|
Post by coots on May 9, 2014 23:24:44 GMT -5
Thorough Inquiry Sought Into Alleged Beating of Westbury MotoristJoan & Donovan Howell, parents of Kyle Howell, hold hands with Father Krantz from Church of the Abbott, during a press conference discussing community concerns regarding recent allegations of police brutality within the Westbury/New Cassel community on Friday, May 9, 2014.Nassau elected officials and civil rights advocates Friday demanded a swift and thorough investigation into the alleged beating of 20-year old Kyle Howell of Westbury by two county police officers during a traffic stop captured on a store video camera. "There may have been excessive use of force, and something went badly on that day," county Legis. Siela Bynoe (D-Westbury) said at a news conference at the corner in Westbury, which was the scene of the April 25 traffic stop. Howell has said the incident left him with a broken nose, fractures near both eyes, facial nerve damage and emotional scars. His attorney has filed a notice of claim with the county -- a precursor to a lawsuit -- saying Howell was the victim of false arrest and excessive police force and was deprived of his civil rights. Nassau prosecutors and the Police Department's Internal Affairs Division are investigating the conduct of the officers, identified in records as Vincent Logiudice and Basil Gomez. They are on modified duty, and the police department has declined to comment. "We cannot comment until the District Attorney and Internal Affairs Bureau complete their investigation," County Executive Edward Mangano said in a statement. Howell's mother, Joan, who attended the news conference with members of the Westbury branch of the NAACP, said she wants the two officers prosecuted. However, Assemb. Charles Lavine (D-Glen Cove) said, "We are not prejudging what occurred." Police alleged in criminal complaints that Howell kicked and punched the officers after they tried to retrieve marijuana he had put in his mouth. Howell denies fighting with police or having drugs. Howell said police started beating him after taking a cellphone he was using to record them. Howell said one of the officers also had stopped him in January, and warned him then that he would use force if he tried to record him in the future. Howell faces charges including assault, evidence tampering, resisting arrest and criminal possession of a controlled substance after authorities reported finding cocaine after searching his car.
|
|
|
Post by googleyes on May 10, 2014 5:23:24 GMT -5
Reverends prayer.........
The following facts are taken from the complaint, which the Court construes as true for the purpose of deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. On September 13, 1993, the Church hired the plaintiff to operate the parish office. Her responsibilities include maintaining finances, accounting of incoming money, banking deposits, managing financial reports, cutting payroll checks, paying monthly bills, scheduling Church and community functions at the parish hall, addressing parishioners telephone inquiries, and preparing bulletins. In addition to these responsibilities, the plaintiff works closely with many parishioners and their families for baptisms, funerals, weddings, and other services.
On or about December 22, 1996, Krantz took over as Reverend for the Church and became the plaintiff's immediate supervisor. On April 15, 2002, Krantz handed the plaintiff a floppy disk to print a letter from the disk. When the plaintiff opened the disk, she discovered that it contained pornographic images. Krasner asked Krantz why he gave her a disk with pornographic images, to which he responded, "What did you think?" The plaintiff told him that his behavior was unacceptable.
According to the plaintiff, after she confronted Krantz, he began to increase his supervision over her, ridicule her in front of others, and accuse her of incompetency. In the complaint, the plaintiff describes a litany of incidents in which Krantz humiliated and verbally abused the plaintiff to attempt to force her to leave her position at the Church. In one such instance, the plaintiff states that, in April 2002, Krantz became "furious" with her because he thought that the plaintiff was processing Sunday bulletin inserts too early. Krasner informed him that he was frightening and worrying her. He responded, "You had better be worried."
On April 30, 2002, the plaintiff was sick, out of work and under the care of her treating physician. During that time, the plaintiff, her mother, and her nurse kept Krantz apprised of her health status. Krantz placed a letter in her mailbox questioning her illness and requested that she respond to his letter. He warned her that, if she did not return to work, she would be fired. When the plaintiff returned to work, she handed a response in writing to Krantz, at which time he threw her letter into a trash can and stated that he did not care what she had to say.
In another situation, in an attempt to embarrass the plaintiff, Krantz sent a letter to the entire congregation advising them that he was "short-handed" and that he was unable to send out a certain letter for a festival. Krasner also claims that Krantz "confronted" the plaintiff about incorrect financial statements which she did not prepare. In another situation, Krantz became furious with the plaintiff because she did not inspect a van that was going to be used by the Church. In addition, Krantz blamed the plaintiff for losing two of his palm pilots and insinuated that she was responsible for losing two of his cell *369 phones. Krantz, in front of several individuals, also blamed the plaintiff for losing a donation check in the amount of $25,000.
