Mass. EMTs Won't Testify Against Trooper

Swept under the carpet for the brass, no doubt in my mind. Had this been a road cop or trooper....everything would've been done by the books and I guarantee that the duty Captain wouldn't have taken 2 1/2 hours to come to the scene! Double standards for the level of service.

MOCO Cop, to be absolutely honest and fair here, you have no way of knowing that now do you.. Maybe the LT was telling the truth. Could that even be possible here. Sometimes an accident is just that...... an accident.

There is an issue here fellas. We all count on EMTs/Fire folks to give us a heads up when they detect alchohol on board a driver. For them to say that info is now protected creates issues. Let's also face it, they would not have declined if there had been nothing to testify to.

Police, a government agency that seeks to suppress political opposition by means of force or keep your mouth shut and help the police get rid of the animals that always have their hands out.

Hey BADBOB, uuuuh, what???? Grow a brain, come back, and we can talk.

Hey BADBOB, uuuuh, what???? Grow a brain, come back, and we can talk.

I don't see what the problem is??
It states in the article that Pierce admitted to having 2 beers earlier in the day, this is true.
But, it says later that at the time of the accident, Pierce passed 4 field sobriety tests. It also states the doctor who treated Pierce concluded he was not "impaired" by alcohol. The alcohol he had earlier was either out of his system, or he didn't have enough to impair him.
After passing sobriety test, and the doctors conclusion, why is it necessary to continue to test and prod?? Like Officer X 2 stated....sometimes an accident is just that....an accident.
The only things I think should have been done differently?? I would have insisted on the breath test anyway, just to put that issue to rest. Also, maybe found a little more for the cite, perhaps wreckless driving or something? But he was cited and that was good.

I believe there is a problem. First you have an officer involved in an accident admitting to consuming alcohol then driving. Next is the issue of the two open containers in the car? Now, If the evidence doesn't lead me any further, why are we even conducting FST's? Now I have an issue with FST's on a person involved in an accident that flipped the vehicle especially since it states he was seen in the EMERGENCY ROOM a short time later. Bottom Line is I think there's not enough information in this article to make a determination but like Deputy 06 states " he was cited and that was good".

The problem is that a civilian with open containers in his vehicle (empty or not) would AUTOMATICALLY be charged. They would also have to submit to a breath test, not just the field sobriety test. This is clearly a double standard for the cops.

Shawn - I don't know where you come from, but we don't charge anyone with Open Container if the container's empty. Just because someone has an open container, we don't have someone submit to a breath test. Hope I can clear that up for you.

No, I'm not going to make fun of you - you just seem to be misinformed.....