The Most CORRUPT Cop in History Can’t Survive His Own Interrogation!

The attorney asks a simple thing: why he left his last police job at the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, and his lawyer cuts in right away:

“Do not answer that.”

A witness is allowed to take his lawyer’s advice. That part is legal. But listen to what it tells you. There is a reason this officer left his old department, and it is a reason his own lawyer will not let him say out loud under oath on camera.

Hold on to that, because the man you are about to watch is not some rookie who had one bad night. There is a history here, and the people defending him know exactly what it is.

“Did you watch any other videos related to this incident besides your own?”

“No.”

“Now, there was a criminal proceeding here, um, related to this case. You were indicted for felony aggravated assault charges. Is that correct?”

“Correct.”

“And, um, you were set for trial in that case, correct?”

“Corre.”

“And you didn’t prep—you did not prepare for that trial by watching the videos at all.”

“Uh, we really didn’t get that far. I mean, we was disposed before we even made it.”

“Wait, wait, wait. You can talk about what you looked at.”

“Mr.—Mr. J, hold on. Hold on, hold on, hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. You may not—you may not.”

Two officers in Baytown indicted for aggravated assault face a judge today.

“When am I free to go?”

“Whenever, man.”

“Whenever.”

“Yeah. Would you mind back?”

“What happened?”

“Something’s up, dude.”

“Oh, freaking drop you.”

“What’s going on?”

These men will never again be allowed to wear a badge or disgrace the uniform of a Texas law enforcement officer.

He told the man he could leave whenever he wanted. Seconds later, that same man was face down on the ground, tased, punched, and struggling to breathe, begging the officer to stop. The man’s name is Kendrick Crawford. He had committed no crime. He had no warrants. His license and insurance came back clean. He let the officer search him. He answered every question, and for that, he ended up in a jail cell with his eyes swollen shut, unable to see.

The officer’s name is Teddy Sims. Baytown Police Department, Texas. Five years after that night, he sat down under oath across from Kedrick Crawford’s attorney, and every excuse he ever made started to fall apart, one question at a time.

This is not a trial. It is a deposition, sworn testimony taken before a civil case where a lawyer questions a witness directly with no judge to referee and nowhere to hide. By this point, Teddy Sims had already been indicted for felony assault. What you are about to watch is an attorney take that badge apart piece by piece using nothing but his own words.

“Good morning. We are now on the record. Today’s date is July 30, 2024 and the time is approximately 10:34 a.m. Central time. This is the deposition of Teddy Sims taken in the matter of Crawford versus Sims et al. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Would all counsel please identify themselves for the record and state who they represent starting with the noticing attorney.”

“My name is U.A. Lewis and I represent Kedrick Crawford.”

“My name is Norman Giles. I represent defendant Teddy Sims.”

“And my—my name is Aish Manini and I also represent defendant Teddy Sims.”

“Okay. Would the notary please swear in the witness?”

“Yes. Mr. Sims, would you please raise your right hand, state and spell your name for us?”

“Yes, ma’am. Teddy. T-E-D-D-Y. Last name is Sims. S-I-M-S.”

“And sir, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

“Yes.”

“Lower your hand.”

“All right.”

“The witness has sworn. Counsel, you may now begin.”

“Thank you. All right. Um, Mr.—Mr. Sims, I think we established, um, the other day when we were together that you’re no longer an officer and you’re okay with me not referring to you as, um, Officer Sims, rather Mr. Sims. Correct?”

“Correct.”

“You’ve had your deposition taken before. Correct?”

“Correct.”

“You do understand that your testimony here is, uh, made under oath, um, is subject to the—is subject to the penalty of federal perjury charges. Are you aware of that?”

“Yes.”

“Can you—is your full name Teddy Sims?”

“Uh, yes. My middle name is Forrest.”

“So I do.”

“F-O-R-R-E-S-T.”

“Okay. How old are you, Mr. Sims?”

“30.”

“Have you ever—have you worked for another agency besides Baytown?”

“Uh, Polk County Sheriff’s Office.”

