Morning recap


Didn’t have enough crime and cop-related news yesterday to throw one of these together, so here’s all the headlines from the past two days:

Categories: General
Bryan Fitzgerald

18 Responses

  1. Bob says:

    “A Clifton Park man pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting three young boys, one of which he kidnapped, and trying to convince them to leave their parents.”

    According to the TU article, the ex-EMT used his employment as an EMT to meet one of his victims. Yet, the article does not identify his employer. I looked at past articles – no mention of his employer. The reader is left to wonder: Clifton Park-Halfmoon Emergency Corps? Malta Ambulance? Mohawk Ambulance Service? Clearly, his employer is relevant, but never reported.

    I’m wondering why….

  2. Jake says:

    “Clearly, his employer is relevant..”

    How is it at all relevant?

  3. Bob says:

    @Jake: If he was identifying victims through the EMT services he was providing, as indicated in the article, then it most certainly is newsworthy and should be reported.

    Folks who pay for and utilize the service would want to be aware of what happened, and it raises important public policy questions of how any emergency/ambulance service screens potential employees and volunteers and whether that screening is sufficient. In addition, EMT’s are also mandated child abuse and maltreatment reporters. This gives them a special responsibility regarding the care of children and youth.

    Of course, as emergency/ambulance services have both employees and volunteers on staff, he could have been a volunteer. In that case, the same question applies: Why was the organization that utilized his services (as an employee or volunteer) not identified in TU’s articles over the past year?

  4. GOOSECOUS™ says:

    …so people can determine who they want to come help their drowing son next summer when they leave him unattendeded during a 4th of July cookout.

  5. Jake says:

    Following your logic, say he was a cashier at a cgrocery store, or a waiter at a restaurant. Would this be newsworthy? Say he met a victim waiting in line at the bank. Should we publish which bank?

    A predator is going to find their victims in a multitude of ways. Placing the blame for this on an employer is unwarranted.

    This does not at all bring into question the screening of employees/volunteers, as this person had no prior history. Are you suggesting psych evaluations? What other job is that required for? Predators can be anyone at all, and you expect one to be found in a job interview?

    Think about everyone you work with, consider a neighbor, or even your family. Imagine if one of these people was guilty of this crime…you’d be blindsided that someone you knew so closely was doing this. And you expect someone conducting a 30 min job interview to be able to detect this? Seriously?

    My real issue here is you are trolling, plain and simple. I know these details you are demanding, and I bet that you do as well. The difference is I am sensible, and you are just trying to cause trouble for innocent people by lumping them in with a monster.

  6. Dan says:

    @Bob: They should just list his whole employment history then. No idea how he met the other kids. Obviously they should have to tighten their hiring process too.

    How are they suppose to screen him? He wasn’t on any registry (unlike now). Are you just supposed to ask everyone if they molest kids? It’s pretty easy to point out any flaws after the fact and offer no suggestions.

  7. Jake says:

    How about we list out and judge everyone that has even let him LOOK at a kid? How could they let this happen? FOR SHAME!

  8. Bob says:

    @Dan: The question I raised in my original comment was why the TU did not, over a number of articles, identify the emergency service when it was clearly newsworthy. It was aimed at what the TU selects to report and to not report, and why. In my second comment, a response to ‘Jake,’ I explained why I thought that identifying the emergency/ambulance service was relevant to the story. My interest relates to why the TU left out information that is clearly part of the story.

    No, the TU need not attempt to report his whole employment history; just the emergency service in question. And, it’s common for certain employers to screen candidates for various purposes. The discussion of who, what, how, and whether to screen is a public policy question. But that question can’t be raised if key information is not reported.

  9. Bob says:

    @TU: I’m still wondering why the TU did not identify the emergency service in question when it was clearly relevant and newsworthy.

  10. Jake says:

    Bob, the issue here is your definition of “clearly newsworthy” or “clearly part of the story” (you overuse clearly), specifically that your definition is, in this case, wrong.

    The ensuing policy debate would be utterly pointless. What specifically would you be debating? There is no need to question the magnitude of their screening, as this is literally unscreenable unless you posess some kind of super power. A psych evaluation would not guarantee detection. Plus it would be completely unreasonable, both practically and economically, for a job that pays $10-$12/hr.

    Furthermore, how would identifying the EXACT agency facilitate this great policy debate? Isn’t the fact that it could have been any of them enough to initiate the debate you are searching? Or is it because your point of contention is wrong?

