Driver, witness say Stratford cop had seizure in crash

[To ChrisTroll]

The above posting is right, just like your beloved idol, each time you post you only tell PART of the story.
You also keep mentioning Imbro, but it was MIRON who made the final call, agains the advice of Imbro, Branyan, the detective who conducted the background check, and TWO doctors who advised against his being hired -- including one HIRED by the town.
And, as I have pointe out, this outside, independent investigation you favor, well, why not TELL your idol, the mayor.
He and Buturla have said NO to that. How can you explain that? You can't. You can't talk your way out of this one, just like the mayor and the police chief. There are no more lies left to tell that anyone will believe.
Check Mate!

[Manny]

I've known Jimmy Miron a long time, and none of this comes as any surprise to me.
When he was younger, he was always looking for a way to beat the system, then when he became part of it he tried to find ways to pull stuff over on the people.
Only now, it's all gone to his head and he thinks he can do anything, that he can't be caught.
It's sad to see someone who was just a goof-ball become this corrupt and hardened. He's also a loose cannon, and one of these days he's going to explode -- believe me, I've seen it happen before with this guy.
So, while he was once a friend, I see this whole cop saga as an example of how far Jimmy has fallen.
Vote him out in November, voters, and do not only yourself a favor, but him too. He can't handle being mayor. I knew it all along. Can you guess who I am, Jimmy? There are some hints here.

[Christopher StratCT]

To the Troll with the Trumbull IP,

Do you really think your childish, narrow-minded insults have any effect on me whatsoever?

You're an obnoxious, cowardly cyberbully and nothing more.

But keep posting your inane drivel, it simply reinforces that you're a clown.

[Christopher StratCT]

jfa wrote:

<quoted text>
...believe it or not things that are classified as a police REPORT are exempt, unless it is an active investigation. it's easy to misinterpret if you don't have a clear understanding--foi'ing a chart from a doctor's office is not exempt.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between a police report and personnel file (which can be for either an active employee or an applicant). Medical records that are part of a personnel file ARE NOT subject to FOI. How many times does that have to be stated before it sets in?

Read the Memorandum of Decision for the Putman case which is posted on the Stratford PD Union website. The answer to this question is on page six: "...the third party, rather than providing information to a health care professional to assist in medical treatment, rendered the medical information to the police in order to assist in an investigation. The department can only establish that the file contains medical "information" but not that the file is a "medical file" under the prevailing definition."

The documents that were released WERE NOT part of a police investigation, and even if they were, a medical file would still be subject to privacy laws. The medical information that was released in the Putnam case did not fit the definition of a medical file. But it is not difficult to understand that the above declaration also indicates that there are different standards for a medical file. Had it been a medical file rather than a third party providing information, it is highly likely that medical file would have been protected and NOT subject to FOIA.

The Putnam declaration posted on the Union website doesn't help your case with respect to the release of a medical file.

As for Justin's accident, information regarding his health that would be obtained in the same manner as that in the Putnam case would be available to the public, as that would likely not be a medical file and so the Chief cannot hold back the investigation report on the basis of the medical information contain therein.

It really isn't that difficult to understand.

[jfa]

chris-i understand the diferences completely. the are differences between a report tha has a police report id number that contains a medical statement-which is ok to release and an actual medical or personell file. if what you are saying applied the charges against the officers would have been far different- you need to re-examine what you think and not rely on your legal idol, because these days he is wrong far more than he is right.

[Christopher StratCT]

jfa wrote:

chris-i understand the diferences completely. the are differences between a report tha has a police report id number that contains a medical statement-which is ok to release and an actual medical or personell file. if what you are saying applied the charges against the officers would have been far different- you need to re-examine what you think and not rely on your legal idol, because these days he is wrong far more than he is right.

jfa, are you suggesting that as long as information is tied to a police report with an id number all that information is available for public viewing?

