A Disturbing Story…



Missing person? Well, they better not show up. Or else…

The cops always ask us, when we dare to criticize their unlawful, corrupt,or incompetent behavior: who are you going to call when you need help? Sometimes the question evolves into a statement: I hope we’re gonna be there when you need us. Then it always comes across as a thinly veiled bit of extortion on the part of those sworn to uphold “public safety,” and are taking public money (lots of it) to do so. I’m reminded of the mob shakedown racketeer: jeez, it will be a real shame if something is happening to youse guy’s nice bisness.

But enough small talk. FFFF received correspondence today from a Fullerton resident who believes he recently made a big mistake calling the FPD instead of just relying on the kindness of strangers.

Here is the story in his very own words – as addressed to the Police Chief, the City Council and the District Attorney.


Date: Sunday, September 29, 2019

To: Fullerton Police Chief, City Council Members, Orange County District Attorneys Office

From: Toby R Oliver, Fullerton resident

            A call by me to the Fullerton Police Department last night for help in finding a mother and two-year old son has exploded into at hellish nightmare after FPD Sergeants decided to arrest said mother for doing nothing more than getting lost.

            My wife and mother of our three sons, Pranee Sribunruang, now sits in the Santa Ana Jail on $100,000 bail, charged with felony child endangerment because two Fullerton Police Sergeants decided it was their duty to put her there after she went for a walk, got lost and took several hours to make it back home.

            FPD Sergeants Brandon Clyde and Emmanuel Pulido pitched a mission of help and concern when I met them out front of our home last night, pulling out all the stops to help find Pranee and our two-year-old son Leo. Then just as the Sheriff’s Department blood hound was about to be given her scent, Pranee stepped out of a vehicle that had pulled up, driven by a good semaritan who found her and Leo at a gas station and brought them home.

            This is when it all changed.

            Immediately, Pranee was someone who had done something wrong. Forcing her to sit on the curb, out came a thosand questions from the officers. Where did you go? What were you doing? Who were you with? “What do you mean you wanted to walk to Norwalk, you can’t walk to Norwalk,” Sergeant Pulido spewed. I tried to step in, and the officers pulled me away, saying this and that about needing to talk to her separately. One of the junior officers brought me aside and tried to calm me down, “We just want to help her, find out what’s going on,” he said. “Go inside and I’ll call you out in a minute.”

            I waited a few minutes, went back outside and Pranee was gone. I asked where she was. “She is being arrested,” they said. “For what,” I replied, “which car is she in?” They wouldn’t tell me, and they wouldn’t tell me what she was being charged with. “You’ll find out Tuesday,” one of them said. Then I saw her head up against the back side window of one of the patrol cars. I went toward her, grabbed at the window and said “babe.” I didn’t know what to say. It had all gone horribly wrong, so quick. And I was responsible because I had called the FPD for their help.

            Before I could do anything else, one of the officers jumped in the car and tore off down the street, leaving me there looking after her. I still didn’t really understand what was happening. This was supposed to be about finding Pranee and Leo. Now they were taking her away before I could even hug her.

            Pranee is the kindest person I know. Her life is about showing kindess to others. Everyone she meets falls in love with her and her kind spirit. She had never been arrested before. She never even had a speeding ticket. No misdemeanors, no arguments with anyone (except me, her husband), and certainly never any child neglect or endangerment. The only way you knew she was mad at you was when she didn’t speak to you. Now she sits in the Santa Ana County Jail thanks to Sergeants Pulido and Clyde, and our family is torn apart.

            The officers asked me earlier in the night, “has she ever threatened to harm herself or her son.” No I said emphatically. Her and I have had our issues, as most couples do. And she has experienced some depression recently, and we are working on this and trying to seek some mental health treatment. All this I told the officers, but sergeants Clyde and Pulido took this to mean something very different.

