Roosevelt Island Public Safety Blotter For August 2012
Below is the Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) August 2012 Monthly Public Safety Blotter. Incidents include:
- 8/24/2012 688 Main St Three dogs were observed inside vehicle with windows down and unattended. No information available on parked vehicle. Upon Officer's return vehicle left the scene.
- 8/12/2012 910 Main St Large group observed at location for a gathering. Party advised the area was closing and group dispersed in an order fashion. All in order
- 8/15/2012 F/O 591 Main St Male was distributing unauthorized flyers at location. Male left the area without incident.
- 8/19/2012 R/O 576 Main St Report of possible gun shots fired at location. NYPD on scene and searched the area with negative results.
- 8/17/2012 465 Main St Van observed park at location for a two day period of time unlawfully.
Summonses were issued. Upon further investigation vehicle was listed as being stolen. Update - 8/18/12 - Owner arrived on scene and recovered vehicle. - 8/16/2012 686 Main St ARREST Three male subjects observed inside of old tram cabin at location. Summonses were issued and subjects were released.
- 8/19/2012 Opp 750 Main St ARREST Male subject observed exposing himself. Subject was placed into custody and transported to PSD Office. While in custody subject consumed 10 bags of marijuana. EMS on scene and transported subject to hospital. Subject was released and transported to 114 Precinct for arrest processing.
- GRAND LARCENY 8/30/2012 686 Main St NYPD on scene for report of money stolen from safe.
- 8/23/2012 625 Main St Several male subjects observed beating male victim leaving him bleeding and incoherent. NYPD and EMS notified and on scene.
Click here for full report from RIOC.
Roosevelt Island Public Safety Statistics for 2012 through August are here.
10 comments :
PSD doesn't tell the truth in its blotter reports.
Director Guerra still pushes the false story that Mr. Stueber was faking his
injuries (Stueber wasn't faking). According to the July PSD blotter
report ("https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz5-PdRHff97QThGUDhqcXFrQkU/edit?pli=1"),
page 9, PSD states "Male was taken into custody and requested EMS for neck
pain. EMS on scene and transported the subject to the hospital.
Evaluation revealed no injury and subject was then transported to 114 Precinct
for arrest processing.".
Yet Sgt. Veras noted head injury in her report, the discharge medical
instructions from the hospital (which PSD has a copy) concerned Head Injury,
Abdominal Trauma/Injury ("You've had a blow to your abdomen"), Neck
Sprain/Strain, Back Sprain/Strain. It's not like PSD didn't know Mr.
Stueber's medical condition, they were there and they had the paperwork.
Not only that, according to Mr. Guerra, it was because of the injury that Mr.
Stueber was returned to PSD to wait for Sgt, Veras to complete paperwork the
next morning. How can Mr. Guerra, on one hand, claim no injury in the PSD
report, yet on the other hand claim injury was the basis for returning Mr.
Stueber to the PSD holding cell overnight?
Also, I don't understand how Mr. Guerra and his PSD reports can assert more authoritatively
on medical conditions (purportedly not injured), as compared to the doctor who
examined Mr. Stueber and gave medical instructions based upon those
injuries. Maybe Mr. Guerra can tell us about his and his officers'
medical background and why Mr. Guerra's medical opinions count more than a
doctor.
If you're thinking this is confusing with multiple perspectives, it is because
Mr. Guerra's story about injuries keeps shifting. He's told me at least
four versions of this story, all different.
I wonder how many other PSD reports are substantially
incomplete/inaccurate. This is why RIRA's request (supported with a 21-1 vote) for an investigation is
so important: either this is a regular kind of error in PSD reporting (one kind of problem), or this kind of error only occurred in this case with Mr. Stueber (a
RIOC employee, who RIOC attempted to terminate previously because he joined
RIRA - a different kind of PSD reporting problem).
Regardless, Mr. Guerra needs to stop pushing his false and shifting stories and
correct the record, which is much closer to Mr. Stueber's *consistent* telling
of it because Mr. Stueber has the records to support his version. And Mr. Guerra needs to stop minimizing injuries of subjects held in custody - we can't have law enforcement with this kind of attitude.