With regard to Reverend Sybesma, who also worked for the Church, the plaintiff claims that he began to sexually harass her. According to the plaintiff, on several occasions, when the plaintiff was away from her office, she returned to find Sybesma in her office looking at pictures of nude men on her computer. Furthermore, the plaintiff claims that Sybesma would often masturbate at her desk while viewing the pornographic images. According to the plaintiff, she complained to Krantz about Sybesma's behavior, but he did nothing to stop it.
Finally, on April 15, 2002, the plaintiff reported the actions of Krantz and Sybesma to Linda Haye, the office administrator of St. Peter's Episcopal Church. Thereafter, in June 2002, the plaintiff requested permission to take a thirty day leave of absence to help take care of her mother who was undergoing two major abdominal surgeries. Krantz denied her request. In October 2002, Krantz wrote a letter for the Church's November newsletter that was sent to the entire congregation. Without specifically referring to her name, the letter stated that the plaintiff was an "ungrateful" employee. According to the plaintiff, she knew that Krantz was referring to her because of her request for a leave of absence. The plaintiff continued to complain to Haye about the individual defendants.
On October 28, 2002, Haye recommended that the plaintiff contact Father Joel Harvey ("Father Harvey"), the head of the Long Island Diocese Response Team. On November 5, 2002, the plaintiff spoke to Father Harvey, and he advised her to file a formal complaint with him. Father Harvey further informed her that the complaint would be kept confidential and that he would arrange for a meeting with the Response Team to hear her complaint.
On December 3, 2002, the plaintiff, along with her representative Susan Avellino, met with the Response Team and reported the incidents with Krantz and Sybesma. The Response Team "threatened" that if she commenced a legal action against Krantz or Sybesma, Krantz would sue her. The Response Team determined that the plaintiff and Krantz should not work together until further notice. On December 6, 2002, the Response Team showed Krantz the transcript of the December 3, 2002 meeting.
On December 8, 2002, the plaintiff telephoned Father Harvey and asked him whether she could return to work. Two days later, the plaintiff went to work and decided that if she saw Krantz's car, she would leave, but because his car was not in the parking lot, she remained at work. That same day, Father Harvey telephoned the plaintiff to advise her that Krantz's response at the December 6, 2002 meeting was "contrite and sad" and that Krantz agreed to apologize to the plaintiff. The Response Team proposed that Krantz and the plaintiff work at separate time and not be in the same room without supervision. The plaintiff was further advised that the Bishop was to review her sexual harassment complaints.
On December 18, 2002, Father Harvey again telephoned the plaintiff. He informed her that Krantz was inquiring as to whether the plaintiff had spoken to the Church vestry members about what had transpired and whether the plaintiff would accept his apology. Krasner responded "no" to both inquiries. Because the plaintiff was upset about what had happened with Krantz and Sybesma, Father Harvey *370 suggested that the plaintiff meet with a therapist affiliated with the Church.
On December 21, 2002, Krantz informed the plaintiff via email that he would be in the office Christmas week and advised her not to come into work during that time. The plaintiff alleges that she did not read the email and that, when she went to work, she discovered that Krantz was already there. The plaintiff further alleges that Krantz apologized to the plaintiff and informed her that he was participating in a twelve step sexual abuse program. Krantz also advised the plaintiff that he was going to seek counseling and that, based on the Bishop's direction, he was entering an out-of-state rehabilitation program.
On January 8, 2003, Krantz admitted to the plaintiff that the Diocese placed a filter on his computer to prevent him from downloading pornography. With a smirk on his face, Krantz stated this would "keep him in line, and try to make him a good boy." On January 16, 2003, the plaintiff wrote a letter to Father Harvey to advise him that Krantz was in breach of his agreement and that Krantz cut her yearly salary to $12,000 per year from $30,500.
In addition, at a May 20, 2003 meeting, Krantz announced that any staff member who did not work a forty hour week would have their vacation time reduced. Krasner claims that this announcement was directed at her because she had always worked less than forty hours each week. Krantz said to her, "you'll probably have to quit now because you won't be able to afford your mortgage." As a result of Krantz's implementation of the new policy, the plaintiff's vacation time was cut down by one week. Krasner claims that the Church, the Diocese, Krantz, and Sybesma created a hostile work environment to force her to quit her position.
