Jail sergeant in dispute resigns: Gun incident was alleged

[Coyote33]

Jail sergeant in dispute resigns
Gun incident was alleged

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Jail sergeant in dispute resigns
Gun incident was alleged


By Lee Hammel TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]
37 comments | Add a comment

A sergeant at the Worcester County Jail and House of Correction in West Boylston resigned yesterday, ending an investigation into an allegation against him, according to Jeffrey R. Turco, general counsel of the jail.

An allegation was made Jan. 4 that Sgt. Lenny Smith pointed a gun at jail Sgt. Bruce Bazinet on Dec. 31. It allegedly occurred at a Mobil station on West Boylston Street in Worcester near the Summit.

Mr. Turco said yesterday: “This morning one of the sergeants involved in the incident submitted his letter of resignation effective immediately. That resignation was accepted.

“The investigation was nearly complete. But as a result of the resignation prior to completion, we’ve closed the investigation,” which was conducted by the jail’s internal affairs unit. He said that Jail Superintendent Timothy Hall accepted the resignation of the sergeant, who had previously been suspended.

Mr. Turco said he understands the alleged victim in the incident will return to work Tuesday. He said he was not authorized to release the names of the sergeants.

The general counsel said the investigation substantiated neither that the incident occurred nor did not occur. Noting that the sheriff’s department is a law enforcement agency, Mr. Turco said the jail has not referred the incident to any other law enforcement agency.

“The matter is closed from our perspective,” he said. Worcester police are not investigating the incident, Worcester Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst said.

An attendant at Summit Mobil, 853 West Boylston St., who worked the 3 to 11 p.m. shift Dec. 31, said a supervisor was told that the incident occurred behind the convenience store there during his shift. But he said he was unaware of it.

The attendant said that two plainclothes investigators came to the station to look at the state’s video monitoring system and one of the investigators returned a day or two later and took the system, with its compact disk, subsequently returning the system.

Mr. Turco said that investigators were not able see what happened because, he believes, new images were copied over the ones in question.

Speaking from home last night, Mr. Turco said he does not believe the sergeant who was suspended had a history of discipline problems nor that there was a history of problems between the two sergeants. He said he does not know the motivation in the alleged incident.

Sgt. Bazinet said he was unable to comment after speaking to his union, New England Police Benevolent Association Local 550.

Warren Lohnes Jr., Local 550 president, could not be reached by deadline for comment, and Sgt. Smith declined, through an acquaintance, to comment.

37 comments | Add a comment

 

[Maj. Boom Boom]

but if it was one of us........

 

[sleeplessknight]

but if it was one of us........

Hey now, it's OK. Those are the "more equal" ones, remember?

 

[terraformer]

So what happened??? I am lost.

 

[securityboy]

but if it was one of us........

Probably the same thing...if the HR dept. where ever you work was "investigating" a complaint against you, and you quit before they were done, why would they still look into it ???

 

[Martlet]

Probably the same thing...if the HR dept. where ever you work was "investigating" a complaint against you, and you quit before they were done, why would they still look into it ???

Not the same thing at all. If I was accused of pointing a gun at someone, the HR department would investigate to see if I could keep my job. The police would investigate to see if I should be put in jail.

 

[bhmax16]

Comes to no surprise to me. Haven't we all figured out now that there is ALWAYS a double standard?

 

[securityboy]

Not the same thing at all. If I was accused of pointing a gun at someone, the HR department would investigate to see if I could keep my job. The police would investigate to see if I should be put in jail.

Maybe you have more info on this case than I do, this is the only article I have read on this story, unless I missed it in that article nowhere does it say the aleged victim ever reported the incident to the police...

If you got into an altercation outside of work with one of your coworkers (or anyone else for that matter) and niether of you went to the police, why would the police investigate something they didn't know about???

 

[Martlet]

Maybe you have more info on this case than I do, this is the only article I have read on this story, unless I missed it in that article nowhere does it say the aleged victim ever reported the incident to the police...

Never reported it to the police? A: It's in the damn paper. B: Two investigators took the security tape.

 

[securityboy]

Never reported it to the police? A: It's in the damn paper. B: Two investigators took the security tape.

Was there another story in the paper or just this one? this one is about one jailor(or is it Jailer, anyway) resigning prior to the completion of an internal investigation regarding an alleged altercation he had with another jailor. And as far as the "investigators" go does it say if they were police investigators or investigators for the jail (where both parties work and we know an investigation was launched from)...infact the article says the police are not investigating, which lead me to think the investigators were not from the PD...

