Was it your property which was vandalized while the police were out delivering mail on that day, April 9th?
Somebody's property was. I know, because I checked the Police Blotter column for April 9th in the Mountain View Voice. The entry read, 'Vandalism - 100 block N Rengstorff Ave.' That's not far from where the two officers in a patrol car hunted us down, me and my wife, and violently stopped me to give me a nonsensical letter from the Recreation Department about a gerbil, which had also been sent by regular mail. The letter, that is, not the gerbil.
Here are some more entries from the same day, all within Mountain View:
Battery - 1900 block Plymouth St.
To the person who was beaten - would it have helped balance the odds a little to have had two officers on your side when you were attacked? Pity they had more important work to do, but the mail must get through, mustn't it?
Driving under the influence: - 400 block Moffett Blvd
Did you drive at all in Mountain View on that day? Would it have made you nervous to know that there was at least one drunk person driving around the city, while the police were on their mail round?
Narcotics possession/transport - 100 block E. El Camino Real
Did your teenage children or grandchildren get their first taste of crack cocaine on that day, because apprehension of this drug peddler was given a lower priority than delivery of mail?
There were more entries like those above. I don't like criticizing the police, because it can give aid and comfort to lawbreakers. But they certainly did make a mistake on that day, April 9th, in taking that prank call at face value. I say 'prank', because when the police turn out in response to a call, only to find that there is no crime going on, then it's a waste of their time, and should be dealt with severely.
The person to blame is the employee of the Recreation Department who persuaded the police to attend the Senior Center in order to accost two elderly people walking peacefully in the park nearby, and who assured them that to do this would be an appropriate use of their time and resources. The police don't know all the circumstances of any given situation, and they have to respond immediately, without the luxury of being able to study up on a situation before arriving and intervening. They rely on being given accurate, useful information when they attend in response to a call, and it is reasonable for them to expect a City employee to be a reliable source of information. In this case, however, the City employee who called them was a prankster who was intent on harassing an elderly couple, and used a position of trust in order to request the attendance of the police quite unnecessarily, while real crime was being neglected.
It was time to ask the Chief of Police some questions about this inappropriate use of police resources . . .