“How long were you at Polk County?”

“Approximately three—three and a half years somewhere like that, somewhere in that area.”

“And did you work there as an officer?”

“I worked there as a patrol deputy.”

“Why’d you leave there?”

“Don’t answer the question.”

“Why did you leave there?”

“Don’t answer the question.”

“Oh, it must be some bad reason.”

We are barely two minutes into this deposition and something already stands out. The attorney asks a simple thing: why he left his last police job at the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, and his lawyer cuts in right away:

“Do not answer that.”

A witness is allowed to take his lawyer’s advice. That part is legal. But listen to what it tells you. There is a reason this officer left his old department, and it is a reason his own lawyer will not let him say out loud under oath on camera. Hold on to that, because the man you are about to watch is not some rookie who had one bad night. There is a history here, and the people defending him know exactly what it is.

“Did you watch any other videos related to this incident besides your own?”

“No.”

“Now, there was a criminal proceeding here, um, related to this case. You were indicted for felony aggravated assault charges. Is that correct?”

“Correct.”

“And, um, you were set for trial in that case, correct?”

“Correct.”

“And you didn’t prep—you did not prepare for that trial by watching the videos at all.”

“Uh, we really didn’t get that far. I mean, we was disposed before we even made it.”

“Wait, wait, wait. You can talk about what you looked at.”

“Mr.—Mr. Giles, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. You may not—you may not coach him if he—if he understands, I’m sure you told him in advance what is required of him. You may not stop him in the middle of a question and coach him on how to answer this question.”

“I certainly—I can certainly tell him to please—does not have to divulge any course—any communications he had with his lawyer, and that’s what I’m going to tell him.”

“Okay. All right. That’s fine. You can remind him now, and then we know that that’s not going to be an issue going forward. Mr. Sims, you understand that? You don’t have to—”

“You let me—let me finish what I’m going to tell him.”

“Well, no. That’s—that’s it. You’re not going to—that’s it. That’s it. You’re not going to coach any further.”

“No. Quit talking.”

“You’re not going to coach him any further. You’re not going to coach him any further. If you—if you didn’t tell him what you need to tell him in advance of the deposition, it’s too late now. I—I respect the fact that you need to tell him or remind him at this point not to share what he told his attorney in the criminal case, and I think he’s heard you, and that’s fine. But anything more than that? No.”

“Okay. You’re—you’re not required to tell or anything that you said to your lawyer, anything your lawyer said to you.”

“You understand that?”

“Yeah.”

“Okay.”

“Okay. Um, back—back to where we left off. M—uh, Mr. Sims, you stated, um, that you guys did not get that far along, but there was no—there was no trial preparation that required you to watch any of the videos. Is that what you’re stating? You can’t look to your lawyer for answers. Just look straight to the camera, please. And stop looking at your—at your lawyer for answers.”

“How you doing?”

“Good, man. You ain’t got no weapons or nothing.”

“You want to come over and talk to me real quick? You got out kind of quick now, man. So, I’m making contact cuz you were here for a while.”

“And then you backed out. You went back over here. You backed in. I just make sure you’re not drunk or something.”

“Hey, I make sure you got a weapon. Got to pat you down real quick. All right, man. I just want to check you out. Make sure everything’s okay. Man,”

“I saw you back. You were about to turn down the road and then you backed up. What’s up with that?”

“Where you trying to go, man?”

“Sir, where you trying to go?”

“Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Have you been arrested before or anything?”

“No, sir.”

“Get your driver license through Texas,”

“sir.”

“I’m just waiting on you, man. I was waiting on this return real quick. Okay.”

“Is that while I’m waiting on the return? Is it cool if I make sure nothing bad in the car today? I mean, you want to search the car, you can search it.”

“Okay.”

“They asked me, could they search my vehicle? I know I wasn’t doing anything wrong. So, I gave him consent to search my car.”

“Nothing personal. We was out here doing our job. You know, ain’t nothing wrong with it.”

“When you really think about it, person with driver license, insurance, you—you got to think about it. Kind of—kind of weird.”

