Is the Belmont Shore rapist back again? According to the LBReport.com (below link), two women say they saw a man resembling the suspect of June 15, 2009 Belmont Shore sexual assault trying to enter another woman's apartment window at midnight Friday/Saturday night. They called the police and waited for 2-hours for the police to arrive.

http://www.lbreport.com/news/jul09/belroy.htm

This report appears contrary to what Police Lieutenant Rosenthal told the Belmont Shore Residents Association meeting on July 9, 2009 that residents had nothing to fear from the June 15, 2009 rapist. When asked if the police had caught the rapist or knew who he was, Lt. Rosenthal said that he could not provide any facts because the June 9, 2009 rape was still under investigation, other than to say Belmont Shore residents had nothing to fear from the rapist. People walked away from the meeting feeling the police had the matter under control and the rapist was no longer a threat. This latest incident makes one wonder.

A reporter from channel 2 news called me today to talk about residents concerns in the aftermath of the June 15 rape and last weekend’s prowler in Belmont Shore. I told her residents are concerned the police are insensitive to resident’s safety and quality of life. If not for the media getting involved, our community would never have heard about either the rape or prowler or the possibility it is the same person.

According to the reporter, Police spokesperson Jackie Bezart said the police responded immediately to the first call and were patrolling the area. Yet, the ladies who called the police were told by the dispatcher to leave the house and wait outside where they didn’t see any police go by for 2-hours.

2 fucking hours response time on an intruder/break in call is fucking disgusting.

the LBPD are useless spoiled bitches.

Jackie Bezart, you are a pc f sht lr. So are most LBPD.

This is very disturbing. If there is indeed a serial rapist, this isn't just a problem for the Shore--it is a problem for the whole city.

The Press Telegram has a story on this now also.

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_12823737

An over served bar patron at Belmont Brewing Company got in an argument with his girlfriend last night and pulled a gun. Police were dispatched using codes 417 (brandishing a weapon/firearm) and 647F (drunk in public). The police arrested the guy 10:08 pm on the sand just west of Belmont Memorial Pier.

I remember the good old days a couple years ago when residents did not have to worry about guns, rapes and alcohol related violence in our Belmont Shore Community.

I received a call today from Commander Renaud advising me there was no gun involved in this incident after all. According to the Commander, code 417 can mean other things besides a gun.

Perhaps the good Commander will educate us through you as to just what "other things" Penal Code Section 417 means. Yes, it does deal with things other than guns, but the last I knew, it deals with weapons of all kinds. If a suspect is accused of being "417", that means he/she is alleged to be armed with something more than just "fists". Still a valid cause for concern!

This link might assist some in better understanding the various crimes prohibited by CPC Section 417 et. seq:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/417.html

Geez, John, would it kill you to just admit that what I said was essentially correct? I suppose I could/should have added the word "deadly" to "weapons" to be exactly, precisely, specifically, totally correct. But frankly, who gives a shit?

Toad: "What (you) said was essentially correct" and I assure you I wasn’t attempting to diminish that fact to any degree. All I was trying to do was be a little more specific...a little more precise...and provide readers with a direct and accessible resource through which they might learn, for themselves, a few more facts pertinent to this discussion.

Is that really such a bad thing? If so, then I offer my sincere and most humble apologies.

Another aspect of this part of the discussion may also have to do with occasional differences between law enforcement radio and CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) codes and the various codified laws upon which many of them are based.

For instance (and this information is by no means restricted or confidential...I checked beforehand just to be sure), the LBPD radio/CAD code for a person with a gun is "417" and the radio/CAD code for a person with a knife is "417a". As you made clear, and the link I posted supports, CPC 417 et seq. actually includes several more offenses than the two communicated in the radio/CAD codes I just cited.

I mention this because it seems very easy for some to leap to erroneous conclusions based upon the (often) incomplete knowledge and/or partial information they possess and then to proceed to condemn people or businesses based upon it. For example: That a person may have been drinking at BBC at some point and was later found to be allegedly drunk in public is not clear evidence that the person had been “over-served” at BBC. It simply serves the agenda and prejudice of some to make that claim.

Another example: As far as I know, concurrent but separate LBPD and LA District Attorney’s Office investigations of the 5/28 2nd Street officer involved shooting are still in progress. To the best of my knowledge and experience it is standard policy and procedure to *never* release the conclusions of such investigations until they have, in fact, been concluded. Yet some insist upon alleging that these investigations are somehow being covered up.

Why?

Rather than make such unfounded allegations, why not simply call those organizations and ask what the status of their respective investigations actually is and when they expect to release the findings?

Perhaps some have made such calls.

But if they have, why not report *that*, and whatever answers (if any) they received instead of, once again, leaping to conclusions based upon the incomplete knowledge and/or partial information they possess and then proceeding to condemn others based upon it?

How does the latter approach further the quest for knowledge? Clearly it does not. So it is, likewise, reasonable to conclude that furthering the quest for knowledge is not the goal of those who routinely resort to such tactics.

