helicopper

Took it on opening day - Croton Harmon direct to Yankee Stadium (no GCT) in about 35 minutes - you can't do that by car! Walk from the platform to the stadium in about 5 minutes so for those in the northern suburbs, it is the best way to get there!

The other guys are spot on but I want to add that the stadium is better thought out than the old one. It is much more open and you can see the game from more places than the old stadium so it does make for a better experience. Considering that all the "luxury" elite seats are vacant most of the time, they would have been better served by increasing the seating for true fans not rich folks. But now they can claim they sold out more often. Ha.

I beg to differ. This can and should be discussed; when you consider the discussion in the thread about background checks for prospective members and this one, chiefs and commissioners and others may realize it is imperative that they create or dust-off their application procedures and make sure they are protecting themselves, their agencies, and the public. Regardless of the outcome in this particular case, there will be some people who reflect on this and make changes that improve their agencies. That's not a bad thing.

I'm not a big fan of FEMA but how is this "dragging their feet"? What resources should FEMA put on the ground in AL or GA? Police, fire, EMS - they're already there. How about the National Guard - those are controlled by the states, not FEMA. The federal government's role is to support a state when that state's resources are overwhelmed. These storms left small paths or pockets of devastation but do they overwhelm an entire state? I don't think so - not even Alabama. As for "homeland security" forces being overseas, our primary homeland security forces are local first responders, virtually none of whom are overseas. The military has a domestic role in emergency preparedness and as Spartan points out there are lots of those resources stateside. If they're needed, the National Guard can be activated and mobilized without interference or complications from the federal government. FEMA definitely has its share of issues but I don't think they're at fault or to blame in this case.

By definition, NO. It also doesn't include tow trucks, DOT trucks, or other hazard vehicles that may be on the highway. It was narrowly and specifically written to protect emergency vehicles, especially police since they operate on the shoulder most often. Now there is a "catch". With HELP trucks and tow trucks displaying red and white rear-facing lights, a motorist may not be able to discern what is or is not an authorized emergency vehicle and may only see the lights. The law is clear on the move-over act though and failure to move over for a HELP truck is not enforceable. On the subject of the rear-facing red and white lights on a HELP truck, I asked someone from the HELP Truck program about that very subject and he said that there is a provision that allows them to display rear-facing red and white lights but I'm still not sure as there is no provision for it in the VTL and I've seen no opinion letters from DMV regarding this. Vehicle and Traffic Law: Vehicle and Traffic Law: Vehicle and Traffic Law:

It is site policy that if you post about a law or legal precedent that you accompany it with a link to the law in question and/or the case law being referenced. It has been brought up several times in this thread alone and people continue to comment on laws or legal conditions with no references to the applicable statute. Don't get annoyed when someone points this out.

That an accident occurred in the traffic back-up or alongside apparatus protecting the scene doesn't mean you weren't protected. They were obviously going slowly enough that they didn't hit the engine 5 feet away and no responders were hurt. Seems to me that everything worked as intended but some moron wasn't paying enough attention. Closing the entire roadway doesn't mean you'll eliminate that type of accident, you'll just move it further back on the road. If a road is "shut down" (closed) for construction there are signs posted in advance, detours established and posted, public information messages transmitted, and the public has time to come up with an alternative route. When we shut down a road in an emergency most of those things don't happen and motorists find out too close to use meaningful alternates. Traffic management is a system and protecting it is vital; hence the investments in such programs. People may still find their way to work or school but they're generally late, pissed off, and others suffer from the cascading traffic effects. Ask anyone in Pleasantville how things are for them when the Saw Mill gets closed for flooding. It seemed from your original post that you were saying if you're inconvenienced by being up at 2 AM or out in the rain you were going to inconvenience everyone else by closing the road. Thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean that.

I doubt very much that the Taser killed the guy. I'm willing to bet that there were recreational pharmaceuticals involved that contributed more to his death than the Taser. And the guy was apparently in custody, handcuffed on the ground, when he became unresponsive - well after the use of the Taser. This is one of the reasons that I posted this story. As soon as a Taser is involved it becomes the headline. Had the guy been brought down by OC, a baton, or just a well-trained cop, the headlines wouldn't be so "sensational". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19157651?dopt=Citation

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/21/royal-wedding-security-measures-fly-experts-say/ Interesting article.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's saved millions of dollars in legal action to defend officers who are compelled to use physical and/or deadly physical force in the absence of a Taser. Sadly they will spin it as the Taser killed the guy.

A great quote by a great man but out of context in this case. It is well established that you have no expectation of privacy while in a public place so the use of cameras and the ability to track a person while in those public places is neither a sacrifice of essential liberty or temporary safety. To deny that the use of technology such as this can improve our safety is simply wrong. It has been well demonstrated in the UK and other places.

So you think that I should close all three lanes of the Cross County Parkway every time I stop someone for speeding and we're going to be parked on the shoulder? I'm just going to guess that if you were one of the hundreds (or thousands depending on the time) stopped because I made a traffic stop you'd be cursing me and accusing me of abusing my authority. Having authority and using that authority responsibly are two vastly different things. This law isn't about egos or whether or not you're getting up at 2 AM. It's a measure aimed at keeping all of us, especially cops who operate alone on the roads most of the time, safer. Being at an accident scene with two or three trucks and closing a lane isn't what this is about. It's about getting the moron in the right lane to move the _____ over when approaching a stopped emergency vehicle on the side of the road. If compliance with this law is as successful as I've seen it in other states, we may not need to park three trucks sideways and light 100 flares to secure a one car accident scene. I've seen 1/4 mile of traffic in the left lane and not a soul in the right lane because of this law (and it's enforcement) in other states.

