#1 2009-07-13 07:16:18
I thought this could use its own thread. We are lucky that Steve Urbon is doing some investigative journalism for Wareham. Thanks Steve, and please keep it up.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc … 015/TOWN14
Offline
#2 2009-07-13 07:36:21
On Saturday the goon squad was on full patrol in Onset & Swifts Beach! Although Coleman just sat in the car~ two guy's would walk around and check for parking stickers in Swifts beach. The old guy seemed to walk around in Onset and tag the car tires with chalk. Then he would come back in an hour and issue a ticket, even though Off. Lopes was sitting in a marked patrol car # 6 on Onset Ave..
Offline
#3 2009-07-13 07:37:34
Good article, real reporting.
This struck me:
In a brief interview at the Crime Watch storefront headquarters at 211 Onset Ave., steps away from the Pier View Restaurant, Coleman did not want to address the complaints. He said only that "everybody is treated equally" by the Crime Watch parking patrols, and then declared that he would not answer any more questions. WHY?
"Sauvageau, noting that Coleman was not there to defend himself...." WHY NOT?
"Interim Police Chief Irving Wallace did not return repeated phone calls for this story..." WHY?
Joyce said this week that his former department was peppered with complaints about Crime Watch ticketing, all of them involving Coleman. IS THERE A RECORD OF THEM? WHAT WAS DONE TO REMEDY THE PROBLEMS?
S-T article
Offline
#4 2009-07-13 07:46:34
THANK YOU STEVE URBON
Offline
#5 2009-07-13 07:55:26
STEVE DID HE TRY TO PAY YOU 50 DOLLARS FOR ANY SERVICES WHILE YOU WERE DOWN THERE?
Offline
#6 2009-07-13 08:13:24
I know I harp on the cruisers...
but here's a solution if we MUST have the parking enforcement.
Better yet, give them mileage and let them use their own cars.
Offline
#7 2009-07-13 14:41:30
urneighbor wrote:
"Interim Police Chief Irving Wallace did not return repeated phone calls for this story..." WHY?
My guess would because he isn't allowed to talk to the papers unless his words are approved by the information minister, I mean the town administrator. Information control is at work in Wareham.
Offline
#8 2009-07-13 16:19:22
Therefore unless the town employee speaks anonymously, there will be no news forthcoming. The slager will be able to rip the s-t apart for using an anonymous source. It is only ok when bobo uses a reliable source who asked not to be identified.
Offline
#9 2009-07-13 16:22:37
And Ragman's anonymous sources tend to use interesting catchphrases like "I'm telling you, straight up!"
Offline
#10 2009-07-13 16:24:26
What is the procedure for naming a new head of the Crimewatch? Who appoints the head in the first place? Surely, you're not Crimewatch head for life, especially if it's a volunteer group.
In other words, who does Crimewatch man answer to? Since the BOS shrug off all complaints, even from BOS supporters like Stevie, it looks like he doesn't answer to anyone.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-07-13 16:30:46)
Offline
#11 2009-07-13 16:41:18
Believe it or not they have a board of directors, but I've heard that in the beginning Coleman made sure "his guys" were in there.
Offline
#12 2009-07-13 17:11:31
Using the Guardian Angels as an example of a citizen crime watch (they're in the news now as they are considering putting patrols in New Bedford See Article i Herald), just patrolling an area and calling in suspicious activity to the police department without intervening can be done by any group. An individual can even do it themselves.
There's no need for an official sanction or permission.
Writing parking tickets is entirely different. As Capt. Carilino pointed out parking enforcement officers have to be authorized in a way that apparently Wareham's haven't been.
I really think the town of Wareham is asking for a serious problem the way they have the Crime Watch set up, driving around in cars that except for one green light and a logo of an eye on the side look just like real police cruisers.
We already have one person reporting that Coleman used the lights on his cruiser to stop someone from leaving a parking spot so he could write him a ticket. As I wrote, I also saw the car with lights flashing last summer driving into and while parked at one of the beaches.
These aren't police officers. Outside the car with their yellow t-shirts and jeans or shorts there's no doubt they aren't police. But inside the vehicle it can be hard to tell. If the wrong person mistakes them for real officers there's no telling what may happen.
I strongly suggest that if he has the authority the acting chief make them take the light bars off their cars and write "VOLUNTEER PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND CRIME WATCH" in big letters on both sides.
Take "Emergency 911" off the back too. and replace it with the same lettering. By now everyone knows that you call 911 in emergencies.
Green strobes are easily mistaken for blue - when it is flashing these lights still look like this is a police car. The second they are turned on I think a case can be made that they are impersonating a police officer.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#13 2009-07-13 18:57:40
I agree 100% with urneighbor...Shame on the Town if one of these folks, that are not trained and certified, and unarmed, run into a "bad" guy who doesn't distinguish betweens badges or IDs', and he decides to blow them away.
Who is responsible?
You!
The Town...YOU.
Stop it now. Either get them trained and certified (and by the way, I am glad to hear that Paul Cartilano is alive and well after I served with him many years ago)...or get them gone.
It is not worth the risk to the Town for liability. I am sure there are many former Police Officers that would be happy to volunteer, and they can easily be certified. Best of all, they are already trained.
They will do it for free...Once a cop...always a cop.
Offline
#14 2009-07-13 19:39:26
Let's get this straight. The BOS is more than happy to turn the BOS meeting room into a Kangaroo court, where real police officers are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, giving a public airing to anyone's complaint, no matter how absurd, with no advance notice to the officers. They've done this again and again, and no doubt, they will continue to do it.
But, a former police officer comes in last week to complain about Crimewatchman and his complaint is ignored and he is cut off.
You can complain about the real police, but no complaints will be heard about the wannabe police.
