Leonia, NJ firehouse shut after sex assault arrest

[RWC130 594]

Leonia firehouse shut after sex assault arrest

MONDAY JUNE 17, 2013, 11:11 PM

BY REBECCA BAKER

STAFF WRITER

THE RECORD

Teen charged in sex assault on child, 3, in Leonia firehouse

As of noon Monday, the Teaneck Fire Department was answering fire calls on the west side of Leonia, while Fort Lee was covering the east side, Borough Administrator Jack Terhune said. Both departments are working for free, he said, adding that he didn’t know how long that arrangement would last or when the Fire Department would reopen.The borough of Leonia suspended its volunteer Fire Department on Monday and recruited two neighboring departments to respond to emergency calls. Meanwhile, officials grappled with allegations that a teenager who had applied to become a firefighter molested a 3-year-old boy behind a fire­truck.

CREDIT: http://www.northjersey.com/leonia/Leonia_firehouse_shut_after_sex_assault_arrest.html

[PEMO3 523]

Unless there is more to this story than what is visible it seems that an entire dept stands accused with the perp. While the incident is disgusting, on the surface the response seems to be a bit overboard, Again, there maybe more here than the general public is privy to.

[firecapt32 282]

not sure if its over board or not but I think in the public interest that it is a good idea--the public are the people we are sworn to protect so thier faith in the department is paramount. Hopefully it is one bad apple we do not need the whole barrel to get a rotten stench to it because of the one incident. So better to be safe then sorry.

All departments do a arson background check why not a full criminal check.do we want felons or convicted child molesters in our departments or people that have committed crimes like burgulary or som kinf of home invasion.

How many department do a full background check?

I hope this is a isolated incident and everyone gets back to doing what they swore to do --- protect the publis the best that we can.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

The individual accused is developmentally disabled.

Fire house closed for all activities not related to emergency fire fighting.

Edited June 18, 2013 by SRS131EMTFF

[IzzyEng4 427]

A West Haven, CT fire company recently was "placed out of service" do to its captain being involved with a sexual assault case that received regional attention. The company was only OOS for a short period of time after a through investigation was completed by the department and the police to make sure nothing happened at the firehouse.

In this case, I can see then placing the unit out of service to make sure nothing else occurred but it seems the way this also was handled was very political and possible an overreaction by the government.

I agree too, it seems there is more to the story.

[PEMO3 523]

.... Hopefully it is one bad apple we do not need the whole barrel to get a rotten stench to it because of the one incident. So better to be safe then sorry.

Correct me if I am wrong but placing the department out of service indefinitely and having the neighboring departments cover their calls and then going public with this move (be it the town or it members alerting the press) has already given the whole barrel a rotten stench even though 99.9% are not involved. Most of the public believes what they see and hear in the media as gospel and develope a pre-concieved opinion on the subject based on that first news story. Any follow up stories are looked at as "spin" and "cover up" stories by government. While I agree that public safety is paramount, deminishing your fire coverage also negatively effect public safety as does the effect that this action has on department moral.

[FirNaTine 370]

not sure if its over board or not but I think in the public interest that it is a good idea--the public are the people we are sworn to protect so thier faith in the department is paramount. Hopefully it is one bad apple we do not need the whole barrel to get a rotten stench to it because of the one incident. So better to be safe then sorry.

All departments do a arson background check why not a full criminal check.do we want felons or convicted child molesters in our departments or people that have committed crimes like burgulary or som kinf of home invasion.

How many department do a full background check?

I hope this is a isolated incident and everyone gets back to doing what they swore to do --- protect the publis the best that we can.

In some Depts. it doesn't matter if a background check is done. Not when a Municipality lowers its Standards and accepts members with past Criminal Offenses even Felonies!

[AFS1970 504]

Wow, there is allot to say on this one.

First closing down the entire department because of one incident that involved a guest and not a member of the department is outrageous. Personally the level of overkill in place here makes me think that the borough leadership might just need to face charges for jeopardizing public safety. However politics being what it is, I bet this was just the chance that some local officials needed to try and shut down the department. That is just a theory, but I can think of no other reason for such a level of action. I wonder how long the other towns will be willing to provide free service? THat being said, I think whoever was responsible for passing the buck and letting this applicant get to the point he did needs to be considered for discipline, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can you imagine this happinging in law enforcement, that after a complaint against one lone officer (or applicant for that matter) the department goes out of service and another town is brought in? Me neither.

