1͏6͏h͏
·
Shared with Public
Two links to posts that I think DESERVE more attention:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JYb8UnhSQ/
and
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JYb8UnhSQ/
------------------------------------------
**QUICK CORRECTION:** I noticed that the two Facebook links at the beginning of this post are identical. That's a simple copy-and-paste error on my part. I intended to reference two separate Williamson Reporter posts. Since I can no longer access the publisher's Facebook pages through my account, I can't directly verify the intended links. Nikki can still access them, so I can correct the links once verified if needed.
**I OWN MY MISTAKES, EVEN THE LITTLE ONES. THAT'S ACCOUNTABILITY.**
--------------------------------------------
**TO MY FRIENDS, FORMER COLLEAGUES, AND FELLOW FIRST RESPONDERS IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS:**
I want to bring something to your attention, particularly those of you I've worked alongside in law enforcement, EMS, fire service, and emergency response throughout Williamson County.
Some of you may already be familiar with David Flash, publisher of the Williamson Reporter, and his ongoing public campaign against Deputy Ryan Little and other members of the Williamson County Sheriff's Office.
For those who aren't, here's the situation.
According to Flash's own reporting, deputies responded to a suspicious-person call in Block House Creek shortly after 1 a.m. on May 23. The original complaint reportedly involved someone in the roadway, possibly looking into vehicles.
Deputies encountered Flash in the area, conducted an investigation lasting approximately 15 to 20 minutes, and released him without arrest or charges.
Flash subsequently filed complaints, demanded records, challenged Internal Affairs findings, and began publishing repeated articles and Facebook posts identifying and criticizing the deputies involved.
His own reporting acknowledges that the Sheriff's Office classified his original detention complaint as exonerated. He disputes that determination and continues pursuing allegations of misconduct.
**NOW HERE'S WHY I'M BRINGING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION.**
I've personally responded to NUMEROUS calls in Block House Creek. I'm familiar with that neighborhood and the realities of responding to suspicious-person complaints, particularly in the middle of the night.
I've also spent years serving in the military, law enforcement, EMS, and the fire service.
And something else matters here:
**I HAVE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THESE ENCOUNTERS!**
I've been the responder investigating suspicious circumstances, questioning individuals, and determining whether a crime has occurred.
I've ALSO been the ordinary citizen approached by law enforcement, questioned about my activities, and asked to provide identification.
I understand BOTH perspectives.
And THAT is why I find the way this incident is being presented so troubling.
**WHERE IS THE COMPLETE ACCOUNT OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?**
Flash has spent months examining the deputies' reports, statements, communications, decisions, and professional conduct.
He's repeatedly published Deputy Little's photograph and questioned his judgment, professionalism, and actions.
But in the material I've reviewed, there's remarkably little information about **FLASH'S OWN WORDS, ACTIONS, AND BEHAVIOR** during those same 15 to 20 minutes.
Did he cooperate?
Did he voluntarily provide identification?
Did he answer reasonable questions?
Was he calm and cooperative, or argumentative and confrontational?
Did his conduct contribute to the duration of the encounter?
And while multiple deputies were involved in this encounter, what was happening with the ORIGINAL suspicious-person investigation?
**THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE ANSWERS, TOO!**
I'm not claiming to know how Flash behaved. That's precisely the problem. His public narrative doesn't provide enough information to evaluate BOTH sides of the encounter.
Yet he wants readers to scrutinize virtually every action taken by the officers.
**THAT IS NOT THE COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY HE KEEPS PREACHING ABOUT!**
Let's get something straight.
I absolutely believe law enforcement officers should be held accountable when they violate someone's rights or abuse their authority.
I've served alongside people who took their responsibilities seriously, and I understand the importance of public trust.
But I ALSO believe that allegations should be supported by evidence, investigations should consider ALL relevant circumstances, and the public should be given an accurate picture of what happened.
**NEITHER A BADGE NOR A PRESS CREDENTIAL MAKES SOMEONE ABOVE SCRUTINY!**
And publishing allegations about yourself through your own news outlet doesn't automatically establish that your interpretation is correct.
Flash is simultaneously the complainant, the publisher, and the person deciding how this controversy is presented to his audience.
That's a legitimate reason to demand greater editorial transparency, not less.
**IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY, YOU'D BETTER BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE SAME SCRUTINY YOURSELF!**
I want to see the complete encounter. The dispatch information. The complete body-camera recordings where available. The original complaints and statements. The words and actions of EVERYONE involved, including Flash himself.
Not carefully selected excerpts. Not repeated photographs accompanied by allegations. Not lengthy lectures about constitutional rights.
**THE COMPLETE PICTURE.**
To those of you who have worked in Williamson County, particularly those familiar with Block House Creek and the demands placed on responding deputies, I think you'll understand exactly why I'm raising these questions.
You've been there. You've answered the calls. You've had to make decisions based on incomplete information, sometimes in the middle of the night, while other calls were waiting.
And you know that the details of an encounter matter.
I'm not asking anyone to blindly defend Deputy Little or any other officer. I'm asking that the same standards of evidence, fairness, and accountability apply to EVERYONE involved.
