Monday, September 30, 2013

Roosevelt Island Public Safety Director Jack McManus Reports To The Community - Emphasizes Communication With Residents And Training For Officers

 Image of PSD Director Jack McManus At September 24 RIRA PSC Meeting

Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Interim Public Safety Department (PSD) Director Jack McManus sends the following report to the community.
A little over three months ago, I accepted the position of Interim Director of Public Safety for Roosevelt Island. That being said, I wanted to take this opportunity to update the Roosevelt Island Community on where I feel we are at, and where I feel we should be heading. In my opinion, there are many elements to be considered when effecting change in an organization. In Public Service, it is important that a manager maintain open lines of communication with those that are affected or influenced by change. I have made myself available to the Roosevelt Island community, and have attempted to be open, honest, and direct, whether in private discussion, at an open meeting, or a chance encounter on the street, realizing that I must also take steps to make effective changes based upon my managerial experience and the community’s input.

Recently, an issue arose which caused some confusion. On a daily basis, the Public Safety Department issues a short recap of the incidents reported to Public Safety over the prior 24 hours. Those incidents were listed with a time stamp, which should have indicated the time that the incident occurred but instead, indicated the time the report was prepared. I apologize for any confusion created by this administrative issue, and would like to state that it was corrected the same day.

As we move forward, I have a lot of work in front of me. A few of the larger undertakings include a comprehensive training initiative for all Public Safety Department Personnel which will include, Public Safety-Community Interaction, Continuum of force, De-escalation Techniques, Alternatives to Force, to name a few. Additionally, we are presently examining the use of body cameras to ensure that officers and the public will be well protected. We are working with the new RIOC Information Technology Director and her staff on issues like creating a new Records Management System, Computerization of Incident Reports and, designing a Public Safety Department Command Center for the monitoring of Closed Circuit TV equipment, especially when considering the additional safety cameras being installed on the island, which includes a large installation at Motorgate. Additionally, I am working with my staff on a youth forum, where I will meet with the younger people of Roosevelt Island, get to know each other a bit, and hopefully begin a constructive dialogue between us. I am particularly excited about this initiative.

This list of projects is not all- inclusive, but is meant to give a short overview of some of the projects that we are currently working on. The support of the Roosevelt Island community is critical to any eventual success we might enjoy on these projects. I will continue to do my part in keeping the lines of communication open with the Roosevelt Island community by listening when you speak and addressing your concerns. Additionally, I pledge my full support and the full support of the men and women of the Public Safety Department, whose daily efforts I wholeheartedly appreciate, in keeping the residents, visitors and workers of the Roosevelt Island community safe. Thank you for your continued support.

Jack McManus

Director of Public Safety

Roosevelt Island
Mr. McManus spoke to the Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) Public Safety Committee Septmember 23 meeting. Here's some of what he said.



Mr. McManus also answered questions from the PSC Committee. Here's the full presentation from PSC meeting.

During the September 12 Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Board of Directors Meeting Public Session, Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) Public Safety Chair Erin Feely-Nahem spoke



about the improvements to PSD under Mr. McManus as well as her belief that additional change is still needed.

92 comments :

rilander said...

Mr. McManus, please let us know how to reach you directly. Is there a direct dial phone number or email address we can use?

RooseveltIslander said...

How do you know that RIOC Real Estate Committee directed PSD Director McManus to send the letter to HR asking to have deli close at 10 PM? Do you know that for a fact or are you just speculating?


Also, if you watch the Q and A video of PSC meeting with Mr. McManus, you will see he addresses issue of Motorgate Incident and CCRB

NotMyKid said...

There are three times on any police report. Occurance start, occurance end, and the reported time. My best guess is they did not accurately note the occurance time on the incident log along with a combination of officers writing down the report time when they actually put pen to paper on the report. Which is not too uncommon, but I don't typically like to wait to fill out my reports. Yes its tedious to keep going back to the station house to keep filling out reports, one after another, after each incident. So I can relate as to why this happens.

So its not a conspiracy. They just need to show the occurance time and not report times.

CheshireKitty said...

I never said it was a conspiracy. All I said was the 1-line reports filed were always inaccurate regarding time of occurrence until McManus admitted they were inaccurate the other day. Of course, if McManus admits these reports were all inaccurate. what else may be inaccurate?

Why wasn't this pattern of erroneous information picked up by the audit? That's why I'm calling for surprise/random audits - so that PSD cannot prepare in advance for an audit team! This way, the paper trail can be matched by the team to the info being given out to the public etc. on the 1-line reports & stats and facts verified.

Frank Farance said...

Happy to see Mr. McManus promptly correct the problem with the wrong times on incident reports.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, you're always that cop wanna-be. You can be in litigation without being a party (e.g., name on docket). With the deli videos, there is a clear pattern of PSD abuse, and combined with the criminal complaints, there is a clear pattern of PSD officers fabricating testimony. I've put that analysis on this blog, including matching up the video (what actually) with the testimony (fabrications).


Attorneys are free to steal my analysis. :-)



Now the reason why M&D might still be involved in litigation is because many PSD abuse cases could refer to this evidence to support their clients claims. Thus, M&D staff might still be witnesses in other cases (they might have their own claims against RIOC, too). And, thus, M&D's concern about still feeling pressure from RIOC makes sense to me.


As for M&D calling PSD, I think you'll see in a separate video how PSD officers don't take action.

Frank Farance said...

