Friday, July 19, 2013

Roosevelt Island Grand Larceny On Riverwalk Main Street 9:30 Last NIght - Man Talking On Cell Phone As Robber Comes From Behind, Grabs Wallet And Runs Away

Earlier today, I asked Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Interim Public Safety Director Jack McManus:

Can you provide additional details on yesterday's Grand Larceny?

07/18/13 - 2233 - F/O 400 Main St - Grand- Larceny - PSD & NYPD responded - Report filed.

What time did this occur, was anybody injured, was a weapon involved, what was stolen,etc.

Thank you.
Mr. McManus replied
This incident occurred at approximately 9:30pm last night. A male was walking and talking on his cell phone, holding his wallet in his free hand when a young male ran up behind him and relieved him of his wallet. No force, no injuries, no weapon. A search was conducted for the subject by PSD with negative results. NYPD responded, filed a report and will conduct appropriate investigative follow-up.
Mr. McManus had previously sent out these crime prevention tips which included be aware of your surroundings and:
... If you feel unsafe during late hours, call the PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT and we will walk you to your residence....
That's good advice.

The Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department phone # is 212) 832- 4545.


deetelecare said...

Great Job Roosevelt Islander for keeping us aware of our Crime Wave. At 9:30 at night by well-lit Riverwalk, no one should feel unsafe. The victim wasn't being smart by waving around his wallet either, but the recent troubles with PSD have seemingly empowered our local criminals. With the many visitors and foreign short-time residents/students we seem to have acquired, who aren't at all street-savvy, the crime problem we have is accentuated.

CheshireKitty said...

PSD doesn't utilize its resources efficiently. It only has a few officers out on patrol at any given time, even though PSD is a 40-person force. The result is slight to no coverage, even though the island is tiny.
The mugging above may have been captured on a surveillance camera - but that won't necessarily lead to the capture of the perp and return of the property etc.

PSD must up its presence island-wide by having more officers out patrolling. If that isn't possible, then NYPD must heighten its presence on RI by assigning more officers to RI.

deetelecare said...

Absolutely agree. PSD needs to have half the force out patrolling, and not all in blackout windowed cars. Whatever happened to those fancy Segways? The garage, especially late at night (and Sundays) is very lightly patrolled. I'm not alone in getting back late from the weekend and let me tell you, I'm not the only one who has to park far away and on a high floor.

NotMyKid said...

Let your officers do their jobs and motivation. Not saying they are not but moral is down the crapper at psd. Its lowest low I ever seen.

rilander said...

Thank you Mr. McManus. Did you know that for many years if we were uncomfortable about parking in Motorgate at night we could pull up in front of PSD office and they would follow us, on request, to Motorgate, wait while we parked our car in the garage, and then escort us to our building. Then the regime at PSD said they couldn't do that. So I am so glad to hear that we can have an escort to our residence, and hopefully once again to and from Motorgate after darkl. Thank you for restoring what PSD means to people on this wonderful rock we live on!

NotMyKid said...

We use to do that for residents all the time with director fry. This is a prime example why psd is so much better suited for Roosevelt island than nypd.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, not true. NYPD via outsourcing would have similar mission as PSD, except NYPD would respond to ALL calls, with right equipment, CCRB, etc. without the 43% inefficiency of present PSD.

NotMyKid said...

Well Frank, who's fault do you think it is that psd is not full service and un armed with not the right equipment?. Is that the officers choice or the bosses at psd/RIOC or the community fault?.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, none of them are free of fault:
- RIOC/PSD has had really poor oversight (as RIOC Board Member David Kraut says) for about two decades
- The officers are partially at fault because some of them have used poor judgment, which has caused the community to question (with good reason) PSD as a whole.
- The PSD Brass has its own faults in its poor leadership, including blind defense of poor officers' actions, and Maximum Enforcement / Zero Tolerance policy.

- And the community has some poor understandings and questionable beliefs, such as: (1) thinking PSD is just "security", when they are peace officers and their primary purpose is to be the first line of defense in maintaining the "Quality Of Life" on Roosevelt Island (e.g., things that don't rise to a crime, but need attention of law enforcement); and (2) the belief that because PSD *doesn't* have guns, then law enforcement's Standard And Accepted Abuse Against Blacks And Latinos won't be deadly, but would be deadly if officers had guns.

scrozball said...

Hey Farance over all PSD has done a magnificant job. All these complaints about PSD are rediculous and you bad mouthing them does nothing for this community. Why don`t you run RIOC instead of spraying around of bulls--t.

NotMyKid said...

That's odd because the majority of psd force are minorities.

What you are saying, I am not disagreeing or discounting. Except that the purpose of psd is quality of life not coming up to a crime. Fact is psd can make any arrest except an arrest solely on a warrant. I have made close to 200 arrests if not more on roosevelt island. Off islanders and residents, plenty of felonies, a couple burglaries, a couple of grandlarcenies and one or two robberies. So no, psd is not only a quality of life agency.

I did actual police work. We all did actual police work in the title of peace officer.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, let me rephrase it, and I think you'll agree: we expect PSD to do a different job than NYPD, but there is significant overlap. The area of overlap is much of the law enforcement work: keeping the peace, summonses, arrests, etc.. There's a part of NYPD service that PSD does *not* do, such as handling service calls that require guns or domestic violence issues. There is a part of PSD service that isn't typically done by NYPD that we'd call Quality of Life, such as escorts at night. I've not described the above three areas perfectly (PSD-only, NYPD-only, and Overlap), just trying to get past a misunderstanding.

So if we have "just NYPD" doing their regular stuff, then we'd have The Overlap plus NYPD-Only. If we have PSD as presently configured, we have The Overlap plus PSD-Only.

My suggestion is that we have NYPD outsource some/all of PSD, where outsourced NYPD officers are filling the roles of PSD officer slots while *fulfilling the mission* of PSD (e.g., night escorts), but:

- because NYPD are better equipped, they can respond to service calls that need (say) guns

- because NYPD are better trained, the can respond to (say) domestic violence calls and other service calls

- because NYPD have better promotions, NYPD officers in supervisory positions are better qualified

- because NYPD officers have pensions and better pay, we get better qualified officers in a competitive job market, i.e., NYPD officers making NYPD pay outsources to Roosevelt Island PSD to perform PSD's mission

- because NYPD has the CCRB, us residents get the oversight mechanism for police officer performance (the RIOC Board is still responsible for other kinds of oversight, such as budgetary)

In other words, a "full-service" law enforcement entity.

In summary, you say "I did actual police work. We all did actual police work in the title of peace officer." and, hopefully, my explanation makes it clear that it think so and always thought so. What I'm also saying is:

- you (as PSD) did *more* than just police work, you did other things that we call "Quality Of Life" issues, such as night escorts

- but you were limited by equipment (no guns), and recently you're even more limited by training (e.g., no more response to domestic violence incidents).

I, too, want something full service, and I have been working on and refining an approach to do it better. As I've said, PSD is a contractual obligation for RIOC to its ground leaseholders, i.e., RIOC is not a municipality, RIOC is not required to provide any law enforcement service. So unlike elsewhere with taxes paying for government services, which include law enforcement', Roosevelt Island, RIOC, and Public Safety are a different arrangement. I'm working within that framework in hopes for something effective, efficient, with recognized authority.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, re: "You cannot dangle the mistakes from 2-3-4-5 years ago towards PSD", I agree and after the community's presentation at the rallies on their injustices (many of them heart-wrenching and believable testimony), we need to channel that testimony and focus upon: What To Do?

In any organization, that means looking at the mistakes and gleaning from them What Went Wrong and Why It Went Wrong. The NTSB has an excellent methodology where they focus upon Contributing Factors rather than Assigning Blame, e.g., the cause of most plane crashes is: The Aircraft Came In Contact With The Terrain (duh!), so they are more focused on contributing factors.

In my sense, there are several incidents that each offer a cluster of multiple/compounding errors/contributing factors:

- Bluebeard Incident of Summer 2009
- Stueber Incident of Summer 2012
- Deli Incident of December 2012
- Anthony Jones Incident of January 2013

Separately, I've put together a list of suggestions (already sent to RIOC/PSD) for improvement.

In summary, we can use some of the past problems to gain insight on working towards better quality of operations - this is a standard quality management approach.

I don't completely agree with the present direction of the RIRA Public Safety Committee: it's not just about getting rid of officers whom people feel (rightly/wrongly) some injustice, e.g., with Guerra gone some RIRA PSC members want to hold a Celebration Party (I'm opposed to that). Yes, some officers should be separated and/or disciplined, but that shouldn't be the primary focus (which it is in RIRA PSC).

The primary goals should be better operations, better policy, and better oversight - and the community's testimony was/is helpful in gaining those insights.

Random said...

Scrozball might consider night school. It's free, and he needs it.

NotMyKid said...

I agree with above. We did get domestic violence call training when I was there. I have made domestic arrests and have responded to numerous domestics.

As a nypd officer, when I first got on, they wanted us to be summons machines, that also continued on patrol. Summons this summons that, arrest whatever you can for the sake of quality of life. Your definition of quality of life and nypd definition of quality of life are two separate meanings. I can back this up by any other transfers to nypd from psd. They can factually tell you the same exact thing if you called each one at a time in a room and shut the door.

Better pay, ok. Better pension, ok. Did you know then NYC DEP Police, who are police officers only top out at 53k but are the best group of guys you can come across. They also have a piss poor pension system and limited sick days.

I am trying to get on track with my methodology of training. DEP Police have a rigorous enterance exam, physical exam and training. All this for $50k. So I am going to piggyback on that point and say they have a very long list of applicants,

If CCRB is your thing, then maybe we can share ideas on how a very simple investigative body can be setup on the island?.

I understand RIOC is not obligated to provide Le service, but neither is tbta, who are also a non municipality and control all of the bridges and tunnels. They are not obligated but it is in their best Interest if they do. Yet their peace officers are enlisted as its own agency in the peace officer agency list in the criminal law. It is in the best interests of RIOC to provide services so this place does not get out of control. Agree?

You say nypd has better supervisors? All you need to does get a 70% on an exam and you get promoted to the next rank. Maybe there can be a supervisory exam for psd?

A lot of your points can be very well worked out. All I can say thank the lord Fernando Martinez has been booted from RIOC as we could have accomplished a lot more if it was not for his red tape.

You really don't need a highly paid department to take pride in their work. You need qualified applicants and great training. I can not stress that enough.

NotMyKid said...

I don't agree with RIRA public safety committee period. How can you have someone in charge of public safety committee if that individual has had numerous arrests in the past with nypd and a couple altercations with psd!

The new PS chair, well, all I can say she cannot be impartial due to one of that individuals relative has had run ins with psd. ATTENTION RICK, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE, THESE ARE FACTS.

Bluebeard, well that officer is not with PSD anymore.
Steuber, don't come into someone's house making a ruckus and refusing to leave with a lawful order. He pled guilty as I was told. That officer is also no longer with psd and has moved.
Deli, I saw a video, I saw nothing wrong from a LE view. I saw the video on a YouTube clip that was posted here.
Anthony jones, I have no knowledge on this one.

CheshireKitty said...

Are you referring to Ron?

NotMyKid said...

I will only put that on the table, nothing else for the sake of privacy. No names.

CheshireKitty said...

You can't mean Ron - he's an ex-cop if I'm not mistaken. If it's not Ron, then I think I know who you are talking about - except that he was never the Chair of the committee. Are you sure he has an actual rap sheet?

scrozball said...

Mr. Farance I think a primary goal for PSD is not to listien to anything you say. They will a good job without you.

NotMyKid said...

I'm not here to make fairy tales. Point is who is watching and checking the PSC chair is free and clear of issues to stay impartial?

CheshireKitty said...

Impartial? Are you suggesting the whole PSC campaign is about getting even, nothing more than that?

CheshireKitty said...

Please: If we need to hear your thoughts scroz, we'll let you know.

NotMyKid said...

No not at all. I am simply stating that its difficult to take the PSC if it was ran by people with run ins with the law, can we agree on that?. If not run ins themselves, then their family.

Its only common sense. I am not saying there is a conspiracy, just saying how can you move forward with another hurdle.

CheshireKitty said...

There has to be a broad-based community approach - including those with no legal problems. Are you implying the PSC has a kind of vendetta going vs. the PSD?

scrozball said...

Cheshire--I guess you speak for everyone when you write " If we need to hear your thoughts we will let you know". I guess you`re like Farance trying to control people`s opinion. You don`t own the blog so take a vacation or take a nap in some kitty litter,

NotMyKid said...

No. I thought I established that. I am not implying that. Though is it safe to agree that it is harder for a person to keep things fair with past negative exposure with the police or with someone with positive experiences.

scrozball said...

Farance ....what do you mean by " the PSD complaints were trumped up"? The only complaints being trumped up are coming from you. There is no proof of the PSD trumping up complaints except in your own mind.Keep looking in the mirror.

CheshireKitty said...

You seem to be the only one that objects to my comment - so yes, I suppose you can consider my statement an expression of the consensus about you.

Farance is trying to control peoples' opinions? I don' t know if that is what he is trying to do - of course, I'm only speaking from the perspective of a lowly kitty. At least he has an opinion that people can consider, and then accept or reject. I don't see anything remotely approaching an opinion or even a single cogent comment coming from you, scroz.

And why are you so obsessed with kitty sleeping on waste matter covered with a sandy substance? Is it maybe that this is what you would like to do - because finally you would be united with your true counterpart? Real kitties detest litter - as is well known - and would never roll around in it, much less nap in it. So your emphasis on that activity, impossible for a cat, must have something to do with a forbidden, wicked, and depraved ongoing fantasy that has entangled you.

CheshireKitty said...

If compare the PSD report to the video you'll see serious discrepancies, which consist of misstatements and exaggerations on the part of PSD intended to justify the use of excessive force. This is what is meant by "trumped up". Scroz: The only thing you need to do is look at the video and read the report: The comparison is the proof.

