Comments by reader1
Posted on July 6 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did they even give a version of the story?
Posted on June 26 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad to see the Mayor is doing well.
Posted on June 10 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DA has been consistent re: this policy. The Special prosecutor will have access to any necessary footage and the Special Prosecutor is the one seeking justice in this case - how is the DA obstructing justice?
Posted on June 7 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This discussion has gone off course. And, I should point out that, in general, I appreciate what the ACLU is attempting to do.
Posted on June 6 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
it supported the publication of material consistent with pedophilia. Robust freedom of speech for NAMBLA which is based on a belief that pedophilia is an acceptable practice.
Credibility crisis - you and a few on this site, and a few others, question their credibility. Most, particularly the people who live in the neighborhoods are concerned about crime, are not questioning their credibility or their motives.
Posted on June 6 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Chuck D - it's not a cheap shot. It's the position they took. Are you embarrassed or ashamed of it? And, in view of the fact you are taking this off topic and starting a cop bashing session, I'm done.
Frank Lowe - curfews and cameras inside one's dwelling impact constitutionally protected areas of privacy. Public cameras do not. Cameras do not impact your freedom, certainly not any freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
You're entitled to have wrong opinions re: the cameras. That being said, people in the neighborhoods that I have dealt with were eager to have the cameras in their neighborhoods. And, in Mont Pleasant they even worked to help pay for one. They appreciate what the police are trying to do with the cameras.
And, again please cite an example of how the cameras have had a chilling effect on these neighborhoods.
Posted on June 5 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ChuckD - First, the fact that many crimes have been solved through the use of Schenectady's cameras undermines the argument that the cameras are not effective.
There is no evidence that the system has ever been abused - and even if there were cases of abuse, the remedy is not to remove the cameras, it is to punish the violators.
RE: the Constitution - There is no reasonable expectation of privacy re: what you expose to public view. If you walk down the street, any police officer, has the right to watch you. The cameras do not give the police the ability to see into constitutionally protected areas.
RE: The ACLU - there is no need to automatically agree with positions taken by ACLU. They argued for the right of people to produce animations depicting acts of pedophilia. Just because the ACLU says something does not make it right.
RE: Their chilling effect on society - City of Schenectady has had numerous camera for years - please cite examples of how that has changed anyone's behavior?
Posted on June 5 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Crime victims and their families who have had their cases resolved with the help of the cameras would disagree with you.
Posted on June 5 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rehashing old, unsubstantiated fears because the Gazette wants the information for a story.
Posted on March 26 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not sure this minimum wage is the way achieve it, but, if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to earn a livable wage. Perhaps a more modest increase and assistance through the earned income tax credit might have been a better means of getting there.