Friday, August 13, 2010

Would "rocked by scandal" be too strong a term?

While the IMPD is facing almost certain lawsuits in the Officer OWI incident, one of its sergeants is facing trial for Aggravated Dumbassery in the First Degree in a suburban county, where he had gotten into a bit of a domestic tiff with his girlfriend while driving around in his squad car.

The tiff culminated in Sgt. Blinn firing his service pistol in the car, getting it wrestled away by his girlfriend and tossed out the window, and finally parking his squad car and heading off into the bushes to lead the po-po on a multi-hour manhunt.

Needless to say, his future job prospects look pretty bleak.

What I don't get is this: I have carried a pistol every waking moment for most of my adult life and, despite sometimes being mad enough at people to spit nails, I have never, ever drawn that pistol and pointed it at somebody like it was some kind of tool of argument, let alone started busting caps. The screamingly obvious lack of impulse control on this sergeant is appalling; I sincerely question whether he should be allowed out walking around near decent folk.

32 comments:

Matt G said...

Interestingly, the story references him having fired his "service revolver." If correct, that would make him something of an anomaly, but I'll wager that the term was misused by a reporter who didn't understand that it was his service pistol. Sadly, the odds are better to bet on the bad reporting.

Is it just me, or does the Take Home Car policy for IMPD look to be endangered?

Tam said...

"Is it just me, or does the Take Home Car policy for IMPD look to be endangered?"

It sure hasn't been done any favors lately. :o

Carteach0 said...

A point that rattles around my abby-normal brain: I don't personally know any officers who aren't decent, intelligent, and stable people. That said... reading story after story about the bad ones forces me to look askance at every officer I see.

Perhaps the way that dealing with dirt-bag after dirt-bag makes the officers look at everyone else with an appraising eye.

Therein, perhaps, resides the dividing line between police officers and the world.

Anonymous said...

Just the kind of guy who could administer popo justice on the street. If drunken Mechanic Dad had run down an IMPD motorcop and PsychoPsarge responded?

"That was my friend you f'n drunk bastard! BAM! BAM!

He tried to grab my gun!"

You want him serving a warrant at your house (or making any "professional" contact with you at all)?

And he's a sergeant; that usually means he's a supervisor with a corporal and a couple road men under his direct control.

How can that be? It is possible -almost ensured- by a system and heirarchal structure that is fundamentally flawed.

And no, it's not just Indy...it's everywhere.

AT

Anonymous said...

Or "hierarchical"...

Preview, man, preview.

AT

Lissa said...

The Only Ones awesome enough to try to solve an argument with a girlfriend using a gun, which is then wrestled away by the girl. Stellar!

Metro Police Chief Paul Ciesielski wants him fired.

Seriously? THAT would be the punishment?

Anonymous said...

"Seriously? THAT would be the punishment?"

Yes, on the administrative track, that's what the Chief of IMPD can recommend. The Chief of the Police cannot summarily find him guilty and incarcerate him.

On the criminal track the decisions will be made by the Hendricks County Prosecuting Attorney and then, if a conviction results, by my cousin on the bench.

On every problem, there are three tracks, criminal, administrative and civil. He is likely facing all three.

Shootin' Buddy

Anonymous said...

It sounds to me that the IMPD didn't do their due diligence search into this rocket scientist's background before hiring the fool.

Jay G said...

I can't tell which is more disturbing:

1. That he used his gun as a noisemaker - did he not think that it would go unnoticed?

2. That he got it taken away from him.

3. That he hasn't been fired - preferably via cannon.

Blackwing1 said...

"I have carried a pistol every waking moment for most of my adult life and, despite sometimes being mad enough at people to spit nails, I have never, ever drawn that pistol and pointed it at somebody like it was some kind of tool of argument, let alone started busting caps."

In fact, for me, carrying is quite a calming factor. Carrying makes me very aware of my actions, to the point where I'll avoid doing things I would have done otherwise. Riding a motorcycle (if done correctly) leads you to observe actions on the parts of others that make me want to scream at them when I pull along side at the next stoplight...I actually used to DO that, before I started to carry (yes, it's stupid, but so am I).

Now that I'm carrying all the time, I'm a MUCH mellower person. I'll let things slide that would have had me yelling at the cage-drivers...just back off (or accelerate away, depending on circumstances) and let it go. That whole "reluctant participant" thing, and the responsibility of carrying hand has really helped clarify the non-initiation-of-force thing.