NotMyKid said...

I agree with most, some not. Regardless I would be ibterested in putting in my input and experiences. I'm sure mr mcmanus is a better person though but I don't mind to chime in. I know the officers don't want to because of repercussions.

CheshireKitty said...

Yes, you should, Not. Your input and experiences would be very useful.

Most on RI are ordinary citizens seeking to live here safely without interfering with anybody or being interfered with.

The important thing is allocation and utilization of PSD resources so as to maximally ensure PS.

But nothing should be taken off the table: If a conversation needs to be held regarding the possibility of outsourcing security to NYPD, then it should be held. Not so much as a blanket condemnation of PSD but as a recognition that RI security problems may now have reached a point that PSD isn't enough - as with the DV complaints. Or, tackling the gangs, or if not busting the gangs engaged in drug distribution, at least investigating the presence of gangs. PSD training/equipment is clearly not enough for certain problems at the present time.

NotMyKid said...

DV is not a priority as I don't recall many DV calls. Besides the DV officer at 114 has only a very few DV follow up cases on RI. A dv does not necessarily have to rise to violence to be considered dv. A simple argument can be dv.

Regardless the points you touched upon can be made possible with a community support system, training, psych evals, higher hiring criteria and right equipment for the officers. Instead out outsourcing the source, it makes more sense to get the water from your own well where you know there is water already there rather than digging another hole and hoping sonething is there.

CheshireKitty said...

That is true. If I had a particularly bad experience at a hospital, then I might not be the best person to put on the Joint Accreditation Committee on Hospitals. I might go overboard on finding fault or making recommendations since my viewpoint might be biased due to my past negative experience.

Those with positive things to say about PSD should be heard as much as those who have had negative experiences.

The PSC consists almost exclusively of those who have had negative experiences, or their families have had negative experiences. Looking back, it's difficult to think of single instance when they ever had anything good to say about PSD.

There are problems with PSD, and there were incidents that were needlessly escalated, such as the horrific Jones incident wherein PSD totally went out of control, the Mansour and Steuber incidents, as well as many other lesser, though equally astounding/infuriating incidents as described in the PSC posters for example.

Yet, the majority of residents have no complaints with PSD. Although they do not want to see PSD overstepping the limits of the law and individual rights in enforcing the law, from their perspective as residents who wish to be protected and have no problems with or reason to interact with PSD, they have no particular complaints - as long as the community remains safe overall.

It is when the community is no longer perceived as safe that the ordinary residents might begin getting involved in community affairs or try to give their input on security, utilization of PSD resources, PSD oversight, and related topics. This is understandable since a lack of security, or a perceived lack or deficiency of security, will then begin to have an impact on these ordinary, law-abiding, unoffensive residents. People will think: If yesterday it was someone getting their wallet stolen in broad daylight at Southtown, then tomorrow it can easily be me getting mugged after dark on the promenade. Is there no security at all on RI? What can be done to improve security on RI?

McManus may put an end to the over-enforcement/abuse problem that had taken hold under Guerra - but is PSD, as it is currently organized, really in a position to provide the security needed throughout RI?

CheshireKitty said...

These are exactly the points that should be made to improve the PSD and you are in a position to make them, or at least provide input. Maybe DV isn't a priority, or a major issue - but what about the drug distribution gang problem? Can we say RI might be included in the anti-gang efforts pursued at Queensbridge-Ravenswood? Could NYPD at least do that much?

Again - this isn't a priority of ordinary, law-abiding citizens on RI, since gang-related violence rarely touches their lives (although it could potentially at any time). But do we need to have the presence of gangs in the drug distribution business on RI?

What if, for example, I were walking by the deli on the night of July 4th-5th when the altercation occurred that escalated into gun play and what if I were caught in the cross fire and shot? A scenario such as this is always a possibility as long as there are armed gang members taking their arguments or business disputes onto the street - similar to the tragic incidents that are well-known in many other areas of NYC. This is why the NYPD tries to eliminate gangs - so that the ordinary citizens are protected from the possible spillover of violence. I'm not sure the PSD is in a position to tackle this problem.

As a community, we need to know if drug distribution gangs are present on RI. If it is a certainty that they are, then we should request that the NYPD include RI in its ongoing anti-gang efforts.

NotMyKid said...

You need to know and I am telling you there are plenty of drugs and the gang element is real. Though the gang is not up to bloods and crips but it can have potential of growing due to off islanders who are members are frequent r.i. .

Your source, psd knows who they are and has plenry of intell on them. Problem is without the community as a whole suppirting them, what's the purpose?. The nypd is not interested but do perform or have performed undercover buy and bust

NotMyKid said...

Absolutly but not without the directors review, evaluation and a lot of training. Plenty of good folks at psd. Otherwise I would not be advocating their ambition to commit to r.i. residents 100 percent. They areobviously handcuffed to what they can and how much they can do without equipment needed.

I really say erase the words PUBLIC SAFETY and just write police. That alone would thwart the bad guys who may wander on the island to cause dusturbance and crimes. I caught plenty of off islanders committing crimes.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, yes - community support would be crucial. We shouldn't sit back and accept the reality of drug gang activity as a given.

The Wire could do a report on the problem - even if the drug gangs haven't taken over on RI, do we really need their presence at all?

And if I'm not mistaken, isn't the school adjacent to the building in question - 2-4 RR? Why would anyone want to send their kids to that school if the building next door is the epicenter of the drug business on RI?

NotMyKid said...

its not only 2-4, its also eastwood as well. the members are spread out. although if you sit at the benches opposite thenschool and just watch 2-4 at night, you will see different cars, pulling in and out.

scrozball said...

CeshireKitty Perhaps real kittys don`t like to nap in kitty litter but you may enjoy kitty litter so take a nap.

CheshireKitty said...

That's what I mean. It's outrageous that the community has put up with this for so long.

Thank goodness it's not going on during school hours - but still; what kind of a message does this send to people who may want to send their kids to that school? The school is convenient enough - but just a few yards away, after school hours, an active drug supermarket is taking place?

If the PSD can't take it on, can't the NYPD intervene to shut it down?

What exactly is going on? Is there an unspoken agreement not to intervene since that might ruffle some feathers?

What are we supposed to think? Do the gangs pay off key l/e people to let them conduct their distribution business with no interference? Is that what is going on?

Or has the City/State given up on shutting down the drug gangs? Is the inaction traceable to Gov. Cuomo's proposed decriminalization of small quantities of pot possession? Thus, l/e will not shut down distribution of pot? What about other substances?

What are we supposed to think: That because nothing is being done, it's OK? What happens when drug gang violence erupts onto the street - as it did on the night of 7/4-5. We're supposed to sit around and simply accept it as an inevitable consequence of the tacitly sanctioned drug distribution business?

CheshireKitty said...

Ugh - you're obviously a re-incarnation of carbo, with the ongoing mindless comments about napping, etc. You want me to take a nap - anywhere - so I'm not commenting, right? Here is my suggestion to you: Think before you comment, if that is possible for a creature such as scroz. And, try to stay on topic..!! My napping or not napping is not the topic of this thread!

