RISING STAR ! The ultimate source to ace your NYPD Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain Exam Visit www.RisingStarPromotion.com to subscribe to our mailing list and get info on the next Sgt, Lt. or Captain Exam!

LAR44 · Veteran Member

New!* Protest questions

TransitJoe · Senior Member

Please read 204-01 step 3 and give up with the uniform protest

DRPapi1983 · Guru

TransitJoe wrote:
Please read 204-01 step 3 and give up with the uniform protest

Exam was very tricky. Let's just wait guys/gals,..

Jibberjab · Senior Member

Uber Question - They want 1 61 even though the two in the back didn't get robbed (Yano verified)

what did yano confirm? that it was def 1 61? if so why would we protest this? i got it wrong so im curious

LAR44 · Veteran Member

Jab, that is should be 3

LAR44 · Veteran Member

TransitJoe wrote:
Please read 204-01 step 3 and give up with the uniform protest

What is your point.."Do not wear distinguishable items of the uniform with civilian clothes"

WHAT do you think a windbreaker jacket is?....

VerZa · Veteran Member

Isn't the rule 1 61 no matter how many assaults with a robbery? How is that not just 1 61?

Samiam32 · Senior Member

2015 LT EXAM....Utter F*cking DISATER of an exam. Over 1300 protests were submitted. NOT ONE THROWOUT. I have no faith in the review board.

TransitJoe · Senior Member

Lar44, That was choice a. Which is the most correct. That was the word for word choice. I got that question wrong also.

BxPogiBoy · Veteran Member

I might be in the minority here, but Im protesting the LOD question. The majority consensus say the LT was available to do parts A and B of the LOD paperwork when he is assigned to the desk. I put since that its just him (desk officer) and the patrol supervisor (sgt), the LT is not available. i consulted with Mike Yanosik about it and he said it can go either way.

-- Edited by BxPogiBoy on Tuesday 29th of August 2017 04:40:19 PM

TransitJoe · Senior Member

I agree with that LOD question protest also. I consulted with the key and they said it's def a double answer. The guide would have to define what is available/unavailable. Now we just have to write it up properly.

-- Edited by TransitJoe on Tuesday 29th of August 2017 04:28:13 PM

Elchakal · Newbie

I'm with you on that uber question

TransitJoe · Senior Member

What's the argument with the Uber question? How is it different than the definition scenario, assault 3 people but only Rob one, it's one 61 for robbery.

LAR44 · Veteran Member

TransitJoe wrote:
What's the argument with the Uber question? How is it different than the definition scenario, assault 3 people but only Rob one, it's one 61 for robbery.

SEPERATE 61's for each victim of an assault EXCEPT if incidental to a robbery...NEITHER one of them got robbed AND the exception for the train car rule doesn't apply bc its NOT a train car, its a CAR

Risingstarrecid · Veteran Member

The uber robbery 61 question is a clear cut ground ball. If you are on patrol or heard Capt misfud talk about this you know it's one 61 for robbery.

LAR44 · Veteran Member

Risingstarrecid wrote:
The uber robbery 61 question is a clear cut ground ball. If you are on patrol or heard Capt misfud talk about this you know it's one 61 for robbery.

Well I have not done either in a while so how bout you explain it to me then?

Risingstarrecid · Veteran Member

one incident where multiple people are assaulted but just one person was robbed will be classified as 1 61 for robbery with however many victims. Even if multiple people robbed in same incident it's still just 1 61 no matter how many are assaulted during that incident

LAR44 · Veteran Member

Risingstarrecid wrote:
one incident where multiple people are assaulted but just one person was robbed will be classified as 1 61 for robbery with however many victims. Even if multiple people robbed in same incident it's still just 1 61 no matter how many are assaulted during that incident

Where in the patrol guide did you get that info from?

Risingstarrecid · Veteran Member

207 states that assault victims will get their own 61 unless incidental to a robbery or sex crime.

Cfgl1888 · Senior Member

It's the definition of incidental, i.e. belonging to the same incident. The assaults and robbery both occurred during the same incident therefore the assaults were incidental and it's one 61 for robbery.

DRPapi1983 · Guru

Cfgl1888 wrote:
It's the definition of incidental, i.e. belonging to the same incident. The assaults and robbery both occurred during the same incident therefore the assaults were incidental and it's one 61 for robbery.

,....