In this particular example you're referring to the Harrison PD and discussing this is not bashing. It was published in the Journal News in September 2010 and is a matter of public record. The issue was courses taken by a single officer not related at all to his employment. One officer, one year out of how many for how long? How about all the officers who got bachelor's or graduate degrees and use them in their service to their town? You're condemning all tuition reimbursement or educational programs because of the conduct of a single officer. Sounds like you're saying one bad apple spoils the bunch and that simply isn't true. How much money is spent by Harrison on college courses for employees? I doubt they're paying full-price for courses at colleges located in their town. More than likely the town receives substantially discounted rates and the college gets a tax deduction for providing them the opportunity. The net result is a negligible cost to the taxpayer so even if a phys ed or dance class is taken it isn't an abuse of public funds or breach of the public trust. Instead of directing your animosity at hard-working public employees, why don't you rally against the free education, free cable TV, free "gym membership", free medical and dental care being provided to inmates who are receving those perks because they broke the law. Vastly different than union members getting education stipends, discounts, or reimbursement from their employers.

You continue to make baseless assertions about unions and allegations of corruption without providing anyone with any point of reference to perform their own research. You claim you're getting this from bona fide sources. If you are, post a link so we can all read what you're referencing. It's not that difficult and is done here all the time. You continue to be condescending and make sweeping generalizations about all different parties, groups, unions, and most importantly members of this forum. If you can't state your case without insulting us, please take your rhetoric elsewhere. . If you have specific examples, cite them and let us do our own research and come to our own conclusions. Your vague references to elusive sources doesn't bolster your position.

You contradict yourself here. The "villages attorney" (either staff or retained) is representing Hess so you have public funds defending him personally. This is completely appropriate as he was acting on behalf of the Village when the shooting occurred.

SOME unions have this and some do not. In exchange for this, other things were given up. Again, some unions contribute and some do not so you're wrong. Yes, civil service employees receive salary increases as do most private sector employees. Often they do not match cost of living increases and sometimes they're years apart. I'm not sure of the history but most municipalities don't have merit raises because it is too subjective. How do you fairly assess two employees when one is in a busy precinct or firehouse and the other is in a quiet one? Not all. I doubt it is even most. I paid for more than 60% of my education received while on the job. My contract provided me with about a 40% reimbursement but doesn't my employer also benefit by my being better prepared to the do my job? Some union members receive more, some receive less. It depends; as it does in the private sector. I have a friend who received 100% tuition reimbursement and had all his books and fees paid for by his employer - in the private sector. Now since his company has government contracts and receives corporate tax breaks who really paid for his education? Hmmmm.... For years public employee salaries were far below those in the private sector and nobody in civil service receives year end bonuses, stock options, matching contributions to 401K programs, or other perks so pensions and healthcare helped level the playing field. I'm not even going to pretend to understand what you're talking about with this sold you out nonsense. Please cite the unions to which you're referring so we can all assess the credibility of your argument. Civil service unions don't "allow" their members to get anything. They negotiate for them, they make concessions in one area for another, and they receive them in arbitration after an independent third party assesses the benefits structure and decides they're entitled to them. Do you think civil service unions just walked into the proverbial city hall and said here's what we want and got it? Politics as usual is what's messing up this country. Raiding well funded pension programs to cover deficits in other areas of the budget contributed to the dramatic shortfalls in some states, not the individual union members' benefits. How about social services? Social services is 2/3 of the budget in my county and how well managed is that? You want to blame unions for the demise of government sustainability but they're a very small part of the problem. How about the state legislatures themselves? They spend millions on mailings and postage to tell me how well they're doing their job when all indications are the contrary. Can you cite the study that produced these numbers? I doubt you're going to find that anyone thinks unions are perfect and, yes, things can definitely be restructured but not solely at the workers expense. Without unions we'd very likely have antiquated equipment, inadequate training, and egregious working conditions. That's what unions have fought for throughout history. I'd be very interested to see what unions you're referring to in your "research". Finally, I'm not sure who you're referring to as ignorant but let's keep these disagreements professional and respectful. Name calling only diminishes your credibility and weakens your argument.

Or a lot of people tried to take advantage of an opportunity.

I'm guessing that the Village will indemnify Hess and provide representation. That is normally the case when an agent of the government is sued. In the event that he loses at trial and damages are assessed there may be damages that he himself is responsible for (I'm not sure if that would be punitive or compensatory).

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1279205905487.shtm http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1265124355731.shtm </H1>

Thanks for the inside (no pun intended) story, Chief!

They should do that with Congress but of course Pelosi isn't Speaker anymore.

If you write the specs so only one entity can bid you run afoul of state law and can be accused of "bid rigging". Saying that only Seagrave can meet the spec is presumptive on our part and we have to give other vendors the opportunity to either meet the spec or decline to bid.

At least they prosecuted the suspect down there. The DA's Office here in Westchester won't even take such cases to the Grand Jury.

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute... You arrive at my burning house/shed/barn and I tell you the cause of the fire was me; I started it. There's the cause, no investigation necessary. I tell you that you shouldn't endanger yourselves or your equipment to fight a fire on an empty structure. You can call the PD to have me charged with arson but I have an affirmative defense that it's my property and I have the right to destroy it. And don't fire departments sometimes let things burn (when it's safer than fighting it) or even start fires (controlled burns, prescribed fire programs, etc.)?

Link to Prior Discussion on Similar Topic