Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Whistleblowing IT Director Fired By FL State Attorney

Posted by timothy on from the also-he-was-probably-using-a-computer dept.

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."

8 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. Do good ... by fewnorms · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... get fired. I see a trend here.

    --
    Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    1. Re: Do good ... by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually the 99% are fighting scraps because the 1% have gotten most of everything. And not, that's not socialism. I think the US have reached the level of a kleptocracy.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    2. Re: Do good ... by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually socialism is pretty close to what you had during cold war in US because you had to care for your people to win it. High taxes on the rich, fairly solid safety net for the poor. It was there in the 60s and 70s. And it was dismantled in 90s after cold war ended.

      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.

  2. Loud and clear by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  3. Re:So sue 'em. by Frobnicator · · 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.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  4. Re:So sue 'em. by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    part of the problem with these types of states is that they can fire you for any reason, as long as they dont give a reason. If they give a reason than it has to be a valid one. Incompetence is a good one as it is typically hard to disprove, except when you just got a pay raise specifically for doing such a good job.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  5. Re:So sue 'em. by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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.

  6. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by mysidia · · 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.