It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Drunk On-Duty Cop Kills - Mayor Calls In FBI

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


"The officers on scene did what they should have done. The more they involve themselves into this, the easier its going to be to get the drunk cop convicted."

I really hope you are correct, but the way this is going down is not very close to how it works for regular joes. Do you have any ideas why the mayor call in the FBI?




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggy1706
 


We should come up with Olympic games for ATS here..

The 100 meter rush to judgment
The relay the blame race
The guilty till proven innocent down hill louge
The every cop is guilty 200 meter freestyle swim (where everyone ends up with a gold medal and prison time).

I really do not understand where the hatred towards ALL law enforcement comes from in these forums.

You guys demand the rule of law for yourselves, but not for law enforcement. An incident occured, the Mayor is a moron for not speaking with the chief to find out why the dwi charge was dropped. The officers on scene did what they are suppose to do. (if they mess with evidence, they are destroying a crime scene).

How about we let the investigation continue and see what happens before you guys suit up with the pitchforks and torches.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Sadly, this doesn't surprise me...


This is what our world has come to.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sjorges2002
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


"The officers on scene did what they should have done. The more they involve themselves into this, the easier its going to be to get the drunk cop convicted."

I really hope you are correct, but the way this is going down is not very close to how it works for regular joes. Do you have any ideas why the mayor call in the FBI?


Aside from the Mayor being a moron I dont, but can speculate (as a side note Mayors are geneerally not allowed to see ongoing police investigations for legal reasons).

If the Mayor thinks something was done to coverup the crime, then you can ask the FBI to investigate. In this particular case, the victem died due to an intoxicated Officer. I think they could make a 42 USC 1983 suit out of it for violating her civil rights (when she died, she was tehnically seized by the officer).

I think it would be a long shot but thats the only thing I can come to. Generally speaking most states will have an independant Police Agency review and or do the initial investigation (State Police or other). Jurisdiction is ceded to that agency for the investigation, they do there report and submit it with charges to the PA Office.

The impression I get is Law Enforcement is doing what they are supposed to be doing, but people are not familiar with how the law works in this case, and are seeing something entirely different.

EDIT - The quote above should read the more they involve themselves, the easier its going to be to get the drunk cop off, not convicted.. Sorry, its later where I am.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

EDIT - At the bottom of the page (the Article) it explains why the DUI was dropped. The Lab tech was not certified to do a blood draw. So I fail to see how the cops wee covering anything up.

Im not familiar with Indiana State Law, but I would guess they could subpoena his medical charts and see the Hospitals records for level of intoxication. The statute of limitations for Felonies are a long time (spanning many years), so its entirely possible this guy can be charged with other crimes related to this.

If he is found guilty, then his ass needs to go away for a long time.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I copied two lines below in quotes from the article the OP linked-basically all alcohol related charges including killing the biker while intioxicated have been dropped due to the lab tech not being certified to do an alcohol blood test. BUT

"Bisard still faced one of the original charges -- reckless homicide -- and two new charges of criminal recklessness."

The article maybe isn't written well- i don't know

These leftover charges sound a little bit less serious to me- but I'm not from IN. Is getting drunk on duty and then driving a cruiser into a group of bikers and killing one because he didn't move reckless homicide? If the drinking part is tossed it seems that maybe the officer had a simple accident and did not intend to commit a criminal act. With the alcohol- then definitely criminal act.

edit: I noticed, but figured out what you meant to say.- I agree he should go away for along time.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by sjorges2002]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
This is why i don't like cops www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Pumpetheultimate
 


What??- that is a sick song- thats why I hate you tube



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
So the debate is now "Hey there is at least one good apple on this tree left!".

Screw that.

The tree is obviously bearing rotted fruit.

CUT IT DOWN!!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sjorges2002
 


I agree.. If you check the other headlines from that paper there are 3 other articles covering different aspects of it. IT does piss me off knowing he wont be charged with the felonies (DWI/REckless death).

Taking a blood draw after 2 hours is different but not abnormal. It is possible to have a person take a blood draw / Datamaster (breath). After 1 hour you repeat the process. From there you can backtrack a BAC level now that you have the burn off rate for the alcohol.

The other thing, and maybe im missing it in the articles, was the officer injured and transported to the Hospital? If he was that could also explain why not SFSTs were done on scene by the other officers.

Not that I am conding this, but I would like to put this out there. Those of us in Law Enforcement do try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we arent perfect, and we at times fail.

Imagine if you were one of the officers, in your vehicle heading to an assist officer call. Its a very frightening feeling when you have dispatch come over the radio and say an officer has been involved in an accident. Its even worse when a civilian comes across the radio trying to get help for that officer.

