I believe the transport question should be protestable. If you were asked a pg question according to 210-01 without a CO memo of how many umos would you need to do a transport of more than two prisoners in a van without transport chains, you would say two umos. 210-01 was written in a singular sense in that it starts off with 1 escorting officer. More than two prisoners in a van without transport chains= assign additional escort officer which makes it 2 umos in total. The CO's memo in the inbasket already had two umos required to do transport at all times therefore already satisfying the conditon required from 210-01. At least that would be my arguement if the right answer was a three person transport LOL

ecfpetey wrote:

---

I believe the transport question should be protestable. If you were asked a pg question according to 210-01 without a CO memo of how many umos would you need to do a transport of more than two prisoners in a van without transport chains, you would say two umos. 210-01 was written in a singular sense in that it starts off with 1 escorting officer. More than two prisoners in a van without transport chains= assign additional escort officer which makes it 2 umos in total. The CO's memo in the inbasket already had two umos required to do transport at all times therefore already satisfying the conditon required from 210-01. At least that would be my arguement if the right answer was a three person transport LOL

---

 The driver isn't one of the escorting officers.

Nyfine wrote:

---

I only had one choice for three ppl to transport, the other 3 choices were only two cops.

---

 No you didn't you had 2 and 2 one of the 3 posts included Turner the opposite one was right

Rick from accounting wrote:

---

Just like what family offense question are you talking about ?Where did they mention the property value , the intent to cause SPI, the value of the car etc.... ? I strictly remember it said 3 offenses than the only one which worked was Hitting cousin with a bat aka assault 2

---

 Look up the penal code. Intend to cause SPI, cause SPI with deadly weapon/dangerous instrument = Assault 1

Oh.My.God. These posts have me in stitches. First of all I will say it again - THERE WAS ONLY ONE TEST GIVEN - ONE!!! There are not different versions of the exam. Secondly, you are all remembering the questions wrong. You won't see that until you go to the protest session and read the questions again that you will see this. Third, and lastly, you guys are reaching for straws and reading too much into these questions that you haven't remembered correctly.

RookieScum4Life wrote:

---

Oh.My.God. These posts have me in stitches. First of all I will say it again - THERE WAS ONLY ONE TEST GIVEN - ONE!!! There are not different versions of the exam. Secondly, you are all remembering the questions wrong. You won't see that until you go to the protest session and read the questions again that you will see this. Third, and lastly, you guys are reaching for straws and reading too much into these questions that you haven't remembered correctly.

-- Edited by RookieScum4Life on Wednesday 1st of March 2017 02:11:02 AM

---

 Agreed.

ecfpetey wrote:

---

I believe the transport question should be protestable. If you were asked a pg question according to 210-01 without a CO memo of how many umos would you need to do a transport of more than two prisoners in a van without transport chains, you would say two umos. 210-01 was written in a singular sense in that it starts off with 1 escorting officer. More than two prisoners in a van without transport chains= assign additional escort officer which makes it 2 umos in total. The CO's memo in the inbasket already had two umos required to do transport at all times therefore already satisfying the conditon required from 210-01. At least that would be my arguement if the right answer was a three person transport LOL

---

 This is my argument as well.

This question specifically stated he hit him "recklessly" thereby making it assault 2

nypd2010 wrote:

---

This question specifically stated he hit him "recklessly" thereby making it assault 2

---

 Lol it stated the opposite, but if it makes you feel better to think that then I'll leave it alone.

Pretty sure it said recklessly and not intending to cause spi or something to that effect. oh well another question dropped then. so what was the answer then?

This is the sh$!#!t we need come protest time to get points

bookworm wrote:

---

If you guys need to protest the question about the hospitalized prisoner and who can't interview him/her:::
210-02 step 27 item j states: supervising officer of other city department if prisoner is an employee of that department.
If you chose the NYC transit supervisor and we wind up getting that wrong you can fight this question MTA is not a city agency. And NYC transit is not DOT it's MTA. You can also print out from Wikipedia the list of all city agencies. MTA is private. Here is the Wikipedia link en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_agencies

It could be in our favor for us who picked this answer or it might be a trick question for the others who picked the embassy officer or vice or versa. I think it's a valid double answer. Give it a shot.

---

 No one had social worker as an option?