Theforceisstrongwiththisone · Guru

That's one definition buddy. Another definition from webster is: "occuring merely by chance or without or calculation." The guy intentionally opened the door and punched the two people....so three 61s. Even Yanosik said it is one of the most poorly written sentences in the Patrol Guide. So it will be a throwout..so everyone who got it wrong should protest. Don't be discouraged by the trolls who dont want it thrown out. Fight for every point!

Theforceisstrongwiththisone · Guru

I was shocked that they actually went there..but overall very fair exam. I'm putting together a protest for every question I got wrong...even if it doesnt help me out, it might help out a fellow sergeant that is on the bubble.

VerZa · Veteran Member

When would that form of the definition incidental apply then? I think that's a stretch... it's 1 incident where a robbery occurred and people were assaulted .. 1 61... but whatever I ain't here to start a fight I'm just saying. If 10 guys got lined up and pistol whipped and only one of them got their money taken no matter which happened first its 1 robbery 61. Everyones CO would remind them of the rule real quick lol. We are going to have to articulate they all got pistol whipped by chance? I dunno about that Lol

-- Edited by VerZa on Tuesday 29th of August 2017 08:01:20 PM

Chico Escuela · Veteran Member

Theforceisstrongwiththisone wrote:
I was shocked that they actually went there..but overall very fair exam. I'm putting together a protest for every question I got wrong...even if it doesnt help me out, it might help out a fellow sergeant that is on the bubble.

Ondeeair,

im glad you're doing well pal. You think you passed this test? Stay safe homie!

LAR44 · Veteran Member

Agreed brother

ajvic21 · Senior Member

I'll be protesting the LOD question as well....I had the LT finding someone to do part A

CaballoRageRises · Veteran Member

Multiple assaults + robbery = 1 61 except if there is a sex crime also then the sex crime vic would get their own 61. So if a perp walks in a room and does a robbery with 5 vics hits 2 over the head with the pistol and sodimizes 1 it would be 2 61's. hope this helps

LAR44 · Veteran Member

CaballoRageRises wrote:
Multiple assaults + robbery = 1 61 except if there is a sex crime also then the sex crime vic would get their own 61. So if a perp walks in a room and does a robbery with 5 vics hits 2 over the head with the pistol and sodimizes 1 it would be 2 61's. hope this helps

Exactly but these two DIDNT get robbed

Cfgl1888 · Senior Member

It doesn't matter how many people get robbed, if it is one incident and the only offenses are assault and robbery then it is 1 61 for robbery no matter what. I'm all for people getting extra points but there is no way that protest is successful.

Cfgl1888 · Senior Member

Now one I am thinking could be successful is the off duty employment question. Unless I'm remembering wrong it stated the "correct" answer was to be a security guard at a market licensed by the SLA for off premise consumption. Now one part of the procedure says you can be employed at that type of location, however guarding a licensed premise is specifically prohibited elsewhere in the procedure. To me this can be protested as no correct answers because nowhere in the procedure does it define a licensed premise, so I don't think you can say you are wrong to state that a premise that possesses a license from the SLA is a "licensed premise".

63ASAP · Guru

Cfgl1888 wrote:
Now one I am thinking could be successful is the off duty employment question. Unless I'm remembering wrong it stated the "correct" answer was to be a security guard at a market licensed by the SLA for off premise consumption. Now one part of the procedure says you can be employed at that type of location, however guarding a licensed premise is specifically prohibited elsewhere in the procedure. To me this can be protested as no correct answers because nowhere in the procedure does it define a licensed premise, so I don't think you can say you are wrong to state that a premise that possesses a license from the SLA is a "licensed premise".

That was my line of thinking. But, with "most correct", it kind of protects DCAS. If D was definitely 100% unauthorized, then it mitigates the fact that the license premise gig "may" have been unauthorized. I'll give it a shot at protest since I know I got it wrong, but I truly think it's a long shot.

