Sheriff's Office That Employed A Deputy Facing 9 Lawsuits And 44 Criminal Charges Says It Has Lost All Of His Dashcam Footage

from the nothing-suspicious-about-this-at-all dept

Hamilton County (TN) Deputy Daniel Wilkey is in more trouble than possibly any other law enforcement officer has ever been in. Currently facing nine lawsuits over his bizarre and disturbing rights violations, Wilkey is simultaneously facing 44 criminal charges, 25 of which are felonies.

Wilkey's rights violations were especially creative. He forced one woman to undergo an involuntary mid-winter baptism in a nearby lake in exchange for some assistance with the drug charges Wilkey was filing against her. In another incident, Wilkey pulled over a car full of minors, forcing the only male occupant to strip to his boxers while he alternated between swearing at the teens and preaching to them.

The criminal charges against Wilkey are a hideous blend of mundane and horrifying -- ranging from reckless driving to false imprisonment to stalking to rape. Wilkey could have been taken off the street anytime before this turned into national news, but the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department apparently felt eight internal affairs investigations in ten months was acceptable behavior, rather than a continuous stream of misconduct it should have diverted before it overflowed the office's capacity to control the narrative.

But the Sheriff's Office seems determined to protect Wilkey from the consequences of his actions. As Courthouse News reports, a whole lot of camera footage from Wikey's patrol car has suddenly gone missing. The attorney for the woman who was forcibly "baptised" by Wilkey has just discovered months of possibly-damning footage has mysteriously vanished.

A few weeks ago, the woman’s attorney, Robin Flores, learned that the county admitted in another case in Tennessee state court that the server storing all the dash-cam footage the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office recorded from Oct. 25, 2018, to Jan. 23, 2020, suffered a software failure.

According to the county, all the footage is gone and unrecoverable.

Flores has asked the court to ensure any recoverable footage is recovered and anything else that may have been recorded be preserved and handed over to his client. The court agrees this is a suspicious and oddly convenient software failure.

Before appointing a forensic examiner or considering sanctions against a Tennessee county for the loss of months of dashboard-camera footage — possible evidence for nine lawsuits against a single sheriff’s deputy accused of a range of misconduct — a federal magistrate wants to ensure the footage is actually gone.

Calling the loss of the data a “front-burner item,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher Steger in Eastern District of Tennessee said Tuesday that Hamilton County, which sits in the southeast corner of the state, had a duty to preserve evidence — including the dash-cam footage of the traffic stops in question.

The preservation request [PDF] points out that the date range of the "lost" footage covers most of the incidents Wilkey is being sued over. It also points out the Sheriff's Office never notified any of the nine plaintiffs (or the judges overseeing the cases) about the lost footage.

Here, this data appears to have been lost for more than a month yet no notice of its loss has ever been provided to the Plaintiff, notwithstanding her spoliation demands and her properly served discovery demands. The only way this loss came to Plaintiff’s attention today (February 28, 2020) was when counsel was reviewing the Hinds matter and saw the undated letter attached to a state court pleading filed on the same day. The letter indicates that the Sheriff’s Office has been working on this problem for “several weeks” and it may be inferred that the loss occurred on or about January 23, 2020, the last date for which the data was lost.

There's nothing in it for the Sheriff's Office. Ensuring the footage remains intact only raises questions about why it didn't do anything sooner to get Wilkey taken off the streets, if not removed from the force entirely. So, it took 180 hours of dashcam footage, moved it to an external hard drive, and than claimed a "software failure" suddenly made all of this evidence irrecoverable. There's no reason to believe this was an accident -- not until the Sheriff's office makes some sort of showing it actually cares about the people it's supposed to be protecting and serving.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: daniel wilkey, dashcam, evidence, evidence destruction, tennessee


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 3:39pm

    “Oh sure, blame us for the footage disappearing! Did you ever stop to think it was Wilkey who did it?”

    “Your system is so insecure that anyone with a badge can erase their own bodycam footage without you knowing about it?”

    “…we’d like to clarify that last question, Your Honor.”

