Don't drink and run code, kids!
BONUS!: Quote of the Day from Indy's police chief, who can't open his mouth without sticking his corfam low-quarter in it:
"Metro Police Chief Paul Ciesielski said he was "shocked, disappointed and quite frankly pretty darn angry that this would happen."""Pretty darn angry", Chief? Really? 'Cause I'm bloody furious that this drunk with a string of fender benders was still at the helm of one of my Crown Vics with one of my guns on his belt. You want him fired? I want him flogged.
15 comments:
Would not the Quote of the Day be from Director Franky Frank Straub who, just last week, said that the officer was not drinking?
*cue trombone* Wah-wah-waaahhh.
That may work in New York, but not here, numbnuts. So much for your attempt at a cover up, Frank.
Shootin' Buddy
I'm the only one pro-fesh'nall 'nuff to chug these beers and then go protectin' and servin'!
I drink alone
Yeah, with nobody else
You know when I drink alone
I prefer to be ON PATROL.
I'm furious to read about it, myself. As someone who makes no secret about liking a good drink, I'll not have more than a beer with dinner the night before, with 12 hours bottle to throttle.
I've known ONE cop to have this problem, and he became an EX-cop in short order.
Hell, at my department, it would be a firable offense to have even a sealed bottle in your car. Caught drinking on the job or driving while at all impaired, the officer would not be able to finish the shift or drive another linear foot. I don't feel we're unusual.
There are no words, so I'm hoping that the chief fell into Gabby Hayes cussing because the only other words that could come to mind involve shouted expletives that wouldn't be quotable by most news media outlets.
Matt,
I just like our chief as a quote mine. IMPD has a perfectly serviceable spokesperson or two, but somehow Ciesielski manages to wind up with a microphone in his face every now and again and the results are usually comedy gold.
If you are going to flog this guy, you'd better add in his patrol Sgt., Shift Supervisor, and Precinct Capt. (or however its structured in Indy), 'cause this Alkie has been doing it for far too long, and it's been ignored by the Higher Ups. But I bet you that anyone who did try to discipline him probably had the Po-Po Union Rep on his butt the next day.
A BAC that high CONFIRMS he is an alcoholic, as a regular person that drinks would not have been able to find the car, or even be functional, at a much lower BAC. It takes a long time of drinking large amounts of alcohol to build up a tolerance to that much in your system.
So, pretty good chance his bosses/coworkers knew he was a drunk.
Fire or flog? Why choose? As other commenters have said, this has been going on for a long time, with complicity from the union and the cop's supervisors, so there is more than enough need to be flogged AND fired to go around
I'd like to find out how the investigation goes. I've known a few functional alcoholics who could go to work sober in the morning, and begin their drinking on the way home from work, get drunk every evening, then go to bed, sober up, and start it all over the next morning. While I agree that it sounds likely that this was a problem that's been building, there's a possibility that his drinking on the job hadn't yet been observed. It's possible that this was the first time.
But unlikely.
If his buddies were covering for him, the flogging needs to be distributed to them, too. If his line supervisors were covering for him, then the firings need to be distributed as well.
Remember, the law has nothing to do with fairness or truth. The law is about what lawyers bring to court.
I wouldn't be that irritated at (drunk) Officer Obie. I would be pissed as hell at his supervisor, at his union rep, and the chief of police for overlooking drinking on the job and operating a vehicle while under the influence.
I would toast the mayor's toes for lack of oversight over conduct of The Only Ones tasked with security and safety of the community. "Serve and Protect" is all well and good, unless the law is overlooked by the cops. I bet the victims of this drunk driver feel "served".
"I wouldn't be that irritated at (drunk) Officer Obie. I would be pissed as hell at his supervisor, at his union rep, and the chief of police for overlooking drinking on the job and operating a vehicle while under the influence."
I would. His leadership should be held accountable if they knew he was doing this sort of thing, sure; but *he* is ultimately responsible for his own actions. He's not a kid, he's a man who carries a gun and exercises civil authority for a living. His leadership should be able to trust him to do the right thing when they're not around.
aaron,
I would be irritated at (drunk) Officer Obie. But the real failure, given that police are human, is the system of checks and balances. Each officer on the line must be subject to scrutiny, to assure that procedures are followed to protect the officers and the public. Yes, police and others in positions of trust must be personally responsible and honorable.
But normal everyday matters of supervision, resolving issues, and assuring quality and safety must be in place to continually assure competent performance.
A drunk police officer is not just a random drunk driver on personal time; a police officer's conduct reflects on the unit and community 24/7. That means that a failure of a policeman is an egregious failure of supervision at a personal level, and likely a criminal failure at the unit and supervisory level as well.
If a Bud Lite driver drops a truck on it's side while drunk, you can bet that Annheiser-Busch will hear from a couple of lawyers. (Drunk) Officer Obie's supervisor, unit, and community should be held at least as liable for failing to adequately correct a pattern of misuse of uniform and negligent and criminal disregard of the law (drunk driving; ignorance of the law is no excuse, not even for police officers). In essence, (drunk) Officer Obie's supervisor and unit are directly and repeatedly responsible for placing (drunk) Officer Obie on duty, in an official vehicle, with a reasonable expectation (they hadn't manage to "cure" the problem before that, and they knew they hadn't) that they were putting a drunk driver on duty, on the road. If tavern keeper laws can hold a bartender/bar owner responsible for an accident a drunk patron gets into, why should the supervisor of a repeatedly drunk officer not face the same criminal charges, for knowingly putting a drunk driver on the road?
Fry the (drunk) Officer Obie, but fry the supervisor, and everyone up the chain responsible for allowing (drunk) Officer Obie to remain in uniform, and to operate a vehicle.
We The People give our trust and respect to our police officers, and expect the highest standards of behaviour in return.
This officer abused that trust and respect in the worst possible way and deserves the full weight of the Law to descend on him.
His life is ruined, and I hope he never sees the light of a free day ever again, but that is small consolation to the bereaved, his department and his family.
If there was any evidence that he was drinking on duty, then, sure, his peers and supervisors who saw it should be held partially accountable.
But let's not forget that the blame starts and ends with [former] Officer David Bisard.
"But let's not forget that the blame starts and ends with [former] Officer David Bisard."
EXACTLY.
Leadership can only do so much. They can't shadow you through the day. They can't hold your hand. And often, in bureaucracies (like, say, a major metro police department) they can't fire you until you fuck up and they document it perfectly on multiple occaisions.
Brad:
Tavern keeper laws? Liability lawsuits? If your argument hinges on the justice and moral validity of the American legal system and civil suit precedent, you have lost before you start. Sorry, I guess I'm old fashioned. I think once someone reaches the age of majority they and they alone are responsible for their fuckups.
Post a Comment