Whistleblowing IT Director Fired By FL State Attorney 569
An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kruidbos, the IT director for the Florida State Attorney's Office who'd spoken up when important cellphone evidence he'd extracted from Trayvon Martin's cellphone was withheld by the state from the defense, was fired by messenger at 7:30 PM Friday, after closing arguments in the Zimmerman case. He was told that he could not be 'trusted to set foot in this office,' and that he was being fired for incompetence. Kruidbos had received a merit pay raise earlier this year. The firing letter also blames him for consulting a lawyer, an obvious sign of evil."
Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Loud and clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More proof the entire trial (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that what started all this?
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:2, Insightful)
the pictures and text he found were irrelevant to the case: the girl and the gun
I notice you didn't mention the texts where Trayvon's discusses his organized street fighting and his acquaintances telling him to stop getting into fights. Prosecutors don't get to decide what is and is not relevant.
And it's defense, not defence.
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.
Close. The ethics violation is a relatively minor issue.
Yes it is an ethics violation, but more importantly it is also a violation of both the US Constitution and the Florida State Constitution.
It is an unfortunate trend, but prosecutors and police across the country have been facing ever-increasing claims of withholding evidence. Really, the defense should be given access to all information.
Even in this case there was a tussle about the evidence being actually withheld, and the judge agreed that they withheld it and demanded everything be handed over ... but no penalty was given to the state for their violation.
Sadly violations are usually discounted as being accidental oversights and punishments against prosecutors are non-existent. It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice, but there is no incentive for the "good old boys" club to change.
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly.
The safety net is bigger and more expensive than ever.
Significant parts of it came into existence only in the 60s and 70s, not coincidentally followed by inflation in the early 80s as demand for services put pressure on supply constrained by high marginal tax rates and regulations. We risked an Argentine-style economic collapse. Reagan was only able to get reforms passed with Democrats in control of congress because there was no other way to save the welfare state. Democrats knew something had to be done.
But anyway, what won the cold war was self-confidence in the West and self-doubt in the East. The Soviet Union voluntarily gave up on communism. I think that means they won, too.
Re: Do good ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, right at the height of the Cold War? Yeah I think that's what he said.
Good discussion of IT ethics threadjacked by GZ (Score:3, Insightful)
You knuckleheads couldn't resist, could you? Perfectly good discussion of "when do you, as an IT person, have a moral and possibly legal obligation to intercede when unethical shenanigans goes on with your area of expertise," and you turn it the Twitter feed on Nancy Grace about an unremarkable trial in some shithole in Florida.
I remember when /. wasn't /b/
They should have never let you AOLusers on the real internet, just kept you in the box pink dialup sandbox.
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get 'em
Maybe - he'd have to find a lawyer that will do it on a contingency basis, and it would have to have some potential for a really big cash settlement/judgement before one will touch it. OTOH, maybe there's a lawyer who figures it'd be good for a little publicity - who knows?
Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants (seriously, would you want to catch the attention of the AG's office, potentially exposing your company to "extra scrutiny" if they felt like playing dirty pool against the guy? Didn't think so.)
Chilling effects all around, truth be told - he'll ahve to move out of the reach of that office before he could even hope to find a job, let alone pursue a lawsuit. Unless the state governor gets involved and (IMHO rightfully) fucks over the AG execs who did this to him, the dude is kinda fucked.
IMHO, it stands as a very good reason why you'll never get me to work for any law firm, government (let alone prosecutor's) office, or suchlike. Unless you find a lot of good juicy skeletons in their closets early on (and keep the evidence secure), the boss(es) there would pretty much own your ass, ethics be damned.
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
He can't sue.
Florida is a "At Will Employment" state. The only thing you can sue for here is Discrimination. In Florida, you can be fired for anything, with or without reason, and you can quit, with or without reason.
Emphasis mine. What you said is not strictly true. You can be fired without reason, but if you provide a reason then it can't violate the numerous federal laws on the matter. For example, you can't fire someone for race, religion, sex, etc.
In this case they appear to have given a reason, and the reasons would seem to violate federal whistle blower laws, so he can sue.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting one's head bashed into the ground is a "life threatening situation" even here in liberal leaning Canada.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, that was AFTER Zimmerman strapped on a gun, got out of his car and followed Martin. Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.
