I thought Tony was always right.......

No breath test for this guy.

I guess the alcohol on his breath and the dead guy in stuck on his fender wasn't probable cause.

Notice.......THEY GAVE HIM NO BREATH TEST. THEY DID NOT FOLLOW PROCEDURE INSURING HE COULD FIGHT THE CASE.

How many officers on the scene had to be in on this for it to work?


 
I usually just sit back and read these threads without out responding, but I think I'll chime in on this one.
In regards to victimless crimes, If some one robs a convenient store or breaks into your home and steals something
and when caught he gives everything back was there a victim. If nothing or no one was harmed who was hurt?
It is the same as getting caught DUI and having the officer take him home since no one was hurt. Why should the
officer put him in a cab when he could have done that himself? We can't live with "No Harm No Foul"

I admit sum of the penalties are a little stiff, but that's because DUI has never taken the life of anyone I know, But for those
families that have been impacted by the death or injury from DUI the penalties I'm sure seem too soft. We all know the laws
and possible consequences of our actions. We should be man or woman enough to take responsibility for our actions. I have 2
brothers that have lost their license from DUI. I love them dearly but unfortunately they made a poor decision and had to pay
the price for their actions. I hated it for them but they got what they asked for.
 
I wonder if I ever murder someone in my car while testing two times the legal alcohol limit TWO HOURS after the accident if the police union will get behind me and pay my legal bills too?

http://www.wthr.com/story/13799871/fop-votes-to-pay-for-bisards-legal-defense


Indianapolis - The Fraternal Order of Police will still foot the bill for Officer David Bisard's legal defense. The controversial decision came down Thursday night.

200 of the FOP's more than 2,000 members gathered at the meeting to decide if the FOP should pay the legal bills of Officer David Bisard.

Bisard crashed his police cruiser into a group of motorcyclists last August while he was responding to a call. Eric Wells was killed and two others were critically injured.

Thursday, a motion was made to withdraw that legal assistance. That motion did not pass. FOP President Bill Owensby would not say what the vote was.

According to Owensby, Officer Bisard was at the meeting, but Owensby wouldn't say if Bisard addressed the members.

"The legal bill of this lodge is paid for by the members. It's not paid for by any donations. It's paid for strictly by the dues the officers pay. Any donations that the lodge gets goes strictly to the Shop with a Cop at the end of the year where we assist disadvantaged families at Christmas time," said Owensby.

"In our opinion, if that's what we want to spend our money on, that's what we want to spend our money on," he added.

Officer Bisard is currently suspended without pay from IMPD.
 
The guy blows a 1.9 TWO HOURS after the accident.

Police Union Boss says he, along with many other cops were in the room and NONE of them had any idea he was drunk.

Two questions.

1) Why was he given a blood test at all if NO ONE thought he was drunk. That was NOT the normal operating procedure and was just recently codified into law BECAUSE of this case.
2) Why was he given a blood test TWO HOURS after the accident?
3) Why was he set free after blowing 1.9 and killing someone?

Maybe some of you cops can make some phone calls to the "good cops" in Indiana and ask them those questions.



 
Mark 8262 said:
In regards to victimless crimes, If some one robs a convenient store or breaks into your home and steals something and when caught he gives everything back was there a victim.
Click to expand...

Actually yes, it's called a Tort.

Tort law defines what is a legal injury and, therefore, whether a person may be held liable for an injury they have caused. Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries. They may also include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Mark 8262 said:
If nothing or no one was harmed who was hurt?
Click to expand...

The victim [from your example] was the one whose privacy and property were violated. As far as I know, a rights violation is still a Tort in this country. If you don't know your rights, how can you defend them?

Mark 8262 said:
It is the same as getting caught DUI and having the officer take him home since no one was hurt. Why should the officer put him in a cab when he could have done that himself?
Click to expand...

The obvious comes to mind... he was drunk (impaired) and unable to make a smart decision. That's what happens when people get drunk (typically).

Here's an example of "no harm no foul" and the guy was charged with a felony.


