|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jun 2, 2009 15:21:55 GMT -5
Good morning, Seabass! I couldn't make it to the meeting last evening -- thank you so much for your report. I chuckled at your clever headline. I'm kind of glad I wasn't there because I probably would have found a way to verbally abuse that troublemaking rosebud. I know I post this all the time -- and I guess I will have to do my own research on it -- but why on earth does Freehold allow non-freehold speakers to use time at a public meeting? Yes -- I understand it is a public meeting. Yes, I understand the sunshine laws. But -- unless New Jersey law specifically permits this -- it is inherently Constitutional to proscribe rules that prevent non-residents from speaking at the public portion of local meetings. Well, let me say this -- it is perfectly legal to do so in Virginia, and even the most radical, liberal outposts in the state do exactly that. If you want to be heard -- you must fill out a piece of paper, verifying your status in the County, giving your address and contact information -- and you are permitted a limited period to speak. They have two type of public comment. The first is reserved for public comment on any issue -- any issue at all. (Usually limited to 2-3 minutes). The next is public comment on listed meeting agenda items -- those comments are heard when the item is called, in order of the speaker sign-up. Those are something like 3 minutes, or 5 if you speak on behalf of a group. Anyway -- the point is -- public meetings on town business are for the town people to speak and be heard by their representatives. Unless NJ state law mandates that a municipality let any idiot from anywhere speak on its public Docket -- which New Jersey law just might -- I see no reason -- none -- to open the business of local municipalities up to non-residents. Let the dissidents send letters, or use other non-restricted public fora -- like the net -- to express their praise or distaste for the town. It seems to me that 3/4 of the problems in Freehold are made worse by blood-sucking trash bused in from outside to make public statements at Borough meetings. If the state of the law in NJ is such that the state that lauds "local control" mandates outside intervention -- the law should be changed. If the law does not mandate this type of free-for-all intervention -- the Borough Council would be wise to investigate implementing sensible residency requirements and speaking procedures. IMHO (< -- and spoken like an outsider! LOL) |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 2, 2009 15:34:56 GMT -5
Brian Limbaugh is in the house. Liberal cousin Rush could not make it.
Seabass,
Thank you for taking the time to not only post this, but to go to the meeting, I assume out of support for our police. This is good for people to know about. Was there any press?
Anyway a few thoughts.
The cynic in me believes that of course the council was going to be supportive of the police and talk tough. The room was full of cops and there were promotions at hand. What is the council to do? Bash the police at that time?
The realist in me believes that at heart our governing body does support the police. I am sure they meant every word. That leads me to the cautious me...
We have heard tough talk before on certain issues from our governing body. But, when faced with enough outside opposition, our governing body has capitulated and made concessions to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. In doing so they have slapped the law abiding people of this town in the face. It is one thing to talk tough, but it loses its merit when backed up with soft actions.
If this lady comes back with more troops from out of town, we will have to watch the actions of the governing body. Lets hope they stay strong and do not cave in and make the same appeasement mistakes as in the past.
The optimist Brian has one last thing... congratulations to Sgt. Colaner. We the people support you and appreciate the tough job you do for this town. That goes for all of our men and women in blue.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 2, 2009 15:37:45 GMT -5
Rich Wrote......
It seems to me that 3/4 of the problems in Freehold are made worse by blood-sucking trash bused in from outside to make public statements at Borough meetings.
Well said, Rich. The other 1/4 of the problem is the response to those bloodsuckers from outside our town who do not care about this town. See my last post.
The rest of your post brings up some good points. After all, is it not a shame when residents of the borough are shut out of their own meeting because the seats are filled with agitators?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 2, 2009 16:02:47 GMT -5
Richard wrote: "public meetings on town business are for the town people to speak and be heard by their representatives." I wholeheartedly agree. I think almost anyone should be able to attend and listen, but constructive commentary about town business should really only be allowed from people who either reside in town or own/work in town. Trash like this manipulative opportunist with the bad-mannered teenager should worry about spending time teaching her kids how to behave like human beings not traipsing into a meeting to whine and complain and spread her crap. The part I highlighted pertains to a very real issue. it would not be a bad idea for the schools, Human relations Committee, or the police to host a forum on what to do when dealing with police. This goes for not only people who are detained as suspects, but also victims. It is amazing some of the stupid things people do. Others do things out of ignorance. Cops could tell you some real stories on this subject. |
|
ka19
Junior Member
Posts: 356
|
Post by ka19 on Jun 3, 2009 8:41:26 GMT -5
Richard wrote: "public meetings on town business are for the town people to speak and be heard by their representatives." I wholeheartedly agree. I think almost anyone should be able to attend and listen, but constructive commentary about town business should really only be allowed from people who either reside in town or own/work in town. Trash like this manipulative opportunist with the bad-mannered teenager should worry about spending time teaching her kids how to behave like human beings not traipsing into a meeting to whine and complain and spread her crap. The part I highlighted pertains to a very real issue. it would not be a bad idea for the schools, Human relations Committee, or the police to host a forum on what to do when dealing with police. This goes for not only people who are detained as suspects, but also victims. It is amazing some of the stupid things people do. Others do things out of ignorance. Cops could tell you some real stories on this subject. This would be a great service for people everywhere. My father taught me how to deal with the police, and I've always gotten the best service from the police department. It's all about respect, and not everyone learns this. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 3, 2009 9:38:12 GMT -5
Ka19 Wrote...
It's all about respect, and not everyone learns this.
Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings..... "If you have to ask for respect, you have not earned it. "
To Lisa, Your point of parental responsibility is right on the money. No argument here. The point I was driving a is that sometimes people do things absentmindedly when dealing with police that can escalate a situation more than need be. Sometimes it is just simple routine things. Many people do not know how to conduct themselves during a traffic stop. I am not talking about bad people, but everyone in general. Of course, there are those who engage in obnoxious behavior.
I do not know what they teach in drivers Ed, but I have long believed a part of the curriculum should be " What do do when pulled over and how to deal with police." I guarantee it would save a lot of dumb kids some problems.
And also, in dealing with any emergency personnel as a victim or reporting a problem, there are things people could learn to make life for the emergency service easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 3, 2009 13:46:24 GMT -5
Wow, Brian! That truly is one of the most sensibly brilliant ideas -- incorporating into driver's education courses the right manner in which to deal with a police stop. I'm not so sure this is being done, it certainly wasn't all those years ago in ancient times when I had driver's ed. I'm sorry, but I do not agee that a course on "how to handle yourself when being stopped by the police" should be part of driver's education. The police are there to "protect and serve." Remember the era of "public servants"? How you treat the police is the same as you treat any other citizen: you are civil and even friendly. If you start teaching citizens "how to deal with the government," I just get this weird feeling that this is a step in the wrong direction. You are training people to expect no legal rights, and letting government know that they have more rights than the citizens. That is my 2 cents: it's a slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 3, 2009 14:03:52 GMT -5
Wow, Brian! That truly is one of the most sensibly brilliant ideas -- incorporating into driver's education courses the right manner in which to deal with a police stop. I'm not so sure this is being done, it certainly wasn't all those years ago in ancient times when I had driver's ed. I'm sorry, but I do not agee that a course on "how to handle yourself when being stopped by the police" should be part of driver's education. The police are there to "protect and serve." Remember the era of "public servants"? How you treat the police is the same as you treat any other citizen: you are civil and even friendly. If you start teaching citizens "how to deal with the government," I just get this weird feeling that this is a step in the wrong direction. You are training people to expect no legal rights, and letting government know that they have more rights than the citizens. That is my 2 cents: it's a slippery slope. You make good points, but I still disagree. Let me give you some examples. Starting with a motor vehicle stop. One of the fundamental things cops learn in the academy is that there is no such thing as a routine stop. They never know who they are dealing with. What can a driver do who has been stopped? There are common sense things that should be done and sometimes are not. Examples such as , stay in your car, turn your engine off, place your hands where they are visible, do not reach for anything unless instructed by the officer, and turn your interior dome light on when stopped at night. I believe the last may be the law. You mention that the police are there to protect and serve and you are right. But, the police also have the right to protect themselves. Officer safety is very real and if a driver is cognizant of that, he/she may have a better time with that officer as a result. And then we get into the other end. What if the driver does all the right things and is on the receiving end of an abusive or hostile officer? Following the right thing to do here is also a vital part of police/resident relations. Is it right to get mouthy? violent? non compliant? Absolutely not, even when the suspect thinks they are right and the officer is not. People who engage in the above behaviors will only have their problems aggravated. People should know their rights in court as well as how to fill out a complaint against an abusive cop. You are right about treating the police with respect, but as you see, most of what I wrote is not even a matter of that. People who would be disrespectful of the police probably would not even go to a informational forum. I still think teens in particular could benefit from such training. It is to keep them out of trouble and not do stupid things. And believe me, they do. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 3, 2009 14:03:59 GMT -5
Yes... a course on how to talk to the police? It just strikes me as 1984-ish. In this country, we are all citizens, all equal.