An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman. She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she kicks him. So he shoots her. No one would be sympathizing with Zimmerman.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
So when it comes down to it, the case against Zimmerman hinges in no small way on intent. To show intent, they bring out character issues. Okay. I get that. So what about the defense's right to defend their case? The defense's case hinges in non small way on Zimmerman being attacked by a violent person. To prove that case, the character of the assailant is relevant evidence. At every turn, however, the evidence of character of the assailant has been blocked. It is EXTREMELY important and denies Zimmerman a fair trial when his defense case is self-defense. How can anyone prove it if they can't easily show that he was being attacked by a violent person? Lots of evidence shows that, but it wasn't allowed. Why?
Obligation to keep it confidential? When a miscarriage of justice is being perpetrated, it is a citizen's duty to report it. And suppression of evidence is a serious crime. The government is not "priviledged." If you think so, it's a problem. And there is no indication he gave evidence to anyone. It would seem he only reported that it exists.
Additionally, evidence of being a drug user was certainly important. 1. It was in his system. 2. He was not carrying "Iced Tea" he was carrying two ingredients for making "Lean." That's huge. Once again, proving the character of the assailant is key to the defense's case. It's the nation's legal responsibility that all charged receive a fair trial.
Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. (Score:4, Insightful)
"You can't do that."
Sure you can. As long as you back up the files that you are required by law to keep, you can do any damned thing you want with a hard drive.
"BULL SHIT."
As a former IT manager myself, I can tell you that it's probably anything BUT bullshit. Somebody leaves for another job? Back up important stuff, wipe the hard drive, install everything fresh. Sometimes maybe 2-3 machines in one day, depending on the size of the office you are managing.
Oh grow up (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously the OSW "99%" whining is really, really stupid.
So let's do a bit of analysis: You have to be making over $400,000 per year (or have multiple millions in the bank) to be in the top 1% in the US. Everything under that is, by definition, "the 99%". The median income in the US is about $50,000 which would be "the 50%".
So, what is life like there? Well I have a fairly good idea, what with making around that. At that income you can afford to own your own house. Not a huge one, but plenty of space. You can afford to have a car that is nice, and in good working order, you don't have to fight with a junker. You can have all the appliances of modern life: dishwasher, fridge, washer/dryer, A/C, stove, etc, etc. You can get more food than you can or should eat, even if you eat out semi-regularly. You can have entertainment, like a bigscreen TV, surround sound, modern computer, broadband Internet, etc. You have enough money you can afford to put some in savings, to deal with unexpected events and not be thrown into debt by them.
In other words, you can have a damn good life. I want for nothing, I have an exceedingly good standard of living on a global scale and I am very, very grateful for it. Do "the 1%" have it better than me? Sure, but I am not "fighting scraps" (I presume you meant fighting for scraps). I am sitting in my air conditioned home, typing on my nice 30" computer screen while contemplating which of my many food options I wish to avail myself of for dinner. That is not a bad life in any way, shape, or form.
So seriously, stop with the uninformed bitching. Stop with this class warfare "1%" type shit. There IS an income inequity problem in the US and we do need to look at it. However it is not a case of "all of us vs them" nor is it valid to pretend that everyone who isn't the most privileged of the elite are starving in the streets.
Also, when you start talking equality, you might want to look on the global scene. You may well BE "the 1%" globally. Starts are a little hard but the median GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is like $12,000. So you can say if you want true equality that anyone making more than that, including you probably, need to give up their money.
Re: Do good ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ridiculous. The early 80's is when inflation ended. Inflation started in the '60s due to LBJ's guns and butter program and exploded in the '70s due to the oil price shock.
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice"
This.
My view is that it should be "an eye for an eye". In other words, people caught deliberately corrupting justice, by testifying falsely, or withholding evidence, etc. are putting others in danger of anywhere from jail to even the death penalty. So... the punishment for doing so should be exactly the same punishment faced by the defendant.
When a policeman on the witness stand could face life in prison unless they tell it straight... watch them start telling it straight.
I think that would be an excellent solution to this problem. Ethical and just. People who deliberately put others in jeopardy should face exactly the same jeopardy.
Show Trial (Score:5, Insightful)
The Zimmerman trial has been nothing short of a farce from the get go. It is reminiscent of Soviet-era show trials because the race baiters have turned this into a witch-hunt.
1.The original probable cause affidavit was so riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies that even a 1L (first year law student) wouldn't make such a mistake. To put speculations in an affidavit and then to swear, under of penalty of perjury, that they are facts is perpetrating fraud upon the court. Affidavits are not places where you speculate or state what your gut feeling is or what you think might have happened. It is a place to state facts. In addition, deliberately omitting evidence from the affidavit that is exculpatory in nature is unethical. Even Alan Dershowitz, who is about as left as you can get, blasted their handiwork.
2.The media has been doing their damnedest to make this about race. Every thing from inventing new terms, like white hispanic, to altering Zimmerman's photo to make him appear whiter and only showing pictures of Trayvon Martin when he was much younger to make him appear more angelic and innocent. In addition, they have been working tirelessly to plant the idea of having riots into peoples minds by continuously bringing it up.
3.The prosecution's entire side was a joke. I mean, Rachel Jeantel changed her story so many times that you would need an entire notebook to keep track of all of them. It was also painfully obvious that she had been coached by the prosecution. The other "witnesses" weren't much better.
4.There is no evidence for murder and the prosecution knows it. Even if the jury convicts (most likely, out of fear for their life or just plain idiocy since jurors are picked based on their emotional susceptibility rather than their intelligence), it will be overturned so fast on appeal that they won't even know what hit them. The case for manslaughter isn't much better and introducing that AFTER the defense has rested is highly unethical on the part of both the judge and the prosecution.
5.Speaking of the judge, she is a life long democrat and has demonstrated very clear evidence of bias. When George Zimmerman refused to testify, she disparaged and criticized him. A defendant has the right not to testify and it is highly unethical for a judge to browbeat a defendant for that because you are not allowed to make a negative inference from an exercise of the 5th amendment.
6.Now we get evidence that the prosecution is, once again, withholding exculpatory evidence. To go after the whistleblower, who blew the whistle on their unethical and illegal activities, just demonstrates how truly execrable the prosecution is.
Regardless of what you think of George Zimmerman, regardless of what you think of Trayvon Martin, regardless of who you think is to blame, regardless of whether you think George Zimmerman was racist, you should not be supporting such a mockery of justice. Everyone accused of a crime deserves their change to have a proper, fair, and just trial. This is nothing of the sort; it is a show trial and a political witch hunt.
Re: Do good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obvious troll is obvious.
Actually I do have comprehensive private health insurance because you're crazy if you're a parent and don't, but got waved off each time I pulled out my wallet. "Nup, you're good."
But that's beside the point. The point is, in a civilized society fellow citizens look after each other. My taxes have paid for the care of every other kid that came off his bike too.
Socialism: it works, bitches.
Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants
A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.
Integrity, Intelligence, and Energy are the the most important characteristics to look for in a good employee, and Integrity is the hardest to find -- but the most important one.
No, you grow up (Score:4, Insightful)
At that income you can afford to own your own house. Not a huge one, but plenty of space.
I've never been able to afford to buy a house, despite several years of an apparently "upper middle class income". For one thing, my employment isn't stable enough, despite having a BS in Computer Science and being very, very good at what I do.
You can afford to have a car that is nice, and in good working order, you don't have to fight with a junker.
My cars are 21 and 26 years old. They're in good working order because I've paid through the nose to keep them maintained.
You can have all the appliances of modern life: dishwasher, fridge, washer/dryer, A/C, stove, etc, etc.
I bought the fridge ~10 years ago on a payment plan. I bought the washer/dryer used from an appliance-repair shop. Everything else in your list came with the (rental) house.
You can get more food than you can or should eat, even if you eat out semi-regularly.
I cook most of my own food, to keep costs down. I buy 50 pound bags of pinto beans for $30. I make a lot of meatloaf and chili.
You can have entertainment, like a bigscreen TV, surround sound, modern computer, broadband Internet, etc.
My widescreen TV is 6 years old, and my newest computer is 7 years old. I have a surround-sound system, but it doesn't fit in my current house.
You have enough money you can afford to put some in savings, to deal with unexpected events and not be thrown into debt by them.
That's all I seem to save up for — periods of unemployment. Retirement is an impossible dream.
I want for nothing, I have an exceedingly good standard of living on a global scale and I am very, very grateful for it.
