Sunday, January 07, 2007

LIEUTENANTS TEST

I was reading some of the remarks we received and some that SCC has received about the lieutenants test, no big surprise! The thing that struck me was will the results of part two be released before the results for part two of the sergeants test? Rumour has it that there may another class created off the 2002 list. Five years for a list is a long time but also keep in mind they have only made approximately 360 off that list.

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

The test was a joke. I over-studied the important duties of a LTs job, and wasted my time. NO critical incidents, NO officer involved shootings, NO P.O. domestics. Just nonsense. The oral with the Deputy Chief was stupid.

Anonymous said...

I'm just LUCKY I made sergeant off the 1998 sergeant’s test. (list was up 1998 to 2001)

I was about 495 on the list – a total of 4 classes. They got as far as about 520 or 525 on the list. Then, add on the 30% 'merit' people.. they made over 700 people total.

You will never see this many made again of a sergeants list. The reason so many were made on that list was because so many coppers were hired in the late 1960s and early 1970's.. they were retiring at this period and left a lot of vacancies.

Anonymous said...

360 were not made off the last. Right now they up to 122.

SECOND CITY SARGE said...

Anonymous said...
360 were not made off the last. Right now they up to 122.


What are you tlaking about?
360 have been made off the current list (from 2002 list) and the new list has yet to be made because part two result have yet to be published.

Anonymous said...

can anyone answer what was wrong with that arrest report

what five things do you ask the PO at the scene of the bar incident.

Anonymous said...

360 have been made off of the SERGEANT'S 2001 list PLUS 30% "merit".


122 have been made off the LIEUTENANT'S 2001 list PLUS 30% "merit".

They will make at least 10 more Lts off the list.

The sergeants list is coming down. 50 new sgts are in the academy Now and will get out in about 1 or 2 weeks.

Anonymous said...

the arrest should have been a strong arm robbery

Anonymous said...

The arrest report had a charge for agg battery-I don't think it should be an agg batt-he was just a store manager. But I think the arrest report should have also said something about criminal history being conducted to rule out an upgrade since it was shoplifting

Anonymous said...

"what five things do you ask the PO at the scene of the bar incident".
Depends on what bar.?
If it's the Spin@ Halsted&Belmont,the 1st thing you ask is Ron Huberman still there if so, make sure a Squad escorts him home.
2) If any exempts are in House make sure their Bar tab is covered by the PO on scene

3,4,5 Notify the W/C

Anonymous said...

There are different opinions as to what was wrong on the arrest report that appeared in the in-basket. Most agree that the charge was wrong, but opinions vary on what the proper charge was. I said Robbery-Strong Arm, others say Simple Battery instead of Agg Batt.(in addition to Retail Theft)

SFL (Sergeant For Life) said...

The five things to ask the p.o. at the tavern? If the licenses are current, what time the liquor license is for (closing time), if the offenders were id'd and arrested, if an ET was called to photo injuries(?) and if ANOVs were issued. Any other ideas?

Anonymous said...

I thought they asked for th ethree things you should do....
I have talked to several people and they all had different responses: all license, time of license, age of patrons, all licenses current and valid, all workers have ID, if no on ID - ANOV,
If no on license ANOV, If no on license for business ANOV, If Bar Owner/Employee called police for the battery because a crime took place in a licensed establishment, etc.

Anonymous said...

From what I'm reading and hearing, the lieutenant's test was a joke. I'm glad I'm a sergeant with senority and KMA, so I don't have to worry anymore. Good luck my fellow sergeants on this shit.

And it's now over two years since our PB&PA website has been updated. How wonderful!

Anonymous said...

The arrest report narrative detailed a strong arm robbery not a retail theft. As soon as force was used it is no longer a retail theft but a robbery

Anonymous said...

Ive heard alot of answers about that arrest report: agg batt charge wrong, narrative didnt match, charges should have been strong arm robbery? Also about the bar: closing times, are licenses valid, who is under arrest, who the f*^k cares. I dont know. Everyone throw in some answers to help me out.

Anonymous said...

Should be strong arm robbery the manager had possession of the items then the offender punched him took them and ran out of the store.

Anonymous said...

Once the offender punched the agent of the store and THEN took the property, it bacame a strong armed robbery. Felony eligible. Detectives, felony review, ASA, notifications, etc.

Anonymous said...

The charge of agg bat was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Lt. J. Ball says..

If you wash Shirley Coleman's car every week, you can be a Sgt. I DETAILED it once a month, and look at me! Now get out there and get some weapon turn-ins.

Anonymous said...

CRAP!

All the money I wasted on Bernstein's and Roberts study groups..

What a waste!

Anonymous said...