The things that run through our mind is what the hell is going on. Is anyone dead? what the hell is going on. Did he find an armed person? what the hell is going on.

When we arrive on scene of an accident that involves an officer, the last thing going through our mins is the officer who wrecked was intoxicated. Why? Because we dont do that. We should never do that. I have never known this officer to drink and drive, let alone drink on duty (thought process, im not saying I know this guy). Apparently it happens, and its unacceptable, and in this case, no consolaition to the family who lost a loved one.

We are suppose to serve and protect. We are supposed to have each others backs on calls, and make sure we all go home at the end of the night. We have to rely on each other for everything in this profession. In the end, its easy to get shellshocked when someone you trust to have your back, does something like this. It becomes sureal.

From a criminal law aspect, he needs to have his ass nailed to the wall and then some.

From a civil aspect, he should be taken to the cleaners.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I think the problem runs much deeper than "a few bad apples"

A friend used to work at a resturant that gave cops free meals and she used to listen to them brag about how they looted peoples houses because they found a few joints in their car and cojuld get any junkie to testify they "bought" dope off them.....they would blantly state how they choose their victoms.....usually middle class people that had pissed them off. Why middle class....lower class people had little they wanted and upper class could afford lawyers good enough to cause problems.

When she spoke up about it, she was fired, set up and had her own home looted and her child taken away. She had her whole life destroyed because she believed in the system

The Cops??????

One just got an award form the state for his arrests and bravery.....wonder how many were innocent victoms whos only crime was to piss a cop with a god complex?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 


You have a link to this article you described? Or the town and officer involved?

2nd line

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


"We are suppose to serve and protect. We are supposed to have each others backs on calls, and make sure we all go home at the end of the night. We have to rely on each other for everything in this profession. In the end, its easy to get shellshocked when someone you trust to have your back, does something like this. It becomes sureal."

I understand. It is like the comraderie that develops in a combat unit- it is comforting no matter how stressful the situation to know that the guys on either side have got your back- at any cost. Betraying that trust is not done. In fact, you make assumptions in favor of the guys with whom you are working without even realizing it. In combat this blind support of each other keeps people alive. I have experienced this.

But this kind of camraderie can lead to a dangerous Us vs Them mentality for LEOs who operate around and interact with civilians in non combat situations- most of whom are law abiding most of the time. This is what I think a lot of the public (including myself) sees and are responding to with hostility. Its sort of a reaction to what we see as a group of guys who carry guns and have an Us vs Them mentality- like a gang.

Maybe some of the guys were shellshocked, but where was the certified lab tech when the blood draw was being analyzed? Something is fishy with this and I think that's why the mayor called the feds.

Thanks for talking with me about this- I've learned a few things. I hope there are more like you where you work. Be Safe


[edit on 23-8-2010 by sjorges2002]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Good for the Mayor! This is horrible news and totally uncalled for without exception.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thank you for your reply, it does make the situation seem a little better.

It seems to me, though, that this is still just a first step to "not guilty" on all these charges.

Now, there will be no DUI evidence, and they are already going for a change of venue. I think that removing this evidence will be enough to turn this into an "accident".



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by sjorges2002
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Good- then why did the cops immediately connected to the incident attempt to run interference? How does that FACT relate to the logical fallacy of which you speak?


Because the cops "immediately connected" to the incident are at best 1/10% of the police workforce for Marion and the surrounding counties.

That's using the exception to define the rule. It's an absurd fallacy of logic. most every policeman in Indy is appalled and disgusted here.


Then, why did this happen?

Was this officer such a lone wolf that he had no contact with all but 1/10th% of the police workforce?

Was this officer able to "fool" 99 9/10th% of this workforce?

I never said "the police workforce for Marion and the surrounding counties".
These were policemen who saw Officer Bisard every day that covered up for him every day. Why is that acceptable?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The "typical" was in reference to the fact that the incident was immediately turned into an "accident" by other officers.
"Typically", there will be little or no repercussions. The officer participating in these "accidents" are "typically" released from charges or given a suspension of duty, sometimes paid, sometimes not.
This is not how things work for the rest of us. Some claim that police need not be held to a higher standard, but don't want to live with the same rules they enforce on the rest, is fallacy at best.
BTW, not bashing the majority of officers... bashing the swat-team mentality, bashing what police work has become, bashing the bully tactics that we see so much of these days. These are not the police we grew up wanting to be some day.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I starred your post because you correctly see that it was, in fact, hastily put together.

It is not, I think, a cop bashing thread. This is a story that, I think, that would go away quietly if not shown to a larger audience. I've seen it many times before. I don't want to see it again.