NotMyKid said...

No its none of that. Honestly it is resources. Low manpower. Its proving where the stash is. To perform these operations it takes manpower and unfortunenlty the queens narco and manhattan north narco units are stretched thin and have way more on their plate thsn r.i. .

Honestly and this might not sound right to you but psd needs a lot more enforcement. They should conduct sweeps and arrest everyone.

CheshireKitty said...

Enforcement as in more manpower? I could see expanding the size of PSD - but would the building companies be willing to pay more?

Are sweeps done elsewhere in the city? A sweep sounds like a mass stop-and-frisk action. Or do you mean actually arrest all people in a given area and then sort everything out afterward, not even questioning or searching the detainees on the spot?

scrozball said...

CheshireKitty --I was on topic. The only mindlesess comments are comming from you. My comments to Farance were on target.He spoke about peole who couldn`t write. I only asked him to prove it but he couldn`t becasue he speaks in 1/2 truths. He is the Island`s biggents bullsh--t artist.

CheshireKitty said...

Scroz: I'm not going to dispute that you're entitled to your opinion. But you can't disprove what Frank wrote.

There are major discrepancies between the police report and the video in the deli case. Either the officer can't write, or he handed off writing the report to another officer so as to avoid saying what actually happened; either way there was a deliberate, major misrepresentation of what occurred in the report.

Frank says the officers need more training in writing reports, and by way of example, he cited the deli case report. This isn't bs - you should see the comparison between the video and the report, scroz.

It seems to me that you are only on target or on topic when it comes to tearing Frank down.
Why, I don't know: He offers much constructive criticism, many great ideas on improving PSD and so forth.

Why continually issue blanket condemnations of Frank, scroz? What do you get out of it?

And anyway, you can't really refute the discrepancy between the report and the video - so it's pointless to attack Frank on his pointing out the discrepancy, which really does exist, and ascribing it to either officers who can't write reports or won't write accurate reports because they wish to cover up their excessive use of force.

NotMyKid said...

No not stop and frisk. Stop those who are in
violation, run them for warrants and if they have an active warrant they get arrested. If not they get a summons for the violation. If weed is found or other illegal substances then add the charge.

CheshireKitty said...

Something like that would certainly send a message to the drug gangs to stop distributing drugs in front of 2-4.

Do you think the PSD is in a position to execute a potentially mass arrest like this or could it only be done by NYPD?

NotMyKid said...

As long as there is 4 or more to an arrest squad. This of course won't be in one day but a progression, a constant message. Very similar to a precinct conditions team. I think psd needs a van as well.

RooseveltIslander said...

I attended most of the RIRA Public Safety Committee meeting, either the whole meeting or portions. I did not attend the last one.

In my opinion the PSC Chair conducted the meeting in a fair and responsible manner even though committee members often had conflicting positions. I believe she sought consensus of the Committee.

I did not see any personal bias by the Chair

RooseveltIslander said...

Thanks, I appreciate you respecting the privacy issue.

RooseveltIslander said...

What "red tape" are you referring to that impeded PSD effectiveness?

CheshireKitty said...

That's a matter of opinion, Rick.

I attended most PSC meetings since the Jones incident, staying until the end of the meetings, and even beyond the end of the meetings for the traditional schmoozing period afterwards.

Dissent was brutally suppressed. A PSC member called for a vote on a topic recently but the vote was turned into a garish show trial, with no serious discussion of the topic the vote was actually considering.

What could the "controversial" topic have been? The topic was whether the RIOC Board members can be considered even remotely responsible for the misdeeds and misdirection of PSD the past 5 years under Guerra. This was considered by PSC membership such a "hot" topic that it can never be discussed.

That's not running a committee impartially; it's running a committee according to bias. The bias consists of pro- elected RIOC Board member bias - protecting the elected Board members at all costs even if they failed in PSD oversight since 2008.

Because of the web of conflicts, or pro- Board member bias, PSC today gladly signs on to RIRA commending these same members for reappointment by the Governor - conveniently ignoring the fact that these Board members were wholly responsible for the PSD mess.

NotMyKid said...

He was not a fan of psd and there were a few meetings with rioc and psd with absolutetly no positive progress. Still the same old psd with stone age equipment and technology.

scrozball said...

Cheshire Kitty..I never said I could disprove what Farance sadi I only asked him where he received his information. Perhaps there were times where PSD was out of hand.On the other hand I don`t want the thugs running the island. At one of the meetings one of the mothers who was vocal against PSD said " I know my son is know angel"...

billblass said...

Yes we need stop and frisk in octagon and southtown builldings

CheshireKitty said...

They should do it then - and have RIOC buy a van for them. Does PSD ever try to bust the drug distributors at 2-4 or have they just given up on it?

CheshireKitty said...

He used FOIL to request and receive the reports. He received a copy of the surveillance video of the incident from the deli owner. If you compare the two, you can see the discrepancies.

Agreed - no one wants thugs running the island. But excessive force is excessive force.

Sure - a lot of kids are no angels, and if they break the law, they should be busted. But don't go overboard when detaining them.

The kids in the deli video weren't resisting arrest yet they were beaten anyway. Bystanders were arrested and beaten for no reason - for doing nothing. Scroz: That ain't right. And saying it ain't right doesn't mean the island is being given over to thugs. The deli employees, arrested for nothing, certainly ain't thugs. And the kids in the video weren't acting in a "thuggish" manner - they never put up a fight but were beaten anyway.

And RIOC had a lawyer try to intimidate the deli owner afterwards, if I'm not mistaken - since the owner had the incriminating tape. That alone shows the tape doesn't lie, unlike the report.

CheshireKitty said...

Oh pipe down Bill Blass - get back to your fashion shows or whatever...

billblass said...

People living in eastwood paying 2000 to 4000 dollars per month for rent are they gang members . Who are the gang members

NotMyKid said...

Kitty, it does not work like that. The point is really to slow things down. If you keep interupting the cycle then the drug sales and networking slows down. I can't see these things ever being completely erradicated but can be slowed down.

The point is to keep them away even for a night or a couple weeks in jail. I'm not saying or condoning a full assault but show you mean business.

And yes since the end of guerra and when the new president was sworn in, psd has been told to limit their enforcement.

CheshireKitty said...

The market rate tenants of RL are the gang members? Great. Now everything is clear. (Not.)

CheshireKitty said...

If someone is bringing pot to distribute on the island, then that person can be sent away for a long time if they are caught with a large amount of pot. That at least ends the career of that drug distributor - although not the gang that supplied the drugs to him. So I agree that the fight is incremental and the gang cannot be wiped out all at once.

Couldn't PSD simply have a cam pointed at the area where the distributor parks every night, as well as a LPR recording license plate numbers - that's a simple way to build up a case that this person and this car is involved in the drug distribution business. You can show he always comes to 2/4 at a certain time, hands off the drugs, receives money (unless the money is not being handed over at the same time) and then drives off.

It can't be that complicated to stop the guy distributing the drugs, although he could be armed and then the PSD might have a problem if he puts up a fight.

NotMyKid said...

That's the problem, nobody goes away for a long time for pot, aside for really heavy weight, which low level distributors do not carry. The most they will have is a few ounces. Misdemeanors at most. Please do not simply pin point 2-4 as I have made drug arrests rear of Eastwood, seawalls, even Island House. It's been around when I was there, apparently it has gotten worst with a gang element.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"I'm starting a separate community committee for law enforcement, which includes PSD, NYPD, etc.."

This is a great idea and I laud you for it but I do not think you are the best person to lead this thing.

AshleyMcCormick said...

One of the 'centers' for drug distribution is in front of 580. You can always see at least 3-4 people in the vicinity of the entrance. The cars can stop in the alley by the Capobianco field and idle for a short while. Or stop right in front of the 580 lobby window. It has been a known fact for RI-ers and, of course, for PSD. However, PSD does nothing to disperse those groups. In winter, they move inside the lobby. If that's not loitering, I don't know what is. The general feeling is that, although PSD seems to be doing its job, the Island situation has, sadly, worsened and requires stronger measures.

CheshireKitty said...

That is my point: Has PSD given up on even incremental drug distribution suppression because it's too risky/dangerous? If so, should there be an increased NYPD or State police presence?

Not said that PSD should have a van and do more sweeps. Meanwhile, though, PSD doesn't have a van - and evidently lets the drug distribution business continue with no interference.

Are we all wasting our time discussing the topic? Has PSD simply given up?

billblass said...

All this is. Is boys being boys

YetAnotherRIer said...

Well, what do those "youth"s peddle? Just pot?

NotMyKid said...

I would put this on paper registered mail to mcmanus.

This is a problem, primarily because psd has been a target of rallies and anti psd opposition. The criminals screaming murder. I hate to say it but those rallies put psd in the crapper. Maybe if the new rioc personell let psd do their job maybe things will change for the better.

billblass said...

Are the drug dealers in 2 4 river rd. And eastwood reporting this income to sec 8

billblass said...

As long as the dealers report the income to sec 8 its fine

CheshireKitty said...

The distributors drive up and sell to the customers on RI. Unless there are also distributors within the buildings that are resupplied by the outside distributors (buying and re-selling). Somewhere along the way, the profits are getting laundered by unscrupulous banks. Might be interesting for NYPD/PSD to check with Amalgamated on possible large cash deposits but they'd have to obtain a court order to do that.

CheshireKitty said...

It's basically come to that in several States such as Colorado - with storefronts in business selling small amounts of pot: These businesses report and pay tax on income from selling pot. The pot business may be legalized one day on a national level - just as alcohol was legalized with the end of Prohibition. Imagine the money to be made, and the tax revenue flowing to the State - instead of a gold rush, there would be a green rush. Whooosh...!!

billblass said...

Are you saying people in southtown and octagon dont smoke weed. Really

billblass said...

Cads may not want to come to the island. What will the ├▒ewbies do than .

NotMyKid said...

No banks trust me. These dealers are broke before going back home. Very petty money but still bad. Your youngsters are exposed to these nickle and dimers

CheshireKitty said...

Cads? Do you mean - cabs?

CheshireKitty said...

No that is not what I am saying. The deli video shows the use of excessive force by PSD, which was subsequently downplayed/covered-up in the PSD report. If you cannot keep to topic, then please go back to your fabrics and notions..!

CheshireKitty said...

OK - the big money is being made elsewhere, it's just penny ante amounts being earned on RI by small-time dealers.

Yes - who would want to raise a family here if drug transactions are pervasive? Even if you're sitting outside keeping an eye on your kids as they play, how do you explain the presence of a drug supermarket outside their building? How do you explain what those people are doing?

CheshireKitty said...

"...I do not think you are the best person to lead this thing..." Why not? If not, any suggestions who might be?

NotMyKid said...

You don't explain. You make a law enforcement support group and back them up to clean the island up safely and efficiently.

Never cut against the grain, cut with it.

billblass said...


billblass said...

I think main street would be a good place for mexican day workers waiting for jobs. In front of south town also octagon.the people living in those buildings can give them day jobs

KTG said...

Bill. Don't worry about the newbies. there is APP called HAIL-O that allows you to hail a cab online for no additional charge. You can also use UBER APP to call a town car or SUV. But its was really considerate of you to worry like that.

KTG said...

I agree. Why don't you show some incentive and start doing it yourself, with the money from a second income you could leave section 8.

RooseveltIslander said...

do you think there would have been any possibility of change and improvements within the PSD had the demonstrations and protests organized by RIRA's PSD not happened?

CheshireKitty said...

Key word is safely. You'll find backing for a l/e support group - as long as there's no use of excessive force. I agree - the community should be involved. Community involvement pulls the rug out from under the dealers.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Somebody who is respected by the community. Frank may have the appropriate loud voice but since his disastrous time as president of RIRA almost everybody lost respect for him, especially by the people who are actually in charge. He misses the boat in regards of being politically capable and being likeable in the first place.

NotMyKid said...

I think the overall negativity on PSD stemmed from the no progress and no hope from mr.gerra. A lot of promises were made but nothing happened. Red tape from mr.martinez and his dislike or rather look down on psd did not help either.

Let's not add that during mr.gerra final weeks, and upon the new president take over, psd had been extremely limited in their enforcement. Primarily here is the deal, those guys and girls at psd really want to do more and really want to do cop stuff. Instead they have them doing security guard stuff.

If you are a doctor and are in a famous hospital but your boss says only take people's temperature and nothing else, you will get annoyed, disgruntled and your moral would sink. Doctor, just take people's temperatures. If there is an issue, call for help. I know your a certified doctor but this is what I want. This analogy makes sense?.

So I would say it is a big culmination of a variety of things.

I think mr.gerra screwed up by having a so called open forum with criminals and people who are known to cause public disturbances over speaking and creating a rukkus. As a director, he or she must do what they believe is the best to do for not only the department but for the community as a whole. The ultimate decision rests on his or her shoulders. When we in the nypd decide on new equipment or changes to our rules, we do not hold open forums or ask the community. I know this sounds crude and mean but as a leader and a director, this is why he is getting paid to do his or her job! Really think about it!

So I think the director needs to lead his new department to a different level of efficiency nd professionalism, as well as quality service with the proper equipment. Give more to do for the officers, give them more responsibility. Surely re evaluate all the supervisors. Create a supervisory exam and a review committee for new supervisory candidates.

I know I sound like I am repeating myself over and over but I am voicing concerns of the staff as well as voicing what we all wanted when I was there.

CheshireKitty said...

I thought he ran the CC meetings well since he is well-versed in parliamentary procedure.

Frank may have ruffled some feathers with some of his columns although they never struck me as particularly scandalous or offensive.

Unfortunately Frank encountered quite a bit of political opposition to some of his ideas from the establishment in RIRA, the MTG, and RIOC. The dispute was carried out on a "college humor" type level by some who opposed Frank. Frank didn't reciprocate but the year after he left the presidency suffered censure. Considering the circumstances and the fact that those who actually were guilty of personal smears got away with it, Frank's censure was unjustified.

Nonetheless, Frank had a good working relationship with then RIOC Pres Shane as well as other RIOC figures; Shane and the other RIOC officials would appear at the monthly Town Hall meetings Frank instituted to enable residents to find out about and comment on upcoming RIOC actions, and share their concerns with RIOC leadership. These were very informative meetings and it's a shame they were discontinued when Katz regained the presidency.

Frank was opposed to the cancellation of the '10 RIOC Board member nominee elections - but his view did not prevail at the CC. Unfortunately again, for reasons that are all too obvious, his opposition to the cancellation resulted in votes being taken in closed sessions by MTG, MTG meetings that were not publicly announced, and so forth - thus eliminating the possibility that any opposing voices could be heard. MTG was intent on protecting the incumbent RIOC Board members by not having elections that would bring up new candidates for Cuomo to consider and possibly appoint.

MTG could never admit this obvious and anti-democratic reason for the cancellation of the election. Instead, the justification given by the MTG for cancelling the vote never made any sense, yet the obfuscation the MTG used somehow carried the day at the CC. It is my opinion that no-one actually understood the incomprehensible and arcane reasoning for cancelling that election but that the CC members who voted to cancel the election voted not because they understood or even wholly agreed with the cancellation, but out of some sort residual loyalty to Matt; i.e., if Matt/MTG thought the vote should be canceled then who are we to second-guess Matt? If those CC members who voted to cancel the election had been asked that night to explain the obscure, confusing reasoning used by the MTG to justify the cancellation, I doubt if many, or even any, could have given a rational, understandable explanation - yet they voted to cancel the election anyway.

There were unfortunate factions in the CC at that time and although Frank served well as President, the factions sabotaged his presidency from a public-relations standpoint.

So I wouldn't exactly blame Frank for the disputes/discord that occasionally cropped up when he was President. I would blame the parties that to this day remain the "establishment" on RI, that refuse to let anyone into their "charmed circle" if that person, on any level, wishes to discuss things from an opposing viewpoint; opposition by them is considered "upsetting the apple cart" and thus anathema. They preach democracy but their own group is anti-democratic.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, there were no surprises in my RIRA Presidency, y'all knew I would advocate strongly for the community, no BS. Here's a reminder of accomplishments:

- Pushed RIOC for longer-term budget disclosures (State only requires 5, but I got RIOC to disclose 15-year budgets, which better revealed some of RIOC's financial issues)

- Established (with the cooperation of the RIOC President) regular meetings with the RIOC Board the evening *prior* to RIOC Board meetings. This would allow the community interact with RIOC Board members and RIOC staff on *every* RIOC agenda item, allow the community to become more informed, and if there were concerns by residents, they could express them in a *better-informed* and time-efficient way in the Public Session in the RIOC Board meeting the next day.

- Reacted to an represented the residents strongly in the Bluebeard incident. Established a good working relationship with PSD and helped the RIRA PSC to gain their own stature (Guerra didn't want to interact with Ms. Feely-Nahem).

- Helped establish a good working relationship with RIOC and its departments with RIRA and its subcommittees.

- Helped get better subway service during the tram outage/rebuild.

However, the big public disagreement was over the MTG's manipulation and cancellation of the RIOC 2010 elections, and the privatization interests that forced Mr. Shane's departure.

Simply, my opposition is that faction of people and the ecosystem that surrounds it. It really takes being an insider with inside knowledge to understand what is going wrong. So the community hears the pretty slogans of "Democracy", but there's a lot of inside workings that reveal something uglier and less virtuous.

Also Matt Katz wanted to eliminate Everything Frank, regardless of community benefit, such as the RIRA-sponsored RIOC Board meeting discussions with the community.

Same applies today. Except that we have anonymous commenters, like you, who get to keep making bogus comments ... and keep coming back ... had you had to reveal your true identity, I doubt you would continue with your bogus remarks.

Look, Guerra picked three entities for legal action because they were making STINGING and VALID complaints: this blog, the WIRE, and myself. He didn't pick RIRA PSC or others. RIOC Board Member Mike Shinozaki focused upon MY presentations at the rallies. ABC News thought my video presentation and PSD officer FOIL requests were good enough for them to do their own investigation and report. The RIOC Board listens carefully to my comments and reacts to to them.

Certainly, I have clout to address community concerns, and to do it without conflicts/ethics/etc. issues. I plan on continuing those efforts to help the community.

YetAnotherRIer said...

I tell you exactly when I lost respect for Frank: the Blue Beard incident and Frank's e-mail to dozens of politicians and other people in charge w/o putting a lot of effort into actually figuring out first what is going on. He reacted on his dismay for the PSD without thinking twice. That did it for me.

Now he keeps repeating his laundry list of things he has done during his tenure but the thing is, if you have to keep repeating yourself to stay in people's minds you've done something very wrong and you are not a good leader.

AshleyMcCormick said...

Crack, too. I've found a few empty crack vials around the entrance and inside the building. The 114th precinct will tell you who they're keeping an eye on. UA management is aware of it as well. Problem is, PSD is either afraid or prefers to close an eye on some of the 'kids' and adults involved. Again, I think NYPD should be more present. Let's get real, shall we? RI is not the 20-yr ago Utopian project (pun intended) anymore.

NotMyKid said...

Let's not fib as I guarantee the 114pct is not going to say who they are keeping an eye on. I will go far and say they have not one person in their sights.

Although I agree this is not a pet project anymore. This is a real community now and needs real protection.

I think psd would benefit from a computerized dispatching system to keep track of drug and other complaints. Drugs and other serious things can be flagged electronically for follow up with the psd detectives/investigative units.

I also think Psd should have their own website with a "anonymous" online complaint system. It would be the choice of the complainant to stay anonymous or not. If you worry about actually putting your name down but maybe the info will be disseminated unlawfully, perhaps it can be opened only with a supervisory password?.

There are a lot of ways everyone can pitch in and help with positive ideas.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, Yet, is Frank's 6/13/09 column entry on the Blue Beard Incident what you are referring to? You said there was an email, that may have been precipitous or premature in that not enough people were questioned or information gathered to determine exactly what happened at Capobianco Field. Did the email differ significantly from Frank's column entry? If not, then I don't see why you lost respect for Frank after reading the email since the column entry to me at least appears to take all aspects of the incident into account, and is even-handed and even conciliatory.

In his 6/13/09 column Frank correctly slams Guerra for not questioning the account of the arresting officer. Shinozaki is noted to have unsuccessfully tried to help Blue Beard's son by interceding with PSD - ineffectually asking that PSD let the son see his father. Frank calls for parents to exercise restraint and respect.

The over-arching message is a call for better training of PSD, more openness on the part of PSD instead of self-protectiveness regardless of fault; and cooperation by parents. Increased understanding and respect, along with better communication would lead to a lessening of tension and the likelihood of occurrence of future incidents. Why would this message cause you to lose respect for Frank?

NotMyKid said...

Can we move on. We will all have disagreements. I can tolerate Franks comments if what he is saying makes sense. Some things he says does not make much sense in the law enforcement world as it may look great on paper but operationally it will not.

Let's all put a little bit on the table and eat from it. What you don't like to eat, don't swallow it.

I'm sure Frank is learning as we go forth and I learned a little from Frank. Yes, some things he does, he goes a bit beyond like the rally for the perps(yes, I locked a few of them up on the Congo line, and they are real perps no matter how much of a sob story they put out), but I really don't think he did it to damage PSD. Perhaps mis-thunk it through?.

YetAnotherRIer said...

I cannot find the link to the e-mail he sent out. I also forgot to mention his reaction to the Hunter study about mass transit on Roosevelt Island. He didn't like it and ripped those students a new one just because that's who he is.

YetAnotherRIer said...

I am talking about the e-mail you sent to Lapin et al. That was probably done before you actually sat down and thought a bit about what happened.

CheshireKitty said...

Yet - it isn't easy to find emails from 4 years ago, unfortunately (since the speed of technology upgrades means most of us have moved on to new PCs/phones since then and many will not bother to store or transfer emails; I bet the NSA has kept the message though ;>)).

Was the Hunter study reaction contained in a Wire column? If so, could you put up on the link so readers can see what you are referring to. Or you could quote the portion of the article that you find over-the-top or offensive.

In general, unless there's unnecessary excess such as uncalled for, mindless, or blanket condemnation or vilification, I would say everyone is entitled to their opinion. Voicing an opinion, including one that we may not agree with, is no reason to lose respect for someone.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"Voicing an opinion, including one that we may not agree with, is no reason to lose respect for someone."

The tone makes the music. Always. If you like his approach and his manners, that's fine. I do not. And I am not alone in this.

NotMyKid said...

Yes, he does get a bit ahead of himself. I can agree to that also.

NotMyKid said...

I don't want this to be a bash feast against Frank but I can shnpathicize with you in certain aspects because he will bash the heck out of something with personal emotions and opinions.
As RIRA president, one cannot and must not interject their personal theories and reasoning into things that have happened. As a voice of RIRA, as their president, perhaps it is your job to get an inquiry but must be without bias and interjection.

I think this is what you mean.

NotMyKid said...

Negative Frank, in that email you did not put the emotions or Mr,Mansour, you added a lot of fluff and fantasy such as cover ups in the holding cells and other nonsense. That is wrong. You cannot send that out in mass. If an officer over reacted or made a mistake, ask for an inquiry. That's it. There is no need for the extra.

I hope you understand this is a very big reason why there might be friction between you and certain residents and employees. This was why I disliked you. You are not suppose to be critical, just like that jokester Mr.Kallos who is trying to win votes by jumping on the ANTI PSD bandwagon without having a damn real clue what PSD does, did and accomplished over the years. Gives him no right.

If you want to know what happened, simply add the simple details, witnesses, date, time and simple questions about what the officer said and why he said it. No need to paint the department as corrupt, which it does look like when read.

I hope you understand. Nothing personal,

CheshireKitty said...

But that's your evaluation or estimation of him personally - not what he's saying. Of course the way a piece is played - even if every note is hit correctly - determines if we will like the performance. But that's performance, not the piece of music. I'll always be a fan of Beethoven's 5th even if I just saw a performance of it that was sub-par.

In politics, it is helpful to be healer, not a divider. But it's a matter of opinion as whether Frank healed more than he divided, and whether that was because of his personality or his message.

I haven't had a chance to read the entire letter Frank wrote to Lappin you reference above. He was complaining about the way Mansour was treated by PSD: I don't see what is wrong with that. Maybe Frank had not had a chance to interview other participants in the incident to get additional points of view. I don't see the letter as a PR for Mansour - he's recounting the story of an arrest that the detainee complained about. I don't think the letter was meant as "the last word". That could of course only be determined in a court of law with sworn testimony by eye-witnesses, defendant and complainant.

IMO, Frank was right to speak to the elected officials on behalf of a constituent - so that the abuse would be not be repeated.
Considering what happened in the Mansour incident, his subsequent column shows quite a bit of tact and even-handedness - the very qualities, or tone, you seem to hold as worthy of respect.

NotMyKid said...

There is a difference to request a real inquiry and another to add other things that are personal opinions and reflections. Elected officials do this often and it is not kosher.

CheshireKitty said...

Having read the column, not only did I not find it offensive, I found it refreshing in its candor. I personally enjoyed reading this no-holds-barred review, which even had me chuckling a bit.

Obviously, Prof. Lapp must have been cringing. But a review is a review - reviews are not always positive, and Frank's review of the Lapp team's report was decidedly negative.

Not having read Lapp's report, I can't say I agree or disagree with Frank's assessment of it. In addition to demonstrating the failings of several specific findings of the report, he says Lapp didn't take residents' opinions/experiences into account in writing his report and calls for more resident input into RIOC decisions regarding transportation issues. If Lapp actually recommended the parking meter rates should be upped on Main St, then I definitely agree with Frank that Lapp was wrong on that. I don't see anything I would disagree with in what Frank wrote - but, then again, I haven't read the Lapp report so I am just accepting what Frank says as factual about what the report contained.

Yet, did anything ever come of the Columbia recommendations? If not, then that is proof that Frank was right in his assessment of the report.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, I'm glad you mentioned holding cells and cover ups at PSD - a prescient issue, in fact.

The prior holding cells were a problem. At the time, new holding cells were anticipated, but expected to be private. In fact, the holding cells were a problem in the Stueber Incident because Guerra was caught lying several times (as verified by video of holding cells and other reports). Guerra tried claiming Mr. Stueber was faking his injuries, clearly to cover up the injuries. Mr. Guerra was caught.

Ditto for Lt. Yee who was trying to cover up the brutal abuse of Anthony Jones with some dopey story about pneumonia, Guerra participated in that cover-up, too.

And, contrary to the purported reason for holding cells (so those in custody don't have to be handcuffed), Mr. Stueber was left in handcuffs in a holding cell (again, verified by video).

So all of those concerns of the Bluebeard incident were prescient ... anticipating a good number of PSD problems 3-4 years later.

As a leader, it is our responsibility to put the pieces together, especially when the public/etc. doesn't have all the details to see a comprehensive picture. It's also important to counter a narrative that gives the wrong impression. In not simply the dry facts, it's tying it together so people can digest it quickly.

And what's wrong with showing emotion? Showing the frustration, the sadness, the horror, the upset-ness ... we're humans, showing emotion acknowledges the sympathy and empathy that we feel. Showing the emotion does not take away from the story.

NotMyKid said...

Here you go again. Whatever you think is lie,I don't know but I know mr.steiber was held at Psd overnight because corrections did not want to take him as he claimed injury by police. Standard procedure downtown. If special cells are not open, who are operated by nypd but very limited space, the prisoner gets sent back to the precinct or command of arrest. In this case, psd. When they are ready for him, they call for lodging/arraignment.

Things are done for a reason. Not just because. Perhaps he really had no clue why. I don't know. I was not a fan of that man and can't say why the lies or assumed lies. Why was he cuffed in the cells? Who knows, maybe he threatened violence or hurting himself?.

I know we keep deranged or dangerous prisoners handcuffed for extended periods until we feel safe that they will not get violent. If its an emotional disturbance, then they will be wrapped up and sent to the hospital for evaluation.

Mr.jones. No clue on details and very limited on info. Can't comment on that. As for mr steiber, I have knowledge and it specs out fine.

Ifs funny that he also removed his soft neck brace at bookings once corrections said we won't take him, he took it off just to get through the process and they denied him. If I am not mistaking he pled guilty to a charge as well. So let's drop the steiber incident. I have my facts and you have your painted facts by a innocent yet violent bus driver who refused to be professional as a fellow RIOC employee and as a citizen.

I don't know how you figure mr gerra lied about steiber faking his injuries. I am stumped at that.

CheshireKitty said...

"...some things he does, he goes a bit beyond like the rally ... but I really don't think he did it to damage PSD." Frank wasn't the driving force behind either rally - both were organized and staged by PSC leadership.

Frank did speak very effectively at each rally - one of many speakers.

The rallies weren't organized to damage PSD per se. The purpose of the rallies was to give a forum to victims of PSD abuse i.e. overenforcement, a chance to speak. The emphasis wasn't on bashing PSD itself - it was on showing the ill effects of the use excessive force, the trauma it causes, the scars long after it has occurred.

The point of the rallies was to show that the use of excessive force was a pattern or policy that was occurring under Guerra's leadership, condoned by RIOC, for the past 5 years, and that once Guerra, his lieutenants and a few officers PSC had identified as irredeemable, quit or were removed, then PSD could be reformed along the lines of its pre-Guerra version.

CheshireKitty said...

Not: I have now read the entire letter. It is a piece that is intended to shake up RIOC, the PSD Director, and the RIOC Board. It is not the kind of letter, filled with qualifying phrases, that might be written by an attorney representing a client with dubious claims. It's a letter written from the standpoint of someone that's been deeply traumatized - the victim, Adib - in order to express the trauma, and the community's frustration with the way Adib was treated.

The ramifications: How the field could have been better prepared by RIOC grounds employees so as to avoid delays, the implications of PSD wishing to have private cells, the discussion about whether there are good officers and bad officers in PSD, are secondary to the central question of why Adib was treated the way he was, left to pass out etc., with his kid left stranded by himself on the sidewalk, prevented from seeing his dad. The letter certainly expresses the shock and dismay the victim, parents and kids experienced that day - and the sense of a distraught community trying to cast around for an explanation for something that defied explanation. The community was horrified and traumatized by the cruelty shown by Officer Torro, and the letter reflected this.

The other key issue raised in the letter were the questions that needed to be addressed to RIOC representatives at an upcoming RIRA Town Hall meeting at that time: Questions regarding (1) PSD (2) Field permitting/policy/use (3) Why RIOC is unable to coordinate permitting/groundkeeping/

The Mansour incident was the first obvious sign that RIOC had erred in hiring Guerra to direct PSD in 2008. Additional incidents were to occur after the Mansour incident, culminating in the Jones incident, with a number of incidents occurring even after the Jones incident.

RIOC could have acted to curtail the excesses of Guerra's policies long before the Jones incident; certainly, it could have acted after the Mansour incident revealed severe problems with over-enforcement/abuse. But RIOC did nothing.

The underlying, ultimate responsibility for the many incidents of over-enforcement, harassment, and abuse that were visited on RI residents by PSD under Guerra, remains RIOC, i.e. RIOC Board members: They were the ones who could have done something, who knew what was going on at least since the Mansour incident, but instead let their neighbors suffer for 5 long years, by doing nothing.

scrozball said...

Hey Farance---when it comes to telling lies perhaps you should look in the mirror. Try making your responses a little longer. I really enjoy reading your responses. They are full of so much bulls--t.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Of course it is my personal evaluation of his behavior. This is what this discussion is about and that is why I think Frank would be worst person for the job.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Listen, Frank. I've tried it before and I do not know why I never learn my lesson. This is not an argument here. This is my interpretation of your behavior and my opinion about your persona. There is no "right" or "wrong". I can't believe that you would even argue this into the ground (well, actually, I am not really surprised).

YetAnotherRIer said...

That's why you and Frank are a match made in heaven. Glad you guys like each other. He needs it.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"Lie #3: Guerra said Stueber was faking his injuries, the video shows Stueber in pain/discomfort."

Or.... he faked pain and discomfort.

CheshireKitty said...

In that case, I guess I can say the same thing about you and Not, Yet. See how absurd that sounds? Lumping people together - to discount their views collectively - is simply a facile way to dodge addressing the actual issues.

CheshireKitty said...

I'm not sure you understood my point, or the point I was asking you to consider: Why should personality trump message?

There was once a highly "charismatic" politician who always brought down the house with his viciously nationalistic orations; no need to say who I am referring to. I guess his popular "personality" sold his message. Personality or charisma shouldn't be considered the sine qua non of politics, Yet. Quite the contrary: The average voter should be especially cautious in evaluating slick "personable" politicians - since they are often known to be liars.

To me, authenticity should be foremost. A slick personality can sell anything (as I alluded to above) including lies.

An authentic person, however, doesn't retail lies. Truth, including the uncomfortable truth, though, is received from an authentic person without artifice. If an authentic person rubs you the wrong way because they're direct, then it is your problem that you can't handle the unvarnished truth.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer: you have an irrational dislike, regardless of the facts. We dug up all the citations and your claims and characterizations were false. You said "I am talking about the e-mail you sent to Lapin et al. That was probably
done before you actually sat down and thought a bit about what
happened. I did not dislike your follow-up in the RIRA column of the
WIRE." So you didn't dislike the column, but you disliked the letter, which (as you can see) had the same points. The action I asked for in the letter I asked for a Full Public Accounting - now what was wrong with that?

You say this is "not an argument here", but that isn't true. If you're going to misstate, mis-characterize, or misrepresent me, well then we have an argument. Sure, you have a right to an opinion, as anyone has the right to challenge it. But you know that already, you're just framing this as Just Opinion and thus (according to you) it cannot be refuted. Not true, and it's not just me, it's anyone who was mis-characterized would refute your position.

OldRossie said...

I'm late to the discussion here, but I too see the drug deals happening in that area, see those people brazenly hanging around gristedes/580/motorgate, and think something needs to be done. I will say however that I think things are slowly improving, and if PSD can focus more on this area at night it would be beneficial. There's no harm in passing along your concern to the board via email.
Note that when I was coming home the other night there was police activity in that area - maybe they are making the effort.

YetAnotherRIer said...

I walked by 580 last night and I agree that these "kids" don't hang out in front of 580 just for the sake of hanging out. One single PSD officer was watching them rather timidly from across the street.