Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/14/2026 9:00:54 PM PDT by Red Badger
A former Amarillo, Texas, police officer allegedly weaponized the city’s surveillance system to track a local father dozens of times after developing a personal interest in a female officer the man had previously dated.
Christian Eder, 29, was fired from the Amarillo Police Department on July 17 after an internal investigation found that he allegedly misused law-enforcement databases for personal purposes. He now faces 78 counts of tampering with a government record, ABC 7 Amarillo reported.
According to NewsChannel 10, an internal audit found Eder searched the father’s license plate through the city’s Flock automated license plate reader system 76 times between February and June 2026.
He also allegedly searched the man’s name twice through TLOxp, a law-enforcement database containing information such as addresses, phone numbers, vehicles, and businesses.
Investigators reportedly found no police calls, cases, or assignments that would have justified the searches. Eder allegedly entered false explanations, including “city planning,” while dozens of other searches were reportedly marked with the reason “want.”
The father, who spoke anonymously, said Eder became interested in him after pursuing a female APD officer whom the man had previously dated.
The victim said he later learned Eder had allegedly been using a department-issued phone to monitor the female officer’s active patrol-car and body-camera feeds.
The father became suspicious after seeing Eder’s marked patrol vehicle slowly driving through his apartment parking lot at approximately 1 a.m.
He said the female officer later told him Eder claimed to have seen him leaving his apartment at that exact time.
The man eventually contacted Eder directly and asked him to stop. According to the report, Eder responded with a dismissive message beginning, “lol, tough guy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
That’s ridiculous.
It would be different say if I was tracking my pleasure bot to see if she is really going to the grocery store.
Because I have a duty to keep track of AI.
Minimum 5 years in jail. Should be.
("Who will watch the watchers?" - Juvenal, ~100 AD)
All traffic exploitation (revenue) should be returned to the rightful owners with 10% interest.
Paging all you FLockers.
This is what Benjamin Franklin meant when he said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Seems like that thing that rarely happened, happened again, nothing wrong with law enforcement illegally stalking a father and children, I guess?
Now for a literary quote:
“Government power is always abused by seizing and perverting the law. And with few exceptions, government always determines what is law.” - John Galt (The Scottish novelist, not Ann Ryand’s fictional character))
Skwor wrote: “Seems like that thing that rarely happened, happened again, nothing wrong with law enforcement illegally stalking a father and children, I guess?”
I guess you must have missed this part: “Christian Eder, 29, was fired from the Amarillo Police Department on July 17 after an internal investigation found that he allegedly misused law-enforcement databases for personal purposes. He now faces 78 counts of tampering with a government record, ABC 7 Amarillo reported.”
That is the solution. You don’t defund the police for misusing their badge. You prosecute them.
Nice way to miss the point, the point isn’t he got fired, the point is it happened and but by the grace of God the cop wasn’t psychotic enough to just shot the guy in his sleep.
How many shots on goal does it take to realize this level of surveillance power is too easy to abuse and it is only a matter of time before it becomes real tyranny.
Gee, guy got fired so stalking an innocent father with children is just acceptable collateral risk. That is insane.
Trying to say he got fired so it is ok is like trying to catch all the chickens who just escaped the coop. Damage is done.
Skwor wrote: “Trying to say he got fired so it is ok is like trying to catch all the chickens who just escaped the coop. Damage is do”
Strawman argument. No one is saying the cops actions were ok. We are saying that his illegal actions got him fired plus he’s facing criminal charges.
Do you take away all the firearms from all the cops because one cop used his to commit a crime?
Do you tak away every car from all cops because one cop abused his privilege and drove DWI or was in an accident that was his fault?
The solution is simple. Those that abuse the system are prosecuted. Do that enough times and the abuse will stop.
For every abuse, there are many more instances where the system was used legally.
Pure Obfuscation, and you are the one presenting a strawman agreement. I never said anyone supports the cop as not wrong. I said having this power makes it too easy for the government to abuse. I intimated the risk from the potential abuse, which this event demonstrates, as being too high.
I identified correctly your implied point which was, because the cop was fired the system is working acceptably, I completely reject that as naive ignorance.
Skwor wrote: “Pure Obfuscation, and you are the one presenting a strawman agreement. I never said anyone supports the cop as not wrong. I said having this power makes it too easy for the government to abuse. I intimated the risk from the potential abuse, which this event demonstrates, as being too high.”