    “I’d love to see you try.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 8:23am

      Re:

      Like it or not, personally in this case I don't like it, but we are ALL innocent until proven guilty, the Sheriff played the system well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 11:27am

        The Sheriff's Office did a damn fine job of making its law-breaking law enforcer look guilty, what with its “losing” the footage of his misdeeds in what looks like a conspiracy to cover up said misdeeds. All we have now is the eyewitness testimony of the people he victimized. Given how extreme (and believable) those stories are, they can easily inflame a jury into voting “guilty”, especially when the accused can’t really justify shit like a forced baptism.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 8:11pm

        Re: Re:

        Like it or not, the departments testimony is now hopelessly compromised. Nothing they say should be relied upon. Lawsuits are civil cases, so the standard is "balance of probabilities", meaning since the plaintiffs testimony is at least as reliable as an uncompromised police officer and the testimony of officers from the department can absolutely not be relied upon, those lawsuits are a slam dunk. That sound is the backboard shattering.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 9 Apr 2020 @ 4:33am

        Re: Re:

        "Like it or not, personally in this case I don't like it, but we are ALL innocent until proven guilty, the Sheriff played the system well."

        Then that means anyone arrested or harrassed by the sheriff's department must have been innocent, lacking all footage from the cameras and untested in a court of law, right?

        Boy, that's a lot of legitimate assault charges aimed at LEO's coming up, then...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Tanner Andrews (profile), 23 Jun 2020 @ 12:57am

        Re: Re: presumption of innocence

        Like it or not, personally in this case I don't like it, but we are ALL innocent until proven guilty

        Yes, we are. However, if evidence in your custody and control disappears or is otherwise destroyed, the jury considering the proof of guilt is likely to get a ``spoliation'' instruction. That is, they are to presume that the missing evidence will show what its proponent claims it shows.

        If someone claims that the film shows forced immersion in winter, or a road-side strip searches, normally we would just look at the footage. If the footage has gone missing, however, the judge should instruct the jury that the sheriff's dept had control and a duty to preserve it, failed to do so, and probably had a good reason for wanting the evidence gone.

        The exact language will vary, of course. The film-based terms may not exactly describe the situation. And the law may be different in your state.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 3:39pm

    just... wow.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bobvious, 6 Apr 2020 @ 3:47pm

    It's all good, Judge.

    Although the original data has been destroyed I've still got a copy. I kept it all in this screenshot I took of the folder where the desktop links are stored. Plus another copy in my Yahoo Groups account.

    Oh yeah, and I got my cousin to keep a copy in /dev/null.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2020 @ 3:55pm

    Under the circumstances they should take the plaintiffs at their word and move forward with these cases. Assume that the video evidence would have corroborated plaintiff's arguments and damned those of the police department. They must not be allowed to get away with this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Upstream (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 4:18pm

      Re:

      Under the circumstances they should take the plaintiffs at their word and move forward with these cases. Assume that the video evidence would have corroborated plaintiff's arguments and damned those of the police department. They must not be allowed to get away with this.

      Yes, this. Unfortunately we are a very long way from making this happen. We have courts that mumble something about "suspicious and oddly convenient" and then go back to sleep. And we have legislators (and the rest of the "powers that be") who aggressively ignore the existence of these problems.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 3:57pm

    This new software is so hard to understand

    Cut, Copy, Paste, Delete, Backup, DOD Wipe, hmm, that looks interesting, I wonder what that does? Press...oops.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2020 @ 4:13pm

    How many police departments actually keep their own BWC footage locally? Most are kept on the camera-company's server, ie Evidence.com.

    But with all those months of video's lost, how many other criminal cases are going to get dismissed because of that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2020 @ 4:17pm

      Re:

      They don't give a damn about that as long as their guy gets to keep being a bad apple. They can always falsify a bunch of new criminal cases to replace those that had to be dismissed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 4:43pm

    Taking a page from Georgia's elections, with the drive getting "accidentally" degaussed twice?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2020 @ 4:52pm

    I'm not defending the cop, sounds like a POS, as does the sheriff, but if you've worked with law enforcement systems, and I have, well, a little podunk sheriff might, really, have lost the backups.

    I'm not saying he did, I'm just saying that by definition of what they are, it's a whole lot more plausible than it should be.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2020 @ 5:16pm

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2020 @ 6:26pm

      Re:

      But that only works with simple deletes and overwrites. Equally simple and available things like encryption, hammers and heat can beat all the recovery techniques.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Manabi (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 7:24pm

        Re: Re:

        Except encryption, forensics can recover at least some data for all those options. Not that software of course, but there are forensics companies that can take the drive and put the platters in new hardware to recover data (this will work against heat), and worst-case the platters themselves can be scanned and data fragments recovered (this will work against hammers). It's expensive, but since the chances of a huge payout if that evidence is available is very, very high, I'm sure the plaintiff's lawyers will be willing to pay for it.

