Part 2 of our April 22, 2025 City Council meeting recap -- witnesses speak to sheriff actions during public comment, we take a long look at their story
As a parent of young children and teens, I firmly believe that anyone carrying a knife in a public park poses a serious danger. Based on previous experiences, I no longer feel safe at this park. During the last event we attended — the carnival — we overheard teens in the restroom discussing plans to jump and rob others, which was deeply concerning.
I am struggling to understand how any parent could justify their child’s behavior in such circumstances. Based on the information available to the police, and the nature of the call they received, they had a duty to act. Parents must take responsibility for their children’s actions, particularly when it involves something as serious as carrying a real knife — not a toy or plastic one.
Had the police failed to intervene and someone had been hurt, the blame would have inevitably fallen on them. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of parents to be fully aware of what their children are doing, to set clear boundaries, and to stop making excuses that put others at risk.
I completely understand your concerns—public safety is important, especially in places where children gather. That said, I was one of the parents present at the park during this specific incident, and I think some context may help.
The child in question was part of a homeschool group and known to all the parents there. He wasn’t acting aggressively, didn’t brandish the knife, and was interacting peacefully with others. The knife wasn’t visible or being used in any threatening way—officers had to ask him where it was and search him to find it. None of us on site felt unsafe before the officers arrived.
You’re absolutely right that police must respond to serious calls, and no one is suggesting otherwise. But how that response is carried out—especially in a playground full of children—matters. Several young kids were ordered to the ground during the response, including my own, despite no immediate threat being present.
Parents should take responsibility, and I agree that a switchblade is not something any child should have. But it’s also important not to paint this situation with the same brush as others involving real danger or intent to harm. Accountability is key—on all sides—but it needs to be rooted in the actual facts.
Jay -- can you please put your last name on your Substack profile? We do not allow anonymous comments and what you have to say is important. Once you add your last name it will automatically populate to your comments here.
Here's the policy that's written at the bottom of the article:
Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
The thing is the police are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" Glad the issue was resolved peacefully. The police, arriving had no idea what the actual situation was, they appear to have evaluated it quickly and no one was injured. Glad the bodycams were activated.
As a parent who was present at the park during this incident, I appreciate the coverage—but there are a few important points missing or misrepresented.
First, while the article notes that officers responded to a report of a “masked individual with a knife,” it doesn’t clarify that the knife was not visible or brandished at any point. Officers had to search the child and ask him where it was. None of the parents present—including myself—saw the child as a threat, and all of us had children playing nearby.
Second, while the article references the sheriff’s account and the existence of bodycam footage, it doesn’t appear that any of the parents who witnessed the incident were interviewed for their perspective. That’s disappointing, especially given the impact this had on our children—some of whom were ordered to the ground during the response.
Including firsthand accounts from the families on scene would have added meaningful context to the story and helped readers better understand the concerns about how this situation was handled.
Thanks the writing. I'm sorry you had this experience - I'm sure it was difficult.
I'm the co-writer who went to the station, listened to the audio of the radio call made by the Welfare Fraud Investigator and reviewed the body cam footage. I was also present at the City Council meeting where the three witnesses to the events spoke and described in detail their version of the events - which we relayed in the article from a transcript made at the meeting.
With regard to your first point, how did the Welfare Fraud Investigator know there was knife if the knife was never out? That investigator described the movement of "T" in the Park for 5-7 minutes as deputies were driving to the call. They must have seen a knife in order to report it, right? So from the perspective of the responding deputies they are entering an already dangerous situation. Or have you not read the numerous accounts of children being stabbed by a knife wielding attacker in a public place?
With regard to your second point, there were accounts given by two people at the Council meeting and both are excerpted in the article under the heading "The Witnesses at Council and Their Conclusions" - did you read them? We assumed those were factual "first hand" accounts from their perspective. I was able to verify that all three witnesses were present in the park, because they are on the body cam footage. I also spoke at length with one of them by phone the evening before the article was published. Although the details of the incident were not the focus of our conversation, I did adjust some of the language based on that call.
Whether or not children other than "T" were directly ordered to the ground is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of the deputies, they were ordering "T" to the ground, and the children heard that and also dropped to the ground. It appears that from the perspective of the people in the park, that order was directed at other children and not at "T". That's why both perspectives are in the article.
But let's be pragmatic here - what happens in pretty much every TV show or movie when someone has a gun? What does everyone around them do? They drop to the ground. So isn't it logical that in a situation where deputies are entering a park with guns, that the children would drop to the ground? That's what I would want my kid to do whether they were ordered there or not! Wouldn't you?