If you are going to give people police powers, then the town granting those police powers is responsible for their actions when they are using those police powers. There needs to be some kind of complaint system other than the current "Crimewatch can do no wrong" approach.
Tailing someone over parking? Seriously? This time, the retired and respected former police officer was nice enough to bring his complaint to the town. The next person it happens to may not be as nice and may just proceed right to a lawsuit.
When you have people that are not police officers exercising police powers, its a recipe for disaster.
But who cares if 2 former police officers told the BOS they have a problem...the BOS knows all.
Offline
#15 2009-07-13 19:39:53
I agree with urneighbor that the wrong person could mistake a crime watch car for a police car potentially putting the crime watch people at risk of harm. Over the weekend I was driving down Cranberry Highway where it is a four lane road and I saw a line of cars that were stacking up behind a crime watch car that was travelling slowly in the right hand lane. It looked just like cars stacking up behind a slow moving police cruiser for fear of being pulled over. So if all those people thought they were driving behind a police car then an aggressive bad guy could easily mistake the same car for a police car too.
Offline
#16 2009-07-13 19:48:10
It's a recipe for disaster!
Offline
#17 2009-07-13 19:56:08
Dan, thank you for your contributions to this site. I think you have given us a wealth of information. That was a great idea to post privately with members. Too bad we will miss out on all the information. What about a listserv for those of us who have been regular posters to this site for awhile?
Offline
#18 2009-07-13 20:03:09
What do you mean, Mixie? I don't know what you mean by a listerv..please explain...thanks..
Offline
#19 2009-07-13 20:56:41
I took this explanation from wikipedia "LISTSERV is the first electronic mailing list software application, consisting of a set of email addresses for a group in which the sender can send one email and it will reach a variety of people. [1] Since its launch in 1986, several other list management tools have been developed, such as Lyris ListManager in 1997, Sympa in 1997, GNU Mailman in 1998.
Prior to LISTSERV, email lists were managed manually. To join or leave a list, people would write to the human list administrator and ask to be added or removed, a process that only got more time-consuming as discussion lists grew in popularity.
LISTSERV was freeware from 1986 through 1993 and is now a commercial product developed by L-Soft, a company founded by LISTSERV author Eric Thomas in 1994.[2] A free version limited to 10 lists of up to 500 subscribers each can be downloaded from the company’s web site."
Before blogging, listservs was the method to communicate to groups of individuals.
Offline
#20 2009-07-13 21:28:29
As you know I was the third person to speak on the Crime Watch issue at the last meeting. No again Mr Slager I am not an employee of a local establishment please correct your story, and as far as I know the former Captain does not work at Pier View either.
My questions were about cost and liability you can review the tape for the answers but I was told by the BOS and ITA that ZERO dollars come from the town for the cars,gas,insurance,or registrations, the town gives them no money.
Second on the liability issue again I was told the volunteers sign waivers and God forbid they injure someone or get injured according to the BOS and ITA the town has no liability risk.
They stated that this is a private organization and any duties given to them involve the ITA and the Chief of Police.
Not sure I buy all of that but that is what was stated by them.
Offline
#21 2009-07-13 21:40:28
Does the Crime Watch have liability insurance? As far as signing waivers, anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything. Not a lawyer, but i would think a good lawyer could have a waiver discredited. It seems someone should carry insurance for these individuals.
Offline
#22 2009-07-14 06:45:04
COLEMAN CLAIMS HIMSELF HE ONLY ANSWERS TO THE BOS AND THE ITA
Offline
#23 2009-07-14 07:28:04
I met Chief Joyce and Capt. Cardalino (sorry for the typo in my other post) years ago. I also had indirect contact with the chief over the years. I can attest that both 1) care very much about the officers of the Wareham Police Department and 2) for the safety of Wareham.
TBL===
I agree with urneighbor that the wrong person could mistake a crime watch car for a police car potentially putting the crime watch people at risk of harm. Over the weekend I was driving down Cranberry Highway where it is a four lane road and I saw a line of cars that were stacking up behind a crime watch car that was travelling slowly in the right hand lane. It looked just like cars stacking up behind a slow moving police cruiser for fear of being pulled over. So if all those people thought they were driving behind a police car then an aggressive bad guy could easily mistake the same car for a police car too.
As for cars lined up behind a crime watch cruiser, from the back although it doesn't say "Police" the only thing that indicates it isn't a police car is the one green instead of blue light on the rooftop light bar.
If they are driving significantly BELOW the speed limit, AND causing a line of cars to develop behind them, they are creating a traffic hazard. If YOU did this, I think that the REAL police could stop you and cite you for impeding traffic:
No person shall drive in such a manner as to obstruct unnecessarily the
normal movement of traffic upon a highway. 720 CMR 9.06(6)(a)
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#24 2009-07-22 11:33:27
searay240 wrote:
My questions were about cost and liability you can review the tape for the answers but I was told by the BOS and ITA that ZERO dollars come from the town for the cars,gas,insurance,or registrations, the town gives them no money.
Hmmm... I guess the board LIED AGAIN. From Bobo...
Crime Watch is a joint program between the group's board of directors, the police department, and the town. The group is financially self-suffient except for a gas allowance, which is paid for by the town. During last night's regularly scheduled selectmen's meeting, Sauvageau erronously stated that the town receives no revenue from tickets issued by Crime Watch. He admitted his error in a phone call to the Observer this morning, saying he misspoke on that point Tuesday night.
Make up you minds! If your going to lie, tell the same story every time. What lying scumbags we have on the BOS.
Offline
#25 2010-01-10 23:34:56
Bump!
This thread also includes pix of crime watch vehicles w/light bars . . .
Offline
#26 2010-01-10 23:36:38
Ha. Beat you by seconds.
Offline