Comments by reader1
Posted on May 21 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Loitering in and of itself is not illegal.
Posted on May 16 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kathleen Moore gets her facts a wrong again. At worst, PD went over budget one time in the last ten years. You have to look at the entire SPD budget. Just like any other business - some budget lines are exceeded but counterbalanced by surpluses in others. Yet, she makes this allegation again and again. Apparently the Editor is not concerned with accuracy.
Posted on May 12 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RE: retail - it was always difficult to compete against the Malls (and later the big box stores). Adding to that challenge is the ability to shop electronically.
Posted on May 11 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The information is out there. I don't have the time nor desire to educate you on these matters.
Posted on May 11 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is the legitimate benefit of knowing the name of the retiree? The retiree being simply listed by their municipality and occupation would accomplish the same purpose. What more does the public gain by knowing the name?
Posted on May 10 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ChuckD - Your assertions appear to be little more than guesses about the history of the events.
Posted on May 9 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Note to Editorial Board - while there were external investigations of the PD, the lion's share of the more recent disciplinary cases were handled internally. The DA's office entered into the cases at the request of the PD. They have to be when the case involves criminal conduct. Your article, not surprisingly paints a picture that the PD was incapable or unwilling to address its' own problems.
And, in view of the fact this case had nothing to do with the Police Department, why are you dragging them into it? Oh I forget, it's the Gazette.
Posted on May 8 at 4 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not about telling people how to raise their children. It is about placing children at risk, regardless of the duration.
RE: What-ifs - clearly a person accidentally slipping on the steps is not the same as leaving it unattended. And, because the child was left unattended - others had to step in an ensure the safety of the child.
They stop being your decisions when they affect a third party, one unable to protect themselves.
Posted on May 6 at 6:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is the allowable amount of time you can leave a child unattended and out of sight?
If it would be acceptable for one, the it would be acceptable for all. So, would the writer find it acceptable to walk through the Proctor's parking lot and see 3 or 4 children left alone in this manner?
Perhaps the hypothetical scenario of the mother getting injured is unlikely. But, Car break-ins are a fairly typical crime problem.
And, why did she do it - because she didn't feel like going through the effort of taking the child back in with her.
Posted on April 23 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VanderWalker - Yes the police hypnotized the students (a few of them) to throw bottles of beer at them.