            There was no harm to my son Leo. There was no endangerment, unless walking on the sidewalk at night is felony endangerment in today’s Southern California. Clyde and Pulido just didn’t like her explanation that she wanted to walk to Norwalk to see a friend and trade jewelry. I had explained to them that I had her only debit card because I had misplaced mine the day before, or, she told the officers, she would have taken Uber. Her phone had no service, so she couldn’t call us. It just didn’t add up for Clyde and Pulido so they decided “she met the criteria” and ripped apart our family, just at the moment we were reunited.

            Now, I realize the worse thing I did that night was to call FPD, because in the end she made it home on her own – even though we were all very worried – and we would all be home together tonight enjoying each other. Instead FPD has torn our family apart, and we are lost. Never will I seek the aide of FPD again.

            And one last thing, I don’t blame Clyde and Pulido as much as I blame the FPD. Where would they get this attitude, this aggressive nature? Where would they get the idea that somebody needed to go to jail in this situation. This is training that comes from the top, and that is your real problem Police Chief and City Councilmembers. Something very rotten is at the heart of your police department, and you need to do something about it.

Toby R Oliver

Now of course this is only Mr. Oliver’s story, but as stories go, it seems to have a degree of verisimilitude. The City will have its own version of the tale, no doubt, even if we are never allowed to see it.

Please note Mr. Oliver’s two conclusions: namely, that it would have been far better for him to have never called the Fullerton Police Department at all; and that there must be an ingrained culture of aggression and inhumanity in the department. As to the first conclusion, I leave that for others to determine. As to the second issue, those of us watching the FPD and the way it operates, have long ago detected a wide vein of callousness that accompanied the criminal and abusive behavior by its employees.

So what will come of all this except embarrassment for his family and big legal bills for Mr. Oliver? He won’t get any satisfaction from his communicants, that’s for sure, or even an apology. No, for the FPD admits of no error as its careening incompetence smashes across the lives of the people who have had the misfortune to be in their way.


43 Replies to “A Disturbing Story…”

  1. Once the Heroes were called and nothing heroic was to be done, they turned on the callers and savaged them.

    It’s actually a very predictable response.

    1. Maybe the Police Chief will issue a statement at tomorrow nights city council meeting. That could help shed some light on this story.

      So Clyde and Pulido are qualified to evaluate a persons state of mind? And a $100,000 bail? WTF? Somethin ain’t adding up.

      Ramos and Sickanelly’s bail for murdering Kelly Thomas was like what, $5,000?

      Look at the bright side, at least they didn’t kill her.

  2. Jury Instructions for PC273a(a) (which is what I would think she is charged with given the contents of the letter and her $100,000 bail). Sorry, too long for me to format for easier reading:

    821. Child Abuse Likely to Produce Great Bodily Harm or Death
    (Pen. Code, § 273a(a))
    The defendant is charged [in Count ] with child abuse likely to
    produce (great bodily harm/ [or] death) [in violation of Penal Code
    section 273a(a)].
    To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
    prove that:

    [1. The defendant willfully inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or
    mental suffering on a child;]

    [1. The defendant willfully caused or permitted a child to suffer
    unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering;]

    [1. The defendant, while having care or custody of a child, willfully
    caused or permitted the child’s person or health to be injured;]

    [1. The defendant, while having care or custody of a child, willfully
    caused or permitted the child to be placed in a situation where
    the child’s person or health was endangered;]
    2. The defendant (inflicted pain or suffering on the child/ [or]
    caused or permitted the child to (suffer/ [or] be injured/ [or] be
    endangered)) under circumstances or conditions likely to
    produce (great bodily harm/ [or] death)(;/.)

    [3. The defendant was criminally negligent when (he/she) caused or
    permitted the child to (suffer/ [or] be injured/ [or] be

    4. The defendant did not act while reasonably disciplining a child.]
    Copyright Judicial Council of California
    Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on
    The phrase likely to produce (great bodily harm/ [or] death) means the
    probability of (great bodily harm/ [or] death) is high.
    Great bodily harm means significant or substantial physical injury. It is
    an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.
    A child is any person under the age of 18 years.
    [Under the law, a person becomes one year older as soon as the first
    minute of his or her birthday has begun.]
    [Unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering is pain or suffering that
    is not reasonably necessary or is excessive under the circumstances.]
    [Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness,
    inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal
    negligence when:
    1. He or she acts in a reckless way that is a gross departure from
    the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same
    2. The person’s acts amount to disregard for human life or
    indifference to the consequences of his or her acts;
    3. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way
    would naturally and probably result in harm to others.]
    [A child does not need to actually suffer great bodily harm. But if a
    child does suffer great bodily harm, you may consider that fact, along
    with all the other evidence, in deciding whether the defendant
    committed the offense.]
    New January 2006; Revised August 2006, April 2010, October 2010, February
    Instructional Duty
    The court has a sua sponte duty to give an instruction defining the elements of the
    If there is sufficient evidence, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the
    defense of disciplining a child. (People v. Whitehurst (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1045,
    1049 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 33].) Give bracketed element 4 and CALCRIM No. 3405,
    Parental Right to Punish a Child.
    Copyright Judicial Council of California
    Give element 1A if it is alleged that the defendant directly inflicted unjustifiable
    physical pain or mental suffering. Give element 1B if it is alleged that the
    defendant caused or permitted a child to suffer. If it is alleged that the defendant
    had care or custody of a child and caused or permitted the child’s person or health
    to be injured, give element 1C. Finally, give element 1D if it is alleged that the
    defendant had care or custody of a child and endangered the child’s person or
    health. (See Pen. Code, § 273a(a).)
    Give bracketed element 3 and the bracketed definition of “criminally negligent” if
    element 1B, 1C, or 1D is given alleging that the defendant committed any indirect
    acts. (See People v. Valdez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 778, 788–789 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 3, 42
    P.3d 511]; People v. Peabody (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 43, 48–49 [119 Cal.Rptr. 780].)
    Give on request the bracketed definition of “unjustifiable” physical pain or mental
    suffering if there is a question about the necessity or degree of pain or suffering.
    (See People v. Curtiss (1931) 116 Cal.App. Supp. 771, 779–780 [300 P. 801].)
    Give on request the bracketed paragraph stating that a child need not actually suffer
    great bodily harm. (See People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 80 [83
    Cal.Rptr.2d 519]; People v. Jaramillo (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 830, 835 [159
    Cal.Rptr. 771].)
    Give the bracketed paragraph about calculating age if requested. (Fam. Code,
    § 6500; In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 849–850 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 855 P.2d
    • Elements. Pen. Code, § 273a(a); People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62,
    80 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 519]; People v. Smith (1984) 35 Cal.3d 798, 806 [201
    Cal.Rptr. 311, 678 P.2d 886].
    • Child Defined. See Fam. Code, § 6500; People v. Thomas (1976) 65
    Cal.App.3d 854, 857–858 [135 Cal.Rptr. 644] [in context of Pen. Code,
    § 273d].
    • Likely Defined. People v. Chaffın (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1351–1352
    [93 Cal.Rptr.3d 531] [questioning analysis of term in People v. Wilson]; People
    v. Wilson (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1204 [41 Cal.Rptr.3d 919].
    • Great Bodily Harm or Injury Defined. Pen. Code, § 12022.7(f); People v.
    Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 80 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 519].
    • Willful Defined. Pen. Code, § 7, subd. 1; see People v. Lara (1996) 44
    Cal.App.4th 102, 107 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402]; People v. Vargas (1988) 204
    Cal.App.3d 1455, 1462, 1468–1469 [251 Cal.Rptr. 904].
    • Criminal Negligence Required for Indirect Conduct. People v. Valdez (2002)
    27 Cal.4th 778, 788, 789 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 3, 42 P.3d 511]; People v. Peabody
    (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 43, 47, 48–49 [119 Cal.Rptr. 780]; see People v. Penny
    (1955) 44 Cal.2d 861, 879–880 [285 P.2d 926] [criminal negligence for
    homicide]; Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112, 135 [253 Cal.Rptr.
    1, 763 P.2d 852].
    Copyright Judicial Council of California
    • General Criminal Intent Required for Direct Infliction of Pain or
    Suffering. People v. Sargent (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1206, 1224 [81 Cal.Rptr.2d
    835, 970 P.2d 409]; see People v. Atkins (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 348, 361 [125
    Cal.Rptr. 855]; People v. Wright (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 6, 14 [131 Cal.Rptr.
    Secondary Sources
    2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Sex Offenses and
    Crimes Against Decency, §§ 159–163.
    6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142,
    Crimes Against the Person, §§ 142.01[2][a][v], 142.23[7] (Matthew Bender).
    Couzens & Bigelow, Sex Crimes: California Law and Procedure § 12:17 (The
    Rutter Group).
    Any violation of Penal Code section 273a(a) must be willful. (People v. Smith
    (1984) 35 Cal.3d 798, 806 [678 P.2d 886]; People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th
    62, 80 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 519]; but see People v. Valdez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 778, 789
    [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 3, 42 P.3d 511] [the prong punishing a direct infliction of
    unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering does not expressly require that the
    conduct be willful].) Following Smith and Cortes, the committee has included
    “willfully” in element 1A regarding direct infliction of abuse until there is further
    guidance from the courts.
    • Attempted Child Abuse. Pen. Code, §§ 664, 273a(a).
    • Misdemeanor Child Abuse. Pen. Code, § 273a(b).
    Care or Custody
    “The terms ‘care or custody’ do not imply a familial relationship but only a
    willingness to assume duties correspondent to the role of a caregiver.” (People v.
    Toney (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 618, 621–622 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 578] [quoting People v.
    Cochran (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 826, 832 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 257]].)
    Prenatal Conduct
    Penal Code section 273a does not apply to prenatal conduct endangering an unborn
    child. (Reyes v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 214, 217–218, 219 [141
    Cal.Rptr. 912].)
    The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on unanimity when the prosecution has
    presented evidence of multiple acts to prove a single count. (People v. Russo
    (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 25 P.3d 641].) However, the
    court does not have to instruct on unanimity if the offense constitutes a “continuous
    course of conduct.” (People v. Napoles (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 108, 115–116 [127
    Copyright Judicial Council of California
    Cal.Rptr.2d 777].) Child abuse may be a continuous course of conduct or a single,
    isolated incident. (Ibid.) The court should carefully examine the statute charged, the
    pleadings, and the evidence presented to determine whether the offense constitutes
    a continuous course of conduct. (Ibid.) See generally CALCRIM No. 3500,

    1. I wasn’t there, hard to know what went on. However, (too) many departments base their performance reviews, in part, upon the number of felony vs. misdemeanor vs. citation. This invariably leads to overcharging of suspects and/or unnecessary and possibly illegal arrests. It was one of my pet peeves and something I would not shut up about when I saw it happening. Impossible to say if that was at play here without knowing the facts (i.e. reading the police report and listening to recordings). Certainly the fact pattern gives cause for concern (mental problems, walking to Norwalk, no phone, etc.). Some similar situations have resulted in children being killed before the parent commits suicide, but on the face of it I don’t see a felony unless mom made a *very* incriminating statement. Seems like more of a 5150 situation where she should have been taken for an evaluation. But if the officers involved are more focused on their performance evaluation and arrest stats, they might have made an arrest because you get nothing for a 5150 detention except a bunch of wasted hours. She goes to court tomorrow, and it will be interesting to see if it’s a DA refusal (for insufficient evidence) and she is released without bail.

    2. I will also add that this is what you get when there’s a drain on experienced officers leaving for other departments because of better pay and benefits. Unqualified people get promoted because all the good ones have left.

      1. The good ones didn’t leave for $2500.

        They left because they didn’t want to work for an embarrassing department that arrests mothers, strip searches women in parking lots, has sex in the back of patrol cars with victims/suspects, and murders mentally ill shirtless homeless people on behalf of bar owners.

        1. Sounds plausible. I’ve always maintained that “good cops” would work for less in a department with a good reputation (good luck finding that).

