Town Square

Post a New Topic

Audio recordings could tell what happened at party

Original post made on Dec 8, 2011

Evidence that may be hard to refute could answer questions about whether there was misconduct by police in their response to a complaint about alleged underage drinking at a party in a Menlo Park home Nov. 25.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, December 7, 2011, 12:00 AM

Comments (52)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joseph
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 8, 2011 at 1:35 pm

Cmdr. Bertini indicates that he is precluded from commenting on the specific allegations because it is a criminal case in progress and then proceeds to do just that throughout the article. It is bad enough that this has become a criminal legal matter and worse still that the Menlo Park PD are making public comments to the media regarding an individual who has yet to see his day in court.

A vast majority of Menlo Park residents are aware and fearful of the worsening police misconduct in our community including traffic stops without probable cause, fabrication of events and citations, use of excessive force and bullying and intimidation of its citizens. The Menlo Park website describes our city as "a Tree City USA community, is a quiet yet vibrant city of pleasant, tree-lined neighborhoods and friendly people." It should continue with "and law-abiding citizens who are intimidated and fearful of a police force who are more interested in making arrests, with or without cause, than serving and working with the community to safely resolve issues without escalation and great cost."

We have many exceptional officers on the force but a few bad apples are spoiling the entire bunch. The same names appear time and again when we hear of these misconduct issues and the City Council and police chief are well aware of who these individuals are. It is time for the City Council to investigate and take control of the force and time for our citizenry to stand up and address the City Council with our concerns despite our fears of further intimidation and retribution. If nothing is done, the Menlo Park City Council will eventually find themselves addressing an expensive civil suit regarding this continuing, egregious activity which could be of such heavy cost as to bankrupt the city. Legal liability aside, it is the right thing to do for our community.

It was Mr. Burnett who was unlucky enough to get caught in the police cross-hairs this time but any of us could certainly be next. Don't think it can't happen to you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave Boyce
Almanac staff writer
on Dec 8, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Dave Boyce is a registered user.

Link to William and Cynthia Burnett, the parents in this incident, being interviewed for the Today show this morning, Dec. 8. Includes backgrounder with comments by Cmdr. Dave Bertini of the Menlo Park Police Department.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Alexander
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm

Arresting officer Ed Soares at below link.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wow
a resident of another community
on Dec 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Looks like a real humanitarian.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Big Daddy
a resident of another community
on Dec 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm

I tell my kids just to give their name and nothing else. The 5th Amendment is for everyone!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by time to speak up
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Dec 8, 2011 at 8:09 pm

My friend who was married to a police officer calls them "criminals with badges." If you're thinking that what happened to Burnett couldn't happen to you, you're wrong. Every day, ordinary people minding their own business seem to randomly fall into the crosshairs of the police arsenal. If not for the proliferation of recording devices -- it's hard for the police to claim that a suspect was provocative when 20 people captured videos of the incident on their cell phones -- such police transgressions would probably be even more frequent.

I have not been a victim of this brand of police bruality, but I have talked to quite a few people who have suffered at the hands of the police. Living in a middle class neighborhood and being the "right" color no longer gives you immunity from unprovoked attacks from those who were allegedly hired to protect us.

If a woman walking down the street can be threatened with arrest, who among us is safe?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2011 at 10:42 am

Regardless of the eventual outcome, the psychological trauma of this incident is already imposed onto the Burnetts and the teens. The tragedy would be if and when the case is dropped by the DA for overzealous actions by the police officers, we the taxpayers are the ones who will eventually foot the bill; whether in follow on civil lawsuits or in the post effects of trying to clean up the mess the officers have created.
That is why some officers do not care about accountability for their actions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2011 at 10:48 am

For the record, on another pro-cop town square topic, the board suddenly became restricted after points were made which refute the pro-cop posters' assertions. What happened to freedom of speech and open discussions, Mr. Carpenter and Menlo Voter?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 10:51 am

Anonymous is blocked from posting more allegations without verification on this topic on another tread so he/she now posts this allegation without any verification of the facts:" the psychological trauma of this incident is already imposed onto the Burnetts and the teens. "

Please stop cluttering this Forum with your fantasies.

Editors - It is time to stop permitting posts by unregistered individuals.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:21 am

A typical reaction, Mr. Carpenter. When someone speaks against what you'd like to hear, shut them down. Conform or be silenced.

Have you spoken with the Burnetts to understand what the effects of this incident has been? If you want the truth and proof, go to the source. I'm waiting for a direct statement from Ed Soares and his team at the scene. Of course, that is not possible because they cannot comment on an ongoing case. Why then do police spokesperson still give selective statements if this is in the interest of justice?



 +   Like this comment
Posted by time to speak up
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:23 am

There are people who are heavily involved in local politics who can only post here freely if they post anonymously. I wonder at the motives of anyone who would want to stifle them.

My professional life puts me in contact with quite a few of the victims of police misbehavior, people who have been threatened and worse for crimes as dreadful as walking down the street while black. And it's not just hearsay: twice I have observed racial profiling by police right here in Menlo Park. In both cases, the victims were young and apparently blameless. When I asked the police why they had stopped one group of teens (right in front of my house) I was told "they didn't do anything, but we don't want that kind in Menlo Park. They need to get the message to stay on their side of the bay." Apparently driving a beater car in our city is now worthy of police intervention?

Almost 100% of police victims are not members of the middle (or upper!) classes; most are not white or Asian. They are afraid to file complaints at the police department and they cannot afford legal representation.

The most unusual attribute of the Burnett incident is not the level of police misconduct but the fact that it was directed at an educated middle class family and kids.

A civilized society must hold the police accountable. Isn't the new Police State bill scary enough? We as a society are very much in danger of sliding so far down that slippery slope that we will never be able to extricate ourselves.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:24 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Have you spoken with the Burnetts to understand what the effects of this incident has been? If you want the truth and proof, go to the source. "

If Anonymous has spoken to the Burnetts perhaps he/she would be so kind as to provide direct verifiable quotes from them on this matter regarding the harm which they have allegedly suffered.

If not, then please shut up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:28 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"There are people who are heavily involved in local politics who can only post here freely if they post anonymously."
That is the operational definition of a coward. How can someone be heavily involved in local politics and operate behind a cloak of secrecy? Only if they espouse a doctrine of not being in any way held accountable for what they say.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:36 am

For the record, I fully support the Fire department and the people who serve ever so bravely everyday to help others in danger. I know FDs and PDs are traditionally linked, but blind loyalty is not the mark of a truly inquisitive mind or leader.

Also, for the record, the posts are not politically directed at anyone. It is the message that is being challenged. Isn't that the point of open discussions?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:41 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"blind loyalty is not the mark of a truly inquisitive mind or leader"

Nor are unsubstantiated charges the mark of a truly inquisitive mind or leader.

And there is nothing blind about demanding facts rather than reveling in rumor and innuendo.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:49 am

I guess we will just have to wait and see when everything is laid out for this case. Let's be honest. When there are no checks and balances, there is a tendency of abuse. When there is no one to police the police, guess what happens? Politicians go where they get votes, so if they need the support of the FD and PD (which unfortunately are linked together; FD has my utmost respect), there is no repercussion for bad apples.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:59 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Anonymous states:" I guess we will just have to wait and see when everything is laid out for this case."

Finally we agree.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm

Nice to make your acquaintance too, Mr. Carpenter. So, let's not protect the PD blindly.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by time to speak up
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Dec 18, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Peter, the reason for public figures to post anonymously is that their posts represent their opinions, which they wish to keep separate from their public responsibilities. Do we want our city council to be sidetracked by hecklers who make irrelevant comments like "you questioned the police -- you shouldn't be making a decision on street repairs!" This is a small town with many small-minded people.

I expect that the reason these threads have been locked (with posts deleted) is that the PD is trying to back pedal and has asked for the Almanac to support its efforts. The Almanac doesn't monitor posts as carefully on the weekend, which is the reason our posts haven't disappeared...yet. Hooray for free speech!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 2:22 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I am currently, and have for most of the last ten years, serving as an elected public official and I have never posted anonymously. In fact, I would be ashamed to hide my opinions from the citizens whom I serve. The only public officials who are precluded from expressing their personal opinions are judges and they may not do so even anonymously.

Trying to justify anonymity because of small minded people would be the worst kind of public service.

Public officials can and should be accountable to those whom they serve and there is no accountability when there is anonymity.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 2:25 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I expect that the reason these threads have been locked (with posts deleted) is that the PD is trying to back pedal and has asked for the Almanac to support its efforts."

Interesting opinion - do you have any facts to support your conclusion?