That's not what is indicated in the Putman memorandum. There could very well be cases where portions of a report are redacted or withheld because that information is not subject to FOIA. Just because certain information is included in a police report (with or without an id) doesn't mean it automatically gets released to the public.

If we're talking about the accident, which is the subject of this forum, then I agree with you that any information obtained as a third party statement (medical or otherwise) is most likely available as part of the report. If you're talking about Justin's or Christian's application, then that's another issue entirely.

But I'm not sure which you're referring to here, although there are both criminal and civil cases against the officers and Henrick. Who knows what the outcome will be, but both lines are being purused at this particular time.

[Jezebel282]

Christopher StratCT wrote:

<quoted text>
jfa, are you suggesting that as long as information is tied to a police report with an id number all that information is available for public viewing?
That's not what is indicated in the Putman memorandum. There could very well be cases where portions of a report are redacted or withheld because that information is not subject to FOIA. Just because certain information is included in a police report (with or without an id) doesn't mean it automatically gets released to the public.
If we're talking about the accident, which is the subject of this forum, then I agree with you that any information obtained as a third party statement (medical or otherwise) is most likely available as part of the report. If you're talking about Justin's or Christian's application, then that's another issue entirely.
But I'm not sure which you're referring to here, although there are both criminal and civil cases against the officers and Henrick. Who knows what the outcome will be, but both lines are being purused at this particular time.

Christopher,

Just a quick question. In the case of Justin Loschiavo, his history of epilepsy was already documented by the Town when he was a Public Works employee and was restricted to certain duties for his own safety and that of the Town's. Are you saying none of that could be considered when he applied to the SAME employer for a more dangerous job?

(By the way, did you send your request to the FBI like I did?)

[Christopher StratCT]

Jezebel282 wrote:

<quoted text>
Christopher,
Just a quick question. In the case of Justin Loschiavo, his history of epilepsy was already documented by the Town when he was a Public Works employee and was restricted to certain duties for his own safety and that of the Town's. Are you saying none of that could be considered when he applied to the SAME employer for a more dangerous job?
(By the way, did you send your request to the FBI like I did?)

Are we back to this issue again. Okay then. I never said that the information you cite (or any other information) shouldn't be considered. The question is whether it can be used to disqualify a candidate, any candidate, IF that candidate can successfully complete all the required tests and tasks necessary to do the job.

Did Justin successfully complete his training at the academy? If he didn't and he was still hired, then there's a big problem right there. Did he have any incidents while at the academy? All of that should have been considered as well.

Arguing that the illness should have disqualified him right away and suggesting that hiring him despite the illness was corruption are the areas I'm curious about.

If that were the case, individuals with diabetes or similar illnesses should be disqualified immediately as well. After all, if blood sugar drops a person can go into a diabetic coma. That could be just as dangerous.

There may have been any number of other issues that would have disqualified this officer from being considered. There may have been coersion, corruption, conspiracy, whatever you want to call it. So conduct the investigation and get the facts. If it is determined illegal acts were committed, arrest those involved and take them to trial.

[Jezebel282]

Christopher StratCT wrote:

<quoted text>
Are we back to this issue again. Okay then. I never said that the information you cite (or any other information) shouldn't be considered. The question is whether it can be used to disqualify a candidate, any candidate, IF that candidate can successfully complete all the required tests and tasks necessary to do the job.
Did Justin successfully complete his training at the academy? If he didn't and he was still hired, then there's a big problem right there. Did he have any incidents while at the academy? All of that should have been considered as well.
Arguing that the illness should have disqualified him right away and suggesting that hiring him despite the illness was corruption are the areas I'm curious about.
If that were the case, individuals with diabetes or similar illnesses should be disqualified immediately as well. After all, if blood sugar drops a person can go into a diabetic coma. That could be just as dangerous.
There may have been any number of other issues that would have disqualified this officer from being considered. There may have been coersion, corruption, conspiracy, whatever you want to call it. So conduct the investigation and get the facts. If it is determined illegal acts were committed, arrest those involved and take them to trial.

Did you contact the FBI? Do you need the contact info again?

[Christopher StratCT]

Jezebel282 wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you contact the FBI? Do you need the contact info again?

Really Jezebel, you need to sing a new tune. Last week it was Pat Sterling's letter to the Town Council, now we're back to the FBI. I thought you were trying to get the Town Council to order an investigation? How many irons do you have in that fire?

[Momof3]

Jezebel282 wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you contact the FBI? Do you need the contact info again?

If you don't mind reposting, I'd like the information. Thanks in advance.

[Jezebel282]

Christopher StratCT wrote:

<quoted text>
Really Jezebel, you need to sing a new tune. Last week it was Pat Sterling's letter to the Town Council, now we're back to the FBI. I thought you were trying to get the Town Council to order an investigation? How many irons do you have in that fire?

As many as I can. You have said several times it should happen. Help us out here and do your part.

[jfa]

Christopher StratCT wrote:

<quoted text>
Are we back to this issue again. Okay then. I never said that the information you cite (or any other information) shouldn't be considered. The question is whether it can be used to disqualify a candidate, any candidate, IF that candidate can successfully complete all the required tests and tasks necessary to do the job.
Did Justin ....

did he successfully complete the training? not initially. he had to be "given" a "special" extension to pass the physical exit exam(not a medical exam) and i was told that it took over 10 attempts to get him to pass as well as using departmental resources (popick) to help him along. the core of this job especially as a rookie is your ability to physically perform. he made state history by being put on "light duty" as a recruit, it has never been done in the history of the state-so what makes him soooooo special?
the key difference in your diabetic relationship is that most often diabetics (non insulin dependent) have the power to control the extremes associated with the disease. if the person is an uncontrolled diabetic you are correct it could be dangerous and they may be sidelined for another healthier candidate, those are the breaks. with epilepsy not everyone gets the aura that goes with the seizure, and quite frankly the medications used to control the seizures have their own set of warnings that come with them-look them all up and read the side effects--the medications have their own impairments. sadly this kid should have NEVER even applied to any pd for these reasons and because he did-to me it suggests that he has impaired judgement to begin with.
if hrh has anything to say about it there will be NO investigation that he can't steer while he is in office-though there are things that are currently being looked at, the full blown version probably won't happen until he is out of office in november. but if you don't write your letter-we will keep repeating the same problems over and over. the more letters they receive the more serioulsy they take it. have you done it yet?

[Christopher StratCT]

jfa wrote:

<quoted text>
did he successfully complete the training? not initially. he had to be "given" a "special" extension to pass the physical exit exam(not a medical exam) and i was told that it took over 10 attempts to get him to pass as well as using departmental resources (popick) to help him along. the core of this job especially as a rookie is your ability to physically perform. he made state history by being put on "light duty" as a recruit, it has never been done in the history of the state-so what makes him soooooo special?

If what you're saying is true and there is documentation of the "special" extension or any other type of preferential treatment, then I agree that he shouldn't have been hired. I haven't read anything in any of the articles that talks about this, unless I missed an article. I would think this special extension would be noted in the documentation regarding his training. If and when any investigation takes place and it is determined whether this was actually the case, I'll be right there agreeing this was a bad hire.

But let's face it, most of what is written on the forums is opinion, and there's no documentation to review at this point, at least from the public's perspective. So until documentation is made available or an investigation provides a finding of fact, all anyone is doing here is spinning his or her wheels.

And no Jezebel, I'm not advocating the release of personal documents, so spare me the fake astonishment.

[Jezebel282]

Christopher StratCT wrote:

<quoted text>
If what you're saying is true and there is documentation of the "special" extension or any other type of preferential treatment, then I agree that he shouldn't have been hired. I haven't read anything in any of the articles that talks about this, unless I missed an article. I would think this special extension would be noted in the documentation regarding his training. If and when any investigation takes place and it is determined whether this was actually the case, I'll be right there agreeing this was a bad hire.
But let's face it, most of what is written on the forums is opinion, and there's no documentation to review at this point, at least from the public's perspective. So until documentation is made available or an investigation provides a finding of fact, all anyone is doing here is spinning his or her wheels.
And no Jezebel, I'm not advocating the release of personal documents, so spare me the fake astonishment.

Nonetheless, you call for an investigation yet refuse to commit to making an effort to help make it happen. What's up with that?

[jfa]

Christopher StratCT wrote:

<quoted text>
If what you're saying is true and there is documentation of the "special" extension or any other type of preferential treatment, then I agree that he shouldn't have been hired. I haven't read anything in any of the articles that talks about this, unless I missed an article. I would think this special extension would be noted in the documentation regarding his training. If and when any investigation takes place and it is determined whether this was actually the case, I'll be right there agreeing this was a bad hire.
But let's face it, most of what is written on the forums is opinion, and there's no documentation to review at this point, at least from the public's perspective. So until documentation is made available or an investigation provides a finding of fact, all anyone is doing here is spinning his or her wheels.
And no Jezebel, I'm not advocating the release of personal documents, so spare me the fake astonishment.

i don't think it is wheel spinning--just look what has come to light so far--these forums are a compass so to speak of the knowlege, opinions and mind set of the people. it has gotten results that while many of us would like them to be more intensified and clearer-it has definately had an impact on things in town. it has brought to light many things that the public was ignorant of and then backed up by the facts that the press brought forth. so keep your eyes peeled as there is much more to come out that will be substansiated and will make the admin feel like roasting in hell might be a better place to be for them--cooler in temperature for starters. that is not innuendo-time will bear out is is a simple fact.

[bolliicks]

i am everywhere and have nothing but love for my pets

[Christopher StratCT]

jfa wrote:

<quoted text>
i don't think it is wheel spinning--just look what has come to light so far--these forums are a compass so to speak of the knowlege, opinions and mind set of the people. it has gotten results that while many of us would like them to be more intensified and clearer-it has definately had an impact on things in town. it has brought to light many things that the public was ignorant of and then backed up by the facts that the press brought forth. so keep your eyes peeled as there is much more to come out that will be substansiated and will make the admin feel like roasting in hell might be a better place to be for them--cooler in temperature for starters. that is not innuendo-time will bear out is is a simple fact.

If and when the facts come out, and if they support the accusations, I'll be more than happy to agree with any actions taken to rectify the situation. Until then, I'm simply reserving judgment. I'm not defending anyone or condemning anyone, just waiting to see what the facts show.

[To ChrisTroll]

It's easy to insult me, and disregard the points I have made.
But the bottom line is you still have never addressed in your postings the fact the TWO doctors recommended Justin not be hired as a police officer becasue of his condition.
The Dinihanian report couldn't be more emphatic, stating the applicant is "not recomemnded" to be hired after the doctor hired by the town determined his condition would be dangerous to other officers, teh public and himself.
So, all your evasive double-talk means nothing. He had a seizure while driving in 2004, then he was hired and had one that could have KILLED a whole lot of people, including children, at Stratford Day -- just a short distance away.
Chris, that is why you will always be a true Troll. All the double talk and pathetic attempts to explain this hiring are not working.
Just ask people on the street. Most are fed up with the mayor, police chief and all the incredible corruption going on. You, however, are in la la land.
Again, why such strenuous efforts to defend the mayor, even in a mater in which the FACTS speak for themselves. Loud and clear.
Again, over and out. Check Mate.

[Jezebel282]

Christopher StratCT wrote:

<quoted text>
If and when the facts come out, and if they support the accusations, I'll be more than happy to agree with any actions taken to rectify the situation. Until then, I'm simply reserving judgment. I'm not defending anyone or condemning anyone, just waiting to see what the facts show.

So...that's a "No"? You won't write the FBI a short letter?