“No. No. Cuz honestly, I’ve caught people felony amounts of narcotics and guns with people valid driver’s license, valid insurance, and everything, man.”

“But you say what you want to say. Think about it. That’s not a probable cause. I got insurance, everything.”

“Okay. And what does it have to do with anything?”

“When am I free to go?”

“Whenever, man.”

“Whenever.”

“Yeah.”

“Put your hands back.”

“What happened?”

“Don’t stop, dude. Freaking drop you.”

“What did I do?”

“What’s going on?”

“What’s going on?”

“I’m taking—”

“And from your understanding, Mr. Crawford when he was arrested by you, that was for a felony charge. Correct?”

“Objection to form. Correct.”

“What was the charge?”

“Assault on a public servant.”

“He was not indicted on that charge, was he?”

“I don’t know. I haven’t proceeded with their court records. I’m not—I didn’t follow up after the case after I filed the charges.”

“When am I free to go?”

“Whenever, man.”

“Whenever.”

“Yeah.”

“Okay. And you told him whatever—whenever, right?”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Crawford never left, even though you told him he can leave whenever he wanted to, right? He never made any moves to leave, did he?”

“At this, uh, no.”

“In fact, um, the first thing that occurred was you grabbed him. Right?”

“Right.”

“You didn’t tell him why. Correct?”

“Correct.”

“And did you even know why?”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“That Officer Serret had either reasonable suspicion for detention or probable cause for an arrest and/or search.”

“Uh, Officer Serret never said those words to you, did he?”

“No, he signaled to handcuff him.”

This is the whole case in one answer. The officer grabbed Crawford because another officer signaled to him—not told him, signaled a hand gesture. There is a real rule in law called the fellow officer rule. It lets one officer act on another officer’s direction, but only when that other officer actually had a legal reason.

The reason has to exist somewhere. It cannot just be assumed. And Sims admits it himself. He never heard a reason. He never asked for one. He saw a cuffing motion and threw a man to the ground. You cannot pass the Constitution off with a wave of the hand. Someone has to have an actual reason. And no one here did.

“Let’s take a look at that signal that you’re talking about to handcuff him. Now that you were able to look at that again, what exactly was it that Serret signaled towards you? Did you really see him put cuffs?”

“Uh, I literally—yes, ma’am. I seen him put his hands together as in handcuffing. That’s what I saw.”

“In fact, show us how he put his hands together. Can you demonstrate that for us?”

“It was something similar to either this or like this. I don’t remember the exact, um, way, but it was something similar to: ‘Hey, it’s time to be handcuffed.'”

“Do you maintain that you were a victim of a crime by Mr. Crawford?”

“Yes.”

“What was the crime that Mr. Crawford committed against you?”

“As I previously stated, assault on a public servant.”

“Okay. And can you tell us the facts to support the assault on the public servant?”

“Yes, ma’am. He intentionally or knowingly dug his fingernail into my arm, which caused pain and bodily injury, namely a cut to my arm.”

“Um, do you have any scars?”

“No.”

“Um, but you had a cut, correct?”

“Correct.”

“Okay. You went to wound care.”

“I know I went to a clinic. I’m not sure the name of the clinic. I know it’s a clinic that we used in the past. It’s by the hospital. It’s all I know.”

“Okay. And what were you diagnosed with at that clinic?”

“Uh, I don’t believe I was diagnosed with anything. I was just treated, examined, and released.”

“What type of treatment did you receive?”

“I don’t remember the full treatment. I know they just kind of examined my arm. They examined any kind of injuries that they seen, which I don’t recall. And I was sent on my way back to duty, and I believe they looked at my arm.”

“Which arm? Which arm was injured by Mr. Crawford?”

“I believe it was my left arm.”

“Why do you say you believe? Do you know or do you not know which arm was injured by Mr. Crawford? You only have two.”

“It was my left arm. Again, I said believe because it’s been five years ago.”

“So, it could have been your right arm is what you’re trying to say here, right?”

“No, ma’am. It was my left arm.”

