Jason Carroll, a 32-year-old man, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to sexually abusing a 2-year-old girl in a bathroom at Neufeld Playground at 75th street in Riverside Park in September 2013. Carroll, who knew the girl’s mother, was taking care of the girl when he took her into the bathroom and assaulted her, prosecutors said.
“Carroll copped to the top count against him, criminal sexual act in the first degree, and will get sentenced to 25 years in prison followed by 20 years post-release supervision later this year,” the Daily News reported.
Photo by shinya.
I’m trying to reconcile this post with the one just previous to it: This View Could Be Yours, which reads…
“Residents are just steps from the venerable Riverside Park with its sparkling views, tennis courts, and fantastic green pathways to the west.”
someone’s not telling the whole story.
Huh?
So because heinous crimes are sometimes committed in Riverside Park, as they are in just about every other park and other public place, none of the pleasant aspects of the place can ever be legitimately mentioned?
Huh?
Trying to exaggerate my Comment in order to demonize it is a cheap shot.
You prefer the exaggeration and distortion of this particular Real Estate ad, fine. But don’t try to convince anyone that I was commenting that “none of the pleasant aspects of the place can ever be legitimately mentioned?”
I LOVE our parks.
Real Estate ads and snarky Commenters, not-so-much.
I was neither “trying to exaggerate” anything nor to “demonize” you or anyone else nor to convince anyone of anything.
I simply did not and still do not see what your problem is with the sentence that you quoted from the real estate ad-in-question. And, more importantly, what legitimate connection it could have to the horrific story reported in this entry. Hence, the question that I posed to you.
Are you suggesting that in order not to be guilty of “exaggeration and distortion”, the writers of the Ad would have had to have added, “and playgrounds with public bathrooms where even children as young as two are sometimes sexually assaulted” to their description of Riverside Park?
That is honestly the implication to me of what you have written. I just don’t get it.
Incidentally, I find it rather instructive that this criticism by “dannyboy” of a sponsored post, along with at least one other such criticism of a post sponsored post by (if I recall correctly) a different commentator, have been allowed to remain while (substantive, well-reasoned) criticism that I submitted of Ads by a certain entity was rejected.
I inadvertently posted my Reply as a new Comment. See Comment #10 below..
Hang em high
Horrible. Thank you Cy Vance and NYPD 20 for saving this girl.
No words. Just tears.
Just kill the damn animal .
I haven’t been able to ascertain the racial identity of the perpetrator but…
If he is “of color”, then brace yourself for being condemned as “racist” by certain self-righteous, self-appointed guardians of Cultural Marxist, ethnomasochist correctness.
If he is not “of color”, then the aforementioned champions of “Social Justice” [sic] should take note that the epithet “animal”, when applied to criminal and depraved individuals, is by no means reserved exclusively for those of any particular racial, ethnic or national identity.
So sick and unimaginable. Lock him up forever.
A 2 year old?!?
Heart wrenching.
Praise to the “concerned members of the public” who reported it.
Please, let us all be vigilant for *all* our children.
A 2-year old!
His karma, and brief future, is sealed. Child molesters are pariahs in prison. Repulsive!
So you’re sanctioning vigilantism?
Isn’t a strong, transparent, criminal justice system one of the key concepts that distinguishes a civilized society from a barbarous one?
If you believe that crimes such as the one reported here warrant a more severe punishment than the one currently meted-out under the law, shouldn’t you be advocating for its reform?
I’m certainly not. The term “vigilant” mean
watchful, observant, attentive, alert, eagle-eyed, hawk-eyed, on the lookout, on one’s toes, etc.
I was not responding to you, “D.R.” but to the post just below yours, #9 by “Wanda”. This should be clear from the position of my post, appearing, as it does, just beneath Wanda’s.
I found your comment perfectly appropriate.
I do apologize, Independent.
Independent wrote: “Are you suggesting that in order not to be guilty of “exaggeration and distortion”, the writers of the Ad would have had to have added, “and playgrounds with public bathrooms where even children as young as two are sometimes sexually assaulted” to their description of Riverside Park? That is honestly the implication to me of what you have written.”
No, and I don’t for a minute believe “That is honestly the implication to me of what you have written.”
Again you intentionally distort my Comment.