Second, what is the deal with even letting someone with obvious and well known developmental disabilities which would most likely preclude them from ever serving as a firefighter apply. Volunteer companies need to realize once and for all that they are not social service agencies that exist to make people feel good about themselves. The job of the officers is to recruit firefighters, not to let someone hang out and be a danger to themselves or others. When I was in my Firefighter 1 calss back in 1996, there3 was a member from another department that had some sort of disability and could not grasp any of the material. He would frequently show up to class with broken equiipment. He once said his "job" at the firehouse was to sweep up after the trucks left. I later found out after that he was a member because everyone knew him in town and his father made a substantial donation to the department. Yet chiefs wonder why we sometimes have a bad image.

As for background checks, remember this, they are only good at identifying repeat offenders. For someone with no arrests or convictions they will show nothing. Yes there are departments, both volunteer and career, that will let in anyone. THere are also departments that are affraid to throw anyone out after a conviction. Even small issues, like letting someone drive department vehicles after an arrest on motor vehicle charges, seems to pass over the heads of some departments. I don't think a background check would have helped in this case as the suspect seems to have lived a fairly protected / sheltered life. However the domino effect of his actions have now damaged the reputation of the entire department and each of the members.

[v85 212]

In NYS apparently it is illegal for VFD's to do background checks other than for Arson

[50-65 205]

what is the deal with even letting someone with obvious and well known developmental disabilities which would most likely preclude them from ever serving as a firefighter apply. Volunteer companies need to realize once and for all that they are not social service agencies that exist to make people feel good about themselves. The job of the officers is to recruit firefighters, not to let someone hang out and be a danger to themselves or others.

Indeed. really wish I could openly debate this here.

Edited June 20, 2013 by firemoose827
placed in quotes

[v85 212]

That seems to be some dangerous thinking...

Where do we draw the line. I know of armed police officers who have disabilities ranging from dyslexia to mild cases of OCD and Asperger's syndrome. Plus those who have or acquire PTSD.

Do we really want to go back to the days of if you have a mental illness, you get dragged off by the men in white coats, and kept in a padded room locked in a straightjacket.

Now, if a person is a demonstrated danger to themselves or others (i.e. making violent threats with paranoid delusions) then yes hospitalize them to get them stable. But a witch hunt is not the answer.

EDIT: Also, it says that this kid was applying at the firehouse. How were they to know he had mental issues?

Also it sounds to me like there was some pre-existing tension between the town board and the fire department. and this is an excuse to get rid of them

Edited June 19, 2013 by v85

[201/65 94]

In NYS apparently it is illegal for VFD's to do background checks other than for Arson

False, VFD's in NY are just too worried about upseting people.

Hell, my fire district just instituted mandatory drug testing for all initial physicals, and random for annual physicals. You would think 75% of our members were crack addicts the way they were crying. It's a damn shame.

[v85 212]

Maybe that is the case. All I know is that I had 3 different fire chiefs (who were also all police supervisors or chiefs) tell me that it was illegal. Maybe they meant illegal to run an eJustice on them...or illegal to use the criminal conviction to disqualify (as opposed to the underlying conduct/moral issues) but that is what they said

[10512 214]

Maybe that is the case. All I know is that I had 3 different fire chiefs (who were also all police supervisors or chiefs) tell me that it was illegal. Maybe they meant illegal to run an eJustice on them...or illegal to use the criminal conviction to disqualify (as opposed to the underlying conduct/moral issues) but that is what they said

Generally, it would be illegal to run an e-justice check on an individual without an accompanying criminal investigation.

E-justice is, primarily, a Police investigator's tool. If there are any Volley Departments out there that happen to have a Police Officer in their ranks who is doing the background checks for the Volley department should take a second look at what they are doing.

The best way to avoid a problem is to do what most private companies do, hire a reputable Private Investigator to do the check.

Edited June 19, 2013 by 10512

[JetPhoto 626]

what is the deal with even letting someone with obvious and well known developmental disabilities which would most likely preclude them from ever serving as a firefighter apply. Volunteer companies need to realize once and for all that they are not social service agencies that exist to make people feel good about themselves. The job of the officers is to recruit firefighters, not to let someone hang out and be a danger to themselves or others.

Indeed. really wish I could openly debate this here.

However you feel it's called "Discrimination" and it's illegal.

Only a Arson check is allowed unless the application asks if a criminal background check may be performed, similar to a job application.

As far as I am aware unless you have a conviction for arson, sexual predator or violent felony you cannot be barred from joining a volunteer department

If the person was a guest why wasn't he supervised???

[v85 212]

Are you sure about the sexual predator one? I heard of a firefighter who was a registered sex offender. The only requirements were that he couldn't respond to elementary schools or go on medical calls where a child is the patient

[JM15 386]

Are you sure about the sexual predator one? I heard of a firefighter who was a registered sex offender. The only requirements were that he couldn't respond to elementary schools or go on medical calls where a child is the patient

That is silly... What is he is on the rig already and there is a child on the call? Does he have to get off and take a cab home?

[v85 212]

I don't know...it wasn't my department.

Maybe they assign him to some duty that doesn't involve direct patient care? (traffic control, stand here and watch the trucks etc)

[50-65 205]

However you feel it's called "Discrimination" and it's illegal.

So it's illegal to "discriminate" against someone who is "challenged"? We should allow them to be firefighters?

Then who is at fault when this person gets injured, or worse, because they don't have the mental faculties to prevent them from doing stupid things?

Who is to blame when someone else gets injured, or worse, because this person could not perform a simple task they were assigned?

Which firefighter do you take out of service when you are already short-handed to babysit the one you can't discriminate against?

[v85 212]

If they can't perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation, that is a different story. Then yes they can and should be disqualified.

But if they can perform the functions then they should be allowed to join. Just because someone was at one time diagnosed with a mental disability doesn't mean they can't perform those tasks safely and effectively. Like I said before, I know personally of police officers, firefighters and EMTs with different disabilities (both mental and physical) and the don't require "babysitting"

[IzzyEng4 427]

The Leonia FD is back open at 8 am today:

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2013/06/officials_reinstate_leonia_fire_department_after_suspension_following_sexual_assault.html

[JetPhoto 626]

The Leonia FD is back open at 8 am today:

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2013/06/officials_reinstate_leonia_fire_department_after_suspension_following_sexual_assault.html

I love this comment

"Borough Administrator Jack Terhune and the Borough Council Fire Committee released a statement that said only firefighters will be allowed at the firehouse. And they can only be there to respond to emergencies or maintain equipment."

So lets not allow people to "hang out" aka man the station so the response time is extended, good decision see you in court when my house burns down and it took too long for firefighters to respond because they were not allowed to be @ the station. (I do not live there just using that as an example).

What don't we know about this situation?

---------------------------------------------

As far as the descrimination comments, unfortunitly you can't deny a person volunteer membership due to a disability however you can limit the activities they are allowed to do. If you have rules that a person must complete mandatory training and they don't do it you have an excuse to remove them.

[AFS1970 504]

You most certainly can deny someone membership. Most people who say otherwise are running scared from the title and not the text of laws like the ADA. Most volunteer departments are private corporations and guess what, even in so called "right to work" states nobody has a righ to work at any specific company. Courts have ruled many times that nobody has a right to join any private organization. However in this case, this young man was well known around town, the article even jokes about him knowing so many people that he was called the Mator of the Town. My city has a bunch of well known people who wander the streets during the day, noby has any doubts as to their fitness to be firefighters.

I personally think it is cruel beyond belief to let someone like this think they have a chance of being a firefighter, let them join, not do well at drill and fail out of basic training. How nice it must be to pat yourself on the back when that happens and think to yourself what a wonderful person you must be for letting them try. For the 13 years I was a volunteer firefighter, I know that the people who counted on me and the other members would not have cared how forward thinking or socially aware we were if we pulled up with a crew who couldn't tell one end of a hose from the other as their house burned to the ground.

[ex-commish 490]

"Most volunteer departments are private corporations and guess what, even in so called "right to work" states nobody has a righ to work at any specific company. Courts have ruled many times that nobody has a right to join any private organization."

I believe there are also court cases that say volunteer departments are not private rather public entities.