Friday, May 3, 2013
FOP Ends Support of Bisard...Why Were They Financing Him in the First Place?
But the Bisard case is a little different. Bisard was a cop. Bisard killed someone (allegedly). Bisard was drunk (allegedly). There was very suspicious mishandling of blood testing. There was very suspicious mishandling of blood evidence. The whole thing was just...well...suspicious.
And his defense costs? Yeah, they were being picked up by the Fraternal Order of Police.
What the hell? I understand the being a police officer is a brotherhood. They love to protect their own. Okay, fine. I can understand brotherhoods.
I can also understand the FOP wanting to pick up the tab for the defense of many police officers that are facing crazy litigation from over-zealous criminals that are just looking to screw over a cop.
But this wasn't that kind of case. The evidence against Bisard appears to be overwhelming. Even though much of the evidence might have proven inadmissible due to the horrendous "oversights" by other members of the department, there is little doubt among the masses that Bisard did this.
So if the evidence against Bisard is so damning, why would the FOP want to defend him? Again, I understand brotherhood, but brotherhood is for the benefit of all the brethren. If a member of a brotherhood fails to uphold their end of the bargain, if they do something that could do serious damage to the brotherhood as a whole, then it is acceptable for the brotherhood to expel him. And even if expulsion is not the right step, it is also acceptable for the brotherhood to remain neutral.
But that didn't happen in this case. For Bisard, despite all the damning evidence, the FOP chose to step up and pay for his defense. Why? Who knows. But you can bet your paycheck they are regretting it now.
Hilariously, FOP president William Owensby is quoted in today's Indy Star article about the FOP's recent decision as saying Bisard's arrest, "reflected discredit upon the lodge."
Guess what, Mr. Owensby, the discredit upon the lodge was caused by it's decision to pay for his counsel in the first place.