**TO MR. FLASH:**
You have every right to investigate alleged misconduct, challenge official findings, and exercise your constitutional rights.
And WE have every right to question your reporting, your conclusions, and the completeness of the story you're publishing.
If you want the public to examine Deputy Little's conduct, provide the information necessary to examine YOURS as well.
**ACCOUNTABILITY IS A TWO-WAY STREET.**
**TRANSPARENCY CANNOT BE SELECTIVE.**
And owning the publication doesn't give you exclusive authority to decide whose actions deserve examination.
**POT, MEET KETTLE!**
To my friends and former colleagues in Williamson County: I'm sharing this because I believe you deserve to know what is being published about the people serving your community, and because the public deserves the WHOLE STORY, not just one person's interpretation of it.
·
·
After approximately five hours examining David Flash's reporting, his Facebook replies, and Williamson Reporter itself, I've learned more about how this controversy is presented than about what actually happened during his May 23 encounter with WCSO.
The headline about Deputy Ryan Little caught my attention. Reading the article, I found an account of deputies responding to suspicious-person reports in Block House Creek around 1 a.m., approaching Flash as he walked through the area, questioning him, reportedly detaining him, and releasing him without charges after about 15 to 20 minutes.
I've served in law enforcement, EMS, firefighting, and the military, and I've responded to calls in that very neighborhood. My initial gut reaction was that someone might have acted like a jerk and turned a brief encounter into a longer confrontation. I said so bluntly, and I used insulting language. I threw the first stone in that respect. I'll own it.
What followed was hours of argument that did very little to clarify the encounter. Flash lectured me about constitutional law and invoked his education, travels, and career. He criticized my grammar, intelligence, experience, employment, hobbies, happiness, and alleged obsession. Other commenters added insults, political arguments, and sweeping claims about police misconduct. I wasn't diplomatic either. None of it tells us what happened on May 23.
My question became simple: WHAT DID THE DEPUTIES ACTUALLY DO that constituted misconduct or violated his rights? Not what Flash felt, not what he believes the law says. What happened, in sequence, between first contact and release?
His repeated account is that he was legally walking on a sidewalk, didn't match the suspicious-person reports, asked what crime he was suspected of, was told he was detained, and was eventually released. Later he added that he asked essentially the same question a dozen times, remained controlled, and that Little talked about his day. These are details, but not a full account of the exchange.
What did Flash say and do throughout those minutes? What did Little and the other deputies say and do? Was ID requested, provided, or demanded? What information were deputies checking? Why did additional units arrive? What prompted the officer's documented assessment of Flash's behavior? What led to his release? These are questions, NOT claims that I know the answers.
Deputies were responding to an actual report, and Flash was apparently the only person they encountered in the immediate area. That gives an understandable operational reason to approach him and investigate. It doesn't automatically establish that everything they did was lawful. But walking legally, feeling belittled, and being released without charges don't independently prove misconduct either. My training informs the questions I ask; it doesn't make me an eyewitness.
Flash repeatedly demanded that I explain what justified his detention. I WASN'T THERE. I have never claimed Little was innocent or guilty. I am asking for the evidence needed to assess the accusation Flash chose to publish. He says everything has already been published, yet I still haven't been shown a complete chronology or a specific place to find it. If it exists, identify it. If portions aren't available, say so.
There are genuine records disputes too. Flash has published official reports, communications, complaint findings, and records requests, some of which raise separate questions worth examining. WCSO classified his original complaints as one exonerated and two unfounded; he disputes those findings. A disputed report, a filed complaint, and an established constitutional violation are not the same thing.
Meanwhile, Flash repeatedly claimed I had announced I was leaving or unfollowing his page. I've NEVER followed his page. He called hours of scrutiny an obsession lasting days and cited an AI assessment of my arguments. I use AI for research and editing myself. Neither an AI opinion nor personal attacks can replace factual evidence. If he says I announced my departure, he can quote the comment.
I then examined Williamson Reporter. The site publishes factual local news, community announcements, and promotional business coverage. Like any outlet, it makes editorial choices. But some of Flash's choices deserve scrutiny. His original May 23 story quoted an unnamed resident without clearly disclosing that HE was the resident. A later K-9 training story brought in his unresolved complaint against one deputy. An article about a public crime-scene presentation also revisited his WCSO controversy.
Those examples do not prove his factual statements false. They do show where the publisher's personal interest affects the framing of other news. An article can be technically accurate sentence by sentence yet give an incomplete impression. An "Editorial" label permits opinion, not inaccurate supporting facts. That matters when Flash tells critics he verifies thoroughly, corrects mistakes, and prizes transparency and intellectual honesty.
I've lived and served in WilCo, encountered good and bad public servants, and heard serious historical concerns from LGBT friends who avoided the county. I don't dismiss those experiences. But neither admiration nor distrust of WCSO establishes what happened in THIS encounter.
After these hours of exchanges and reading, my conclusion is unchanged: I have not seen a complete factual reconstruction that persuades me Flash has substantiated the constitutional misconduct he alleges. That is my assessment of what he has presented, not a claim that every deputy acted perfectly or that every record has been released.
