Maryland State Trooper Bruce Allen Tucker (I wonder how many people he worked with knew his middle name was Allen) has been charged with possessing child pornography. According to the Baltimore Sun, Tucker had hidden his computer, which contained over 3000 images, in a water heater closet. After that, Tucker gave a statement to the cops saying he didn’t know why he collected the images, but he was hurt and angry after his wife cheated on him and left him.
While Tucker says he didn’t know why he was looking at the porn (allegedly), Baltimore County Police Lt. Rob McCullough wastes no time stepping up Trooper Tucker’s defense: Says the Lieutenant:
“There’s no indication at this time that he was actually involved in taking the pictures or that he was actually depicted in any of the images with any of these children,” said Baltimore County police Lt. Rob McCullough. “He couldn’t offer any real reason (for it). He basically told investigators he was curious about the images and he just started casually looking at these things over the Internet, and his interest grew. . . I’m sure he had to know it was illegal”
OK, I’ll play. Lieutenant, are you trying to make the citizens of Baltimore County feel better about the Trooper, you know, he was a good guy and didn’t actually have any pictures of him doing stuff to little kids? Or, are you trying to set up some sort of defense or mitigation? Hey, I’m a defense attorney so I dig it, but can you come by later on this afternoon because I got a guy who is charged with having 20 images and he isn’t in any of them either. No? You’re busy? I understand.
Second, let’s look at the statement “he couldn’t offer any real reason for it.” Pray tell, Lieutenant, what might be a ‘good reason’ for having over 3000 pornographic images of children on your computer? I’ve heard a lot of reasons – the first amendment usually being a big one. What reason would have sufficed? It was for work? I like looking at little kids? I’m sure other folks in Mr. Tucker’s position would love to know, you know, for future reference.
The kicker though is the Lieutenant’s statement that the trooper “had to know it was illegal” said almost wistfully, like maybe, possibly the trooper didn’t know. Now, I’m not all that clear on how the troopers are trained (and if this were a Baltimore City Police officer it may be that he didn’t know) but that it would even be doubted that he knew it was illegal to have images of children engaged in sex acts with adults is unfathomable.
Let me just say that I hope Mr. Tucker gets the best counsel money can buy and that his lawyer tears it up. But the double standard is absolutely incredible.
|
”
|
Mirriam,
Clearly you are worked up about this, and well you should be. I am quite surprised that the "powers-that-be" didn't just cut this guy loose.
Offering lame comments like "he was sad" and "well, at least he wasn't doing it while on duty" (a statement which is, to say the least, a bit premature, in my mind) seems to indicate that they might actually try to back this guy.
One thing about your post, though – the way it is written ("Tucker had hidden his computer in a water heater closet that contained thousands of images.")seems to indicate that there was a closet full of images. I'm not really much of a grammar stickler, but the meaning really does change with the wording there.
I notice that almost nothing was said in the SUN article about the disposable cameras… It would appear that this guy might have been a bit more than just a collector with an inquisitive nature.
As for the double standard, if he gets a deal, I say it's torch-and-pitchfork time.
Thanks for pointing out that sentence. I corrected it.
I don't think we'll get to torch and pitchfork, we've become too submissive.
Wouldn't it be great if you could make a motion that your defendant be tried as a police officer?
Windy – for serious. And, this happened in Baltimore County. If it was the city he might not get a break. The folks in the city know how the cops are.
I hope you don't ever need a Police Officer. You should be ashamed of yourself! Actually you should be disbarred!!!!
Anonymous – I hope I never need a police officer either, but probably I will and I hope it is one of the fine officers I've come to know in my lifetime. I certainly hope that the officer I encounter knows that possessing child porn is against the law.
I just don't think you should judge all Police Officers based on the actions of a few. I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone passing judgement on you based on the actions of the "scum attorneys" in the legal system. As for the State Trooper accused of possessing child pornography he should be treated like anyone else, if not worse because he is held to a higher standard! Damn him!
Scott, I have been equally harsh on attorneys if you go back and read. I know there are good cops out there, but just like with lawyers or doctors or plumbers, a few very bad apples can make the whole bushel rot.
As for holding the officer to a higher standard, well, I hope he gets the same treatment my clients get – nothing more and nothing less.
I wonder if this is the same Maryland State Trooper that stopped me in 2001 with the last name Tucker. Stupid pig gave me a speeding ticket for speeding and for not wearing seat belt. I admit I was speeding, but I always wear my seat belt. I hope this pig gets "bent-over" in prison.