“Can you tell me, um, at what point did Mr. Crawford scratch you or cut you with his fingernails on your left forearm on the top of your forearm?”

“Towards the end of the struggle, I believe when we were on the ground. Vehicle in question is just doing some suspicious behavior. Um, just, you know, with the closed businesses, recent burglaries that we’ve had on that stretch of road, we just needed to see—we need to investigate to make sure, one, he’s okay and, two, that there’s no crime. I knew there was one male.”

“Um, what else did you know about his description besides a male?”

“Male appeared to wear a white t-shirt, um, African-American.”

“And so what was the reason that you have, according to your training, um, and your experience, the authority and the right to freaking drop somebody who you’re simply detaining for the reasons you don’t know at all in order to search them?”

“For—um, right. You use the force continuum. If they go to resisting or they go to running, I’mma take them to the ground.”

“But he didn’t—he didn’t run, right?”

“No.”

“He didn’t resist, did he?”

“Yes.”

“How?”

“The whole encounter, um, from him pulling away, from him not giving us his hands, you know, digging his nails in my arm and scratching me.”

“Wait, let’s wait. Let’s be clear. I don’t want you to go too far into this. I’m just talking about why you’re standing there. What started the use of force? I’m not talking about on the ground. We’ll get there, but for right now, so we’re not all over the place, I want to know what was the basis for throwing him, dropping him to the ground according to your words here. What resistance was he giving to you here at this moment?”

“I felt the resistance becoming.”

Listen to that answer. The resistance Crawford gave him was tensing up. That is it. Not a punch, not a shove, not a step away. His muscles tightened—the way anyone’s body reacts when a stranger grabs him out of nowhere.

There is a Supreme Court case built for exactly this moment: Graham versus Connor. It says police force has to be objectively reasonable. Was the person a threat? Were they resisting? Were they trying to run? Crawford did none of it. Tensing up is not a threat. It is not resistance. It is what a scared body does on its own. If a flinch is enough to put you on the ground, that protection means nothing because everyone flinches.

“Leading up to it, due to him tensing up, that is a common indicator of individuals who are about to fight or run. They’ll begin to tense up their bone, their—their muscles, their—their arms, and usually they’ll pull away or they’ll swing. And I was just trying to eliminate that thought from Mr. Crawford.”

“Okay. So, he asked not only what he do, but he asked: ‘What happened? What did I do? What did I do?’ Right?”

“Right.”

“You didn’t answer any—of any time when he asked what happened, what did I do, what did I do? Correct?”

“Correct.”

“Okay. Let’s go ahead.”

“What’s going on?”

“So, he asked for a fourth time: ‘What’s going on?’ Correct?”

“Correct.”

“No response from you. Right?”

“Correct.”

“I don’t have anything. What’s going on?”

“He asked for a fifth time: ‘What’s going on?’ Did you answer him?”

“No.”

“You’ve had consistent problems with your body camera footage capturing use of force by you. Isn’t that true?”

“Objection to form.”

“No.”

“Isn’t it true that you arrested a woman by the name, I believe, of Jessica Solis?”

“Yes.”

“Isn’t it true that you had an issue with your body camera footage capturing the use of force here in Mr. Crawford’s case?”

“It fell off. Yes.”

“That’s not the first time that your body camera footage failed to record and document the use of force by you. Isn’t that true?”

“The body cams always documented use of force. Sometimes they do fall off.”

“And in particular for you, right?”

“Objection to form. I’m sure it happens to every officer.”

“But it happens to you on more than one occasion when it comes to use of force that you’re accused of, um, using in an excessive manner. Correct?”

“Objection to form. The body cam has fell off in this and it has in others, but it’s not an ongoing problem. It does happen.”

“You said here that while you were in contact with him, he was—he seemed nervous. It seems like to me that you left out the part that, um, you ran him, his name, his driver’s license, and his vehicle, and everything came back clear. You didn’t put that in your report, did you?”

“No, I did not.”

“Okay, why not?”

“Um, really? I might have just left it out at that point. Uh, I could have just left it out.”

