Skip to content

Raheem Brock acquitted in case of unpaid restaurant bill

Wild Card Playoffs - New Orleans Saints v Seattle Seahawks Getty Images

When Raheem Brock was arrested last year and accused of walking out on a $27 restaurant bill, I wrote that Brock’s side of the story sounded reasonable. Now a jury has found Brock’s story reasonable as well: Brock was found not guilty of theft after a two-day trial.

It feels great,” Brock told the Philadelphia Daily News. “Everybody blew it up in the media and they made me look like a bad person. To have been found not guilty of these two charges really helped me out.”

Brock was arrested in June over what he said was a simple misunderstanding: He, his cousin and a friend placed an order at the Copabanana restaurant in Philadelphia. While they were waiting for their food, the friend said she was too hungry to wait and ran out and got some food elsewhere. When she came back, Brock and his cousin were still waiting for their food and the Copabanana told them their friend couldn’t come back in with outside food, so they canceled their order and left. The Copabanana called the police, who found Brock in the area and arrested him for walking out without paying. Brock said he thought the restaurant was OK with him not paying (seeing as he hadn’t received any food to pay for), and that the first he heard otherwise was when the police approached him. Brock says that when he was told the restaurant wanted him to pay the $27 bill, he offered to do so, but the police arrested him anyway.

After playing all 16 games for the Seahawks last season, Brock is currently a free agent, and he said he believes these charges pending against him contributed to the fact that he hasn’t caught on with another team yet.

“It really did mess up my whole contract year. It affected my contract year dramatically, because teams didn’t know if I was going to get suspended, or what,” he said.

Although Brock has a good case that he was treated unfairly in this incident, he may be protesting too much when he suggests the theft charge is why he remains unsigned. Brock was also charged with drunk driving in December, so the case of the unpaid $27 restaurant bill isn’t the only off-field concern NFL teams have about him.

Permalink 15 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Philadelphia Eagles, Rumor Mill, Seattle Seahawks
15 Responses to “Raheem Brock acquitted in case of unpaid restaurant bill”
  1. pftstory says: Apr 27, 2012 6:32 PM

    What’s the point of cancelling an order if you still are expected to pay for it?
    Resturant should either have to say right away, “you cant cancel” (which is understandable policy) or accept the cancellation and not expect payment.

    But no 32 teams are not going to sign him because of only this. Doubt it’s a factor at all.

  2. ks718 says: Apr 27, 2012 6:32 PM

    How much tax payer money was wasted on this $27 bill? Ridiculous.

  3. ravenspit says: Apr 27, 2012 6:33 PM

    If I lived in Seattle I’d be drunk all the time too. It’s the only way to deal with all the dbags that live there.

  4. derekruth says: Apr 27, 2012 6:36 PM

    When we wonder why our court system is backed up and real criminals roam the streets? Let’s just look at the Raheem Brock case, a two day trial, and I’m sure countless man hours devoted to getting it to that point, for at worst ducking a $27 restaurant bill. Are you f’ing serious?! The police should have let him pay his bill and give him a sturn warning. Think of the 1,000’s of man hours devoted to this idiotic case, not to mention the the untold amounts of time spent by the schmucks like me that read news items on it like this. Man is our legal state of mind broken.

  5. exibitsman says: Apr 27, 2012 6:37 PM

    regardless of what happened this man makes a great living playing. a game he should have paid it either. way Wright or wrong to let it get all the way to the courts system that we the tax payers pay for is a joke. dude. just pay for your damn food the next time what a lowlight punk.

  6. dwntwnbadboy19 says: Apr 27, 2012 6:41 PM

    Two day trial over 27 bucks?? Tax dollars well spent.

  7. copdoc says: Apr 27, 2012 6:45 PM

    Call your lawyer and sue the crap out of the restaurant. How the hell do you charge someone with theft for something or services they never received? Restaurants typically take back food that you don’t like or if you change your mind everyday.

    Calling the police because the service was so slow that you could actually leave and get food somewhere else before the food is ready, is ridiculous. The fact that he advised them he was leaving before he received the food cancels the order and relieves him of any legal obligation.

    The local A.D.A. was looking for points on a case that should have never been filed in the first place.

    Whomever it was that called the police should be fired, because the restaurant will lose the lawsuit big time. Imagine sitting on a jury of a guy arrested for stealing food he didn’t receive.

    I’m waiting for the follow-up. This is going to be good. DUI not withstanding, this was abusive prosecution and heads should roll.

    GO GETTEM BROCK. TAKEM TO THE CLEANERS.

  8. copdoc says: Apr 27, 2012 6:50 PM

    “regardless of what happened this man makes a great living playing. a game he should have paid it either. ”

    UH HE OFFERED TO PAY WHEN INFORMED BY THE POLICE. Most places would have been satisfied with that. Remember he did tell them he no longer wanted the order, before he left. If they insisted he pay, they should have said so then. not wait for the guy to leave and then call the cops. What happen is, the guy taking the order said, ok, and then someone else got pissed when they found out he left. Stupid all the way around. I’m dying to see the lawsuit filed.

  9. rayguyreturns says: Apr 27, 2012 6:56 PM

    Geez, I’m probably a 5 time restaurant criminal under these rules. If the restaurant has lousy service, I usually tell them to forget it and leave. They can’t charge you for what they don’t deliver, unless there is a policy stated as such.

    $27.00???? Definitely a 5 star joint.

  10. nineroutsider says: Apr 27, 2012 7:03 PM

    Philly police couldn’t get the 2 sides to hash this out; cops around here wouldn’t even want to do the paperwork for $27, especially if he offered to pay the restaurant anyway. What a joke!

  11. thetruth1313 says: Apr 27, 2012 7:03 PM

    Free publicity for the restaurant

  12. viceburgh says: Apr 27, 2012 7:08 PM

    Brees: Still no hard evidence Raheem Brock is not a deadbeat diner

  13. trollhammer20 says: Apr 27, 2012 7:23 PM

    The reason no one is interested, Raheem, is the same reason Seattle is giving your position to the “biggest reach of the first round”: You’re kinda, um, done.

  14. chawk12thman says: Apr 27, 2012 7:28 PM

    Good news. Good Luck Raheem! Wish you well and hope that something happens after the draft for you.

  15. savannahrose44 says: Apr 28, 2012 3:27 AM

    ravenspit says:
    Apr 27, 2012 6:33 PM
    If I lived in Seattle I’d be drunk all the time too. It’s the only way to deal with all the dbags that live there.

    ————————————————-

    I bet you’ve never set foot in Seattle. If you had you would know there are a lot of really awesome people in that city.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!