        The odds are the Sheriff's office has shot themselves in the foot here. A competent forensics examiner will find evidence of deliberate deletion, which will lead to the court considering all the missed evidence as against the Sheriff's office. (Due to deliberate evidence deletion.) And a competent forensics examiner will be able to recover much of that video, unless the department did a very, very thorough job of destroying it. Of course if they did manage to destroy it entirely, there's going to be evidence of that, so you're back to the court counting it against them anyway.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          z! (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 7:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I am going to appoint a special master to examine the drives.

          Bailiff, go to the sheriff's office, seize every computer drive you can find, and bring them back here. We'll get to the bottom of this soon enough."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 1:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And encryption needn't be an issue because the keys can be provided.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 7:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          .....forensics can recover at least some data for all those options.

          "some data" is one thing. A video that would be accepted as evidence in court and be persuasive to a jury is something else entirely.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 9:26pm

    'Looks like you're guilty. Of everything.'

    Pretty sure the rule if someone without a badge destroys evidence is for that evidence to be treated as if it was all incriminating, so assuming a judge that's actually got enough spine to punish someone with a badge it would seem that this attempt to bury the metaphorical bodies could very well have buried the corrupt sheriff they were trying to protect instead, along with nicely highlighting how he is not even close to the only corrupt officer in that department.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 2:53pm

      Re: 'Looks like you're guilty. Of everything.'

      That's the rule in civil cases, anyway. I'm not sure it applies in criminal cases.

      Of course, in criminal cases, destroying the evidence is actually criminal in itself.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Thuong Mai Mua Sam (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 12:21am

    https://thuongmaimuasam.com/ - Thương Mại Mua Sắm - Chúng tôi chuyên cung cấp các sản phẩm để trang trí nhà cửa như: decal dán tường, giấy dán tường, tranh dán tường, xốp dán tường, cỏ nhựa trang trí tại TPHCM. Những sản phẩm của TMMS đều đạt chất lượng cao để phục vụ khách hàng. Xin cảm ơn !

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ben (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 1:45am

      Re:

      How is a home decor site anything to do with corrupt sherrifs?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 8:03am

        Re: Re:

        How is a home decor site anything to do with corrupt sherrifs?

        I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but sometimes on the internet there's a thing called spam, where people try to sell you things you don't want.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 9:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          To be fair it was more coherent than some/most of the ranting from TD's trolls, so I can understand not immediately thinking 'spam'.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 9:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's better english, more relevant, and more reality-based than anything rogs or hamilton have ever posted, at the very least.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              ROGS, 7 Apr 2020 @ 10:46am

              really?

              Can I quote you, jackass?

              It's better english

              Toomoron, did you mean "English"

              I don't often spellcheck dumbasses, but it seemed warranted in this case.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 11:18am

                Re: really?

                Says the guy missing some of their punctuation. Muphry's law is a bitch.

                Don't worry, your record of not spell-checking any dumbasses remains unchanged.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  ROGS, 7 Apr 2020 @ 11:31am

                  Re: Re: really? Muphry's law?

                  Turnabout is fair play.

                  Muphry, lol

                  The only difference is that you took it upon yourself to call me stupid, while you yourself stuck your nutsack in the idiot cracker.

                  Or something like that.

                  I read/write well over 100,000 words per week, and TD et al is just for fun-- a place where my egregious spelling errors will definitely aggravate the normies, the word nazis, and the spergs.

                  I admit that.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Toom1275 (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 11:44am

                    Re: Re: Re: really? Muphry's law?

                    while you yourself stuck your nutsack in the idiot cracker.

                    Projects facts not in evidence

                    As usual, your ignorance is not proof of another's mistake.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      ROGS, 7 Apr 2020 @ 1:25pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: really? Muphry's law?

                      Dear Muphry:

                      You obviously do NOT understand what dialectic space is, or how it can be weaponized against individual speakers, and their sycophants.

                      But I appreciate the three trolls below my nutsack here, outing themselves as your allies. Note taken.

                      Flag away, it means little to me, but means a lot in the longer argument string.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      ROGS, 9 Apr 2020 @ 1:09pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: really? Muphry's law?

                      re: stuck your nutsack in the idiot cracker

                      Don't you have some police unions to defend somewhere Toom1275?