“Because you probably would have had to explain, if you put that in there, why the contact continued. Right?”

“Right.”

“And—and why did the contact continue after he, um, provided you his name, identified himself, and his insurance came back clear as well as his license? No warrants.”

“Based on the behavior he is displaying: the driving behavior, the unexplained nervousness, and the possible indication he might be under the influence.”

“You continued the contact for those reasons.”

“Correct.”

“Okay. Now, let’s talk about him possibly being under the influence. You didn’t ask for him to—this cooperative Mr. Crawford, you didn’t ask for him to do a field sobriety test, did you?”

“No.”

“You never once stated to him that you thought he might be under the influence either, did you?”

“I don’t remember.”

“So, we were basically talking about why you continued the contact with him even though his license came back clear, even though he had no warrants, even though he had his insurance, and even though he was not even on a public street. Um, you continued the contact and detained him, but you never inquired whether he was intoxicated even though that was a basis here, according to you, for believing that he was suspicious. And, um, your report here says that you asked Mr. Crawford if you could search his person and vehicle. Correct?”

“Correct.”

“He was cooperative, right?”

“Yes.”

“You stated that he could leave at any time, but you didn’t put in this report what made you make that statement to him that he could leave at any time. It was after he asked when he could leave, right?”

“Yeah. I told him he can leave at any time, but I didn’t specify the reason why he could.”

“Right. And you didn’t even put in there—you made it seem as though in this report that you just voluntarily told him just as a matter of routine out of, um, kindness and information that you could leave at any time. But in fact, the reason why you told him that he could leave at any time was because he asked: ‘When can I leave?’ Right?”

“Objection to form.”

“Correct.”

“You said during the search of the vehicle, Serret located several pills in individual bags consistent with narcotic distribution. Correct?”

“Correct.”

While searching his car, Baytown police officers say they found small bags of pills. However, he was only charged with assaulting a police officer.

“You have had instances in the past where you’ve seen narcotics packaged in the way that you saw the pills packaged with Mr. Crawford. Right?”

“Right.”

“Here in this, uh, paragraph, you stated that, um, Officer Serret located several pills in individual bags consistent with narcotic distribution and you attempted to place Kendrick in hand restraints so I could further investigate the pills. Correct?”

“Correct.”

“And is this true?”

“One moment, please. Let me look at my report to refresh my memory.”

“Okay. It’s right here on the screen.”

“Okay. Yes.”

“When exactly did you see these pills packaged, uh, by Mr. Crawford that Serret found?”

“It was after the arrest. Well, after the struggle.”

“So when it’s stated here in paragraph two that Serret located several pills and you attempted to place him in restraints, you didn’t know that he had found, uh, several pills and you didn’t know that there was a need to investigate the pills when you attempted to place Mr. Crawford in hand restraints. Isn’t that true?”

“No, I knew there was a reason to detain Mr. Crawford because narcotics were found based on the indicator that my partner gave me was to place him in cuffs.”

“But you stated in your statement—it clearly indicates that you placed him in cuffs so you could further investigate the pills. But you didn’t know he had pills when you placed him in cuffs, did you?”

“No.”

This is the one that should end it. In his report, the officer wrote that he tried to handcuff Crawford in order to investigate pills that were found. But watch the timeline collapse.

The attorney asked when he actually saw those pills. His answer: after. After the arrest, after the struggle.

Here is why that matters in law: the reason for using force has to exist at the moment you use it. You cannot reach into the future, find something later, and use it to justify what you already did. When Sims put his hands on Crawford, the pills did not exist to him yet. So the reason written in his report is a reason he invented after the fact to explain force that had nothing behind it when it happened.

“I don’t want to die, man. You’re choking me.”

“Nobody’s choking you, dude.”

“I cannot breathe or nothing.”

“The longer you talk—”

“Now, you heard Officer Brown state that your eyes are swollen shut. Correct?”

“Correct.”

“But you would still describe that as superficial because we are still on the scene, right?”

“Right.”

“What he describes as bleeding your ass off in one point and swollen shut on another point, you describe as superficial. Right?”