..............priceless!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 5:39:41 GMT -5
Modified duty! WTF this job is dead!
|
|
|
Post by rabbit on May 10, 2014 11:59:26 GMT -5
Modified duty! WTF this job is dead! sounds just like a city knee jerk reaction :/
|
|
|
Post by redstone14 on May 11, 2014 0:34:37 GMT -5
Hmmm.......the dad better wash his hands.
|
|
|
Post by bohica9 on May 11, 2014 1:26:47 GMT -5
You must always remember DA Rice is no friend of the Police and will screw you/us at EVERY opportunity, especially as she runs for State-wide Office. To take one of us out is a giant feather in her *&^%$#@ liberal cap. Ditto for EVERY ADA you deal with. NOT ONE IS YOUR FRIEND. Wear your vest when you go to court, but put both panels in the rear so you don't get stabbed in the back. Trust me... I could tell you a story
|
|
|
Post by opie on May 14, 2014 19:26:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tywebb on May 15, 2014 17:47:54 GMT -5
What were the injuries to our cop? Even FIOS barely mentions that in their report...
|
|
|
Post by seymour on May 18, 2014 21:07:27 GMT -5
I saw the video. The officers did nothing wrong.The bottom line is police work is ugly but it has to be done. That's exactly what I saw. The problem is that people who have never done it don't understand. (The idiots in the Media e.g.)
|
|
|
Post by bohica9 on May 19, 2014 23:51:07 GMT -5
You must always remember DA Rice is no friend of the Police and will screw you/us at EVERY opportunity, especially as she runs for State-wide Office. To take one of us out is a giant feather in her *&^%$#@ liberal cap. Ditto for EVERY ADA you deal with. NOT ONE IS YOUR FRIEND. Wear your vest when you go to court, but put both panels in the rear so you don't get stabbed in the back. Trust me... I could tell you a story A Nassau County judge has reportedly dropped charges against a 20-year-old Westbury man who alleged that he was a victim of police brutality at the hands of the officers who arrested him. Judge Alan Honorof granted prosecutors’ request Monday to drop eight charges—including counts of assaulting an officer, resisting arrest and drug possession—that the officers had filed against Kyle Howell, The Associated Press reported. “They should be arrested,” Howell’s mother, Joan, told reporters during a May 9 news conference called by local lawmakers who urged for a speedy investigation into the allegations. “It is definitely an injustice.” The allegations stem from an April 25 traffic stop that was caught on surveillance video in which the officers can be seen beating Howell, who police alleged was trying to swallow marijuana. Howell has said that he was trying to keep his paycheck from blowing away when the officers opened his car door. “What you’re seeing in that video is not the whole story,” James Carver, the Nassau Police Benevolent Association president, said in a news conference last week in which defended the officers. “What’s not seen here in the video is what the struggle is going on inside that car with the police officers.” Prosecutors have said that an investigation into the officers’ actions is continuing. Howell’s attorney, Amy Marion, said earlier this month that she filed a notice of claim, the first step in filing a lawsuit against the police department. Howell has said he required surgery to heal broken bones in his face after the incident. The charges were dropped on the same day that the county legislature approved a $675,000 contract with a consulting firm that will provide ethics training for officers and brass following a string of recent scandals in the department, which include three former top cops being convicted of covering up a burglary and an officer pleading guilty to misconduct for spending his shifts with his mistress.
|
|
|
Post by redstone14 on May 20, 2014 0:24:22 GMT -5
Just one more event that brings to mind "Why Bother?"
|
|
|
Post by tywebb on May 20, 2014 4:52:10 GMT -5
I will do my job -- nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by smallville on May 20, 2014 5:15:42 GMT -5
Sometimes a course of action becomes clear if you imagine your child coming onto the job. What advice would you give them?
|
|
|
Post by pdcn63 on May 20, 2014 6:29:22 GMT -5
so if u sit back and be an empty suit you keep your job and all the benefits and make the same amount of money. if you be a real cop you get put on newsday, sued, embarassed, and possibly lose everything... the choice is yours.
|
|
|
Post by familyguy on May 20, 2014 10:00:32 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other....guys really need to operate as if they are on camera at all times. you can go out and be a worker, just use your head . the zeros who avoid work seem to get caught up in sh!t as well, trust me. Failing to take paper and things go bad after or not locking someone out of laziness can put you in newsday also. I hope the best for these guys, they were trying to do what many wont do..I get that, But I also keep thinking of a few guys in my command that I never wanted at my calls, because somehow, someway they would always find a reason to go hands on. Not saying that these guys are like that , but those guys are out there and those guys are on here as well. I remember guys defending the jackass who decided to put a dozen careers on the line in two departments because he couldn't hold his liquor, had thin skin and needed to carry his gun to make his c0ck bigger. I believe he along with a few others are one of the big reasons we had to go through such hell to get a pay raise. the public turns against you when this stuff gos on.
|
|