Florida agents raid home of fired public health agent who refused to manipulate COVID data

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Zakalwe

What we have here is an unsupported “she said” claim made by a former employee of the State of Florida. There is not, to my knowledge, ANY objective evidence. There’s her word and the State’s word. That’s it.

There’s more than that backing up the State’s version. See here from the AP. (I erred in stating earlier that this had been linked in this thread - it was in a P&E thread on the same subject.)

@Max_S

Yes, as of yet any prior allegation of cyberstalking is totally irrelevant and immaterial to the topic at hand: the raid .

It’s impossible to separate the raid from the issue of whether in fact she was a whistleblower or a difficult person generally.

FWIW, the raid itself was as hostile as it was because she apparently copped an attitude when the cops showed up at her house. So it’s more of the same. But even in looking at the initial impetus for the raid, there’s a big difference between raiding someone whose “crime” is being a whistleblower and raiding someone who was an all-purpose difficult person who latched onto a whistleblower claim after being fired for insubordination.

[Max_S]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It’s impossible to separate the raid from the issue of whether in fact she was a whistleblower or a difficult person generally.

It’s quite possible. Until you explicitly connect the dots, the issues are separate by default.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

FWIW, the raid itself was as hostile as it was because she apparently copped an attitude when the cops showed up at her house. So it’s more of the same.

I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say. Is your argument that she may have been visited by police before, due to previous allegations of cyberstalking, and behaved in such a way as to somewhat justify the police behavior this time around? Or are you saying the police response was justified because of her attitude and actions on the day they executed the warrant - as the officer explicitly claims in the video?

If the former, that’s a lot of speculation (too much for me to take seriously) but it does connect the dots. If the latter, a prior allegation of cyberstalking is still irrelevant and immaterial. If something else, whoosh!

~Max

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Max_S

Is your argument that she may have been visited by police before, due to previous allegations of cyberstalking, and behaved in such a way as to somewhat justify the police behavior this time around? Or are you saying the police response was justified because of her attitude and actions on the day they executed the warrant - as the officer explicitly claims in the video?

If the former, that’s a lot of speculation (too much for me to take seriously) but it does connect the dots. If the latter, a prior allegation of cyberstalking is still irrelevant and immaterial.

What I was saying was the latter. I disagree that it’s irrelevant. I think it’s very relevant. How people react when police show up at their door has a big impact on how subsequent events unfold. To the extent that the issue is “he pointed a gun at my children!!!”, then how she interacted with the police is highly relevant, and if we’re assessing who to believe as to how she interacted with police, then her history of stalking is highly relevant.

[Even the police decision to bring down that level of force to begin with could have been influenced by her criminal history - assuming they knew it - and the anticipation that she might be highly uncooperative. But that’s not the point I was making in my prior post.]

[Atamasama]

Zakalwe, you’re making the same arguments I made. Nobody wants to even consider the possibility.

That’s why I gave up trying.

[Zakalwe]

Ooookay.

I mean, by your argument, the fact that Trump lies about his income, crowd size, etc shouldn’t impact our evaluation of his veracity about other unrelated topics. Right? Everything in isolation and prior experience/knowledge is not to be used.

[crowmanyclouds]

That Trump is often a liar means that he cannot ever tell the truth?

[Max_S]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

and if we’re assessing who to believe as to how she interacted with police, then her history of stalking is highly relevant.

I disagree with that. First, I’m not assessing who to believe when she interacted with police. The whole thing is captured on video, from before they walked on to the property. Second, IMO an allegation of stalking has no bearing on believability.

~Max

[crowmanyclouds]

Ahh, just a couple of steps more and we can relive the Lying Whore thread, and won’t that be fun in this age?

[Zakalwe]

Not at all, but it SHOULD impact your assessment of his statement.

A quick Google found this from the NY Courts [PDF Warning]

CJI2d.Credibility.pdf

Money quote:

Previous Criminal Conduct
You may consider whether a witness has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in criminal conduct, and if so, whether and to what extent it affects the truthfulness of that witness’s
testimony.

You are not required to reject the testimony of a witness who has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in criminal conduct, or to accept the testimony of a witness who has not.

You may, however, consider whether a witness’s criminal conviction or conduct has affected the truthfulness of the witness’s testimony.

@Atamasama

Zakalwe, you’re making the same arguments I made. Nobody wants to even consider the possibility.

That’s why I gave up trying.

Yeah, I occasionally tilt at windmills recreationally. Can’t help it sometimes.

[crowmanyclouds]

I’m very aware of it, in a general way, in fact, I was already thinking of quoting something like it,

Previous Criminal Conduct
You may consider whether a witness has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in criminal conduct, and if so, whether and to what extent it affects the truthfulness of that witness’s testimony.

You are not required to reject the testimony of a witness who has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in criminal conduct, or to accept the testimony of a witness who has not.

You may, however, consider whether a witness’s criminal conviction or conduct has affected the truthfulness of the witness’s testimony.