Again I don't know anything about this situation other than what is in this article... But lets say at your company's holiday party employee A punched employee B in the mouth, no one called th police, but as a result the next week (prior to getting fired) employee A resigned... where is the "double standard"? Only double standard I see is if employee A works in the "private sector" no body knows about it, if he works for anything close to a .GOV it will be in the paper...

 

[Martlet]

where is the "double standard"? .

The double standard is that as of today, whether this had been previously known to the police or not, a police investigation would be underway.

 

[bhmax16]

Thanks Martlet...I thought it was rather obvious so didn't take the time to specify. Thanks for picking up my slack

 

[Maj. Boom Boom]

if it was one of us....

had my old bosses found out about it they would have called the police

the investigators would have called the police

the video would have shown something

the investigation would have found something

the one who quit would have been fired - i don't think he quit for no reason

someone must have mentioned a gun being drawn or this story would not have seen the light of day. in today's world of the average guy/gal it would have made it's way to the police and it would have ended up very differently than it has. however they weren't average were they. a broom and rug come to mind.

sure i could be wrong, but the fact that this was even reported tells me something happened and yet what we are hearing is "move along, nothing to see here, move along" if it was one of us it would have at least been reported. jmho of course

 

[theGringo]

I don't get this part:

The attendant said that two plainclothes investigators came to the station to look at the state’s video monitoring system and one of the investigators returned a day or two later and took the system, with its compact disk, subsequently returning the system.

Mr. Turco said that investigators were not able see what happened because, he believes, new images were copied over the ones in question.

What?

 

[Realtor MA]

The Sargeant lost his job. I would say that's a pretty harsh 'sentence'. If it were one of us we might lose our LTC and maybe we would face assault charges but you would still be making a living.

 

[theGringo]

The Sargeant lost his job. I would say that's a pretty harsh 'sentence'. If it were one of us we might lose our LTC and maybe we would face assault charges but you would still be making a living.

I'd lose my job, for sure.

 

[Martlet]

The Sargeant lost his job. I would say that's a pretty harsh 'sentence'. If it were one of us we might lose our LTC and maybe we would face assault charges but you would still be making a living.

For pulling a gun on someone at a convenience store then running off? You think that's all that would happen?

 

[Half Cocked]

For pulling a gun on someone at a convenience store then running off? You think that's all that would happen?

yes... if no one ever reported it to the police.....the victim does not want to pursue the matter and testify.... and there is no evidence to support the allegation.... as is what appears to be the case here......

 

[securityboy]

yes... if no one ever reported it to the police.....the victim does not want to pursue the matter and testify.... and there is no evidence to support the allegation.... as is what appears to be the case here......

+1...exactly

The Sargeant lost his job. I would say that's a pretty harsh 'sentence'. If it were one of us we might lose our LTC and maybe we would face assault charges but you would still be making a living.

For pulling a gun on someone at a convenience store then running off? You think that's all that would happen?

Honest question...what "else" do you think could happen?

 

[Martlet]

+1...exactly



Honest question...what "else" do you think could happen?

I think you'd be faces several charges in a criminal court.

 

[theGringo]

yes... if no one ever reported it to the police.....the victim does not want to pursue the matter and testify.... and there is no evidence to support the allegation.... as is what appears to be the case here......

"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything!" - Bart Simpson

 

[Coyote33]

Was there another story in the paper or just this one? ...

There was another story on the 9th:

Gun incident being probed
Sergeant at jail placed on leave

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Gun incident being probed
Sergeant at jail placed on leave


By Lee Hammel TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]
20 comments | Add a comment

We deemed it sufficiently serious that we placed the staff member on paid administrative leave,
-- Jeffrey R. Turco, SUPERINTENDENT WORCESTER COUNTY JAIL

WORCESTER — A sergeant at the Worcester County Jail and House of Correction has been placed on administrative leave after allegedly pointing a gun at another jail employee.

The alleged incident is behind an investigation that began Monday, according to a source who requested anonymity.

But Jeffrey R. Turco, special sheriff and superintendent, acknowledged yesterday a sergeant at the jail was suspended this week. “An allegation was raised against a staff member.

“We deemed it sufficiently serious that we placed the staff member on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation,” he said. The investigation is ongoing, Superintendent Turco said.