You won't have it for long. The federal government is bankrupt several times over, and the federal bank is now inventing money out of thin air (not even printing it...it just changes a number in a computer), giving the money away at 0% interest to prop up the stock market, and buying government debt with the money it just created out of thin air. This is not sustainable. The only reason the U.S. gets away with this is that Europe is presently in worse shape.
Do "the 1%" have it better than me? Sure, but I am not "fighting [for] scraps".
I apply for job after job, several of which I match perfectly, and hear nothing back. The book Why Good People Can't Get Jobs [amazon.com] provided some catharsis — at least I don't have to feel so paranoid and cynical — but it doesn't actually help to know any of this. I sure feel like I'm fighting for scraps.
Someone once said they'd rather be lucky than smart. Amen to that.
Re:Oh grow up (Score:4, Insightful)
So let's do a bit of analysis: You have to be making over $400,000 per year (or have multiple millions in the bank) to be in the top 1% in the US. Everything under that is, by definition, "the 99%". The median income in the US is about $50,000 which would be "the 50%".
Median income is not representative of what most people would consider 'average' income. Let me illustrate by example; Consider the following 15 numbers --
1,3,2,5,4,2,4,5,7,15,7,5,3,53,74
The average is (rounded up) 13. However, the odds of you making average are better are only 1 in 5. 4 out of 5 times, if you're given one of those random numbers, you're going to be getting a "lower than average" number. This is essentially the heart of the OWS movement, and people like you who argue about "median" income are woefully undereducated about the realities of the wealth inequity distribution problem in the United States.
The rest of your argument is essentially based on this incompetent analysis of the situation -- using the average as though it still has relevance. If income distribution followed a standard gaussian distribution, perhaps, maybe, you could make the argument you're making -- but it isn't. It looks like a bathtub curve -- many at the low-end, diminishing into the middle before falling to nearly nothing from the middle to near the end of the y axis before skyrocketing upwards. It's pretty much the inverse of a gaussian distribution.
And making a "global" versus "local" comparison is apples to oranges. People in America deserve the wealth they are working for -- our economy is still largely closed, despite globalization. That is to say, the majority of what is produced is consumed here, and that our economy imports much more than it exports. What that means is, per unit of labor, the majority of the fruits of said labor remain domestic. However, the fruits of those labors are not being distributed equitably, and this is the heart of the OWS movement's position, and it is one worthy of closer consideration. Our wealth inequity -- that is, the spread between our poor and our rich, is staggeringly high -- higher than almost any other country on the planet.
Saying "People in Africa have it worse than you do, so shut up" is intellectually disengenuous -- it is a strawman argument. You are substituting a complaint about laborers not receiving due compensation with a comparison to people worse off. Well, there will always be someone worse off. That doesn't make what is happening to those "better off" less wrong.
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're claiming that inquiring whether the prosecutor, intentionally or not, withheld evidence from the defense is bad?
That has NOTHING to do w/ anyone's guilt or innocence, it has EVERYTHING to do with the rule of law. FTA: "Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbos’ report to defense attorneys." This man saw a potential violation, and questioned it. If that evidence HADN'T been turned over to the defense, it could have been grounds for an appeals court to overturn any possible conviction.
The entire American (and western world) legal system is based on the principle that a defendant has the right to all information the government may try to use against him/her, AND any information that could cast doubt on the prosecutor's evidence or interpretation of the facts; it's called exculpatory evidence. Whether it's relevant to the case is up to the (presumably impartial) judge, and then the jury if the judge allows it to be presented. Now that may not always be fair to the victim and their family, but it's the law, and everyone in the legal system, police, lawyers, judgets, etc is bound to uphold it.
Let me give a similar, but counter hypothetical example: What if the police had a rock-solid forensic expert who could positively identify some of the other evidence (e.g. the screams on the phone), and conclusively prove ZImmerman was innocent (not saying this exists... follow me here)? And they withheld that and still charged him with murder. Would it be right to bring that up? Obviously it would!
There's NO DIFFERENCE between that hypothetical and this actual situation, both are cases of the defendant potentially being denied their right to exculpatory evidence, to be vetted by the judge for relevance and bias.
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... both capitalists and socialists dislike labor unions...
Just. Stop. Right. There.
