Roosevelt Island Fall For Arts Festival At Southpoint Park and Rivercross Lawn Saturday October 5 - Music Art Food And Fun
Don't forget that tomorrow is the annual Roosevelt Island Fall For Arts Festival.
Image From 2012 Roosevelt Island Fall For Arts Festival
According to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC)
Join us for a free, family-friendly afternoon of art & music at the 8th Annual Fall for Arts Festival! The Festival will take place this Saturday, October 5th from 11 AM to 4 PM, at Southpoint Park and on the lawn south of Rivercross.Here are some scenes from past Roosevelt Island Fall For Arts Festivals.
Come on out for music, mural paintings, food and more! Participate in the many make-and-take art workshops and explore your creativity with the Roosevelt Island Visual Art Association, Materials for the Arts, Roosevelt Island Explorers, the Roosevelt Island Day Nursery and students from the School of Visual Arts. We hope you join us for this fantastic celebration of art!
Sincerely,
Roosevelt Island Operating Corp Advisories Group
HAVE FUN!!!
21 comments :
Why do you say it's false? You can see above the PSOs swarming in the refrigerated aisle of the store arresting subject and bystanders (workers) alike. The workers did nothing to get arrested. How can you say another angle will reveal they did something?
The PSOs as in other instances exercised no discretion, they arrested anyone they perceived to be in their way, even if they were doing nothing and just standing there. The fact that the space in the refrigerated aisle can be perceived as cramped for the swarm of PSOs, which would make anyone just standing there a potential obstruction, doesn't excuse the PSO's behavior, which was high-handed and out-of-control. Why should the workers have gotten arrested, much less beaten?
The cam had a clear sight-line onto the action. The store wouldn't be using a cam that didn't have a clear sight-line onto the aisle otherwise, it would be useless as a means of surveillance of the premises. It just happened that the PSOs forgot that the cam was recording.
Unlike in other instances where they have conveniently stated that the cam "wasn't working" (Steuber case) here the PSOs left before either demanding the tape etc. or disabling the CCTV system.
Wouldn't you sue if you were unjustly arrested much less beaten - for no reason? Anybody would do so - especially if they had the "goods" on the cops in the form of the tape.
The tape serves a very good purpose, if any aspect of the sorry episode can be said to be positive: It serves as a startling object lesson in police brutality/use of excessive force, the over-reach of State instruments of coercion if you will. The workers did nothing wrong, yet they were arrested anyway. To me, the tape shows that any one of us can be subject to arrest just for being at the "wrong" place at the "wrong" time at the whim of l/e, which is, of course wrong.
Not only should the deli workers sue, the tape should be required viewing in civics classes - an illustration of what should never happen in our society: Unjust arrest and detention.
Prove that the deli workers did not interfere prior to getting to the isle?
PROVE IT.
oh that's right, you nor frank can prove it.
Rossie: If you think it's meaningless then I know I'm on the right track. Criticism from you = praise.
Yet: Meaning? Your family didn't accept welfare? Is that what you're implying? And thus, you have some sort of moral superiority that Blass lacks?
Yet: Good for you and your family, if that's the case, although I disagree that having to accept it then or now represents some sort of moral lacking or fault.
Prior to the era of R/E hyper-inflation/speculation, many families, including working poor, didn't have to accept any form of welfare. You can thank your buddies in the world of R/E for making it impossible for people like Blass to not accept Sec 8 - good buddies like Belson, and the Eisenberg Family.
But that's the free market, right? So anything R/E does is OK.
Well, in that case, don't blame Blass for being forced into the Sec 8 program.
If it's OK for R/E barons like Belson and the Eisenbergs to grow rich by profiting from Sec 8 payments, then it's certainly OK for Blass to play his role in the R/E- and RIOC-orchestrated scenario enabling the all-powerful "hand of the market" to function.
You're commenting on a post about McManus, and you're talking about welfare. Not only are your claims and accusations unsubstantiated, your topic is off base.
I was only replying to Blass & Yet. Blass was referring to a prior rather lengthy discussion re the circumstances surrounding his need to accept Sec 8 vouchers.
NotMyKid, you're flailing, so you make statements that are impossible. Sgt. Hernandez "While attempting to place [first person arrested] into custody, [first
deli worker] and [bystander friend] physically obstructed, intimidated
and attempted to prevent the arrest ..." which means the supposed interference happened during the arrest. We're seeing that arrest in the video.
And ditto for SPO Flaherty: "The factual basis for these charges is as follows: [...] SPO Flaherty observed defendant [bystander friend, name redacted] physically place himself between [first person arrested, name redacted] and SPO Flaherty to prevent SPO Flaherty from handcuffing defendant [first person arrested]".
Again, the supposed interference happened after the arrest started 02:13:39 and before the arrest of the first deli worker and the bystander at 02:14:39, and is inconsistent with what we saw: the first deli worker protecting PSD officers.
In those 60 seconds, show me where the first deli worker is pulling off an officer. You can't. It's not on the video. And you'll see that SPO Flaherty's claim of interfering while putting on handcuffs is impossible because both SPO Flaherty and Sgt. Herandez were on top of the first person (02:14:04) putting on the handcuffs, and the bystander was no where near and only comes into view (but distant from the arrest) at 02:14:19, and never "physically [places] himself between [first person arrested, name redacted] and SPO Flaherty". By 02:14:40 the bystander is being arrested.
Thus, according to you: (1) they attempted to arrest the first person, and (2) according to you, the worker/bystander interfered, so (3) they the first person go, and (4) then attempted to arrest him again, i.e., some prior interference of some prior attempt to arrest that they abandoned -- implausible. And if you version is correct (implausible), then all the officers are lying in a very different kind of way across all the testimony.