I expected to see it reported here over a week ago, and it seemed no one was aware of it. I don't make a lot of threads, this is an exception as I saw it as injustice.

This is, in fact, a hastily put together reply. I am working a lot of overtime and will probably not be able to get back until very late for another reply. Yesterday, my haste was just catching up with my life, my wife, and my son. My haste, I think, was justified. I stated earlier that I was no "expert" in this case, I'm still not. I'm also not the best person to debate this case.

We'll see how this case plays out, but so far, this guy has been protected. Even after his arrest, days after the accident, he quickly bonded out of jail. This is not the expectation for the rest of us either. The rest of us would have sat in the intake section of the county jail for a day.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
It`s all the same arround the world..Europe..America..USA..China..



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

EDIT - At the bottom of the page (the Article) it explains why the DUI was dropped. The Lab tech was not certified to do a blood draw. So I fail to see how the cops wee covering anything up.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xcathdra]


These experienced officers took him to an illegitimate clinic. That is; they didn't take him to the hospital where they take everyone else, they took him to an independent clinic that they knew was not going to be accepted.

It wasn't the tech, it was the particular lab.

How many times do you suppose these officers made this mistake previously?

Does that seem like they were covering up?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I dont work for Indiana so this is a guess at best. A Blood draw can be done in any Hospital or / EMS (Most states require it be someone above the title of medical tech with the exception of a phlebotomist (all they do is blood draws for the lab). The one question that is not answered is if the officer was injured and transported to the Hospital, and whether he was concious or unconcious. Keep in mind that medical problems that are severe will almost always supercede a criminal investigation.

Had this been a civilian vs civilian dwi accident, the same standard is going to apply as the law enforcement incident.

To clear something up, the tech who did the draw did not work for a Law Enforcement agency. The tech worked for the Hospital. Generally speaking anyone in a Hospital who is authorized to draw blood can do a blood draw for Law Enforcement. However some states, like Indiana we learned, has a higher standard for a blood draw for a criminal investigaion (The law will error on the side of caution for the accused, ensuring a fair chance).

The state I work in, we can use paramedics to do the blood draw. We are still required to mirandize the driver, then we have to read them whats called implied consent. Its along the lines of:

I have reason to beleive you were operating a vehicle in an impaiied state. I am requesting you submit to:
Blood
Breath
Urine
Other
to determine the blood content.

If you refuse to submit to a test your lices is immidately revoked, giving you 14 days to file an appeal with the Department of Revenue (DMV/SecStates office).

If a person refuses to provide an answer, its automaticly assumed they are invoking their right to remain silent. Its listed as a refusal to submit to the test and we move on from there.

As I said there are different ways this occurs, depending on totality of circumstances. (and to avoid another argument, loosing your license is not a criminal act, its administrative, hence the ability to refuse to take a test = loss of your license - For those that want more ifo check with your state about implied consent).

If it turns out the Law Enforcement officer who requested the blood draw purposely had someone not qualified then that officer should be nailed as well, since they are commiting several crimes as well.

If the officers on scene acted as if it were just another dwi accident, its still possible something can get goofed, at which point its going to look like it was done on purpose to get the cop off.

If the officer didnt act, and something goes wrong, its going to look like they were covering something up.

loose - loose.

The last officer involved shooting I was in went absolutely weird due to circumstances. We immidately requested a county supervisor respond (We were municipal). and had their supervisor initiate the investigation to secure weapons, evidence, us, etc until our command staff could arrive decide what they wanted to do (in the end State Police were requested and assumed jurisdiction and the investigation). My reasoning behind the request was to ensure there are no questions about our intent, and no questions about us changin stuff around. (it was justified and the officer was cleared).

Am I saying there arent bad cops out there.. No. What I am saying is we are human and will fail and make mistakes. The one thing that annoys me though about these forums is the ability for people who have no understanding on how the law works aside from watching law and order. People have a bad experience with an officer, and all of a sudden all cops are crooked and evil.

I will point out that the reverse is possible also. You get pulled over by a cop, and you deal with that cop for 10-15mins. The cop on the other hand deals with that type of incident, plus many more in their 8-10-12 hour shifts.

Sometimes humor can go a long ways. We had a State Trooper pull this guy over for speeding. As the Trooper got to the window, the driver of the car looked at him, waved his hands in front of him while saying "this is not the car your looking for" (starwars). The trooper looked at him, says "This isnt the car im looking for" and walked away.

All I ask is for people to consider the possibility that the law porevents us from doing something that looks like common sense to the general population. You guys dont want us to falsey accuse you of doing something, and all we ask is the same courtesy.

and please dont get me wrong.. I am not trying to cover or condone this guys actions.

Thanks.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join