Thank you for taking the time to respond, and for the work you and your co-writer put into the article. I appreciate the effort to review the available evidence and attend the Council meeting.
To your first point: I agree that the Welfare Fraud Investigator must have seen something to prompt the call. However, as someone who was physically present in the park from before, during, and after the incident, I can confirm that the knife was never visible to anyone in our group of 7–10 parents—including myself. The child wasn’t waving it around or behaving in a threatening way. I understand that officers must respond based on the information given, but it’s also important to recognize how much weight we give to that single, uncorroborated call when no one in the park saw a threat, and when the officers had ample opportunity to observe the child before making contact.
As far as I can find, it is not illegal in California for a person—regardless of age—to carry a knife in public, provided it’s not a prohibited type. A switchblade with a blade 2 inches or longer is illegal, but switchblades under 2 inches are not. In the article, the photo of the knife shows a ruler that’s slightly shifted, making it difficult to determine the blade’s actual length with certainty. That detail matters when forming conclusions about legality.
Regarding witness accounts: Yes, I read the section with the excerpts. To add to that, I was present in the audience at the council meeting with my entire family. I most likely am also present in the body cam video you reference as I was standing directly next Mr. Mejia (who spoke at the Council meeting) during the incident. While I’m glad at least a few voices were included, none of the parents from the homeschool group—who were closest to the child and the situation—were interviewed directly for this piece. Many of us would have been happy to speak and provide clarity. Summarizing 3 of our statements from a Council transcript is helpful, but limited, and it would have added depth to hear more than the 3 brief selections. The article leans heavily on law enforcement framing, and a fuller picture would benefit from more balanced sourcing from the many other parents who did not choose to speak at the Council meeting.
As for the third point: I understand that the deputies MAY have only been directing commands at “T.” However, my 6-year-old daughter and at least two other small children were not near him at the time and still responded to commands clearly directed at them, including being told to get down. I was the one who found my daughter on her back in the grass. I wouldn’t dispute that confusion in a tense situation can lead to varied interpretations—but when children not involved in the incident are following officer commands, it’s fair to ask whether those commands were delivered in a way that inadvertently involved them.
Again, thank you for the coverage. I don’t question the need for officers to respond to a call, but I do believe the way they responded—and the public’s understanding of what really happened—deserves more nuance than this incident has received so far.
As a parent of young children and teens, I firmly believe that anyone carrying a knife in a public park poses a serious danger. Based on previous experiences, I no longer feel safe at this park. During the last event we attended — the carnival — we overheard teens in the restroom discussing plans to jump and rob others, which was deeply concerning.
I am struggling to understand how any parent could justify their child’s behavior in such circumstances. Based on the information available to the police, and the nature of the call they received, they had a duty to act. Parents must take responsibility for their children’s actions, particularly when it involves something as serious as carrying a real knife — not a toy or plastic one.
Had the police failed to intervene and someone had been hurt, the blame would have inevitably fallen on them. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of parents to be fully aware of what their children are doing, to set clear boundaries, and to stop making excuses that put others at risk.
I completely understand your concerns—public safety is important, especially in places where children gather. That said, I was one of the parents present at the park during this specific incident, and I think some context may help.
The child in question was part of a homeschool group and known to all the parents there. He wasn’t acting aggressively, didn’t brandish the knife, and was interacting peacefully with others. The knife wasn’t visible or being used in any threatening way—officers had to ask him where it was and search him to find it. None of us on site felt unsafe before the officers arrived.
You’re absolutely right that police must respond to serious calls, and no one is suggesting otherwise. But how that response is carried out—especially in a playground full of children—matters. Several young kids were ordered to the ground during the response, including my own, despite no immediate threat being present.
Parents should take responsibility, and I agree that a switchblade is not something any child should have. But it’s also important not to paint this situation with the same brush as others involving real danger or intent to harm. Accountability is key—on all sides—but it needs to be rooted in the actual facts.
Jay -- can you please put your last name on your Substack profile? We do not allow anonymous comments and what you have to say is important. Once you add your last name it will automatically populate to your comments here.
Here's the policy that's written at the bottom of the article:
Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
The thing is the police are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" Glad the issue was resolved peacefully. The police, arriving had no idea what the actual situation was, they appear to have evaluated it quickly and no one was injured. Glad the bodycams were activated.
Yes. Thank goodness the bodycams were activated.
Yes. Thank goodness the bodycams were activated. They're not known for inaccuracies.
Yes. Bodycams are not known for inaccuracies.
As a parent who was present at the park during this incident, I appreciate the coverage—but there are a few important points missing or misrepresented.