The guy was drunk (unable to make a smart decision), he entered the wrong house (lost??) and fell asleep. He did not attempt to steal anything and the house appeared to abandoned [neighbor observations]. While there may be a Tort somewhere, I fail to see how a felony was justified.
 
What was the guy's intent?

If he honestly made a (drunken) mistake, why charge him with anything? If there was evidence of him attempting to steal stuff or damage the house ... ok ... throw the book at him, but c'mon ... really?
 
This is great, we should throw the system that we have away and use what you guys propose on this forum.

Can the "state" use or not use illegally obtained evidence to convict you of a crime??

Are all people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?? Or are cops guilty until proven innocent?? What amendment is that in??? I forget......

What happened to the constitution beaters here?? Come on guys....... either follow it or dont, not just when you feel like it....... you guys are making fools of yourselves.

Sad that this post has the highest post count and views in a long time......should we change this from the Pressure Washing Institute to the Patriot Whining Institute??... the initials are the same.

I am going to go eat some more popcorn....bye

P.S. I heard through the grapevine that all the other times that they caught that cop driving drunk on duty in a marked patrol unit that they gave him a ride home....... that system you guys are working on should be a real hit!







Just Kidding!
 
NJWashingGuy said:
This is great, we should throw the system that we have away and use what you guys propose on this forum.

Can the "state" use or not use illegally obtained evidence to convict you of a crime??

Are all people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?? Or are cops guilty until proven innocent?? What amendment is that in??? I forget......

What happened to the constitution beaters here?? Come on guys....... either follow it or dont, not just when you feel like it....... you guys are making fools of yourselves.

Sad that this post has the highest post count and views in a long time......should we change this from the Pressure Washing Institute to the Patriot Whining Institute??... the initials are the same.

I am going to go eat some more popcorn....bye

P.S. I heard through the grapevine that all the other times that they caught that cop driving drunk on duty in a marked patrol unit that they gave him a ride home....... that system you guys are working on should be a real hit!

Just Kidding!
Click to expand...


This has to be the most dishonest post I have ever seen on this board. Is no civilian life sacred to you?

So now this cop is ok for killing people because his blood was drawn at the wrong place and therefore inadmissible. Why is that Michael? I'll tell you why. I just spent two hours reading through two years of reporting, text messages, emails, and correspondence on this case and I am prepared to tell you why. There is no denying these facts.

1) The man was shielded on the scene by fellow officers.
2) They waited TWO HOURS to give him a blood test to give him time to sober up.
3) A Variety of officers were present at the blood test given at an UNAUTHORIZED location specifically to ensure that even if he hadn't sobered up, the blood test could not be used in court. This was a location that NONE of the officers had EVER drawn blood from for any other case.
4) Even after TWO hours to sober up he blew a 1.9. and THEY LET HIM GO FREE. AFTER KILLING A MAN.

And your contention is that somehow we are taking away his rights to be found innocent until proven guilty. This is sickening. And you are a sick man.

Thank God this has high hit counts. It means your time is limited and your reign of terror and lies and coverups is coming to an end. And yes, by your I mean yours PERSONALLY after reading a post like the one you just made. Your are menace to society.

And being a "Patriot" is now considered by your kind to be a bad thing? Sickening. And pathetic.
 
Tony Shelton said:
This has to be the most dishonest post I have ever seen on this board. Is no civilian life sacred to you?

So now this cop is ok for killing people because his blood was drawn at the wrong place and therefore inadmissible. Why is that Michael? I'll tell you why. I just spent two hours reading through two years of reporting, text messages, emails, and correspondence on this case and I am prepared to tell you why. There is no denying these facts.

1) The man was shielded on the scene by fellow officers.
2) They waited TWO HOURS to give him a blood test to give him time to sober up.
3) A Variety of officers were present at the blood test given at an UNAUTHORIZED location specifically to ensure that even if he hadn't sobered up, the blood test could not be used in court. This was a location that NONE of the officers had EVER drawn blood from for any other case.
4) Even after TWO hours to sober up he blew a 1.9. and THEY LET HIM GO FREE. AFTER KILLING A MAN.