“Right. But again, after everything was done, I glanced at Mr. Crawford. I seen that there are other officers there. At this point, I’m worried about establishing the scene, washing his blood off me, examining my cut. So, that’s what I perceived on the scene—that they were superficial. And then I later learned he did sustain injuries.”

“Right. But you did your report after. You didn’t do your report on the scene, did you?”

“Correct.”

“So you knew exactly his state when you completed your report, right?”

“Objection to form.”

“Correct. And that’s why I also included that he suffered fractures in this report.”

“Yet you reported his injuries to be minor and superficial at the same time. Right?”

“Superficial. Correct.”

“You didn’t see anything, right?”

“Nope.”

“You didn’t see any pills. You didn’t see any drugs. You didn’t see anything illegal, um, when Serret told you or gave you this non-verbal communication, right?”

“Right.”

“But when he gave you this non-verbal communication, although you didn’t see anything, you automatically leaped to the assumption that it was narcotics. Correct?”

“Correct.”

“But at that time, all you were doing was assuming—you didn’t see anything. And is that correct?”

“Objection to form.”

“Yeah, correct.”

“And so for you, from your own personal view, you had no reason at all to detain Mr. Crawford, did you?”

“I did have a reason. Partner seen something at that time that was suspect, that was illegal, that he believed to be illegal. And that gave me—and then he communicated to me: ‘Cuff him.’ And that gave me all the reason right there to detain him and further investigate.”

“So let’s pause a second. You’ve had training, and according to your training, you are able to legally detain somebody because somebody else told you to, right? Another officer told you to. Correct?”

“Yeah. As long as that officer had reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to effect an arrest or a search, yes.”

“Okay. You just said a lot right there. So, you can do it with reasonable suspicion as well as probable cause according to you, right?”

“As far as detaining or placing somebody in cuffs or searching, yes.”

“Yes to what?”

“To another officer telling me. As long as that officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause and he tells another officer, ‘Hey, detain that person or arrest that person, search that person,’ then yes, I can.”

“Okay. But we know for sure Serret never told you any of that—to arrest that person or detain that person or anything, right?”

“I believe after he made this signal, he said: ‘Cuff him.'”

“No, cuz you remember—well, if that’s your testimony, that’s your testimony under oath subject to the penalty of perjury. My question beyond that is you stated that you knew that he had reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Which is it?”

“Objection to form. At that point, I knew at the very least he had reasonable suspicion for detention and ultimately probable cause for a search.”

“It’s your testimony that he had reasonable suspicion, and Serret had reasonable suspicion—which you are speculating as to whether he had reasonable suspicion or not cuz you didn’t communicate with him. But is your testimony that, uh, Serret had reasonable suspicion to search him after he had already been searched and given you consent to search the vehicle as well? Is that your testimony?”

“Objection to form.”

“My testimony is, in the heat of the moment at that time, that officer at the very least had reasonable suspicion to place Mr. Crawford in detention with handcuffs and likely probable cause to search a vehicle.”

“Isn’t it true that when you decided to put Mr. Crawford in handcuffs, you didn’t tell him that he was being arrested or detained at all? Yes or no?”

“Using those words? No.”

“And you didn’t give him any indication that he was being detained or arrested. Correct?”

“No.”

“And at the end of the day, the person who you stopped ultimately, Mr. Crawford, was not committing any crime. Correct?”

“Objection to form.”

“Initially at the stop, before the stop: no.”

“And he was just a regular citizen who you encountered who tried to be courteous and comply with what you needed, which was to search his car and to make contact with him and answer questions. He engaged in and did all that for you, right?”

“He was courteous. He, um, allowed me to search him initially. Yes.”

Here it is in the officer’s own mouth: Crawford committed no crime. He was courteous. He let them search him. And that word “courteous” matters because of what the law requires before an officer can detain anyone at all.