                      I mean, last I recall, you are all about protecting and serving the public sector union thugs who have themselves eradicated actual workers unions.
                      Who gives a f@ck about internet jargonese and coded anti-Irish racism, re: Muphry, next to what those unions are doing to black children right now?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 12:41pm

                    How nice of you to admit that you’re a troll. Now we can flag your posts without remorse. 😁

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    ECA (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 12:55pm

                    Re: Re: Re: really? Muphry's law?

                    LOVE IT..
                    I love those 'Word perfect'(CR) people.
                    that really dont get how our language has come around to be a complicated Pile of Doodoo.

                    I dont mind fixing a few things, but thinking the English(and about 1/2 of american) is EASY, is being stupid.

                    We have taken words from other Languages, and Some translated to a proper form and Some to the same, then ADDED the rules of the other language to our own, and tried to make it work for the few we added.
                    Then lets go back to our roots. And understand we have taken letter OUT of our language. 10-12 of them. AND added a few to fix that.
                    Then there is the thought of the meanings CHANGING. Which is so much fun. Ever see a FULL dictionary?? NOT abridged? ITS HUGE.. and there are more words Never used, words for special Uses like Electrical, Plumbing, Science's, that will never be common.

                    Dont get me started on the thought of transcribing text on paper, to be interpreted as speech. With little references to HOW they are expressed. Punctuation Does help, but isnt enough.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      ROGS, 12 Apr 2020 @ 11:54am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: really? Muphry's law?

                      You remind me of Mushmouth, from the Bill Cosby series. Try editing your own garbage, and leave my garbage alone.

                      Mushmouth/ECA

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 7:36pm

                Re: really?

                Thanks for eating the bait, knuckle-dragger.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 1:57am

    not until the Sheriff's office makes some sort of showing it actually cares about the people it's supposed to be protecting and serving.

    The courts have confirmed that they have no obligation to protect and serve the public. It is just a small redefinition of 'the people'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 2:36am

    1+ years of Video...

    Barely, 1 years video.. For 8-12 Employees, On call, and recording at least 2-3 of them daily, 8hours x 24 hours..
    GPS IN THE CAR??
    Radio contact??
    Other recordings??

    Not backing up to DVD/Off site and 1 other..?? PRICELESS.
    Why aint there an offsite storage that the Attorney general and/or state police should have..
    City/county/state police?? Who is responsible if they arent doing things correctly?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sparkydoc (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 5:55am

    Data loss

    Anyone remember Nixon losing 18 minutes of audiotape?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Upstream (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 6:00am

    Law Enforcement Accountability and Reasons versus Excuses

    The Sheriff or the evidence management or IT personnel will likely come up with many reasons why the video evidence was lost. These reasons might be simple mistakes, poor evidence handling practices, insufficient training, hardware malfunctions . . . the list goes on. But these are just reasons, they are not valid excuses. A valid excuse might be something like the local storage facility, the off-site storage facility, and all five of the cloud service provider’s widely distributed mirrored data storage facilities were simultaneously hit by lightning and then completely destroyed by the resulting fires. Anything short of this, or something very similar, is not a valid excuse.

    Absent a valid excuse, heads must roll. And by that I mean that the Sheriff, the evidence handling personnel, the IT personnel, and anyone else involved in the loss of the evidence must be fired and have their law enforcement credentials permanently revoked. They must be prohibited from obtaining any other law enforcement credentials for any other jurisdiction in the nation, be it local, state, or federal. Additionally they must be permanently prohibited from holding any government position, be it elected, appointed, hired, or subcontracted, and this prohibition must also apply to any jurisdiction in the nation.

    The last point, that they must be prohibited from any position in any company that does work (subcontract, sub-sub-contract, or whatever) for any government entity or jurisdiction is particularly important. Without that type of provision we would end up in a situation where governments would wind up dissolving their “in-house” law enforcement agencies and simply hire outside private companies to do the work. These companies would be largely staffed with former “in-house” law enforcement personnel, and they could be expected to be seriously disgruntled, vengeful, vindictive, corrupt, incompetent, and violent. And these private law enforcement contractors would be much more expensive and much less accountable (if you can imagine that) than the “in-house” government law enforcement agencies that we have today. A few examples where this problem already exists are private military contractors, private prison contractors, red light camera companies, and toll enforcement companies.

    Without the prohibition of terminated law enforcement personnel working for private subcontractors we would wind up with “privatization” of law enforcement. This “privatization” would take us back to the dangerous situations that government police agencies were created to eliminate. Think Pinkertons and other similar outfits that were hired specifically to stamp out labor unions, to keep other “undesirables” in their place, and to enforce “laws” in a way that pleased the people doing the hiring.