notcool · Newbie

I might be in the minority, but is it possible to protest the department vehicle collision question on the grounds that serious physical injury is not defined in 217-06 in regards to a broken leg. I know in 221-03 spi is specificaly defined, but in 217-06 it just states spi to anyone in which the co/D.C. would do the paperwork

rookiebit_h · Guru

i'm with u

rookiebit_h · Guru

notcool wrote:
I might be in the minority, but is it possible to protest the department vehicle collision question on the grounds that serious physical injury is not defined in 217-06 in regards to a broken leg. I know in 221-03 spi is specificaly defined, but in 217-06 it just states spi to anyone in which the co/D.C. would do the paperwork

i'm with u

DRPapi1983 · Guru

rookiebit_h wrote:
notcool wrote:
I might be in the minority, but is it possible to protest the department vehicle collision question on the grounds that serious physical injury is not defined in 217-06 in regards to a broken leg. I know in 221-03 spi is specificaly defined, but in 217-06 it just states spi to anyone in which the co/D.C. would do the paperwork
i'm with u

Are you serious ?

crappants · Senior Member

lol ridiculous.

CanIbeYourCorey · Member

DRPapi1983 · Guru

crappants wrote:
lol ridiculous.

They can't be serious mannnnnn smh,....lmaooo

PD2FD · Guru

DRPapi1983 wrote:
crappants wrote:
lol ridiculous.
They can't be serious mannnnnn smh,....lmaooo

It's a gentler kinder department bro, what do you expect LOL

Let's protest every question because everyone deserves to pass

crappants · Senior Member

DRPapi1983 wrote:
crappants wrote:
lol ridiculous.
They can't be serious mannnnnn smh,....lmaooo

im sure he didn't go to class. Next time pay for rising star class elite or key all the instructors gave examples of what is spi. Stop it

CaballoRageRises · Veteran Member

The uber driver didnt get robbed?

DRPapi1983 · Guru

Lmaaooooo that's right ,...good point there kid!

DRPapi1983 · Guru

crappants wrote:
DRPapi1983 wrote:
crappants wrote:
lol ridiculous.
They can't be serious mannnnnn smh,....lmaooo
im sure he didn't go to class. Next time pay for rising star class elite or key all the instructors gave examples of what is spi. Stop it

Agree,....just unreal what you read on here man,..smh

sig226 · Senior Member

Cfgl1888 wrote:
Now one I am thinking could be successful is the off duty employment question. Unless I'm remembering wrong it stated the "correct" answer was to be a security guard at a market licensed by the SLA for off premise consumption. Now one part of the procedure says you can be employed at that type of location, however guarding a licensed premise is specifically prohibited elsewhere in the procedure. To me this can be protested as no correct answers because nowhere in the procedure does it define a licensed premise, so I don't think you can say you are wrong to state that a premise that possesses a license from the SLA is a "licensed premise".

If the question stem locked you in by that particular procedure then you have to answer accordingly and forget whatever it says otherwise in other parts of patrol guide

sig226 · Senior Member

Speaking of incidental situations... Snatching purse by force is Rob3 then how come everyone swears correct answer choice is Assault 2

crappants · Senior Member

sig226 wrote:
Speaking of incidental situations... Snatching purse by force is Rob3 then how come everyone swears correct answer choice is Assault 2

Snatching the purse is Grand Larceny . causi Pi to a 3rd party in a commission of A felony is assault 2 for the guy that fell down. 2 different 61s. They only asked about the guy that fell down.

Poopoomagoo · Member

Was D, 'owned by his sgt' or 'owned by a sgt' or 'owed by a Sgt in his command'?

because the legal definition of a licensed premise is any business that sells alcohol or tobacco for retail or consumption on premise. So a supermarket selling beer is a licensed premise by that definition and we are not allowed to be security guards at a licensed premise. The patrol guide however does not define a licensed premise....but ny.sla.gov does.

crappants · Senior Member

sig226 wrote:
Speaking of incidental situations... Snatching purse by force is Rob3 then how come everyone swears correct answer choice is Assault 2

Read the complaint reference guide. That was not a continuous event but a reference guide question. it has the same example on there

-- Edited by crappants on Wednesday 30th of August 2017 02:38:31 AM

tweezy · Senior Member

Poopoomagoo wrote:
Was D, 'owned by his sgt' or 'owned by a sgt' or 'owed by a Sgt in his command'?
because the legal definition of a licensed premise is any business that sells alcohol or tobacco for retail or consumption on premise. So a supermarket selling beer is a licensed premise by that definition and we are not allowed to be security guards at a licensed premise. The patrol guide however does not define a licensed premise....but ny.sla.gov does.

I see what you're saying, but thats kind of stretching it, especially because it states you can work in a supermarket that sells beer in the patrol guide.