News

Police: Alert neighbor halts prowler at Palo Alto home

Palo Alto man arrested for prowling, being under the influence of a narcotic

A Palo Alto man was arrested Wednesday after a quick-thinking neighbor notified police when she saw him climbing into the backyard of a University South neighborhood home, police said.

At about 2:20 p.m., a resident of the 600 block of Melville Avenue called police to report that she saw a man climbing over the fence into the backyard of her neighbor's home, which was unoccupied at the time.

Officers responded and located Simon Arroyo, 30, in the backyard. Arroyo, who was found allegedly under the influence of a narcotic, was arrested without incident, police said.

He was booked into the Santa Clara County Main Jail for prowling and being under the influence of a narcotic, both misdemeanors.

Police credit the alert neighbor and quick response from police officers for Wednesday's arrest.

Comments

27 people like this
Posted by too much crime
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 20, 2015 at 7:46 am

Nice headlines this morning

prowlers,
gropers
vandals
gun point robbery

and the staff at the weekly shut down debates on these topics. Seems the liberal crowd can't take an open discussion on what is increasingly a huge problem in palo alto- crime.


6 people like this
Posted by Mary
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 20, 2015 at 10:56 am

This is a medical problem not a legal problem.

The officers should have taken Simon to the nearest hospital where they can safely stabilize his brain. Medical professions can provide immediate substance abuse treatment and education. They can also address any underling brain disorders.

Simon is a patient not a criminal. When the brain is under the influence of drugs or alcohol it undergoes vast biological changes. These changes affect behavior and intent, which are both biological processes.

Booking people in jail and labeling them criminals or prowlers causes more harm to the individual and to society then good.


3 people like this
Posted by Dennis
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 20, 2015 at 11:24 am

Mary: calling Simon a patient is every much a label as calling him a prowler.

I have far less faith than you seem to that medical professional will effect reduced usage. They may "address" as you say but "get results" is a wholly different matter. I'll stipulate in advance that jail has problems on the "get results" scale as well.

Jail will certainly make access to drugs more difficult. However, I am unconvinced that drugs are necessarily the cause of prowling activity. More precisely, the illegality of drugs may be the cause.

The judicial system is capable of making the jail vs. treatment decision.


2 people like this
Posted by stretch
a resident of another community
on Aug 20, 2015 at 11:53 am

He could have been on marijuana, in which case he was merely a stoned thief!


8 people like this
Posted by crime on the rise
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2015 at 12:14 pm

"Too Much Crime" I completely agree with you.

I've lived in PA for 30 years. It's not the same here anymore. Last year my family's home was robbed. In addition to the sadness in losing irreplaceable sentimental items, it was an emotionally traumatic experience for our family. We no longer feel safe in this town. Thanks to the neighbor who alerted police so this particular prowler was caught and booked. Too bad last week's prowler who police caught on a roof was given a citation and let go. It's a daily news item now: prowlers, robberies, bike thefts, etc.


6 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 20, 2015 at 1:33 pm

>> too much crime
>> Seems the liberal crowd can't take an open discussion on what
>> is increasingly a huge problem in palo alto- crime.

Too Much Crime, why does the so-called Conservative crowd make
accusations like this all the time, out of the blue, on just about any
subject ... which is not really discussing the problem so much as
taking any opportunity that comes along to attack of blame Liberals,
just on your mistaken prejudices.

I am very Liberal, though disagree with what you could call the Liberal
line, just as I agree with some Conservative positions ... and I am hardly
against stopping crime, especially violent crime or crimes of corruption.
I heartily approve of any discussion or ideas about combatting crimes
in our city. I agree with many who have said there is a perception that
the streets in Palo Alto are not safe to walk any more.

I don't know why before anyone even gets here to express this Liberal
point of view that you are claiming is so pro-crime that you have to
come along and make a case that has not and will not be made?

Why is that, and why are groundless comments like this allowed to
stand for so long on Palo Alto Online?


5 people like this
Posted by GOP politics
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 20, 2015 at 1:57 pm

You have to be realistic about the politics of race in this country. When the Democrats passed the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s, most non-white voters joined the Democratic Party. Ever since then, the Republicans have been fighting back by making non-white Americans the enemy to shore up the white vote. Look up "Southern Strategy" on Wikipedia. This is why Donald Trump and his fans on this website keep blaming Mexico for all of America's problems. It is hard to believe that the head of a multi-national corporation could really hate foreigners; more likely he is playing the race card to appeal to the white racist vote.


