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."

25 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.

    3. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thank you, we needed some input from a typewriter owner.

    4. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My boy came a cropper off his bike the other day, made a right mess of himself. Took him to the emergency ward at a nearby hospital for immediate patching up, and we took him to our local GP for a checkup a couple of days later. Coincidentally he had a dentist's appointment (booked months beforehand) this week so the dentist was able to give his mouth an exam as well because he got a mouthful of stones and his gums got lacerated.

      Hospital care, visit to the doctor, and dental care all in one week.

      Expense to me, total: zero

      Living in a socialist country that looks after its citizens: priceless

  2. So sue 'em. by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hope he does. it's obviously not incompetence and blaming for seeking legal advice is just stupid to use as reasoning for incompetence.

    "that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.
    “If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”

    coming from state attorneys office that's actually pretty funny. saying it like that covers also seeking advice on illegal working conditions and what have you..

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:So sue 'em. by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hope he does sue, and that he wins. It may be an uphill battle though. Prosecutors have tremendous discretion in how they conduct cases, and enormous protection under the law, although it looks to me like this is well over the line. Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.

      I can't say this is surprising though since the prosecution appears to be motivated more my politics than the actual legal situation.

      In Audio Recording, Department of Justice Official Urges Protesters to Seek ‘Justice’ for Trayvon Martin
      Branco Cartoon – Fanning the Flames
      Racial politics supported by State power come down on George Zimmerman

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:So sue 'em. by Chewbacon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Florida is a Right to Fire... erm, Hire state. I always confuse the two words because whenever I hear the phrase, it's always used in the context of firing people. Anyway, incompetence is a Florida-based employer's way of firing you simply because they don't like you. If you don't cross enough T's and dot enough I's it is grounds for incompetence.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    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 binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      The solution is simple then: never, ever give raises.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    6. 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.

  3. 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.
    1. Re:Loud and clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

    2. Re:Loud and clear by Penguinshit · · Score: 5, Informative

      actually it's the Florida State government. And with Rick Scott's record of corruption, you can bet he doesn't want anyone with a shred of integrity having root access to the state's computers...

      --

      I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

    3. Re:Loud and clear by cultiv8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Florida, transparency is not up to the whim or grace of public officials. Instead, it is an enforceable right.

      From the website of the Office of the Attorney General of Florida titled Open Government. The irony is strong in this one.

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  4. Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds like the Florida State Attorney's Office has some s'plainin' to do. Withholding evidence from the defense is really, super unethical; I wouldn't be surprised if you could be disbarred for it. This is a highly politicized case, and it's not surprising that the state really wants to win it to save face, but really guys? Doing that kind of shit under the color of public authority is fucked up. Like Nifong (see Duke lacrosse) fucked up..

    1. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by maz2331 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A Brady violation is a big, big deal. And it's usually NOT a good idea to piss off the guy who has proof of wrongdoing - they just ensured that he will be a quite eager witness at their disbarrment proceedings.

    2. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by tmorehen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There was no evidence withheld from the defence: The raw data file had already been given to the defence. The IT fellow's analysis was prosecution work product, nothing more. As well, the pictures and text he found were irrelevant to the case: the girl and the gun were not at the scene nor did Martin have any marijuana on him. As well, Kruidbos had an obligation to keep information about the cases he works on confidential, particularly since he didn't raise any concerns with anyone else in the office. Consulting with a lawyer is probably ok, but not when that lawyer is a disgruntled former employee who breaks privilege by running off to the defence.

  5. Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman, but with all the antics they've been pulling, they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal. You can't go and give a guy a good performance eval and a raise, and then suddenly fire him and claim that he's a bad employee when he reveals that you may have been messing with evidence.

    The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.

    I hope this guys successfully sues these idiots.

