.

Police Investigate Manor Restaurant Car Theft

Trio steals Mercedes, keys to other cars from unlocked valet booth.

West Orange police are investigating a series of car thefts from the parking lot of The Manor Restaurant believed to have been carried out by a group of men witnesses say they saw parked in a nearby driveway, officials said.

According to police, a valet at the restaurant, located at 111 Prospect Ave., reported seeing at least three men in a gray 2007 Acura TL on Saturday, Jan. 12 in the upper parking lot adjacent to the entrance of the driveway near the restaurant.

The valet said the men quickly fled the area in their car as well as a white 2003 Mercedes Benz with vanity plates they allegedly stole from the upper parking lot.

Police said the men fled north on Prospect Avenue while the valet contacted police.

West Orange police pursued the men after seeing the car on Route 280 East before the fleeing car exited at the First Street exit in Newark. At this point, police said, officers lost sight of the car and stopped the pursuit.

A police check of the gray Acura revealed the car had been carjacked in Newark.

Further investigation revealed the car thieves walked into the unlocked valet booth and stole the keys. There were no video surveillance cameras, police reported.

About 45 minutes later, West Orange police said, two separate guests at the restaurant reported their car keys were missing from the valet booth.

Police located the cars, described as a Kia and a Pontiac G6, but the keys, valued at $100 each, were not found.

David Peart January 24, 2013 at 05:57 AM
Tom, Again, your point being what exactly? The fact that the Patch lists these victims is supposed to enlighten me how? Is your robbery prevention strategy and legal criteria for your stop and frisk policy supposed to be contained in the search bar for the West Orange Patch? Am I supposed to be shocked that those who commit robberies target the most vulnerable among us? Please tell me that after all these desperately poor attempts at marginalizing those who disagree with your ideologically biased, bumper slogan crime prevention theory, that you have more than this. I know that targeting people loitering in areas frequented by the most vulnerable at specific times of day will do a whole lot more for our teens, elderly and women than your questionably ethical and clearly unlawful attempts to suggest that all we need do is implement some stop and frisk policy which you have no idea how to apply, and even less courage to specify your true intent. Let me be the first to say it clearly so you have no questions as to the reality. Stupid policing doesn't work, and it never did. The police in this community have certainly demonstrated to my satisfaction that they have the law enforcement intellect necessary to deal with these situations without the need for marching orders that put this entire community at risk for the sake of the contempt you apparently haven't the courage to specify. BTW, I worked a Robbery Identification Program, so please enlighten me as to what you know.
David Peart January 24, 2013 at 06:28 AM
First of all, your dishonesty is very telling, as I've asked no such questions. I've mocked your attempt to make those points more relevant than they are within the context of the stop and frisk policy you've yet to specify but promote as though it's the solution to all West Orange's ills. I am well aware that criminals use 280 to escape justice for acts committed in this town. What I asked is what "town residents" use it to escape, as you suggested that they do. The WOPD need to be more "proactive" where? Are they supposed to be every and anywhere crime may be committed, before it happens? You can play that "what if" card all day long, it won't make your argument any stronger. It's not food for thought, it's ideologically motivated chewing gum. The facts remain that while ticking up slightly, crime is down overall. The Patch is not the FBI/UCR's, so I'll stick to the USDOJ for my crime stats. The WOPD is doing a great job, and you insult their service and dedication with these attempts to promote the contempt you apparently have not the courage to articulate specifics, as well as a transparent ideologically driven agenda.
Tom January 25, 2013 at 01:01 AM
David Your reference to the violent crime surge that is occurring in West Orange as"ticking up slightly" is offensive. Your strick reliance on reports rather than talking to people, merchants in the areas most effected by the surge in violent crime demonstrates your contempt for the victims and or the people that speak up. I don't need to wait untill 2014 for 2013's crime report to know it is going up, or to act. We need less paper shufflers and more "in your face" Policing in West Orange to deter criminals
David Peart January 25, 2013 at 09:00 AM
Tom, Sad for you that facts offend you, but they are what they are. Yes, I rely upon facts and not the hype you seem to believe should rule the day. As to the "in your face" policing you believe is necessary to deter crime, that is the question, isn't it? How do we ID the faces you believe need to be "got in" for the sake of the contempt you seem to believe substitutes for real police work? I'm confident that I've confronted and arrested more real criminals than you've ever heard of in your life. But please feel free to explain to us which faces you figure the WOPD needs to "get in" for the sake of your desire to feed your passions while ignoring reality and the law. As to 2013 numbers, one need not wait for 2014 when the comparisons are made to the same period a year earlier. Again, let's not allow the facts to get in the way of your uninformed hyperbole. What exactly do you believe you're "speaking out" against? That has yet to established. Your disingenuous attempts to evoke sympathy are transparent, and nothing more than a poorly designed stunt, proffered for the sake of bolstering arguments that are otherwise catastrophic failures on the facts. Why else would you be so desperate to ignore facts in favor of your dishonest, irrational, legally absurd stop and frisk rants. When you even attempt to provide a legal criteria, then you get to preach about "in your face policing" and what you believe police "paper shufflers" contribute, or even who they are.
Tom January 25, 2013 at 03:07 PM
Talk about rants? OMG...more Blah,Blah,Blah
David Peart January 26, 2013 at 01:50 AM
In other words, you have nothing substantive to contribute, and you never did. When the cheering section for your contempt fails to show up, this is what you resort to. Your continued anonymity speaks volumes.
Tom January 28, 2013 at 09:16 PM
Why is it important who I am? do you want to arrest me for my opinions? Or maybe the old' PBA Bullying? Will you all show up in your (PBA) Black T shirts to intimidate the public? Or maybe you won't march in the parades? So sad I am sorry if I have upset The Police Gods,That are satisfied with the "status quo"
David Peart January 29, 2013 at 12:22 AM
The significance is that you're not willing to stand by your ridiculous assertions with your name and reputation attached. It is easy for you to pollute this forum with ridiculous talk of "PBA bullying" and "black T shirts," whatever that's supposed to mean, because you do so at risk to nothing but your easily interchangeable identity on this message board. As for your absurd talk of arresting you, that would be difficult to do as a retiree from an out of state law enforcement agency. What "status quo" might I be be protecting besides the constitution? No, I do not see it as an intelligent use of police resources to feed your apparent contempt, and the foolishness it conjures up in your head. You've yet to articulate this "stop and frisk" policy that you seem to believe would provide the police with the legal tools to stop anyone they deem "suspicious" by your questionable standards. Thankfully, the WOPD is smarter than that. The idiocy you speak of was once the status quo, and as I understand the UCR trends, crime is down significantly since the days of the "Tom says stop 'em because they look like they're up to something" crime prevention standard. With things like auto-theft incidents down from more than 500 more than a decade ago, to a number in the 70's annually, I'd say the "status quo" is doing a whole lot better than your contempt driven desire to anonymously mess with the "police Gods." Oh by the way, I was DEA, not PBA, know it all.
Tom January 29, 2013 at 04:44 AM
No I would say don't stop them, David said not to. Because even after all of his experience and now that he is retired he still never developed a sense of who may or may not be "up to no good"and who cares anyway? And besides it maybe too much paper work with no overtime... Let's go get some doughnuts.
David Peart January 29, 2013 at 06:50 AM
Spoken as is expected of your ethical and moral limitations. You duck the so called criteria you propose to apply to stop people, as you apparently have none other than your contempt for what you believe a criminal likely resembles, not what a likely criminals behavior will resemble. I don't expect you to know how to articulate the elements of such behavior, or how to describe what you would be looking for, as we all know by now what your criteria really comes down to. I'm sure I've forgotten more about spotting a criminal on the street than you've ever known, or ever will know. Hate mongering of a populace you're too much of a coward to attempt to understand, and envy of the police professionals that stand at the wall you never would, won't make the case you seem to believe it will for you. Like I said, at the end of the day this is all about you being able to spew your questionable contempt for specific populations, as well as your law enforcement envy, from the safety of the anonymity that feeds your internet only activism.
