• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Copout

A judge has thrown out drunken driving counts against an Indianapolis cop who crashed into motorcyclists and killed him, essentially on a technicality, leaving him to face only one felony count of reckless homicide:

 The ruling dealt a blow to Prosecutor Terry Curry's efforts to show that Bisard was driving drunk when his police cruiser crashed into three motorcyclist Aug. 6 on the Northeastside.

Curry's predecessor, Carl Brizzi, had dropped drunk driving charges against Bisard, citing problems in the way a blood draw taken hours after the crash had been administered. The problem stems from a technicality in the drunken-driving law that says blood drawn outside hospitals for tests must be drawn by certain medical professionals.

Reading the comments section shows what problems this case is causing for Indianapolis police. "For people -- innocent until proven guilty ... For police -- innocent despite the evidence," says one. "If the judge throws the test out, I will never be able to trust another cop as long as I live," says another. And this: "This murdering scum's cop buddies belong in prison for obstruction of justice."

Police can't be effective unless they enjoy the broad support of the public they serve. And they can't keep that support if there is a strong belief they take care of their own when one of them fouls up -- people willing to protect their buddies despite the evidence are also quite capable of screwing the innocent despite the evidence. In some ways, we are justified in giving police more protection than the average citizen -- a harsher penalty for killing one, for example -- as a way to send the message that we value them for standing between us and anarchy. But that makes it all the more important that we know they face the same penalties we do when they cross the line marked by the law.

Comments

Michaelk42
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 5:37pm

"Police said three motorcycles were stopped at the light at 56th Street when K9 Officer David Bisard, responding to a request for assistance serving a felony warrant, came up behind them with his lights and sirens on."

He wasn't just responding to any call - he was responding to a call for assistance serving a felony warrant.

Wasn't he effectively rushing to a scene where he might have to draw a gun on a suspect while full on lit-up drunk?

How is he not fired already just based on that alone?*

*Police union, of course.

tim zank
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 10:18pm

"How is he not fired already just based on that alone?*

*Police union, of course."

Rather ironic for you isn't it, being such a big union fan and all.

Michaelk42
Fri, 06/03/2011 - 8:50pm

Lulz. Simple Tim thinks that if one group does something wrong that means any similar group must also be wrong!

Simple Tim doesn't seem to grasp the difference between "irony" and "logical fallacy," however...

tim zank
Sat, 06/04/2011 - 8:52am

Michaelk42, really sucks doesn't it? What you have here is a good old fashioned quandery for true believers like you. It is absolutely correct to term this ironic because you have been positively adamant in the defense of public employee unions and their function.
There is no "logical fallacy" application here, merely a glaring example of why public employee unions are not only unnecessary but completely unfair as well.

You can't deny, if not for the union, this yutz wouldn't still be a police officer would he?

Michaelk42
Sat, 06/04/2011 - 9:05am

It's a false choice fallacy you present, Tim.

One union behaving badly doesn't mean all unions are bad - public or not.

I wouldn't want to deny that the union is keeping this guy employed. That doesn't come close to proving all public sector unions are unnecessary, however. What kind of person would make such a ridiculous blanket generalization?

Harl Delos
Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:16pm

tim zank: "You can

Tim Zank
Mon, 06/06/2011 - 7:24am

Thanks Harl, once again you bring your own special level of obtuse relevancy to the conversation.

Quantcast