Cops: “Savior Of Death” Yale Doc Had Arsenal

by Paul Bass | September 16, 2009 12:02 PM | | Comments (40)

IMG_5772.jpgA Yale School of Medicine psychiatry resident appears in court Thursday after he allegedly threatened to shoot up a State Street bar — and after cops confiscated an “arsenal” of assault weapons and ammunition from his Mechanic Street home.

The cops arrested Robert Remington, 31, on weapons and breach of peace charges after getting a call from a bartender at Dolci Piano Lounge on State Street just after 10:12 p.m. Sunday night.

Remington has been released on $250,000 bond. He plans to plead not guilty, according to his attorney, John R. Williams, who called the search of Remington’s home “probably illegal.” He’s currently on leave from Yale School of Medicine’s psychiatric residency program, according to spokeswoman Helen Dodson.

Dolci waitresses told police Sunday night that the doctor was drunk, tried to “touch and kiss” female patrons, then grew angry “when his advances were refused,” according to a case incident report on file Wednesday in Connecticut Superior Court on Elm Street.

The incident occurred soon after a press conference across town about an unrelated incident involving Yale’s medical school: the discovery of the remains of pharmacology graduate student Annie Le in the basement of a lab building.

“Remington began yelling that he ‘loved violence’ and that he wanted ‘to kill everyone.’ He stated that he was the ‘Savior of Death’ and that he was a part of a ‘revolution.’ At that time [the bartender] called the police because they were afraid that Remington was going to possibly shoot them.”

The cops arrived and arrested Remington. They found a gun in his fanny pack as well as receipts for Aug. 29 purchases in Gunsport, Colorado, of a Sako .338 lm sniper rifle and muzzle break.

IMG_0964.jpgOfficer Renee Forte (pictured) wrote in the report that Remington was “highly intoxicated … slurring his speech … [I]t took him three (3) tries to tell me his entire social security number.

“Due to Remington’s angry and delusional rants inside Dolci, and the receipt for the sniper rifle found in his wallet, I feared the Remington possibly had other weapons at his residence.”

Officer Forte conveyed her concern to supervisors, who authorized a search of Remington’s Mechanic Street home (pictured at the top of this story). Inside they found, in Forte’s words “an arsenal of firearms, ammo, & gear/food items that would allow Robert to sustain himself w/o leaving his residence for a long time.”

Among the items listed as found in his home:

• Mossberg 590 12 gauge shotgun with 13 rounds
• Armalite 762mm AR-10
• Barrett M95 50 cal
• Benelli M3 Super 90 12 gauge shotgun
• Springfield Armory M1A
• Sako TRG-42
• Stag 15 5.56 mm
• Stage 15 22 cal
• Electro Shield Stun Gun
• Case of 12 Gauge Remington game loads
• Case of 12 Guage Remington gun clug target loads
• Flambeau ammo box with TTI Armry special munitions, 14 boxes of 10 rounds per box
• Hodgdon bottles of rifle poweder
• 3 magazines containing 40 cal rounds
• Lots of containers of other shotgun shells, 40 cal Smith and Wesson rounds, Hornady 223 ammo, 308 Hornday 308 rounds, 50 cal projectiles.

The city animal shelter’s Tammy Hewston also showed up to temporarily remove Remington’s German Shepherd (described by an upstairs neighbor in the police report as “unfriendly”).

He was arrested for allegedly carrying a pistol without a permit and on two charges of illegal possession of an assault weapon, all felonies; and misdemeanor charges of breach of peace and illegal carrying of a firearm under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Officer Forte, concerned about Remington’s mental state, filed an “emergency examination request” for possible placement in psychiatric custody.

But police instead held him on bond, and he was released Tuesday afternoon when his father posted bond, according to attorney Williams. Williams said the pair are staying in a motel as Remington arranges to move back in his home.

“He denies bothering anybody in the bar,” Williams said.

“I feel the [warrantless] search of his apartment probably was illegal,” Williams also said. “Probably there are Fourth Amendment issues here.”

Williams said that as part of the Yale pschiatry residency program, Remington has been working in the PTSD unit at the Veterans Administration hospital. “He’s extremely well-regarded by his colleagues at Yale,” Williams reported.

Remington previously lived in Colorado. According to the police report, he does not have a pistol permit either there or here. It also states that he had misdemeanor firearms convictions in California.

Remington listed his profession as a “Yale School of Medicine/ Physician” on his contribution form when he gave $1,000 to libertarian Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in 2007.







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: robn | September 16, 2009 1:02 PM

I kindof thought that the police could call the DA and the DA could call a judge for an expedited search warrant. I hope the NHPD supervisor didn't screw up this collar. The last thing we need is another psychopath walking around.

Posted by: Dumb Mistake | September 16, 2009 1:11 PM

If the Supervisor (who should know better) 'authorizes' a search without a warrant seizes guns etc. only to have all this thrown out of court, then I think we have a serious training problem at the NHPD. This day and age this stuff is unacceptable especially from a ranking officer. Can anyone gives us the legal jargon?

Posted by: nfjanette [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 16, 2009 1:11 PM

The cops arrived and arrested Remington. They found no gun on him...

He was arrested for allegedly carrying a pistol without a permit...

Did I miss something in the story that explains this apparent contradiction?

[Error fixed. Thanks.]

Posted by: Ted Williams | September 16, 2009 1:42 PM

I doubt very much that this Remington guy is a physician or an MD. Isn't it ironic that he works in the post traumatic stress disorder unit of the VA? If he's really a doctor then my name is Jonathan Papelbon.

Posted by: a | September 16, 2009 2:00 PM

this is confusing. the report says he was not carrying a gun at the bar but then he was charged with carrying an unlicensed weapong. which is it?

[ED: Sorry for the error. He was carrying a gun in his fanny pack, according to police.]

Posted by: Check It Out | September 16, 2009 2:03 PM

Please explain the Independent's policy, should there be one, concerning the disclosure of an arrestee's name in your reports. It seems to me that the identity of arrestees are, almost without exception, limited to gender, age, and hometown. What gives here?

[Editor's note: Thanks for the question. We generally do not print the names of people accused of a crime, even if arrested unless the arrestee is a public figure. Exceptions: If we get their side of their story, we will print the name. If the person has interactions with the public of the sort that would make disclosure potentially important, we'll print the name. We felt this story fell under both those categories. We definitely could be wrong; we discuss this issue at length and are continually trying to find the right balance between privacy and the public interest.]

Posted by: Whaaat? | September 16, 2009 3:20 PM

This city gets crazier by the second. Glad I'm leaving.

Posted by: Jim Blunt | September 16, 2009 3:21 PM

check it out:

I think you are a little misinformed. Watch the news this evening or any evening, go to every news paper or news site you can find and you will see the names of people who are "alleged" criminals. These people "allegedly" committed crimes, but have not been convicted or found guilty of ANYTHING. This is one of the most common and accepted practices in news media... so common that much of society is desensitized to it.

Posted by: Morris Cove | September 16, 2009 3:31 PM

It's kinda funny reading all the comments from these "experts" in law enforcement, Where do you all get your level of expertise?, are you even in law enforcement?.

It's painfully obvious that you all watch a little too much Law & Order, and CSI. Put the remotes down!!!

Posted by: RFL | September 16, 2009 3:34 PM

police can search without a warrant if there is a threat to public safety or in a "caretaker" capacity (basically taking and holding anything for safety). it seems this is the case, given the arrestees threats. normally they would consult with the DA's office before doing so.

Posted by: Check It Out | September 16, 2009 3:53 PM

To Mr. Blunt: Kindly re-read my comment. I was referring, quite explicitly, to the reporting by the Independent in their articles. You are correct in your assessment of how most other media outlets identify the names of arrestees, but as a reader of this newspaper, you should have noticed the lack of formal identity of persons arrested in the Independent's articles. Another worthwhile re-read would be the kind reply by the Editor which is at odds with your contention that ALL media (presumably including the Independent) name names when people are accused of a crime.

Posted by: ESB | September 16, 2009 4:00 PM

Thank you, Paul, for clarifying the naming policy and the juggling act to balance the accused's privacy with the public interest.

Posted by: sbj | September 16, 2009 4:25 PM

Ted Williams or should I say Jonathan Papelbon:
He is most definitely an MD /psychiatrist. Just search the Yale on line directory and there he is.

Posted by: Jay [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 16, 2009 4:30 PM

To Ted Williams (or whatever Red Sox name you are currently using)- Physicians are not immune to illness. It sounds like tis fellow may be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - perhaps in it's early stages.
And yes, it is a little odd to practice medicine online, but others are practicing law, so I thought I would give it a go.

Posted by: Jim Blunt | September 16, 2009 4:33 PM

check it out:

my apologies. I took your statement,

"It seems to me that the identity of arrestees are, almost without exception, limited to gender, age, and hometown."

to be a statement about news reporting in general and the statements before and after that one as trying to hold NHI to that standard.

Posted by: robn | September 16, 2009 5:17 PM

This story reminded me of this scene from Slacker.
Warning, strong language.

">Post-Modern Paul Revere

Posted by: Check It Out | September 16, 2009 10:27 PM

To Mr. Blunt: No problem. We cool!

Posted by: bill | September 16, 2009 10:45 PM

It appears this may may be suffering from a psychiatric illness

Posted by: JB | September 16, 2009 11:50 PM

WTH is a "Savior of Death"?

Posted by: Wooster Square | September 17, 2009 6:13 AM

Our town was pretty peaceful until those Yalies came back.

Posted by: Mr. X | September 17, 2009 8:32 AM

This guy has prime collection of firearms, not your run of the mill stuff all top end. He'll probably get the chair for having a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car.

Posted by: Resident | September 17, 2009 12:08 PM

Yale appears to attract fruit flies and fruit cakes. Maybe Yale should move to West Haven?

Posted by: RAY WILLIS | September 18, 2009 5:31 AM

I live on Mech. St and I am definitely not keeping up with the neighbors. The ol' hot glue gun just ain't gonna cut it when turf war season comes round. And really, who goes to a bar and tries to hit on girls whilst wearing a fanny pack? The guy MUST be crazy!

Posted by: observer | September 18, 2009 10:58 AM

Search was probably legal but failing to get a warrant complicates the case. He was threatening making statements he unlikely could have carried out with one handgun. He had a receipt for a sniper rifle which he didn't have with him. Logical place to look was his house. They found it and collaterally all the others. Now it is up to a judge to decide the constitutional aspect. Too bad because because this should have been an easy warrant to get. Good police work which may now get screwed up. They could have easily secured the house and waited for the paper. With everything else that was going on there was probably a strain on resources. But this haste to clear this case may wind up being costly.

Posted by: David in Toledo | September 18, 2009 1:24 PM

Send this guy back to the Wild West, wearing the sign "Do not consult this man about your mental-health problem."

Posted by: Meltum Down | September 18, 2009 10:02 PM

Nice to know that after being convicted of gun crimes in California, he's able to buy assault rifles in Colorado. Another poster boy for the NRA...

Posted by: mechanic street | September 19, 2009 7:57 AM

i was walking past this house last night and saw Remington help direct a u-haul out of the driveway.

i thought some people might be a little more at ease knowing he probably doesnt live there anymore.

Posted by: Bob | September 19, 2009 5:34 PM

Maybe he's moving somewhere that nobody knows his name to get a fresh start... and build up his arsenal again...

Posted by: Corinne Blackmer | September 19, 2009 11:25 PM

I am particularly concerned that this man is/was a Yale psychiatric resident, and, also, that a person in such a position of confidential authority (and power to prescribe medications) had such obvious sexist attitudes and presumptions. We need much more urgent work to address such bullying attitudes, and make them unacceptable in our culture and workplaces. This "Wild West" gun slinging is simply a menace.

Posted by: Christine Japely | September 21, 2009 8:52 PM

I agree, Corinne.

Posted by: Consti2amend | September 23, 2009 1:02 AM

"It also states that he had misdemeanor firearms convictions in California."
I know that IF NHPD let this "fact" out, they also know what he was "convicted" of! Why not enlighten us as to what he was "convicted" of?

Do you know that the State of New Jersey does NOT allow private citizens to carry "hollow-point bullets"? It is a $1000 dollar fine/bullet! You may have the "HPB's" in your firearm, at your house OR place of business, just not while "on the street"! If caught, could this be a "firearms conviction"? For what? Using the "best" bullets to potentially stop a "CRIMINAL ACT"?

I know that the NHPD did, in fact, do a good thing here, by taking Remington into custody. I will NOT try to "split hairs" about their actions in confiscating the other firearms. I will wait for the DA/judge to determine that part.

As for being the "poster boy for the NRA", most people don't realize that the NRA trains a vast majority of LEO's around the country! Also, without the NRA, "good, honest, law abiding citizens" would have nowhere to go for the basic training necessary for obtaining a "concealed carry permit"!

As one can see quite easily from this story, Remington appears NOT to have a permit! So he WAS in fact, breaking the law, for carrying a concealed firearm without a permit. But, how long has he been in CT? You see, there are some states that allow a person to carry concealed, and not need a permit. I'm not sure about Colorado, and so I don't care about that part. He IS in CT now!

As for having "two charges of illegal possession of an assault weapon", well I for one believe those charges and others should be dropped! Please tell me, What IS an "assault weapon"? Isn't this just another one of "those" catch phrases, like "Saturday Night Special" was? I have NEVER had anyone explain to me what EITHER phrase means! It is just a "ridiculous" attempt to create "fear' where none is due!

Personally, I would want to have available to me, the SAME firearms that LEO's have!! Why? Tell me, is their life, OR the life of those they "protect", worth MORE than my life OR my loved ones? Remember, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away {that IS assuming they ARE aware of your predicament!}.

"a Sako .338 lm sniper rifle and muzzle break" I do believe that Remington does indeed have a fine collection of firearms. But explain to me, "what IS a sniper rifle"? Is it the caliber .338, or, GREAT SCOTT, a "muzzle break"!

I believe a lot of this is just plain, old fashioned HYPE! Some by NHPD, in the way it is "explained" to the press. BUT the vast majority of the "hype" goes to, as I see it, the ANTI-gun press!

Will this post make it to "print"? To "Conservative"? I'll wait and see.

Posted by: Christine Japely | September 23, 2009 8:31 AM

I feel that Yale (who brought this fellow to New Haven, after all) owes the community the service of tracking this case to a certain extent ---------- and the NHPD should be working closely with Yale in making sure the news of the legal outcome of the charges against the alleged perp are disseminated to the general public. If it weren't for Yale, this man wouldn't be in New Haven. Yale should be doing some of the footwork of figuring out where their system broke down; they should also let us know.

Posted by: sjbj | September 23, 2009 11:19 AM

I agree, totally, Christine J. Particularly since we have another Yale employee accused of murder in the same week as this guy was arrested.

Posted by: Dr. Jefferson M.D. | September 30, 2009 4:45 PM

hey guys, so a few things, i am a fellow doctor at yale and have known him for 9 years. he is a very professional stable doctor. He is also a avid gun collector/hunter/ and sports shooter, as if you couldnt tell his familys connection to the gun industry, "Remington"...

Secondly, the report states he wasnt carrying a gun, but there was one in his fany pack. His Fanny pack is his medical bag he carries all his supplies in, and leaves in his car. He most likely was drunk, and told a girl he had a gun in his car and she told the bartender... Thats as far as this crime goes, a doctor carrying a gun without a permit, just like a tow truck driver, or landlord often does, people who sometimes work in environments that they might need to protect themselves.

If anyone is nervous dont be, he is just the same as any of you who own a gun for personal use, he just is fortunate enough to be able to afford any gun that he thinks would be cool to own. No one person who is going to commit a crime owns 13 guns for that purpose... only a collector would. I mean seriously, he owns a 50 cailber barrett, 2 of them costing over 5,000 each, i was with him when he bought them both, because he wanted a bolt action and one that wasnt, thats the only reason...

His 'prior california crime' is that he owned a legal to own firearm that he had built with and missed the registration deadline by several weeks and was cited a mistemenor for an unregistered gun. When they say unregistered here they dont mean illegaly owned, they mean the liscence to carry registration, which he does not have.

Most of the gun crimes in history are from people who owned 1 or 2 guns for the purpsoe of that crime. They didnt have tons in a display case in their house. He lives with his wife, and his 'unfreiendly dog' is a 6 month old puppy he just got... the news is selling you a story, about a guy who they can easily portray as dangerous. He is not.

Posted by: carol | October 9, 2009 5:22 PM

Dr. Jefferson, If he is married why is he hanging out at a local bar coming on to women? Drunk, you say, and has a gun in his car that he brags about? This is a bomb waiting to go off. No pun intended. Are you in the Phychiatric dept. also? Why wouldn't I be surprised.

Posted by: John Krats | October 10, 2009 11:29 AM

The search was plainly illegal. He'll get all of his weapons back, as he should. I'm amazed by all of the supporters of totalitarianism that commented on this story. I will hazard a guess and state that you'll all have a very different opinion when the Storm Troopers search your home and seize property illegally.

The people who belong in a cage are those who vote for and support the Nazis and Stalinists running the government in Connecticut and enforcing its laws: dirt bags.

Posted by: Dr. Jefferson | October 15, 2009 1:51 PM

Carol, you are just like all the other people that are ignoring common sense. You dont see that his maritial status or how good of a husband he is, or IF that is even true, has nothing to do with the law. It is not illegal to be married and hit on women, or not hit on women for that matter. you dont know if he is seperated or if hes a widower. The people who take their moral or relgious standards and try to make the law punish them for it are more dangerous then anyone else.

Having a gun in your car is not a crime, nor is bragging about it, nor is being drunk, nor is hitting on women at bars. The least reasonable conclusion is because he does something you wouldnt approve of, that makes him guilty, or a "bomb".

and no, im in the ER department...

Posted by: Christine Japely | October 17, 2009 10:13 AM

Sorry, Dr. J and John Krats. Your arguments are off the point and unconvincing (and hate-filled, in the case of Krats). Your various comments sound like NRA trolling. The alleged perp owns an arsenal that is unnecessary, to put it mildly. His alleged misbehavior at a State Street bar did all of us the favor of revealing this "accident" waiting to happen.

Posted by: John Krats | October 31, 2009 2:02 AM

To whom it may concern,

This is an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that supersedes all State Constitutions and laws: A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That sounds like plain English to myself. It's a foreign language to those who adhere to the principles espoused by Mao Ze Dong, Stalin, Hitler and other garden variety tyrants from lesser bloody nations.

There is no hate involved in my comments, nor implied. It's the reality we enjoy as citizens, good or bad, who live for, fight for and support the Constitution of the United States of America.

Live Free or Die.

Semper Fidelis & De Oppresso Liber.

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35