CARS HOMES JOBS

Comments by reader1


Page 1 of 23 | Next

Posted on August 29 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And the reason all the children didn't attend this was...?

This also makes me wonder if pre-school should be mandatory.


From: Some new Schenectady pupils get a head start


Posted on August 25 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Holder went there because of the unrest. Absent two weeks of chaos, he would have never gone down there. No one else seemed to have an answer re: how to solve the problem.

Chavez presents presents the typical conservative talking points - he wasn't a kid, he wasn't harmless (they said unharmed - not harmless), discredits the witnesses against Wilson while presenting the officer's version. The other side won't be happy unless the officer is arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.

This event says more about what people's views on race and politics are than it does about what actually happened on the day in question.


From: Linda Chavez: AG Holder fueling racial tensions


Posted on August 24 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I question whether the editorial writer "understands what's happening here" with respect to the investigation of this case. I think it would have been prudent to provide some proof to support the allegation that the deputy was unjustly suspended deputy due to "hypersensitivity" to an event occurring halfway across the country. I see no such evidence provided in this article.

Management is certainly not infallible, but, this article basically second guesses the decision of a manager, who certainly has more facts re: the situation, than the Gazette editorial board. And, they do it based on the thin premise that because there is a highly controversial use of force case in another part of the country, local law enforcement managers will rush to judgment.

The writer also seems to base their argument on the wrong headed premise that the choice is always between deadly force or taser.


From: Editorial: Reserve judgment in Taser case


Posted on August 14 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Probably has to do with political backing back home and future political ambitions.

No one is denying Israel's right to defend itself but this seems unnecessary. Many Palestinian women and children dead and the Governor feels the need to run over to demonstrate the US' support. I think US support is a given - this is not about about Cuomo looking out for the Israelis it's Cuomo looking out for Cuomo.


From: Cuomo offers 'total solidarity' for Israel


Posted on August 12 at 5:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dogs are an issue too. I've seen it first had and there is no excuse for it, especially when the Village provides the bags for free.


From: Scotia must address dog messes at park


Posted on August 11 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RE: dogs in Scotia Park. First, it's the owner's responsibility to clean up after their dogs. Second, Scotia has, at least, two receptacles in the park and during this summer they have always been stocked with plenty of free bags.


From: Scotia must address dog messes at park


Posted on August 11 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe we wait until all the facts are in?


From: Killing of unarmed man draws criticism


Posted on August 7 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Too bad for the dogs. After the first attack they should have made foolproof precautions so the animals could not get out. Or, they should have placed them in an environment in which they were not a threat - (i.e., rural environment).

Some people have dog aggressive dogs - but, if that's what you have you better act accordingly.


From: Family surrenders dogs to Schenectady police


Posted on August 7 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First you stated the details were changed because the Chief was upset because he did not have access to those earnings. Your words - "Some chief did not like the idea that the officers could make money and he could not" - go back reread what you wrote. Now, you are asserting that he it was related to the fact he was not in control. Which is it? It is not inconvenient fact for me - it is for your argument.

Surprising that you apparently prefer the former system in which officers managed the details and made the decisions on who worked them, as opposed to a seniority system. So, you complain about Chief a showing favoritism to "his boys" but a system in which officers could restrict the details to their "boys" is okay?


From: Confusion over Schenectady police pensions


Posted on August 4 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, please stop putting words in my mouth as I have not claimed to be an expert or a know-it-all.

You falsely attribute statements to me then refute them. I have not made one comment about the number of hours any officer has worked. Nor did I make any statement about "hours being spent at the department - not being compensated".

Since you seem to have a problem with seeing things that are not there and/or reading comprehension I will summarize my position, one last time. Raising the issue over whether the private details should be pensionable does not make one a cop basher. Regardless of what side of the issue you take - it is totally not clear cut. One side says - police work is police work - it is all the same so it should all be pensionable. The counter argument is that earnings caused by a third party and not part of their regularly scheduled duties should not add to the taxpayer's pension burden. The Schenectady Gazette writer, or anyone who takes the latter position, nor I have said that the officers should not be paid for hours worked. And, if they are not allowed to use it calculate their pensions they can always dump it in their 457 accounts, another form of retirement revenue. And, re: individual pensions - I think most agree we are not talking about a lot of money. Please, read this a few times, commit it to memory, write it down if necessary, so you can stop attributing opinions and statements to me that I have never made.

And again, regardless of what anyone's opinion is the law is the law.

Assistant Chiefs have worked a few of the details. It is not overtime. They were paid a straight fee. It was not overtime. It had nothing to do with operational demand. And again - please, answer the question - if "some Chief" changed this entire process because of jealousy over the earnings, why change it to a process in which the officers still work and earn from those details. You keep stepping over this inconvenient issue.

I won't respond further to you as it is pointless. And, I won't respond to personal attacks as I could care less about your opinion of me.


From: Confusion over Schenectady police pensions


Page 1 of 23 | Next
 

columnists & blogs


Log into Dailygazette.com

Forgot Password?

Subscribe

Username:
Password: