Friday, July 10th, 2009
106 Comments
|
City says it shouldn't pay for officer's fatal wreck |
RE: City says it shouldn't pay for officer's fatal wreck
July 14th, 2009 @ 10:20PM (15 years ago)
Why? He wasn't on duty, he was driving to work. Had he stopped and taken some police action, and something happened, clearly he would have been covered. That isn't the case here. It's comparing apples to oranges. I suspect it will more be that officers will lose take-homes altogether and be expected/encouraged to dress at work.
-
Because , like I said before, they punis...
15 years ago
-
The arguments for or against here are im...
15 years ago
-
Show me exactly where it says that. (You...
15 years ago
- Then tell it to the newspapers and radio... 15 years ago
-
Show me exactly where it says that. (You...
15 years ago
- You are comparing apples to oranges. HAD... 15 years ago
-
The arguments for or against here are im...
15 years ago