And your contention is that somehow we are taking away his rights to be found innocent until proven guilty. This is sickening. And you are a sick man.

Thank God this has high hit counts. It means your time is limited and your reign of terror and lies and coverups is coming to an end. And yes, by your I mean yours PERSONALLY after reading a post like the one you just made. Your are menace to society.

And being a "Patriot" is now considered by your kind to be a bad thing? Sickening. And pathetic.
Click to expand...


Tony,
You are the king of word twisting, it is just sickening. Re-read the post and answer the questions without adding your delusional thoughts to it. I don't know about or am I specifically discussing the facts of the dui case listed above. I asked some questions relevant to some of the "ho harm no foul" thoughts posted here.
You want to hang all cops, that will never change, good luck in your quest. I could care less about your opinion, we all know what they say about opinions.
You should run for political office and see how far you get. That would be a true guage of the public's opinion about your views
Off to my actual popcorn.......
 
he's not goint to get the book thrown at him. he did commit a felony through his own actions. I dont care if the house was a cave with no doors he still commited a crime, he still broke a door or window to gain entry right? what if it was your house,I hope you would put an ass whoopin on him but it sounds like you would let him wake up at noon, make him lunch and give him cab fair home. hell give him a set of keys so you dont have to fix your door next time.
 
NJWashingGuy said:
This is great, we should throw the system that we have away and use what you guys propose on this forum.
Click to expand...

We did that once when we told the King of England what he could do with his taxes.

NJWashingGuy said:
Are all people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?? Or are cops guilty until proven innocent?? What amendment is that in??? I forget......
Click to expand...
We often hear that the United States Constitution guarantees that an accused is "..innocent until proven guilty.." in a court of law. So where did the phrase "..innocent until proven guilty.." originate?

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ..."

What this means, in plain terms, is that constitutionally you cannot be executed, imprisoned, or fined without the proper course of justice taking place. Due process, itself, is not defined in the Constitution, but is universally recognized as meaning what we term as "a fair trial."

Going forward from there, a fair trial by a jury of one's peers requires that the jurors approach the case with the thought that the prosecution is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the trial begins with the prosecution not having introduced a single piece of evidence, it follows that a defendant must be innocent, until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
Now ya know.
 
NJWashingGuy said:
Tony,
You are the king of word twisting, it is just sickening. Re-read the post and answer the questions without adding your delusional thoughts to it. I don't know about or am I specifically discussing the facts of the dui case listed above. I asked some questions relevant to some of the "ho harm no foul" thoughts posted here.
You want to hang all cops, that will never change, good luck in your quest. I could care less about your opinion, we all know what they say about opinions.
You should run for political office and see how far you get. That would be a true guage of the public's opinion about your views
Off to my actual popcorn.......
Click to expand...

So you are saying I was mistaken and you think the drunk cop who mowed down the bikers killing one should be fired and punished along with all the other officers who covered it up?

If that is your stance I was wrong.

Is that your stance?



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
junker1 said:
he's not goint to get the book thrown at him. he did commit a felony through his own actions. I dont care if the house was a cave with no doors he still commited a crime, he still broke a door or window to gain entry right? what if it was your house,I hope you would put an ass whoopin on him but it sounds like you would let him wake up at noon, make him lunch and give him cab fair home. hell give him a set of keys so you dont have to fix your door next time.
Click to expand...

What's the point in making idiotic statements like these?

If I came home and found someone passed out on my floor (no other indications of wrong doing), I would certainly have time to evaluate the situation (get prepared for the worst). I wouldn't be nice about waking them up either, but I would at least give them a chance to explain. If they are convincing enough, I'll escort them off my property or let them use my phone to call someone (now I have a # to associate them with). If there is any sort of altercation, then I would already be prepared for it (before I kicked them in the ass and asked them why they were there).

My house is not really a good example because it's rural, completely fenced in and locked.

It's possible someday you're going to make an innocent mistake and you'll find your life gone... literally. If people think that ruining other peoples lives keeps them safe, then imagine what's in store for them [you] when they get out. It ain't gonna be pretty.
 