But when you read it, it actually doesn’t actually say much of anything about how it SHOULD impact a jury’s view of a witness.

[puzzlegal]

So… I’m going to go out on a limb and say that probably every employee who has ever been fired for being a whistle-blower was also cantankerous and insubordinate. I mean, if your boss is okay with doing what you think is right, you have no reason to blow any whistles, you just talk with you boss and straighten things out.

Frankly, normal, easy-to-get-along-with people don’t blow whistles. They do what their boss tells them to do and keep their head down. Or they quietly quit because it’s too stressful being pressured to do the wrong thing.

So I have zero doubt that she was a pain in the ass to her boss. The question isn’t about whether she’s a nice person who is easy to get along with. (She’s not.) It’s about whether she is telling the truth about WHY she was insubordinate.

Whether she’s the sort of person who would cyberstalk an ex seems irrelevant to that question. (Did she publish fake stuff about the ex, or true stuff? That might be relevant.) And that’s why it’s annoying to have it brought up as some sort of justification for her being fired or for the police raiding her and waving guns in her house and confiscating all her computers after she… allegedly wrote an email to a mailing list with a publicly available password.

[Zakalwe]

@puzzlegal

And that’s why it’s annoying to have it brought up as some sort of justification for her being fired or for the police raiding her and waving guns in her house and confiscating all her computers after she… allegedly wrote an email to a mailing list with a publicly available password.

Interestingly, I don’t think I’ve made that argument. I already said the raid, as conducted, seemed like an overreaction.

I do think her prior behavior does potentially reflect on her firing though. The cyberstalking, to me, indicates a person who is unwilling to admit she’s wrong or has an issue. “Hey, you need to run your changes past us before publishing them.” becomes “WHY ARE YOU CENSORING ME?!?!?!?” I can’t say what happened since I wasn’t there. But as a “juror” in the court of public opinion, I find her less than perfectly credible. And at least part of that assessment is based on the fact that she apparently has issues in personal relationships (and work is, for most people, a personal relationship).

YMMV, but it seems weird to me that so many people seem to be taking everything she says as absolute gospel with ZERO evidence that she’s being entirely truthful.

@crowmanyclouds

But when you read it, it actually doesn’t actually say much of anything about how it SHOULD impact a jury’s view of a witness.

You ignore her troubled past. I don’t. I also don’t completely discount her “testimony”, but it does make me more skeptical than I might otherwise be.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Zakalwe

You ignore her troubled past. {…}

I do? Thank you, because of you, I now know what I think…

[puzzlegal]

@Zakalwe

Interestingly, I don’t think I’ve made that argument. I already said the raid, as conducted, seemed like an overreaction.

But you seem to be suggesting it was right to fire her. Or am I misreading you?

[Zakalwe]

@crowmanyclouds

I do? Thank you, because of you , I now know what I think…

Okay, so what did this mean then?

@crowmanyclouds

Someone just might want to read up on the genetic fallacy . . . 'cause they’re using it.

@crowmanyclouds

In what universe is the truthfulness of this claim in any way dependent on the accuracy of an allegation of previous, unrelated, conduct?

That certainly appears to me that you are claiming we’re shouldn’t consider her past when evaluating her claims about her firing and the raid. But if I’ve misread that, please correct me.

[crowmanyclouds]

Yes, that isn’t ignoring her past it’s not assuming her past is relevant to the current issue.
Seems like a lot of folks forget the part of The Boy Who Cried Wolf where there really is a wolf.

[Zakalwe]

Who said I was “assuming her past is relevant to the current issue”? You seem to be saying that we not only shouldn’t assume her past is relevant to her claims, we’re not allowed to consider her past when evaluating her claims.

Or is it more, “she’s saying something I want to be true, therefore all other factors must be minimized/ignored”?

[Max_S]

@Zakalwe

You seem to be saying that we not only shouldn’t assume her past is relevant to her claims, we’re not allowed to consider her past when evaluating her claims.

What claims has Mrs. Jones made regarding the raid? I’ll answer this one for you.

• The officers pointed guns at her family
• The raid was ordered to silence her whistleblowing
• (No other claims)

Now, tell me why you think a previous allegation of cyberstalking her ex is relevant to the validity of one of those claims. Because the way I see it, a previous allegation of cyberstalking is totally irrelevant.

You’re allowed to consider her history of alleged cyberstalking, but I think that would be unreasonable until someone has convinced me that it is relevant and material to some conclusion about the raid.

~Max

[Zakalwe]

By claims, I meant her claims about the whistleblowing itself, not the raid.

As was noted above, the raid was captured on video that has been shown. The only “claim” made that isn’t clearly addressed on video is whether or not her kid was at the top of the stairs when the officer pointed his gun that way.

[Max_S]

@Zakalwe

By claims, I meant her claims about the whistleblowing itself, not the raid.

Alright. So what could a previous allegation of cyberstalking her ex possibly have to do with the validity of her claim that she was (later) fired for refusing to fudge/misrepresent COVID numbers? Maybe there’s a connection but I’m not seeing it.

~Max