More Field Sobriety Test Hypocrisy

A Chicago Police officer, Richard Bolling who was charged with a fatal DUI crash in 2009, is now being claimed he passed a field sobriety test, AND a breathalyzer.   There are further claims that he did not receive any special treatment for being a police officer. 

So let's go over the norm...  You are involved in a fatal car accident, the police arrive.   Within minutes you would be issued a breathalyzer, if there was any alcohol at all on your breath, you would be arrested and processed since you just killed someone.   How did Richard Bolling get treated?

"It was four and a half hours after the crash, and only under pressure from an Internal Affairs sergeant, when Bolling submitted to a Breathalyzer and registered 0.079 percent, just under the legal limit of 0.08 percent, prosecutors said."

Yes... the lack of special treatment is VERY apparent in this case... 4.5 hours after the crash, he blew .001 under the legal limit... does this stink to anyone else, or just me?   It gets better though...

Prosecutors alleged in opening statements that Bolling, who was off-duty at the time, wasn’t given a field sobriety test until nearly two hours after he was arrested driving the wrong way down a street shortly after the crash. Officers at the scene said he passed the exam.

So he drove away from his accident... and got pulled over shortly after the crash going the wrong way on the roadway...   Meanwhile the same field sobriety test that is designed to incriminate non Law Enforcement Officials, managed to add evidence that Bolling wasn't impaired.   When the system is this broken, the only solution is to cut all funding to the offending agencies, and start them fresh with rules that prevent abuse.  

Of course his Law Enforcement Brothers were caught saying interesting things during the course of events:

According to court filings by prosecutors, an undisclosed superior officer was captured on a video recording at the crash scene telling Bolling he would “try to help you out as much as possible.”

Does this make sense to everyone now?   If you kill a 13 year old after drinking on the road, you are the scum of the earth, and many people would argue for the death penalty for you, or Lock you up for 20 years. But if a Police officer kills a 13 year old after drinking on the road... he's a great guy who just had an accident as illustrated by these media statements:

Bolling, who is expected to testify, joined the force in 1992 and had been working in the narcotics unit. The son of a retired Chicago police officer, Bolling received 20 honorable mentions and numerous department commendations and had no prior criminal record.

Imagine that, Bolling had no criminal record... hard to imagine he swung that feat, even though he BARELY got arrested for Vehicular Manslaughter!     The system doesn't work the same for you as it does for them, and then "they" wonder where the us vs. them attitude comes from.

compelling evidence of 1st class citizens

Just released, compelling evidence that police are indeed 1st class citizens held to lower standards than the likes of Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton for their crimes.    

Case and point:  A Milwuakee police officer sped after his girlfriend  in a jealous rage while drunk, and pulled a gun on the occupants.

Madrigal pointed his gun at the people inside the Explorer and said: "Open the door or I'll kill you. Open the door or I'll shoot you in the head," according to the complaint. Madrigal and the other passenger from the Charger stood on the Explorer's running boards and shouted at the people inside the vehicle while Madrigal pointed his gun at them, the complaint said.

 The conviction for this crime?  4 Misdemeanors

A jury convicted Jorge L. Madrigal, 25, of four misdemeanors: disorderly conduct, operating a firearm while intoxicated and two counts of intentionally pointing a gun at a person, online court records state.

Now this, also from Wisconsin:

A Wyocena man faces time in prison on charges that he threatened two people with a loaded gun while intoxicated.
Michael M. Dawson, 52, of Wyocena, was ordered held on $2,500 cash bail at an initial hearing Thursday in Columbia County Circuit Court.

This is what Michael Dawson was charged with:

Dawson is charged with two felony counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon as domestic abuse, and with misdemeanor domestic disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon and misdemeanor bail jumping.

When you punish one group of people more harshly than another, it is an infringement on the basic concept of liberty and equality.   These police officers who are apparently 1st class citizens normally get off with reduced sentences when they commit crimes, and it's just not right.   It has been said that Law Enforcement officials are held to a "higher standard" than the rest of us.   It couldn't have been put better than Injustice Everywhere's David when he wrote:

“Held to a higher standard”… in our vernacular, this term is generally understood to describe how some people are kept to stricter adherence to rules and who face greater penalties than others if that strict adherence somehow falters.

However these police are being evidenced of being held to lower standards.   In fact, most of the cases I research, the police officers keep their jobs!   Or successfully sue to get their job back.   Citizens on the other hand, miss a day of work from being arrested, and lose their jobs for good, with no way of suing to get said job back.  This inequality must stop or the results will be ever increasing tensions between citizens and 1st class citizens, which I fear will ultimately bring about more violence to members of both parties.   The solution is simple, equality now, and save the future...  If it's a Felony in your state to open carry, then police in that state should NOT open carry.   If threatening someone while drunk is a felony, it should STAY a felony regardless of your job title.   Seems pretty simple, right?