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!

Prisoner visit I believe was the embassy officer. I picked NYC Transit Supervisor, but supervisors from the city agency the prisoner is employed by may interview in the hospital. Was it stated anywhere in the inbasket that the prisoner was employed by NYC Transit?

That's a good debate.....if should say NYC transit supervisor (if employed by transit) it did not state that.

Thebirds wrote:

---

Prisoner visit I believe was the embassy officer. I picked NYC Transit Supervisor, but supervisors from the city agency the prisoner is employed by may interview in the hospital. Was it stated anywhere in the inbasket that the prisoner was employed by NYC Transit?

---

 

-- Edited by Arrow on Tuesday 28th of February 2017 12:51:47 PM

Can we post questions yet or is it still forbidden bc I can literally rewrite the whole exam... Just like everyone else I'm most likely going to fail but you know always hope for the best... Btw what's up with everyone kissing the instructors asses from the key and elite ... They make out like bandits after every exam lol stop adding to their ego remember you paid them your money is thanks enough

The aided report was a good Trick the assault 2 , the fake cop question was a good Trick question ,even the suspension question was a trick , the critical injury was a good Trick , the wording was barbaric but the game is the game I studied probably failed oh well I still have another 22 yrs on this job. Never understood why people get mad at something they can't control.

ecfpetey wrote:

---

The 61 stated that the occupation of the prisoner was "NYC transit".

For the force question involving the forcible takedown leading to the person being treated in the hospital room, the correct answer should be level 1 use of force but investigated by CO/duty captain. Forcible takedown = level 1 force, but the investigation is a level 2 investigation due to the person needing to go to the emergency room. Its not a level 2 use of force. Straight from 221. A level 1 or level 2 use of force is not the same thing as a level 1 or level 2 investigation. You can have a level one use of force and still a level 2 investigation

For the number of correct forms, it was only the 250 that was correct. The 61 is not needed for a ct 3rd degree, but if anyone examined the OLBS, it was not prepared correctly. The online contained a #61 number and 61 information which its not suppose to have since there should be no complaint report prepared.

The number of people sent to transport the prisoners to me seems debatable. How i read 210-01 is that there is one escorting/transporting officer and if there are more than two prisoners being guarded and transport chains are no available, you assign a additional escort officer, making it 2 officers required. The memo in the inbasket stated the CO wants two officers to do the transports at all times, so therefore two officers doing the transport already satisfy the conditions for 210-01 and the CO memo. However a case can be argued that in 210-01 ,the original escorting officer(s) does not mean 1 but whatever number dictated by the command.

-- Edited by ecfpetey on Monday 27th of February 2017 02:16:02 AM

-- Edited by ecfpetey on Monday 27th of February 2017 02:17:31 AM

-- Edited by ecfpetey on Monday 27th of February 2017 02:25:21 AM

---

 

-- Edited by Arrow on Tuesday 28th of February 2017 12:52:10 PM

rememebr. Trespass violation and trespass 3rd degree do not require a 61 since it's part of Patt d Pill

but trespass in a residential building is trespass In the second degree which does require a 61. Regardless the 61 wasn't prepared right because it had a 00 jurisdiction instead of 02 and the OLBS is incorrect since the box that states " fill this out only for arrests on open complaint reports" was filled out. It should. It be filled out since it's not an arrest on a previous 61 

In regards to everyone who had different ages listed on the aided card, I made the same mistake on the 2013 exam, I didn't look at the victims age. So on this exam, I made sure to look at the age which on my aid card was 66 years old.

Also my exam (I'm saying my exam because apparently there were different exams if we all didn't have the same questions) the question with the girl who broke her ankle, The UMOS who responded professionally moved the crowd of people during which the girl in high heels tripped and broke her ankle. 

Question #97 on my exam, didn't specify "most correct answer" or "most incorrect answer" it just said select the most answer. Not sure if anyone else had that same question. 

 

The school on inbasket was located on J avenue b/w c&d aves 

 

My exam didn't have the question of someone shooting from a NYCHA building. 

There's your Inbasket right here Inbasket. I remember force figures 31 , map quit your job if you got this wrong, aided assault 2 , patrol post pretty sure 3, shooting car gnrkfkrk and Allen, detail was the one with Clark from dole , prisoner transport 3 peeps , CEW LT did it , sick deny bc his tour , wrong report was 2 of them forgot which one was right, % murder , Legal Bureau was have them all out of the vehicle , anti crime used the marked car with the LP reader bc the anti crime boss was at the detail. Any questions on others ?

Arrow wrote:

---

ecfpetey wrote:

---

The 61 stated that the occupation of the prisoner was "NYC transit".

For the force question involving the forcible takedown leading to the person being treated in the hospital room, the correct answer should be level 1 use of force but investigated by CO/duty captain. Forcible takedown = level 1 force, but the investigation is a level 2 investigation due to the person needing to go to the emergency room. Its not a level 2 use of force. Straight from 221. A level 1 or level 2 use of force is not the same thing as a level 1 or level 2 investigation. You can have a level one use of force and still a level 2 investigation

For the number of correct forms, it was only the 250 that was correct. The 61 is not needed for a ct 3rd degree, but if anyone examined the OLBS, it was not prepared correctly. The online contained a #61 number and 61 information which its not suppose to have since there should be no complaint report prepared.