          1. With a merit-based promotion system instead of Danny Boy’s corrupt hierarchy of douchebags and criminals.

            1. That’s exactly what the problem is at a number of departments. A poor set of promotions due to friendships instead of knowledge and ability can totally fuck a department for years. Happened at mine. So you have some very incompetent, unethical and morally deficient people in charge of the department who do nothing but look out for each other. They feel threatened by the competent officers trying to do good and fuck them over. It’s not unusual.

              1. Always internal promotion. No new blood in leadership. It’s a recipe for corruption and cover up. La Palma PD does the same thing and that’s where Fullerton got Sellers from.

                1. Seal Beach got Sellers from La Palma. Laguna got him from Seal Beach. Fullerton got him from Laguna. I think.

  3. Manuel Ramos …. “Manny Man” legal case is up for closed session tonights city council meeting negotiating his lawsuit against the city of Fullerton because of his “unfair” departure from the PD .Considering that he started the confrontation by intentionaly pinching/poking Kelly T. on the shoulder to make him jump up so they could beat him down …. It would be nice for him to enlighten us with his memories of July 5, 2011 on his facebook group he is in , Fullerton Memories… or start a group called Fullerton Police stories…The good old days. I would like to hear his take on pesky transients, who are pretending to be mentally ill. and the reasons for some of his other violent altrications going back to childhood in Fullerton with “lessors” who “stepped on “his Ego.

  4. There are several problems with the “going for a walk story” yet the real issue is that whatever reason the wife left the house, the very last thing that should have happened was her arrest. The worst decision possible was made by these cops who are always bragging about their ability to act (presumably properly) in quick response circumstances. Just wildly thrashing around constitutes action, but it doesn’t mean that anything good is happening.

  5. Her custody status just changed from $100K bail with a court date of 10/1 to $0 bail and no court date listed. In my experience, this is an indication of a DA Refusal (insufficient evidence) and she will likely be released in the coming hours. Once released, the custody website will give the reason for the release. So we will know for sure in a few hours.

  6. A few days in the Women’s lock-up at the Central Jail will do this troublemaker a world of good. She’ll never waste valuable FPD manpower again!

  7. And she’s out as of 20 minutes ago. “No Complaint Filed at This Time”.

    Seems to indicate that FPD never sent over the report, DA Complaint Form, Declaration in Support of Arrest and other documents necessary to file the case. Hard to say why. Could be after the letter the Chief took a look at it and said WTF were you thinking?

    I would have 5150’d her and notified Child Protective Services for counseling and monitoring. Didn’t seem like an arrest was warranted if you accept the facts contained in the husband’s letter at face value.

    1. Well thanks for the update. 5150? Based on what, exactly?

      So we can glean from this that the cops can arrest you, throw you in jail for four days omit to file a complaint and no harm done, no foul, repercussions, no nothing?

    1. Yeah, and Goodrich leaked the arrest to the Voice of OC as I recall.

      These motherfuckers will hurt you if they can. And the Chief? Doesn’t matter who it is – McKinley, Sellers, Hamilton, Hughes, Garth, or Dumb. They will all cover it up and they will all claim there is no Culture of Corruption.

      1. Damn straight. That lawless female had it coming! You don’t waste FPD time on this piddling shit. We have real work to do.

        1. I hope he buys something nice for himself from the camera store on North Harbor. They could use the business

  8. Joshua, can you or one of your experienced writers find out if CPS (child protective services) took Mr and Mrs Oliver’s children away yesterday after illicit narcotics were located in their bedroom?

  9. Yeah I always get lost for 2 hours walking to Norwalk like a normal person. yup. nothing to see here.

    just getting lost with my kid.

    1. Right. And so let’s lock ’em up!! Oops! No complaint. Better plant some dope so we don’t look like total incompetent assholes!

  10. Based on the photo, members of the FPD need to substitute salads without dressing for 9 out of 10 meals they eat.

  11. The way I hear it Fitzbitch and Florybitch are behind this, along with that handjob lawyer Palmer. The other three aren’t going along. Why would they?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *