Cop Fired After Threatening To Arrest KFC Employees Over Refund Policy

A once high-ranking police officer in Arizona now finds himself out of a job — and all because of the chicken at KFC.

What actually happened when the officer got into the dispute at his local KFC depends on who you ask.

According to employees at the eatery, the police lieutenant, who had been the second-in-command in the department at the time, came into the KFC/Taco Bell combo on July 9. “He ordered some chicken that we didn’t have available at that moment,” recalls the manager who was on duty that day.

A second manager offered the officer another type of chicken and a voucher for a free meal, but the officer instead asked for his money back. The manager claims this is against store policy.

“He told me, ‘Look, fat a–, I don’t want to talk. Just give me my money or I’m taking you to jail. Do you know who I am?'” alleges the manager, who says he then took off his apron in preparation for being arrested.

Says the second employee, “He told me that he was the police lieutenant and told me I had to give him his money back. I said that whether he’s the president of the United States or just a regular person, I can’t give him his money back… He asked me how old I was and said he was going to take me to jail personally.”

One manager says he asked the officer to leave the restaurant because he was being disruptive: “We had a full lobby. I don’t need people yelling, being the way he was in the lobby … we have kids in there and stuff.”

Police records confirm that the officer, who was on leave at the time following a motorcycle accident, did call in to the station to let them know he was making an arrest. “I’ve got a problem with the manager. I’m going to take him for fraudulent activity, so I need a car,” he told the dispatcher.

Now there’s the officer’s side of the story.

“The thing that I’m proud of: I didn’t lose my temper. I didn’t raise my voice. This isn’t worth it,” he says.

According to the officer, he never told anyone they were being arrested and that he called the police department to have them come out and resolve the dispute:

I told them, ‘You’re committing fraud. You can’t take someone’s money, not give them any product, and refuse to give the money back,’… I didn’t yell. I didn’t use profanity, and I left. So how was that disorderly?

When police arrived, they told the officer — who outranked them — that the matter was a civil dispute and couldn’t be resolved by the police.

Graham said he called the Williams police, and that although he out-ranked the officers who arrived, he did not order them to handle the case in any particular fashion.

“It’s a civil matter because you’re a lazy f—–,” the off-duty officer admits to having told the responding officers. “I could have ordered them to make the arrest. I didn’t.”

The responding officers reported that the lieutenant had taken an “aggressive stance” in his dealings with them. After the incident, a police sergeant sent the department chief a memo outlining what he said were police department policy violations: neglect of duty, not supporting fellow officers, disorderly conduct, not creating harmony and cooperation within the department, not conforming to rules and regulations and oppression under the color of law.

While the incident was being investigated, the lieutenant was ordered to turn over his phone, badge and weapons but declined. Police had get a search warrant for his home in order to retrieve these items.

The officer was terminated on July 28 but says he plans on filing a wrongful-termination suit.
Finger-lickin’ bad [Arizona Daily Sun]


Edit Your Comment

  1. PunditGuy says:

    It’s against store policy to refund someone’s money when you sell them something you don’t have? WTF?

    • jmhart says:

      Yeah, what the hell kind of store policy is that!?!?!?

      • Ed says:

        The kind where I’ll have to remember to ask first before I turn over my cash, but since that is too much trouble, I think it will be easier to remember to go to some other fast food place when traveling. Thanks KFC for making decisions easier for us. I appreciate companies willing to help like this.

        • digital0verdose says:

          Yeah, no shit. They should post a sign saying, “Be sure to ask if your order is in stock before we try and steal your money.”

      • Bob says:

        The “I know it is a breach of contract but our store/district/area manager doesn’t care” kind of policies. Too many of these stores think that their policies are the only law they ever need to follow. I say sue them, throw in everything into the suit, including the kitchen sink (you had to get a kitchen sink for the court case, right?) and get a default judgment. Then the “fun” begins.

    • Dunkelzahn says:


      While of course I do not support *anybody* having a power trip and flipping out (especially ranking officers that use their influence and rank to cause a stir), they didn’t sell him what he wanted. Provide goods or give back the money. Simple as that.

      I can walk into a number of stores and attempt to purchase items. Typically, if they don’t have it I don’t even have to fork over cash. Why did they even accept his money?

      • RayanneGraff says:

        They probably took his money before they realized they were out of the kind he wanted.

        That said, no-refund policies at fast food joints are stupid. There places(like Jack in the Box) where I will only eat ONE thing off the menu because everything else is deep fried & horrific, and I’d be super pissed if they took my money, didn’t have what I ordered, and had nothing else I wanted. They should make special exceptions in cases where they are out of what the person ordered.

        • Dunkelzahn says:

          I guess I’m just lucky, but every time I’ve ordered chicken from KFC or anywhere for that matter, if I order a type of chicken that they don’t have, they either alert me that there will be a wait or tell me it’s unavailable *before* I’ve paid.

          I guess this isn’t commonplace, though.

          • Blueberry Scone says:

            It could be that they rang him up, thinking the chicken he ordered was available, then realized “oh, we just sold the last one through the drive-through.” It happens, especially if it’s in the middle of a rush.

            Instead of just giving him a coupon, they should have given him his money back. While I’m glad the cop was fired, I still think this no-refund thing is a stupid policy.

      • huadpe says:

        Yes, the store committed a wrong. This was a tort, though, not a crime.

        The KFC created a contract of money for Extra Crispy. They then failed to perform, and made an offer of Original Recipe and a coupon instead.

        The cop does have the right to sue them in small claims, or to call corporate. He does not have the power to arrest them.

        Say it with me now: Breach of contract is not a crime.

        • Dunkelzahn says:

          When did I ever mention it being a crime? I said it was wrong for them to accept his money. Plain and simple.

          Reading comprehension fail.

        • dolemite says:

          Wait, so if I pay $35,000 for a Ford F250 4×4, then go to pick it up, but Ford offers me a Ford F150 2WD and a used Focus, that is ok. No crime has been committed. Just a tort.

          I say no thanks, just give me the money back, and they say “no can do”. That’s fine?

          • stopNgoBeau says:

            Its not fine, but its also not a crime. They are in breach of contract, and no law enforcement officer will have the power to arrest based on that breach of contract.

            The only way to resolve it is through mediation or civil suit.

            • Difdi says:

              By that argument, shoplifting isn’t a crime either, but merely a civil tort. The shoplifter merely failed to give the store the contracted payment.

              • MauriceCallidice says:

                No, that would be a crime because there is a criminal statute making it a crime. You can’t have a crime without a law making it a crime.

                • MauriceCallidice says:

                  Also, there was no contract in your shoplifting scenario. It’s just plain old theft. Taking money for something and then not handing it over isn’t completely unrelated, but it’s not the same thing.

                  • leoneomeo says:

                    No it’s still theft… Otherwise I can do the same thing to banks…

                    • MauriceCallidice says:

                      Do the same what to banks? Enter into a contract and then not abide by the terms of the contract? That will probably get you sued, but is unlikely to get you arrested.

            • jefeloco says:

              IANAL but I think it would only technically be a crime if the representative took the cash knowing that the vehicle would never be available and that the substitutes would be offered instead. This could quality as actual fraudulent business but depending on where you’re at, this might just be bait and switch-ish.

              Also, $35,000 for a F250 4×4 would be wicked cheap, expect a scam-a-thon :)

        • kujospam says:

          But if they knew they didn’t have any, and were not going to live up to the contract that is fraud.