Flash is entitled to investigate WCSO, request records, complain, and pursue legal remedies. I'm equally entitled to examine his journalism, question its completeness, and call bullshit when the evidence presented doesn't persuade me. His answer that he "doesn't work for me" misses the point. Deputies answer to standards governing public service. Journalists answer to standards of accuracy, context, transparency, and fairness in their published work.
If the whole account is already available, show us exactly where. If key facts or recordings are missing, acknowledge the limits. Repetition, credentials, insults, and accusations of obsession don't establish what took place.
Truth and accountability apply to the badge AND to the byline.
Draw your own conclusions. If you agree fine. If you disagree fine. But leave the bullshit and rhetoric out of it!
·
·
A follow-up concerning David Flash, Williamson Reporter, and his responses to public scrutiny.
For my friends, former colleagues, and fellow first responders in Williamson County, I want to bring another aspect of this controversy to your attention. Since questioning David Flash's reporting about his encounter with Deputy Ryan Little and WCSO, I've received numerous lengthy responses from Flash himself. After examining those exchanges, I find something particularly interesting about the transparency, accountability, education, and intellectual honesty he repeatedly champions. Those standards seem to become rather flexible when someone begins scrutinizing his own reporting.
I've repeatedly asked Mr. Flash to provide a complete, firsthand account of his encounter with Deputy Little. Specifically, what both individuals said and did, how the interaction began, whether identification was requested and provided, how the conversation progressed, and what occurred during those 15 to 20 minutes. These are reasonable questions concerning the very encounter Flash has spent months investigating, criticizing, and publishing articles about.
He has provided some details. He says he was walking on a sidewalk, didn't match the caller's description, and repeatedly questioned the reason for his detention. He has also stated that he supports releasing the complete recordings and has requested additional records from the county. I acknowledge those statements. But they still don't provide the complete chronological account of his own words and actions that I've repeatedly requested.
Instead, much of our discussion has shifted toward me personally. Mr. Flash has questioned my education, criticized my grammar, challenged my professional experience, asked whether I have a job or hobbies, speculated about my emotional investment, and repeatedly suggested something must be wrong in my personal life. He's characterized my interest in his reporting as an obsession, suggested I'm approaching "top fan" status, and repeatedly wished that my life would somehow improve.
For the record, my personal life is going quite well, and the future I'm working toward is very much on track. I appreciate the concern, but my private circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of his reporting.
More importantly, he has repeatedly claimed that I announced I was unfollowing his page. I've asked him to identify where I supposedly made that statement. I'm still waiting. For someone who places such tremendous emphasis on documented facts and accurate reporting, attributing statements to another person without substantiating them is a rather curious practice.
And then there's his accusation that I'm obsessed with him. Consider that for a moment. Mr. Flash has spent months requesting records, filing complaints, challenging official findings, publishing articles, identifying deputies, and repeatedly revisiting his encounter with Deputy Little. He describes that persistence as professional investigative journalism. Yet when I examine his publications, challenge his conclusions, and ask questions about his own conduct, he characterizes my persistence as a personal obsession.
Why is sustained scrutiny professional dedication when he directs it toward someone else, but personal hostility when someone directs it toward his reporting? Apparently, the watchdog doesn't particularly appreciate being watched.
Now, I recognize that Mr. Flash has responded to some substantive issues. He's discussed the Fourth Amendment, reasonable suspicion, official records, and his efforts to obtain body-camera footage. He's also published WCSO findings that contradict his allegations. Those are relevant responses, and I have no intention of pretending otherwise. But none provides the complete firsthand chronology I've been asking him to share.
I've been blunt in my criticism. I've used language that wasn't particularly diplomatic, and I won't pretend otherwise. My opinions are my own, and I stand behind them. But neither my choice of words nor his criticism of them determines whether Deputy Little violated anyone's constitutional rights. The evidence surrounding the encounter determines that.
Mr. Flash has every right to challenge WCSO, question Deputy Little's decisions, request records, and pursue whatever lawful remedies he believes are appropriate. I've never disputed those rights. What I dispute is the apparent expectation that his version of events should be accepted without the same rigorous examination he demands of everyone else.
I've personally worked alongside officers and deputies from WCSO, LPD, CPPD, LHPD, TCSO, and APD. I've also been on the receiving end of police encounters as an ordinary citizen. My experiences don't make me infallible. Neither do Mr. Flash's education, travels, journalism credentials, or personal experiences make him infallible. That is precisely why evidence matters.
And here's another principle worth remembering. Public-records laws aren't exclusive privileges reserved for journalists. Under the Texas Public Information Act, ordinary citizens can request government records and independently evaluate the available evidence, subject to applicable disclosure restrictions. Mr. Flash doesn't have exclusive authority to interpret those records simply because he publishes a newspaper, nor does he have exclusive authority to decide which aspects of his own conduct deserve examination.
I encourage my friends and former colleagues to read the exchanges themselves. Examine what he wrote, what I wrote, what questions were asked, and which questions were actually answered. Don't accept my conclusions simply because you've worked alongside me. Don't accept his conclusions simply because he operates a news publication. Evaluate the evidence and reach your own conclusions.
