By Charles Layton
Mark Alan Nicastro, already charged with three Ocean Grove burglaries, is now thought to have committed a fourth, police said Friday.
Following his arrest on January 12, Nicastro, age 50, was accused of burglarizing a home in the second block of Embury Avenue and an apartment on Mt. Hermon Way.
Then, on February 3, Neptune police said they had found sufficient evidence to charge him with a third, much earlier crime: the burglary of a home on Mt. Hermon Way on September 28, 2010.
Now, they say, he is thought to have committed a fourth burglary, this one on Embury Avenue late last year. The victim in this case, the owner of a summer home, “recently discovered the crime and reported it to the police,” a police statement said. Police linked Nicastro to that burglary, they said, through the recovery of the victim’s stolen property, which was jewelry.
Nicastro was charged with the latest crime on Thursday at the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold, where he has been held since his January arrest. Police gave his most recent address as Embury Avenue in Ocean Grove.
cameras cameras everywhere
paranoia in the air
cameras do not a police state make
Anon: The locations you cited are located where the crimes themselves are occurring and video from such cameras would show criminal and crime. Thus that makes sense and would be useful in apprehending the criminal and as evidence in prosecution.
However what I am talking about is public cameras at entry/exit points of OG which are not where crimes are occurring and do not make sense as they do not show any actual criminal nor do they show/offer any evidence of crime itself occurring. Again my point is that public cameras are pretty much useless. No I will not get “used to it” and yes I do think they create an uncomfortable police state atmosphere.
Devo: Just how would public cameras have an overall deterrent effect? By being intimidating?
At the moment, other then neighbors keeping their eyes and ears open and reporting suspicious activity, I do not have any solutions to offer.
However that does not mean I have to accept what I feel is a useless and bad idea for a solution.
Despite what Frank S. has written, I believe that cameras would: 1) have an overall deterrent effect; 2) help investigation of certain types of crime such as the rock throwing incident; and 3) help identify bike/cushion thieves who ride/walk out of town with our stuff.
The use of cameras will not prevent all crime. However, it would be an excellent strategy to augment current efforts of the Police. If folks do not support cameras, then please suggest strategies that you think would be helpful to discourage the large amount of petty crime that goes on here. Certainly, no one can possibly believe that the status quo situation is acceptable.
cameras cameras….get used to it..they are already in our local convenience stores, malls, subways and big city streets….they are here to stay as a tool for law enforcement….not create a police state
ACLU gets involved when one’s rights are being violated. Being questioned just because you were in OG during a time period when a break-in occurred is certainly a violation of rights. I really doubt police would even bother locating via their license plates and questioning say 250 people. Big waste of time & money.
While some may feel use of public cameras at exit/entry points to OG does not turn us into a police state, I respectfully disagree. It would appear unwelcoming, feel intimidating, and look ugly.
My armed militia comment was an exageration and meant to express how hysterical/extreme this could become.
police are trained professionals…aclu gets involved in profiling
use of cameras does not turn us into a police state…with armed militia…..
Anon : Most definitely cameras are certainly not illegal. However if police using video from public cameras tracked down and questioned people who just happened to be in OG during a time period when a break-in occurred, then that would surely be illegal and immoral. We would have the ACLU back here in a minute.
If private home owners want to install cameras that is fine and might help apprehend someone who broke into their home. I am opposed to public cameras.
I do not want to see OG turn into a police state with cameras on our entry/exit points. That would be ugly. What next—armed militia on rooftops ? Oops – forgot. That already took place 40 years ago during the rioting in Asbury Park.
cameras are certainly not illegal…
Between this guy and Christopher MacKay and who knows who else, it seems many of our recent crimes are being committed by Ocean Grovers and not outsiders. By Ocean Grover I mean someone living here in OG whether long time or transient/short term.
Thus the idea of surveillance cameras on entry & exit points to OG which has been pushed for by some writing into this site should be re-considered.
Cameras idea would not work for another reason: A break-in is committed. The time it occurred can be narrowed down to say 10 hours. Then what? Police look at video of all cars exiting OG. They view 250 cars leaving OG during this time period. So what? Which one is the crook with the stolen goods? Video can’t show that. What next: Police locate these 250 people via their license plates and question them? Illegal & immoral.