- Joined
- Mar 9, 2012
- Messages
- 231
No. And they wont be in the building at all it was torn down yesterday..building deemed to dangerous to enter
3/22/18 Manhattan 5th Alarm 10-66 (LODD) Box 1638
- Thread starter UnitWithTheUrgent
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 1,014
As I recall, the case in Michigan involved a commercial building fire. Arson went back some time later and found evidence that convicted the owner for arson. On appeal, the court opined that the evidence was not admissible,since it was obtained illegally. The convicted owner....free as bird
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 1,014
Sadly, this LODD case is a wet dream for attorneys for a bunch of reasons. My guess is that they are working night and day to find some way around the "Firemen's Rule". Obscure facts may be crucial.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2015
- Messages
- 4,027
MCC-1: Assign a FAST Truck & a BC. (TL-21F, B-11) - 16:38
E-47 currently on the watch.
E-47 currently on the watch.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 1,014
Maybe it's the same reason why,when there's bus accident , the bus driver has to lock the doors and do a head count to see exactly who is on the bus. Hmmm...there was 20 people on the bus .....and I've got 25 lawsuits????
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2015
- Messages
- 4,027
MCC-1: Assign the Hazmat Battalion & Hazmat 1 to this box, they will be assessing a cylinder in the cellar of the fire building. (TL-160 FAST) - 12:05
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 9,116
Question: Were other LODD fire scenes/buildings watched and observed for so long after the date of the fire, such as the length of this case? Or is this case just more difficult to get to the bottom of since the building had to be demolished. The fact that the U/C has still not been given weeks after the fire is different to see.