Justice's History
To keep this report concise and factual, and to avoid inflammatory or speculative statements, the information presented is limited to conduct that can be supported by available evidence. Many of the incidents referenced have digital records or other verifiable traces of their existence, and representative screenshots are included where available. Significant efforts appear to have been made to remove or conceal portions of this material. For that reason, any background investigation should be sufficiently thorough to independently verify the extent and pattern of the conduct documented herein.
Even within the most charitable interpretation of the available evidence, the material recoverable from the deleted account raises serious questions regarding suitability for a position of public trust. While some statements could be characterized as attempts at humor, the frequency, nature, and content of the messages make that characterization difficult to reconcile with the overall pattern of conduct. Several of the statements involve racial slurs, expressions of violence, or other language that would reasonably be considered inconsistent with the professional standards expected of a law enforcement officer.
The conduct documented herein does not consist of isolated remarks from childhood or adolescence. The available evidence originates from recent communications made during adulthood. Because the associated Facebook account has since been deleted, the screenshots included represent only a portion of the material that previously existed. Additional evidence may remain recoverable through Facebook records or other individuals who participated in the relevant conversations.
One of the more concerning pieces of evidence is a video Justice recorded during a physical altercation. Justice drove the individual involved to the scene, remained present, and chose to record the incident rather than intervene. The video itself is too graphic to include in this report, but the original audio captures Justice laughing and saying, "He's actually doing it!" as the assault unfolds. The video shows an individual repeatedly throwing punches through the window of a vehicle.
Afterward, Justice appears to have gone through significant effort to distance himself from the original recording. Multiple altered versions of the video were circulated, including versions with the original audio removed or replaced. Conversations documenting the distribution of these different versions are available and may further demonstrate attempts to separate the original recording from subsequent copies.
This incident stands apart from the offensive language documented elsewhere in this report. It reflects active participation in, and apparent amusement during, a violent confrontation. For an individual seeking a position of public authority entrusted with protecting others, this conduct raises concerns that extend well beyond poor judgment or offensive speech.
It is also important to clarify that this report should not be understood as a complete record of every concern involving Justice’s conduct. The included material represents only what could be preserved, recovered, or independently supported at this time. Other concerns have been described by individuals familiar with Justice, including allegations involving physical altercations, harassment, stalking, and abusive behavior. Those matters are not presented here as established facts unless supported by separate evidence, but they further underscore why a thorough and independent background investigation is necessary.
The central concern is not based on one isolated statement, one offensive joke, or one questionable incident. The concern is the apparent pattern: recent racist language, violent statements, efforts to delete or alter material, participation in a physical confrontation, and conduct that appears inconsistent with the judgment and restraint expected of someone seeking law enforcement authority. A police officer is entrusted with discretion, power, and public confidence. The available evidence raises serious questions about whether that trust would be appropriate here.