No, you said: “Trying to say he got fired so it is ok is like trying to catch all the chickens who just escaped the coop.”
That is a strawman argument since no one is saying what the man did wasn’t wrong.
Skwor wrote: “I identified correctly your implied point which was, because the cop was fired the system is working acceptably, I completely reject that as naive ignorance.”
No, what is naive is claiming that abuse of the system means the system should be banned. Punish the abusers. Don’t ban the system.
Reading is not your strong suit, I guess. “Trying to say he got fired so it is ok is like trying to catch all the chickens who just escaped the coop.” does not state anything about the cops “wrongness.” It is an idiom (albeit a more localized one) meaning the damage is already done and it is too late to do anything about it.
It is a turn of a phrase similar to “the horse has already left the barn”
Link provided for you edification
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/horse+had+left+the+barn
Feel free to twist yourself in knots trying to prove that phrase means nothing wrong was done.
“ You don’t defund the police for misusing their badge.”
Nice straw man. No one here is talking about “defunding” them. Just taking away a toy that’s been misused far too many times.
They obviously can’t be trusted with it.
L
Skwor wrote: “Reading is not your strong suit, ...”
And, logic is not one of your strong suits. Why should we ban the system because one cop abused it? How many other things should we ban because they can be abused?
A cop abused the system. He lost his job. He faces criminal charges. Yes, the system worked.
A cop uses his firearm to commit a crime. Should we take away all firearms from all police?
Skwor wrote: “Reading is not your strong suit, ...”
And, logic is not one of your strong suits. Why should we ban the system because one cop abused it? How many other things should we ban because they can be abused?
A cop abused the system. He lost his job. He faces criminal charges. Yes, the system worked.
A cop uses his firearm to commit a crime. Should we take away all firearms from all police?
Lurker wrote: “Nice straw man. No one here is talking about “defunding” them. Just taking away a toy that’s been misused far too many times.”
How many times is ‘far too many’?
How many times has the system been used for lawful purposes?
You’re argument is a close cousin to the left arguing that because of police abuse, they should be defunded.
BTW, exactly what damages have you experienced because of these cameras?
And now you move the goal posts. You accused me of a strawman and demonstrated you either did not know what such a logical fallacy is or what the nature of the idiom I wrote was. That did not stop you from committing the error and making the accusation.
The rest of your arguments can be dismissed as you do not show the capacity to engage.
But in good faith I will respond to what you just wrote. First, it is not one cop it has been many, so many it has become nearly a meme. You are making an unsupported and easily provable false assertion here; the rest of that reasoning then falls apart as your basis is false.
Second, the potential for extreme abuse with such power is very high, one the founders of our constitution well before such technology existed warned us against. Consider the quote oft use of Benjiman Franklin on this subject about security and liberty.
I for one am not quick to remove the ancient landmarks of our forefathers (Prov 22:28)
Skwor wrote: “And now you move the goal posts. You accused me of a strawman and demonstrated you either did not know what such a logical fallacy is or what the nature of the idiom I wrote was. That did not stop you from committing the error and making the accusation.”
the accusation is/was true.
Skwor wrote: “Second, the potential for extreme abuse with such power is very high, one the founders of our constitution well before such technology existed warned us against. Consider the quote oft use of Benjiman Franklin on this subject about security and liberty.”
If the potential is so high, then you shouldn’t have an problems identifying the times you’ve been damaged by these cameras.
Second. Referring to Ben Franklin’s quotation on security and liberty does you no good. Franklin was not referring to technology when he said: “ “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” “
Franklin wrote those words as a legislator defending the colonial assembly’s right to tax wealthy proprietors (like the Penn family) to pay for frontier defense. The “liberty” he meant was the legislative power of self-governance and taxation for public defense, not an individual’s right to be free from government oversight.
“Essential Liberty” did not mean individual civil liberties (like freedom of speech or privacy). Franklin meant the collective liberty of a self-governing people to tax themselves and manage their own security.
“Temporary Safety” did not mean national security or police protection. It referred to a one-time, lump-sum bribe offered by the wealthy Penn family to buy their way out of future taxes. Franklin thought relying on a brief pocket of cash instead of a permanent defense system was a dangerous illusion of safety.
Finally, you’re attempting to create a false dichotomy. Life is a trade-off between liberty and security. Life is a balancing act between the two. Being safe from reckless drivers requires giving up the liberty to drive recklessly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.