"The Almanac doesn't monitor posts as carefully on the weekend." Well they monitor it enough to have restricted posting on other topics to registered users during this weekend.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by time to speak up
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Dec 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Some people feel comfortable posting with their names. Many do not. And even more will not post at all, with or without names. If the purpose of this board is to encourage discussion, then the less restriction the better.

There is no right or wrong way to express yourself here (as long as you remain within the TOS). Adopting a holier-than-thou stance serves no one.

As for censorship: I do not live on this board (full time job + many volunteer and family responsibilities) so my observations are anecdotal rather than scientific. I do see that most of the other threads on this topic have been closed, and I have to wonder why, as the discussions appeared to stay on topic and avoid profanity and libelous content.

Editor's note: We restrict topics to registered users when a thread veers into problem areas, such as attacks on people, and we don't have time to keep a constant eye on it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 5:48 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"There is no right or wrong way to express yourself here (as long as you remain within the TOS)"

The Terms of Use require that "You agree to be respectful of others, be truthful and be solely responsible for all postings you make." Most threads are locked because unregistered anonymous posters have failed to meet that standard, particularly the truthful portion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2011 at 5:51 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" If the purpose of this board is to encourage discussion, then the less restriction the better."

The purpose of this Forum is to " be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion" rather than unrestricted discussion. Such thoughtful gathering cannot occur when a few posters routinely ignore the Terms of Use, and hence the need for both monitoring and restrictions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm

"Editor's note: We restrict topics to registered users when a thread veers into problem areas, such as attacks on people, and we don't have time to keep a constant eye on it."

On another pro-cop topic, the board was not restricted after "Menlo Voter" (an ex-cop) kept posting attacks. The comments were eventually edited, so readers cannot read them now. To be fair, I understand that the editor has limited time to constantly monitor the board, but suddenly restricting a board or selective editing just adds to the sense that there is some kind of preferential treatment. Why not just leave the board unrestricted and let opinions be presented as is? If the reader is smart and thoughtful, as Mr. Carpenter kept alluding to, why not let them decide for themselves?




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" If the reader is smart and thoughtful, as Mr. Carpenter kept alluding to, why not let them decide for themselves?"

The readers DO decide for themselves to come to this Forum because it is "a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion." There is no place on such a Forum for trash talk and unsupported allegations of personal misconduct. Civil society and civil discourse eschew such inappropriate behavior.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm

So "thoughtful" is only when someone agrees with your opinion and it is "trash talk" when they don't?

Why don't we let the readers ponder that one?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 20, 2011 at 5:49 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Thoughtful is to offer a well informed and well articulated opinion. It is the kind of thing that you read in the New York Times.

Trash talk is unsubstantiated allegations, personal attacks and off topic digressions.

Anonymous makes my point by stating:So "thoughtful" is only when someone agrees with your opinion and it is "trash talk" when they don't?" when no one has made that assertion.
Anonymous' only interest is to attack, misquote and misrepresent others rather than attacking intellectually and articulately the issue at hand.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2011 at 6:23 pm

Mr. Carpenter, these are your quotes:

"The readers DO decide for themselves to come to this Forum because it is "a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion."

"Anonymous' only interest is to attack, misquote and misrepresent others rather than attacking intellectually and articulately the issue at hand."

I am a reader, so I do indeed come to this Forum for "thoughtful [..] information and opinion", whether I agree with them or otherwise.

This makes your second statement incorrect. Thank you for sharing your "opinion". I hope this forum remains unedited and unrestricted despite your incorrect statements and allegations.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 20, 2011 at 9:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Anonymous fabricates quotes and then, when challenged on doing so, rides off on another tangent. And then Anonymous claims to come to this Forum for thoughtful information - go figure.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by time to speak up
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Dec 20, 2011 at 10:05 pm

When we have two posters who disagree with one another, and one wants to silence the other, well, that's pretty telling. Don't you think?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 20, 2011 at 10:11 pm

Anonymouse:

the only "attacks" on another thread were yours. My "attacks" as you characterize them were repeated requests for factual back up to your allegations of police misconduct. You didn't, and mostlikely can't, provide any, so you resorted to personal attacks on me. At that point the editors restricted access to registered users. I'm registered and still anonymous, why aren't you? If you can't provide any factual basis for your accusations, you just continue to make yourself look foolish.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm

I have no interest in silencing anyone; my objective is to encourage posters to comply with the Terms of Use and to be accountable for what they say. The silence is self imposed when those posters refuse to be accountable and slink away.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 8:44 am

Welcome, Menlo Voter. First of all, when I asked if you were a "regular" ex-cop, or if you were an ex-detective who required some "smarts", that was not a personal attack. It was a simple, straightforward question. If you felt defensive, it just shows insecurities and it just plays to the theory on why some people needed a badge to appease themselves.

Now, you wanted me to write the name of an active officer on a public board. I did not because that would be suicidal. If you still do not understand why, it goes to show that you need to understand the law better.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Dec 21, 2011 at 9:09 am

anonymous -

It was you who have alleged misconduct. Others - Menlo Voter and Mr. Carpenter - are asking you to cite a factual example. You're anonymous on this forum. Why not go for it? Mr. Carpenter does this all the time and he's not hiding behind a pseudonym.

No one has said that every police officer and sheriff deputy are honest. But when you make a charge, have the courtesy to back it up.

In this case, the police responded to a report of alleged teenage drinking at a private home. The trauma started when the Burnett's failed to supervise their children and the children of other families. If just one of those kids drank and got into a serious car accident, imagine the outrage. This family truly dodged a bullet. Instead of criticizing the police, you should thank them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:38 am

Anonymouse:

clearly the editors thought something you said was an attack as they deleted it for that reason.

I am quite familiar with the law and how it works. I bet probably far better than you. I also know that you are posting here anonymously so there is no risk if you post one or one hundred names of officers that have criminal backgrounds. That just convinces me your accusations are bogus and you have nothing to back them up. We're talking about posting something on a public forum that is public record.

So you're anonymous and what you are talking about is public record. So posting that here is suicidal? Not hardly.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 am

"If just one of those kids drank and got into a serious car accident, imagine the outrage."

POGO, your own words are exactly why the Burnetts' case show presumptions by the many who defend the overzealous handling by the officers. As I have already pointed out, there are too many presumptions and assumptions about what could have or would have happenned. The fact is, there was no accident . The police and defenders like yourself will take credit and claim the officers prevented it. All those claims are just "opinions" and will never be proven.

I have asked before in the other forum: Have police officers interfered in ALL parties held everywhere? If not, did any of the parties end with accidents? If even one did not end with an accident, how can you be sure the Burnetts' party would have?

Again, presumptions are not facts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:09 am

Nice try, Menlo Voter. I know I won't be hiring you as my legal counsel if I fall for your trickery. Aren't cops, the enforcers of the law, supposed to know the law well? Maybe that is why we keep getting rogue behavior by SOME officers. Or maybe, they know the law well enough to protect themselves, to bend it in their favor, or to entrap others?

The bottom line is, there are good cops and there are bad cops. If the legal system is governed entirely by the police, there are no checks and balances. As proven by this forum, there are many who blindly defend and conform, before the facts are out.

An open society works when information is allowed to flow freely, and the people are smart/informed enough to filter the noise that comes with it. Blind loyalty and the inability to filter the information, sometimes through the lack of knowledge/education, can greatly hinder this goal.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:22 am

Menlo Voter quoted:

"clearly the editors thought something you said was an attack as they deleted it for that reason."

Dear Editor, this is one reason why editing causes misinformed conclusions. Menlo Voter is pushing the blame to you (the Editor), even though it was based on MV's assumptions of what was actually written.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:30 am

This thread is about recordings and potential misconduct of the Menlo Park Police Department responding to alleged drinking of minors.

I think the fact that 6 police officers responded to a house with 44 teenagers and a few adults and managed to control arrest 2, un-arrest 1, transport 1 to jail, without 1 person being injured, pepper sprayed, beaten etc is Great work.

I haven't heard anything about the recordings so far.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 12:04 pm

"I haven't heard anything about the recordings so far."

Good point MGS. I wonder who controls the recordings?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Anonymous ironically states"An open society works when information is allowed to flow freely, "

All information that is except what anonymous wants to keep secret.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave Boyce
Almanac staff writer
on Dec 21, 2011 at 12:19 pm

Dave Boyce is a registered user.

According to Cmdr. Dave Bertini of the Menlo Park Police Department, the recordings were downloaded to a server from police officers' recording devices at the end of their shift that night.

The recordings are dated and linked to the officer's device. Tampering is very difficult, in part because the originals are encrypted, a spokesman for the company that serves the Menlo Park Police Department said.

When the time comes for the recordings to be used as evidence in court, they are transferred to a readable/listenable portable format (such as a CD), Bertini said.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys will have access to them -- if the DA decides to press charges, which has apparently not yet happened.

DA Steve Wagstaffe told the Almanac recently that, because of the high profile of this case, he will be issuing a press release when he makes a decision as to whether to press charges.

One reason the issue is still undecided is that Wagstaffe said he is awaiting a conference with defense attorneys, who asked to talk with him before he makes his decision.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Dec 21, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Anonymous -

Ah, there it is. The "everyone does it" argument.

So just because the police don't ticket EVERY speeder, doesn't mean the shouldn't ticket ANY speeders? Do the police have to patrol EVERY teenage party or just respond when there is an incident reported?

The police were investigating a report of teenage drinking at the Burnett home. Are you suggesting they should have ignored it because there were other parties (again something you cannot prove either) that may have done the same thing?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm

Anonymouse:

what would you "assume" when your post is removed and "post removed, personal attach." was put in it's place?

As to the law regarding public records you are clearly clueless and you have put forward absolutley nothing to back up your claims.

As I've said before, until you do provide some actual facts, you continue to make yourself look foolish.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm

Anonymouse asks: "Have police officers interfered in ALL parties held everywhere? If not, did any of the parties end with accidents? If even one did not end with an accident, how can you be sure the Burnetts' party would have?"

Have officers interfered with all parties? - Of course not. Stupid question.

Did any uninterfered with parties end with an accident? - Pretty good chance with as many teen parties that occur every weekend in the bay area that at least one teen from one of those parties got behind the wheel drunk and got into an accident.

How can you be sure the Burnett's party would have? - We can't. Just as you can't be sure it wouldn't. Wouldn't you think it prudent to make sure some drunk child doesn't get behind the wheel?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 2:58 pm

I was at a birthday party some years ago in east Menlo Park. It was one of the best parties I've ever been to. There were whole families there feasting, dancing, drinking and enjoying themselves. No one was allowed to drive drunk. No one was using drugs that I saw or smelled. Yet MP PD showed up, being aggressive and nasty even though once the noise ordinance time kicked in the music was lowered. I knew some of the officers and ran interference. Since this party was give by Caribbean blacks and there were very few white people there, it allowed me the opportunity to see how this minority family and all of their guests felt. I understand that many parties aren't done in such a thoughtful manner, but it gave me a glimpse of the police that was hard to stomach and I of course I recall it to this day.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm

I know this is a totally different topic, Have any of the nice teenagers or the parents of the nice teenagers who brought alcohol to the non-alochol party that caused Mr. Burnett to get arrested come forward.

I watch the video of Mr. and Mrs. Burnett explaining that they told their child NO Alochol in their house. So what happens to the people whose actions caused the arrest?

Again I have to say Good Job Menlo Park Police Department.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 4:37 pm

Mr. Stogner, I've wondered the same thing. It is relevant to the story.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm

There goes Menlo Voter again:
"Have officers interfered with all parties? - Of course not. Stupid question."

It's meant to be ironic. I assumed you would get it, but I should have known "under the surface" statements require a little thinking.

Peter Carpenter:
"All information that is except what anonymous wants to keep secret."

As I have stated, go to the county court system and look for the prior records of some of the currently active police officers. There is no secret here. What I won't do is put the name of an active officer on a public board. If you seek facts, as you claimed, that is all you need to do.

POGO can enter the names of the Sheriff Deputies at Woodside, for example.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 21, 2011 at 7:04 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Anonymous ironically states"An open society works when information is allowed to flow freely, "

All information that is except what anonymous wants to keep secret.


Like who is Anonymous.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 21, 2011 at 7:42 pm

"As I have stated, go to the county court system and look for the prior records of some of the currently active police officers. There is no secret here. What I won't do is put the name of an active officer on a public board."

Why not? If it's public information, what's the problem? If it's posted here it's no different than any one checking county records.

[Editor's note: Portion deleted. We're closing this thread. It's just going back and forth, and not forward.]


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Mixx, Scott's Seafood replacement, opens in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 3,263 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 2,241 views

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 2,119 views

All Parking Permits Should Have a Fee
By Steve Levy | 23 comments | 1,729 views

Itís Not About The Officer Or The MomóItís About All Of Us
By Erin Glanville | 8 comments | 632 views