Bad Boys, Bad Boys - - -Whatcha Gonna Do - - - Next?

[The Troll]

Check this out:

    AGGRESSIVE SOCIOPATHS derive strong, yet nonperverse gratification from harming others. They like to hurt, frighten, tyrannize, bully, and manipulate. They do it for a sense of power and control, and will often only drop subtle hints about what they are up to. They polish their aggressive, domineering manner in such a way to disguise any intimidation others might feel. They seek out positions of power, such as parent, teacher, bureaucrat, supervisor, or police officer. Their style is one of passive aggression as they systematically go about sabotaging the ideas of others to get their ideas in place. In their spare time, they like to hunt or occasionally do sadistic things like find stray dogs and cut them up. They are usually effective at getting their way, and are especially vindictive if resisted or crossed. They don't follow the social norm of reciprocity like others do.

http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/antisocial_sociopath_psychopath.html

Purely anecdotal evidence: I once spoke to a forensic psychiatrist about the number of control freaks in the local police force, and asked him why the psychological testing candidates underwent did not weed out these dangerous individual. He told me the profile of characteristics desired in a police officer is so close to a psychopath, there is no way to distinguish between them.

  I can't think of the name of the book.  But it was written by John Dean.  It was about the Authoritarian and the authoritarian follower.

  The Authoritarian demand complete obedience and compliance and if you don't do it, he will try to completely destroy  you.  Once you read John Dean book you really spot them.  It's like finding the sore thumb on your hand.

  The Republican Party is filled to the brim with Authoritarians.  George W. was not one, but Prick Chaney, 110 % authoritarian.  Newt, the tan man in fact the whole top of the Republican Party is one.  Athoritarian son of bitches.

  Authoritarian followers are the people who will do anything to get to the Authoritarian's ass to kiss it, hoping then they reach that level.  They will expect all of the people to kiss their ass.  You find these people every where, even here on the Zone.

  And I have found all police today are Authoritarians assholes.

[Exterminator]

Who saw this coming?

[Palehorse]

Who saw this coming?

Now there's a friggin' surprise!  "Diplomatic immunity" gone wild! 

[LOsborne]

Wait a minute. What about this statement?

Under Indiana law, anyone involved in a fatality accident or one involving serious bodily injury are subject to a blood draw.

The cop is still an "anyone," isn't he? No matter why the department wanted the blood draw, the law wants one because he was involved in a fatality.

[Palehorse]

Wait a minute. What about this statement?

Under Indiana law, anyone involved in a fatality accident or one involving serious bodily injury are subject to a blood draw.

The cop is still an "anyone," isn't he? No matter why the department wanted the blood draw, the law wants one because he was involved in a fatality.

. . .It's also the policy of Indianapolis police to draw the blood of officers involved in crashes, but those results can only be used for interdepartmental purposes, per a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.. . .

So, it seems there may be some legal wiggle room for this drunken police officer. . .

[LOsborne]

I see. Everyone involved in a fatal accident is subject to a blood draw. But if you are a cop, the results can only be used interdepartmentally.

That does not pass the sniff test.

[Palehorse]

I see. Everyone involved in a fatal accident is subject to a blood draw. But if you are a cop, the results can only be used interdepartmentally.

That does not pass the sniff test.

Hence my "diplomatic immunity" comment! 

Something to do with the "consent" issue from what I gather. Had he been offered the opportunity to decide as a citizen and declined to comply, it would have resulted in an "automatic admission of guilt" to a citizen, or the prosecutor would have obtained a court order to obtain the required sample. BUT, they didn't even ask. . .

[Exterminator]

Something to do with the "consent" issue from what I gather. Had he been offered the opportunity to decide as a citizen and declined to comply, it would have resulted in an "automatic admission of guilt" to a citizen, or the prosecutor would have obtained a court order to obtain the required sample. BUT, they didn't even ask. . .

I'm sure it was just a simple oversight. 

[me]

Any way you slice it it's bull shit IMO.  With his past record it should have occurred to the investigating officers to test him.   

[Palehorse]

I'm sure it was just a simple oversight. 

Exactly. Anyone who thinks this did not happen by design is high! It's what these men and women do for a living, each and every day. Had it been a civilian behind the wheel of that car those ducks would have been all lined up and quacking away! 

[Anne]

I see. Everyone involved in a fatal accident is subject to a blood draw. But if you are a cop, the results can only be used interdepartmentally.

That does not pass the sniff test.

That isn't exactly what it said, if he gave permission for a blood draw for any purpose other than interdepartmental use it could be used as evidence. I think you can refuse a blood test until a warrent is obtained and if that didn't happen the use of the blood test is being treated like any other evidence obtained without a warrent or probable cause. I am not saying the officer should get off, I am just saying that in this case I don't think he is getting any special treatment. The reports I read were that no one, not bystanders or officers, thought he had been drinking or was drunk. I don't know if the investigating officer knew of his record.

[The Troll]

That isn't exactly what it said, if he gave permission for a blood draw for any purpose other than interdepartmental use it could be used as evidence. I think you can refuse a blood test until a warrent is obtained and if that didn't happen the use of the blood test is being treated like any other evidence obtained without a warrent or probable cause. I am not saying the officer should get off, I am just saying that in this case I don't think he is getting any special treatment. The reports I read were that no one, not bystanders or officers, thought he had been drinking or was drunk. I don't know if the investigating officer knew of his record.

  Well, who you gone to believe.  The dead guy or the cop.

[Anne]

What did the dead guy say?

[Palehorse]

That isn't exactly what it said, if he gave permission for a blood draw for any purpose other than interdepartmental use it could be used as evidence. I think you can refuse a blood test until a warrent is obtained and if that didn't happen the use of the blood test is being treated like any other evidence obtained without a warrent or probable cause. I am not saying the officer should get off, I am just saying that in this case I don't think he is getting any special treatment. The reports I read were that no one, not bystanders or officers, thought he had been drinking or was drunk. I don't know if the investigating officer knew of his record.

Which is a clear example of FOP influencing the law to secure preferential treatment for those that have the responsibility of enforcing the law with equality and fairness. Law enforcement officers are NOT above the law, yet we have an example of a situation where they are!

Another thing; any law enforcement officer that failed to really "notice" this cop was intoxicated is either an idiot or was looking the other way. The guy was .19 2 hours after the incident! Which to me means he was at a higher level at the time the incident transpired! And as for bystanders, as if the police are going to let anyone outside of the department get close enough to smell the guy, much less talk to him!

[LOsborne]

I think you can refuse a blood test until a warrent is obtained and if that didn't happen the use of the blood test is being treated like any other evidence obtained without a warrent or probable cause.

Nope.


IC 9-30-7-2
Implied consent to portable breath test or chemical test
Sec. 2. A person who operates a vehicle impliedly consents to submit to the portable breath test or chemical test under this chapter as a condition of operating a vehicle in Indiana. A person must submit to each portable breath test or chemical test offered by a law enforcement officer under this chapter to comply with this chapter.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.275-2001, SEC.2.