drunk officer kills motorcyclist

[antsi]

All due respect, and not trying to be a wise a$$ at all, but who are "the people who are really causing the problems", if not those who are drinking and driving...

You're assuming that "drinking and driving" is an entirely homogenous entity.

It appears to me that the bulk of the actual consequences (major injuries, fatalities) are caused by people at the .20 and above level.

I don't see how prosecuting vast numbers of people at .06 or .07 helps this.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

All due respect, and not trying to be a wise a$$ at all, but who are "the people who are really causing the problems", if not those who are drinking and driving...

People who are actually impaired enough to constitute a danger on the road? Rather than people who are over an arbitrary limit? I know one person who I would trust at a .10, I know another who I wouldn't at a .03. The one guy drinks a lot and has a pretty high tolerance, he can finish a 6 pack and maybe a shot or 2 with no noticeable effects. My wives friend drinks one wine cooler and is borderline sloppy drunk but is under criminal bac.

Yes the guy is most likely impaired to some degree. But so are people who are a little tired, have a cold, on OTC cold medicine, distracted about work, pissed at their wife/husband/significant other etc.

 

[1032JBT]

You're assuming that "drinking and driving" is an entirely homogenous entity.

It appears to me that the bulk of the actual consequences (major injuries, fatalities) are caused by people at the .20 and above level.

I don't see how prosecuting vast numbers of people at .06 or .07 helps this.

Tell that to the parents of the dead children who's brians were laying on the pavement from the accident caused by the guy that was "only a .06 or .07".


This crash did not involve anyone that was an 06 or 07 so let's save the discussion about how stupid the OWI laws are for another thread unless it ertains to this incident.

 

[IndyMonkey]

You're assuming that "drinking and driving" is an entirely homogenous entity.

It appears to me that the bulk of the actual consequences (major injuries, fatalities) are caused by people at the .20 and above level.

I don't see how prosecuting vast numbers of people at .06 or .07 helps this.

I got a DUI and blew a .10. Guess who never drives drunk again?


This guy

 

[Jay]

I think he was referring to those on the higher end of the BAC scale. But I disagree. With over a decade in the fire service, I cut enough dead bodies out of cars from wrecks caused by "buzzed" drivers.

I agree. I spent 15 years riding an ambulance. I'd set the "limit" probably lower than most.

My tolerance for drunks is just as low as my tolerance for alcohol. Drinking is up to the individual, and I have friends who drink, but I don't have to tolerate a drunk.

 

[j706]

the test kits they use arent for drunks they are for medical exams and drug screens etc. Im not wrong because im looking at one of the freeeking kits right now. you come tell my wife shes wrong, good luck. you wanna come see it? might be another kit that you use because some lawyer got his panties in a bunch and tried to get his client off on a technicality over a .001 difference due to a alcohol swab. but the alcohol swab will not skew the difference to .19.
if they took blood on the guy then he's guilty in my eyes. but sure we will wait for the jury trial.

What I am talking about is a Indiana State Police Blood Draw Kit. I have done tons of them. I don't know of any other type used on OWI's. Not saying there are not other types. However they are the ONLY kind we can use. And they cannot be expired either. I know a person that beat a OWI because the kit was too old.

 

[downzero]

So, I got a dictionary...

...and I'm still wondering why you jumped my ass based on the definitions.

Murder means you had the intent of killing a person and it was thought out.
Reckless Homicide means you just didn't care if someone died.

Is one better than the other....?!

And neither of those are the definition of homicide. Homicide = one person killing another person. It could be self defense. It could be an accident. It could even be intentional. Either way, if a person kills another person, it's a homicide.

Murder is an intentional act. Do you really think this cop woke up that day and said, "I'm going to kill someone today!"? Of course not. And if you thought that, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

And yes, our society does make a substantial distinction between murder and reckless homicide or manslaughter. The difference could be the difference between probation or a short jail sentence and execution.

As almost everything in law, the facts drive the conclusion. The fact is that a murder didn't occur. What this man did was probably negligent. It could have even been reckless. It wasn't, by any interpretation of the facts I've seen, intentional. And it certainly didn't involve any malice against another person. What we have here is a terrible accident, one that could have--potentially--been prevented if the officer wasn't intoxicated (assuming he even was, because it sounds like he may not have been). And it's wrong for you to call him a murderer. You have no evidence that this was an intentional act, so you're not entitled to call him a murderer. And if you do, you're just wrong, plain and simple.

I'm not defending him, either. I'm defending the difference between someone who intentionally kills another person, and someone who does so by accident, whether by reckless actions or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Every murder is a homicide, but every homicide is not a murder. This case is not a murder.

 

[E5RANGER375]

What I am talking about is a Indiana State Police Blood Draw Kit. I have done tons of them. I don't know of any other type used on OWI's. Not saying there are not other types. However they are the ONLY kind we can use. And they cannot be expired either. I know a person that beat a OWI because the kit was too old.

my bad. its 2 different kits.

 

[E5RANGER375]

What we have here is a terrible accident, one that could have--potentially--been prevented if the officer wasn't intoxicated (assuming he even was, because it sounds like he may not have been).

no it doesnt sound like that at all to me. what it sounds like is some high paid lawyer (probly even paid for by the FOP or another cop organization) will put so much spin on it that the jury might no know which way is up or down afterwards and then he may walk. Theres no doubt in my mind he did it, and the sooner he admits it like a man that he made a mistake he might be able to find peace in his future life behind bars, and all his former friends and those in his former profession might find peace also. He is innocent until proven guilty and i realy shouldnt say otherwise, but the evidence against him looks strong. my grandfather was an alcoholic and so was my uncle, and unless he was drinking beer you couldnt smell anything on him sometimes, but he would be VERY DRUNK. the guy probly woke up and pounded some liquor and by the time of the crash he was .19
the alcohol swab DID NOT skew the results. thats just defensive mumbo jumbo.
I truely do understand his former co-workers and friends trying to cling onto hope, because it would be devistating to find out your friend even plowed over 2 people, let alone possibly drunk. denial and anger are part of the grieving process, and I truely wish the best for ALL the peoples families and friends that have been involved in this tradgedy. Im going to step back from this topic for now. I have said all i wanted to say. some things out of anger and some things factual the the best of my knowledge. The jury will determine this mans fate now. Lets pray, think, mourn, whatever it is you do, for the victims who are still not out of the woods.

 

[1032JBT]

Ranger: (since I don't have permission to quote you)


FWIW........the defense lawyers in his case will do the same thing they do for any other client, try to get him off. I don't agree with it with others and I don't agree with it for him. I agree if he is guilty he should just own up and get what he gets, but that isn't the American way now is it. That fact isn't different for him just because he is a cop. And the FOP does not provide lawyers when the cop is the defendant in a criminal case so any lawyer fees he is paying is coming out of his pocket just as they would come out of your pocket if you were in his shoes.

 

[Indy317]

Well, Channel 6/WRTV is reporting the issues there might be with the blood draw. It is basically coming down to Garrity Rights vs. state implied consent law. It will be very interesting how this all plays out.

Fatal DUI Charges Against Officer May Not Hold Up - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

http://www.theindychannel.com/download/2010/0813/24625041.pdf

 

[Denny347]

Well, Channel 6/WRTV is reporting the issues there might be with the blood draw. It is basically coming down to Garrity Rights vs. state implied consent law. It will be very interesting how this all plays out.

Fatal DUI Charges Against Officer May Not Hold Up - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

http://www.theindychannel.com/download/2010/0813/24625041.pdf

Not really surprising.

 

[Benny]

Well, Channel 6/WRTV is reporting the issues there might be with the blood draw. It is basically coming down to Garrity Rights vs. state implied consent law. It will be very interesting how this all plays out.

Fatal DUI Charges Against Officer May Not Hold Up - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

http://www.theindychannel.com/download/2010/0813/24625041.pdf

So unless Bisard consented to have his blood drawn for purposes other than an internal investigation, some argue that the results of the test may be inadmissible in court.

Wow. Hurray for our justice system!



Lets go ahead and hurry this trial up, so he can be found innocent and we can get him back on the streets!

 

[E5RANGER375]

Ranger: (since I don't have permission to quote you)

i just put that down there as a joke. feel free.

The only reason i think he should get extra time if convicted is because of his possition as a cop. it wont happen that way, but i think it should. I hate all drunk drivers, its not a cop bashing issue, its an issue of public trust and responsibility as an adult.

 

[printcraft]

Well, if the guy that was killed on the motorcycle wasn't riding wheelies down the road this never would have happened.
It was clearly his fault for being there.

FTL

 

[E5RANGER375]

Well, Channel 6/WRTV is reporting the issues there might be with the blood draw. It is basically coming down to Garrity Rights vs. state implied consent law. It will be very interesting how this all plays out.

Fatal DUI Charges Against Officer May Not Hold Up - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

http://www.theindychannel.com/download/2010/0813/24625041.pdf

this story is rediculous. double standards for sure. this is the kind of crap that makes me suspicious of LE, and rightly so.

if he walks due to a technicality then i hope one of the victims family members nails him

 

[Benny]

this story is rediculous. double standards for sure. this is the kind of crap that makes me suspicious of LE, and rightly so.

if he walks due to a technicality then i hope one of the victims family members nails him

Just not in a drunk driving accident, because they would be blood tested and then sent to jail. Then after trial, they'd be sent to prison.

 

[long coat]

What all was done to the car? They had said he was getting his oil changed and now they say it was for ABS work.

BTW: there were 3 bikes there, but only 2 got hit.

 

[Protest]

Bit of a side note here...Does anybody know if they were able to arrest the person the warrant was for?

 

[Brandon]

Bit of a side note here...Does anybody know if they were able to arrest the person the warrant was for?

channel 8 news (cbs/wishtv) did a story on that aspect of it. i wasnt really awake for it but do remember hearing it. i also recall hearing that they didnt need the help in the mannor in which the officer was responding.