How to deal with police is a matter of common sense anyway. What are you going to teach will take 1 minute anyway. Here is my course: "if you get pulled over, don't be an a-s-s."
modification: Lisa, you are as slippery as an eel. I was responding to your (now deleted) post.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 3, 2009 14:08:16 GMT -5
p.s. a course on how to handle a police stop also fosters the idea that police are somehow above the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 4, 2009 15:45:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by seabass on Jun 5, 2009 9:08:48 GMT -5
Novillero, your thoughts are exactly why routine car stops get out of control.Whether a driver likes it or not, the officer is in charge and demands respect. If you feel mistreated, there are ways to handle that, ex. complaints or IA complaints.As for them thinking they are above the law, wrong, they are the law.This has been entrusted to them.Too often people think they can act like a complete ass to an officer because they dont agree with being ticketed or whatever..too bad, it's their job to protect us all.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 6, 2009 13:18:59 GMT -5
Novillero, your thoughts are exactly why routine car stops get out of control.Whether a driver likes it or not, the officer is in charge and demands respect. If you feel mistreated, there are ways to handle that, ex. complaints or IA complaints. As for them thinking they are above the law, wrong, they are the law. This has been entrusted to them. Too often people think they can act like a complete ass to an officer because they dont agree with being ticketed or whatever..too bad, it's their job to protect us all. Perhaps classes are in order. Officers are not the law. They enforce laws. Citizen juries are the law. Any officer that thinks he is the law, is acting above the law. |
|
|
|
Post by seabass on Jun 7, 2009 10:06:37 GMT -5
Youre kidding right? Police officers are the only ones that can deny you your most important right..your freedom. Oh yeah, they can also take your life...
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 8, 2009 10:35:26 GMT -5
Youre kidding right? Police officers are the only ones that can deny you your most important right..your freedom. Oh yeah, they can also take your life... Are you saying that the police are the judge, jury and executioner? From reading your posts, I am under the impression that you are a police officer. If so, I find your post above to be greatly disturbing. Is this a way to demand respect, by threat of life and liberty to the public? There is no right to detain someone illegally or to kill someone unlawfully - even for a police officer, believe it or not. There is even a right of citizens to lawfully resist arrest and to use the appropriate force to protect themselves - even against police officers. www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm |
|
|
|
Post by seabass on Jun 8, 2009 15:39:50 GMT -5
What are you talking about? Where did I mention murder or kidnapping by the police? I am not a police officer, just someone raised with respect for them. Wake up.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 8, 2009 15:56:40 GMT -5
What are you talking about? Where did I mention murder or kidnapping by the police? I am not a police officer, just someone raised with respect for them. Wake up. Sir, please re-read your post where you wrote: Youre kidding right? Police officers are the only ones that can deny you your most important right..your freedom. Oh yeah, they can also take your life... to which I essentially replied that police officers are not vested with the rights to take your freedom or to kill a person - that is the role of judges and juries. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 8, 2009 16:35:36 GMT -5
by the way novillero, i think depriving a pebrson of their liberty is called an arrest. You are correct. Police can lawfully take a person's liberty through an arrest; they can also take a person's liberty unlawfully. Seabass' statements inferred that the police were the ultimate authority under our system. To that end, reference his/her comments that police " are the law" and that the police "are the only ones that can deny you your most important right..your freedom. Oh yeah, they can also take your life..." I responded that these are the functions of the judicial system. Police are not the law, but enforcers of the law and police must act within certain boundaries, especially when denying someone their liberty or taking a person's life. If you have a do not agree with that statement, then we must agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 8, 2009 17:00:51 GMT -5
p.s. I posted some questions that were on topic to the Irizarry question a few days ago, and no one answered. Here were a few of my questions:
(1) Does Irizzary have a civil suit pending? Was one ever filed?
