Except that your last phrase may be largely if not entirely based on speculation and is not terribly relevant:
... the damage done was just a throw away sign the store gets for free to advertise a product.
How was the security cop hired by the property owner to know the sign was of little or no value or that the holes left in the wall was not a problem.
Was security to expect that the cost to replace the sign should be eaten by his boss?
Do we know security didn't give any money he obtained to the property owner (especially after the owner learned there was money involved)?
Do you doubt the anger of local gods (and their prosecutor and judge) was fully justified when Lochte falsely charged its law enforcement arm with corruption and embarrassed them before the world on this international stage?
Do we even know that the four off duty Rio police officers who were guarding a gas station in the middle of the night even knew about the sign?
Do we know security didn't give any money he obtained to the property owner (especially after the owner learned there was money involved)?
I have little doubt that if they didn't, they will say they did. I also believe the owner will tell anyone that asks that they did. It might even be true, but I wouldn't necessarily believe it just because they say so.
Do you doubt the anger of local gods (and their prosecutor and judge) was fully justified when Lochte falsely charged its law enforcement arm with corruption and embarrassed them before the world on this international stage?
One would think that if ripping down the sign was adequate provocation for four off duty Rio police officers who were guarding a gas station in the middle of the night to point a gun in his face and demand $400.00 from him, then why would a high ranking Brazilian police officer make up the story about a broken soap dish and broken mirror in a "vandalized" bathroom than none of them used?
You do know that the Rio Police have been caught in a lie about this?