Mayor Jennings - Suppressing illegal arms dealing within the APD? Hard work, indeed.


By DIA, Section News
Posted on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:47:32 AM EST

There will be much more to say about how Jerry Jennings should be removed from office for his ongoing oversight of a criminal organization and his excellent work in suppressing information. We'll save that for another day. Did you see that Jennings was well aware that a group of Albany Police Officers were running an illegal arms buying operation? I have to say, even for someone who referred to the Jennings' adminstration as "organized crime" a few weeks ago, this one shocked me. Great reporting once again by Brendon Lyons. I'm short on time so I'm just going to point out one of the weirdest coincidences you will see in a paper. Watch Fred Lebrun covering up for Jennings and Tuffey and making them out to be great public servants adamantly working to reduce gun crime in the city while at the same time you are reading about how the APD was running an illegal arms dealing operation and buying guns with your tax dollars and that the mayor worked to suppress this information.

Lebrun has a nice puff piece telling you how the Mayor, who avoided creating a gun violence task force for years, is the one we should listen to on this.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a whole lot more gun violence in Albany's inner city than can be tolerated, or violence in general, for that matter. I, for one, applaud the creation of a gun violence task force in the city -- so long as that task force, as Mayor Jerry Jennings puts it, "keeps an open dialogue on why a 14-year-old kid will pick up a gun and then use it against another."
Can the task force keep an open dialogue on why members of the APD were using the cover of the departmen to buy assault weapons which were then illegally resold to gun shops? Or would that not be an open dialogue? I hope Fred lets us all know if its ok to talk about the mayor's failure to tell us about members of the APD buying and selling assault weapons. Is that ok? Because Fred is worried this might turn into an anti gun thing. Look at his wise advice.
Call the task force anything you like as long as the focus is on the violence, not the tool.
Wouldn't want to focus on the tool. That might lead to questions about why members of the APD were running an illegal gun dealing operation with your tax dollars and the Mayor suppressed this information. And we shouldn't be doing that. Maybe we could call the task force the Jerry Jennings Armed with Knowledge (and illegal assault weapons) Task Force for Happy Thoughts. The National Rifle Assocation likes to give money to Jerry Jennings. I wonder if they will give more now that he is doing great work of breaking laws to get the much needed illegal assualt weapons into the hands of the public.

Don't forget the police chief either. He has one of the most unbelievable quotes ever.
Society," observes Tuffey," has become a 'me' society instead of an 'us.' We've got to get back to 'us.'
Apparently Tuffey wants us to think of others before our selves. I think he is on to something. When members of his police force get drunk and drive and crash their cars on the streets, that is "me" behavior. Let's have less of that. When members of his police force run large real estate crime rings and when Tuffey himself lies about this knowledge of this and does nothing to investigate it, that is "me" behavior. When members of the APD are running a illegal arms dealing operation with our money, that is "me" behavior. When the mayor of a city talks about stopping gun violence while at the same time suppressing Freedom of Information Requests, that is "me" behavior. When the police chief lies about his knowledge of an investigation of one of his officers for his purchase of illegal drugs...you guessed it...that is "me" behavior. When the chief and mayor repeatedly, endlessly lie about the existence of gangs in Albany and then tell us that they did a great thing by breaking up a violent gang in Albany, again, this is "me" behavior. When the head of the APD keeps a safe of cash (tax payer money) in his office that he dips into for whatever he wants...that is "me" behavior. When the police chief conducts an illegal investigation and then lies to cover it up...that is "me" behavior. When a police officer reports overtime abuse and then is fired....that is "me" behavior. When local columnists are professional apologists for the Mayor and his corrupt adminstration...once again, "me" all the way. When the mayor tells the people of the city to ignore laws they don't want to follow....well, that borders on insanity but it sure helps to explain a lot, doesn't it?

We need to get rid of the selfish corrupt politicians running this city, on that, Tuffey and I are in agreement. He of course won't follow up on that, but that shall come as no surprise (he's still probably working on releasing those gun crime numbers he has suppressed for 5 years).

Let's close on this last bit from Lebrun's column telling us what the great Mayor Jennings is doing to help out on the issue of gun violence in Albany.
Mayor Jennings is hot about this. He reels off all the initiatives that need to be implemented from the clergy and schools staying open late as havens for kids, to investing in after-school programs and getting the business community involved.
Oh, oh! It's "initiative" time! Hey, hey...I've got one!! If we are going to try to reduce gun violence in Albany could "we" perhaps...maybe....not have the mayor covering up how the albany police used the deparment to evade taxes to buy illegal assualt weapons and then resell them to local gun dealers? Could that be an "initiative"? What do you think, Fred?

On a side note. The article about how the mayor covered up information about how the albany police department members used our tax dollars to run an illegal gun dealing operation, that article also mentions that the reason this made such good sense was that by buying them for the police department (or at least saying that is why they were buying them) they were able to avoid large amounts of federal taxes. I'm not a tax lawyer or an Federal Prosecutor but that sounds a whole lot like organized tax evasion. No wonder the mayor worked so hard to suppress this information. Now, to return to an earlier theme, we know the mayor and the police department have committed crimes and covered it up. Who is going to hold them accountable?

PS. Jennings should resign. This mayor has zero credibility and obviously is not capable of serving the best interests of the citizens of Albany.

PSS. Glen Suddaby, the US Attorney who refused to prosecute this illegal gun crime, tax payer theft and tax evasion in the APD is also the person in charge of investigating Joe Bruno's well known bribe taking. Any wonder why neither has happened?

< Recommended Reading | Thank You, Poor People and Tax Payers >

Menu

+ create account
+ faq
+ search

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Related Links

+ that Jennings was well aware
+ a nice puff piece
+ investigat ing Joe Bruno's well known bribe taking.
+ Also by DIA
Display: Sort:
Mayor Jennings - Suppressing illegal arms dealing within the APD? Hard work, indeed. | 69 comments (69 topical, 0 hidden)
GUNS - comment (none / 0) (#1)
by nitevision on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:02:14 AM EST
   DIA - welcome back

   This assault weapon story has been going on for a while.  It interested me more than a year ago and I asked some questions.

   It WAS legal at the time for police officers to possess those weapons.  It was NOT legal to sell or transfer the guns to a civilian.  One bozo cop did that and the federal authorities got involved.

   No city money was ever involved.  The original cops purchased those weapons with their own money.

   I don't think you can find even one person (other than Brendan Lyons) who would say that Chief Murray was the most non-political guy who conducted himself with honesty and integrity. A close friend who knew Murray personally just called to complain about Brendan Lyons muck raking style.  Notice that Lyons never reports about the good things hard working cops do every day for us.

  A group of cops who felt that they were "outgunned" on the streets wanted to purchase those guns as the city wasn't upgrading their weaponry.  Murray arranged a group purchase probably never thinking anyone would try to sell the gun. In hindsight, was it a mistake?  Probably 'yes.'  Lyons' attempt to turn this into a major conspiracy is way over the top.  Insiders said all those guns have been recovered.  So where's the beef?  Maybe Brendan needs to take another secret out of state trip with David Soares.  Again he can report on one cop getting perscription steroids but ignores dozens and dozens of sport celebrities doing exactly the same thing.  Fair and balanced reporting?  I think not.  Some cops have screwed up big time but don't paint them all with a broad brush like Lyons does.

thanks (none / 0) (#2)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:14:49 AM EST
i was wondering how you apologists would spin this.    nice going.  You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this.  

no city money was involved, just city stationary with the mayor's name on it so that they could evade taxes and then resell the guns to dealers?    If this was the feel good story you think it is (and i'm not surprised you knew about it since you support the mayor...care to tell us any other feel good stories?), if this is such a nice story about good cops, why did the mayor not allow FOIL attempts.  

Makes one wonder what other things are being purchased by the city for personal use.   Care to share anything else you've heard?  Perhaps about one "bozo" in DGS?   One bad apple just bringing down the great noble honest and honorable Jennings?  

yeah, brendon lyons is the bad guy for reporting this.    Do you know that around 25% of the country still supports president bush?  That really helps to explain how people like you can support this mayor despite the obvious facts.    

spin away.  Mr. Suddaby will concur with anything you say.  

[ Parent ]

What a bunch of Bull! (none / 0) (#28)
by Breakupthemachine on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:21:21 AM EST
A group of cops who felt that they were "outgunned" on the streets wanted to purchase those guns as the city wasn't upgrading their weaponry