“dannyboy”,
Why don’t you just explain already what your problem is with the description of Riverside Park from the ad that you quoted?
Just where did you find the “exaggeration and distortion” that you charged?
In describing the park as “venerable”?
In describing the “green pathways” as “fantastic”?
I suppose I could see how one might find either or both of those to be somewhat over-the-top. (Though I would contend that both examples are sufficiently mild and innocuous that they hardly warrant singling-out for censure– at least not when considered against the level of hyperbole, let alone downright deception and fraud, that is endemic to the advertising world.)
(As far as “sparkling views”, I’m afraid I cannot concede that it constitutes hyperbole at all. The fact is that the park does have extensive views of the Hudson River. When the sunlight is reflected off the water, a visual effect is created that I think can safely be said to be universally described or interpreted as “sparkling”.)
But distortion? Even if the glowing descriptions of Riverside Park in the Ad could legitimately be considered exaggerations, they would be extremely mild ones. I fail to see how such innocuous hyperbole (if even that) could possibly be reasonably considered as rising to the level of “distortion”.
But even if one were to disagree with me and find “distortion” in the Ad’s description of Riverside Park, what would the connection be to the heinous crime that is the story of this West Side Rag entry?
That is the critical question here.
You explicitly and unequivocally made such a connection in your first post on this page. You wrote,
, referring to the sponsored post that advertises a Riverside Drive apartment for sale, from which you went-on to quote the description of Riverside Park that I quoted and responded directly to in my previous response to you.
You then concluded your post with,
Just what is the “whole story” that “someone” (the writer of the Ad that you cited and quoted) was not telling?
If it has nothing to do with the crime against the child that is the subject of this entry, then why did you make the explicit connection between the two that you did?
Why don’t you explain exactly what you meant? Exactly what your criticism of the Ad is and how it relates to this bitter story of a heinous crime against a child?
Perhaps you would prefer not to explain, in order that you may continue to have a pretext– no matter how flimsy, ill-founded and gratuitously hostile– to continue to accuse me of intentionally distorting your words? At this point, I cannot help but to wonder whether that may be the case.
In reply to your “critical question here”: I did not write anything at all about “distortion” in the ad’s description. I did write: “someone’s not telling the whole story”.
For the third time,please stop revising each of my Comments and then Replying.
Exact quote from your post of July 25, 2015 at 4:44 pm:
( https://www.westsiderag.com/2015/07/22/man-pleads-guilty-to-abusing-2-year-old-in-riverside-park#comment-272882 )
Not that it even really matters at this point. I cannot make sense of the extraordinarily rude, antisocial and downright illogical and bizarre behavior on your part that you have been exhibiting throughout this farce and only compounding with each further reply that you make to me. At worst, I have to wonder whether it might have been nothing more than sadistic trolling on your part. At best, you would be more to be pitied than to be censured. But what I do know is that I’ve already spent far too much time and energy on this exercise in exasperating futility with you. You’ll have to find someone else to provide fodder for your amusement.
I wrote exactly these words: “I’m trying to reconcile this post with the one just previous to it: This View Could Be Yours, which reads…
‘Residents are just steps from the venerable Riverside Park with its sparkling views, tennis courts, and fantastic green pathways to the west.’
someone’s not telling the whole story.”
You now have written many insults directed at me, yet it remains true that the real estate ad is not telling the whole story and that your misquoting my Comments doesn’t change that.
Your insults don’t change the truth of the matter.
Again, rather than assume good faith and take me at my word, you persist in choosing to make accusations against me that you cannot prove, finding malicious intent in my words where there was none.
You can believe what you wish but my conscience is clear, as I was only being honest in everything I wrote to you.
It seems to me that sometimes voicing one’s opinion and comment via a written medium be it text, email or commenting on online sites such as this, can be misconstrued. Why must people write “whole novels” to get their point across, especially if it’s a banter between 2 people. Get each other’s phone number and hash it out verbally. It’s just my opinion. Hope no one misunderstands what I’m saying. 🙂
Christina, I understand your Comment. I can only speak for myself, but the reason for my Comments was to stop the distortion of my words.
I accept that there can be differences of opinion, but don’t want my words changed in order for someone to “win” his argument.
Ok, I hear what you’re saying, dannyboy.