A violent, reckless, dangerous attempt.
But an attempt nonetheless.
When the evidence reached prosecutors, the case divided into several related proceedings.
The equipment-diversion scheme involved theft, fraud, and conspiracy allegations.
The county corruption investigation involved possible bribery, false records, and abuse of official processes.
The roadside encounter raised separate questions about criminal civil-rights violations, unlawful force, obstruction, and property destruction.
Those distinctions mattered.
A person could be guilty of one offense without being guilty of every allegation.
A deputy could commit a criminal civil-rights violation even if he had no involvement in stolen military equipment.
A business owner could participate in fraud without personally ordering every improper traffic stop.
And a sheriff could face consequences for his own conduct without the entire department being presumed guilty.
The investigators had to prove individual responsibility.
That work took time.
It also required patience from people who had already waited too long.
Garrett was removed from active duty while the investigation proceeded.
Then the department announced his termination.
The decision didn't end the criminal inquiry.
He retained legal counsel and challenged the factual basis of several allegations.
His attorney argued that the traffic stop had been based on information supplied by others and that Garrett genuinely believed he was investigating possible criminal activity.
The attorney also claimed that the confrontation escalated because I refused to provide immediate access to my belongings.
Those arguments appeared in written submissions and public statements.
I read them carefully.
Then I watched the videos again.
I had complied with the orders I was able to comply with.
I had offered a lawful means of verifying my identity.
I had remained physically restrained while Garrett damaged my car.
And Ruth had stood behind her fence without threatening anyone.
The recordings did not require a viewer to believe I was perfect.
They showed what happened.
That was enough.
Miles's situation was more complicated.
He had helped stop the encounter from becoming even worse.
He had preserved evidence.
He had contacted independent authorities.
But he had also remained silent during the earliest moments when Garrett pulled me from the vehicle.
The investigators examined that failure.
Miles admitted it.
He did not attempt to portray himself as someone who had intervened immediately.
His public statement, issued through counsel after his cooperation became known, was brief.
"I did not act as quickly as I should have. I am responsible for that failure. When the situation escalated, I reported the misconduct and preserved the evidence. I will continue cooperating fully with the investigation."
I read those words several times.
Then I called Thomas.
"Have you seen Miles's statement?"
"Yes."
"What do you think?"
Thomas considered the question.
"I think he's telling the truth about his own role."
I nodded.