Video Of PSD Officers Watching, But Taking No Action, Waiting For "Residents To Complain"

The noise is outside the M&D Deli, a PSD officer is just standing by, while about 20 people are making noise outside the deli, including a half-dozen in front of a car. Here's the video:

http://youtu.be/w6nBIoIgvgU

According to the M&D staff, PSD would NOT respond or react to this directly (regardless of complaints from M&D staff, and regardless of the officer's own observations) because they needed to Wait Until A Resident Complained Before Clearing Out The Noise. This video was taken in early August, and M&D staff says this (PSD officers' unresponsiveness to noise) occurs regularly. Other people have confirmed these points from M&D staff.

I'd say: this supports the idea that, since McManus, there have been an abundance of Noise Complaints against M&D Deli, which seem to be about a RIOC interest (real estate, litigation, etc.). Basically, this is the same playbook from Guerra and his helping evict Section 8 tenants: a real estate interest for UA, which helps replace Section 8 tenants with market-rate tenants; thus the complaints are largely at Eastwood Section 8 housing, not 2-4 RR Section 8 housing.

With PSD's inaction and allowing the noise to reach the level of generating resident complaints, it seems that PSD's priority is not community policing, but the generation of residents' complaints.

It seems that H-R should be advocating for their tenants (the merchants), not RIOC: H-R should be complaining that their merchants aren't getting the law enforcement support they need, as any Retail Master Leaseholder would do in other parts of the City.

Not to stereotype, but for all you people who talk about all the drug deals going down whenever they see young people standing by a car, well here's a video that shows PSD watching and doing nothing.

The three-prong strategy of RI Law Enforcement Committee (not to be confused with RIRA Public Safety Committee), is: (1) noise/etc. problems need to be corrected promptly, (2) people who are not doing anything illegal should not be arrested, (3) we need supporting services/social-policy to support youth (up to, say, age 26). So point #1 was not addressed in this scene: Noise/Etc. Problems Need To Be Cleared Promptly.

NotMyKid said...

Hmm.. Wanna be cop. Right.

Very poor attempt at a jab.

NotMyKid said...

How can you fix a inked paper for the audit team?

Crossing out the times would be pretty obvious. It wouldn't need an audit team to figure that out.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Conjecture. As always.

CheshireKitty said...

So what kind of an audit was it that didn't even pick up this glaring inaccuracy in the reports? The whole point of audits is to verify even if only by spot-checking the accuracy of reporting. A paper trail needs to be kept and be made available to the auditors. I don't understand how the auditors missed noticing that the information on the hand-written (or otherwise inputted) original incident reports or records of complaints didn't match the information on the 1-line reports that were released to the public. And actual time of incident occurrence is very crucial information.


However, having said that, the entire system of only releasing what seem to be "scrubbed" or simplified (and stripped of practically all meaning) 1-line reports, must be changed.


Imagine if the press had only 1-line bland reports upon which to base stories of various occurrences such as crimes, or instances of police brutality.


The 1-line reports we receive always provide a convenient "cover" for RIOC-PSD to avoid releasing inconvenient information.


Not only were all the past 1-line reports inaccurate, they were inadequate and thus easy to manipulate.


The less that is said the more they can be used to protect RIOC PSD and advance its goals.

NotMyKid said...

What one line reports? I can guarantee one line reports would not be signed off by any psd supervisor.

So.. what one line reports?

CheshireKitty said...

So it's OK for the public to be given inaccurate information as long as the information the PSD collects is accurate? You are saying that with a straight face? Or am I supposed to be ROTFL?

CheshireKitty said...

We can't say for sure drug dealing was occurring on the street in front of the PSO, but if it were happening, the PSO wasn't going to do anything to stop it, since he didn't lift a finger to stop the noise, even.


That's an amazing and eye-opening video of PSD inaction - proves that PSD is deliberately not doing anything about crowds/noise, but instead just waiting for noise complaints, which they can then use to get rid of the deli. Thanks for posting it!


Question for Mr. McManus: Any comments on the video, sir?

NotMyKid said...

I think someone should inquire if the officer was a trained peace officer with trained equipment and had summons/arrest powers.

If he wasn't, shame on him for not calling back up.

I have said it a hundred times... untrained and non sworn officers should not be in the streets or patrol alone. They should be paired up with an actual sworn officer.

NotMyKid said...

Kitty, you are right.. it was a giant mistake that should not have happened.

Now, we shall move on because mr mcmanus is now fully aware and I am sure new directives woukd be put in place.

NotMyKid said...

Right Frank, I understand your approach. The PROBLEM is, and its a big problem.. What might look or seem like the young adults are not doing anything wrong from a distance, and if one or a couple say no to the officer, and the officer requests assistance and goes to place the young adult under arrest or issue a summons, the street lawyers come out of the wood works.

Sometimes the street lawyers get fierce and more angry than the subject getting detained for a possible summons or arrest.

Things get ugly in a split second on the street. You can't have PSD give out warnings all day every day.

There has to be a point where ACTION MUST BE TAKEN.

You also don't know how many prior warnings the young adults received in a couple days or weeks span.

At what point is IDEAL FOR YOU that PSD takes action.

Let me say this. If a young adult over 16years old, acts like a fool and yells, curses, acs biligerant one day when psd asks the subject to move, then a few days later, he just says "fuck you" and after some back and forth, he finally moves, is it ok to eliminate the back and forth(basically pleading with him or her to move), and simply make the god damn arrest so this doesn't happen in the future?

It's great that your theory works or looks good on paper but it SUCK BIG TIME in the street.

Heaven forbid not that PSO goes to affect the arrest, now the subject runs, he resists, no injury except his dignity, NOW YOU AND Ms.Feely spins this off as PSD abuse!