And to Mr. Flash, should you happen to read this: You repeatedly remind everyone that constitutional rights, freedom of expression, education, evidence, and accountability are fundamental principles. I agree. But those principles apply to your critics just as surely as they apply to you. Your right to investigate Deputy Little doesn't negate my right to investigate your reporting. Your right to question public officials doesn't exempt your own public statements from questioning.
Your objections to my language, grammar, use of AI as an editing, research, fact-checking, and writing tool, or supposed personal motivations do absolutely nothing to establish the accuracy of your account. You can disagree with me, criticize my conclusions, and challenge my reasoning. But if something I've stated is factually incorrect, identify it and provide the evidence. I'm perfectly willing to examine factual corrections, and I expect the same intellectual honesty from someone who repeatedly champions those principles.
And if you want readers to accept your account of the May 23 encounter, provide the fullest account you can of your own words, actions, and participation, just as you've demanded explanations from the deputies involved. I'm not asking you to prove that you were polite enough to deserve constitutional rights. Those rights apply regardless of your attitude. I'm asking for the complete circumstances of an encounter you've made the subject of an ongoing public controversy.
That is a question about evidence, transparency, and journalistic accountability. Nothing more. Nothing less. No amount of speculation about my personal happiness, employment, education, use of technology, or supposed obsession changes that.
Who watches the watchers? The public does. And that includes ordinary citizens who question the people publishing the news.
Accountability is a two-way street, Mr. Flash. It doesn't stop at the newsroom door.
Merrick Donnelly
·
Eradicating corruption should be the largest focus of our society. That starts with scrutiny of all in power. I agree with yoy
·
·
TL;DR for anyone who hasn't spent the last 12 hours reading this circus:
What began as David Flash alleging constitutional violations by WCSO deputies has deteriorated into a marathon of personal insults, political posturing, accusations, and remarkably little evidence establishing actual misconduct.
Critics called Flash a "male Karen," a crybaby, and worse. I initially called him a jerk. I'll own that. His supporters responded with accusations of police corruption, racism, tyranny, and longstanding WilCo misconduct, often without evidence connecting those claims to this incident.
Flash repeatedly attacked my grammar, education, experience, employment, hobbies, happiness, and supposed "obsession." He repeatedly claimed I'd announced I was leaving his Facebook page, despite my never having followed it. He invoked his education, international travels, professional accomplishments, and even an AI-generated critique of my arguments.
And what did any of that establish about May 23? Absolutely nothing.
I repeatedly requested a complete account of what BOTH Flash and the deputies actually said and did during the approximately 20-minute encounter.
Instead, Flash repeatedly explained constitutional law, insisted he was walking legally, said he wasn't told what crime he was suspected of, and described feeling mistreated. Additional fragments emerged across replies, but never the complete chronology requested.
Yes, he has published records concerning complaints, disputed reports, and internal communications. Those deserve examination. But the body-camera footage has not been presented here, and nothing in these exchanges independently establishes that Deputy Little or the other deputies committed the constitutional violations alleged.
WCSO classified his original complaints as one exonerated and two unfounded. Flash disputes those findings. Disagreement isn't proof of wrongdoing.
I've lived and served in WilCo. I know good officers and bad ones exist. I've also heard serious historical complaints about the county, including from LGBT friends. I don't dismiss those experiences, but they cannot establish what happened in this particular encounter.
After 12 hours, my assessment remains unchanged: mountains of rhetoric, insults and accusations from both sides, but no independently demonstrated constitutional misconduct in the material presented.
If Flash has the complete factual account, publish it clearly. If evidence is unavailable, acknowledge that.
Truth in journalism requires more than repeating allegations until readers accept them as fact.
Accountability applies to the badge AND the byline.
·
·
FOLLOW-UP: SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY!
Here's an interesting development concerning David Flash, publisher of the Williamson Reporter, and his allegations against Williamson County Sheriff's Office deputies: THE PUBLIC EXCHANGE BETWEEN FLASH AND ME HAS DISAPPEARED FROM HIS ORIGINAL FACEBOOK POST. Not just my comments. Not just his replies. THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE BETWEEN US. Yet the original post containing his allegations remains publicly accessible.
Nikki opened that post from her own Facebook account. She could read it, but there was absolutely ZERO indication that I'd spent hours questioning Flash's reporting or that he'd responded to me. No trace of my comments. No trace of his replies. Meanwhile, I can no longer access that content through my account.
Before anyone suggests that Facebook put me in "Facebook Jail," I checked. My Account Status explicitly says "NO RESTRICTIONS." My Support Inbox shows no enforcement action concerning the exchange. My account works normally. AND MY ACTIVITY LOG STILL RECORDS MY PARTICIPATION. The accusations remain available, but the public exchange questioning them is gone. Call it whatever makes you comfortable. I CALL IT CENSORSHIP.
And that is one hell of an irony from a publisher who repeatedly preaches transparency, accountability, constitutional freedoms, and holding others responsible for their words and actions.
