It looks like the Los Angeles Police Department is going to fire Detective Michael Slider, who has been on the force for 22 years.
Did he beat up a suspect on camera? No.
Did he kill someone? No.
What did he do to get fired? Detective Slider accessed case notes on an internal LAPD computer system, printed a copy, and gave it to a lawyer.
That sounds pretty bad. But there’s a catch.
The case notes were for a robbery case involving Detective Slider’s niece, Khristina Henry. Ms. Henry accused a prominent high school football player. Tyquan Knox, of the robbery. Ms. Henry and her mother, Pamela Lark (Det. Slider’s sister-in-law) were allegedly threatened by Knox and his associates after filing charges. Ms. Lark was eventually killed; Mr. Knox has been charged with her murder and the robbery of Ms. Henry, but the jury in the first trial was unable to reach a verdict on those charges. Mr. Knox is currently awaiting a retrial.
Detective Slider apparently believed that the detectives assigned to Ms. Henry’s case were not taking the threats seriously, and complained to their supervisor several times before the murder.
After the murder…
Saying he was blinded by grief and anger, Slider told the three-member disciplinary panel he had hoped leaking the internal document would help spur an investigation into the detectives’ handling of the case.
He said he was not motivated by the possibility of winning a monetary award — a claim the head of the panel said he believed.
This is a hard case. The LAT article, it seems to me, clearly wants to invoke sympathy for Detective Slider. And my first reaction is to be sympathetic. I can’t condone leaking internal LAPD documents to people outside the department, but I can easily believe that Det. Slider, motivated by grief and anger, made a mistake. I can easily argue that, under the circumstances, the LAPD should make allowances and impose some form of punishment short of firing.
I could even make an argument that, if Det. Slider felt the case was mishandled, felt that he had exhausted all remedies inside the department, and felt that the detectives supervisors were covering up their mishandling of the case, he had a right—even a duty—to bring police misconduct to the attention of outsiders.
The problem is that all we have right now is the LAT version of the story. Given the way the paper has covered the LAPD in the past, I don’t know how much of this story to believe. I can’t trust my initial reaction because I can’t trust the information I have right now. That’s the real tragedy of American newspapers.
I’m hoping that someone like Patterico (either himself, or in a guest post by “Jack Dunphy”) will add something to the LAT story.
Edited to add: Speaking of the LAPD, why is the 2010 California Homicide Investigators Association Conference being held in Las Vegas? Not that I have anything against Las Vegas (unlike Barack Obama) but it just seems strange.
. I picked this up last week and haven’t had a chance to do much more than skim it, but it looks like a rather interesting book. I know at least one of my readers openly doesn’t care about Hollywood, or anything related to Hollywood gossip; even if you’re in the same boat with him, I still think there’s a fascinating aspect to this story. This is the only time in recent history (that I’m aware of; I welcome correction) that a government actually tried to put a 
, which is interesting but a little bit frustrating.
; reading Blum’s Slate piece makes me even more happy I did so.