Their true goal, at least to me, is as deplorable and self-serving as it is blatantly self-evident.

Belmont Shore residents deserve to know the truth about the May 28, 2009 Police Officer involved shooting in front of Gene Rotondo’s Legends bar. Why does it appear the police and the County District Attorney’s offices are covering up the investigation.

Several people in Legends the night of the shooting are claiming the person shot, Ernest Raymond Rodriguez, had been in Legends and was an over-served and intoxicated patron escorted out of the building before being shot. Yet, the Press Telegram wrote an article the following day QUOTING Legends Owner Gene Rotondo as saying Mr. Rodriguez had not been in Legends bar and did not appear intoxicated.

Since the shooting, there has been zero news of the investigation. However, I am now being told police have verified Mr. Rodriguez was in Legends the night of the shooting and used his credit card there. Furthermore, I am told that Mr. Rodriquez’s blood sample taken at the hospital indicates a high level of alcohol. Both claims dispute what was printed by the Press Telegram when quoting Mr. Rotondo who has everything to gain by not being truthful. Is that why the Press Telegram May 28, 2009 article is no longer accessible on-line?

Moreover, I am also being told by friends of Legends doormen that Mr. Rotondo met with his doormen and told them to say Mr. Rodriquez had NOT been in Legends. So why isn't the Press Telegram investigating and reporting on this scandal? Surely this must rate up there with a 2-year old DUI as being front page news. We would hate to think the Press Telegram is biased.

Does anyone NOT find it peculiar that the May 28 2009 Press Telegram article QUOTING Mr. Rotondo has been pulled from the internet? I can access Press Telegram articles from over a year ago, but this article has been removed from public access. It reminds me a little bit of the Press Telegram article that Quoted Gene Rotondo blasting Sandra Bullock for failing to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at a Long Beach State Baseball game. When Mrs. Bollock’s husband, Jesse James, threatened to sue Mr. Rotondo and the Press Telegram, it was later discovered Ms. Bollock had never been contacted by Mr. Rotondo regarding the advertized promotion and that Mr. Rotondo had bad-mouthed Sandra Bullock and Jesse James for no reason. Those Press Telegram articles were likewise removed from internet access a month later without an apology to Ms. Bullock.

You can still find the Press Telegram Article about my 2-year old non-newsworthy DUI on the internet, but you can’t find the Press Telegram article about the shooting where Mr. Rotondo was quoted. I'm curious when the Press Telegram slid so low as to be the promotional rag for Gene Rotondo and his Belmont Shore bars?

It's 2:00 am on Thursday/Friday night/morning and there is no cop to be found on 2nd street. I watched as several jacked-up people rolled around on the sidewalk, unable to walk. Then, I watched as they got in their cars to drive away. Just what we need in our neighborhood. Where is the cops? Where is ABC?

A more effective solution to the drunk and DUI problem generated by irresponsible 2nd street bars is a 12:00 am moratorium on serving drinks. Mike Ruehle is not obsessed. What has happened in the past is that the LBPD make a big show of fixing a problem and then they go away. Looks like the bars are still overserving alcohol to patrons.

And then eventually people like you and Mike will cry, "Gee look at all the drunks leaving bars at midnight! We need to close bars at 10pm!" Where does one finally draw the line? Have you considered some people don't get off work until 11 or 12pm or 1am and and may like a drink or two with their comrades? To some people midnite or 1am isn't late.

None the less, these drinkers shouldn't be drinking and driving--which is an activity that can occur at any hour of the day.

LB City Girl, I am sure your opinion will change after you, your family or one of you friends get killed or maimed by one of these 2nd street falling down drunk drivers. The police recommended the conditional use permits alcohol on 2nd St. stating that the businesses would not become a nuisance, increase crime, increase noise, negatively impact adjacent residential homes. The police failed to state that they did not have sufficent manpower to police the area. Alcohol is regulated because of these very problems. Now that certain bars have been identified as the problem the conditions of their operation should be modified to fix the problem. The responsible bars should be able to remain open until 2 am.

Hello?! I acknowledged people shouldn't be driving drunk--and that it could happen at ANY time of the day.
In fact, my kid is much more likely to be hit by a drunk driver leaving the Shore at 7:30 pm than he is at 2 am. (Because that's a lot more likely time for my family to be in the Shore) By your logic, bars simply shouldn't exist at all.

LBCity Girl. It is pretty clear what you are saying is that because you a not affected by the alcohol problem you can care less about anyone else's safety or quality of life. It is your logic that is nonexistent. Logic is deductive reasoning not an offer of small minded selfish opinion.

Lets see, bars make an agreement with the city and community not to be a nuisance or serve drunks to get their alcohol conditional use permit from the city. Said bars offer happy hours at 11:00 pm and proceed to serve people who are so drunk that they cannot stand up, pee, fight, destroy private property and then allow them to drive home.

