Chicago, IL — Frequent readers of the Free Thought Project are all too familiar with the concept of the “thin blue line.” Though law enforcement claims this line represents the force between good and evil, it is often used as a means to coerce and silence victims of police officers — especially domestic abuse.

For nearly a decade, TFTP has reported on countless incidents of police officers covering for fellow cops when they commit an act of brutality or when they beat their wives. Victims of domestic violence by police often have nowhere to go as reporting the crime to their abuser’s brothers in blue is a daunting task that could land them in deeper trouble.

One would think, however, that if a child of a police officer came forward to report that she had been abused — sexually — that cops would not be able to sweep it under the rug or look the other way. As the following incident illustrates, however, that is not the case.

In March, a 10-year-old girl called 911 and told dispatchers that her father, a veteran Chicago cop, had sexually abused her.

“The victim was scared and called 911,” responding officers would later report, according to the Chicago Sun Times, adding that the actions she described “were sexual in nature.”

The officer’s arrest started out normal and it appeared that he would be held accountable. He was taken into custody, according to the arrest report, for “aggravated criminal sexual abuse by family member” — a serious felony charge.

But after spending several hours in jail, he would be released on zero bail with new charges of “domestic battery” — a misdemeanor.

When someone with an actual conscience inside the department learned about the officer’s special treatment, a red flag was raised sparking two separate investigations. An internal investigation is now underway as well as another by the Civilian Office of Police Accountability.

According to the Sun Times:

In the days after the arrest, two officers and a sergeant involved in the case were stripped of their police powers, according to a law enforcement source, who said only that they were accused of failing to follow departmental policy.

A police spokesman confirmed the action but refused to release any details.

Police and court documents indicate there is confusion over what evidence was gathered on the day the officer was taken into custody on March 17.

In the arrest report, it was noted that the 49-year-old officer made an admission that was recorded on a responding officer’s body-worn camera. “I made a mistake,” he said, according to the report.

Though body worn camera footage was mentioned in the original report, a month later and officials began claiming that there is no body camera footage. Only after attempting to hide it the first time, the video would finally be turned over to Assistant State’s Attorney Thomas Frank’s office — through a second subpoena.

The Times reports that after the girl called 911, she told investigators her father kissed her cheek and lips and told her he “wanted more,” sucking her tongue, according to the arrest report and a charging document.

The remaining details have been sealed because “release of the victim’s statements to the public could be disturbing for the victim and cause the victim to relive the traumatizing experience.”

Court records show the officer was initially ordered to surrender his firearms and stay away from his daughter but less than a week later, the order was amended, allowing him to visit and potentially threaten or re-victimize his alleged victim.

A hearing on the case’s status has been set for June 1.

Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist