Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: "WE THE PEOPLE"

"WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?"

15 Comments -

1 – 15 of 15
Blogger Matt said...

Just food for thought Kevin.

In Robles IAD report, on page 38 next to the numeral 9 the paragraph states when Officer Robles was interviewed he was read his Garrity Rights.

When Garrity Rights are presented it does two things.

First, it prevents the police officer from invoking his/her constitutional right to take the 5th ammendmment and remain silent. Which means they have to answer IAD's questions or face a "failure to obey an order" type charge, which is likely to lead to termination.

Second, and more important in this case, it means anything the police officer says during that interview with IAD is not admissible in criminal court because the 5th amendment was not an option "voiding" the information obtained from the criminal process.

However, the IAD investigation itself is admissible in a criminal court of law.

August 17, 2010 at 12:08 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction Kevin, there were 15 who spoke for and 7 who spoke against and the number of hartford residents were about the same on each side. Also, it was obvious that those who spoke against the item that they had not read the ordinance because they all sounded the same "you're going to tie our police departments hands" without siting a single section in the ordinance. The people speaking for the ordinance were much more organized and made a good case for this legislation.

The wonders of cable access.

August 17, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Blogger Matt said...

Anonymous did anyone mention tonight that the state law is for TRAFFIC STOPS ONLY and Mr Cotto has failed to included that key wording in his pandering proposal?

If this passes a foot beat cop who tells loiters to get away from the front of a store 30+ times a day will have to fill out a Cotto Card each time?

August 17, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Anonymous peter brush said...

At a minimum, it seems to me, the Cotto should be broken into two separate ordinances; one dealing with profiling and a second dealing with Cotto's hysterical reaction to W./Obama's allegedly unconstitutional counter-terrorism activities.
Both are bad in the sense that a.)they are completely gratuitous. I have heard no evidence of police behavior that needs correcting, and,
b.)they are a burden on the cops. Personally, although I've run afoul of the cops in the enforcement procedures on a couple of occasions, my main complaint about them, fairly or unfairly, is that they are not active enough. I don't know if the ordinance will have much practical effect, but it can't have a positive one.
Cotto admits that his "...intent is not to make it easier for our cops to control our streets, but to refocus their attention on their core service..." I would appreciate it if Cotto or some other supporter of the ordinance(s) would explain how Hartford or life for those of us who live here would be improved by the ordinance.

August 17, 2010 at 8:09 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone among ye.

August 17, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matt...we still have cops on foot beat?

August 17, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Anonymous Bruce RUbenstein said...

I was at Jan's home last night giving the crowd a neutral and objective rendition of the civil,legal and political aspects to the RObles matter.The worst part of the evening was how Marie Hamilton handled herself.I know Marie for many years and always found her to be a nice woman who was very professonal.I didnt feel Marie handled herself professionally by going after Jan in her own home.I thought it was rude and very tacky to go after someone in their own hom.Marie should have called Jan and conveyed those opinions rather then attacking Jan in her own home..it was rude..

August 17, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Anonymous Marie Gionfrido Hamilton said...

Bruece et al: I did not "attack" Jan, but merely owned up to what I stated earlier. Like you, I have been involved in Hartford politics for many years, the good, bad and ugly and you're so right last night was ugly: the fact that the spokesperson for district 6 wanted a meeting and elected herself "judge and jury" left a sour taste. I sat with my mouth closed for many years, bent over backwards and jumped through hoops to keep the electoral process fair and open, only to have its fate be decided by a majority of ONE! I have earned MY right to speak my mind without sugar coating my words. So be it.
Marie Gionfrido Hamilton my email address is: mpghamilton@hotmail.com

August 17, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Innocent until proven guilty is a cute catch phrase, but if no charges should arise does that mean people like Robles or Perez or other untrustworthy politicians be allowed to remain because they never faced a jury. Aren't we the voters allowed to determine their fate when they violate our trust?
------------------------------
It is a difficult question. It certainly seems to me that criminal conviction is not required. I believe the facts in Eddie's situation, certainly after he was indicted, demanded that he get out. I think the same about Veronica now.
I keep going back in my mind to the situation with our cops. I don't have a handle on how the union rules, etc., work there, but correct me if I'm wrong; Murtha is not a cop because of perceived ethical violations short of criminality. (At least, that would be the ostensible rationale.) But, politicians it seems to me are even less entitled to their positions of honor if evidence of dishonesty, particularly in the line of duty, becomes available. I don't know what a legislative ethics panel might say about it, but I would certainly be prepared to vote against Robles on the basis of facts so far established, and might, if I were at the Town Committee meeting, demand that he resign.