WTF frank! AT WHAT POINT CAN PSD DO THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES WITHOUT SEVERE SCRUTINY.

I realized this many years ago when I was a PSO, working on the island is a DAMN IF YOU DO, DAMN IF YOU DON'T environment.

I'm serious frank, its not pretty dealing with young adults. The respect mentality is not there.

If you let them slide over and over and over and over with warnings, it only makes it hard to actually do enforcement.

This is why in the police academy we are taught a golden rule; ASK THE SUBJECT ONCE, IF HE REFUSES YOU DON'T ASK AGAIN, YOU MAKE THEM DO IT.

See, in policing, we a taught the OODA loop. I highly suggest you research that and understand WHY it is very important for police to take action immediately rather than sit there and go back and forth with a person.

It's dangerous.

Bill Blass said...

Cant we just get along

CheshireKitty said...

No argument there. It just underlines my contention that these reports that are issued to the public are always slanted in PSD's favor, just like the Deli incident report, which doesn't reflect what actually occurred as seen on the tap. And now we see that not only were the times listed on the 1-line reports wrong, but that because they are only 1-line, minimal, reports, who knows how reflective they are of what really occurred.

NotMyKid said...

My point is... stay out of it and let police work get handled the way it should get handled without the drama ans monday morning quarterbacking.

Oh this is abuse.. oh that is abuse.. oh psd is doing too much enforcement..oh wait.. nnow psd is doing too much enforcement.

Which one is it?

Perps and anyone summonsed will 99% say they are innocent and run to someone for recourse.

I honestly believe the community is its own worst enemy.

You can't possibly know what psd deals with or any cop deals with, without actually doung their job.

Its amazing how nobody tells a lawyer how he should practice or how a bus driver should drive a bus, but for police work, everyone is an expert in the field. Amazing.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, you don't have the Thinking Chops to balance priorities, you only see things in extremes: either get unconstrained law enforcement (and all the abuse/brutality that comes with it), or don't get law enforcement.

NotMyKid, the rest of the comment you can ignore because you don't have the brainpower or experience to understand it.

An actual NYPD supervisor would not express himself/herself the way NotMyKid does, they'd explain it as: (1) law enforcement needs to assert itself at times (e.g., something illegal going on), (2) law enforcement might ask you to stop/move/change-behavior, (3) there is a Continuum of Force to gain compliance, and (4) crappy attitudes towards law enforcement officers typically have worse outcomes than polite/courteous interactions. In fact, I believe Guerra presented that summary to a Town Hall meeting I convened in 2009 on Public Safety.

Unfortunately, PSD got out of control. So in the Deli Videos, the first person who was arrested, did in fact comply with law enforcement orders to disperse, but he was the easiest to hunt down, so they arrested him.

According to Mr. McManus, prior to him, PSD promotions were based upon arrests and summonses, the more the better. So it's easy to see how that turns into abuse: Hey, crack a few more skulls, arrest people (with fabricated testimony), and I might get a promotion.

Lastly, NotMyKid is absolutely wrong when he says "Its amazing how nobody tells a lawyer how he should practice or how a bus driver should drive a bus, but for police work, everyone is an expert in the field. Amazing."


In fact, that is how our country is based: law enforcement is directed by the citizens, we're not a military state. There are CCRBs that tell officers precisely what is right/wrong. And legislators write laws telling police what they can/can't do. And clients tell attorneys what to do. And riders file complaints on bus drivers telling them how they should be courteous.


NotMyKids, sounds like to don't actually live in NYC, sounds like you hadn't heard of 311 or other ways our voices are heard.

NotMyKid said...

You are a fake know it all. You have no clue how things are done in the world of reality. I don't tell you how to program or fix computers, who are you to say how things are dictated in police work.

Your way out of being told the truth is an attack. This is why you lack respect from many in the community.

Instead of saying, ok, you have a point, not every encounter will be the same. You just go on attacks in an attempt to discredit me.

Sir, I have hit the streets with my boots while you were safe and sound behind a computer. I rushed into situations where the bad guys have weapons, while you were safe behind your computer. I have performed CPR and saved three people while on the job, all too, while you wre safe and secure behind your computer. I rush to danger while you dictate how things should be done in a perfect world, all while you are safe behind your computer.

Who do you think you are to try to discredit ME?. I'm no superhero but I know I am a much better person than you will ever be, while you are safe behind your computer.

You are a coward.

Bill Blass said...

I agree
Frank thinks he knows it all telling me what i did and didnt do. Now i know why mañy people on this island dislike him

YetAnotherRIer said...

"Your way out of being told the truth is an attack. This is why you lack respect from many in the community."


Hear, hear.

OldRossie said...

It's worth reiterating that Frank believes the deli situation is driven by RIOCs financial interests, PSD having it out for the deli in response to the owners legal action. Someone with that perspective is not worth debating on these topics.

CheshireKitty said...

The owner didn't have a legal action - the workers did. I see the RIOC-PSD approach to the deli noise as an underhanded way of getting back at the deli workers by pressuring the deli owner.


Ever hear of connecting the dots? These dots are pretty obvious in the case of the deli, and the way RIOC-PSD is handling groups that generate noise complaints in front of it.


Let me point out (once again): The deli owner is a conservative, law-abiding small businessman. The workers were literally cringing in fear, doing nothing when they were arrested and beaten on camera. Both the owner and the workers have a right to conduct their lawful business without unjust interference by entities such as the law-enforcement or real-estate branches of RIOC (PSD, RIOC Real Estate Ctte working in tandem with Main St Master Leaseholder Hudson-Related).


To repeat again: It's up to PSD or the NYPD to lawfully disperse crowds that the may convene in front of the deli or any other business. The business owner is not supposed nor allowed to do so.


To repeat: Whether or not the deli closes, that location will continue to attract the groups/noise. The only difference will be, if the deli closes, RIOC will have exacted revenge in forcing the deli to close and thereby rendering the deli workers jobless.

CheshireKitty said...

If you don't agree with it, say why. Not characterizes Frank as a cowardly know-it-all because Frank speaks out on l/e issues yet Frank isn't a cop.


Not would say anybody who criticizes or questions over-enforcement or any other l/e issue, if they're not a cop, is a cowardly know-it-all, up to and including Candidate DeBlasio, Judge Scheindlin, and the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers who are sick of the Bloomberg-Kelly-directed practice of mass "stop-and-frisk".


Also, Not would say that all the other politicians and citizens throughout the country who point it out when law enforcement goes too far and veers into police brutality - as far as Not is concerned, they must all be cowardly know-it-alls if they're not cops.


I simply point out to Not that our system doesn't let people like Not decide who gets to criticize the Mayor or the police commissioner. The Constitution protects our rights and we are all protected by the rights listed in that document. Thus, I and any other citizen is entitled to point out errors and problems with law enforcement in NYC (as with "stop-and-frisk") or any other community in the US, from Honolulu. Hawaii to Kalamazoo, Michigan; and guess what - Not and people like him who do not scrupulously respect and uphold Constitutional rights can't say boo.

CheshireKitty said...

There are millions in your situation. People like Yet and Rossie do not understand what it is like to be a member of the working poor - through no fault of your own, but because wages haven't kept up with prices!

CheshireKitty said...

That's so far off-base as to not even be worth a response. As I recall, a number of victims of police abuse turned to Frank, for his expertise in getting their stories out, and helpful assistance. Following Frank's lead, the community united to force the departure of PSD Director Guerra - all that only happened once Frank broke the story of the Jones beating on the blog. The community, as represented in RIRA, voted unanimously to back the anti-PSD brutality effort. I hardly think a man who is seen to "lack respect" would be in a position to trigger what amounted to a mass/community movement opposed to PSD police brutality.

NotMyKid said...

Where is the proof. There are not many lawsuits on the calendar. So show proof of this so calles litigation! .

It is what it is, if it is what it is. Simple as that.

NotMyKid said...

The deli workers jobless? MD owner owns a bunch of stores through out the city.

So lets stop about the jobless speal. Its all family members also.

Nothing wrong with that but nobody is going jobless over two or three hours.

Why does a deli need to be open until 2am anyway? Yes. I understand that its their option and free choice to stay open.

I don't know about you but I notice that main street is pretty much a ghost tosn after 12am.

So.. what's the purpose and customer base?.

Reality speaking.

Again.. yes.. we can argue someone needs milk late or some snacks but that's a poor point to bring up as its not many people at all.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Conjecture again. You love this, don't you? Hint: I grew up in a blue collar family who are times had trouble putting food on the table.

YetAnotherRIer said...

That's quite a lot of words for "not even be worth a response."

Anyway, yes, he is good at listening to the thugs and their families indeed.

CheshireKitty said...

Well Q.E.D. You have now revealed your true, underlying opinion of more than half of the RI community. Because they're harassed and abused, by the landlord and by law enforcement, well, they *must* be lawless, they *must* be "thugs".


Now let's see, does that disdain extend to the rest of the City?


Because you know, most of City is similar to the majority of the population of RI (although the R/E developers would have you think otherwise).


In that case, you might want to consider investing in R/E in Idaho - where there are plenty of thoroughly "law-abiding" communities for people who think like you.

CheshireKitty said...

Oh, great: Now you are reassigning M&D deli employees to jobs that you assume are readily available throughout the city, especially at other food establishments you say are owned by M&D.


So now according to you, because you have special insight on the matter, the deli workers won't be jobless even if the deli closes, either because new jobs will be instantly available to them everywhere or because all the establishments that you claim M&D own, will rush to their rescue and practically force new jobs on them - despite the fact that the City is suffering through the roughly fifth year of high unemployment. Your insight is complete baloney, Not.

You can't say they will be re-employed any time soon if they are thrown out of work, whether or not they are family members of the owner. I don't need to point out to the reader or to you, that whether or not they are family members they still need a paycheck or some way to earn a living. They have to pay rent, don't they? They will need jobs, and these days, jobs are scarce, at best.

Why do stores that offer extended hours prefer to do so, such as 24/7 convenience or drug stores? It's worth it for them to stay open day and night every day. Who's to say why some businesses prefer to remain open - to serve customers who work various shifts, which is not uncommon in our 24/7 society, perhaps?


Shift work is prevalent at hospitals, and hospitals are the biggest employers on RI. In addition at least 2 residential towers on RI are filled with doctors, nurses, and other professional medical center personnel from off-island hospitals (MSKCC, Cornell, etc.) There may also be residents returning from after-hours clubs/theater/opera that may appreciate having the option of spontaneously picking up a snack when they return from the City. Thus, it makes sense from a business standpoint as well as providing a needed service for the deli to serve the public and capture late-night business that no other merchant on RI can, by remaining open until 2AM.

The key issue isn't so much whether the deli stays or leaves, it's the fact that it is being unjustly accused of things it never did - similar to the injustice suffered by the deli workers who were beaten and arrested for no reason. I hope you can get that through the vacuous space that is supposed to contain your brain: RIOC has stirred up a hornet's nest only because of its unjustly blaming the deli for things it never did nor has any control over.

Islandhouser said...

I don't always agree with what Kitty has to say, but this post is extremely insightful. I would like to state, however, that I don't believe McManus is acting any different from any of his predecessors. That's not to say they are all bad. Just that none of them ever knew how to effectively deal with R.I. folks. We are a tough group to keep happy.

I also know that there is no lawsuit from the Deli workers, because none of them were ever beaten. The spliced video, which almost everyone has seen by now shows one of the neighborhood punks being beaten. People think the cooperative deli worker was hit in his knee with a police baton, but if you look closely, you will see that the stick is being used on the same guy PSD is tussling with on the floor. I confirmed with Mo that no deli worker was ever hit with a baton, and nobody from M&D has a lawsuit.

I agree that McManus is not being forthcoming. According to Frank, he said officers before his arrival were promoted based on arrest activity, and that can't be true because Azular and Lindsey were promoted and I don't think they've made many arrests during their time working here.

Just be honest with us McManus. Tell us what you know about the summer shooting. Tell us what you know about the lady being dragged into PSD. Tell us what's going on with the Deli. It can't be about a lawsuit, because apparenly there is no such suit.

NotMyKid said...

Too much yapping. Take it easy. Nobody said reassigning jobs the point is, foot traffic is basically nil at midnight, what possible benefit is there to keep the lights on and pay the employees until 1-2am?

It just does not make business sense.

I can't possibly see how two or three extra hours makes that much of a profit margin difference from Roosevelt island law abiding citizens, majority of who are home sound asleep.

If they are strapped for cash, might as well make it a 24hr deli!

THAT WOULD MAKE business sense.

NotMyKid said...

I think you are asking the wrong person to speak about the issues. Such as the mayor might hold the police commissioner back on comments, such may apply on r.i..

I don't blame McManus as he jumped into this mess with no guidance. He has a hundred things on his plate and I'm sure of it.

The lady was not dragged into psd. Lets not exaggerate that. She was arrested and brought into psd, not dragged.

YetAnotherRIer said...

I understand that your simplistic mind will not be able to comprehend the nuances here. That's okay, though. Carry on. I am happy that McManus does not easily fall for people like you and Frank.

OldRossie said...

Kitty has an amazing way of cluttering a conversation with meaningless nonsense.. Don't you think?

NotMyKid said...

A jury will be watching a two minute tape that does not show their actions prior to being seen in the two minute video.

Why are you refusing to answer a simple yes or no, much like they ask in court during a trial.

trudy said...

Frank, I usually agree with you. I think you are a very intelligent guy, but you are not seeing what I, and a lot of other people have seen from this video. I'm glad you highlighted the guy you were referring to with a red arrow. Unfortunately, or fortunately for him, that guy was never hit with an officer's stick. If you watch closely, as the stick is being swung, he never flinches. He never folds over in pain from a strike to his knee. That's because he was never hit. The officer who was arresting him, moved him over to the side, out of the way. Mohammed even told me that guy was never struck. It was the guy who was laying on the ground. Please watch your set of videos again, and you should see what s lot of people saw, and most importantly, what Mohammed said. I've spoken to residents who say you were convincing in your position, but this time - you are wrong. Now, I know you will dispute this post with a long response. Just know that if you really look well, you will really see what you may not have seen before. Watch the guy's reactions (or lack there of).

Frank Farance said...

trudy; The PSD officer's testimony is that they struck the deli worker with a PR 24 (a baton), which is clearly shown in the video. In other words, it's the PSD officer that is saying they struck the deli worker, which is obvious in the video. Is it your position that the PSD officer was lying when they said they struck the deli worker?



I've watched the video frame by frame. He can't "fold over in pain" because he is being held up by two officers (02:15:05) while a third officer strikes him with a baton. His back is extended and his neck arches back and appears to be in pain.


It's all there in the video.

NotMyKid said...

Where is that testimony? It says struck? Does it?

Show it. Your very crafty with posting pictures snd evidence, prove it. Show it.

Frank Farance said...

And the attorney would draw the conclusion: lots of problems
with PSD officers' abusive actions and fabricated testimony.

Frank Farance said...

Read the post above. Not crafty at all, you can't accept that PSD was abusive. Another PSD fabrication: the second deli worker was blocking the door, when in fact Sgt. Hernandez was almost outside of the deli, and turned around to arrest the second deli worker for asking a question - also abusive.

NotMyKid said...

So... where are your supporting documents/proof?.

Show it.

NotMyKid said...

So what your saying is that there was only a minutes worth of arrest contact.

So your saying in 60 seconds.. psd spots a crime, chases perp, and subdues him?

Do you know how rediculous that sounds?

There HAD TO BEsome sort of contact that warranted an arrest prior to him getting subdued. Just because it might take a minute to put some one in handcuffs does not prove that the officers did not see a crime take place at a different time.. maybe 5 minutes prior or were talking to the arrested subject and then he ran?

It is possible officers interacred with perp in front of store.. deli workers came from behind deli counter.. went to door.. perp ran in and deli people attempted to stop psd from entering?

Is it possible? Yes. You don't know the history psd had with anyone arrested.

You are an amatuer. Terrible at the realities that may occur. Everything is perfect and a-ok by the book in your world.

NotMyKid said...

Where is this testimony? Show it!

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, let's pick apart another one of your dumb ideas: "It is possible officers interacred with perp in front of store.. deli
workers came from behind deli counter.. went to door.. perp ran in and
deli people attempted to stop psd from entering?". So let's pretend the deli people attempted to stop PSD from entering. Then why would first deli worker be protecting PSD officers? And why would Sgt. Hernandez walk past the second deli worker on the way out? If the deli workers had done something wrong, then Sgt. Hernandez would not have passed by the worker on the way out, he would have stopped AT the worker and arrested him. But that's not what happened: Sgt. Hernandez passed by on the way out, the deli worker asked a reasonable question (Why Are You Arresting My Worker?), but Sgt. Hernandez was abusive in response.

NotMyKid said...

He passed them to assist and supervise the arrest.

What does it matter? He knew deli workers were there. So you want him to engage two guys? One against two.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, you really have difficulty reading and seeing: "And why would Sgt. Hernandez walk past the second deli worker on the way out?".At that point (02:16:47), you have two PSD officers (Hernandez almost out the door, another PSD officer behind him) and just the second deli worker. Yeah, two PSD officers against one deli guy where, presumably, the PSD officers were not aware they were caught on video so they think they can get away with all that abuse stuff.

"If the deli workers had done something wrong, then Sgt. Hernandez would not have passed by the worker on the way out, he would have stopped AT the worker and arrested him. But that's not what happened: Sgt. Hernandez passed by on the way out, the deli worker asked a reasonable question (Why Are You Arresting My Worker?), but Sgt. Hernandez was abusive in response."


But I get it: I'm NOT crafty, but relative to you (who is way short in the smarts department), it makes me look crafty. Right? Why should I have to repeat the same words because you're unable to read? But I like your responses because you dumb ideas, sync up with the dumb actions by PSD in these videos. Right? :-)

NotMyKid said...

Ok.. enough with the childish attacks.

You sound rediculous when something plausible is shown.

Stop dodging me already. Where are you getting the so called testimony and why are you not posting it?.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, well it gets tiring having to point out the same thing over and over again, like you can't read a sentence when it's not convenient for you to not understand a sentence.


I've already posted my presentations, read the blog.

NotMyKid said...

Where are you getting this so called information from.

PreSent that. You have yet to do that. You show mystery quotes. Never showing a source.

CheshireKitty said...

Scroll up to the top of the blog. Then slowly scroll down the middle column. There you will find a Google-powered search box - you can search for terms within the blog. Put in whatever terms you like - deli, deli video, brutality etc. and plenty of hits will be returned. You can also go back and search the blog archive by clicking on months, then clicking on articles.

NotMyKid said...

I want to see these official documents and testimonies. Not stuff a person wrote aboyt another person who heard it from someon e who thought they were there.

CheshireKitty said...

The PSD report isn't official enough?

Frank Farance said...

Believe it or not, PSD provides official testimony via hearsay in criminal complaints: a PSD officer who didn't witness the event, provides testimony as "I [officer X] am informed by officer Y that such and such happened", even though officer X didn't observe the crime/event. Sounds like you're unfamiliar with how PSD does it business (which I agree with your concern): hearing it secondhand is problematic because we should be hearing about it firsthand from a PSD officer, but sadly for the defendant, their arraignment, and their plea, there is only secondhand testimony for the criminal complaint.

CheshireKitty said...

Nuances? Characterizing victims of police abuse as "thugs" is nuanced?

YetAnotherRIer said...

Yet again, you are proving my point. Thanks, Kitty!

YetAnotherRIer said...

Yup, I especially love her simplistic mind how everything can be explained using race and social standing.

CheshireKitty said...

Look, Rossie and Yet: Before you question me, you should look into research that shows that there isn't much social mobility in the US, that the greatest social mobility is in the high-tax, high-social safety net Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden and Finland. And there are plenty of immigrants from around the world that live in those countries.


Here in the US, if you are born poor, the tendency is you will stay poor. That's what causes the hopelessness, the hanging out , and so forth. You can laugh at that fact, or at me, all you want. Nevertheless, it's income inequality that causes most or possibly all of our social ills.


But we, the underclass, the masses you despise, will have the last laugh, when the rich tax is slapped on the upper class, next year... Hahaha..!

CheshireKitty said...

So when I point out that these guys that hang out and challenge authority do so since there is nothing else for them to do, for a number of reasons, as I've outlined above, it's nonsense? Hopelessness and poverty is nonsense? Your attitude explains very neatly why establishment candidates were rejected by the electorate for Council seats in droves, and new ones, who demand change were elected instead. The Council will work with Deblasio - who likely will be elected Mayor in November - to ensure that the benefits of society are distributed more equitably, that the budget is indeed balanced: On the backs of the rich, as it should be.


Once income inequality is corrected, the benefits of the social safety net, including pre-K for all, for just one example, will help improve the lot of the underclass, leading to them hanging out less and contributing more in terms of constructive actions of all types. I'm sure you will agree that getting youth off the street is a good thing. Why do you balk at shelling out more in taxes if that would eventually make it possible for these young men to break free of the cycle of hopelessness?

CheshireKitty said...

There's nothing in the report that says there was action in other store aisles. All the action described occurred in the refrigerated aisle. Does that answer your question? Subject and police walked in without interference, subject arrest occurred in the refrigerated aisle, along with the unjust arrest of the workers.


You're trying to conjure up an action - obstruction - that never occurred. You can see it never occurred from the tape, where the workers are respectfully standing back, or even, cringing in fear. That's the opposite of obstruction. They're trying to stay out of the way, as any law-abiding person would. They were arrested anyway, seemingly for the heck of it.


My explanation for the irrational and unjust behavior of the police is that they were trying to "silence" witnesses - the deli workers. And that was paranoid too - as if the deli workers would have been likely to protest the subject arrest.