(2) The papers seemed to drop the issue when the criminal matter was adjourned to another date. What ever happened to the criminal charges against Irizarry?
|
|
|
|
Post by seabass on Jun 9, 2009 1:54:10 GMT -5
Well, "sir" is slightly offensive since I am not one. Second, I was referring to being hancuffed and put in jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 9, 2009 7:42:46 GMT -5
by the way novillero, i think depriving a person of their liberty is called an arrest. You are correct. Police can lawfully take a person's liberty through an arrest; they can also take a person's liberty unlawfully. Seabass' statements inferred that the police were the ultimate authority under our system. To that end, reference his/her comments that police " are the law" and that the police "are the only ones that can deny you your most important right..your freedom. Oh yeah, they can also take your life..." I responded that these are the functions of the judicial system. Police are not the law, but enforcers of the law and police must act within certain boundaries, especially when denying someone their liberty or taking a person's life. If you have a do not agree with that statement, then we must agree to disagree. I have been reading this back and forth between you and Johnwinger and Seabass. I largely agree with what they are saying. Your above post was pretty much what I was going to write in response. I am going to add a few things here. You also wrote... to which I essentially replied that police officers are not vested with the rights to take your freedom or to kill a person - that is the role of judges and juriesThat is not accurate. Going back to a motor vehicle stop, that is a fourth amendment issue. Once those lights go on behind a driver, the driver is obliged by law to pull over and comply with the lawful requests of the officer. To not do so subjects the driver to penalties. By doing so, an officer is indeed taking a persons freedom away temporarily. Depending on the circumstances and what transpires, that could lead to a more permanent loss of freedom. Then the judges and juries come in and possibly take a way further freedom. A police officer also has the right to use deadly force and non deadly force to gain lawful compliance. In the case of non deadly force, the simple way to view it is that the officer has the right to use one level of force higher than what the suspect is engaging in. That is until deadly force. Deadly force can only be met with deadly force. There are stringent guidlines in place for both. An officer who does not comply with those lawful guidelines is subjected to criminal and civil prosecution for violating a persons fourth amendment rights. The above is the distinction between a police officer and a citizen. An officer has the right to stop and use force when done in a legal manner. A citizen generally does not. Another example of fourth amendment stops and searches caused quite a bit of very reasonable criticism in New York City where police were practicing stop and frisk procedures under what many believed to be loose guidelines. I do not recall all the details of that, but I do recall that it did not sit well with me. Either way, for at least a while, the courts upheld those stop and frisk losses of freedom. Novillero, your concerns appear to be centered around officer abuse of power etc. Those concerns are certainly not with out merit, but it does not stop with the police. Concerns of wayward judges applying the law unfairly, or trials not be done fair are also topics of many legal cases. Every part of the justice system has "rights: to take human life and freedom. As a result, every part of the justice system has to be watched, questioned and reviewed from time to time. That is a good example of the checks and balances that we have in our republic. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 9, 2009 7:45:47 GMT -5
p.s. I posted some questions that were on topic to the Irizarry question a few days ago, and no one answered. Here were a few of my questions: (1) Does Irizzary have a civil suit pending? Was one ever filed? (2) The papers seemed to drop the issue when the criminal matter was adjourned to another date. What ever happened to the criminal charges against Irizarry? Your questions are good ones. It would be nice to know where all of this stands. It all just dropped out of the news papers. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 9, 2009 19:36:34 GMT -5
Here is the answer to one question.. newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0610/front_page/002.htmlDamages sought in '08 police incident Unspecified damages sought in legal claim vs. Freehold Borough BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer The borough of Freehold, the Freehold Borough Police Department and eight Freehold Borough police officers have been named in a claim filed by Migdalia Irizarry of Freehold Township. Irizarry is seeking an undetermined amount of monetary damages in the wake of incident in which she was involved with police on Jan. 29, 2008. A claim filed by attorney Andrew M. Zapcic, of Hazlet, who represents Irizarry, states that Irizarry is filing the action individually and as guardian ad litem on behalf of her son, 17, a daughter, 5, and another son, 9. The occurrence which gave rise to the claim is listed as happening on Jan. 29, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. on First Street in Freehold Borough. The claim states, "After a Freehold Borough police officer pulled Ms. Irizarry and her three children over for a motor vehicle stop, the officer ordered Ms. Irizarry out of the car and proceeded to forcibly twist her arm behind her back without any cause. As this was occurring, her son, a juvenile, rolled down the car window. At that time, the officer tossed Ms. Irizarry to another officer, opened the car door, and punched her son in the mouth, pulled him from the car, put him in a chokehold, and threw him to the ground." Listed under public employees and public agencies Irizarry considers to be at fault are the Borough of Freehold, the Freehold Borough Police Department, Patrolman Chris Colaner, Detective Daniel Heulitt, Patrolman Sean Hobbs, Special Officer Peter Napoli, Patrolman Chris Otlowski, Patrolman James Richmond, Sgt. Michael Sweetman and Patrolman Kevin Werner. The following are the injuries described in the document: • Migdalia Irizarry — physical assault, emotional distress, violation of her civil rights. • The 17-year-old son — injuries to his face, broken braces and teeth, emotional distress and violation of his civil rights. • The 5-year-old daughter — emotional distress, violation of her civil rights. • The 9-year-old son — emotional distress and violation of his civil rights. The claim states that Irizarry did not lose any time from work as a result of the incident. "Upon advice of counsel, the plaintiff will rely upon the opinions of her treating and or examining doctors who will give testimony with regard to the nature, extent, duration and causation of her injuries … the plaintiff believes all of her injuries are permanent in nature," the claim states. The claim does not state the total amount of damages being sought. According to the document, "The dollar value of the claims being exerted by the four claimants cannot be determined at this time. The claims are unliquidated, and the full extent of damages to the claimants has not yet been determined." Charges that were lodged against Irizarry and her older son by the police on Jan. 29, 2008 have not yet been heard in court. Zapcic did not return messages left by the News Transcript. Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins said she had no comment on the claim for damages that Irizarry has filed. The News Transcript asked Higgins, "Were there video cameras in the police cars that responded to the scene of the Irizarry incident?" and "If there were, did the cameras record the alleged interaction between the police and the people in the car?" Higgins responded in an email, "Colaner was in an unmarked car with no (video camera). Video only comes after Irizarry and son subdued." |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 9, 2009 19:42:14 GMT -5
And here is the article backing up this topic that Seabass started. It looks like it will be getting ugly..... newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0610/front_page/030.htmlPatrolman promoted to Freehold police sgt. Questions raised about outcome of related internal investigation BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer CLARE MARIE CELANO Freehold Borough police officer Chris Colaner is sworn in as the Freehold Borough Police Department's newest sergeant during the June 1 meeting of the Borough Council. An article about Colaner's promotion begins on page 42. FREEHOLD — Surrounded by his wife and three young children, Freehold Borough police officer Chris Colaner was promoted from patrolman to sergeant during the June 1 meeting of the Borough Council. However, the mood of excitement and happiness that normally surrounds the promotion of a local police officer was tempered when some people appeared at the meeting to express their opposition to Colaner's promotion. In January 2008, Colaner was accused by a citizen of improper conduct during a motor vehicle stop in the borough. In April 2008, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office stated that Colaner did not commit a crime during the incident. "Our investigation showed no probable cause to believe that the police officer committed a crime. The decision to close the case was based on all available evidence," Monmouth County First Assistant Prosecutor Peter E. Warshaw Jr. said. At the same time, Freehold Borough police officials said they were conducting an internal investigation into the incident. In an April 2, 2008, article in the News Transcript, Police Chief Mitchell Roth said he expected the internal investigation to be completed soon. In a July 16, 2008, article in the News Transcript, Roth said the internal investigation was still ongoing and that Colaner had returned to full-time patrol duties. It could not be determined last week if the police department's internal investigation was ever completed or if a report about the allegations against Colaner had ever been produced. Roth did not return phone messages and Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins did not respond to an email sent by the News Transcript. The incident at the heart of the matter took place on Jan. 29, 2008, when police stopped a motor vehicle on First Street that was being operated by Migdalia Irizarry, 34, of Freehold Township. In the aftermath of the motor vehicle stop, Irizarry was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Her 16-yearold son was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest with force and aggravated assault on a police officer. Irizarry then made allegations of police brutality against Colaner. As a result of the motor vehicle stop, Irizarry's son was taken to CentraState Medical Center, Freehold Township, for treatment and then placed in the Monmouth County Youth Detention Center, Freehold Township, and later released. Irizarry was in attendance at the council's June 1 meeting and publicly voiced her opposition to Colaner's promotion. She said she was "very emotional" about the issue and "very upset" when she heard the news about the officer's promotion. "After everything that happened that night, this is not right," she said. "Nothing we did that night was wrong. He (Colaner) made the wrong decision. This is like a slap in the face," she said. She said she was disappointed in a police force that, according to her, "swept this under the rug." Irizarry said she has lived most of her life in Freehold Borough and always felt safe in the town until now. "This fear is not because of kids or gangs, this is because of the police. This is not to take away from everything you do," she said, addressing the police officers who were in attendance to see Colaner get his promotion. Irizarry said the police department as a whole should be applauded. She addressed Sgt. Michael Sweetman and said he was "a good guy." Council President Marc Le Vine asked Irizarry to address her comments to the council and not to the audience. "This is only a few police officers I am talking about," she said. "There is no respect for the community anymore and there is no way that anyone should be mistreated. It (the motor vehicle stop because police thought the vehicle matched the description of a vehicle being sought) could have been a mistake in the beginning, but everything after that was not right. You disrespected my son and me. "I am not here to cause a ruckus, just to say my piece, but you have no idea what it is like to see your child face down on the ground and not be able to do anything about it," she said. "I never did anything except what was my right to do." Irizarry said she believes the police department should do more outreach to members of the community. Councilman Jaye Sims congratulated Colaner on his promotion and told the audience that Colaner is involved with the department's youth police academy and that he led a coat drive in the winter. Sims also commended Colaner's longtime involvement in the Freehold Center Partnership's Santa Train. "He does a lot more than just being a cop," Sims said. Sims said that since Roth took control of the department, the chief has stressed the importance of having officers become more involved in the community. He pointed to a recent seminar which was geared toward promoting respect between residents and the police department. In a conversation with the News Transcript, Irizarry said that almost 17 months after the incident occurred, the charges against her and her son are still pending. She has filed a civil suit against the borough and the police department seeking damages in connection with the events of Jan. 29, 2008. Also in the audience at the June 1 council meeting was borough resident Frank Argote Freyre, the director of the Monmouth County chapter of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey. Argote-Freyre asked Higgins what the internal investigation of the Jan. 29, 2008, incident concluded. Higgins said she was not at liberty to discuss personnel issues in public. Argote-Freyre said the public deserves to know what the investigation concluded. Higgins said she could not discuss a specific employee. The Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey released the following statement in regard to Colaner's promotion: "The decision to promote Patrolman Christopher Colaner was premature and insensitive and sends a terrible message to the community at large. Chief Roth has yet to publicly comment on the outcome of an internal investigation of Patrolman Colaner with regard to allegations that he acted improperly during a motor vehicle stop in January 2008. "The public deserves to know the outcome of the investigation before a promotion is given to Patrolman Colaner. The failure to address such an issue speaks to the arrogance of power by borough officials. At (the June 1) meeting, the borough attorney noted that borough officials were forbidden by law from commenting on the issue, but the law regarding internal investigations permits Chief Roth to comment on the outcome and the case." Argote-Freyre said the public disclosure of the outcome of the internal investigation should have been done before the decision to promote Colaner was made. The council members offered their full support to the new sergeant. Councilman George Schnurr commended Colaner for his initiative to take the sergeant's test. "He stepped up to the plate when his department and his fellow officers needed him," Schnurr said. "He is a leader by example," he added. Councilman Michael DiBenedetto congratulated Colaner for his initiative in making the time and effort to take sergeant's test. Councilwoman Sharon Shutzer told Irizarry, "I want you to understand that I am not the police commissioner and I feel no undue loyalty for the police department, but I have to say that it tweaked me to hear that you feel unsafe in this town and that you think our police department does not reach out to the community. I have to tell you that if I did not feel my children and my grandchildren were safe in the town, I would not be in this town. I have never had anything but the best services rendered." Shutzer commended the police department for its outreach programs and said it was an "unfair slam" at the police to paint the department with "broad brushstrokes." Le Vine said, "Our police department under the direction of Chief Roth does a great job, and I live in this town and plan to continue to live in this town. They do a hell of a job and I know that everyone up here feels the same way. "Without a force like yours," he said, addressing Roth, "this would not be the great town that it is." Le Vine thanked Irizarry for sharing her feelings with the council and said he appreciated her doing that. Contact Clare Marie Celano at ccelano@gmnews.com. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 9, 2009 19:45:26 GMT -5
In an ongoing matter of public interest, the News Transcript stands with the Latino LeadershipAlliance of New Jersey and we join its attempt to find out what has transpired in a matter that has lingered over Freehold Borough since Jan. 29, 2008. newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0610/editorials/020.htmlTime to reveal details of internal investigation In an ongoing matter of public interest, the News Transcript stands with the Latino LeadershipAlliance of New Jersey and we join its attempt to find out what has transpired in a matter that has lingered over Freehold Borough since Jan. 29, 2008. On that night Freehold Borough police officers stopped a vehicle that matched the description of a vehicle that was being sought. Before the matter was concluded, a Freehold Township woman and her son had been arrested and charged with various offenses, and they in turn had made allegations of police brutality against an officer. The vehicle that was stopped by the officers was not the vehicle that was being sought. The incident made headlines and generated intense interest at the time it happened and then it faded away. It should not be allowed to disappear without a trace. Shortly after the incident occurred, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office determined that Freehold Borough Patrolman Chris Colaner — who was accused of police brutality — had not committed a crime during the incident. If only the wheels of justice turned that quickly for Migdalia Irizarry and her son. The charges that were brought against them that night by the police have never been adjudicated. Why? We don't know. Inquiries made by a News Transcript reporter about this situation have been bounced from municipal court to the prosecutor's office, and back to municipal court. No one, it seems, knows anything. In the wake of the allegations that Irizarry made against the Freehold Borough police officers following the Jan. 29, 2008, incident, an internal investigation was launched by the department. The News Transcript published articles in February 2008 and July 2008 in which Freehold Borough Police Chief Mitchell Roth acknowledged that an internal investigation was under way. Was that internal police department investigation ever completed? If it was completed, what did that investigation conclude? If it wasn't completed, why not? These questions deserve answers, and no one in a position of authority in Freehold Borough seems to want to answer any questions about this case. Why? We don't know. On June 1, Colaner was promoted to the rank of sergeant and that prompted the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey to release the following statement: "The decision to promote Patrolman Christopher Colaner was premature and insensitive and sends a terrible message to the community at large. Chief Roth has yet to publicly comment on the outcome of an internal investigation of Patrolman Colaner with regard to allegations that he acted improperly during a motor vehicle stop in January 2008. "The public deserves to know the outcome of the investigation before a promotion is given to Patrolman Colaner. The failure to address such an issue speaks to the arrogance of power by borough officials." It is time for the Freehold Borough police brass to reveal the findings of the internal investigation. It is time for the charges against Irizarry and her son to be heard in court. If they are guilty as charged, they should pay the penalties. This case has gone unresolved for an unacceptable amount of time. It is time for answers to be presented in a public forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 10, 2009 9:04:11 GMT -5
I would have to agree with the sentiments of the News Transcript editorial.
And I will add that it is a dis-service to Sgt. Colaner to promote him with IA charges that are still pending - and that have been pending for well over a year. His promotion, which should have been a happy event while he was surrounded by family and friends, sounded more like a circus. As the council and PD have declared him innocent, why put the guy through this?
The civil lawsuit is one thing, but shouldn't the criminal charges against Irizarry and the IA matter have been dealt with already? It has been over a year, and it does not seem like too complicated of a matter: either the charges (against either person) are true, or they are false.
Seabass, Johnwinger, you both seem familiar with this end of things, do you know why this is still pending?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 10, 2009 9:08:47 GMT -5
I would have to agree with the sentiments of the News Transcript editorial. And I will add that it is a dis-service to Sgt. Colaner to promote him with IA charges that are still pending - and that have been pending for well over a year. His promotion, which should have been a happy event while he was surrounded by family and friends, sounded more like a circus. As the council and PD have declared him innocent, why put the guy through this? The civil lawsuit is one thing, but shouldn't the criminal charges against Irizarry and the IA matter have been dealt with already? It has been over a year, and it does not seem like too complicated of a matter: either the charges (against either person) are true, or they are false. Seabass, Johnwinger, you both seem familiar with this end of things, do you know why this is still pending? There is so much going on here. I will be back to comment on a later date. I look forward to see what others write. |
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jun 10, 2009 14:26:00 GMT -5
Freehold Dudes and Dudettes:
I hereby declare Chief Roth officially spanked. Ms. Irizarry and the LLA laid a glove to his posterior. I am sure he is still stinging.
But, now that I know more about the incident I have to say that the Chief deserves it. How do you promote a guy when he is still under suspicion?
There is so much wrong here and for once Novillero got it right.
How come the criminal case against the officer has been resolved but not against the young boy?
What did the police internal investigation conclude?
I spent a lot of time in Philly over the winter and I really missed this town. Its true Philly has a lot more cultural events and a lot more restaurants to chose from and the Liberty Bell.
But, nothing beats this little town for controversy. Tons of drama and mistrust packed into a few square miles. I am in a Freehold state of mind.
I am looking forward to a summer of protest marches, angry insults, packed council meetings. It will be just like old times. Councilman Levine dude is the Council President -- it doesn't get any better than that.
No place better on earth to live -- and to address another poster that is what I love best about this crazy borough.
Casually Preparing an Ice Pack for Chief Roth
|
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jun 10, 2009 15:18:26 GMT -5
Freegold Dudes and Dudettes: Take a sentimental journey with me back to March 13, 2008 and see what I posted on the Irizarry case with regards to police discipline. Alas, I fear I may end up being right again - I would prefer to be wrong, but you all know from years of following my predictions that that rarely happens. Here is my post -- To My Adoring Fans:
I have been following carefully the police brutality complaint made by the Freehold Borough woman.
This is a pattern we see throughout the country. The police have enormous discretion to use and abuse force. My palms get all sweaty at night when I get stopped by a man with a gun on a quiet highway.
The last thing one should do is anger the cop.
But, let us be honest the system is rigged in favor of law enforcement. If you are ticked off by the cops -- who do you complain to? The COPs.
Are we supposed to believe that the cops are going to take seriously a complaint against someone who they expect to cover their butt on a day-to-day basis on the street?
And then if things are a little more serious the complaint goes where? To another cop -- the prosecutor. Even if the prosecutor is not a cop he needs the cops to do his job.
Do we really think the prosecutor is going to do anything about this police brutality complaint?
The system is rigged in the favor of local police. Even if the woman making the allegation was in the right her chances of getting a fair break are small.
As you know, Casual is almost always right in his political predictions.
Once again let me shed light on the current situation.
Casual's prediction -- Nothing will happen to the Freehold Borough Police Officer. He will not be indicted. The most that will happen is he will be sent to a two-day panel on anger management.
The following are more likely to occur than discipline being handed out to the borough cop:
Miller will be elected mayor.
Andy Randy DeFonzo will get a humanitarian award from the NAACP.
Spitzer will open a Christian bookstore.
The Mexican community will leave the borough.
Casually Predicting the Future |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 11, 2009 10:44:21 GMT -5
Freehold Dudes and Dudettes: I hereby declare Chief Roth officially spanked. Ms. Irizarry and the LLA laid a glove to his posterior. I am sure he is still stinging. But, now that I know more about the incident I have to say that the Chief deserves it. How do you promote a guy when he is still under suspicion? There is so much wrong here and for once Novillero got it right. How come the criminal case against the officer has been resolved but not against the young boy? What did the police internal investigation conclude? I spent a lot of time in Philly over the winter and I really missed this town. Its true Philly has a lot more cultural events and a lot more restaurants to chose from and the Liberty Bell. But, nothing beats this little town for controversy. Tons of drama and mistrust packed into a few square miles. I am in a Freehold state of mind. I am looking forward to a summer of protest marches, angry insults, packed council meetings. It will be just like old times. Councilman Levine dude is the Council President -- it doesn't get any better than that. No place better on earth to live -- and to address another poster that is what I love best about this crazy borough. Casually Preparing an Ice Pack for Chief Roth In my weird way, I am agreeing with you, CR. The town is getting spanked-again. It is a good question as to why these issues are talking so long. But, in defense of the town, they can not shoot their mouths off as activists and civilians can do, so we are not as likely to get the full picture. I did not realize that Frank Argote Fryre and the LLA were so tied into this. That fact does not bode well for the town. I may not agree with Frank on many issues,. but he is a very intelligent guy. He knows what he is doing. AS a result, he and the LLA have a near perfect record of wins against the town. There are few battles the LLA have lost in our town. I think it is a fair statement that we all want this ended with the truth out and justice served, regardless of who is wrong or right in that incident. |
|