Perhaps Heinlein had a significant point when he said, "An armed society is a polite society."

Oh, this is too good to be true..the WV is "irater"...is that thing context-sensitive?

Pointman said...

A total lack of impulse control and self discipline are at the least symptomatic, maybe even at the root, of our current societal ills...

More importantly the Sgt seems to have forgotten rule number 1 - the woman is always right. Often rephrased as when Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy....

While I have no reason to believe this is the case here domestic arguments I've heard between men and women are more and more showing that women understand they literally can do anything they want to a man and the law will protect them.

There is little that will turn an immature, insecure male violent than being brought face to face with his own impotence.

alath said...

Chatter by some LEOs over on INGO is that the drunk driving case may not stick because the blood sample was drawn improperly.

I take this the way I take all rumors on the internets - ie, about the same credibility as CBS Evening News.

However, if true, Whoops. Or, possilby, "whoops."

Will said...

He's most likely a liberal. Most of the liberals I talk to about guns express the thought that they would be unable to resist shooting it when they got mad, and that is why they don't have any. And also why they think no one else should either. They think everyone else has a lack of self-control, just like themselves.

staghounds said...

"Heirarchal" works, too.

"women understand they literally can do anything they want to a man and the law will protect them."

Which is why there are suddenly no more black eyed, broken nosed, broken boned, and dead women showing up at the end of emergency calls.

I knew there was a reason!

Tam said...

Pointman,

"...women understand they literally can do anything they want to a man and the law will protect them."

I understand you're on the wrong goddam blog.

trackerk said...

The girlfriend sounds bad-ass though. Wouldn't want to mess with her.

LabRat said...

Yeah, I like how he managed to take a case of which the bare and only facts known are "in the course of the argument, Ossifer Authority Figure pulled a gun to intimidate his girlfriend" and conclude this was her fault.

Anonymous said...

"Needless to say, his future job prospects look pretty bleak."


Disagree - he can always run for Senate or Congress... See "Alvin Greene" for a reference...

Al T.

Pointman said...

Not saying its right from either side nor that I condone it - what I'm saying is I've seen women act just as badly toward men as the other way. Faced with that some people, either sex, will snap without adult supervision.

SewerDweller said...

ah, not to put to fine a point on it, Pointman has one. A point that is. a not terribly well expressed point, but a point. and, I'd point out, at no point did he say, or perhaps even imply, that 'it's the woman's fault'. Labrat, I read your blog, I'm a bit dissapointed at the 'logic fail' from a person I -know- is significantly smarter than I am.

I -think- what Pointman is trying to say is this.

1. Women decidedly have the upper hand in any disagreement with a Man, as soon as the law gets involved.

2. Men with 'issues' get really violent and predicably unpredictable when confronted with point #1.


Men might have the strength, but women most certainly have the power. Before you say otherwise, I have one word I want you to consider. 'Launtenberg'.

Also, can you think of any situation where person A can have person B arrested, and thrown in jail, on the spot, without evidence, simply based on thier word? I can. it's called 'domestic violence'. Do not forget, some states have 'mandatory arrest and prosecution' on DV calls. I know Maine does.

anyhow, I hope the local officio scumbagicus population approaches zero in a non-collateral, pleasing fashion, and quickly. Such stupid should be punished, and frequently.

Montie said...

Holy shit... Believe it or not, I have seen similarly stupid things done by police officers and supervisors. I won't go into the details here but I could tell you some stories...

This guy needs to be terminated from the department just as surely as the drunk driving officer. Like Tam, I have carried a gun for most of my adult life, including many years before I became a cop. Both on duty and off I have had interactions with people in which I have gotten pretty angry, yet never reached the point of feeling that I needed to use gunfire as some sort of puctuation mark.

I have however, answered calls involving guns used in just that fashion which involved people from all walks of life. The fact that this sergeant pulled this stunt does not mean that the background checks done by the department failed, it is just that sometimes it is impossible to predict these types of incidents, remember, I could tell you some stories...

Anonymous said...

Al T:

...or Alcee Hastings...

cap'n chumbucket

Montie said...

SewerDweller,

For a number of years, I worked as a detective covering domestic violence and sex crimes (don't ask me why they lumped those two catagories together). it is true that many DV laws tend to be geared more toward the side of the woman. There's a reason for that.

That being said, most police officers are quite cognizant of the fact that in a certain percentage of cases, the woman is the aggressor, and I always encourage my officers to take a few minutes extra time to sort things out instead of just slapping cuffs on all involved and heading for the jail.