The number of people sent to transport the prisoners to me seems debatable. How i read 210-01 is that there is one escorting/transporting officer and if there are more than two prisoners being guarded and transport chains are no available, you assign a additional escort officer, making it 2 officers required. The memo in the inbasket stated the CO wants two officers to do the transports at all times, so therefore two officers doing the transport already satisfy the conditions for 210-01 and the CO memo. However a case can be argued that in 210-01 ,the original escorting officer(s) does not mean 1 but whatever number dictated by the command.

-- Edited by ecfpetey on Monday 27th of February 2017 02:16:02 AM

-- Edited by ecfpetey on Monday 27th of February 2017 02:17:31 AM

-- Edited by ecfpetey on Monday 27th of February 2017 02:25:21 AM

---

 Correct the CO states 2 full duty officers however there are 3 prisoners being transported and the transport chains were lost in a prior transport. So if you have more than 2 prisoners and no transport chains to need an extra escorting officer. the way you won't need the additional officer is if youre using leg restrains with the van which they didn't mentioned

---

 

I understand your point and it's very valid. It's just when they try to combine the CO's memo with guidelines from 210-01, it makes the procedure very unclear. In my opinion, the way 210-01 was written was that you start with just 1 escorting officer. Such as with step 16A, "assign member of outgoing platoon, at change of tour, to guard and transport prisoner(s) if assignment of escorting officer would result in overtime". To me, that sounds like it's just one officer needed for the transport. And if there is more than two prisoners being guarded and transport chains are not available, you assign a additional escort officer. The CO in the memo already had two officers doing the transport.

But then again, i am not saying I am right. Was just stating that question combined with the memo and guidelines from 210-01 makes the transport decision very vague and unclear.

Arrow wrote:

---

Chilza321 wrote:

---

Except in the performance of duty 

---

 The illegal gambling was missing the qualifier. That answer can be challenge 

---

 No it wasn't, the qualifier was there.

Thebirds wrote:

---

-- Edited by Arrow on Tuesday 28th of February 2017 12:52:44 PM

Arrow wrote:

---

Chip Skylark wrote:

---

There was 2 different questions that had gambling one wasn't right but the one that was in reference to the suspension was right.

---

 Well it got me then. dont remember reading it like that. 

---

 But i tip my hat to you @skylard , you destroyed that in basket. It really got me really good 

NauseousPBBN wrote:

---

For everyone referring to the shooting off the Housing roof. That was a question on one of The Key's Rewrites. Not our current exam.

---

 

-- Edited by Arrow on Tuesday 28th of February 2017 12:53:17 PM

Arrow wrote:

---

Thebirds wrote:

---

Prisoner visit I believe was the embassy officer. I picked NYC Transit Supervisor, but supervisors from the city agency the prisoner is employed by may interview in the hospital. Was it stated anywhere in the inbasket that the prisoner was employed by NYC Transit?

---

 the embassy officer was not allowed for the hospital visit 

---

 Anyone have a a quest dealing with a cop dispersing a group and a lady falls and breaks her ankle? Who investigates?

Nyfine wrote:

---

Broken ankle is Spi...IA

---

 Serious injury not force?

Arrow wrote:

---

Thebirds wrote:

---

Arrow wrote:

---

Chilza321 wrote:

---

Except in the performance of duty 

---

 The illegal gambling was missing the qualifier. That answer can be challenge 

---

 No it wasn't, the qualifier was there.

one the the choices for the must suspend said patonizing illegal gambling. And it ended there. It did not have  qualifier was is except in performance of duty.  It's the same as the questuons that said no smoking or crewing gum or tobacco in uniform. . The qualifier "in Public view" 

The contract band weapon question in my opinion can thrown out

Absolutely ridiculous answer choices 

The DO notifies ATF through the operations unit

---

 

 

Chilza321 wrote:

---

Arrow wrote:

---

Thebirds wrote:

---

Arrow wrote:

---

Chilza321 wrote:

---

Except in the performance of duty 

---

 The illegal gambling was missing the qualifier. That answer can be challenge 

---

 No it wasn't, the qualifier was there.

one the the choices for the must suspend said patonizing illegal gambling. And it ended there. It did not have  qualifier was is except in performance of duty.  It's the same as the questuons that said no smoking or crewing gum or tobacco in uniform. . The qualifier "in Public view" 

The contract band weapon question in my opinion can thrown out

Absolutely ridiculous answer choices 

The DO notifies ATF through the operations unit

---

 

The answer to the contraband weapons was detain the vehicle for federal authorities. Its actually written in the 208-49 procedure step 2 "include information as to vehicle, vessel or aircraft, if involved, and hold such property for federal authorities. 

---

 

The penal law question was a good learning experience never knew taking an item from a commerical vehicle is a Burglary

Quick question what's their opinion on this test compared to previous exams ? Because this is my first I'm sick of hearing from instructors saying it was a groundball and straight forward.

Finest7578 wrote:

---

How many treatment forms did you do ?

---

 4

Wow....so.much for DCAS tryna make this straightforward

bignutz88 wrote:

---

Gk06 wrote:

---

Finest7578 wrote:

---

How many treatment forms did you do ?

---

 4

---

 how did u get 4?

Forgive me now I'm drinking but one went to the hosp  one requested to go but decided not too

one elected to disclose Med info

---

 

Forgot the last