I do apologize and stand corrected. Now that I think about it, it was incredibly insensitive of me to ask that kind of question using that kind of wording. My sincerest apologies as well as my deepest condolences go out to the families of everyone involved.
I refer back to my previous comment about this individual and hope that the citizens of Schenectady call for his removal and furthermore ask that the individual in question be placed on aggressive supervision. His ex-wife deserves the right to move forward with her life with whomever she may choose and without having to fear for her life or the lives of her companions.
I have what might seem to be a crazy idea with respect to the budget and Schenectady's high tax problem. I believe a great portion of the city's spending goes towards social services. I realize that some people really need these services for short periods of time. I am, however, not ignorant to the fact that alot of individuals currently collecting money from social services are drug and/or alcohol addicts who use this tax payer funded money to support their habits.
Most decent jobs require that a prospective employee be able to pass a drug screening prior to being offered a position of employment.
My proposal is as follows: If the money from social services comes from tax payers that have passed a drug screening in order to make the money to contribute to the tax pool that social services is drawing from, why then are we not also drug testing social services recipients before cashing these checks?
Simply put, can we please start drug testing individuals who are collecting any money from the city in order to survive? For those individuals who fail to pass the drug screen, they should be issued a "meal ticket" to be taken to the city mission so that they may feed themselves and their children.
I think it's time to implement "sink or swim" initiatives in this city. We need to make it so that everyone who CAN work DOES work. The only exception should be if someone is proven to be completely incapable of performing basic tasks required of basic jobs. We need to cut off those individuals who are claiming ridiculous disabilities in order to collect a check. Same thing for those individuals who think they they can have a litter of babies on the tax payer dime. Sink or Swim! Either you can and will work, or you need to find another place to live because the working people of Schenectady can no longer afford to carry this extra weight. We have our own families to look out for.
There will, however, still apparently be a need for spell check though. After thoroughly examining the facts as reported by the "Daily Gazette.com" I am comfortable with my judgement that this particular officer should not be placed to serve in any law enforcement capacity and should be immediately relieved of his duties before another tax derived dime enters his bank account. And now he is claiming an unnamed disability so that he may still collect more money during this 30 day suspension? I think any logical person would agree that we don't need people like this, without integrity or discipline, "protecting" us.
Just to clarify - there is no explicit right to self-defense within the Constitution or more specifically the second amendment. The "Right of the people to keep and Bear Arms" is a fraction of the run-on sentence divided by three commas that make up that amendment. Further, I'm not sure that the Supreme Court ruled that people have the right to own guns for self-defense. I think the Supreme Court ruled that the DC ban on handguns was unconstitutional - which it technically is.
Posted on November 11 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do apologize and stand corrected. Now that I think about it, it was incredibly insensitive of me to ask that kind of question using that kind of wording. My sincerest apologies as well as my deepest condolences go out to the families of everyone involved.
On Police conclude wife of Rotterdam cop killed herself