My logic is that these problem bars should have their conditional use permits changed to not allow service after 12:00 am and be fined for serving drunks. I have never seen one drunk rolling around on the sidewalk on 2nd st, peeing, vomiting, breaking windows at 7:30 pm. This type of behavior occur after 12:00 am. Where did you get your "fact" that your kid is MUCH MORE likely to be hit by a drunk driver leaving the Shore at 7:30 pm than at 2 am??????

No, what I am saying is that you are foolish to think a 12 am curfew solves the problem you think you are having.

And the fact of the matter is that my kid is 12 years old, so he is never in the Shore at 2 am--thereby making it absolutely impossible for him to be hit by a drunk driver at that time.

What I am saying is that, there are happy hours that start in the shore as early as 4 pm. Don't you think that by 7:30 pm a driver leaving one of these happy hours may be a DUI?

I know people who have gotten DUI's at 2 pm in the afternoon.

I care greatly about the quality of life for everyone in the shore. But you are kidding yourself that somehow closing bars early is really protecting anyone from drunk drivers. People can be driving drunk after a three martini lunch.

Seriously, what does this have to do with the rape that this story is supposed to be about?
You and Mike are off topic posting about the bars on a story that is about a girl's rape.

I thought a few readers had already established that no one with any brains is out a 2 am--Mike, what gives? Looking to be raped?

BTW, the correct grammar would be "Where are the cops?" not "Where is the cops?"

It's been two weeks since the rape of a 17-year old girl. What's the update? Have the police caught the rapist? It's also been over a month since the officer involved shooting on 2nd street. Why hasn't anyone interviewed the person who was shot or his family? Is his story consistent with what was reported by the police and the Press Telegram?

Why does the media take such a hands-off approach to anything related to the police department? Five homeless people were recently murdered along the 405 freeway and we saw each one of their pictures in the paper and read about numerous interviews with their family. Tons of media exposure. Yet, when we have a case of the police failing for a week to report a rapist may be loose in the community, or when a person is shot for allegedly attacking a police officer, there is exactly zero news afterwards. No update. Is the media afraid to mention anything related to the police. Sounds an awful like Theo's article MORE “BE CAREFUL.”

I have an idea Mike, since you seem to be OBSESSED--why don't you start a Neighborhood Watch group to help police the community?

Have you ever seen the "Senior Police?" These folks VOLUNTEER their time to help police and assist seniors. You could do something similar. Instead of cursing the darkness, you could light a fire.

I'm new to this but the guy who posted the last one about retaliation scares me. Sounds like he's over the edge. Think I will not visit this site anymore.

You are free to visit or not visit any site(s) you wish. But know this: Retaliation is in fact alive and well in LB and has been for about 15 years. It's just a little more obvious now.
*********************ITISTRUE*******************

Retaliation and intimidation is a dynamic that the City of Long appears to encourage and condone. When ever a member of the public questions or challenges a city decision or policy, the city sicks the attack dogs on them. I posted earlier today on the District Weekly about this same topic at the below link.

http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/print/news/be...

After 16-months of residents’ bar patron complaints being ignored by Councilman DeLong and East Division Police Commander Renaud, it now appears the residents concerns may have had standing after all. A throat slashing, four rapes, a robbery and abduction, a murder, a police shooting and an increasing number of aggravated assaults have all occurred over the past year. Yet, what does Commander Renaud and Councilman DeLong do after being criticized for having turned a blind eye to the problem? They do what has become a popular trend among elected officials and senior city staff in Long Beach, they retaliate and intimidate.

Now Councilman DeLong has released his attack dog and lobbyist Police Sergeant John Greet to insult, intimidate and try to find any information he can to shut up my criticism of the way senior police officials have ignored and wronged the community I live in. Yes, RETALIATION and INTIMIDATION are alive and well in Long Beach city government.

First the city retaliates against me by sicking code enforcement on me for questioning why politically influential developers are granted building variances denied to residents. Now it’s Police Officer Greet’s turn. He is going after anything he can get on me. Insults, intimidation, retaliation didn’t shut me up. Publishing my 2-year old DUI on the front page of the Press Telegram didn’t shut me up. What’s next? Will the police mistakenly raid my house in another gang sweep and arrest, cuff and beat me into submission like they mistakenly did to someone else last week?

As far as I know, the government works FOR THE CITIZENRY and it is still my right to question my government and its actions or inactions in our democratic society, supposedly without fear of retaliation. Somehow, that has changed in LONG BEACH WHERE RETALIATION IS ALIVE AND WELL. If it isn’t our Mayor booting people off of housing boards for allegedly commenting about his relationship with developer Tom Dean (comment adamantly denied by Mr. Smith), it is Councilman DeLong banning me from attending his meetings with the public. Retaliation is our city’s own Chicago mafia style intimidation tactics used when the city’s unsavory conduct is called into question.

Forget Aquatics Capital of the World. Forget Bike Friendly Capital of the World. Long Beach has become the RETALIATION CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. Move over Chicago. Here comes Long Beach.