OFF TOPIC:

Martin C. Touhy


Martin C. Touhy. Celebration of Life services for Martin C. Touhy, 59, of Ben Wheeler, are scheduled for 11 a.m. Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2007, at Hilliard Funeral Home Chapel, Van, TX. Burial will be in Union Chapel Cemetery. Mr. Touhy passed away on Jan. 5, 2007, in Grand Saline, TX. Martin Cashman Touhy was born Jan. 29, 1947, in Chicago, IL, to the late James Edward and Frances Keating Touhy. He served in the US Air Force and worked as a Chicago police officer for 31 years. He moved to Ben Wheeler from Chicago in 2004. He attended St. Theresa's Catholic Church in Canton and Union Chapel United Methodist Church, Van. Mr. Touhy is loved and survived by his wife, Cathy of Ben Wheeler; son, Bob of Chicago, IL; daughters Chris and Cari, both of Orlando, FL; grandchildren, Turner and Genavieve; brothers, Jim, Bob, John and Rick; sister, Mary; numerous nieces, nephews and friends. If desired, memorials may be made to the Van Zandt Humane Society or C.L.A.W. Brothers and sons-in-law will serve as pallbearers. Visitation will be Tuesday, from 4 to 6 p.m. with a rosary to follow at the funeral home. For info, 903-963-8831.

Marty was a good copper and Sgt. Be respectful and leave off any references to his other half.

Anonymous said...

The arrest report had the wrong charge. The narrative described a strong arm robbery.

5 things-

How was the incident reported to the police

What part did the bar play

Did they cooperate



Was the lic proper for being open at 0245

Other licenses valid


At least that's what I said

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
360 were not made off the last. Right now they up to 122.



You're talkg about two different tests, Sgts and Lts.

As for the Lts...the next one to be promoted will be #120.

A couple of different rumors...25 names (finalized already) on the list to be posted this week.....20-25 names (not finalized yet) posted this week or next or next or next.

Anonymous said...

If you recall the charges listed on the TRR which was included with the arrest report on the test had charges listed as battery and retail theft. Iam not saying that it was not a strong arm robbery. But if you charge that you need a Dick, and ASA notification which I didnt see on the arrest report. Thats why these tests suck.

Anonymous said...

the arrest report could have been a agg battery according to state statute , remember on the first part they hid the dui charge among the answers, so I think thats the right charge or u could charge agg battery to pO for fighting with the PO, Ive seen charges approved for the less, Im sure that question is going to be a challenge, lets hope our union is there to look at it, also five things to ask PO what time is License from, what role did owner or agent play in it, did they cooperate, how old r the patrons (maybe they are curfews)is there any prostitution, gambling, narcotics involved, are all the licenses up to date,

How about orals how did anyone answer to that.

To the guys that post legit answers thank you, lets keep a forum going and nothing negative, Im sure we all agree that the City will do what they want, but its nice to know that we can converse as Supervisors-Good Luck -God Bless All

Anonymous said...

For the retail theft/arrest report question ILCS 720 ILCS 5/12?4(b)(15): “Sec. 12?4. Aggravated Battery.
(a) A person who, in committing a battery, intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, or permanent disability or disfigurement commits aggravated battery.
(b) In committing a battery, a person commits aggravated battery if he or she:
(15) Knowingly and without legal justification and
by any means causes bodily harm to a merchant who detains the person for an alleged commission of retail theft under Section 16A?5 of this Code. In this item (15), "merchant" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 16A?2.4 of this Code.

My question is: Should it be Strong Arm Robbery or Retail Theft and a Agg, Battery.
The Robbery is a class 2 felony and the Retail Theft is either a misd or a class 4 Felony depending if there is a prior conviction or not. The Agg Bat is a class 3 Felony.
Why would they have a charge for Agg Bat of Merchant if that was always a Strong Arm Robbery?
I put down that the arrest report was missing the background check to see if the guy had any felony convictions. Does anyone know the correct answer?

Anonymous said...

"Once the offender punched the agent of the store and THEN took the property, it bacame a strong armed robbery".

The property DOES NOT BELONG TO THE MANAGER.He's an agent of the store. Therefore RETAIL THEFT. Battery on him .

For example, Money taken from a Stores till, The cashier is not a victim the store is the victim. Not her Money.

Anonymous said...

Using your thinking, if someone robs a bank, you can't charge them with robbery because it wasn't the teller's money????

I know someone with a shinebox for sale!!!

Anonymous said...

You know for Sgt's, you guys are really a bunch of whining cry babies. Per the FOP, they are at 363 on the current Sgt's list, whether they make one or not.

Anonymous said...

My aument for the Robbery over the agg batt is the same: Based on the highest charge (what they have listed as one of the W/C's jobs) Robbery would take it with a class 2.
The three thigns and five other things for the bar incident:
1. ensure report is completed
2. Notify W/C
3. Sign report in supervisor signature box
That's per the order. 4 things, one is go to the scene.
As for the 5 other things, I just guessed: Is someone being arrested?
Is the bar supposed to be open after 2AM?
ARe are licenses current and valid?
Who called the police? Was an agent of the bar involved and cooperative?
Are any citations being written?

About the gay protester at the church....
I know it is illegal to protest during a funeral/memorial service and within 1/2 hour on both ends, but is it illegal to protest during a church service. I thought it was but can't find it anywhere...Anyone with the citation of where it is if it is actually illegal?

Anonymous said...

The Agg Batt charge had nothing to do with the theft. The agg batt charge was for the P.O. and that was why there was a TRR. It specifically was a misdemeanor Agg Batt to P.O.

Anonymous said...

Another thing, The felony charge can be put on the arrest report without a felony approval before putting a guy in the lockup. That is one of the things pushed to get the guy in the back and get the CB#. Then you can concentrate on the paperwork and getting the dics and ASA to finish the investigation. If it is not approved, it can be corrected by the W/C prior to Final Approval. The narrative reflected a strong arm robbery. The agg batt was for agg batt to P/O and was a misdemeanor not needing any approval and went along with the resisiting. The narrative failed to describe the agg batt to the P/O though but explains why the TRR was done.

Anonymous said...

The property DOES NOT BELONG TO THE MANAGER.He's an agent of the store. Therefore RETAIL THEFT. Battery on him . For example, Money taken from a Stores till, The cashier is not a victim the store is the victim. Not her Money.

Mon Jan 08, 10:47:00 PM
********************************

The owner of the property has nothing to do with it. If property is taken from someone (regardless if he owns it or not)with the use of force it is robbery. To use your example, money snatched from an open till..... theft, offender punches the clerk and takes the money....robbery. Either way it isnt the clerks money and the circumstances dictate the charge, not ownership.

Anonymous said...

Almost forgot... The offender should also be charged for retail theft for the original incident, I dont think you can charge him for agg batt to the manager as that is part of the robbery charge.

Anonymous said...

For God's sake, it was a robbery! If you missed it, you missed it! A W/C shouldn't. Better luck next time. This doesn't resemble "Notify the Watch Commander" in any shape or form!

Anonymous said...

As for the charge on the store manager, if you recall, The question asked to identify "one" specific item that needs to be changed.... Therefore, with that in mind only one of the charges can be changed. At it's face value the most logical answer would be from agg batt to simple batt (in addition to retail theft)... Remember the instructions before the test, "If you answer more than what is being asked then you'll get a zero for the question regardless of how many right answers you have".

Anonymous said...

To:Wed Jan 10, 10:49:00 AM

From: Lt. Steve Perry

Don't stop believin'.

THE ONE THING IS....AGG. BATT to ROBBERY!

If it isn't changed to robbery, then the agg batt stands, via that obscure shopkeeper law. If it is changed, the battery is an element of the higher class felony; robbery.
For the last time, You MISSED IT. Move on.

Anonymous said...

Any fool could see that the main thing wrong with the arrest report was the location code. While the crime obviously occurred in a store, the location code was for a residence, thus making the retail theft charge invalid!

Signed,

Your new meritorious Lt.

P.S. thanks Fil, I won't embarass you (that much).

Anonymous said...

I believe that the test was intentionally geared towards letting anyone with an answer be correct as long as you follow directions. Then the promotion process is by seniority and the suits that follow every test have nothing to hang their hat on... Think about it. The past 5 or so tests (all ranks)have been simple (for the first part) where everyone should have passed and all did in some cases. If they give the question about the arrest report and most reasonable answers are correct as long as you state why you picked that answer, then there are a lot more high scoring tests for all races and genders. If 100 people get all points for every answer, then a lawsuit is kind of dead in the water. The City still gets their meritorious selections, and the top 100 who answered correctly (One of several answers as long as you explain why--Ex. Pick three things to discuss at roll call. All 8 things are right, as long as you explain why you picked them...)get promoted off the list. The city can say, there was no bias. Everyone scored the same, but we need to promote by seniority because that is the tie breaker. Notice how our seniority is by time in grade on everything else, but time on the job for promotion to Lt.? There might be a reason for that.
The test sucked, but only because it didn't require you to know anything department related. For those of us who studied, it threw us off because the answers seemed so obvious. I for one, started second guessing myself about theright answer because it just seemed too logical. Don't know how I did, hopefully I did well enough to get promoted before the list is down, but if not....that's life in th big City. I think this is the future of all tests. There will be the chosen few who know what's on the test, and the tests will keep getting dumbed down to where everyone can get promoted by seniority if you score well enough. It's still a scam and it degrades the department further by not requiring competancy within the upper echelon of the department, but that's what they want. "YES" men and women and no litigation.

Anonymous said...

...The agg batt was for agg batt to P/O and was a misdemeanor not needing any approval and went along with the resisiting...

Agg batt to PO is a felony and needs approval.

Anonymous said...

Matt Cline told me at Dugans tonight..... the prick was stealing the cold medicine to use it to make meth! The actual charge would be "conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance". I cant believe we all missed that! Matt Cline sure is bright!

Anonymous said...

If the Agg Battery is changed to "ROBBERY", then you'll have to eliminate the agg batt & retail theft charges(2 items)..According to the instructions for the question " what is the ONE item that needs to changed on the arrest report" So again, the most logical answer ( charge ) would be from agg batt to simple batt( ONE ITEM)in addition to the already listed charge of retail theft.

Anonymous said...

I am not shitting you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Test is already going to a Federal Monitor (per source in legal affairs). There were tech problems in the oral portion. About 40 people made complaints because the scenario would only allow them several seconds to answer on certain questions. We ain't gonna see the results for a long time, if ever.

Anonymous said...

To the user that asked for the answer to the gay protestor.....it is the last category under the City Disorderly Conduct...no protests at a church or funeral service: 30 min. before service , during service or 30 min. after service and must be at least 150 feet away.

Anonymous said...

Just heard two sgt's from HQ, one from the supt office and one from Radtke's old office are back in the FIELD. Watch for them to magically appear on the next Lt list. Hocus Pocus and don't forget study HARD

Anonymous said...

City disorderly conduct....Thanks for the answer.
I actually heard of someone else saying he should be charged with PCS. Could that be the Magic answer?
I looked it up though and possession of more than 2 products containing efedrine in 24 hours is a class B Misdemeanor 720ILCS648/20. Now, if it was broken down and was a precursor and they listed the weight it could be a Class 2 Felony under 720ILCS646/20 that section actually says procures in any was even using the word "Steals" in the chapter. We will all know soon enough...

Anonymous said...

TO: 10;06 am 11 JAN:
You don't ave to eliminate the charge of retail theft. You do have to eliminate the Agg Batt. The retail theft happened first, that is why he was detained. He then committedthe robbery when he struck the agent of the store and took the property.
Once again, it could be an agg batt because of the merchant clause, but a robbery is a class 2 and you as the W/C have to seek the highest charge.

Anonymous said...

In response to
...The agg batt was for agg batt to P/O and was a misdemeanor not needing any approval and went along with the resisiting...

Agg batt to PO is a felony and needs approval.

Thu Jan 11, 02:27:00 AM

I could be wrong but didn't the arrest report question ask "what one item would you address as incorrect with the arrest report" or something like that. When I read the narrative of the arrest report, I thought that it should be a strong arm robbery. Maybe I thought that because I actually work in a district and not a unit and deal with regular beat coppers making regular arrests asking me these types of questions on a regular basis. (maybe not having clout can actually help you on these tests sometimes... maybe) I also think that the narrative stated that the offender "flailed" his arms, which is very common wording used in district law enforcement for a resister and not an assailant. I dont recall the narrative anywhere stating that the offender struck the PO's... matter of fact the TRR did not even go into the assailant category. So ... you cannot justify AGG.Batt charge aggainst officers... not even battery ... just resisting arrest ... Change Agg. battery to Roberry-Strong Arm .... at least I hope that was the answer ... good luck to all.

Anonymous said...

Does any one remember if one of the charges on the arrest report was "resisting/disarm a police officer" or did it say "resisting/obstructing a police officer"?

Anonymous said...

There was a TRR, but no OBR (Officer's Battery Report). The arrestee was only an active resister, so the TRR was to document the force used to subdue the offender, and to show compliance with the Use of Force Model. Change the charge to Robbery...I almost read too much into it also.

Anonymous said...

It was Resisting/Disarm a police officer...I figured that was another thing wrong but we were only told to correct one thing....

Anonymous said...

The last year's big rumor was that 25 lts off the 2001 list would be made in November 06....the last realistic rumor I head was a new last of lts off the old list by the end of the month....so...if there is a federal monitor requested by legal affiars (another good rumor due to the number of people filing complainants about bad proctors ...60+...) how long will it be before we see the results of this exam? It's got to slow down an already slow process to add federal supervision....

any guesses?

Please keep in mind that this is an open blog
that can and is read by people other than Chicago Police Officers.