August 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Marie...you know that I like and respect you....however I do not come from a point of view that says it is proper to attack someone in their own home...All you had to say and I certainly respect your right to say whatever you wish, could have been conveyed another way...perhaps by phone...

August 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did not read the IAD report but after reading the internal memo regarding Officer Robles conduct, one thing is clear; he certainly is not a good police officer. Double-dipping aside, his conduct as an officer is grounds for termination or some other disciplinary action. What has his voting record at the Capitol been?

August 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marie...Hector is an admitted CROOK...your carrying his water on the pretense of political fairness is going to damage YOUR reputation and not his...

August 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Anonymous Nichelle Hamilton said...

I quite frankly, have had ENOUGH. All this “Blah blah blah” about Robles is exhausting. Has he been found GUILTY….UMMMMM NO! So all of you ‘so called’ politicians need to hush up an listen.
Some of you know me VERY WELL, and some of you don’t. Those that don’t…my name is Nichelle Hamilton (yes Marie’s daughter) For those of you that do…you know I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK of me…with that said….I am DISGUSTED at the fact some of you are crucifying a man who has yet to be found guilty of the crime you are accusing him of.
There are SEVERAL of you that sat there with your hands out, when you needed Hector, be it personal or political. And now that he needs YOUR support, that’s when you turn your back on him??? SHAME ON YOU!
Hector was compared to Eddie…I have to say…that was like comparing apples to oranges… I personally will say…should Hector be found guilty…I WILL BE THERE TO SUPPORT HIM NO MATTER WHAT…AND if he is found INNOCENT….I will be the FIRST ONE sitting on the side lines with a bag of popcorn (for entertainment of course) AND WATCH ALL OF YOU NON BELIEVERS while you PUCKER UP and kiss his @ss when you need Hector to back you again….it is for this reason alone that I tell my mother…be very careful about those who you STICK YOUR NECK OUT FOR…cause those PIT BULLS that need a MUZZEL are the ones you need to watch out for!

August 18, 2010 at 2:39 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nichelle....go kiss someone's arse for a job in the register's office and leave the prosecution of Hector to folks who arent biased.YOur boy Hector already admitted guilt so there really isnt much to say involving "innocense"...try reading the report instead of bloviating like a $20 kept ho of Hector's/

August 18, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Blogger KEVIN BROOKMAN said...

Nichelle,

you commented "I am DISGUSTED at the fact some of you are crucifying a man who has yet to be found guilty of the crime you are accusing him of."

Is that the standard we use that we should hold our elected officials accountable only if they are found guilty of a crime? What about the trust we place in our elected officials and public officials? Can they only violate our trust by being convicted of a crime?

Hector is someone I had trusted and was friendly with for years. He lied to me and he lied to everyone that asked him about these incidents. You can read that for yourself in the IAD report where he admitted to the investigators that he submitted fraudulent time cards, he knew his actions were illegal and constituted larceny and he used the term "double dipping". How much clearer does it need to be for everyone to realize that Hector's integrity and moral character is not what we had thought when we elected him. His actions are a huge violation of the public's trust and he needs to step up and resign.

Is it any wonder that the voters have no confidence in the system and see elected officials with questionable integrity and ethics as the norm? That is why people are not turning out to vote.

Also, as I had said at Monday's meeting, Hector should resign based on the information that is on the table now, not based on the "what if" he gets arrested. Just with what we know now is more than enough to call for his resignation, he has embarrassed the system, himself and us as voters of the City of Hartford.

Since the arrest has not taken place yet, that would be unfair to judge him based on what may happen (even though that arrest will be coming any day now).

August 18, 2010 at 11:13 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot