Posted by Just-The-Facts-Please, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm

The Daily Post ran an article recently that claimed that Chief Dennis Burns had been "out of patrol" and had arrested the two people at an address that was not in Palo Alto.

This article doesn't mention Burns, and states that East Palo Alto Poice were involved in the arrest--which makes sense.

So .. was Burns involved? And if so, how?

Posted by Nayeli, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 8:49 am

The thugs were driving an Infiniti? So, crime really does pay for thugs in California?

I hope that they seize all of the property from the thug, charge the man with contributing to the delinquency of minors and make them pay ALL of the court costs and cost of housing the men. I also hope that they charge the "teenagers" as adults.

Something needs to be done to stop criminals like this realize that crime does NOT pay in the long run. The crime spree will eventually come to an end and the end result is not desirable. If you make criminals partially liable for the cost of their imprisonment, this might make them less likely to do criminal things.

:-\

Posted by moi, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 10:32 am

In a situation like this one:

DO NOT enter your house. You might encounter a perpetrator who would be able and willing to do you harm.

DO back off quietly and call 9-1-1 from your cell phone or from a neighbor's house.

This happened to me once in Southern California, and no way was I going to take the chance of confronting someone trying to steal things from my home. Better to stay safe and have the police deal with it.

Posted by Good Work, PDs, a resident of another community, on Apr 5, 2012 at 10:33 am

Wow! A successful cooperation of two or more PDs. But maybe we shouldn't count the operation a total success until convictions have occurred and sentences started to be served.

Posted by Circumstantial Evidence, a resident of another community, on Apr 5, 2012 at 11:17 am

We shouldn't automatically assume the three people arrested are guilty of the crime described here. There are many reasons the man may have had glass shards in his hair that are not related to the burglary. Additionally, fresh cuts on somebody's hands are quite common - especially if they work in a glass factory. Perhaps this man works in such a factory - that would easily explain this "evidence."

Additionally, many people drive around with a GPS device - we shouldn't assume it wasn't his. A nice car like a gold Infiniti is bound to have one (and really, many people have earrings.)

The license number could have been easily transposed by this "tipster."

It seems like there are just too many questionable pieces of evidence here. The man should be released due until there is more to tie him to the scene and our overzealous police force should remember that everybody is innocent until proven guilty.

Posted by GoStanford, a member of the Hoover School community, on Apr 5, 2012 at 12:19 pm

In his/her previous comment, Circumstantial Evidence forgot to mention that the woman who witnessed her house being broken into could easily misidentify the "innocent" boy and man in a line-up. And that her recollection of the Infiniti is faulty as there are so many out there. We should definitely let these fine citizens go free, and reprimand the overzealous police for approaching and talking to them in the first place...

Posted by Old Town Paly Resident, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Circumstantial Evidence......who are you trying to rally for? Heeeellllloooo...victim SAW the perp...perp had items stolen...and obvious injuries related to the incident. 2 + 2 = 4 Mkay?

Posted by moi, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Old Town Paly --

Circumstantial Evidence was making a funny.

Posted by moi, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 2:32 pm

. . . . at least I hope so.

Posted by musical, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 4:54 pm

>> The two teens... released to the custody of their parents.

Uh oh, grounded and no dessert for a week. I wouldn't do that again.

Posted by R, a resident of another community, on Apr 5, 2012 at 5:38 pm

Why do they just release the minors to their parents, who have no control of them. That's the problem, kids that are older than 14 doing criminal acts with parents that don't care what they are doing, should not be released to these parents and should go to juvi.