Re:No, you grow up (Score:5, Insightful)
You feel like you are "fighting for scraps" because your big screen TV is 6 years old, you have a surround sound system but you don't like it, and your fridge 10?
See this is what I'm talking about with needing to take a more global look at things. Oh no, you don't have all new conveniences, whatever shall you do! I don't either, for that matter. My fridge is about 10 years old, and I've no wish to replace it as it keeps working great. My microwave is over 30 years old, it was given to me a long time ago and just keeps on trucking. Again, no reason to replace it as it still works great. Having a good life doesn't mean buying everything new all the time. In fact a big part of it can be managing your money by spending it smartly on things as needed and keeping what works.
Then of course you have to go with the silly doom and gloom "You won't have a good life soon!" shit and show a rather poor understanding of economics.
Look man, sorry that your life is not working out as well as you believe it should but you also should maybe do a little research and see how good you have it compared to the majority of the world's population.
Also consider that maybe, just maybe, you are part of the problem with your ability to get and keep a job. Layoffs are something that everyone is likely to face from time to time, but if you keep losing your job, if you are always having problems finding one, well then perhaps you are doing something wrong. I don't know much about you so I can't say what, but perhaps some introspection is in order. It is like the people who perpetually have bad relationships yet never seem to consider they may have a part of that.
Re:Loud and clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Any chance they'll get this one branded a traitor by the end of next week?
Come now. Haven't you been paying attention to the US for the last 12 years?
They're going to label him a terrorist.
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
lol...your argument might make sense if it weren't for the fact that marginal tax rates were much higher in the 50s but inflation was low. Sorry but history is just not on your side...at all.
Also, a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare seems like a pretty significant change to me.
Oh, and one more thing, the "obamaphones" are not paid for with taxes. Additionally, the program was created before Obama was even running for president. If anything, they are bushphones.
Perhaps you live on a different planet than I do.
Re: Do good ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please clarify the "starving" thing. It's true that early in the Soviet Union's formation, Stalin allowed territories that didn't follow his policies to starve.
But, one can make the case that Republicans want to do the same to poor and minorities since they don't vote Republican. Some extreme Republicans want to let states suffer after disasters rather than have the federal gov't "bail them out".
It's not just a Soviet thing.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:4, Insightful)
No, An easier way to see it is if a North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon in a major US city. What? You don't see the analogy because I changed the facts to make it completely inapplicable? Well, if you can do that, so can everyone else.
Re: Do good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, that's sort of how it's intended to work. Sometimes you're you, sometimes you're your neighbour, in the long run it cancels out. And with no profiteering middlemen it actually works out cheaper.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:4, Insightful)
What matters is that it seems Zimmerman followed him, confronted him,
Except, that is not what the evidence and the testimony showed. The testimony showed that Zimmer followed Martin, and that Martin confronted Zimmerman
and was probably not realistically in fear of his life when he shot him.The whole "slamming on the pavement" thing has been contested. There really isn't hard evidence of what happened.
You seem unclear on the American legal system. Zimmerman is considered innocent until proven guilty. In fact, there was hard evidence Zimmerman's head had been slammed into the sidewalk. His wounds were consistent with that. But, that is actually irrelevant because there was no hard evidence that it didn't happen and that is what the prosecution had to provide. Zimmerman never had to prove his innocence, rather the prosecution had to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the excluded evidence, it goes to the character of the victim and the claims of the prosecution. The prosecution's whole case revolved around the idea that Martin was an innocent victim who did nothing wrong, wouldn't attack anyone, and was unjustly targeted and murdered. They put forth Martin as a good kid who wouldn't commit a crime, wouldn't hurt anyone, and wouldn't be the aggressor. The excluded evidence cast doubt on that characterization. It showed that Martin could have been the aggressor and wasn't such a good kid after all.
Actually, whether or not Martin was a thug has bearing as it directly effects the prosecutions case. The prosecution case revolved around the idea that Martin would never have been and was not the aggressor, but that isn't the way thugs act. If Martin was a thug, then he might have attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman claimed.
By the way, it was Martin on drugs, not Zimmerman.
Early on in your post, you state "I think they probably could make the case. Murder no way, but Manslaughter ", but then later you say "I don't care enough to go and review the evidence". You are making statements based on ignorance and it really sounds like you believe Zimmerman should have been treated as guilty until proven innocent.