Under Terry versus Ohio, the Supreme Court case every officer is trained on, you need reasonable suspicion of an actual crime just to hold someone. Not a hunch, not a feeling—a specific crime. Sims just admitted there wasn’t one. So everything that followed—the grab, the takedown, the taser, the charges—was built on top of a detention that was never legal to begin with.

The attorney asked the question that hangs over the whole case: Why would an innocent man suddenly turn and fight four officers? The officer has no answer because the only answer that fits is that he didn’t. The resistance was the story they needed to explain the force they had already used.

“At the very initial part of the stop. Unfortunately, through the remainder of the stop, he was not the same compliant individual.”

“And do you think that’s because he was really a criminal committing crimes? Why did he—why did he all of a sudden become the person you’re trying to paint him to be, which is a criminal, when he actually was never even committing any crimes? What—what would be the motivation for him to suddenly become a criminal when he knew, even though you didn’t know, he knew at all times he was innocent and had not done anything wrong? What do you think would be the reason why he would flip and all of a sudden start attacking a police officer and fighting police officers when he knew at all times he had been committing no crimes, had no drugs, had no narcotics, had nothing illegal going on with him? Why do you think all of a sudden he would rise up and want to start fighting police officers?”

“I cannot testify as far as what I think. This is the facts. He was compliant originally, and as far as him going one way to another, that’s a question for Mr. Crawford. All I can say is, at that point where he was to be handcuffed, he did not want to be handcuffed. He was resistant. He would not comply. Furthermore, as far as the question on what causes one to do that, it could be a number of reasons. I don’t know. I’m not Mr. Crawford.”

“Or maybe that is because you’re the one who is, uh, making up the fact that he was resisting. Maybe it’s because you’re the one who is making up the fact that he was fighting in order to try to paint an innocent man, a law-abiding citizen, as a criminal when in fact he’s not. Correct?”

“Objection to form.”

“You’re the criminal. You were the criminal here, weren’t you?”

“Objection to form.”

“Ma’am, I would love to answer your questions, but may we please go back to the first one you asked and clarify?”

“No, no, no. You’re the criminal here, right? You were the one who was indicted. You were—you were the one who was indicted and there was probable cause to find that you in fact violated the law. Correct?”

“Objection to form.”

“Ma’am, I want to answer your questions. Um—”

“My question’s there. You can answer it.”

“No, I’m not a criminal.”

“So, your indictment by a grand jury finding that there was probable cause that you assaulted Mr. Crawford to the level of a felony—that meant nothing, right?”

“No, it meant a group of individuals found probable cause and that event was dismissed.”

“Well, it was dismissed because you entered into a plea deal and you gave up your law enforcement license that you worked very, very hard for. You had to give up your entire career for. Correct?”

“Correct.”

“If you weren’t a criminal, if you were not committing a crime, why didn’t you just go to trial and fight it?”

“Objection to form. Don’t answer that question.”

Kendrick Crawford committed no crime that night. The officer admitted it under oath: clean license, clean record, courteous, cooperative. And he still ended up on the ground, tased and beaten, in a cell with his eyes swollen shut. Injuries the officer wrote down in his report as superficial, even after he knew the man had fractures.

Two years after that night, a grand jury looked at what happened and indicted Teddy Sims and Officer Serret for aggravated assault, a first-degree felony. Then the criminal case ended the way too many of them do. The charges were dismissed, not because they were found innocent, but because they took a deal. The condition: both men handed over their police licenses for good. In the words of the district attorney, they will never again be allowed to wear a badge or disgrace the uniform of a Texas law enforcement officer.

But ask the man who lived it whether that feels like justice.

Kedrick Crawford was asked if he felt any closure. His answer: no. He feels worse than the night it happened. The officers took a deal and walked away from the badge. Crawford was the one thrown in a cell, charged with assaulting the very man who beat him, and he is still fighting in a civil court for someone to simply say out loud that what happened to him was wrong.

The officer left his last department for a reason no one would say. His body camera failed during use of force, and not for the first time. His report kept the details that helped him and lost the ones that did not. None of it was a split-second decision. It was a pattern, and it took five years, a lawsuit, and his own sworn words to finally show.