Tom January 29, 2013 at 04:01 PM
Thank God you are retired.
David Peart January 29, 2013 at 07:48 PM
Tom, Thank God you'll never have the privilege of being able to say you were on the job. That 50's television educated, contempt rooted mentality isn't good for anyone, not even you. It's the reason you hide as you deliver these childlike rants and poorly aimed attempts at disrespect, as you simply expose yourself with ever shot, and you know you never wish to be held to account by your neighbors for your posture.
Ryan January 29, 2013 at 08:22 PM
Tom, if you think police are a bunch of bullies and goons, looking to intimidate the public, why would you want to give them MORE power, via your (still unspecified) expanded stop-and-frisk program, than they already have? You're not making any sense. If you think (as the above comment suggests you do) that police are prone to abuse their authority, I don't see why you'd want to give them more of it. Face it. David has the goods on you. Time to bow out with whatever grace you have left.
Tom January 29, 2013 at 09:41 PM
I hope new recruits will not be brain washed into thinking they are heros and the public does not have the rights to voice their opinions. Again I just thank God you are no longer on the job.
David Peart January 29, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Like Ryan said, you contradict yourself, for the sake of covering for the embarrassment you brought upon yourself. What does my challenging your ridiculous call for a stop and frisk policy, independent from the one prescribed in the constitution, have to do with brain washing, or cops "thinking they are heroes" at the expense of anyone's right to an opinion? You are entitled to an opinion, even when it demonstrates you a contempt motivated fool. You spoke of invoking a policy that gives police the right to stop people beyond what the law already prescribes, yet you've yet to define in any specificity what that criteria would be. What would keep you from doing that, and where exactly would the hero worship be in a request for clarity on your part? You have a right to your opinions, just not your own facts, which is why you desperately seek to marginalize the significance of facts. Point is you don't care about facts, or offering constructive opinions about anything. For you, this is just a forum to air your contempt, envy and apparently prove how clueless you are.
Tom January 30, 2013 at 01:26 AM
I would be open to making changes to laws giving permission beyond what the law currently prescribes in certain areas and conditions. It is very simple... Now i will prepare to be ridiculed and told how it can't be done... Called a racist...bigot....coward...fool...
Tom January 30, 2013 at 02:39 AM
I think there is a fraternal group that does what they want when they want... I know people that have gotten away with serious crimes when they gave their PBA card... That being said I think the negative culture maybe changing with new recruits (I hope) I also think with technology ( video recording, GPS, on board computers, license plate readers..) wil be helpful in managing a top notch capable Police Force, that will implement enforcement correctly.
David Peart January 30, 2013 at 04:16 AM
Had you any intention to actually address crime, you'd know that the ability to stop, question and frisk people who draw suspicion on themselves by virtue of where they are, and the conditions at the time they are there, already exists. It's called police work, and cops do that everyday of the week. So yes. your self assessment is most likely accurate, justifying your belief that you should be ridiculed.
Tom January 30, 2013 at 05:16 PM
Then perhaps we should call it a "Do Your Job Policy" instead of "stop and frisk"
David Peart January 30, 2013 at 09:33 PM
Who but you is suggesting that the police in this community are not doing their jobs? Your obvious contempt for law enforcement isn't evidence of any shortcoming on their part. The job of the police is not to violate the rights of those you arbitrarily deem unworthy of the protections extended to all people under our constitution. There is a mechanism for dealing with criminals that works well for those who know how to apply it legally. It's why they're educated to understand those legal provisions before they're deployed on our streets. The police instincts required to effectively apply that education comes later as the result of training and experience. It's not born of contempt or your apparent envy of those who take these risks.
Tom January 31, 2013 at 12:38 AM
Blah,blah excuses blah blah accusations blah blah rights blah blah I am so smart blah blah can't do this blah blah can't do that ... Sound familiar...you guessed it David the retired know it all
David Peart January 31, 2013 at 02:02 AM
Yes, because your offerings have been so substantive that we need to defer to your expertise and intellectual depth of your opinions. All this while hiding in a public message board defending otherwise indefensible positions. I don't need to know much, to know more than you apparently do. Don't appreciate the complex beauty of our constitution? I'm sure that there are other nations around this world that would embrace your way of thinking. You have no right to ignore and make up facts to suit your weak arguments, and not be challenged. That has nothing to do with anyone thinking they're smarter than you, it simply means that they're smart enough not to passively accept your nonsense. No one has to accuse you of what you regularly demonstrate here, as we still wait for the criteria you hope the WOPD would employ for your stop and policy. Thou protest too much, and it shows.
Tom February 01, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Ah...blah blah blah blah...the same old story...we are heros...you don't understand...blah blah...no you can't...blah blah...not fair...me me me...whine whine....
David Peart February 01, 2013 at 10:39 PM
Tom, If you had anything intelligent to offer the discussion, you would have by now. What you proffer above, speaks volumes.
Tom February 02, 2013 at 05:00 PM
You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Just keep him away from the new pups so they don't pick up the same bad habits.. Enjoy your retirement!
David Peart February 03, 2013 at 05:38 PM
Bad habits like following state law, abiding by the constitution and not judging people by their complexion, as you make painfully apparent is your sole criteria. I'm sure the town can do without the sorts of problems that could be heaped upon her as the result of the legal actions she would likely experience taking your painfully flawed advice. Enjoy the contempt and apparent cowardice it requires you to protect.
Tom February 04, 2013 at 03:08 PM
David, well played. Textbook use of the Race card.
David Peart February 04, 2013 at 09:57 PM
Actually it's a textbook use of the facts. It's painfully you hope to pretend they are not facts, and that your responses aren't equally as transparent. As previously asked by more than myself, where's your criteria for the stop and frisk policy you claim the WOPD needs to implement to "get in the face" of the criminal element? Your repeated refusal to directly address that simple question speaks volumes when considered within the context of the cryptic statements you have already made. Thou protest too much.
Tom February 05, 2013 at 08:27 PM
We all know that the conversation is over once the Race card is played. Again David, well played
David Peart February 05, 2013 at 10:29 PM
What we know is that is where your position began and ends. It's why you refuse to articulate your stop and frisk criteria. Your real issue is that you're not fooling anyone. Race is only a barrier to free discussion when it's your only position.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something