Red with all your just log them in drunk situations you play out in your pretend legal world is amusing me.Do you not understand the whole process and reason for the law?Officer XX cant just go around with a red marker after driver 1 is pulled for dui and put a check by his name like in grade school.You do understand all the little tests given road side are given to establish probable cause then the arrest then the intoxilizer machine at the jail or station.It doesnt work like you think.Its not a 10 minute ordeal.Then you are acting like when people get dui its there doom.Sure it costs and its aggravating but not the way you make it out.After a driver is observed the officer decides why the driver did act x.X is the reason for the stop could be a number of reasons.The worst drivers i have ever seen when i was a cop was a diabetic.Driving in a circle in a parking lot around like a merry go round.Final got the driver to stop and to my surprise it was i guy i worked out with.Now what if we just cuffed him hauled him to the magistrate,you haved to have more evidence other than driving.thats why all the test are done.I saw the bracelet thing on his arm and figured out what was going on.I think you ee shows like cops and just assume thats all there is to the job.I have seen the best dui cases thrown out by judges for mistakes in paperwork.You think a cop goes to a domestic and man and woman fighting like crazy they just gonna get out and say i will log you in and drive off?
 
"Red" said:
What's the point in making idiotic statements like these?

If I came home and found someone passed out on my floor (no other indications of wrong doing), I would certainly have time to evaluate the situation (get prepared for the worst). I wouldn't be nice about waking them up either, but I would at least give them a chance to explain. If they are convincing enough, I'll escort them off my property or let them use my phone to call someone (now I have a # to associate them with). If there is any sort of altercation, then I would already be prepared for it (before I kicked them in the ass and asked them why they were there).

My house is not really a good example because it's rural, completely fenced in and locked.

It's possible someday you're going to make an innocent mistake and you'll find your life gone... literally. If people think that ruining other peoples lives keeps them safe, then imagine what's in store for them [you] when they get out. It ain't gonna be pretty.
Click to expand...

I just found a drunk on the curb two houses down. The mailman told us about him and suggested we call the police. I went to the neighbors and asked them what they wanted to do. They, like me, didn't want to call the cops and take a chance on they guy getting shot or beat up by the cops.

They were leaving so I went to the guy and told him I had a warm garage with a heater and a soft place to sleep.

He said he would be fine so I moved him closer to the neighbors yard and off the street and let him sleep. He finally left after about 2hrs.

Many neighbors drove past him and NOBODY called the police on him.

That expresses the depth of our distrust of the police here. There was no reason for this man to lose his freedom. He was just drunk

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Kiloman said:
Red with all your just log them in drunk situations you play out in your pretend legal world is amusing me.Do you not understand the whole process and reason for the law?Officer XX cant just go around with a red marker after driver 1 is pulled for dui and put a check by his name like in grade school.You do understand all the little tests given road side are given to establish probable cause then the arrest then the intoxilizer machine at the jail or station.It doesnt work like you think.Its not a 10 minute ordeal.Then you are acting like when people get dui its there doom.Sure it costs and its aggravating but not the way you make it out.After a driver is observed the officer decides why the driver did act x.X is the reason for the stop could be a number of reasons.The worst drivers i have ever seen when i was a cop was a diabetic.Driving in a circle in a parking lot around like a merry go round.Final got the driver to stop and to my surprise it was i guy i worked out with.Now what if we just cuffed him hauled him to the magistrate,you haved to have more evidence other than driving.thats why all the test are done.I saw the bracelet thing on his arm and figured out what was going on.I think you ee shows like cops and just assume thats all there is to the job.I have seen the best dui cases thrown out by judges for mistakes in paperwork.You think a cop goes to a domestic and man and woman fighting like crazy they just gonna get out and say i will log you in and drive off?
Click to expand...

More idiotic statements.

 
Here you can be drunk in public just no disorderly actions while drunk.Tony when you say that do you really mean that.I am being serious is it that bad there,i can only take you at your word.You are saying that the police might shoot him just for being drunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top