    1. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by causality · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman

      While I think Zimmerman should have stopped following Martin once the police were contacted, following someone on a public street is not actually illegal in any way in Florida. Legally Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong there. Then he was promptly jumped and attacked by Martin. Had Martin used his fists alone I would absolutely want to see Zimmerman punished, but Martin didn't stop there. Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, something that can cause death or permanent disabling injury. He was, in effect, using the concrete as a deadly bludgeoning weapon. Zimmerman wouldn't have had a chance to try to flee considering he was on the ground getting pounded. That lead to Martin being shot. Correct me if I have any of that wrong (not liking it doesn't make it false...).

      I think it's a damned shame that Martin got himself killed at such a young age. If it were up to me there would have been no conflict, or the mere sight of a gun would have scared him off and it would have ended there, but let's be clear about this: if you want to violently attack a stranger who has not initiated violence against you, you are taking a risk. It's a poor choice to make and all the sadness in the world about what happened doesn't suddenly make this a wise move.

      Punishing Zimmerman doesn't change this reality, but it might make others who get attacked choose victimhood because they are afraid of the legal consequences of defending themselves. We already have states where homeowners hesitate to shoot a home invader because they might get in serious trouble, and all this does is lower the risk of burglarizing the law-abiding which in turn can only make burglers more bold. If being a violent criminal is a great way to remove oneself from the gene pool, I am absolutely fine with that. I have no sympathy for those who initiate violence. They live by the sword and sometimes they die by the sword. That's their choice. They are not victims. I reserve my sympathy for victims.

      The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.

      What is the value of refusing to let the jury hear this evidence? If it is truly irrelevant then it shouldn't influence their decision anyway. What damage could be done that the judge was trying to prevent by disallowing it?

      Incidentally it certainly can't be worse than the photos shown of Martin when he was twelve years old, an obvious attempt to make him look as helpless and childish as possible to further demonize Zimmerman rather than showing him as he actually was, big enough and strong enough to do some damage to another man and old enough to know better. When people have to resort to these kinds of emotional appeals and outright distortion and propaganda tactics to make their case, I have to assume it is because the facts are against them.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by VinylRecords · · Score: 5, Interesting

      [i]The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.[/i]

      I watched the coverage gavel to gavel of the Zimmerman trial. What was on Trayvon Martin's phone is maybe the most damaging information of all to the State's case. It is incredibly damaging to Trayvon Martin and his family and introduces criminal findings against them.

      The State withheld evidence that Trayvon Martin was dealing and using drugs, dealing illegal firearms, and was in possession of an illegal firearm. And that Trayvon Martin was into fighting and beating people up and had punched someone in the nose earlier that month. And that he had assaulted a public bus driver and the police showed up but the driver was told to continue his route and not press charges.

      There is also significantly strong evidence that Trayvon Martin's father was working with his son to acquire illegal weapons and that his father's nickname 'Fruit' was used amongst organized gang circles. There are texts that mention buying and selling pistols. And even a photo of Trayvon holding an illegal pistol. The photo is all over the internet and is not hard to find. The State withheld all of this and forced the defending attorneys to run around in circles to obtain the phone data.

      The judge also ruled that none of the phone data on Trayvon Martin's phone was admissible. Why? Because there was no hard proof that Trayvon was actually the one operating the phone when those messages were sent and received. And that "anyone could have been operating Trayvon's phone at any time". The phone was DOUBLE password protected and took the State an entire year to crack. But the State said in court that even a "seven-year-old child could have cracked the phone and sent those messages". The judge agreed.

      This case is disgusting. It is clear from top to bottom that it was rigged. When you have even the President of the United States deliberately poisoning the jury pool by commenting on the situation without knowing any discovery evidence years before a trial begins it is unreal. The State of Florida is out of control. This entire affair was a political theater event designed to win some elections.

  6. The truth of the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obama hired Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon so he wouldn't have to pay child support.

    Trayvon didn't just "look like" his son...

  7. More proof the entire trial by hsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is nothing more than a dog and pony show to convict Zimmerman. I don't care either way what the verdict is - but lets call a spade a spade. The political push to prosecute him from the President down doesn't surprise me that the state was hiding evidence to support their case.

  8. 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.