In this state, at least, it requires some visual verification of battery before someone goes to jail. Mere accusations in a DV context does not get someone arrested. The problem is that often both parties have visible injuries, and it is important to determine who the aggressor was and who was merely acting defensively.

SewerDweller said...

Montie -

very true in most cases, and thank you kindly for reminding your officers to use thier most important tool ( brain ).

I cant speak as to other states, but in Maine, there is a 'must arrest' part of any DV call. If there is a domestic violence call, the law requires the attending officer to take -someone- to jail. No buts. Coupled with a 'mandatory prosecution' law, it means that -if- you call the cops for DV, someone is getting arrested, -and- going to court. 90% plead out, and wind up with probation, or something like it.

Coupled with Lautenberg, and a rather horriffic Department of human services, Maine has problems in this department. as to the rest of the country, I cannot say.

while this is an important conversation in it's own right, perhaps we should converse elsewhere? I hear that threadjacking other people's comments is gauche, and I have enough problems with being an idiot in public. drop me a line, and we'll finish in private?

SewerDweller said...

P.S.

I notice we're from the same area. How's TankMan doing?

Tam said...

SewerDweller,

"ah, not to put to fine a point on it, Pointman has one. A point that is..."

Which has exactly piss-all to do with this story.

SewerDweller said...

Tam -

Your house, your rules. Pardon me while I get my coat.

Regards.

rickn8or said...

Along with Carteach0's comments isn't there some quasi-official organization within the PD that will have one or more members take such as the OWI Officer and Sgt. Maturity aside and say "You were observed doing 'xxx'. You are making the rest of us look bad. Knock that crap off"?

I've been in organizations with such and I've been on both sides of a similar conversation. I don't know which side is worse.

Matt G said...

"While I have no reason to believe this is the case here domestic arguments I've heard between men and women are more and more showing that women understand they literally can do anything they want to a man and the law will protect them."

HAW! Pointman writes a non-sequitur, shows that he doesn't understand criminal procedure (I've arrested plenty of women in he-said/she-saids. Now what the HELL does that have to do with anything?), and pisses off our hostess, all at once. Succinct, that one.

Going into the motivations of the [former] sergeant's actions is just silly. The man fired his gun in his patrol car, during an argument with his lady-friend. Unless the next line includes the words "nest of rattlesnakes," or "reanimation of the undead," the story can pretty much stop right there.

Done. We've nothing to talk about. Turn in your badge and gun, and turn around and put your hands behind your back.

atlharp said...

Holy shit... Believe it or not, I have seen similarly stupid things done by police officers and supervisors. I won't go into the details here but I could tell you some stories...

In reality stories like this seem to be more frequent with police than they do with the civilian population. Why is that? Could it be that you can be an officer with criminal past and a history of restraining orders? Nah, couldn't be.....

Will said...

I'm still curious. Where did the slug go? Did he ventilate the roof? Floor? Window? Or, just stuck it outside and let it fly?

Anonymous said...

"Could it be that you can be an officer with criminal past and a history of restraining orders?"

Well, let's just say that requirements and guidelines vary somewhat and in any case are, uh, flexible, ifyaknowwhatimean.

Years ago when FLA instituted the stupid zero tolerance provisions as to access and possession of firearms for those with DV charges in the past? Uh oh...they forgot to provide an exemption for cops; a goodly percentage of the local boys had to drive a desk for a while until they corrected their little oversight.

Now that's not to say I think cops should be or could be pure as the driven snow when it comes to relationship problems; they're just people after all. On the contrary, I'm saying stupid blanket laws do more harm than good if they have the ability to strip a person's constitutional rights for something as simple and normal and stupidly human as a push or slap; cops are as subject to that kind of conflict in their personal lives as anyone else and it doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of maturity and responsibility when it comes to the deadly serious issue of RKBA, either for a cop or a private citizen. But it might.

And that is where (one of) the serious breakdowns is in our system of laws and their enforcement. In theory, that the majority can decide what behaviors should be controlled and how to control them may seem a necessary evil in a society, but in practice, applications and exceptions are subject to the flaws and frailties of what are all too often political operatives and not professionals with an understanding of human nature, constitutional rights, and the essence of right and wrong.

Nowhere is "democracy" more ill-suited, counter-intuitive and contra-indicated than when it is applied to agencies and individuals who are entrusted with distributing and administering the power to decide who lives or dies, and who keeps or is denied his freedom(s).

AT