This is
why PSD needs accountability and oversight.
Frank, go get a hobby you loser. You have always been a joke around town. The guy was faking it. He was taken to the ground because he was a beligerent person not complying. Stop worrying about your good friend. Stop being an unbiased prick, prick.
"Yet Sgt. Veras noted head injury in her report, the discharge medical instructions from the hospital (which PSD has a copy) concerned Head Injury, Abdominal Trauma/Injury ("You've had a blow to your abdomen"), Neck Sprain/Strain, Back Sprain/Strain."
Frank -- can you please post (1) Sgt. Veras's report and (2) the hospital's discharge instructions?
RIOC sent this message in response to Frank Farance.
"We recently learned of a clerical error concerning the PSD July 2012 Monthly Blotter. The error consisted of the omission of the word "significant" regarding an injury to an arrested subject, Neil Stueber.
The Public Safety Department does not deny that Mr. Stueber was injured. The July 2012 Monthly Blotter has been revised to reflect this correction."
Rick, it doesn't make sense for PSD to use the word "significant" because (1) there is no such use of "significant" as a qualifier elsewhere in PSD reports regarding injuries, (2) once PSD starts interpreting the words, they need to be a doctor have done an examination to make that interpretation, and most importantly (3) PSD is the party causing the injury, so one must wonder about the truth of their reporting. For example, elsewhere in PSD reports we see a female victim received an injury to the face ... no qualification of significant or not. Ditto for describing an officer's injury.
PSD should stay out of the interpretation business and just report the facts (in this case, Mr. Stueber was injured).
Again, according to Mr. Guerra, Mr. Stueber had to return from central booking to spend the night in the PSD holding cell because (according to Guerra) he had injuries.
So I request you contact RIOC again and ask if the following is the right revision to the words with {} braces highlighting the change:
OLD: Male was taken into custody and requested EMS for neck pain. EMS on
scene and transported the subject to the hospital. Evaluation revealed
{no injury} and subject was then transported to 114 Precinct for arrest
processing.
NEW: Male was taken into custody and requested EMS for neck pain. EMS on
scene and transported the subject to the hospital. Evaluation revealed {several injuries} and subject was then transported to 114 Precinct for arrest
processing.
Regardless, he pled guilty. He was guilty of causing a disturbance, and not being a calm person. The judge always asks these important questions when a defendant is pleading guilty.
1) did you speak to your lawyer regarding your guilty plea.
2) are you pleading guilty on your own.
3) did anyone coerce or force you to plea guilty.
4) are you pleading today because you are in fact guilty of the crime?
5) do you understand by pleading guilty you forfeit your right to a trial.
He answered yes to being guilty, that is enough for me to discredit his case. If he was taken down with force because he was in.fact guilty as charged, so be it!
I ponder. Is mr. Farance the arrested member personal legal council? What is his cut of the pie during settlement?
Ok already... the "dead horse" is beaten.
No reply to any of your posts is ever good enough for you. You just go on and on and on and on.
Frank, you are better than this. Really...
I mean you sound as if you are being paid to stick up for a mute, wheelchair-bound, senior citizen.
Mr. Brown, as we know from residents who complain, these kinds of problems occur more often than just this one complaint. Maybe you missed it: RIOC/PSD had many opportunities to get this right, but they kept getting it wrong -- that should alarm many of us. But it isn't a dead horse because the points are valid, and it is worth standing up for residents. I hope this never happens to you.
So telling me its a dead horse, doesn't discourage me from doing the right thing. And complaining about it does have a positive effect for the community.
More to come!
If they are so wrong why don't you go to the media? Why doesn't the victim sue or go to the media? Why is it only you we hear from?
The Inspector General, District Attorney, etc. are better avenues for Public Safety, although the media is a component, too. You've heard from not just from me, but you've also heard from RIRA, too: a 21-1 vote asking for an investigation. And the WIRE has expressed concerns, too.
Post a Comment