Throughout our exchange, I kept asking one question: WHERE IS THE COMPLETE FACTUAL ACCOUNT OF THOSE 15 TO 20 MINUTES? Flash supplied portions of his account and referenced records. He also repeatedly lectured me about constitutional law and devoted considerable energy to my grammar, education, intelligence, experience, employment, hobbies, happiness, and supposed obsession with his page. But he never directed me to the complete chronological account I requested: what he and each deputy actually said and did, in sequence, and what occurred before his release. Now the exchange itself has disappeared.
AND THEN THERE'S HIS WEBSITE. Less than 24 hours before I went looking again, I had seen the original May 23 article about Deputy Ryan Little on the Williamson Reporter homepage. When I returned, I couldn't readily find it in that homepage feed. What I COULD find was Flash's "Unsafe in Williamson County" editorial, centered on how the encounter made him feel. The May 23 article isn't gone; it remains accessible through the site's Law Enforcement archive and by direct link. But there's a difference between keeping an article technically available and making its underlying factual account easy for ordinary readers to discover. When you're publishing serious accusations against named people, that distinction matters.
And yes, Williamson Reporter runs on WordPress. Anyone familiar with my vocabulary can probably hear me muttering "WordPress asshole." Fine. But understand what I'm criticizing: THE OPERATOR, NOT THE TOOL. I've made this point repeatedly about AI, computers, Facebook, and technology generally. A hammer can build a house or crush someone's skull. Do you blame the hammer or the person swinging it? WordPress can support excellent, responsibly edited journalism. It can also publish self-serving editorials, poorly organized reporting, and accusations that haven't been subjected to adequate scrutiny. Facebook can host genuine public debate, or it can become a place where criticism disappears while the accusations remain. SAME TOOLS. DIFFERENT OPERATORS. DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES.
Owning a hammer doesn't make you a carpenter. Having a WordPress site doesn't automatically make you a journalist. And having polished grammar or a publishing platform doesn't automatically make your claims accurate. Credibility comes from evidence, fairness, transparency, professional judgment, and a willingness to have your OWN work questioned. You don't get to demand those standards from public officials while treating scrutiny of your journalism as an inconvenience.
BUT HERE'S THE PART SOMEBODY APPARENTLY DIDN'T COUNT ON. I USE A PERSISTENT CLIPBOARD. I still have a text copy of the discussion through my last reply, including Flash's responses AND MY OWN COMMENTS. Including where I called him an asshole. Including where I threw the first personal stone. Including statements I made early on that I later clarified or reconsidered. I'm not cleaning any of that up to make myself look like an innocent little angel. I SAID WHAT I SAID, AND I'LL OWN IT. I can be an abrasive bitch, but abrasiveness doesn't automatically make an argument wrong, any more than a journalist's smooth prose automatically makes one right.
I'M ATTACHING THE PRESERVED TEXT RECORD. Read my insults. Read his replies. Read where he offered factual information, where I acknowledged it, and where we both got personal. Most importantly, read the questions I continued to ask. I'm not asking anyone to assume the deputies acted lawfully or that Flash's allegations are false. I wasn't there. I'm asking whether the actual evidence presented supports the serious accusations being made. That was the point I kept returning to, long after the initial insults.
There's a reason I'm including my own ugly comments: accountability isn't selectively publishing the parts that make YOU look good. If I expect someone to answer for their words, I had damned well better be prepared to answer for mine. The complete preserved exchange lets readers judge us both. That's more transparency than leaving the accusations visible while making the challenge to them disappear.
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS REMAIN VISIBLE. THE PUBLIC EXCHANGE CHALLENGING THEM DOES NOT. Regardless of whose finger clicked what, that discussion has been censored. Fortunately, the record survives. Removing criticism from public view does not answer it, and operating a publishing platform does not excuse you from scrutiny.
TRANSPARENCY IS A TWO-WAY STREET. Read the attached record. Agree with me, disagree with me, or call me an asshole. I've earned it on occasion. But THE QUESTIONS DIDN'T DISAPPEAR JUST BECAUSE THE COMMENTS DID. Neither did the evidence that those questions were asked.
POT, MEET KETTLE.
PS: I DID say I would attach the post transcript. Though I forgot that you CAN'T attach a text file to a post.
So here is it on Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/.../1b4h8uteAmKP7tjOVDP1.../view...
THREE ARTICLES. ONE INCIDENT. AND THE CONTEXT THAT GOT LEFT BEHIND.
David Flash, publisher of the Williamson Reporter, has spent months demanding transparency and accountability from the Williamson County Sheriff's Office over his May 23 encounter with Deputy Ryan Little. I've spent hours asking for a COMPLETE factual account of that encounter. Rather than another argument about my grammar, his credentials, or his interpretation of constitutional law, let's examine WHAT HE HIMSELF PUBLISHED.
THREE ARTICLES. READ THEM IN ORDER.
