Authorities on Friday FINALLY got around to releasing information about the arrest of a Walnut Creek police officer, nearly two weeks after a bizarre incident in which he was picked up in Richmond on suspicion of assaulting a woman with a baseball bat.
I need to ask up front (and I’m sure I’m not the only one asking): Why did it take so long for authorities to make public this attack and the police officer’s arrest? I find it concerning, as well as head-scratching.
Haven’t police and prosecutors learned better by now? After several decades of high-profile cases that thrust alleged police misconduct (from Rodney King to Oscar Grant to Michael Brown) into the center of national debate about race and police/community relations, it’s hard to believe that law enforcement agencies around here would still think they could perhaps sweep something like this officer’s arrest under the rug — or at least keep it out of the news for as long as possible.
It’s especially mind-bogging given how we’re in the midst of yet another agonizing national discussion about police accountability and unequal justice in Ferguson, Missouri. Many journalists and other observers attribute the outbreak of riots and heightened tensions to the puzzling, scattershot way police disseminated information about the case, notably their delays in releasing Officer Darren Wilson’s name and then cherry-picking facts to disclose (the video of Brown stealing cigars) in a way that seemed designed to give police a public relations advantage.
So nearly two weeks after Thompson’s arrest, the Marin Independent Journal and Contra Costa Times reported that Thompson, a 53-year-old, 30-year veteran of the Walnut Creek police, was arrested in the early morning hours of August 16.
At about 2 a.m., police received several 911 calls about a woman screaming and a possible masked man with a bat.
The woman said she had run out of gas and was walking when she was confronted by a man wearing a mask when he hit her with a baseball bat, Richmond police Capt. Bisa French told reporters. The assailant also used the bat to strike the woman’s car. The woman was taken to the hospital for non-life-threatening blows and was expected to recover.
Witnesses directed police to a suspect, who turned out to be Thompson. He had retreated to a nearby car. In the car, police found a bat, a mask, two guns and wrist restraints.
French pointed out that the restraints are similar to those that police often carry with their other work gear. I must say that French’s need to make this point about the restraints almost comes across as an apologia on behalf of a member of her police fraternity. She seems to be saying, “Well, of course, any self-respecting off-duty police officer would have wrist restraints in their cars!”But this bit of information also begs the question, is it normal for cops — off-duty or on — to also carry around bats and masks?
When confronted by Richmond police, Thompson apparently told them he was one of them. The situation, though, gave Richmond officers enough probable cause to book him into Contra Costa County jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, criminal threats and felony vandalism.
Unfortunately, we don’t know what bail amount was attached to those charges. The Contra Costa Times points to the fact that someone in authority — police, Contra Costa prosecutor Barry Grove, or the jail — wouldn’t release that information. I find this curious because, whenever I covered police cases, as recently as 2011, bail information was readily available, either from the arresting agencies or from the jail. In fact, it’s usually takes the punch of a few computer keys to bring up the information.
In any case, Thompson was able to make this undisclosed amount of bail and was released to go back to his Martinez home. His release slowed the case down a bit. If a suspect isn’t in custody, the District Attorney’s Office doesn’t have to quickly pull together charges in order to justify continuing to hold the suspect.
Still, it seems as though prosecutors are taking their time. I’m not sure what’s so complicated about the case: Victim says she was attacked by a guy with a baseball bat. She was found with injuries. Police find suspect in a car with weapons involved in said attack.
OK, there could definitely be more to this story. There often is. These could even be facts that would help Thompson’s defense. His family apparently owned a house for sale in that Richmond neighborhood.
Grove told the Times that charges won’t be coming down for another week or so. However, publicity about this strange case and accompanying themes of unequal justice, police accountability and lack of transparency may prompt Grove and co., we hope, to speed things up a bit.
Whatever other details may emerge, you still have an off-duty cop allegedly going around at 2 in the morning, wearing a mask, and attacking a person with a baseball bat.
Questions of unequal justice come in when you consider the fact that Thompson had the resources to make bail — whatever that bail was. He’ll probably hire a private attorney, and then enjoy the backing of his police union. In the meantime, he gets to keep his job. He was put on administrative leave, but he gets to collect his full salary.
