cavity searching a guy on the side of the road for weed. I don’t understand how people like this are passing the psych exams. If Joe Q Citizen held minors against their will and sexually assaulted them they’d be under the jail.
There are some amazing ones out there.Police officer has surprising reaction to pulling over mom and her 3 kids: 'What if a car hit them?'
Protecting and serving.
Greywolf kind of LEO? Great story.
This one seems to be a bit more complicated IMO. Dispatch received a fake call, officers didnt know it was fake and see man in window with a gun.Very similar to this one.
Walker County deputy who shot and killed man after fake 911 call will not be charged
The Lechs had sued under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which guarantees citizens compensation if their property is seized by the government for public use. But the court said that Greenwood Village was acting within its “police power” when it damaged the house, which the court said doesn’t qualify as a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment. The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whomever is damaged by their actions along the way.
In a statement to The Post, a spokeswoman for Greenwood Village said the city never refused to help the Lechs, saying the family was “very well insured” and refused the $5,000 assistance for out-of-pocket expenses before insurance kicked in. The spokeswoman, Melissa Gallegos, applauded the 10th Circuit’s ruling.
John Lech, his girlfriend and her son moved in with Leo Lech and his wife, who lived 30 miles away, requiring John to change jobs. The $5,000 offered by the city “was insulting,” Leo Lech said.
His expenses to rebuild the house and replace all its contents cost him nearly $400,000, he said. While insurance did cover structural damage initially, his son did not have renter’s insurance and so insurance did not cover replacement of the home’s contents, and he says he is still in debt today from loans he took out.
