He Came In Through the Back Room Window

Photo by M. Hermann/BHB

Photo by M. Hermann/BHB

Firefighters and cops descended on 10 Clark St. shortly after 7:00 tonight, following a report of a person stuck on a ledge several stories above the courtyard.  They arrived to find this man perched on an air conditioning unit around the 4th floor, apparently having been locked out of his apartment and resorting an unorthodox way to get back in.  The Fire Department employed a rope rescue to bring the resident to safety, after which he was brought downstairs to a waiting ambulance for observation.

UPDATE:  The man was transported to Long Island College Hospital, with cops treating him an as “emotionally disturbed person.”  Early reports of him being a “possible jumper” were not immediately confirmed, however, and a fire department source on the scene believed him to be a locked-out resident.  Additional info will be made available, if forthcoming.

Share this Story:
  • Nigel’s Dad

    Just wondering — what’s the point of running the guy’s picture, especially if he is an “emotionally disturbed person”?

  • E G

    I agree with the above. To whom it may concern, imagine if a loved one of yours suffered an illness of any sort and had to be rushed off to the hospital. Say someone grabbed a camera, took a picture and posted it in a public space? Would you be OK with that?

  • AEB

    Would the two posters above object equally to this guy’s photo appearing in a newspaper following what is after all a newsworthy event–one in which he was central?

    I take no sides–but merely point out that, by his actions, the fellow has become “news.” Is the vast reach of the Net the issue, or merely public exposure at all?

    I’d have trouble defending the notion of the right-to-privacy in his instance, in any case.

  • Clarknt67

    AE: I see it the same, newspaper or blog, an intrusion into his privacy which serves no purpose, aside from satisfying the curiosity of gawkers.

  • Dan_the_man

    I agree with AEB, this is how our tax dollars are spent, and if we want to know on who, then so be it. It’s fine if you don’t want to know about it, but let others know about it in peace.

  • Nigel’s Dad

    AEB, point taken. I just think that in the age of the Web, where phone cameras and quick uploads are the norm, perhaps we all — journalists, bloggers, and regular folk — should exercise some kind of restraint in such matters. It’s going to be a judgment call in each and every case, and in this particular situation I personally don’t see the importance of this “news” as outweighing the potential negative impact it might have on the guy in the pic, particularly if he is troubled as the report suggests.

  • AEB

    I agree, Nigel’s–in theory, at least.

    Thing is, practically speaking, what kind of “triage” can be exercised once police (or firemen) have been called and intervene: when a private act becomes manifestly public.

    In the old days, those with dough and/or position, through connections, got the reporting of their misdeeds quashed. Now, even for the well-placed, there’s simply too much electronic access.

    For better and worse.

  • Nigel’s Dad

    I hear you, AEB.