I think its fair to say that if a less resourceful fellow — a civilian from the community — had attacked a woman with a baseball bat, he’d still be in jail. And he’d probably lose his job and possibly his and his family’s livelihood. There’s no way he’d be able to hire a private attorney, or rely on support from a politically powerful professional organization.
I think it’s also fair to say that if the suspect had been your regular street thug, the Richmond police would have made that information available to reporters immediately — not that a bat attack by one of the town’s usual suspects would have constituted a big story in a town that typically sees much worse.
But, as always, the rules of disclosure change when the case involves a police officer.
Walnut Creek police certainly weren’t in a rush to let their citizens know that one of their officers had been jailed in a bizarre attack. According to the Contra Costa Times, Richmond police notified Walnut Creek police on the day of Thompson’s arrest.
So, it appears that the Walnut Creek police have been sitting on this bit of information for some time as well. Walnut Creek Police Chief Tom Chaplin told the Times on on Friday, “We are aware of the arrest of one of our officers.” So, why not share this information with the public? Embarrassing for Thompson and for the department? Of course, but that’s how it goes.
2 thoughts on “In the wake of Ferguson, should we question authorities’ handling of disclosure in Walnut Creek police officer’s arrest?”
You are a moron!
Just like in Ferguson, The liberal media once again proves it's stupidity by serving as judge and jury in a case they DO NOT have all the facts in.
I do not know the facts in Ferguson, so I do not speculate on it. I wait and see what the outcome of the investigation is. Same in this case. Same as if it were a “thug” as you suggest.
Because: I am an American citizen and I believe that all persons are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!
You, and so many like you, give journalism a bad name. You effectively establish your bias by word #4 in this article, if you can call it an article, and then blatantly twist the available information about this incident to make yourself appear as some all-knowing, insightful, competent journalist. I want to pick this article apart a little…
Here is a simple formula to address your head-scratching concerns about the timeliness of the information release and information releases in general:
-Investigation followed by arrest=a quick release of information
-Arrest followed by investigation=a delayed release of information.
Please don’t pretend you don’t know and understand this. Despite that you write like a moron, I don’t really believe you are. This is the case for almost any investigation, regardless of the person’s occupation.
I won’t get too much into the reference of the King, Grant, and Brown cases, because I know you understand the difference between whether someone is acting in their official capacity or not. Do you really think there was an attempt to “sweep” this under a rug, or do you just like being “edgy”? I won’t comment on the Brown case further because I reserve judgment, WHEREVER it may lie, until FACTS of the circumstances are known.
Now I want to move on to your foul regurgitation/interpretation of French’s factual comments that the restraints found in Thompson’s vehicle were the type used by police. So now you’re getting facts from a reliable source, something apparently lacking before (and something that caused a physiological head-scratching response), yet you choose to turn it into something negative and inflammatory. And does this fact really “beg” the question if it’s normal for cops to carry around bats and masks, or were you just being cheeky?
I’m going to give you a little insider tip on this one: if you Google “Contra Costa Bail Schedule”, ssh don’t tell anyone, you can pull up the bail amounts for any bookable crime in the Penal Code, promise not to tell. Now that was cheeky.
What is this “Question[s] of unequal justice…” you seek the answer to? Isn’t it really simply “equal” that someone has the opportunity to post bail just like everyone else? Should Thompson be vilified for having the “resources” to post bail? And let’s clarify that “resources” are assets and/or cash money, lest anyone jump to any other far-fetched, creative conclusions. “He’ll probably hire a private attorney”, he’ll probably “enjoy the backing of his police union”…probably this, probably that.
Do you really “think it’s fair to say” that had a ‘normie’ (that’s what non-police people are called) committed the same crime they would still be in jail? There would be “no way he’d be able to hire a private attorney”? “He’d probably lose his job”? Is this notion a product of thinking? Oh yes, and is the “politically powerful professional organization” you refer to the one comprised of a 65,000 population city police agency? Maybe you accidentally deleted the sections talking about the Free Masons and the Illuminati and the comment was taken out of context.
I’m sorry you feel jilted that information wasn’t given to you or your peers earlier. And now that you have it, you’ve been so responsible with it. You should really evaluate your journalistic integrity. You don’t have to be pro-police, pro-this, pro-that, but be pro-truth and don’t think your creative interpretations are facts or that they should be construed as such. Your article is a perfect example of why tensions persist and fester between law enforcement entities and the normies, between racial groups, religions, classes, and the like.