MAY 23 - ORIGINAL REPORT:
https://williamsonreporter.com/.../block-house-creek.../
MAY 25 - "UNSAFE IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY" EDITORIAL:
https://williamsonreporter.com/.../editorial-ive-walked.../
NOVEMBER 5 - FORMAL NOTICE OF CLAIM:
https://williamsonreporter.com/.../williamson-reporter.../
START WITH MAY 23. The article says Deputy Little was working a PAID NEIGHBORHOOD PATROL. Dispatch had received a complaint about someone sitting in the street roughly 30 minutes earlier and another about someone allegedly looking into vehicles. Little approached the resident and asked whether he was OK. Three additional deputies arrived. The resident called a relative to the scene. The report also describes a "10-96" reference and the resident's objections to how deputies spoke to him. That's context Flash himself chose to publish.
NOW LOOK AT THE BYLINE. The author is DAVID FLASH. The main source is repeatedly identified and quoted as "the resident," in the THIRD PERSON. Nowhere does that article plainly disclose that FLASH HIMSELF WAS THE RESIDENT. The person reporting the allegations and the person making them were the same man, and the reader wasn't told.
NOW READ MAY 25. Two days later, Flash writes an editorial about how he no longer feels comfortable walking outside in Williamson County. He tells readers: "The person at the center of that reporting is someone whose experience I know well." SOMEONE HE KNOWS WELL? IT WAS HIM. Yet he STILL doesn't directly disclose that fact.
AND WHERE DID THE CONTEXT GO? His editorial never tells readers that dispatch had received complaints about a person in the street and someone allegedly looking into vehicles. It leaves out the paid neighborhood patrol, the additional deputies, and the relative who came to observe. It also doesn't tell readers this happened shortly after 1 A.M., a detail he would finally publish explicitly in November. Instead, readers get an extended account of his personal discomfort and his decision to walk indoors.
Here's a particularly striking omission. The editorial mentions "walking in the roadway where a sidewalk exists" as an example of conduct officers could address. Yet it doesn't disclose that his own May 23 report described a complaint about a person sitting in the roadway. That isn't some fact I'm importing into the story. IT'S A FACT HE HAD ALREADY PUBLISHED.
NOW READ NOVEMBER 5. The formerly unnamed resident is finally identified: DAVID FLASH. The article places the encounter shortly after 1 A.M. and says it involved four deputies over approximately 15 to 20 minutes. It says the dispatch description involved a Hispanic man in the roadway and looking into vehicles; Flash says he is white, was on a sidewalk, and wasn't looking into vehicles. ALL of those details belong in the factual record. I am not asking anyone to ignore information that supports Flash's account.
And there's another fact his November article reports: Internal Affairs classified ONE of his original complaints as EXONERATED and TWO as UNFOUNDED. Flash disputes those findings. Both the findings AND his disagreement with them belong in an honest account of the controversy.
THREE ARTICLES. ONE INCIDENT. Material details scattered among them, with important circumstances omitted from the editorial, and the most fundamental relationship of all initially left undisclosed: THE REPORTER AND THE PERSON HE WAS QUOTING WERE THE SAME MAN.
My questions are about the COMPLETE RECORD: What did Flash and Little actually say and do, in order? At what point did each event occur? What did the other deputies say and do? What information was checked? What did the relative witness? What happened during the remainder of those 15 to 20 minutes, and what preceded Flash's release? These publications do not provide that complete chronology.
I AM NOT ASKING ANYONE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DETENTION WAS LAWFUL. That belongs in the appropriate legal proceedings. I am examining a publisher's OWN WORDS, the context he chose to include or omit, and the transparency he demands of everyone else.
And I'll apply that same standard to myself. I've preserved the Facebook exchange, including my insults, my first personal attack, and Flash's replies. I'm willing to publish my own words without cleaning them up to flatter myself. Readers can judge my conduct, too. THAT'S WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIRES.
MR. FLASH, YOU KEEP DEMANDING TRANSPARENCY. HERE ARE YOUR THREE ARTICLES, SIDE BY SIDE. READERS CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT YOU PUBLISHED, WHAT YOU LEFT OUT, AND WHEN YOU FINALLY IDENTIFIED YOURSELF AS THE SUBJECT.
TRANSPARENCY IS A TWO-WAY STREET. POT, MEET KETTLE.
**FINAL UPDATE: THE MISSING PIECE I WASN'T EVEN LOOKING FOR!**
You know how you can spend hours searching through a pile of LEGO bricks for ONE particular piece, finally give up, and then stumble across it when you're putting everything away?
WELL, THAT JUST HAPPENED.
After HOURS of examining David Flash's reporting and questioning the completeness of his account of the May 23 encounter with Williamson County deputies, I was finally wrapping up the entire matter.
And quite by accident, I stumbled across something rather interesting.
**ACTUAL DASHCAM FOOTAGE OF THE ENCOUNTER!**
WATCH IT YOURSELF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTagKXk3gy8
The original site I stumbled upon:
https://www.bigbendtimes.org/.../david-flash-tries-to.../
Now, remember what Flash personally told me about his conduct during the encounter:
"I was consequently very deliberate about my tone of voice, my choice of words and how I conducted myself."
And:
"I remained articulate, controlled and focused on one very simple question: Why am I being detained?"
