Mercer had been given notice of the allegations and the opportunity to respond.
His representative argued that he had perceived the driver as uncooperative and believed the situation might become dangerous.
The investigators considered that explanation.
They also examined what an objectively reasonable officer would have understood from the circumstances available at the time.
The available recordings showed that I had kept my hands visible, communicated my movements, and offered to comply with the exit order.
They did not show a threat requiring the window to be broken.
The investigation also identified significant differences between Mercer's report and the recorded encounter.
His explanations of the stop's basis varied during the process.
And his characterization of my movements was not supported by the video.
The final administrative findings sustained multiple allegations of misconduct, including improper use of force, failure to follow required procedures, and material inaccuracies in reporting.
Those findings didn't depend on my job title.
The independent investigators evaluated the actions as though I had been any other driver.
That mattered more to me than anything else.
When Mercer received the findings, he reacted angrily.
According to the formal record of the proceedings, he challenged the conclusions and argued that investigators were giving too much weight to video that didn't capture everything he believed he had perceived.
His representative exercised the available appeal procedures.
The department reviewed the arguments.
But the essential facts remained.
There was no recorded threat justifying the force used against my window.
And the discrepancies between Mercer's written account and the available evidence were too substantial to dismiss as differences in wording.
After the applicable disciplinary process, Mercer was terminated from his position.
The independent review also referred the relevant findings to the appropriate prosecutorial authority for consideration of whether the conduct warranted criminal charges. That question was handled separately from employment discipline, under the standards required in a criminal proceeding.
I refused to describe the administrative result as a complete victory.
A man had lost his job because investigators found serious misconduct.
My car had been damaged.
My shoulder had been injured.
And several people had endured frightening encounters that the old complaint system had failed to examine properly.
There was nothing joyful about those facts.
But there was something necessary about the process reaching a conclusion supported by evidence.
I thought about Mercer's question on the roadside.
You think somebody at headquarters is going to believe your word over mine?
The answer turned out to be more important than he understood.
The investigators weren't supposed to believe me because of my title.