Hoboken Police thwart known sex offender
7/29/2010 Update:
Photo of sex offender Samuel Perez
Below is a photo of Samuel Perez, who Hoboken Police arrested this week for failing to register as a Sex Offender (NJ Statute 2C:7-2(d)1.)
7/29/2010:
Hoboken Police arrest dangerous sex offender
On Tuesday, July 27th, Hoboken Police were en route to locate and arrest a man at Pier A Park for parole violation. While searching the park, police say they encountered a man that matched the description of the parole violator – who was on the grass looking like he was getting ready to sleep.
However, this wasn’t the man they were looking for, but rather one Samuel Perez, a 38 year-old male who produced identification from Puerto Rico, who said he just arrived the previous day from Atlantic City and was looking to stay at the Hoboken Homeless shelter at 3rd and Bloomfield. Perez also said his final destination was to be Seattle, Washington according to reports.
Police ran his credentials for wants and warrants, and discovered that he was a sex offender – and had a violent past in Florida. According to police records, his criminal history included Aggravated Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, and Camal Intercouse (underage sex – which is a 2nd degree felony in FL.)
Perez also had several parole violations and was charged with failure to register as a sex offender back in 2007, police said.
Perez was also required to register as a sex-offender in New Jersey 10 days prior to intent to stay at the Homeless Shelter, but failed to do so.
Great job by the Hoboken PD for scooping this dangerous man up, and possibly preventing any attacks or incidents here in Hoboken!
Hoboken Police also noted that drug-related arrests this year have increased 52 percent compared to 2009.
Hoboken NJ
27 Responses to ** Hoboken Police thwart known sex offender **
July 31st, 2010 |
I was looking at a murder map of our area. Several years ago, there were a bunch of red dots on Newark, some red dots on Jersey City, and none on Hoboken. Now there are a bunch of red dots on Newark and Jersey City, with many of Jersey City’s red dots closer to Hoboken. Let’s face it. I do not want those red dots to touch Hoboken at all. The lesser the Cops in Hoboken, the greater the chance of getting red dots. I don’t mind paying an extra $40 a quarter on taxes to keep those 18 cops on the street and 19 intellegent supervisor and commanders running the show. Actually, that’s one hell of a bargain.
Login or Register to reply
August 2nd, 2010 |
If there is a murder, more cops usually wont stop the murder. You could have a 1000 cops if someone shoots someone in their home i.e domestic fight more cops wil not stop the murder from occuring.
The reason Hoboken is different from JC and Union City is the element that lives in Hoboken vs those towns. More affluent towns have less crime, not towns with more cops have less crime.
In response to OfficerGinty who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 2nd, 2010 |
I agree 1000% that the police should not be the only area cut and this was poor planning not to reduce other areas before the cops from a PR point of view. I assume the Audit made it possible to make thes cuts first.
You theory is flawed. Just cause there were 180 5 years ago doesnt mean that the department is strained or that 180 was needed then or now. . Possibly there were to many 5 years ago. We all know Roberts was a bad mayor who over spent and had way to many people on payroll in all departments
The social make up of the town has changed over the past ten years and really changed over the past 20. So possibly the reason we need less police is that there is less crime due to the fact that there are less unsavory people who live here who commit crimes.
And i said 9 because they said civilian and police were 18. I split the difference and am saying 9 actual cops and 9 civilian. For argument sake
In response to madhatter who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 2nd, 2010 |
The murders that occurred in Hoboken over the past 4 years alll occurred on the streets in the Hoboken Housing properties. There hasn’t been a murder in 2 years now because of a strong police presence in that area. 3 of the last 4 homicides were committed by Jersey City offenders. Less cops patrolling the streets WILL bring criminals from boardering towns here. Hobokenj is talking about affluent towns don’t have crime because of its affluence, not police presence. I am sorry but he is thinking about Alpine, Upper Saddle River, Oakland, Mahwah. Those towns are not surrounded by Jersey City, Union City, Weehawken and New York, and they don’t have transportation hubs that bring a million people weekly through their boarders.
Login or Register to reply
August 2nd, 2010 |
There really is no such thing as a rehabilitated sex offender. Who cares if he can’t find a job or make anything of himself? He should have never been released from jail in the first place. Once a pervert, always a pervert! As for the HansBrix’s comment that the age of consent in PR is 14… We are not in PR and any parent who allows their kid to have sex at 14, regardless of age of the other man or woman, should have their parental rights revoked.
In response to NorthKrissy who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 2nd, 2010 |
It is my understanding the layoffs will not reduce the number of police on patrol.
And common sense would dictate that the police presence in the projects would not change with the layoffs as I imagine 80% of the crime in this town is caused there. And as you pointed out the only plave murders have taken place in this town.
No this isn’t alpine and I bet they have 30 cops not 150. But not to long ago you wouldn’t step foot on Jackson or Monroe. And 20 years ago probably extend that to Jefferson. So yes the towns redevelopment and change in residents has changed. and that on its own has reduced crime and therefore possibly a need for less cops.
If the projects did not exist, would you all still believe we need 150 cops for this town? Or would you reduce cops because a major crime area has been eliminated. This is a hypothetical so please don’t tell me the projects aren’t going any where I know. The point is as the town evolves the need for police will increase and decrease. The argument that because we had 180 means we need 180 is ridiculous.
In response to HobokenLifer who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 2nd, 2010 |
The city had over 180 cops 6 years back. In now has 150. The city is losing another 18 through layoff and at least 5 through retirement. Why not keep it at 150, maintain our level of safety, do a hiring and promotion freeze, and not brag about layoffs of cops in back to back weeks in ridiculous press releases, alerting criminals who scan the computer, yes, they do. The “save the day” type savings that the Mayor and some hardcore followeres put out there, that layoffs and demotions of cops will potentially save, have been outright lies. The less than $100 dollar a year savings that comes with these cuts are not worth the gamble of crime maybe going up or staying the same. Neither you nor I can give a definitive answer on this Hobokenj, but why even risk it for minimal savings?
Login or Register to reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.