|
|
Post by admin on Jun 21, 2007 8:43:58 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/0620/Letters/081.htmlSelection of new police chief in Freehold draws praise The selection of Mitch Roth as the new chief of the Freehold Borough Police Department is worthy of praise. Throughout his long career, Officer Roth has shown the ability to deal professionally with all segments of the diverse Freehold Borough community..........
|
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Jun 21, 2007 11:42:02 GMT -5
Director Frank, the self appointed Latino leader endorses the new chief. That’s not a good thing. Make me think Mitch is soft on crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 21, 2007 11:58:53 GMT -5
No. Frank was not consulted in his selection. His statement only seeks to reflect that his opinion has clout in some circle of influence, wherever it may be. FF's rubber stamp on the inevitable, so to speak.
The reality is that the Chief only arrests the people he is supposed to arrest and his officers treat everyone else with the same level of dignity, as they should.
Hopefully, at year's end, crime statistics should reflect good police work, overall. I am very hopeful.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jun 21, 2007 12:41:21 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/0620/Letters/081.htmlSelection of new police chief in Freehold draws praise The selection of Mitch Roth as the new chief of the Freehold Borough Police Department is worthy of praise. Throughout his long career, Officer Roth has shown the ability to deal professionally with all segments of the diverse Freehold Borough community.......... I have to say -- I remember him as a young upstart officer. Seems like a nice story. The "however" is -- of course, any praise from FF does raise a red flag -- and is likely tied to The Chief's position with regard to 287(g). |
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Jun 21, 2007 13:07:17 GMT -5
Duh! Read what the Councilman wrote, again. I think the reasons he mentioned in his first post CAN and probably did lead to a bankruptcy. If it's a choice between ordering a ten dollar combo meal at Quiznos on Main St. versus having a six or seven buck lunch at Subway at Freehold Mall on route nine, I'll take the cheaper lunch with huge parking lot by their door. If that is what you call being sold a bill of goods by the Councilman, you deserve to pay the extra money and walk five blocks to your car dripping oil and vinegar all the way.
"councel?"
Geez.
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Jun 21, 2007 13:31:20 GMT -5
Oh, without question he likes the Chief's words. FF just wants to keep his name current in the news and let everyone know he is still "relevant" as the leader and spokesman for the F/B immigrant community. He knows that it's wiser to make nice to Mayor and "councel" on this one, because they are the ones that really decide on 287G.
Who gives a real xxxxx if he publically approves of this chief or not?
I'm in a bad mood. My car's new fuel pump is costing me $940 bucks on my credit card plus 4 days using a Thrifty rental car. I'm supposed to leave for a California vacation on Saturday with what money? Maybe FF wants to loan me some of his lawsuit money.
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 21, 2007 13:44:55 GMT -5
Rich:
I don't disagree with you at all. Frank absolutely wanted to reinforce the chief's position and throw him a milk bone. Plus, as we all know, he loves getting himself more attention.
However, Berg's interpretation that Frank's endorsement of Mitch Roth means that this chief is "soft on crime" is inaccurate, irresponsible and unrelated to 287g, since Roth is not required to enforce it, at this time.
I do not want anyone giving our town the false impression that the Chief's department will empty our jail cells and let all the inmates run free. He is a responsible chief and a man, who respects the laws that he is expected to enforce.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jun 21, 2007 21:40:05 GMT -5
Director Frank, the self appointed Latino leader endorses the new chief. That’s not a good thing. Make me think Mitch is soft on crime. Makes me think that there is content in the mysterious "November Settlement" that has neutered aspects of law enforcement due to a twisted perversion of "CIVIL RIGHTS" . |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 22, 2007 9:36:24 GMT -5
No, but the use of "discretionary" is no longer around and anti-loitering laws are unconstitutional everywhere. True, because a judge watches over the town for two years (Mamaroneck got 5 years of supervision), the police have to be a little more careful regarding anything that seems like harassment.
For the record, I am not at all pleased that our police are not enforcing last year's amendments on bike safety - probably for that very reason.
I intend to speak to the chief about this very soon, since I already brought it up at a few public meetings.
Avoiding harassment claims is one thing, but we being "schmucks" is altogether different. As far as I am concerned, there is one set of laws for everyone to follow. Sorry. If one particular group rides their bikes more than others - we still have to enforce the laws, whenever and wherever they apply.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jun 22, 2007 10:42:06 GMT -5
Rich: I don't disagree with you at all. Frank absolutely wanted to reinforce the chief's position and throw him a milk bone. Plus, as we all know, he loves getting himself more attention. However, Berg's interpretation that Frank's endorsement of Mitch Roth means that this chief is "soft on crime" is inaccurate, irresponsible and unrelated to 287g, since Roth is not required to enforce it, at this time. I do not want anyone giving our town the false impression that the Chief's department will empty our jail cells and let all the inmates run free. He is a responsible chief and a man, who respects the laws that he is expected to enforce. Marc I concur -- Mitch Roth never struck me as soft. I do suspect, however, that the Department is forced a bit to walk gingerly on some enforcement issues as a result of the suit and settlement. I think that is just practical reality. |
|
|
|
Post by believe on Jun 29, 2007 21:01:58 GMT -5
I also am disappointed that the helmet ordinance is not being enforced (perhaps this should be posted on another board). And publicly stated in the newspaper! How are we to have faith that our local laws mean something when our law enforcement Chief lets us know that no punitive measures will be taken on this one? Why do I feel the need to have my daughter wear her helmet when others do not have to obey the law? (Because it's the SAFE thing to do, which is why it should be enforced.)
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2007 7:31:40 GMT -5
I also am disappointed that the helmet ordinance is not being enforced (perhaps this should be posted on another board). And publicly stated in the newspaper! How are we to have faith that our local laws mean something when our law enforcement Chief lets us know that no punitive measures will be taken on this one? Why do I feel the need to have my daughter wear her helmet when others do not have to obey the law? (Because it's the SAFE thing to do, which is why it should be enforced.) Believe, Not to worry, this is a fine thread for your post. Here is a link related to your concern that is interesting. freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=policedepartmenttwo&action=display&thread=1183068077Some people may find this approach odd, but I like community initiatives like this. Sometimes a non enforcement approach is more effective and should be tried. As far as general bike safety, I share your concerns, Believe. Last weekend, my wife and I were eating at one of the restaurants on Main Street and I noticed many people riding on the sidewalks. And I am not talking just about day laborers, either. In our town, there are still too many people who ride where they do not belong, or go the wrong way. Every morning on my way to work, I see the same group of about five men riding the wrong way on sidewalks in an area where there is no excuse for it. As far as the police, I know people who have expressed concerns about this to officers and were met with apathy and the attitude " what can I do? " Consider that heresy, the people who told me this need to speak up for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jul 2, 2007 8:43:54 GMT -5
Brian:
As you know, this concerns me, too. I have made this known to the Mayor, Council and Police. I can't share any details, but there will soon be a positive change in the right direction with regard to this issue. Just as there will be, at tonight's meeting, regarding shopping carts and an annoying garbage collection issue. You know me when I put something out there - I don't let go, like a dog with a bone.
The Community Relations Committee also becomes official after tonight's meeting, if it passes second reading.
Marc
|
|
