"Cookiegate" - Richmond, CA P.D. Non-Californians welcome to respond.

[lsmalibu]

For those of you who haven't heard of "Cookiegate," O.com reports on it here.

Do you guys think that a Sgt. from an elite unit in one of the country's roughest cities should be fired for the actions of his officers while the worst they got was a 2 week suspension? I think they should all get fired, because while they have the balls to work in Richmond, none of them had what it took to say "hey, we need to pay for this." Or to at least report it to a watch commander. Now, I've never been on a 7-hour manhunt, but I have been dehydrared to the point of exhaustion before, and when I'm that thirsty, soda is the last thing I want, next to milk.

I've been on oral boards before, and I always get asked, "what do you do when your FTO takes a candy bar without paying for it?" Well, you'd think these officers would have remembered that question.

Also, I've noticed that working in really tough towns seems to bring out the worst in cops, i.e. South Central L.A., New Orleans, Detroit, but that just isn't an excuse. And there have been officers that have done far, far worse things. But I applaud Richmond P.D. for firing this Sgt., but think they need to go even further and fire all the officers. There's no room in law enforcement (and in a city with as much hatred for cops as Richmond) for clowns like these.

[Five-0fromSoCal]

If they felt they were at the point that they needed something to keep them going, then sometimes you do what you have to. If they planned on paying for it later and time didn't permit at that time, then I don't have a problem about it.

[pkagel]

I read that they were dehydrated. Seems that the cookie place would have some water to drink or at the very least they could have left a note with the vendor saying where they could be reached so that they could pay him.

[L-1]

In order to give a meaningful opinion, we need a lot more information than you or the o.com story has made available.

[lsmalibu]

In order to give a meaningful opinion, we need a lot more information than you or the o.com story has made available.

I don't know what other info you need, but here's a more detailed article about the incident:

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4109364

[L-1]

[QUOTE=lsmalibu]I don't know what other info you need, but here's a more detailed article about the incident: [QUOTE]

That's the big problem. People in society who call for discipline based solely on a summarized news clipping. Usually there is usually a lot more to the story.

Over the years I have seen officers lambasted in the press and fired by their departments, only to get their jobs back because at hearing it was shown that they didn't do what was alleged, or if they did do something wrong, it was a far cry from what the press said they did.

In California, there is something called the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. It prohibits departments from disclosing facts contained within a police personnel investigation except under very limited circumstances. What the press published was no doubt based solely on the store owner's statements and what very limited info the department could disclose. Without all the facts it is foolish to pronounce judgment in such matters.

Among other things, I would like to read the entire statements of the store owner, the sergeant and the officers.

I would like to know why the store owner apparently didn't feel this would have been theft if a note (without payment) had been left. (It wouldn't have been theft if they had admitted guilt in a note? Give me a break!) Such an absurd statement contradicts his claim that a theft occurred. OTOH, did he really say that or did the press paraphrase and completely change the meaning of his statements?

I would like to know the sergeant and officer's state of mind and reasoning for what they did (their entire statements and not just a press summary). Remember, under California law three elements must be proved to establish theft: 1. Unlawful taking. 2. Property of another. 3. Intent to permanently deprive. Yet, the news clipping referenced a desire to pay, so was there an unlawful taking? I would also like to read the administrative insight portion of the investigation explaining how this conclusion was reached and how the penalties in question were arrived at.

Obviously, neither of us knows the answers to these questions or what really happened because we are not privy to the investigation report. With this in mind it's really in bad taste for you to call for someone's head when you don't have all the info

[Soon2Be]

I don't think they should've helped themselves, if that's what they indeed did.

They should've just gone for water.

[Five-0fromSoCal]

I don't think they should've helped themselves, if that's what they indeed did.

They should've just gone for water.

From your profile I take it you're not on the job yet. Your views and opinions will change with certain things. Like Lt-1 said, there's not enough presented to actually make a call on this. There's alot more to this than what was on this thread.

[exilio]

The matter seems black and white really...did they take something and not pay for it? Did they leave an IOU? Did they leave any cash? A business card perhaps? I don't think they did any of that.

Should they be fired? Not in my opinion. Harshly disciplined? Yes. Of course. As for their sergeant. Well, he's going to be a victim of politics and the media.