The PSOs were out of control in going around arresting the deli workers, who had done nothing wrong and were in no way obstructing the action. The bad luck the PSOs had was that their illegal action was caught on tape.


But PSD can't admit the arrest of the deli workers was false, so they fabricate "reasons" on their report that are not borne out on the tape: Thus, they lie in their report.


The report will be compared to the tape by a panel of ordinary people like you and me. It is highly unlikely that the discrepancies won't be noted.


This is what RIOC-PSD is trying to avoid, to the extent that it's now trying to unjustly blame the disorderly actions of others - noise - on the deli itself. The deli is a thorn in the side of RIOC because the deli was the scene of the deli tape.


Remember: RIOC has never disavowed the PSD arresting the deli workers, just as it never disavowed the Anthony Jones beating. There has never been a direct reference to either case.


Instead, in both cases, RIOC officials tried to intimidate the victims (in the Jones case by Guerra intimidating Mr. Jones' mother, in the deli workers case by McManus intimidating the workers' employer the deli owner).


RIOC uses the hired hand McManus to start dragging up any sort of shred of probably fabricated negative information about the deli, such as the noise complaints which uncannily spike many months after the extended hours begin, just as RIOC circulated the crudely put together flyer about Jones after the protests started.


In both cases, RIOC does its utmost to smear victims. Thus, RIOC is an unethical organization that should be thoroughly investigated by JCOPE.

NotMyKid said...

Where's the report?

YetAnotherRIer said...

Yes, but you have the tendency to make interferences between any random topic and race/social standing. It is frustrating because you come across as somebody who sees the world from one and only one angle. You and Frank would make a good couple.

OldRossie said...

"But we, the underclass, the masses..." Bull. You've already described yourself as having money and material. Out of your rear again.

CheshireKitty said...

Many people in the 99%, including Bill DeBlasio, have "money and material". They're still in the underclass, Rossie.

CheshireKitty said...

It's one way of looking at the world. How about you? You never see hypocrisy, or inconsistency?


I don't think I insert considerations of race/social standing into every discussion.


I prefer to look at things from an economic-political perspective: The downtrodden, of whatever race or even "social standing" - as we know there are many skilled or highly educated people who are either unemployed or underemployed, for example, vs. the 1%, the rich/powerful, some of whom in turn, like the buffoon Mr. Catsimatides, only have "social standing" by virtue of their money. The idea is that income equalization will lead to better social outcomes.


In your final statement, you assume that I am a human, and not a cat, and a female human at that. Nothing could be further from the truth...

OldRossie said...

Loser

CheshireKitty said...

Hahahaha.. finally gotten to you, huh? Now don't go skulking back to Jipipy, Ross, not just yet: We need folks like to you to stick around, and contribute to paying for the universal pre-K programs!

Islandhouser said...

Frank, let someone hold your hands behind your back and strike you with a baton on your knee. Are you telling me, you wouldn't react by flinching your leg, moving it or losing your balance in any way? I think you are seeing what you want to see. But anyway, I don't really care about that - because this will go back & forth for no reason.


I'm trying to follow you... where does it say in any of the officer's testimony that you have posted, that they struck a deli worker with a baton? I must be missing something? Or are you trying to convince us of this?


Also, are you saying that petite Officer Walker was beating up a guy? I don't think she has it in her.


I'm trying here... but I can't wrap my arms around this one.

CheshireKitty said...

So what are you saying? That the officer just stopped short of hitting the victim of police abuse? That the officer swung but never hit the victim on the knee?


Are you joking? Why would the officer do that to the victim? They were only trying to terrify him, or they just trying to subdue him conceptually, or theoretically? What you're saying makes no sense.


It's caught on tape that the victim was hit by the abusive PSD PSO - for no reason. The victim was pinioned with a number of PSOs restraining him while he was being beaten.


If you are being restrained, it is indeed possible you are being immobilized so that you cannot twist away from the blows. Since you are immobilized, it is quite possible you will not move your leg, i.e. flinch, which is the whole point of immobilizing the victim - so they will not be able to move their knee or leg away from the baton blows.

OldRossie said...

I'm happy to pay for your pre-k. SOME education might do you good. But you wont be attending that. Nor any other class or activity or job.. You'll just stay in your lonely little hole blogging about how the world is against you... So bring it on - lets keep you busy.

YetAnotherRIer said...

I have watched this video so many times and until now I just don't see how somebody was hit by a baton. I would love to see the testimony, though. Got a link?

OldRossie said...

back, and to the left... back, and to the left....

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, SPO Williams reported her hitting him was a baton. A "PR 24" is a baton with a handle. Here's her report:


Public Safety Department
Inter-Office Memorandum
To: Captain Suarez
From: SPO Walker
Date: 12/10/12
Subject: 10/85 at 579 Main St


At/P/O received a report of all units respond to the [illegible] listed location officer requires assistance. Inside the store found Sgt. Hernandez and SPO Flaherty wrestling with one subject in an attempt to place him in handcuffs. When alerted Sgt. Hernandez to my presence, he stated arrest the two subjects watching because they attempted to interfer [sic] with the current arrest process. The subject who is an employee of the store began to inquire why is he going to jail. I explained he attempted to obstruct the Sgt. He resisted being placed in cuffs, Det. Cabassa, Lt. Yee, tried to gain control of the subject he insisted to resisted [sic]. So I used my PR 24 on the shin of his leg. Det. Cabassa Lt Yee were able to place him in handcuffs. Four subjects were placed in the RMPs in handcuffs as we exited the store with said individual we were accosted by a large group inquiring with their friends were arrest. We asked them to leave the area and go home. They continued we were about to chase my subject when Lt. Yee instructed us to drive the subjects to the office. While on Main St. after successfully lodging four subjects the fifth subject approached M.D. to inquire about his friends at that time. Sgt. Hernandez, Det. Cabassa, SPO Flaherty, SPO Gilmore approached subject and placed him in cuffs because he was the main subject as we exited the store who tired to insight [sic] a riot.