    • Sparty999 says:

      It’s a fast food meal… stop acting like he ordered a red Ferrari and got a yellow one… He wanted extra tasty crispy and got original recipe!! Oh yeah… and a coupon for a free meal another time!!!

      I would have thought I made out pretty well! (like when you went to Blockbuster and they have a guaranteed in stock video, and if they don’t have it you get it free next time)

      • Dunkelzahn says:

        Still doesn’t explain why they even accepted his money. They shouldn’t have accepted it if they knew the product wasn’t in stock. Strong-arm sales tactics to say the least.

        • ill informed says:

          do you have any idea how a restaurant operates? it’s not like a retail store than keeps a running inventory through the day and maintaints stock above a low level. in food, when things run out, they run out. and in fast food, since you pay first, this is bound to happen.

          • bennilynn says:

            So… How hard is it to refund the money then?

            I worked in retail for years, at Target and at Exxon. Doing a refund rarely even required the approval of a manager. You just hit the ‘credit’ key or thereabouts, opened the drawer, and handed the customer their money back. Ta-da.

            So long as the drawer was balanced at the end of the day, you were golden.

            • Dre' says:

              It wasn’t that easy at the fast food restaurant that I worked at (cashier @ Hardee’s) nor at the Burger King that a good friend of mine was the assistant manager of. Granted this was 15+ years ago.

              • dg says:

                Well if the button trick didn’t work, and the key from the mgr wasn’t readily available – MOST cash drawers have a manual release trigger button underneath. Lift up, push, drawer opens. Hand cash back to customer – make a note of it. Put note in drawer, deal with it later.

                But if someone told me I couldn’t have my cash back – screw them. I’d get pissed too.

        • bonzombiekitty says:

          It wasn’t out of stock – it was just there wasn’t any ready at that moment. More was being made and the cop would have had to wait a couple extra minutes. That often happens at fast food restaurants, especially when you have multiple cashiers taking orders. There might be 1 serving of a meal ready at the moment, with more in the middle of being cooked. Two people order that meal at the same time (lets say one in drive through, one in the lobby). The two cashiers don’t know about the other cashier’s order. Both patrons pay, the cashiers turn to fill the order and find that only one is available at the moment. Someone gets the meal, the other waits a few minutes.

        • Clyde Barrow says:

          Not a direct reply to Dunkelzahn:

          I think a point is being missed here. What would be a reasonable amount of time to wait for the chicken. It is not unreasonable to assume that one would have to wait for food to be cooked (it’s a restaurant) so I highly doubt that a judge is going to favor anyone claiming breach of contract on this one. Is waiting five minutes unreasonable? 10? 30? That depends upon the situation and customer’s mindsets. Just because YOU do not like to wait does not mean that it is unreasonable. You could bring in 50 people into court and some will say 30 minutes is no big deal. Some will say 5 minutes IS a big deal. And another point is that taking a customer’s money and not having food ready is not unreasonable either. The customer can always ask beforehand if what they want is ready. It’s a two-way street of communication; ESP doesn’t exist yet as far as I know. Otherwise, sit, shut-up, and wait. You won’t stave to death. This cop got what he deserved.

        • blueman says:

          So you’ve never gone to a restaurant, ordered something that was on the menu, only to have the waitperson come back and say, “I’m sorry, we just ran out of that item.”?

          The only difference here is that they take your money when you order. But they don’t run back and check on the immediate availability of every item on the menu.

          That said, I’m amazed they can’t/won’t simply give a refund. Costs them nothing and keeps the customer (relatively) satisfied.

      • Woofer says:

        Even if it’s fast food, why would they take his money if they didn’t have the food he ordered?

        • caradrake says:

          Well, it could be a matter of miscommunication between cashier and the cooks – usually, the cashier has no idea what the stock levels are like, and will continue to sell things without knowing it. It’s happened before, where I’ve ordered a meal, then told afterwards that they were out of X, and I could wait 10 minutes (or whatever the wait was) for fresh, or I could take Y instead.

      • goldilockz says:

        Yes but at Blockbuster, they don’t take your cash and THEN say they don’t have that movie.

      • TheBigWhiteWolf says:

        But you know how those free food coupons go at KFC…

        (Right, Ms. Winfrey?)

    • itrek says:

      It’s not that they didn’t have the chicken he wanted “in stock”. They just didn’t have it ready at that moment. If the officer would have just waited a few minutes until his extra crispy was cooked he would have gotten what he wanted.

      Now on the other hand it is pretty stupid they wouldn’t just give him is money back since the expectation is that you get the food “fast” after ordering it. It’s an insane policy.

    • damageddude says:

      That’s what I don’t understand. I once ordered a chocolate shake for my daughter at McDonalds and paid for it. As the girl was filling the shake the chocolate ran out/machine broke. They offered another flavor, which my daughter didn’t want, so we downgraded to chocolate milk. The cashier gave me the difference in price before I even had a chance to remind her.

  2. digital0verdose says:

    I’m missing something here. He placed an order, then found out they didn’t have the product and they would not refund his money. Am I reading that correctly?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      That’s what I got out of it.

      Now, I think they should refund the money if the officer ordered an item not on the menu, they took the money, and then before receiving any food he asked for a refund.

      But that in no way excuses his actions.

      • digital0verdose says:

        Yeah but it at least makes his reaction slightly more understandable. They essentially stole money from him.

        That’s like going to Amazon, buying a movie and then being told, after the transaction, the movie is no longer in stock and then forcing you to choose something else.

        That is bullshit. If a transaction is made and it turns out the product you asked for is not available, I don’t give a damn what store policy is, you are going to give me my money back.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          If anyone should know the appropriate action to take, shouldn’t it be a police office? That or a lawyer. Threatening to throw them in jail is not the appropriate action. That’s abuse of power.

          • digital0verdose says:

            I’m not saying it isn’t. All I am saying is that it is a bit more understandable.

          • crashfrog says:

            What do we even have jail for if it’s not to threaten people with it to get them to follow the law?

            We’ve become a country where we no longer seem to think that something can be against the law if someone says its “corporate policy.”

            • huadpe says:

              Right, but the cop should have known (as the other cops knew) that this was NOT a crime. It was breach of contract. He had a tort against them. It would have been illegal to arrest them.

              • RvLeshrac says:

                I’m still wondering how it is that taking someone’s property with no compensation is not a crime. There are fraud statutes expressly for this. If you take someone’s money with the promise of recompense, and fail to provide that, you’ve just committed fraud.

                • bonzombiekitty says:

                  But the restaurant wasn’t refusing to give him what he ordered. It seems as though the restaurant just needed some extra time to make the order. They offered him alternate compensation as well (which exceeded the value of the original order). Now, one could argue that the restaurant offered the ordered meal quickly and did not provide that. But your problem would be that your definition of “quick” may not match up with the restaurants definition of “quick”. We can probably all agree that an hour is not “quick” but 5 or 10 minutes? That’s “fast” in relation to a non-fast food joint.

        • DariusC says:


          I think he shouldn’t have made such a big deal, but he definitely was right to be pissed because they wouldnt give him his money back. It is not hard to refund the money, a couple buttons at most.

        • JohnnyP says:

          I think its more of you ordered the movie but we now realize its on back order would like like to wait for it or have this movie with a coupon for a free movie?