    Unless and until we have this kind of real accountability we will never see the end of the current atrocious state of law enforcement that we have today.

    Of course, as has been previously mentioned, the deputy who would have been incriminated by the video evidence that disappeared should be tried on all counts, with the missing evidence presumed to exactly corroborate the victim’s accounts. The deputy should then be imprisoned, and upon release be subject to the same permanent restrictions as outlined above.

    And, in the interest of fairness, this same “heads must roll” doctrine should apply equally to any government goblin that violates the public trust.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 8:07am

      Re: Law Enforcement Accountability and Reasons versus Excuses

      And by that I mean that the Sheriff, the evidence handling personnel, the IT personnel, and anyone else involved in the loss of the evidence must be fired and have their law enforcement credentials permanently revoked.

      I don't think the court has any such authority.

      They must be prohibited from obtaining any other law enforcement credentials for any other jurisdiction in the nation, be it local, state, or federal. Additionally they must be permanently prohibited from holding any government position, be it elected, appointed, hired, or subcontracted, and this prohibition must also apply to any jurisdiction in the nation.

      As far as I know there is no legal provision for doing that by anyone.

      Of course, as has been previously mentioned, the deputy who would have been incriminated by the video evidence that disappeared should be tried on all counts, with the missing evidence presumed to exactly corroborate the victim’s accounts.

      Definitely, and that needs to happen every single time footage mysteriously disappears or the body cam somehow malfunctioned. Assume that any evidence would have fully corroborated the plaintiff's claims. Eventually maybe police departments would figure out it doesn't do any good to erase this stuff unless what's on the video is actually significantly worse than what they're being sued for. Short of fines levied personally against the people responsible and not payable by the police department, I'm not sure how to fix that one. And again such fines are, as far as I know, not supported by US law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re: Law Enforcement Accountability and Reasons versus Excuse

        Felony on their record would accomplish most of it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 1:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: Law Enforcement Accountability and Reasons versus Ex

          Felony on their record would accomplish most of it.

          I would be in favor of that but it would require action from a prosecutor against a cop. And that basically doesn't happen. That's another system that could use an overhaul.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            ROGS, 9 Apr 2020 @ 11:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Law Enforcement Accountability and Reasons versu

            Well great, thanks for the help overhauling all that, you there, all the way from Spain.

            I am sure your opinion will help out all of the dead, jailed, police-stalked activists around my country to get the help they need.

            Take yer meds, Paul.

            Real life with yer face rammed into a squad car roof is a lot, um, different than armchair Liketivism, and from what I can tell ( and what I have experienced first hand from you) you aren't helping a single bit.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 9 Apr 2020 @ 11:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law Enforcement Accountability and Reasons v

              Take yer meds, Paul.

              I'm not Paul, and I don't live in Spain.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                ROGS, 10 Apr 2020 @ 10:08am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law Enforcement Accountability and Reaso

                Oh, my bad.

                Like last time: SO we see a problem emerge in the argument here: it's possible that we are speaking entirely different languages.

                Are you the guy from Tlaquepaque?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2020 @ 12:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law Enforcement Accountability and R

                  it's possible that we are speaking entirely different languages.

                  It does seem that way at times.

                  Are you the guy from Tlaquepaque?

                  No, never heard of it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 7 Apr 2020 @ 12:31pm

      Re: Law Enforcement Accountability and Reasons versus Excuses

      Dear UP..
      I hope you understand your standing.
      AS the only people that LEARN from a mistake(LOL) are those that experience it. and the ramifications.

      Those that never did it, or those that got away with it, are the ones you should restrict/Scare the most..

      RESTRICT them for a time, do what ever needs be.. THEN SHOVE THEM BACK into the job, and monitor the HELL out of them, as WE were supposed to be doing int he first place.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2020 @ 6:41am

    *wink

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lou, 12 Apr 2020 @ 7:22pm

    What a situation!

    So basically we have a system where the fox is guarding the henhouse against other foxes. Who had the great idea of having evidence against a cop being held by other cops? Also, where are the backups? Those files should have been copied unto multiple hard drives held a multiple locations. Plus seeing who had potential access, un-errassable media like DVDs and even blu-ray disk should have been used.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2020 @ 3:02am

      Re: What a situation!

      Yes, lots of solutions available. Most are very obvious. Main problem is finding honest people to implement the solutions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.