  11. Dan says:

    What benefit would listing the agency (or anyone that may have hired this guy, or his partner) have? So someone like you can go picket in front of it or call them and demand to know how they could let someone like that in their building? I think that’s the big reason that the professional journalist working on this story left it out.

    If I were you I wouldn’t dial 9-1-1 anymore just to be safe. Who knows who will show up. May as well just avoid any repair men, pizza delivery people, UPS, FED EX, and especially that kid delivering your newspaper.

  12. Nick says:

    @Bob: The emergency service isn’t in question, nor should it be. Releasing this agency’s name would change nothing other than bring undue scrutiny on it and the decent men and women that serve the community through it. I’m pretty sure the details surrounding the individual charged in this case are more than “newsworthy” enough to sate your needs.

    As Dan and Jake both pointed out, you aren’t going to be able to filter out every bad seed with any reasonable interview process, especially without any prior history. It’s terrible that this predator was able to use his status as a means to target victims, and he could’ve done it anywhere. How could the agency have known before any indicators appeared — and unless they ignored them or refused to take action, why point fingers at them?

  13. Bob says:

    @Jake: This individual reportedly used his position of trust as an EMT at an emergency service to access at least one of his victims. As I mentioned previously, EMT’s are mandated reporters of child abuse and maltreatment. As a news story, that’s very job-related. (While I’m no journalist, I’d be surprised if reporters would disagree with that assessment.) The emergency service that hired him, and we don’t know whether he’s an employee or volunteer because the TU hasn’t reported it, is of note and should be reported for the reasons I’ve explained in previous comments. That’s part of TU’s job.

    My question is why the reporter did not identify the emergency service, information that is quite newsworthy.

  14. Bob says:

    @Dan, Nick: I’m not blaming the emergency service involved, and I’m not interested in starting any investigation. (And Dan, I’m not about to go picket anyone – based on what you’ve said here, I guess my comments hit a sore spot with you.) I’m just asking why the TU chose not to identify the emergency service.

  15. Jake says:

    @Bob – We’re offering the reasons that the reporter did not identify the emergency service, namely that it is not “quite newsworthy” as you insist.

    You keep mentioning that EMT’s are mandated reporters of child abuse…I fail to see what that does for your argument. A single EMT was abusing children, obviously going against this mandate. How are his co-workers culpable?

    Here’s a (likely) scenario: he went to a call where a child was present. On his own returned to the scene much later, and the child recognized him as a trustworthy adult. That was his in.

    Given this (likely) scenario…why does it matter who he works for?

    The bottom line is what is the potential outcomes of reporting this agency? As Nick mentioned, it would ONLY bring undue scrutiny on people that SURELY feel sick to their stomachs about the whole thing already. There is no benefit for anyone by naming the agency.

    Also, you claim that you’d be surprised that a reporter would disagree with you. If this were the case, wouldn’t you be able to find the information somewhere through the various media outlets of the Capital Region? Or is the fact that it is ignored by each of them a sign that it is not “newsworthy”

  16. Bob says:

    It’s interesting that in other stories where the perpetrator’s job has come into play, the TU has identified the employer. But not this one.

    For example, in the past two weeks, the TU published a story about a Hudson River Rafting Co. guide who was charged with negligent homicide after a passenger drowned. The guide was reported intoxicated at the time of the incident. The story, and today’s follow up story on the company owner, identifies the company involved.

    In an older example, where the crime is more related to the ex-EMT’s crime, a Shenendehowa elementary school teacher was charged with sexual abuse of a student. The article identified the teacher, his employer, and the teacher’s home address.

    @TU: Why, when the TU identifies the employer in other instances, this ex-EMT’s employer was not?

    @Jake: Why should the identify of the emergency service be covered up in this case of the ex-EMT? Why should emergency services be treated any differently than other private and public employers under similar circumstances?

  17. American says:

    If it matters to Bob whom are any of you to say it doesnt mattwer? we are each entitled to our own curiosities without having to explain to a bunch of vultures why he’s curious. Wonder what you want Bob. Its still America till another Republican takes office.

  18. Bob says:

    @Jake: If identifying the emergency service is not newsworthy, then why did the TU state, in an earlier article, that the second man arrested in this incident “is a former volunteer with the Round Lake Fire Hose Co. and the Malta Ambulance Corp.”?