**WELL, LET'S COMPARE THOSE WORDS WITH WHAT THE CAMERA SHOWS.**
The video depicts Flash gesturing emphatically, engaging repeatedly with deputies, apparently placing his hands behind his back on at least two occasions as though expecting handcuffs, and interacting animatedly with the woman who arrives during the encounter. Some of his language can be heard even from the patrol vehicles.
The deputies, meanwhile, appear remarkably restrained in their physical responses. Even when Flash moves toward the arriving vehicle, the footage doesn't show them physically preventing that movement.
**THAT IS NOT THE PICTURE OF HIS CONDUCT I TOOK AWAY FROM HIS WRITTEN ACCOUNT.**
Now, let's apply the SAME scrutiny to this evidence.
The video was published by Big Bend Times Dot Org, a publication engaged in a longstanding public dispute with Flash. The footage is EDITED, contains missing time and changes in camera perspective, runs approximately ten minutes, and lacks clear audio of much of the conversation. The publisher's commentary is NOT independent evidence. I am not accepting its accusations simply because its interpretation resembles my initial impression.
But those limitations don't erase what the camera visibly records.
Nor do I intend to determine the legality of Flash's detention. That's for the appropriate legal proceedings, not my Facebook page.
**MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE COMPLETE FACTUAL CONTEXT AND THE ACCURACY OF FLASH'S REPORTING.**
We now have additional visual evidence of HIS conduct, the deputies' responses, and the arrival of another participant. It's information his published descriptions did not meaningfully convey.
Is this the complete encounter? NO. Does it reproduce every word spoken? NO. Does it provide important evidence readers can compare against Flash's account? **ABSOLUTELY.**
I've presented his articles, preserved our exchange, acknowledged my own insults, identified the limitations of this video, and supplied the link.
**I SPENT HOURS ASKING FOR A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE. IRONICALLY, AN IMPORTANT PIECE TURNED UP JUST AS I WAS FINISHED LOOKING.**
Watch the recording. Read his statements. Examine the differences. Form your OWN conclusions.
I've said what I needed to say.
**TRANSPARENCY IS A TWO-WAY STREET. AND THAT INCLUDES THE PERSON MAKING THE ACCUSATIONS.**
**POT, MEET KETTLE.**
·
·
MY CLOSING EDITORIAL COMMENT: THE FACTS, THE FRAGMENTS, AND THE PERSON BEHIND THE PLATFORM.
Before anyone calls this a dog-with-a-bone rant, here's something worth explaining: Facebook's format and length limits didn't give me room to lay out my entire counterargument in one post. That's why I used several replies to my own post. They are parts of ONE argument, not separate attempts to keep a fight going. If I'm going to challenge a publisher's account, I'm going to show my work.
Now, my editorial opinion.
This entire controversy has been published through the Williamson Reporter, a privately run, self-published news site, in three separate articles and at least three Facebook posts that I've seen, some recycled with little more than "ICYMI" (In Case You Missed It). Nearly six months after the May 23 encounter, we're still getting fragments: a detail here, an allegation there, a quotation from a released record somewhere else. Some additional information HAS emerged, including Internal Affairs findings and internal communications. But none of these publications gives readers the complete, chronological account of the encounter I've been asking to see.
Meanwhile, Flash repeatedly advertises his travels to roughly a hundred countries, his education, his professional accomplishments, and his understanding of the Constitution. He speaks grandly about journalistic integrity, transparency, and accountability. Yet when readers challenge his OWN reporting by those same standards, his replies can veer into lectures about their grammar, intelligence, jobs, hobbies, education, supposed obsession, and whether they're happy with their lives. I have the preserved exchange, including my own insults, to demonstrate what was actually said.
Then there's his May 25 editorial, just TWO DAYS after the original report. He describes walking through places overseas that people warned him against, yet now says he feels so unsafe walking in his own Texas neighborhood that he exercises by walking figure-eights INSIDE HIS HOUSE. That's his experience to describe. But when he chooses to turn those feelings into published criticism of named deputies, readers are entitled to the circumstances he left out: the time of night, the reported activity, the paid patrol detail, the other deputies, and the relative who arrived.
According to his original report, Deputy Little's initial question was whether the resident was OK. Flash says he later repeatedly asked what crime he was suspected of, while Little talked about his day. He says he called a relative because he felt unsafe, and that relative came to observe. WHAT DID THAT RELATIVE ACTUALLY SEE AND HEAR? What did the other deputies say and do? What was discussed during the rest of those 15 to 20 minutes? Those are factual questions about a published story, not a request for another constitutional sermon.
And let's keep the records straight. The "homie runs these pages" remark he later reported came from internal communications obtained afterward, not a documented statement to Flash during the roadside encounter. A reference to "10-96" appears in the original report, but his descriptions of feeling patronized still don't supply the missing dialogue. We get plenty of what FLASH says he said, how he said it, and how many times he repeated it. We get remarkably little of a continuous account of what EVERYONE ELSE actually said and did.
His November article also reports that Internal Affairs classified one original complaint as EXONERATED and two as UNFOUNDED. He disputes those findings and has served a formal notice of claim. Fine. Those are facts readers should know. I didn't witness the encounter, and I'm not trying the case on Facebook. MY SUBJECT IS HIS REPORTING AND HIS CLAIMED TRANSPARENCY.
