Comments by reader1
Posted on April 21 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nothing wrong with these sessions, but my one concern would be the that the meetings were precipitated by high-profile incidents in other parts of the country. Did the publicity from high-profile incidents elsewhere in the country lead to the assumption that there must be serious levels of tension here? Nevertheless, sitting down and talking - "truly seeing and hearing" each other (NYPD Commissioner Bratton's phrase) can always be productive.
Posted on April 17 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be interesting to poll those not taking the tests and ascertain the reasons why they opted out. The anti-test movement draws fuel from several sources - teacher's unions, political conservatives, and parents. But there are divisions among the parents who opted out - some think there is too much emphasis on testing, some seemed upset that students who typically do well on standardized testing find these tests more of challenge. Definitely appears to have been flaws re: program design and implementation - but, I think it would be interesting to ascertain all the motives behind the movement. Because, there is evidence of more than one agenda behind the opt-out movement.
Posted on April 12 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Calls for restriction of its' use should be based on a comprehensive study of all incidents involving tasers, not based on anecdotal evidence from two incidents. And, the investigation has not concluded that tasers caused the death in the most recent incident.
It also might be helpful if the writer gave readers a clearer understanding of what tasers actually do to incapacitate suspects - it's not about shocking or electrocuting individuals.
Posted on April 7 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Training the police is necessary, but what is needed more are first responders with specialized training and certification to deal with people in the midst of mental health crises. You wouldn't send a police officer to aid an individual having a heart attack, so is it wise to send that same officer to effect a pick-up order on someone suffering from mental illness? Unfortunately, we will continue to send the police because it is the cheaper than devoting sufficient resources to the problem.
Posted on April 5 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A few comments: RE: all the comments about what the police or the suspect did, in view of the fact no one who posted was at the scene of the incident - might be advisable to wait for the outcome of the investigation.
A person with a heart condition might just as well expire from a physical struggle with several officers as they might from being tazed. Is it preferable that this option be removed and leave the police with only the ability to strike a suspect, possibly with batons?
RE: him fighting with the police. Individual had a well documented history of mental illness. Might well have contributed to his actions. While the police have to react to the behavior they are faced with, after the fact assessment of his behavior should take into account the possibility that his mental illness may have precipitated the combativeness. The point being, his mental state may have prevented him from doing what a logical person should do.
RE: black on black violence - there are protests against problems like that. However, citizens protesting against their government due to the actions of government officials is done because they expect their government to be responsive to their concerns. To think that such protests would have a similar impact on violent criminals is illogical. Of course, that argument is often made to deflect the issue and not a genuine concern over black on black violent crime.
How pointing out that there were equal numbers of black and white protesters is feeding the race card is beyond me. It shows the concern over these incidents transcends race.
Outside of a few emotional over the stop unsubstantiated statements from the protesters, I don't see any problem with the event. People are understandably concerned and upset when an unarmed suspect dies during an interaction with the police. Does not mean the police did anything wrong, it's an understandable reaction and their 1st Amendment right. I thought that it was a good example of how people should conduct themselves if they feel compelled to react to an incident like this.
Posted on April 2 at 1:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RE: the florist - The writer's argument would seem to make it acceptable to theoretically deny someone's rights as long as someone else in the same type of business would provide that service? Or, allow that behavior by a business based on its' size and/or ownership (self-employed)?
Posted on March 28 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rowdy is a pretty generous definition of throwing beer bottles at the police.
Posted on March 1 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A few points: The pension reforms beginning in 2009 restrict individuals' ability to increase their pension through overtime. An article, hopefully by the Gazette, regarding the future impact of these reforms is overdue. This is particularly true in Schenectady which has a young force, many hired under the new pension rules. Is there room for more reform? Probably, but if you keep reducing the pension benefits, at some point, it significantly diminishes one of the more attractive benefits of the job. Are public officials negotiation efforts part of the answer - yes, but, the efforts have to be informed by real expertise.
With respect to the police department, historically, it was the assignment that had a lot to do with overtime opportunities. For most of the department's history the detective assignments were associated with the most overtime opportunities. Because the assignments were based on seniority it seemed as if the senior officers were being given more overtime, when in reality, it was related to their assignment. Recent adjustments to overtime have made significant reductions regarding detective overtime opportunities. Still, as the editorial pointed out, the nature of the work precluded the department's ability to eliminate it completely.
A lot of the overtime now seems to be more related to uniformed patrol work. A major part of the problem is - more officers are needed, tax base is may not be able to support it. So, you have to put those needed bodies on the street by means of overtime.
Posted on February 27 at 5:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Simple answer - workload. City could certainly use more officers; however, the tax base limits their ability to support a larger force.
And, this isn't being done because it's always been done that way. It's being done that way because it makes sense to use limited resources based on the workload.
And, to be fair, whoever complained about the minor reductions could have been concerned about officer/public safety. Nonetheless, it is also possible that the complaint was fueled by concerns re: ability to earn. And, there are more appropriate and effective ways to air grievances.
Posted on February 26 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is an answer that should be understood by most grown-ups. The Department puts more officers on the street when the workload increases.
What would make you think that they are not doing pro-active things? Community outreach - tough to reach out to the community with things like foot patrols and meetings when people have been kept inside from the horrible winter.
Addressing law enforcement at its' root cause? Explain?
Help protect the overtime hours - you have to explain that to me as well. Seems there is a simple explanation and you are searching for some diabolical conspiracy. And, please explain why an administrator would want to protect "overtime hours"?