NotMyKid said...

It still does not say strike. All baton courses have non strike techniques.

Perhaps a pressure point or non compliance pressure to the shin.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Thanks! So, after reading this report and viewing the recording once more it seems that this whole discussion hinges on the word "used" in her report. The video recording sure does not show that she actually stroke him hard because the "victim" doesn't seem to be in real pain and he sure did not react the way I would react when I get hit by a solid piece of rubber. There is really know smoking gun here. None, whatsoever.

YetAnotherRIer said...

That's the only plausible interpretation of this report and the video recording together I can think of.

YetAnotherRIer said...

The officer used the baton to hold the "victim" in place and did not hit him. Just a tool to show who is in charge.

OldRossie said...

May I ask the relevance of all of this? Is it strictly to support Frank's claim that McManus' letter to the deli is driven by RIOCs financial interests, and PSD having it out for the deli in response to the owners legal action?

NotMyKid said...

There is still no evidence of any legal actio by the deli.

All I get is a person can use numbers instead of a name.

No Proof to show a bridge between a lawsuit and earlier closing.

CheshireKitty said...

This is a comment unworthy of a human being - gloating over police brutality. Can't you put yourself in the position of the worker that was unjustly detained and beaten? Must you always be so heartless?

OldRossie said...

If you don't get the reference, pipe down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MLc0udf_74

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzBeP6pRoY

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, of course officer Williams is hitting him and he is moving, but he's mostly being held up by the two other officers. I can easily imagine being held like that, and having been struck myself (but not with a PR 24), I didn't flinch too much.


Regardless, the video shows her winding up, and striking several times. Watch her shoulder patch on the right shoulder, you'll see her wind up several times. Do I really need to enumerate each frame number? YetAnotherRIer, you're just pretending not to see her strike him.


What is truly sad is that there are people like you who are so blind to abuse and look for any kind of way to weasel out of the obvious.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, your faulty reasoning: you've not provided any evidence to the contrary. The officers have provided descriptions of the events, the descriptions contain no earlier interventions or such. You have no basis for them happening. Whereas there is a basis, testimony, and a video to support the points I've made.

NotMyKid said...

Your video is lacking, your testimony you provided is lacking greatly and you have a biased view on it.

What's your take on this anyway?

YetAnotherRIer said...

I am saying that it is not obvious that she stroke him. You have to interfere it from certain movements you claim you are seeing (which I really do not, and no, I reread your commentary and re-watched the recording again, and I still don't see it; and I am not the only one, luckily) and facial expressions and movements by the "victim" (which again, I have a hard time to recognize from that recording).


The thing is, you have had it with the PSD for a very long time and there is an opportunity for you to really punch them in the face because of your interpretation of things. That's all there is. You will never win this, Frank, because there is nothing to win.


And, please, do not lecture me about how I am not willingly accept police abuse etc. etc. I call abuse when I see abuse. There is nothing here.

OldRossie said...

This'll be great - there should be a really nice view of it from the lighthouse!

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mario-cuomo-joins-nyc-garbage-station-protestors-article-1.1493501

CheshireKitty said...

Although I am personally opposed to the 91st St marine transfer station, I don't see this as a burning issue at this point. There is bound to be a compromise worked out. Why would anyone want to put a giant garbage handling facility in the middle of not only a densely packed residential area - the UES - but also overlooking an area that is in process of being developed with new housing: Queens West? It makes no sense. A marine garbage station should be built in a primarily industrial part of town, or in an area that is not heavily populated, such as the industrial areas of Brooklyn, or in Jamaica Bay. On the Island of Manhattan, there are still a few areas along the E. River perhaps in Upper Manhattan, perhaps adjoining a large bus facility under train trestle as I recall, where such a facility could be built. The facility would adjoin the transit facility thus would not be "on top of" a residential area & playground. In Brooklyn, the Navy Yard would be an excellent choice for a marine transfer facility, as well as along the Sunset Park waterfront, such as in the 30s, near the former Bush Terminal. There are numerous locations in the interior of Brooklyn-Queens such as along Newtown Creek, in the industrialized area where there already is a sewage treatment facility. A marine transfer facility could be located near JFK along Jamaica Bay - there are hundreds of acres of empty space along the bay that could be developed for this purpose, without significantly impacting the wildlife sanctuary. Along Kill van Kull in Staten Island is another excellent choice although the distance to truck the trash all the way out to a location near NJ isn't a plus. If the City is really looking for a spot on Manhattan Island on which to build a large facility to process and transfer trash to barges, then it must apply the same rigorous standards it would apply to any industrial facility. Clearly, the 91st St location is not zoned for industrial development. It is a residential area. Building any sort of industrial facility at that location is wrong. There are very few industrial areas left in Manhattan, but there are railway yards, and bus depots, and bus maintenance facilities in Manhattan. It would be wise to build a marine transfer station near one of these already-existing transportation-related facilities.

On another note, Gov. Cuomo today clarified his position with regard to DeBlasio's tax recommendation. Although I hope DeBlasio will be amenable to compromise on the proposed 91 St Marine Transfer Station, I hope he does not compromise (too much) on his proposed tax on the super-rich. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/10/gov-cuomo-softens-rhetoric-against-bill-de-blasio-tax-hike-plan