The allegation was made directly to the sheriff’s internal investigative unit on Monday, the superintendent said. Assistant Deputy Superintendent Luke Gallant, head of special services at the jail, recommended the sergeant be suspended, Superintendent Turco said, and the superintendent approved the recommendation.

The sergeant was suspended the same day the allegation was made because of its seriousness, Superintendent Turco said.

He did not disclose the name of the suspended sergeant. The superintendent said the suspended sergeant is a veteran correction officer.

He said the alleged incident occurred away from jail property.

Superintendent Turco said he hopes the investigation will be concluded in the middle of next week.

“We’re dealing with someone’s career. I’d rather do it right than fast,” he said.

20 comments | Add a comment

 

[weekendracer]

Was there another story in the paper or just this one? this one is about one jailor(or is it Jailer, anyway) resigning prior to the completion of an internal investigation regarding an alleged altercation he had with another jailor. And as far as the "investigators" go does it say if they were police investigators or investigators for the jail (where both parties work and we know an investigation was launched from)...infact the article says the police are not investigating, which lead me to think the investigators were not from the PD...

Again I don't know anything about this situation other than what is in this article... But lets say at your company's holiday party employee A punched employee B in the mouth, no one called th police, but as a result the next week (prior to getting fired) employee A resigned... where is the "double standard"? Only double standard I see is if employee A works in the "private sector" no body knows about it, if he works for anything close to a .GOV it will be in the paper...

The problem is, if he did in fact use a weapon there should be criminal charges of some sort applied. I think the problem with the investigation, from the article, is that they didn't take the camera system on day 1 and it got erased. No proof, but the guy knew his number was up and quit. Case closed.

 

[bhmax16]

As long as party A and party B are both over 18 yrs of age, the assailant should be facing some sort of legal punishment, whether a weapon is used or not. A simple assault (a few fists thrown) should be more than enough to warrant police action. The double standard is this was brushed under the rug simply because of who this particular individual was...and as others have stated...if it was one of us the outcome surely would have been entirely different

 

[GSG]

If what the papers imply happened actually happened, sounds like someone was an idiot and pulled a gun for nothing.

Not the same thing at all. If I was accused of pointing a gun at someone, the HR department would investigate to see if I could keep my job. The police would investigate to see if I should be put in jail.

Funny, you make it sound like that's not what happened here. This is all built on hearsay, no witnesses, no victim...what else should they do? Consult a spiritist to look into the past for them?

Never reported it to the police? A: It's in the damn paper. B: Two investigators took the security tape.

That doesn't mean that the victim reported it, or that the paper got it right.

I don't get this part:

Many convenience stores probably re-use tapes day after day so it was recorded over, or the "investigators" covered it up by recording over it themselves...who knows?

The problem is, if he did in fact use a weapon there should be criminal charges of some sort applied. I think the problem with the investigation, from the article, is that they didn't take the camera system on day 1 and it got erased. No proof, but the guy knew his number was up and quit. Case closed.

Cops only resign when they did something wrong? Is it possible that there's more to this than is reported in the papers?

 

[GSG]

I don't get this part:

The attendant said that two plainclothes investigators came to the station to look at the state’s video monitoring system and one of the investigators returned a day or two later and took the system, with its compact disk, subsequently returning the system.

What?

Ah, gotcha. So either the state has a video monitoring system in place, or the newspapers got the story wrong...

It must be the state, newspapers can't lie.

 

[Coyote33]

The problem is, if he did in fact use a weapon there should be criminal charges of some sort applied. I think the problem with the investigation, from the article, is that they didn't take the camera system on day 1 and it got erased. No proof, but the guy knew his number was up and quit. Case closed.

...and the question is, was this on purpose and by design?

 

[Martlet]

Ah, gotcha. So either the state has a video monitoring system in place, or the newspapers got the story wrong...

It must be the state, newspapers can't lie.

Heh. You pick and choose which parts of the newspaper's story are inaccurate? Don't be an apologist. Don't attack the details to avoid the discussion.

 

[center442]

I'd lose my job, for sure.

As would I. "Conduct unbecoming..."

 

[Mark from MA]

Cops only resign when they did something wrong? Is it possible that there's more to this than is reported in the papers?

Who really knows.....we'll never find out...

It must be nice to do something illegal like point a gun at someone, then just resign and make it all go away because you are "in law enforcement"

My guess, this guy will lose his job but continue to keep his LTC......and the PD will continue to focus on more important cases such as gunowners whose houses were broken into, but forget to put trigger locks on their guns.