Noice wrote:

---

The cousin is assault 2...serious physical injury penal law definition needs to be permanent/protracted disfigurement or impairment. A broken arm is not protracted disfigurement. There is no ADA in NY that would charge Assault 1 for that case. Look up People vs Jerreld it was a NY case in 2008. Judges found that a broken bone is not serious physical injury so we have case law to support it. Also the vehicle question is straight from crime classification guide word for word, so that one is also right. The question is at minimum a double answer. Also technically all of the answers are right because they are all family offenses. The list in 208-36 is family offenses that can have concurrent jurisdiction. They never asked that in the question. They asked which of the following is a family offense. They all are. If you kill your wife it's still a family offense, it just wouldn't have concurrent jurisdiction. If you fail to yield to your ex boyfriend in a crosswalk and hit him, it's a violation, it's a family offense, it just wouldn't have concurrent jurisdiction. The test writers messed up the wording on the question so the entire question should be thrown out or at minimum double answer.

---

Thank you I will be using this point.

Gk06 wrote:

---

bookworm wrote:

---

If you guys need to protest the question about the hospitalized prisoner and who can't interview him/her:::
210-02 step 27 item j states: supervising officer of other city department if prisoner is an employee of that department.
If you chose the NYC transit supervisor and we wind up getting that wrong you can fight this question MTA is not a city agency. And NYC transit is not DOT it's MTA. You can also print out from Wikipedia the list of all city agencies. MTA is private. Here is the Wikipedia link en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_agencies

It could be in our favor for us who picked this answer or it might be a trick question for the others who picked the embassy officer or vice or versa. I think it's a valid double answer. Give it a shot.

---

 No one had social worker as an option?

---

 I think I remember seeing social worker but that wouldn't be a correct choice they were looking for who can't interview the prisoner in the hospital. Social workers can.

It most certainly is not. Being in a cast for 6-8 weeks, then going back to normal is not protracted. If you were never able to use the arm again, or had to go to therapy for years to regain some use in the arm or something, that would be protracted impairment.  Just read the definition of protracted: 

Thebirds wrote:

---

Dude you're getting way too nitpicky. It is SPI

---

 You are literally making up your own questions there was no SPI for the family offense. You got it wrong end of discussion

Rick from accounting wrote:

---

Thebirds wrote:

---

Dude you're getting way too nitpicky. It is SPI

---

 You are literally making up your own questions there was no SPI for the family offense. You got it wrong end of discussion

---

 I wish I could see the egg on your face at the protest session

Gk06 wrote:

---

bookworm wrote:

---

If you guys need to protest the question about the hospitalized prisoner and who can't interview him/her:::
210-02 step 27 item j states: supervising officer of other city department if prisoner is an employee of that department.
If you chose the NYC transit supervisor and we wind up getting that wrong you can fight this question MTA is not a city agency. And NYC transit is not DOT it's MTA. You can also print out from Wikipedia the list of all city agencies. MTA is private. Here is the Wikipedia link en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_agencies

It could be in our favor for us who picked this answer or it might be a trick question for the others who picked the embassy officer or vice or versa. I think it's a valid double answer. Give it a shot.

---

 No one had social worker as an option?

---

 I had 

Embassy Officer 

NYC transit supervisor

social worker 

i don't remember the last one 

And question was which of the following will not be allowed 

i picked NYC transit 

And the other thing to all of the people who took this exam....
Can we make a list of the questions that we all going to protest?
And be on the same page.
Thanks

Stopand250 wrote:

---

Gk06 wrote:

---

bookworm wrote:

---

If you guys need to protest the question about the hospitalized prisoner and who can't interview him/her:::
210-02 step 27 item j states: supervising officer of other city department if prisoner is an employee of that department.
If you chose the NYC transit supervisor and we wind up getting that wrong you can fight this question MTA is not a city agency. And NYC transit is not DOT it's MTA. You can also print out from Wikipedia the list of all city agencies. MTA is private. Here is the Wikipedia link en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_agencies

It could be in our favor for us who picked this answer or it might be a trick question for the others who picked the embassy officer or vice or versa. I think it's a valid double answer. Give it a shot.

---

 No one had social worker as an option?

---

 I had 

Embassy Officer 

NYC transit supervisor

social worker 

i don't remember the last one 

And question was which of the following will not be allowed 

i picked NYC transit 

---

 The 4th option was the precinct of hospitalization's squad detective, which can interview. The correct answer for who can't interview was the embassy officer. Though, there's some question as to whether MTA counts as a city agency, being private.

Rick from accounting wrote:

---

The answer for the DWI causing SPI is allow his private physician to exam after the hospital or w.e it was

---

 Yes. I picked the same choice..