The PSD officers' testimony is consistent with my analysis of the timing and no prior abandoned attempt to arrest: (1) first suspect came in to store, (2) then officers interacted with first suspect attempting arrest, (3) first deli worker kept the bystander out of the arrest, but (4) PSD fabricated various parts of the story.
Let's just face it, you're a law enforcement bigot. You can't own up to the fact that PSD did a terrible job here (and elsewhere). Hopefully, you don't wind up on a jury. And hopefully you never patrol here because you have the same kind of Bad Cop thinking that supports the kind of PSD abuse we've had.
And I've already answered your question: you can be part of litigation without being a party. But these videos (and others) and the fabricated PSD testimony make for good evidence in other cases to support the ideas of ongoing abuse in PSD.
Yea the same hipster b.s. For the new hipsters on the island.before these people moved here there was never a fall for arts.what b.s.
One mans trash. Is the other mans art.that says it all Fall for arts. What b.s you will find better art at the school 217 the kids do a better job.
It's such a downer to listen to you, Blass. I for one like the murals at Motorgate. These art works are a community effort - what's wrong with that?
That's not true - anybody can participate. There should be more street art on RI. I've always said the helix & Motorgate in general would be a perfect spot for street art. At least now there is art within Motorgate, which I heartily applaud.
Your statement is not fact. Its simply your version of speculation. You still can't PROVE A DAMN THING. You don't have a clue what happened prior to the video.
You have a great skill at twisting thing to your liking. I give you that all the way.
A person does not need to interfere at that very moment. It could have been while chasing that perp or whilethey were entering the deli.
You still can't prove anything about the litigations. All you are doing is evading my request.
Bill, I saw this and thought of you. http://diehipster.wordpress.com/
Lol
Do you really think people from eastwood care about this b.s fall for arts
Ok maybe the new Chinese hipsters who have been moving into eastwood may like it.but the real eastwood tenants would not care
I don't understand what your point is,Not. Why is up to Frank or anybody else to prove anything when the video speaks for itself?
There is no possible excuse for arresting innocent bystanders.
You are seriously suggesting the deli workers were involved in some sort of crime within their own store? You must know this is an absurdity. You are saying they tried to prevent the cops from arresting the subject? Another absurdity!
It's your position that's far fetched, if you look at the facts: The PSOs entered the deli in order to arrest a subject (for whatever reason).
Unfortunately for the PSOs and the RIOC-PSD, CCTV cameras were recording. The deli workers were standing in their store - doing nothing, if anything, either cringing in fear or trying to be helpful. Nonetheless, they were arrested.
I would like to run by you and anyone else reading a possible reason why the workers were arrested unjustly i.e. for no reason at all, because otherwise it seems so incredibly unwise/senseless that the PSOs would do so, The reason the PSOs arrested the deli workers after arresting the subject was to intimidate them into silence regarding the circumstances of the arrest of the subject. The thought must have been - the workers saw everything, they saw the way we handled this arrest on their premises. We need to "silence" them by throwing them into the clink for a day for no reason, maybe roughing them up too for good measure. Their arrests will scare them into silence, especially if it's for no reason, since it will underline the possibility that we could always turn around and arrest them again for no reason if we want to, thus, we "gain their cooperation" through intimidation. And that is what they did - arrest them for no reason and rough them up/beat them, purely to intimidate them.
However, what the PSOs didn't figure on was that the CCTV cameras were rolling the whole time! So now, it will up to a jury to decide, after hearing testimony and seeing the video, if the arrest of the deli workers was "justified". I for one think it wasn't - I for one think a jury will agree these arrests were unjustified.
Where does the angle show they were simply doing nothing prior to getting in the camera picture?
Where? It does not!
The camera does not show all of the facts! What is the point of locking up a merchant/workers that have nothing to do with the situation? It makes no sense at all.
My position on this subject is simple. It's a minute long video spun 180* from facts.
Show me a video where the employees were just standing there doing nothing prior to the video of psd arresting the main subject?.
Just try to soak into your brain.. What is the purpose of psd arresting a business entity employees, where psd gets their sandwiches and food from for no reason? We're is the sense in that?
Scare them into silence? So what you are saying.. Essentially back tracking.. There actually is no lawsuit? Right?.
So.. I guess if you were driving your car(if you don't have a car, just pretend), and you get into an accident at an intersection.. Are you following so far?.. Ok.. So you had a green light and the other driver ran the red light and smashed into you.. Still with me...?
Ok now you call the police, they show up to do a report, and while they are doing a report, a guy comes out of nowhere and approaches the cops and tells them "kitty ran the red light. I seem her speeding and smash into the other car".
You know he wasn't at the scene and you know he did not witness anything.
OK, it's true, it's true - most in Eastwood wouldn't care about it. Many in the other buildings don't care about it either. So what! Some care about it - it's not a costly program, most people that participate seem to have fun. Why be such a party-pooper?! Do you also sneer at the Halloween Day parade, or the Holiday snowflakes on Main St? You don't want to take part, then don't - no-one is forcing you! Why be so negative all the time?
Not - c'mon: You're saying the entire incident is he said-she said?
There's tape available and the tape doesn't show these guys acting menacing or interfering with gov administration. Do we see the deli workers trying to hold back the cops? No. They're cringing.
In fact, it seems to me that their only "error" was in seeing the subject get busted, for whatever reason he was busted for. The video really depicts the workers in terror at the scene. I don't understand how that translates into obstructing governmental administration.
You're one Kool Kitty Kat Cheshire!
Feels good to have you as a neighbor.
Post a Comment