First, while the article notes that officers responded to a report of a “masked individual with a knife,” it doesn’t clarify that the knife was not visible or brandished at any point. Officers had to search the child and ask him where it was. None of the parents present—including myself—saw the child as a threat, and all of us had children playing nearby.
Second, while the article references the sheriff’s account and the existence of bodycam footage, it doesn’t appear that any of the parents who witnessed the incident were interviewed for their perspective. That’s disappointing, especially given the impact this had on our children—some of whom were ordered to the ground during the response.
Including firsthand accounts from the families on scene would have added meaningful context to the story and helped readers better understand the concerns about how this situation was handled.
Hi Jay,
Thanks the writing. I'm sorry you had this experience - I'm sure it was difficult.
I'm the co-writer who went to the station, listened to the audio of the radio call made by the Welfare Fraud Investigator and reviewed the body cam footage. I was also present at the City Council meeting where the three witnesses to the events spoke and described in detail their version of the events - which we relayed in the article from a transcript made at the meeting.
With regard to your first point, how did the Welfare Fraud Investigator know there was knife if the knife was never out? That investigator described the movement of "T" in the Park for 5-7 minutes as deputies were driving to the call. They must have seen a knife in order to report it, right? So from the perspective of the responding deputies they are entering an already dangerous situation. Or have you not read the numerous accounts of children being stabbed by a knife wielding attacker in a public place?
With regard to your second point, there were accounts given by two people at the Council meeting and both are excerpted in the article under the heading "The Witnesses at Council and Their Conclusions" - did you read them? We assumed those were factual "first hand" accounts from their perspective. I was able to verify that all three witnesses were present in the park, because they are on the body cam footage. I also spoke at length with one of them by phone the evening before the article was published. Although the details of the incident were not the focus of our conversation, I did adjust some of the language based on that call.
Whether or not children other than "T" were directly ordered to the ground is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of the deputies, they were ordering "T" to the ground, and the children heard that and also dropped to the ground. It appears that from the perspective of the people in the park, that order was directed at other children and not at "T". That's why both perspectives are in the article.
But let's be pragmatic here - what happens in pretty much every TV show or movie when someone has a gun? What does everyone around them do? They drop to the ground. So isn't it logical that in a situation where deputies are entering a park with guns, that the children would drop to the ground? That's what I would want my kid to do whether they were ordered there or not! Wouldn't you?
Cindy
Hi Cindy,
Thank you for taking the time to respond, and for the work you and your co-writer put into the article. I appreciate the effort to review the available evidence and attend the Council meeting.
To your first point: I agree that the Welfare Fraud Investigator must have seen something to prompt the call. However, as someone who was physically present in the park from before, during, and after the incident, I can confirm that the knife was never visible to anyone in our group of 7–10 parents—including myself. The child wasn’t waving it around or behaving in a threatening way. I understand that officers must respond based on the information given, but it’s also important to recognize how much weight we give to that single, uncorroborated call when no one in the park saw a threat, and when the officers had ample opportunity to observe the child before making contact.
As far as I can find, it is not illegal in California for a person—regardless of age—to carry a knife in public, provided it’s not a prohibited type. A switchblade with a blade 2 inches or longer is illegal, but switchblades under 2 inches are not. In the article, the photo of the knife shows a ruler that’s slightly shifted, making it difficult to determine the blade’s actual length with certainty. That detail matters when forming conclusions about legality.
Regarding witness accounts: Yes, I read the section with the excerpts. To add to that, I was present in the audience at the council meeting with my entire family. I most likely am also present in the body cam video you reference as I was standing directly next Mr. Mejia (who spoke at the Council meeting) during the incident. While I’m glad at least a few voices were included, none of the parents from the homeschool group—who were closest to the child and the situation—were interviewed directly for this piece. Many of us would have been happy to speak and provide clarity. Summarizing 3 of our statements from a Council transcript is helpful, but limited, and it would have added depth to hear more than the 3 brief selections. The article leans heavily on law enforcement framing, and a fuller picture would benefit from more balanced sourcing from the many other parents who did not choose to speak at the Council meeting.
As for the third point: I understand that the deputies MAY have only been directing commands at “T.” However, my 6-year-old daughter and at least two other small children were not near him at the time and still responded to commands clearly directed at them, including being told to get down. I was the one who found my daughter on her back in the grass. I wouldn’t dispute that confusion in a tense situation can lead to varied interpretations—but when children not involved in the incident are following officer commands, it’s fair to ask whether those commands were delivered in a way that inadvertently involved them.
Again, thank you for the coverage. I don’t question the need for officers to respond to a call, but I do believe the way they responded—and the public’s understanding of what really happened—deserves more nuance than this incident has received so far.