          • JohnnyP says:

            Or saying that you can have this movie free and when we have the one you orderd we will send it.

          • Ard says:

            Actually, restaurants can and do run out of items completely toward the end of the week. For example, last week in my town one of the McDonald’s restaurants ran out of nuggets completely. It happens pretty often. In these cases a product will be advertised but not available. Most restaurants will at least have the common decency and intelligence to keep track of their stock and thus know when they’re low to prevent these kinds of situations and will be able to tell the customer that the item they want is not available BEFORE they reach the payment window/card swipe. I’m pretty sure that if it was just a longer wait, it would have been mentioned in the article. I imagine that it’s only ‘store policy’ because refunds make the store look bad to corporate. “To hell with customer satisfaction so long as I don’t get chewed out for being a moron.”

    • milkcake says:

      That’s what I was thinking. KFC has some weirdest policy then. They should have given the money back, not because he’s police, because it’s the right thing to do.

    • Daggertrout says:

      The way I’m reading it was that he ordered something they were cooking, and the manager offered a different item since it would take time for what he ordered to be ready.

    • zaku2s274 says:

      Was said product the infamous KFC Double Down?!

    • Jack Doe says:

      No, you’re reading it wrong. The cop ordered something that wasn’t immediately available. You can wait, or you can have this instead and a coupon. Your choice. It wasn’t like he went in and said “I want a Big Mac,” they took his money and said “Oh wait, here’s some chicken instead.” This pseudo cop is a punk and deserves the firing.

      • myCatCracksMeUp says:

        I agree the cop is a punk and deserved firing, but the KFC was 100% in the wrong in this. If they don’t have the exact food someone orders, they should refund the money if that’s what the customer wants. In many cases I don’t have time to wait, and I don’t want a voucher to use later. I’d never hang onto the voucher until the next time I got back to a KFC, and even if I did, it might not be the same KFC, and there’s a good chance a different KFC wouldn’t take the voucher.

        • Wombatish says:

          It’s not like he ate the chicken they offered and then wanted a refund or something.

          It can’t be that hard to refund his money, and I agree, jesus, what a dumbass policy.

          Cop was still a wee bit on the loony side though, and deserved what he got.

      • seanjustinpenn says:

        Ummm, why are those the only 2 choices?
        Why can’t he have this money back?

  3. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Again with the police abusing their priviledges.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      “Again with one example of a police officer out of hundreds of thousands abusing his privileges.”

      There. Fixed that for you. And the spelling, too.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Oh, a spelling mistake. That negates everything.

        Sorry, friend, but even one abusive officer is one too many. If officer abuse was strictly and consistently punished then the occasionaly mishap might be tolerable. But officers don’t typically like to go after other officers, and abuse cases are often not reported.

        • Murali says:

          Excellent point.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          Oh, you mean like in this case in which the officer clearly lost his job and might be prosecuted for other violations based on the statements of his fellow officers?

          Yeah, Blue Wall of Silence and all that…

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            Sorry, this is only one example out of thousands of police abuse cases, and therefore does not really represent the norm.

            Yes, I did just use your own argument against you.

            • pantheonoutcast says:

              Yeah, but you didn’t use it very well. The truth of the matter is that there are very very few legitimate police abuse cases. A study by Amnesty International references only 90 over the course of 16 years (1980-1996). Wikipedia lists less than 50 from 1990-2010. Even if you took that number and increased it by a factor of 10, it would still be a drop in the bucket. You can’t say, “even one is too many!” because it is impossible for the number of police abuse cases to be less than one. Impossible. Police are still fallible humans. 1000 incidents from 800,000 officers? Expected, predictable and acceptable.

              When police are found guilty of abusing their power, they are typically disciplined, relieved of duty, prosecuted or sued. Just like any other citizen.

              The ones who were not found guilty were most likely not guilty. A crackhead who takes a swing at an officer right before he gets blasted in the kidneys with a baton is naturally going to claim “police brutality.” And eventually, the officer involved will be rightfully exonerated.

              • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                Actually, it was used quite well. Same scenario – using one example to generalize about the rest.

                Having no link to the article I really can’t speak for or against it. But not all police abuse cases are so egregious to warrant a full investigation and prosecution. Others have made examples in earlier articles today, such as cops routinely speeding even when not in pursuit. Or this article where the officer used his occupation as a threat against a citizen, which did warrant prosecution. There are a million ways a cop can abuse his power, and many of them are subtle and impossible to prove in a legal setting and likely undetected by the study you mentioned. But it doesn’t change the fact that it happens, and it far too frequent a case than should be.

                • pantheonoutcast says:

                  “But it doesn’t change the fact that it happens, and it far too frequent a case than should be.”

                  Let’s assume for a moment that such examples are as widespread as you claim. How does a society deal with it beyond the normal means of investigation and prosecution? How can create “perfection” from an imperfect being?

                  • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                    Why do you assume I’m looking for perfection? I understand we are not all perfect, and that an officer can make a mistake.

                    The mistakes that are publicized – the really bad ones – are ones no officer should ever make. And I’m sure these officers didn’t just have this one indiscretion, that would be unlikely. There was surely earlier issues that led to this one.

                    What I want is better third party monitoring and accountability among officers. Moments of officer abuse are not a problem when they can always be immediately identified and dealt with. Too often, however, these incidents are swept over, hidden, or ignored. That is the true problem, the lack of accountability for their actions.

                    Laws are absolutely meaningless if they can’t be properly enforced. The most important aspect of society is not its rules, but how those rules are enforced. Without that aspect, the rest is worthless.

                    • roguemarvel says:

                      I’m confused because it seems like in this situation, the abuse was properly monitored and corrected. He was fired for his attempt to abuse power and the other officers were trained correctly to not let a senior officer bully them into an illegal action.

                      Sounds like great training at that department. And I can tell you from experience as the daughter of a police chief and a former civilian employee at a police station, that there is extensive screening and evaluation before they hire anyone to work in law enforcement (I had to take a psych evaluation and a poly test). But sometime problems slip threw the cracks and the officers unions make it difficult to fire anyone after there probation is over, unless they have a truly horrible offence. Just like no single person is perfect no single system is perfect so until they create the magic hiring and screening system for cops you are going to have to deal with a few bad eggs, who yes, shouldn’t be cops. But don’t worry, a lot of time other cops realize that just as much as you do and are trying to fix the problem.

                    • Dunkelzahn says:

                      +1. Bravo!

                    • myCatCracksMeUp says:


                      Wheather it’s the police union, or just the mentality of the department, there is no excuse for bad cops not being fired. And not just ‘beat the hell out of the unarmed, non-dangerous suspect’ bad, but any abuse of power bad. This case is an example of the right thing happening; the cop in this story deserved to be fired. But for every abuse of power that ends with the cop being fired, I believe there are hundreds of cases where nothing is done.

                      There are also so many cases of cops shooting and killing people under circumstances where there was no reason to, and the Attorney General deciding to not press charges. Here in Fairfax County, VA (DC suburb) there’ve been several cases where the cop should’ve been tried for murder, but instead NOTHING was done.

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      I never thought about the police union angle. Thanks!

                  • smo0 says:


                  • syzygy says:

                    How about not hiring people that blow up when their fast food chicken order is wrong? Maybe you can’t create perfection, but you have far less to worry about if you’re a bit more picky about who gets these jobs. Yes, it’s only an anecdotal data point, but I have met far too many police officers who had attitudes that were completely wrong for the job to think that more than half of the police population should have the amount of power they’ve been given.