1 person likes this
Posted by A Republican Passed the Civil Rights Act
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2015 at 2:34 pm

Contrary to @GOP Politics, both the Civil Rights act of 1957 and it's amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, were passed under the Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower. In fact, more Republicans voted in favor than did Democrats. The 1960 Bill was brought to congress by a democrat-led Judiciary Committee, and fought by the democrat-led Rules Committee.

I referenced Web Link for all of my information and quotations.

Regarding the original Civil Rights Act of 1957, "Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law." "The bill passed the House with a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167–19 for, Democrats 118–107 for)[4] and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43–0 for, Democrats 29–18 for)."

Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1960, "House of Representatives approved the bill on March 24, 1960 by a vote of 311-109.[2][4] 179 Democrats and 132 Republicans voted Aye. 93 Democrats, 15 Republicans, and 1 Independent Democrat voted Nay. 2 Democrats and 1 Republican voted present." "The Senate's Judiciary Committee also faced attempts to dislodge the bill. Democrats had long acted as a voting block to resist or reject legislation to enforce constitutional rights in the South and made it difficult for proponents of civil rights to add strengthening amendments.[3] After amendments in the Senate, H.R. 8601 was approved by the Senate on April 8, 1960 by a vote of 71-18."

"The House of Representatives approved the Senate] amendments on April 21, 1960 by a vote of 295-288 and the bill was signed into law by President Eisenhower on May 6, 1960.[2] No Republican Senators voted against the Bill"

Seems the Republicans were much more supportive of the Civil Rights Act that the Democrats, but let's keep blaming the Republicans for everything.

BTW, Abraham Lincoln was also a Republican.


3 people like this
Posted by That was then
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 20, 2015 at 2:41 pm

The GOP of the 1950's werwe closer in thought to the Democrats of 2015 than Republicans of 2015. Even my lifelong republican Dad left the GOP when they pushed W on us and then tried to tell us he was good enough for a second round. Truth.


4 people like this
Posted by too much crime
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 20, 2015 at 2:50 pm

@crescentparkanon

I think you missed my point and sorry i wasn't very clear. I was saying that debate on two other articles related to recent crimes have been closed by the editors of the weekly. if you go to 1) palo alto man arrested after alleged stabbing attempt 2) bicyclist with gun robs couple near Friendship bridge you will see that both are no longer allowing comments. Why ? My assumption is that person (s) didn't like the comments because it raised some sensitive issues about race so they stopped it. Better hurry and respond before they stop this one too.


Like this comment
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2015 at 2:59 pm

@A Republican Passed the Civil Rights Act

There was also a time when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, obviously these things can change so I fail to see your point.


Like this comment
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@Todd - the point is that when the earlier poster wrote "Democrats passed the Voting Rights Act" they were misrepresenting the truth which was Democrats were the main obstacle to civil rights. I don't think things have changed much. Instead of actively opposing civil rights, now democrats use policies like welfare and minimum wage to hold minorities down maintain an underclass of dependant voters.


8 people like this
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm

Property crimes do violence to the property owners. PA liberals downplay that violence, and tend to blame society at large: The poor victim (the perp)was driven to drugs, because he/she couldn't/wouldn't cope with hard, honest work...then to cope with his/her 'disease', and the need to self medicate is forced into property crimes. Complete BS. Do the crime, then do the time. No pity, because it is an enabler. Shame on PA liberals.


11 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 20, 2015 at 3:35 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@CrescentParkAnon - Liberals aren't pro-crime, but they are often pro-criminal, and anti-police. Rolling back three strikes, pushing for voting rights for convicts, anti-death penalty, etc... Palo Alto is pretty liberal, and that's why we are willing to spend 40 million on a trailer park instead of a police station, it's why we have ~3 cops on duty instead of 10, it's why we ran the previous police chief out of town, it's why we don't have surveillance cameras downtown, it's why we don't have license plate readers, it's why the city is infested with homeless, it is why we have people camping in their cars, and its why we have a lot of crime, because criminals have figured out there is a lot of money here, and a very soft attitude on crime.


6 people like this
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 20, 2015 at 3:53 pm

@Slow Down: Spot on.


5 people like this
Posted by too much crime
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 20, 2015 at 5:11 pm

@slowdown

here is another one to add to your list.

The backlash against police caused by the incidents in Ferguson and Baltimore is causing an alarming rise in murders in our inner cities. I certainly don't condone police brutality and yes there many bad cops out there but the vast majority are good ones who put their life on the line everyday.

Murders up 60% in St. Louis, 30% in Washington DC, in Milwaukee they have already passed last year's total..............

Web Link


Why the rise- cops demoralized, afraid of losing their job or even worse going to jail if they make one bad move in a split second decision. Solution, don't get involved and the criminals know it. Who pays the price- not the bleeding hearts that's for sure who are tucked away safely in their nice suburbs. It's the poor who pay the price.

Be careful what you ask for!


4 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 20, 2015 at 6:32 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"Liberals aren't pro-crime, but they are often pro-criminal, and anti-police. Rolling back three strikes, pushing for voting rights for convicts, anti-death penalty, etc..."

Liberals practice what "conservatives" only pretend. Three strikes and the death penalty are very, very expensive "conservative" feelgood boondoggles that have no objectively measureable effect on crime. Fiscally responsible liberals are reducing government spending by dumping them.

So what's with all the paranoia about voting rights? Scared those jailbirds will outvote all those upstanding pillars of the community on the outside who can't be bothered to vote?


10 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 20, 2015 at 6:46 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"Why the rise- cops demoralized, afraid of losing their job or even worse going to jail if they make one bad move in a split second decision. Solution, don't get involved and the criminals know it."

So they play it safe, and stay away from those murderers, eh?

Instead, they're out there on crime prevention, bravely pulling over middle aged black women for not signalling a lane change, and putting them in jail. Goodness kniws, failure to signal is a gateway scofflaw thing that leads inevitably to murder.

Or taking down a 14-year-old black girl at a Texas swimming party. Goodness knows, she could have had a loaded AK-47 concealed in that bikini. You can kill a lot of people real quick with one of those Second Amendmenter faves, you know.

Murderers have nothing to fear when the cops are elsewhere playing Keystone Kops.


1 person likes this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 20, 2015 at 7:06 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@Curmudgeon - Three strikes and the death penalty are expensive (largely due to liberal prisoner rights groups), but dead and imprisoned criminals can't commit crimes.

So what price do you put the life of a potential innocent victim vs the price of incarceration. You tell me how much you value the victim, and I'll tell you if I think the price of incarceration is worth it.


2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 20, 2015 at 7:54 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"So what price do you put the life of a potential innocent victim vs the price of incarceration."

Always an imagined scenario. What happened to the hardheaded conservatives of my youth who worked with facts and consigned to liberals the unfocused paranoia so beloved by today's "conservatives"?

You wanna protect potential innocent victims you gotta incarcerate every living person in solitary confinement, including the potential innocent victims, because who can be sure they won't turn to crime some fine day. Can't take no chances, ya know. The lost economic activity will be ruinous, not to mention the capital costs and operating expenses of the prisons, even without liberals. (BTW, a liberal is a conservative who got busted.)

I trust that answers your question.


1 person likes this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 20, 2015 at 9:04 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@ Curmudgeon - you are the one hiding from facts. You raised the cost of incarceration, but that's only half the equation. What's the cost to allowing criminals to run free. Unless you can quantify that, then you can't claim the cost of incarceration is too expensive.

Do you really think recidivism is imaginary? That would explain the soft on crime attitude, and the earlier poster referring to the prowler as a patient. But just so you know, of the 650,000 criminals released from prison every year, 2/3rds are arrested again within 3 years.


2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 21, 2015 at 3:42 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"You raised the cost of incarceration"

Uh-uh. Never touched a prison budget. But any hardheaded conservative (an almost extinct breed) can tell you that prisons cost taxpayers money to build and maintain. Plus, those guards want to be paid. Ain't cheap.

"What's the cost to allowing criminals to run free. Unless you can quantify that, then you can't claim the cost of incarceration is too expensive."

Ever wonder why death row is such a lucrative circus for lawyers? "Conservatives" want to kill 'em all now, never mind if they're guilty or not, but liberals want to make sure the wrong guy ain't locked up while the real criminal's on the loose preying on more victims.

The more false imprisonments we got, the more crime we're gonna have cuz the real criminals are still out there. Ever think of that? The liberals do, and they try to stop it against adamant "conservative" opposition.

BTW, in the USA, being arrested is not the same as being guilty. Try it on sometime. Remember, a liberal is a conservative who's been busted.


Judging by this story, I'd say our Palo Alto police are on the job. Thanks, gang.

But I gotta wonder how those Texas cops can stop murderers when they're out copping feels on 14 year old girls ar swim parties. That's another reason why the crime rate is going up.


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

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 12 comments | 2,110 views

Post-election reflections -- and sponges
By Diana Diamond | 13 comments | 1,688 views

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,394 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 937 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 304 views