‘The general is no robber’

‘Why does this matter? Because it could be you, it could be me’

The headline is the gist of a letter that also complains about our front page coverage of the Aug. 15 arrest of a retired four-star Army general who lives in Fayetteville. In a short response to the letter writer, I say I agree: The general is no robber. That’s what Fayetteville police say he is.

I’ve never met the general, but I can say that I have many doubts about this case, most of them involving the appropriateness of the police response itself.

Somebody inside a nice home owned by a respected, 84-year-old retired four star-general in a nice subdivision in Fayetteville orders Chinese restaurant takeout on a Saturday evening.

A dispute over payment occurs inside the general’s home. Some type of physical altercation involving the general and the 26-year-old delivery driver allegedly occurs. There are at least two female witnesses to the event. No one is injured, no blood is spilled. That happens after police get involved.

The takeout driver reports the dispute to police.

Fayetteville police — by their own description — roll three officers intent on taking the general into custody. He’s standing on his porch and asks, “What the f— do you want?”

The officers ask three questions: “Are you William Livsey?” “Did you order food to be delivered to your home?” “Did you consume any of that food?”

Livsey answers “Yes” to all three questions.

The officer says, “You are under arrest. Put your hands behind your back.”

By the end of that Saturday, a distinguished and decorated war veteran is behind bars, charged with a felony and several misdemeanors.

It was a classic “he said—he said” situation. However, no other witnesses were sought for more than a week, and that was after I talked with Chief Scott Pitts and played a recording of the delivery driver whose emotional story differed from what the warrants and the official police statements alleged.

After that, police did some additional investigation. One result was that one of the witnesses to the events that night, Tim Bedgood, subsequently was charged with felony tampering with a witness for his conversations with delivery driver Ryan Irvin.

The only way they even knew about Bedgood was because I reported his version of that night’s event in my first two stories about the arrest. They then re-interviewed Irvin, who told them about Bedgood’s conversation with him.

Bedgood described himself to me as a witness to some of the events that night and as a part-time employee of Livsey. (Bedgood has had a number of collisions with the justice system in the past, ranging from DUI to forgery, but as any district attorney will tell you, you don’t get to choose your witnesses.)

I talked to both Bedgood and Irvin three days after the dispute and arrest. At that time, both said that neither had been contacted by police for any follow-up investigation.

I spoke to Chief Pitts nine days after the events and asked him about the stories from Irvin and Bedgood. He said the investigation was ongoing.

He stated in a news release that he and the department wanted the best possible outcomes for both Irvin and Livsey.

My question is this: Would these troubling questions have been raised if some basic police detective work had been done before handcuffs were employed?

Here we have an elderly man — a decorated war hero known well to some officers for his tart tongue, whom they also knew posed no physical threat to them. It seems to be the rare case in Fayetteville’s long history of crime-busting of a person getting charged for robbery inside his own home — over $80.60 worth of Chinese takeout.

This unhappy event also likely marks the first-ever case in modern times in this country of a four-star U.S. Army general being criminally charged by police with terroristic threats.

There will be more to come on this blot of a case, which raises questions of whether this whole episode represents a one-time departure from normal procedures, or whether it is standard practice. Very troubling, either way.

Why does all of this matter to anybody beyond the general’s household and the police?

Because it could be you, it could be me on the wrong end of those handcuffs over something trivial. If they can roll a felony response for a four-star general over Chinese takeout, they could roll one for me or for you.

Would this community have had to face these questions raised above — not to mention the considerable cost of police and justice system resources — if police had used better judgment from the get-go?

Several words come to mind: over-reaction, over-charging, heavy-handed, mishandling, inadequate investigating, personal agendas, maybe even some belated CYA.

Starting in 1969, I’ve been doing this for a long time, and, as I told Chief Pitts to his face last week, something’s not right here. Something’s not right.

[Cal Beverly is editor and publisher of The Citizen.]