Thursday, August 26, 2010

Stop me if you've heard this one...

Hey, did you hear about the drunken Indianapolis cop who wrecked his patrol car?

No, I mean the other drunken Indianapolis cop who wrecked his patrol car.

Meanwhile, Public Safety Director Frank "Gun Hatin'" Straub is all butthurt and lonely, asking "Why is everybody picking on me?"

Three guesses, Frank, and the first two don't count.


Anonymous said...

Another bombshell yesterday. It finally broke that Bisard WAS read the Implied Consent warning which cops read to those who the police believe to have probable cause to have Operated a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated.

The cops knew Bisard was intoxicated and intentionally took him to the doc in the box. The question now is whether the police did this or were the police told to do this by the Prosecuting Attorney.

Shootin' Buddy

Anonymous said...

For how long has blood drawn in this matter been inadmissible?
If the law changed recently, it may be a mistake. If it was over a year ago, this is definite corruption.

Help us , O Shootin' Buddy, you're our only hope.

staghounds said...

I like the way the article says he was "lured" from White Plains.

"I'm not supposed to be here, it was a trick! Indianapolis pretended it was Paris!"

Boat Guy said...

"Lured" is politico-speak for "Offered a butt-ton of money that he'd NEVER make in his hometown. Sorta like the police chief in Bell CA.
One incident MIGHT reflect an individual issue; more than one and we in the service would immediately suspect a "Command problem". Such are usually followed (in the old days IF an investigation bore it out, now it's pretty much automatic) by "Relief For Cause"

Matt G said...

I agree that there's a house-cleaning that needs doing, but I'll ask: how should one go about it other than being above-board with the media, reccomending termination, and pushing for legal actions against his cops?

I wonder how popular that chief is among the officers of his department? I wonder he's not considered a bit ready to take action against his own cops?

In my opinion, he's been over-eager, in that he allowed his own department to perform an investigation that should have been performed by an outside agency.

Question: when and if he does the clean sweep that you want, are you going to laud that he's pulled out the bad apples one by one? Or are you going to say "Uh huh. That's yet another one you missed, isn't it?"

Make no mistake-- I think that the IMPD is screwing up... but I wonder what it will take for them to get credit for trying to clean their house.

Tam said...


I honestly don't know how to clean out that stable, but I'm sure glad it's not my job.

Frank said in his interview that sure, there were some bad apples, but "99%" of IMPD officers were good Joes, and my first thought "Let's see, the department has roughly fifteen hundred officers: there was the pimp, and the guys who were shaking down the dope dealers, and the firebug, and the guy who started busting caps in his squad car while arguing with his girlfriend, and the two drunks, and... well, Frank, that might not be exactly mathematically accurate."

Matt G said...

There are going to come times when cops wash out. The percentage of cops that don't last 3 years is enormous. And those who wash out? They can often do good work before they do the thing that gets them removed.

For example, I know of a fellow who did a very workman-like job on an assault case in which the victim was Yours-Truly, before years later being convicted on a murder rap. He's in TDC right now.

My question is: Are they damned if they do, damned if they don't? Because that prescribes a recipe toward cover-up.

B Smith said...

@ Matt G:
How, pray tell, can I discern the cop who's 'fresh and clean' from the burned-out, corrupt (or at least mistake-prone) 3-year 'veteran'?
By what standard should I base my actions and remarks during an average traffic stop (or even something more serious)?
Until I know this, it seems to me that---just like Officer Friendly---I have to regard EVERY cop as potentially hostile, someone who has the will and ability to incarcerate me and/or destroy my life. Just like him, I can't afford to misjudge even once. That sword cuts both ways.

Tam said...


"My question is: Are they damned if they do, damned if they don't?"

Huh? I'm honestly not grokking the question.

I mean, I expect certain amount of turnover, yes, and the fact that most people can't or won't hang in the gig for a whole career is no indictment of the department.

On the upside, I've seen some suggestions for improving the quality of new hires that I like: I'd be more than willing to pony up for a slightly higher pay level in return for requiring new officers to have an at least an associate's degree, rather than the current "HS Diploma and a fogged mirror".

Anonymous said...

Here is the CBD website with office address in several states.

Six said...

These things do not happen in a vacuum. Officer selection, training and retention reflects the culture and priorities of the hiring agency. If these officers can make it that far through the system I have serious questions about their HR practices, Field Training Program and supervision, especially at the line level.
My problem with this chief is that he seems to be reactive versus proactive. Defensive statements are not leadership and his officers (including supervisors) are watching. A CYA mentality is contagious.