Comments by jerryrock
Posted on July 17 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Discriminatory and sexist.
Posted on February 19 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I had the experience of working in Sing Sing, Green Haven, Hudson, Attica, Shawangunk, Wallkill, Summit Shock and Coxsackie Correctional Facilities as a Correction Officer, Sergeant and Lieutenant. I have very strong opinions about funding college for incarcerated felons with taxpayer money. This is not about the fairness of the criminal justice system. It is about the intent and purpose of the system and it has never been rehabilitation. That happens after prison.
Prison is PUNISHMENT! It was set up that way to discourage people from breaking the law, and it was each and every individuals choice to break that law! For the majority of inmates, by the time someone is actually sentenced to a prison term, they have already had several run ins with the law and had chance after chance at staying out of prison. Now Cuomo wants to reward convicted felons with college educations! What kind of message is this sending to the public? Go to prison, get free meals, housing, medical care, cable TV, and a college degree! This is NOT the way to reduce the prison population. Paying $5,000/year per inmate for a college education is asking too much of New York State's cash strapped law abiding citizens. New York State residents pay the highest property tax in the nation as well as the highest energy costs. If Cuomo wants to reduce prison populations, then intervene before incarceration. Put the money to use in areas of at risk kids and fund their education. I joined the Army for the GI Bill college benefits and worked my way through college. In 1978, during my first year at Marist College, after serving three years of active duty in the US Army, I met inmates just paroled from Green Haven Correctional Facility who moved in the dormitory next to me. They were both part of a prison college program who were now finishing their degrees compliments of NYS. I just couldn't understand it then and I don't today.
Gerald J Skrocki
Posted on February 9 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Daniel T. Weaver does not live in the City of Amsterdam, he lives in the Town of Florida, New York.
Posted on February 2 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"the police were forced to exercise their threat." What does that even mean? That statement has no relation to NYS Penal Law. The minor child was small in stature and not a physical threat to the TWO 200+lb police officers. He was refusing to leave the bus. There was no imminent threat.
§ 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or
attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to
prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he or she reasonably
believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and
to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or in
self-defense or to defend a third person from what he or she reasonably
believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force; except that
deadly physical force may be used for such purposes only when he or she
reasonably believes that:
(a) The offense committed by such person was:
(i) a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or
attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a
(ii) kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the
first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and
that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape
from custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is
necessary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another
person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of deadly physical force.
Posted on February 2 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Guess I missed the fist line in the article. We lost yet another great actor to drug abuse.
Posted on February 2 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow,no mention of his 2006 Oscar winning portrayal of Truman Capote in the film Capote?
Posted on February 2 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Placing blame on the parents for this situation is just wrong. The minute that minor entered the school bus, he was the responsibility of the school district. This is a classic case of excessive use of physical force. Comparing the physical size of the TWO police officers to that of the child should be evidence enough. The type of force applied was clearly not necessary to control the situation. There was no immediate threat of violence or loss of life or property. The police officers overstepped their authority and broke the child's arm. They should be held accountable for their actions.
Posted on November 17 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To help aid economic development, a Zoning Update Committee was formed by Mayor Thane in 2010. One of the goals of that committee was to increase the area of the downtown core and ease zoning restrictions to attract new business. The downtown core was increased to include a large part of Amsterdam's south side along the Mohawk River and and on the north side it spread the downtown core to the north, east and west. As a member of that committee, I can attest that the year long process of refining the updates with Montgomery County Planning was tedious but well thought out. A series of public meetings were held but the update was never presented to the Common Council for approval. Some say it is because of the political influence of St Mary's Hospital, a corporate conglomerate in Amsterdam, located in a historic district, that does not want to be held to any restrictions when increasing its presence in the area. The Mayor tells me that Corporation Counsel Gerard DeCusatis has been holding the document for three years in order to do legal refinements, which is strange seeing that he was also part of the update committee. Is he holding the document hostage to negotiate another increase in his salary? Amsterdam's executive government gives much lip service to economic development but in theory they are as obstructionist as the outgoing Common Council.
Gerald J. Skrocki
Posted on August 29 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great article John! The "gathered…to sweat in formalwear" line immediately grounds the otherwise lofty political event, which seemed more like a parade of candidates running for local office than the celebratory event advertised. While I do support Riverlink Park and waterfront development in Amsterdam as a means of revitalization, I will never get used to the politics involved. Maybe all the hot air being expelled by those who speak out again it can be gathered and harnessed to fuel some other type of economic development project. Until that happens, it is just a waste of energy. The Greater Amsterdam Riverlink Park project was conceived, developed and brought to fruition by a dedicated group of people that had an idea for revitalization and actually did something about it. For that I am very grateful.
Posted on July 30 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This search seems like an overly intrusive invasion of privacy for a grown man gone for less than 24 hours.