I find the whole production increasingly self-serving: three articles about one incident, repeated social-media promotion, a personal editorial, extensive self-credentialing, and still no single complete chronology for readers to evaluate. And now the public Facebook exchange in which I pressed those questions has disappeared from the original post, while the underlying allegations remain visible. Thankfully, my persistent clipboard preserved his words AND mine.
My opinion? This looks less like an effort to lay out the entire record for public examination and more like BULLSHIT ATTENTION-GRABBING FROM A SMALL-MINDED, SCARED LITTLE MAN who cannot stand having his own reporting scrutinized. You can call that assessment harsh. You can call ME an abrasive bitch. I've already published my own first insults, and I own them. What I won't do is pretend that somebody's title, travels, degree, website, or carefully polished outrage makes their reporting beyond criticism.
You want to hold other people accountable, Mr. Flash? START WITH THE PERSON BEHIND YOUR OWN KEYBOARD. Publish the complete sequence and make it easy to find. Stop answering requests for factual context with lectures about the people asking. And don't mistake repeating an accusation for substantiating it.
THE TOOL ISN'T THE PROBLEM. THE PERSON WIELDING IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IT PRODUCES.
TRANSPARENCY IS A TWO-WAY STREET. POT, MEET KETTLE.
I said what I need, blew maybe 10 hours weeding through the events and what was said allegedly said and found I can no longer access the profiles where the post was first made.
Everyone reading this has their OWN brains, opinions and ability to research, INCLUDING Flash himself!
·
·
ONE LAST FLASH ALERT! I SWEAR THIS IS THE LAST ONE!
At this point, I'm tired, a little slap-happy, and apparently incapable of putting this entire circus to bed without stumbling over another damned FLASH ALERT!
And this one is particularly entertaining.
I just happened across a Facebook discussion dated **FEBRUARY 2, 2024**, in the group "Alpine, What The f*$& Happened!?"
That's right. Nearly THREE YEARS before my own confrontation with David Flash.
And guess what people were complaining about?
HIM DELETING COMMENTS AND BLOCKING PEOPLE WHO QUESTIONED HIS REPORTING!
One commenter, Francisco Jimenez, wrote:
"The Flash deleted all of my comments and blocked me from his page. 😂 I never bullied or harassed him, just simply asked him to be transparent the same way he demands of everyone else."
WELL, I'LL BE DAMNED. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
Other participants made similar complaints about disappearing comments, being blocked, and criticism of Flash's reporting.
Now consider what happened to me TODAY.
I questioned his reporting and demanded the same transparency he demands from public officials. Hours later, my comments AND his replies disappeared from the original Facebook post. Nikki could still access the publication, while I could no longer access his pages. My Facebook account showed NO RESTRICTIONS.
And now I stumble across people describing remarkably similar experiences back in 2024!
I'm not presenting their allegations as independently proven facts. I'm pointing out that
THESE COMPLAINTS WERE BEING MADE LONG BEFORE I EVER CROSSED PATHS WITH HIM.
And the funniest part? They were ALSO asking him for transparency!
You really cannot make this shit up.
AND LET ME CLEAR SOMETHING UP. I NEVER SET OUT TO INVESTIGATE THIS MAN!
His article alleging misconduct by a WCSO deputy in Block House Creek simply appeared in my Facebook feed. Having lived and served in Williamson County, including responding to calls in that very neighborhood, the headline caught my attention.
I read it, formed an initial opinion, and in my usual blunt-bitch fashion, called him an asshole who appeared to have been a dick during a police encounter.
He fired back. I fired back. We traded insults several times.
THEN SANITY FINALLY KICKED IN.
I realized I needed to know MORE about what actually happened. This was my old stomping ground. The people being accused could include folks I'd served alongside in WilCo or LFD. And Nikki and I may eventually end up in Grand Mesa, where Flash also reports local news.
THAT is when I started asking him for the complete factual account, including his OWN conduct, so readers could examine the evidence and judge for themselves.
What followed was HOURS of questions, replies, personal insults, scattered facts, and increasingly interesting discoveries.
Somehow, an article I happened to read turned into three published stories, an edited dashcam video I stumbled across while wrapping things up, a vanished Facebook exchange, and historical complaints describing remarkably similar experiences.
AND I WASN'T EVEN LOOKING FOR MOST OF THIS SHIT!
I've presented the articles, the video, and my own unflattering comments. I've acknowledged where I was wrong, where I was insulting, and where the available evidence has limitations.
Everyone reading this has their own brain, opinions, and ability to examine the information. INCLUDING FLASH HIMSELF.
Draw your own conclusions.
I THINK I'VE HAD ENOUGH FLASH ALERTS FOR ONE DAY!
And Mr. Flash, since you keep preaching accountability and transparency:
POT, MEET KETTLE. AGAIN!
Now, unless another LEGO brick jumps out of the carpet and hits me in the forehead,
I'M GOING TO BED! 😂
Comments
No comments yet.
.