                    • Dunkelzahn says:

                      Obviously this officer was quite successful before his tirade. He was second-in-command, and quite possibly next in line for Chief. I’m sure that, since he made it to where he was before he snapped, he wasn’t exactly known for lording his position all over the place, except maybe the office.

                      Not trying to defend his actions, just pointing out that your logic is faulty.

                    • syzygy says:

                      Not if the support structure that put him there is full of men of a similar ilk. Not every man that achieves a position of power does it because of individual merit. But I see your point. It might just be the head injury.

              • El_Fez says:

                When police are found guilty of abusing their power, they are typically disciplined, relieved of duty, prosecuted or sued. Just like any other citizen.

                So what’s the weather like on that alternate Earth you live on?

        • HogwartsProfessor says:

          Nobody’s abusing anything. Even if he wasn’t an officer, the article says to me that he’s clearly an asshole. I bet this would have happened anyway (him yelling, etc.) with or without a badge. He might have called the police even if he wasn’t the police.

          That said, no refunds at a fast food place is bull. I don’t go to KFC anymore because it made me sick. Now I for sure won’t go.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            The officer was on leave and therefore not authorized to act as an officer. If he was active, It sounds like he would have arrested the manager himself. Ergo, abuse.

            But I agree with you on the refund thing. I actually think that was bull.

      • zaku2s274 says:

        Please do not be a “Grammar Nazi.”

      • smo0 says:

        You can up that number, sir.

        With my interaction with law enforcement has been limited… but the general consensus between family and friends is that it’s a matter of age bracket… the younger ones always have “something to prove,” where as the older cops tend to be more realistic… somewhat jaded or seasoned but far from over zealous.

      • El_Fez says:

        Oh, please – it’s another pig on a power trip. Quit making excuses.

      • El_Fez says:

        Oh, please – it’s another pig on a power trip. Quit making excuses.

      • DD_838 says:

        It’s a little more than one, buddy.

        When it comes to the police, it’s a few good apples.

  4. chaesar says:

    power corrupts

    • np206100 says:

      “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

      -John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton

      • Difdi says:

        Which is actually untrue. Power does not corrupt everyone. But power is irresistibly attractive to those who are easily corrupted.

  5. RogerX says:

    I didn’t know KFC started serving pork…

    /wakka wakka wakka

  6. Raekwon says:

    While I find that store’s policy a little unusual it seems like it is a routine occurrence there and the officer has a temper problem.

    • Darrone says:

      I feel like if he calmly arrested the manager for taking his money and refusing to give him what he ordered or return his money, then he might have actually been in the right. The store was wrong, but the victim was a douche. Sounds like 90% of Law and Order episodes.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        That would be false arrest. The article points out that even the called-in officer said it was a civil matter and they would not bring the manager in. Some police think they can circumvent the law simply because they enforce it.

        • Commenter24 says:

          The line between civil torts and crimes can be blurry. The fact some cop decided it wasn’t actually a crime doesn’t mean a whole lot. Cops aren’t prosecutors and don’t always know what they’re talking about. The fact is there is more than likely *some* crime that the manager could have been legitimately charged with.

          • NightSteel says:

            But if a senior police lieutenant called them in, and they still said ‘I can’t arrest him for this’, that says something about how wrong it would be to do so. The officers, in front of the public, declined to show solidarity with the lieutenant and arrest the manager. A bad cop would’ve done what the senior guy on scene wanted and let the rest sort itself out later, but these cops must have known, hey, if I take this guy to jail, even on the lieutenant’s word, my name’s still gonna be on the lawsuit.

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              Or hopefully, they were thinking how wrong it was to do such a thing, not necessarily thinking solely about their own asses.

            • Commenter24 says:

              Again, the fact the cops wouldn’t arrest the manager does not establish that a crime was not committed. Cops don’t get to decide what is illegal and what isn’t. They are allowed to make arrests when they have probable cause to believe a crime was committed; charging decisions are made by prosecutors.

          • Raekwon says:

            If I read correctly it seems this has happened before at the same location with different customers and the officers called to the scene were following previous precedent.

        • corkdork says:

          If you take money or property from me by deception (eg, by offering a product you cannot or will not deliver) it’s theft by decption — a crime in most (all?) states. Whether the amount of money is $5 for chicken or $15,000 for magic beans, the theft remains. (note: IANAL)

          Now, that being said, the responding officer may have been reluctant to make an arrest for something that would have been a minor misdemeanor (let’s face it, theft on the order of a fast-food meal is likely to be a misdemeanor offense), due to the paperwork and time involved, but that’s a matter for the department to deal with.

          That being said, it sounds like both the restaurant manager and the ex-Lieutenat were both being douches. Not worthy of firing him, IMO (with the facts as presented in the Consumerist summary), but it’s not my call.

          • Conformist138 says:

            “The extra crispy will be another 5 minutes. I can offer you Original and a coupon if you don’t want to wait”

            That is not theft. Now, a refund is appropriate, but I at least understand where the employee was coming from. Theft by deception is selling something you know does not exist and will not exist and you are intending to trick them into giving you money.

            Think of it this way: if a customer called the cops for this, we’d rip the customer a new one for wasting the limited resources of law enforcement. I’m glad this cop was fired. I understand his having a problem, but jumping right to arrest is an extreme overreaction.

            • seanjustinpenn says:

              Where are you getting that quote from. Not from the article. The article only has the manager saying it’s not available “at the moment”. This could mean a few minutes … this could mean for the day.

    • Snarkster says:

      Perhaps we will learn in a follow-up post if the officer’s behavior might have been influenced by the brain injury he sustained in the motorcycle accident.

  7. Daverson says:

    Winner winner chicken dinner.

  8. Doncosmic says:

    Wrongful termination? Refusing to turn in his badge and gun alone during the investigation is enough to make the termination perfectly legitimate.

    • notovny says:

      Even tough-as-nails, devil may care, cowboy cops turn in their guns and badges. Admittedly, that probably would have led to a situation where the restaurant wound up exploding. But he would have gotten his job back, gotten his money back, and gotten a sequel.

  9. TBGBoodler says:

    So “bait and switch” is only a civil dispute and not actually against any law?

    • RandomHookup says:

      You can always find a law against almost anything. They just didn’t want to fill out any paperwork.

    • Daverson says:

      It’s not “bait and switch,” and the manager not only offered the lieutenant an alternative, but a voucher for a free meal as well.

      • dolemite says:

        It may not be bait and switch, but you can’t take an order, take payment, then afterwards say “sorry, we don’t have that…and no you aren’t getting your money back!” It’s nice of them to offer something else, but maybe he only likes one thing there? Like if I go into a McDonalds and order something, then get to the window and they say “sorry, we are out of burgers, but here is a salad!” Um…no thanks.

      • myCatCracksMeUp says:

        The alternative and voucher mean nothing. If you don’t like any of the alternatives, and you don’t plan to come back to the same establishment within the next day or so, then you don’t want them, you want your money back.

    • deadandy says:

      Civil disputes can involve laws. If you are demanding a refund from a business and they refuse, you can take them to small claims court all day long. However, the police only intervene in criminal matters. They aren’t going to come with you to Best Buy to help you get your money back if Best Buy sells you a PS3 box with bricks in it.

      • RandomHookup says:

        No, but they might arrest someone at Best Buy for fraud.

      • Difdi says:

        If this happened in reverse (get goods, fail to pay) it would be a criminal offense, either dine & dash or shoplifting depending on the goods. Why is it a civil matter if it happens one way, but a criminal AND civil matter if it happens the other?

        • SabreDC says:

          Because there is a criminal law to define that scenario. If you think it should be a crime for KFC to not provide a refund, then you need to take that up with the legislative branch of government.

    • soj4life says:

      Not for $5 worth of chicken and a coupon for more chicken.

  10. dijo10 says:

    Did he show his receipt on the way out?

  11. Remmy75 says:

    I know I prefer original recipe over extra chrispy. God knows I would arrest someone at KFC if they didn’t have my chicken!

    Just because you a cop, doesn’t mean your special. You have to follow the same rules as us crazy civilians!

    • Sparty999 says:

      especially off duty. and I know some crazy ass off duty cops. they can’t choose when and where they want to be cops.

    • JonStewartMill says:

      [OT] The Colonel also hated ‘Extra Crispy’. If memory serves, he was sued by KFC for bad-mouthing it.

  12. zmoney1978 says:

    Its the new-hotness nowadays..demanding payment upfront and then turning around and saying its not available. This happened to me at KFC too…They take the payment get ready to prep the order and then they say “I’m sorry we’re out of …” but you’re f-ed if you gave them the money or CC already.

    Always ask if they have something 1st…and if possible to not pay till the food is actually at the counter.

    • Dover says:

      If you gave them a credit card, you could call your bank and charge it back. You’re f-ed if you used cash.

  13. DanRydell says:

    WTF @ the dumbass KFC manager. He took off his apron in preparation for being arrested? He was willing to be arrested rather than break an idiotic store policy?

    I was annoyed that the officer was fired until I got to this line:

    “While the incident was being investigated, the lieutenant was ordered to turn over his phone, badge and weapons but declined. Police had get a search warrant for his home in order to retrieve these items.”

    Officer deserved to be fired, KFC manager deserves to be fired.

    And it annoys me that if someone takes your money by force the police will arrest the guy, but if someone wrongly takes your money through other means the police call it a civil matter. I don’t think KFC intended to take his money for a product they didn’t have, but once they realized they sold him a product they didn’t have yet they refused to refund his money, that should be a criminal matter.

    • deadandy says:

      Good post! Unfortunately, many retail employees up to and including the store manager will blindly follow corporate policies out of fear of losing their jobs. In this story, it seemed the manager was more willing to be temporarily relieved of his freedom than permanently relieved of his job. And look how it turned out. The officer looks like a douche and the manager still has his job. If you ask me, he played it well.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      It was company policy, not necessarily his policy. As the manager said, he wouldn’t have given the President the refund either. I think from an employment standpoint, he was better off being arrested than violating company policy.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      The KFC manager isn’t going to be fired for following corporate policy. It may be stupid but corporate apparently thinks it’s a good idea because they’re they ones telling their managers to follow it.

    • Difdi says:

      Most shoplifting or dine & dash isn’t by force either. And yet, police will respond to either and make arrests. The contract involved in any restaurant or merchant transaction is money exchanged for goods. Why is it that theft of money by conversion is only a tort, while theft of goods by conversion results in an arrest?

      • seanjustinpenn says:

        That’s a good point. Dine & Dash seems to be the reverse of this.
        Instead of paying the agreed-upon $50 bill for my meal at a restaurant, I give them a $1 bill and an Oprah-endorsed KFC coupon instead. Not a crime according to all the IANALs here.

      • consumerfan says:

        If you pay for your food, and they don’t give you any, that’s theft (criminal law). But ONLY if they refuse to give you your money back AND refuse service.

        If they refuse service and give you your money back, that’s recission (resolution under civil contract law).
        If they refuse a refund and give you an alternative and you agree, that’s also a resolution.
        If they refuse a refund and give you an alternative and you refuse, you can only get the matter resolved under civil law.

        Dine-and-dash is theft and fraud. You’re refusing to pay having used the service (theft); and you’re doing so by intentional deception (fraud).

        If you pay and the payment method fails, that’s not theft. That’s civil contract law. You owe the money.
        If you refuse to pay before you’ve eaten, that’s not theft either.

    • Rena says:

      I suppose he knew the arrest was totally bogus and there’s no way he’d actually be charged with anything, and was willing to go through with it just to make his point.

  14. OldSchool says:

    Taking money from someone for a purchase and then being unable to fill the order and refusing to refund the money should indeed be considered criminal fraud or illegal conversion. Frankly the manager should have been arrested and the company (or franchise) sued.

    That doesn’t mean that this officer handled this properly but KFC is far, far from being innocent in this one.

  15. Commenter24 says:

    Everyone was in the wrong; power-tripping cop, dumb-ass store manager, dumb-ass “policy.” I simply can’t imagine that the no-refund policy is a corporate policy. KFC is a major, major company with lots of lawyers who would never sign-off on such a policy. More than likely this is a franchisee policy or a store manager policy; that or the manager-on-duty was simply misinterpreting a policy. I’m also amazed that the manager was willing to go to jail in furtherance of a “store policy” and over what couldn’t have been more than $10.

  16. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    I am more disturbed that KFC would charge someone for something they don’t have at the moment and then refuse to refund their money. I don’t even have a bad temper and that would outrage me beyond belief.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      Yeah – even if you look beyond the “Do you know who I am?1?” douchebaggery, there is an even greater element of fraud and deception.

      If I place an order, and you take my money, you’re giving me one of two things (unless I agree to some sort of compromise): 1) My order, or, if you cannot deliver it, 2) My refund.

      I don’t care what your policy is. If you cannot deliver the product or service I ordered, and for which you took my money, you are giving me a refund. If I paid in cash, you’re giving it back to me in cash. If I paid by credit card, you’re processing the card immediately. I’m not waiting for a check from corporate, I’m not taking coupons, I’m not taking a gift certificate or store credit or anything else.

      Sears tried this a few years back with a vacuum cleaner i tried to purchase. I paid for it, and waited for them to retrieve it from the basement warehouse or other such nonsense. 30 minutes later, I was told they were out of stock, and I could get it next week. I asked for a refund, they attempted to give me a run-around.

      It didn’t work. I left with the refund. And, quite frankly, I went back the next week and bought the vacuum after confirming that it was in stock. What’s fair is fair.

  17. dolemite says:

    I’m not sure how KFC can not refund money when a person wasn’t even provided with a product. I can understand it if the person ate half the bucket of chicken, but when they never received the product they ordered? Sounds like theft to me.

    • cajuncutie01 says:

      If he grabbed the chicken he ordered without paying I’m sure they wouldn’t appreciate it so when it’s backwards it’s cool. Lets just all forget that he’s a cop for a moment and think of him as a consumer. Yeah, you now agree with him.

  18. UnicornMaster says:

    The officer was out of line, but not getting a refund? Come on. You pay for something you want, and if you can’t get it you shouldn’t have to pay for it. The manager should have offered a refund regardless of what their policy is. And maybe they should also know if they have chicken or not.

  19. Sparty999 says:

    they offered him a different kind of chicken and a free meal… what a douche… I’m sure he could have waited for the chicken to be ready.

    I admit I may have been pissed, but I’m already there, and I’m hungry… I hope he is out of work for a long time…

    • dolemite says:

      If I ordered original recipe, and they offered me that nasty grilled chicken..I should just be happy I got anything? I think not.

    • Dunkelzahn says:

      They don’t mention anything about the product not being ready, they say they did not have the product.

      Lets say you go into a game store with intent of buying Halo: Reach. You find a copy, bring it to the checkout, and pay. Suddenly, the cashier says ‘Sorry, we don’t have any more copies. But we do have a copy of Hello Kitty: Island Adventure.’ Would you accept it?

      • Brunette Bookworm says:

        In the linked article it says, “He ordered some chicken that we didn’t have available at that moment,” which sounds more like it was cooking or needed to be cooked rather than they just didn’t have it. While it’s odd not refund the money, the cop sounds like he’s a bit off after his head injury. He shouldn’t be a cop anymore if he’s going to do this over a refund at KFC.

  20. Sian says:

    man, anyone who is willing to pull out the ‘Do you know who I am?’ line automatically deserves whatever hell they’ve built for themselves. It’s one of the great d-bag moves.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      The only time ‘Do you know who I am?’ should be used is when the person doing the asking has amnesia.

      • syzygy says:

        Totally off topic, but…one of my favorite voice mail messages is, “Hello, I have amnesia. Please leave my name, number, and a little bit about me, after the beep.”

    • roguemarvel says:

      Did you know in some state (like Oregon), it is illegal for a police officer to ask for a professional curtsy (example: hey, I’m a cop maybe you can give me a professional discount. or.. I’m sorry I was speeding, but I’m a fellow cop, maybe you can let it slide for me). Asking for one can get you fired. Saying “Do you know who I am” Might also count as asking for a professional curtsy and subsequencetly get one fired. But thats only in some states

      • matt314159 says:

        Professional “Courtesy.” I doubt the cashier is going to curtsy for anybody. [/grammar cop]

  21. zeiman says:

    The cop should be fired for his obviously delusional behavior. The fact that he would not turn in his badge/gun/phone while an investigation took place cost him his job.

    But the fact that KFC sold him something they didn’t have, and then would not refund his money when he didn’t want a substitute is ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, the cop was way out of line, but the KFC franchise’s policy of not refunding any money even when they sold something they didn’t have is plain illegal.

    As a further insult to the ex-cop, he could probably sue KFC for $4.99 in small claims court.

    • crashfrog says:

      So… it’s unquestionably illegal, and the clerk was therefore engaged in the commission of a crime, and a duly appointed officer of the law was right there observing the clerk committing a crime… but he should have done nothing at all?

      I’m not understanding the “both sides in the wrong” position, here. Either the cop tried to arrest someone who wasn’t committing a crime, or the police refused to arrest someone who they observed committing a crime. Which is it?

  22. Hungry Dog says:

    I enjoy how he denied generally being a ass to the manager but is in full douche mode when documented by the other police when they arrive. I wonder which story is more accurate?

    • tundey says:

      Who cares? Since did being an ass means a store is entitled to keep your money? I don’t care what the store policy is, it’s illegal.

  23. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    The store policy doesn’t jive. If I give you money for something and you tell me you don’t have it, if I want a refund you better give me a damn refund. How can they force people to take an alternate product they might not even want? BS.

    Regarding the cop’s behavior (assuming the manager’s story is legit): I can understand being upset over this BS policy. However, abusing one’s authority isn’t the answer. He strikes me as the type who threatens to take people to jail all the time. The ‘Do you know who I am?’ line is all too familiar. Give a little asshole some power and he becomes a big asshole.

    If this had happened to me and I was ‘in a mood’, I’d have asked for the amount of money in large drinks. I’d fill the cups half full of soda, then dump in ketchup, mustard, honey mustard and barbecue sauce. I’d mix up the contents in each cup and then accidentally trip on my way to the table. The time it would take them to clean that shit up would cost a hell of a lot more than a refund. I’d humbly apologize for being such a klutz and then I’d leave.

    And I wouldn’t be mad anymore either.

  24. pcPhr34k says:

    So, both sides are in the wrong at some point:
    Store policy: if they don’t have what you want and you don’t want the alternative, then you should get your money back. Plain and simple. So I think the company policy is in the wrong and the store manager as well. I remember working retail and I knew what rules could be bent, which ones could be broken (in the name of good and sensible customer service), and which ones were “as is, sorry about your luck.”

    Now you have a cop who is off duty, comes in, and experiences this crap. Yes, he did keep his temper in check, but in this case it’s like the psychopath who is calm and at peace right before he chops you up into bits. He started abusing his power and got fired for it. And over some f-ing nasty KFC at that too.

    Yes, some battles are worth fighting. But not when it’s over less than $20 of nasty chicken (can you tell I don’t like KFC?)

  25. SwoonOMatic says:

    Maybe if he helped them find their bust – He’d be finger-lickin for free.

  26. Guppy06 says:

    Two words: charlie foxtrot.

  27. jason in boston says:

    Although I am not a fan of the powertrip – i’m in the cops side. They didn’t refund his money after failing to produce what he paid for.

  28. BeerFox says:

    Without commentary on the cop’s actions, I’d like to provide a helpful distinction for fast food companies, having seen this situation come up a few times. Please note, these definitions may not be the ones you find in Websters, but they will keep you from looking like a bunch of clueless dicks, and can be easily understood by even the most green register jockey.

    Refund: A return of money, in exchange for goods or services that were deemed unsatisfactory.
    Void sale: Cancellation of a sale, before goods or services are exchanged.

    Yes, I’m sure that these blanket policies are meant to keep unscrupulous employees from voiding cash transactions after serving the food, and pocketing the money. That’s why most modern systems can restrict voiding to a manager. And if you can’t trust your managers, you have other things to worry about.

  29. jariten says:

    I ran into this at a KFC in New Mexico. I wanted original recipe and all they had was cripsy which I don’t care for. I asked for a refund and they told me they were not able to give refunds but would give me the crispy plus a coupone for another 3 piece meal. I was OK with that until they gave me the coupon which was only good at ‘participating New Mexico (or possibly Albequerque) area KFCs. As I was only there on business I changed my mind.

    The cashier got angry and told me there was nothing else that could be done. I asked for the manager, and he was a douche saying that I had already agreed. Asked for the regional manager’s number and got a refund then left.

    Seems KFC employees are more afraid of their overlords than being arrested.

    • RandomHookup says:

      I like the concept of “Cripsy” chicken. Just make sure you don’t order it in a “Bloodsy” neighborhood.

      • jariten says:

        haha…thanks for taking advantage of the fact that the station I’m on doesn’t have spell check…

        But think about it: All chickens have blood, crips are at a disadvantage.

  30. cmdr.sass says:

    He pulled the line “Do you know who I am?” Who does he think he is, a Congressman?

    • Difdi says:

      The proper answer to that question is “No one of any relevance whatsoever.”

    • crashfrog says:

      I don’t understand the hate for “do you know who I am?” People say that to warn the other person that they’re not someone who has no recourse against the unfair, abusive, and potentially illegal means they’re about to employ to get what they want.

      It’s a convenient service. People who want to make money at another’s expense should be grateful when people indicate that they’re more powerful than the usual chump.

      • jariten says:

        So you miss the point.

        99% of people will answer “NO”.

        So you’re not as powerful or as important as you think you are.

        Doesn’t mean you can’t cause the kid a mess of headache…

  31. BStu78 says:

    The officer in question seems to have his own issues, but the store’s behavior is also inexcusable. The notion that something like this is a “civil matter” is frankly insulting. If you take someone’s money and don’t follow through on your end of a business agreement, that’s fraud and that is absolutely a crime. I’m sick of this attitude that businesses are immune from common sense behavior and legal obligations because they have a “policy”. I don’t get to have a policy where I can take $10 from people and insist they go to small claims court to get it back.

  32. Jack Handy Manny says:

    ll PGS shld b pt n ntc. Y wnt t Plc cdm nt Hrvrd Lw.

  33. mcgyver210 says:

    I think the no refund policy after not being given what you paid for is Criminal in that it is really Fraud & THEFT. Although I don’t condone what the officer did I think the cashier & manager should have been charged with theft. what next you buy all your stuff at the Grocer off a menu & then get a voucher for over half of it to be picked up at a later time.

    They have your money & you have a worthless voucher. Who knows this day & time if they will even be open tomorrow. Or better yet they just decide not to honor their coupon as they have done in the not so distant past.

    I also wouldn’t eat at a KFC ever again due to the Coupon FRAUD IMO they committed.

  34. semanticantics says:


  35. Dr.Wang says:

    I get cravings for KFC about once a year, and this very thing has happened to me before. From now on I think I am going to ask before I hand over cash if what I ordered is available now. I really like their coleslaw too.

  36. psm321 says:

    So he was fired for arresting somebody for theft? Why do restaurants think they can pull this? With the McNuggets lady they were able to spin it as “calling the police over McDonalds being out of McNuggets” even though it was the same problem (they wouldn’t give her a refund). This time they were caught in the act of theft by the police officer and the department goes and does something stupid and fires the officer. Are they being bribed by KFC or something?

    • roguemarvel says:

      he wasn’t fired for attempting to arrest the manager. He was suspended for abuse of power and fired for refusing to hand over his gun and badge while suspended. You can argue that the suspension was wrongful, but not handing over her badge and gun is something they can fire him over

  37. Suburban Idiot says:

    13-2202. Deceptive business practices; classification

    A. A person commits deceptive business practices if in the course of engaging in a business, occupation or profession such person recklessly:

    2. Sells, offers or exposes for sale or delivers less than the represented quantity of any commodity or service; …

    B. Deceptive business practices is a class 1 misdemeanor.

  38. Mr.Grieves says:

    Should’ve went to Popeyes.

  39. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    It’s a delicate balance cooking up Original, Extra-Crispy, Rotisserie and not having any left over after the lunch rush. The manager may try to run it lean, which means a lot of people will get the “wait 18 minutes or take whatever cold scraps we currently have.” Then people just start walking, “give me my money back, we’re outta here.” So this clever manager makes a policy not to refund money.

    I hate aggressive cops that overstep their authority, but I hate managers like this even more. Too bad the cop couldn’t control himself enough to keep his composure. I’d have loved to seen the manager in jail.

  40. Norvy says:

    Sounds like this would have been a justifiable homicide.

  41. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    The thing that I’m proud of: I didn’t lose my temper. I didn’t raise my voice. This isn’t worth it,” he says.

    “It’s a civil matter because you’re a lazy f—–,” the off-duty officer admits to having told the responding officers.

    These two statements are contradictory.

  42. e065702 says:

    I wonder how that particluar policeman would have responded if a civilian had been in his shoes and he had been in the reporting officers shoes?

    Me thinks he would have been a bit perturbed about the waste of his time and arrested the customer instead of the KFC Manager.

    I’m just sayin’

  43. Ard says:

    They shouldn’t be allowed to take your money if they don’t have what you ordered to begin with. Then to not give it back… I completely agree with the cop. It’s flat out conning someone out of their money and then refusing to give it back when you’re called on it. The last time I checked, con artistry was illegal.

  44. CookiePuss says:

    “Graham said he never spoke to Padilla, never yelled at anyone in the store, never said he was going to arrest anyone.”

    The recorded call to dispatch has Graham saying “I’ve got a problem with the manager. I’m going to take him for fraudulent activity, so I need a car.”

    It’s a crime to give a false statement Lt. Graham.

  45. doodlebug says:

    The fact that the restaurant sold him something they didn’t have and then refused to give his money as a huge suck, however the officer sounds like he was arrogant and doesn’t need carrying around a badge and a gun.

  46. DD_838 says:

    This cop must have been a real jerk for his buddies in blue to turn on him over chicken. They frame innocent women for DUI to cover for other officers, not to mention covering up theft, fraud, civil rights violations, murder and rape. That must have been some serious chicken to cut through the blue wall.

    • CookiePuss says:

      I would bet dollars to donuts (pun intended) the department wanted him gone for other reasons and this situation presented itself as the perfect opportunity.

  47. physics2010 says:

    And what fast food place doesn’t have video nowadays? Lets see the video.

  48. tundey says:

    I agree with the cop. I can’t believe a policy of not refunding customer money when you can’t deliver the good is legal. That, to me, sounds like bullsh!t made up either by the store manager or a stupid franchise owner. If you can’t deliver the chicken, you must refund. And even if you deliver the chicken and the customer returns it, you must refund.

  49. FilthyHarry says:

    So if I open a business and make a ‘policy’ its legal to commit fraud?

    What am I saying, this is America! Of course it’s legal for a business to defraud you. Business have wisely chosen to purchase senators and congresspeople to protect their interests, be they criminal or otherwise. I, as merely a citizen however have made the classic error of failing to purchase a senator or congressperson of my own and can be sure if I ever fail to tender the amount a business feels I owe, will be swiftly arrested.

  50. edrebber says:

    I think the store policy would have been to let him wait if the item was in the store but was uncooked, because that’s cheaper than giving him a free meal coupon and another type of chicken. Offering the free meal coupon indicates that the item was not available in the store.

    The store sells cooked chicken. If the store substitutes another variety of cooked chicken, the police can’t involve themselves in something as trivial as this. If the store took his money and were totally out of chicken and told him to come back another day, then yes i think the police should get involved. They were offering another type of chicken that was of equal value. That doesn’t rise to the level of a crime.

  51. ronbo97 says:

    OMFG ! There is at least ten minutes of stand-up material in this story.

  52. soj4life says:

    who made farva 2nd in charge?

  53. Caffinehog says:

    The cop has the right to recover his damages, (the price he paid for the chicken), through small claims court. He probably could have detained the individual for up to 24 hours without filing charges.

  54. myCatCracksMeUp says:

    It this is indeed KFC’s policy, then I will never eat there again. If you take my money for a 2 piece, original recipe meal, and then tell me you don’t have it ready and that it’ll be a while, you should give me back my money if I choose to cancel my order. Anything less is fraud. Even giving a voucher for a free mean at another time isn’t sufficient.

    • RandomHookup says:

      KFCs are mostly franchises. It’s likely to be a franchise policy rather than the chain as a whole.

  55. skakh says:

    Arizona, perhaps Ms. Brewer will have this guy head her alien detection task force?

  56. psanf says:

    While I disapprove of the officers actions in this matter I feel that I need to point out that the article omitted a potentially mitigating factor. The officer in question suffered a brain injury in the mentioned motorcycle accident, which may have affected his behavior.

  57. MarkVII says:

    I think the policy is stupid — if you don’t have what the customer ordered, give him his money back. That being said, store policies are not a police matter, unless the cops think the situation constitutes criminal fraud.

  58. tanyaandkarl says:

    Pretty much SOP at any fast food joint.

    The will have the food in a few minutes, but they will have your money NOW.
    So, they don’t tell you to wait until AFTER you pay up.
    If it’s a long wait, they ask you to sit down (or pull into a parking spot) and they bring it to you.

    Kinda sucks that you’re trapped at that point–leave without your food or money or wait.
    But it’s hard to say it’s fraud unless they give you a delivery schedule for the grub, then fail to meet it.

    Of course, you could always pay with a CC (many allow it now), and threaten a chargeback.
    Elephant gun to kill a mouse, but winning is everything to a bully–especially when they’re wrong.

  59. balderdashed says:

    Sadly, the store’s policy, “we’ll take your money, won’t give what you just paid for, and won’t give your money back at least anytime soon” does not seem that uncommon. A few years ago, I rented a movie at a video store, quickly discovered that I’d been given the wrong video, and was back at the store within 15 minutes. There was no dispute that I’d paid for a different film, but the store could not find the video it had intended to rent to me. Since that was the only movie I wanted to watch that night, I asked for my money back. The clerk refused, saying such a refund was against “store policy.” This is fraud, I protested — I gave you five bucks for a product you never gave me — give me my money back. I threatened to remain in the store, sleep there if need be, until my five bucks was refunded. Go ahead, call the cops, I suggested — you’re the thief, you have my money, it’s as if you stole five bucks from my wallet. In retrospect: though I’m not an attorney, I was probably legally wrong; it was a civil matter, and if called, the police would most likely have taken their side if I had continued to refuse to leave the store. That doesn’t stop me from thinking that such a policy is outrageous, and being pleased that my subsequent repeated phone calls to the store, demanding my cash, must have caused more than $5 worth of pain and inconvenience to the store manager — who ultimately refunded my five bucks.

  60. EasilyDistracted says:

    The same thing happened to me three years ago at a KFC here in NY. I ordered a value meal and, as I was handing the clerk my $10, I said that I wanted original recipe. He took my $10 and said that they only had extra crispy. I asked for my money back and he said that they couldn’t give refunds. The $10 bill was still in his hand.

    I really don’t like extra crispy and, after a few minutes of trying to get a refund, I asked for a manager. Of course, there wouldn’t be a manager in the store until 5:00 PM that evening. I then asked for at least my change from the 10 and he said that I could get my whole $10 back after I spoke to the manager.

    I went back to work and wrote KFC via their website and soon received a call from the local franchise owner, who apologized for my experience. I explained to him that I was out $10 and he said that he’d send me coupons which would more than cover my cost. A few days later, I received 2 coupons for $2.99 each. I haven’t been back to a KFC since.

  61. P_Smith says:

    A cop will get fired for threatening arrest over a refund policy, but tasering unarmed people in wheelchairs or violating people’s rights barely merits a suspension.

    The message is clear: Don’t make life difficult for other cops in places where they get take out food while on the job.

    The stereotype of doughnut-eating cops once again proves true.


  62. rambo76098 says:

    This is the first time ever, but I’m going to have to agree with the cop here. The agreed sale was for a certain product at a certain price. The seller of the goods could not deliver them, and the buyer has no obligation to take a different good in place of what was originally agreed upon. If the seller is unable to perform, the buyer has no obligation to hold up their end of the agreement (in this case, give KFC money).

    Hope the cop gets his job back. Doesn’t sound like he is the most upstanding example of law enforcement, but he was right in this situation to demand a refund.

  63. bumblefoot2004 says:

    What is going on here? Did this KFC take the officer’s order, and his money, BEFORE telling him the chicken he asked for was unavailable? If so, it would be reasonable to give him his money back. Does KFC’s company policy not anticipate that things like this wouldn’t happen? How many kinds of chicken does KFC have anyway? I eat at Popeye’s, so I don’t know.

  64. stacyr says:

    I’m curious as to which f-word he used. Was it a derogatory term for gays or THE f-word?

  65. banmojo says:

    1. That is a bs policy – if you can’t serve up fast food in a fast manner and the client wants their money back, give it back and move on. Taco hell this is another chit against you. You suck

    2. This idiot cop deserved/needed to get fired. He obviously enjoyed his little power trip a little too much, and that is a dangerous thing indeed. Become a yoga instructor and learn to chill the f***out, dude.

    3. If you go to a crap fast food place, expect crap – in all its forms.

  66. Bog says:

    Such an arrest would likely be an illegal arrest anyway, thus giving the store manager the right to resist with force.

    If the store policy was that no matter what… the store policy was “THIS” and the manager would be fired for not following it… then it really wouldn’t have mattered if the clerk was arrested. The store would be liable for all costs associated with the arrest and detainment of the employee. Any and all time spent in custody for would have to be paid, and in likelihood, as overtime.

  67. Kim says:

    It certainly is possible that the officer let his power go to his head, and if that is the case, we are better off with him gone. However, it is not clear that this is the case. Certainly though, the failure to turn in his badge is a big problem.

    But seriously, taking money and then NOT providing what you contracted to, is ILLEGAL! While the local police may choose to not do anything about it and leave up to the CRIME VICTIM to handle civilly, KFC is breaking the law and I think they are ripe for a class action lawsuit. Normally, I think this country is way too litigious, but it appears that because of the small amount of dollars involved in each transaction, this is probably the only way to get them to obey the law.

    In the meantime save your receipts, document your experiences, and if you are willing, file complaints with your state’s attorney general. It is only with citizens like you and me, taking the time and making the effort to stand up for what is right, that crap like this will ever stop.

  68. dush says:

    If they don’t have what you ordered you can’t get your money back?? That’s ludicrous!

  69. snclfe says:

    Bad policy; worse cop. No heroes here – maybe the responding officers.

  70. peebozi says:

    “… I didn’t yell. I didn’t use profanity, and I left. So how was that disorderly?”

    Tell it to the judge dirtball.

    i hate local cops…state troopers are generally ok, but the local guys are either a) shorties with a napoleonic complex or 2) degenerate bullies.

  71. whiskeycat says:

    I would have let him arrest me, he’s the one who is going to look like a fool. Since he was offered a coupon for a free meal what more does this jerk want?

  72. ReVeLaTeD says:

    Cop demands refund, threatens to arrest KFC manager, gets fired.
    Cop shown on video punching an underage girl in the face and rough handling another – gets suspended with pay.

    What’s wrong with this picture.

  73. pyrobryan says:

    How can it be legal to sell something you can’t provide and then refuse to refund the customer’s money. That’s the very definition of bait and switch, which is illegal.

    The cop sounds like a class A jerk, though.

  74. rshea59 says:

    I wish the story made better sense. In the above link, Finger-lickin’ bad [Arizona Daily Sun], makes mention to the officer’s wife payment and what she ordered.

    In my honest opinion, KFC idiots and Law Enforcement idiots, can just shoot themselves in the foot- as far as I am concerned.

  75. Bog says:

    They will offer a voucher but will give you a refund if you demand it (nicely). They pulled something like that on me and just said “NO, I want a refund. I am not interested in the meal any more.” The manager was incorrect. It is not against policy.