They weren't used by cops on the street.  They were kept at their private homes so how did that help their outgunned feelings?
~~~~In Vino Vertas~~~~
[ Parent ]

from the article (none / 0) (#3)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:17:53 AM EST

A Times Union investigation has found that Romano was one of dozens of city cops, along with at least one Albany County assistant district attorney and possibly a judge, who used the department to illegally purchase an arsenal of automatic assault rifles and ammunition for personal use at tax-exempt, discount prices in the mid-1990s.

The illegal gun purchases, which were concealed from the public, did not result in any disciplinary or criminal charges, and ultimately they exposed more than just wrongdoing on the part of the police force. To this day, it is unclear how many of the weapons were never recovered.

Sounds like large scale tax evasion to me.

Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#4)
by 1894 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:19:26 AM EST

My initial reaction is that it's more than just "a mistake." Murray used official APD stationery for a non-official use, lied about the guns being for department use, and helped his fellow gun "enthusiasts" evade federal taxes.

Jerry and Jimmy don't come off so hot either by perpetuating the lie that the guns were for APD use and trying to keep the story out of the public eye.

correction (none / 0) (#5)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:20:46 AM EST
but i will correct that it appears no tax payer dollars were used.   I assumed that if they were using city stationary it was city money.   Sometimes with all the crimes going on its hard to get it straight.  Thanks for the correction.

just target practice (none / 0) (#6)
by joealbanyny on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:43:13 AM EST
So was he being honest when he signed the document stating that these weapons where going to be used for official use only?

If the officers did actually pay the invoice for the guns they did not pay the fed taxes is that an example of integrity?

Maybe we can't say bad things about ass chief murray because he's dead, we wouldn't want to upset his children now would we.

Chief Murray was the most non-political guy who conducted himself with honesty and integrity, I think you copied and pasted this statement and changed to chief Murray from detective Wilcox

I wonder if these outgunned officers where just protecting themselves from the gangs we didn't have then either

Now I have to wonder........ (none / 0) (#7)
by alfrednewman on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:15:31 AM EST
While at the time I found it funny, now I am scared.

The proposed gun control legislation that Jennings floated earlier this year had provisions regulating artillery fire within the city limits.

Did the City buy a couple field guns and resell them to the cops?
.
.
There are a few questions that I want the answers to before I light the tourches and join the march. Before I get blasted as being the Mayor's chump on this lets see if we can answer some logical questions.

First, did the City of Albany Police Department have a policy of allowing the resale of city owned fire arms to police officers? Or did the city have a policy of specifically excluding the sale of guns.

I seem to recall that the city police are required to purchase their own guns which is why I want to know.

Second, 1993-1994 was the police department required to go through a licensed private gun dealer to sell when it sells weaponds?

I am willing to bet that there is or was no law that requires them to do so.

Could the city police department purchase and then resell these guns? That is a logical question, isn't it?

Third, the TU Reporter makes a big deal about the statement on the purchase order about it being for departmental use.  Is this statement a legally binding notation or was it a statement that the purchasing entity was a police department and was not actually binding as to the ultimnate disposition of the fire arm?  

This is a logical question too, isn't it?

Fourth, it is perfectally legal for a private citizen to purchase and own a semi-automatic assult rifle.  As long as the assult weapon was MANUFACTURED before Septembner 14, 1994.  There is no provision banning the ownership of a semi-automatic manufactured before that date.

When these guns were shipped to the Albany Police Department were they fully automatic or were they semi-automatic?  Both rifles listed are sold both ways.  

Again, this should be a reasonable question to ask.

Was the gun that was being sold at B & J Shooting supply shipped as a semi-auto and then converted using aftermarket kits? (which were readily available through the Shotgun News http://www.shotgunnews.com/ )

Assuming that these weaponds were shipped as semi-automatic weaponds, there is absolutely no requirement for the seller or purchaser to register the gun.  As a matter of fact, in 1994 there wasnt even a requirment for retail stores to provide the names of the purchaser of new rifles to the federal government, as there is now.

So having a gun registered to the City of Albany, if it was sold to the city as a Semi Auto is an incorrect statement.  The dealer in Vermont would have to list who the purchaser was but (if a semi) it would not be a registration.

Again, assuming that the police department did not have a prohibition on selling guns, that the guns, as shipped, were semi automatic, the only "crime" that I can see happening is that the city was probably supposed to collect sales tax.  Although I have to wonder if the transactions would have been tax exempt because these weaponds were sold to LAW ENFORCEMENT officers and could have been considered as used for additional training.

So whats the story?  Was the Albany Police Department illegally selling guns or is this just another smoke up the arse story that sounds really good but has no substance.

I will tell you why I am really questioning the story.  One of David Soares's ADA's was named as a purchaser. He told Soares that he was involved and Soares apparently did not immediately fire or suspend him.  While I may question Soares worth as a DA, I do like the way that he has immediately fired ADA's in the past when they have broken the law.

As Soares did not suspend or fire the guy then obviously this guy didnt break the law.
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"

Other questions (none / 0) (#10)
by AlfredMoisiu on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:49:36 AM EST
I question the legitimacy of the article as well, particularly since its a Times Union exclusive.

They mentioned that the guns were FN-FALs and M-14's, both of which are pretty old weapons. It is actually not illegal to own these guns if they were manufactured or imported before 1986, when the Federal government instituted the ban. The problem is, few of these guns are available on the market and they are $$$.

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like a few cops found a source for cheap pre-ban weapons in Vermont, and used the police department letterhead to avoid some of the fees and red tape needed to bring it into New York.

Avoiding transaction fees and paperwork is unethical and probably illegal, but it's not in the same league as gun trafficking. The ATF takes that very seriously, and these guys would be locked up right now if the actual ownership of the weapons was clearly illegal.

[ Parent ]

What if? (none / 0) (#29)
by Breakupthemachine on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:25:47 AM EST
What if the DA did fire the guy for the gun?  Would you then advocate the mayor fire the coppers that purchased them and the chief who covered it up?
~~~~In Vino Vertas~~~~
[ Parent ]
Breakup (none / 0) (#31)
by alfrednewman on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:30:56 AM EST
Illegal activity is illegal activity. Soares has a proven rack record of immediately terminating ADA's who have broken the law.  I assume that David Soares would have fired the ADA if that ADA had acted illegally.

See, while I think Soares is a rotten DA its his zero tolerance policy that I do like.  

If the police officers were engaged in illegal activity then they should also be arrested.
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"
[ Parent ]

WAIT A MINUTE GUYS (none / 0) (#8)
by nitevision on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:28:33 AM EST
  DIA, check every post I've ever made here.  You won't find even one that endorses our Tanned Mayor.  Not one.  I thought my status as "Not a Jerry Fan" was firmly established.

  I agree with you that it appears that mistakes were made but how can you quickly blame it all on Jennings.  A few calls later, I've learned this story goes back into the mid 1990's.  All of a sudden it's a front page story????

  I'll critcize when I think it's deserved.  I won't issue a blanket attack which demeans all cops or prosecutors.  With a similar concern, I note your "David Soares can do no Wrong" attitude, while cases slip through the cracks while David is trying to grab headlines.  Let's all try to be fair and balanced.

   We disagree but I'm still happy that you are back on the keyboard.

do no wrong (none / 0) (#11)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:32:02 PM EST
you and others have accused me of saying Soares can do no wrong.  Care to back that up?

I will tell you where i think the DA has failed.  He hasn't investigated the scrap for cash issue.    Apparently the overtime fraud thing is a dead.   If he doesn't investigate this, and get the mayor to testify under oath, I have a real problem with the DA.  Do i think he has lied to us like jennings and tuffey?  No.   Is he trying to deal with the city's crime issue?  Yes.     He has a tough job and is doing what he said he would do.  But if he doens't investigate and prosecute this stuff he has lost my support.   Then he'll just be a guy doing his job but not taking on the toughest challenges.   Better than what we've had but still disappointing.  Meanwhile,    Jennings is running a lawless organization.    You may not have a problem with cops involved in tax evasion.   Cops reselling illegal guns.   I do.  Because every story we hear of the cops involves breaking the law.    What feel good stories you want us to talk about?   The beat cops working the neighborhoods?  Oh, yeah. They are gone.   Go check out Park South.   Perhaps the cops living in the city who are investing in their neighborhoods.  Oh, no such things.    I'm all for hearing about the great things the cops are doing in Albany.   Too bad every other week we hear of them being involved in crime instead of prosecuting it.

I'm not anti cop.  Far from it.  I'm anti corruption.  this mayor and his police leadership are corrupt.   I won't bother recounting the vast evidence on that matter.    

The single best thing said or written by anyone in Albany in the past five years was by the wife of Lt. Finn.   Find it and reread it.   That is the type of person I'm advocating for.    You want to keep defending these crooks giving the city and good cops a bad name, do it.   Any moron can see what is going on here.   Spare me the jennings isn't responsible crap.  You embarass yourself.  


[ Parent ]

Time to do some critical thinking (none / 0) (#13)
by AlfredMoisiu on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:16:19 PM EST
Because every story we hear of the cops involves breaking the law.

The media has an agenda to sell papers and ads, and creating an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and doubt fulfills that agenda. Peddling 10-year old news as front page material and running more blood & guts stories than NYC TV stations are great examples of that.

You're buying into the hype. Escalating violence has more to do with national trends. It's a problem in Utica, Holyoke, Harrisburg. If you analyze that stats, you'll find that it has more to do with higher birth rates among the poor, the shift from local narcotics distribution to national gangs and similar factors.

Places like Albany are more attractive markets than the big cities that are seeing crime reductions. Operating in a place like NYC, with 35,000 cops, including thousands of specially trained and organized units is much more difficult that a place like Albany, NY with smaller, less professional forces that lack the resources for anti-gang intelligence and sophisticated prosecutors with the resources to get convictions.

You don't like the Jennings administration, I get it. But saying that all of this is directly caused by the malicious action of Jennings/Tuffey/etc is absurd. They are a part of a larger problem.

[ Parent ]

agreed (none / 0) (#14)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:30:54 PM EST
the larger problem is people like you who support lying criminals because it is in your personal interest.  

i'm buying into the hype?  yeah.    did i suppress the FOIL requests?

you have no credibility.  The only reason I let people like you post on my blog (and post your lies that after i correct many times over you occasionally correct) is to show how pathetic you apologists are.  

much more to follow when i return from vacation.   cheerio.   have fun teaching your kids about how its ok to evade taxes.


[ Parent ]

I'm not an apologist for anyone (none / 0) (#15)
by AlfredMoisiu on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 03:15:34 PM EST
And I have no personal interest in the fates of Jennings, Soares or your WFP buddies beyond being a citizen and homeowner. I just offer a different point of view on various issues that you happen to foaming at the mouth about.

I'm also not a liar. I have been wrong about things, and I own up to being wrong about things when I'm presented with evidence to the contrary. I don't have the time to tape record and take notes on talk radio shows, so sometimes I miss some things.

I'm not credible to you because I like to look at the big picture. For example, you run with a front page story written in 2007 about a group of cops, led by a guy who died a few years ago, who probably misused official stationary to evade taxes in 1994. Instead of sitting back and thinking "Hmmm... I wonder why Rex Smith decided to run with this 13 years after it happened?", you launch in a vitriolic rant.

Anyone who takes issue with anything you say is automatically a Jennings lacket or Soares apologist. That's not the modus operandi or a credible individual.

Then again, since the Times Union ran a front page story about the fat content of cheeseburgers on the day that Troopergate broke out, maybe petty tax evasion from a decade ago is front page news in Albany.

[ Parent ]

when did they (none / 0) (#16)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 03:50:57 PM EST
suppress the FOIL requests?

Here is a question for you citizens and homeowners who are so well meaning.   If the mayor covers up a cop buying and selling illegal firearms using the city as cover I know you think that is no problem.   If the mayor covers up for two cops doing that you probably think it is ok.   At what point do you think the mayor covering up for serious crimes is a problem?  When should we be concerned.   At what point should the mayor act like a honest decent human?  

You aren't credible to me because you defend criminals.  

Let me ask you a question.   yes or no.  The chief of police, who replaced the last chief of police who admitted to lying to cover up an illegal investigation, the new current chief has been caught in several lies involving investigations into illegal activities of members of his force?   he has lied to cover for them.   My question:  when should we believe the chief when he says anything?   Can you send me an email when you think he's telling the truth?  That would help.   I'm hobbled by only dealing in facts.  Your input would really help.  Please don't bother with the mayor since last week he advocated breaking the law if you won't get caught.  we know he is lying.   but you love him anyway.

let me know.

ps.   you lawbreaking mouthbreathing fuckers make me sick.    

PSS.  lock an load.

PSS.   excuse me for not being more rational.   the cops were dealing in illegal assault weapons.   excuse me for "foaming at the mouth".   I guess i should save the behavior for something alarming.   like the DA appearing on TV.  

being suckass apologists for crimes doesn't mean they aren't crimes.  

if the DA or someone doesn't prosecute this, you and i will concur on the lack of any laws in albany.

cheers

[ Parent ]

Where's the beef then (none / 0) (#21)
by AlfredMoisiu on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:05:22 PM EST
Are you trying to say that the US Attorney, ATF and FBI that is part of the most partisan Republican administration ever isn't capable of pursuing a case against some keystone cops in Albany?

I'm not defending anyone. But since the only documentary evidence produced is the signature of a dead guy on letterhead and a denial of a FOIL request, it's hard for me to start calling for people's heads.

[ Parent ]

not beefy enough for Alfred (none / 0) (#22)
by Lame Man on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:16:11 PM EST
A Times Union investigation [...]

[...] a major ATF investigation that years later, despite unearthing a mountain of evidence, would be brushed aside by the region's U.S. Attorney's office.

Please tell me that you understand that the words in this article do not represent every note, phone call, document that the TU looked at in the course of this investigation.  And, no, I am not a TU guy, and I don't have an inside source there.  But to hear you write this off as if two pieces of paper were all they had, that's just unbelievable to me.

[ Parent ]

Lame (none / 0) (#33)
by alfrednewman on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:41:00 AM EST
        "Please tell me that you understand    that the words in this article do not represent every note, phone call, document that the TU looked at in the course of this investigation."

Lame please tell me that you understand that the information in the Times Union is not always accurate, true, and that you understand that the TU has motivations for the type and tone of the stories it runs.

Please, please tell me you understand at least that.

Looking back over this article I suspect that most of it is simply overblown.  The guns were delivered semi-autos (from the description) and were NOT illegal.  

Frankly I wonder if this story has more to do with trying to stop the freefall in TU subscriptions.  
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"
[ Parent ]

sorry, Al (none / 0) (#35)
by Lame Man on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:47:29 AM EST
You should know that I don't hesitate to criticize the TU for being dumb-asses.  But to the best of my ability to judge this thing, it looks like they've done the research and they are presenting what they found.

Here's my complaint about the article: They should have broken the article into two, one focusing on what city officials did, and one describing the issues with the gun dealers.  That would have been a lot more clear, in my opinion.

[ Parent ]

Thanks Lame (none / 0) (#38)
by alfrednewman on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:07:39 AM EST
I am not sure that the article could stand up if it were more clear.  I suspect that if the TU went into the facts then they would loose the hype.

The question remains: did the police department have the legal right to sell guns to law enforcement officers.  If the answer is yes then all of the rest of the story is just BS, or am I missing something?
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"
[ Parent ]

here comes the judge (none / 0) (#39)
by DIA on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:20:49 AM EST
i guess you believe the judge when he says he was innocent?   I wonder if that works in cases he hears?  

"the facts show you are guilty"

"I didn't do it"

"Case dismissed...nothing to see here....drinks are on me"

[ Parent ]

Full Disclosure (none / 0) (#9)
by AlfredMoisiu on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:36:38 AM EST
DIA, do you buy the paper at 4AM and write up these comprehensive, well-thought out posts in record time? Just curious.

Since this is an exclusive TU story, and you got this post up at a quarter to six, I have to wonder if you are affiliated with some group that would get a heads up front page stories.

Troopergate established that the TU is willing to be a player in political games, and your habit of accusing anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you a rabid Jenning support begs the question...

buy the paper? (none / 0) (#12)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:44:13 PM EST
no, i go out to new scotland and steal it from some of those suckers.   but it is early, you are right about that.

I enjoy the fact that i'm not a lazy fuck and i have the ability to get up in the morning and read the paper before I start working that this must make my in cahoots with the people publishing the paper who i regularly criticize.   I realize being a hardworking literate fuck makes me an exception in mayor jennings' circle and thus open for criticism.  

full disclosure.  I've emailed the following people.  Some respond.  Some respond with threats and insults.   Some don't respond.  

alan chartock
brian nearing
david king
rick marshall
miriam axel rose
brendon lyons
jordan evangelisto (sp)
fred lebrun

I've also emailed alot of other people.   You also can email them.    its free.    Some people email me.  

my only connection to any story in the media was when i taped the mayor's radio show where he said some idiotic thing about the APD.   I anonymously sent it to the metroland.   They used it for the opening quote in their article on police corruption.   Amazingly that was over a year ago and still the amount of corruption was astounding.

So, I have a tape recorder.   I can email.   I can mail things.   I wake up early and i work hard.    And I despise the lying sacks of shit running this city.   Its no wonder you don't like me alfred.   Got any more lies you want to float?  Maybe something about tax assessments?   How about tax evasion?  Or does that not bother you?

hey, get your hands on the latest numbers for the city.  You seem to be a savvy bizness man who rents fancy hotel rooms for you clients.  Probably know your way around a P&L.    Look at how the city's receipts for scrap metal redemption skyrocketed this year?   Any ideas why that might be?  

the early bird gets the worm.  

you fucking apologists make me sick, if that wasn't clear.

[ Parent ]

Machine Gun Jennings (none / 0) (#17)
by Lame Man on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 04:16:21 PM EST
"Hey, Mr. Mayor, can you get me a gun?  Preferably something illegal.  Thanks!"

I didn't know (none / 0) (#18)
by Lame Man on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 04:19:37 PM EST
there was a journalistic statute of limitations on investigative stories.  In other words, why are you assuming some bad motives on the TU's part for publishing this now?  I'm not as quick as DIA to call someone an apologist, but I seriously don't understand why the publish date matters here.

Ah ha (none / 0) (#19)
by Corruptany on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 04:44:49 PM EST
DIA, thank god your back, I missed your posts. Every week there is something new and corrupt going on in Albany. My god, its either booze, rape, drugs, murder, political corruptant, and no this. What is wrong with this city?

[ Parent ]
Oh Mallbany (none / 0) (#20)
by Corruptany on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 04:59:27 PM EST
Oh yeah and people, no offense, this is a big issue. I don't care if it was somewhat illegal, someone used official letterhead to do it which shows a lack of accounatbility among whose was ever in charge at the time. This happened in the early 1990's I assume, so with that in mind and the latest and greates in Albany Police incidents one could argue that this has been an occuring problem. When I say problem, I mean the lack of oversight and accountability of the top brass in the APD for doing nothing about this years ago.

I hope you all realize how much of a joke Albany is to the outside world. I have to lie to people and tell them I grew up in the  Catskills so they don't respond to me with disgust when I say Albany. This city is known as an economically depressed, crime infested city where 18 year olds drink till 4 am. People always say oh Albany, I have never seen so many crackhouse in my life. Its a city where residents have to flee after 21 years of age because there is no future here (if your born in the right family though, your future is sealed in stolen tax dollars). I blame the people in charge, Democrat and Republican and I think its great how DIA critizes their every move. Keep up the work my friend.

[ Parent ]

Congratulations Liberals (none / 0) (#23)
by VoiceOfReason on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:18:53 PM EST
     Bravo.  With  all the "increased violence" in Albany that the liberals cannot stop complaining about in the past week we find this story passed along as "journalism".  Let's dig up something from 1994 and report on it in 2007.  If it weren't such a serious matter I would find it funny that all the liberals have done here is lower public confidence in our police force.  And then we wonder why people are hesitant to testify in court?  Sure they don't want to testify when we spend all our time running down the police at every possible opportunity.  
     If we are going to debate an issue, we need to rely on the facts.  In this instance the fact is that a piece of city stationary was improperly used.  Was this stupid?  Yes.  But let's all slow down on the resignation talk.  That is the last thing that we need.  Obviously the far-left extremists don't think it is a big deal to attack a deceased hero who cannot defend himself.  But for most Albanians this is a disgusting display of partisanship.
     What we need is a healthy partnership between our elected officials and the police.  This is the way we are going to make progress.  So let's stop the partisan attacks and work together to make progress.  

VoR
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." -Abraham Lincoln

wow (none / 0) (#24)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:58:14 PM EST
pretty fast response from the "crime is ok if its approved by the great honorable and honest jennings" crew.   Can't you guys' run guns, run mortgage fraud, run cash for scrap deals, run overtime fraud, without worrying about some blog no one reads?   Perhaps y you wouldn't make so many mistakes if you didn't spend so much time looking at blogs and just focused on getting the crimes right?

shouldn't you be out pulling down Slavick signs?

shouldn't you be out breaking laws and teaching your children how to be criminals?  

get better at your crimes and you might get more votes.   I'm just trying to help, Don Jennings.

[ Parent ]

DIA Dirty Politics (none / 0) (#26)
by VoiceOfReason on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:49:12 PM EST
     You probably think that if you throw enough garbage at our Mayor something will stick.  It won't.  The people of Albany won't fall for it.  Mayor Jennings and Chief Tuffey are good men and reasonable people realize this.  Now I tried to stay positive and forward looking but I'm sick and tired of you bringing up unsubstantiated attacks upon our great Mayor.  If you have something to say then back it up with fact.  And your criticism of Mike Conners is equally shameful.  Do you have any proof Conners is pulling down signs or are you just talking out of your dirty backside again?  Now if it was up to you I know we wouldn't have great men like Mayor Jennings, Mike Conners, and Chief Tuffey making our city a better place everyday - but luckily the world isn't run by obnoxious far-left extremists.

VoR
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." -Abraham Lincoln
[ Parent ]

I will pretend to be Smokin Joe (none / 0) (#27)
by Corruptany on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:07:48 PM EST
HaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Jerry Jennings a good leader Bwaaa HAAAAAA HAAAAA. Keep kissing ass buddy boy, karma is a bitch in the long run.

[ Parent ]
Dammit! (none / 0) (#32)
by Lame Man on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:32:01 AM EST
"Dirty Backside" would have been a great pseudonym to use on this blog.  Why didn't I think of that?

Any-hoozle.  This desire for "facts" is extremely strange, when this entire conversation is based on a news article.  Which, for good and for bad, is the best that we average shmoes have to go on as "facts."

[ Parent ]

Wrong again! (none / 0) (#30)
by Breakupthemachine on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:40:36 AM EST
This was about the police in 1994 and again years later when the illegal gun showed up during an ATF audit.  It became about your heroes; hizzoner and tuffy when they tried to cover it up.  They said releasing the information would endanger the lives of the coppers.  Just like the sting of the two bars the DA did endangered their lives, what a bunch of bull!
~~~~In Vino Vertas~~~~
[ Parent ]
oh yeah (none / 0) (#25)
by DIA on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:16:15 PM EST
members of the APD evaded taxes, bought assualt weapons using he city as a front and then resold them to criminals.  

and the mayor worked hard to suppress that info.

which part of illegal criminal enterprise dont' you understand?   Oh yeah.  I forgot.    Jerry Jenning's supporters are the wife beating Republican John Sweeney, the bribe taking Joe Bruno.  I'm sorry for questioning Jerry's illegal activities.    He was just doing what he was told.  Quick Jerry, kiss Bruno's ring.

Illegal guns (none / 0) (#36)
by alfrednewman on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:58:03 AM EST
DIA:

While it may not be politically wise for the now departed police brass to engage in this activity the question remains was it illegal?  Can-or could- the police department buy guns and then sell them to their officers?  I think that they are allowed to do that. Am I wrong?

From the description of the guns I think that they were shipped semi-automatics and were legal to purchase, to own, and to sell.

The fully automatic rifle was found in a gunshop that, a the time of the discovery, was a federally licensed gun dealer.

If the an assult rifle is in the hands of a private individual it does not have to be sold through a gun shop so beating up everyone because the gun shop turned out to be owned by people engaging in illegal activities is really just BS.  

Even now private citizens can sell guns without having to register the transaction or do background checks on the purchaser.  

One of the owners was arrested for illegal gunsmithing and illegally modifying guns.  If anyone was to have converted the gun in his possession into a fully automatic weapond I would have to suspect that it was him.  Afterall, he was caught making illegal modifications.

I can think of one legitimate reason why the Mayor would fight a foil request to name the officers involved.  It would make their homes targeted by street trash who would just love to know they could rob guns from a cops house.  It would endanger the police officers and make them targets.  Or do you disagree?  

"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"
[ Parent ]

i disagree (none / 0) (#37)
by DIA on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:07:07 AM EST
because none of the cops live in Albany.  

I can think of many legitimate reasons for a lot of things.   You are very good at this, too.

I think any person who isn't a blind supporter of the mayor and the albany political machine can think of several legitimate reasons why this story should concern them.  

I also have to say, if we need to suppress information about illegal activity because the cops are afraid where they live, we've got a problem.   You are suggesting that Albany is so out of control that the fact that there is information that someone might have something worth a few hundred dollars in their house puts them at risk.    That of course, is not true.   The funny part of what you are suggesting is that by telling people that there is a segment of the population who has assualt weaponry in their homes that this would INCREASE the chances of people breaking into their homes.   Now, i'm not saying most criminals are that bright (especially not the elected ones) but I do think most people would say, "that guy has assault weapons in his house and knows how to use them....perhaps i'll go rob someone else"

[ Parent ]

this has been one strange (none / 0) (#34)
by Lame Man on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:43:33 AM EST
comment thread.  There are multiple issues here, but so many commenters here are taking the attitude of "as soon as I saw 1994, I stopped reading!"

From the article:

Stating that the gun purchases were for the city was illegal.

The guns were illegal to possess.

A different set of official APD guns turned up ... missing.  

Jennings and Tuffey have tried to keep this quiet.

The reasons for the lack of prosecution are not clear.

Right!  Now, I get it, there are no issues here, just a bunch of "great men."  How silly of me.

Lame (none / 0) (#40)
by alfrednewman on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:24:59 AM EST
I don't care when the time frame was, there are some real questions about these "facts"

First and foremost these guns were LEGAL to buy and possess then and now.  The Federal ban did not prohibit the sale of these types of guns.  It prohibited the sale of any of these guns MANUFACTURED AFTER mid-september of 1994.

Second, these guns were not "registered" to the Albany Police Department.  There IS WAS NO REGISTRY OF RIFLE OWNERS. The *ONLY* registry would be by the original wholesaler whose records would show where the guns were shipped.  

If the gun that was in the Colonie gun shop was fully automatic then it was probably converted by that gun shop- as one of the owners was caught illegally modifying the guns.

Would you like the Times Union to publish your name and tell everyone that you are a police officer and you own an assult rifle? Do you think that this information may make your home a target?  I do.  Maybe it was a wise move not to provide names.

I think we all know that the Times Union has, every great once in a while, made unintentional mistakes.  I have seen other newspapers make the same mistake with the so called Assault Weaponds Ban.

When the Times Union says its illegal maybe they should actually say WHY it was illegal. Maybe that would be a good way to clarify the story.

 
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"
[ Parent ]

Al, you will get (none / 0) (#41)
by Lame Man on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:30:42 AM EST
no argument from me.  The article states that the guns were illegal to possess.  Could the article have backed that up?  Sure.

But that doesn't mean I think the article is wrong.  You say they could have backed it up, sure, I'll go along with that.

[ Parent ]

I have a lot to say about this later this evening (none / 0) (#42)
by Jim Travers on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:42:56 AM EST
But will say this now: M-14s are capable of both, semi and fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons are considered "machine guns" and are illegal for anyone to own, excepting law officers. They cannot be used for any purpose other than in the line of duty.

That the ADA had one is certainly a violation of many laws.

The guns were illegal to sell in NY at any time prior to September of 2004, but not to Police Chiefs for their arsenals or to policemen for duty use only.

The M-14 was the fully automatic military version of the AR-15 semi automatic which citizens befor4 1994 and after 9-04 could legally own.

Only if the receiver is welded is it still legal for citizen collectors to own an M-14.

Unfortunately I've learned a lot about weapons over the past few years.

Correction (none / 0) (#46)
by AlfredMoisiu on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:38:52 PM EST
You're thinking of the M-16.

The M-14 predates the M-16 and AR-15, and is based on the M-1 Garand rifle of WW2. The M-14 was used from Korea and was the standard issue rifle until 1966. It's still used today by the Navy & Coast Guard and for sharpshooters.

There are many, many variants of the M-14. The standard issue M-14 was automatic, but many variants are semi-automatic because it's impossible to hit anything with a .308 round in full auto mode.

You can actually legally own M-14's, even some fully automatic versions. Gun laws are very, very complex. The TU article wasn't very specific.

[ Parent ]

The guns were purchased (none / 0) (#43)
by integritypd on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:34:44 PM EST
at a time when it was illegal to possess them FOR ANYONE, except a police force (not individual cop) or a military agency. Machine guns have been outlawed since 1934 and some of them puppies were fully auto. It wasn't the only time they did it and some in the pd were proud of the arsenal they built buying guns this way. And since when are weapons purchases not publicly bid or handled through the city comptroller and treasurer? This was a sneak purchase and the Vermont gun dealers could not have sent them to anything but a police agency. New York also bars their sale or possession. And Nitevis, more than cops got em so your info is off. If they were getting outrun in chases, would they pony up their cash to buy a pursuit vehicle? These were toys and no one was ever allowed to bring them on the street cause the chance of bystander deaths were too great
integritypd
DIA (none / 0) (#44)
by one flew east on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:47:59 PM EST
Just wanted to point out a few facts without getting you to upset.  First of all, the guns that were bought in the early 90's by the Albany Police Department were legal. The purchase of those guns by several of the police officers were legal.  The problem arose when some of those officers sold the guns to private indivduals.  That was illegal, whether they knew that or not is another question.  

And I would wish you would stop believing everything you read in the Times Union.  I can personally tell you some of the stories are factually wrong and some I thing they just "make up". Now, I'm not saying that all the stories are that way or am I saying that one reporter is better than another.  But they do get their facts wrong quite a bit.  

And you should stop painting everyone with a broad brush.  80% of the police officers employed by the Albany Police Department weren't employed by the City back in 1994, most of them were in grade school!!

Just the facts!    

 

the facts (none / 0) (#45)
by DIA on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:33:36 PM EST
ah, the facts.

Was it legal to purchase the guns for personal use but use the APD as a front so as to avoid taxes?  

This is another in a long line of issues with the current APD.    Tuffey and Jennings wanted to cover this up.  They did their best.  That is my main issue.   the leaders of this city are liars and will cover up crimes for political purposes.  

There is no broad brush.  I list what we have learned about the APD.   My main point is that Jennings and Tuffey have routinely lied and covered up crimes committed by their employees.   Is that ok with you?  

Find me somewhere where I say that all of the cops are the problem?  I'll be happy to retract that.    The management is the problem.  And that starts with  Jennings.   And tuffey and mesley.   They are all known to lie.

You people are amusing.  This is all the Times Union's fault.  You think they are lying about everything while we have a police chief and mayor who are known liars.    

If it is all untrue, why doesn't Tuffey set the record straight.  because by not doing that he is doing a lot more damage to all the good cops than I ever could.   But he won't set the record straight will he?    How about you do that for us.  What are the facts that you have that can correct theirs?  I'm all ears.   I routinely correct errors I find in the media.    I'm all for that.

You can't have it both ways...actually I guess I should say people who support the mayor can have it both ways.  When jerry lies and covers up for crimes, its not his fault.   How was he supposed to know?  

We all wish for a lot of things.   If you don't like what I say, feel free to ask for a full refund.  And please write letters to the TU with the proper facts.   Because Tuffey is apparently willing to let all the good cops hang out to dry.  

Just the facts indeed.  

[ Parent ]

DIA, there you go again (none / 0) (#47)
by one flew east on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:56:24 PM EST
Ok, so your so much into the facts, let me correct you and the Times Union.  First of all the guns were purchased by the Albany Police Department for departmental use.  After buying the guns, the powers that be, decided that they weren't going to use them so they offered to sell them to any police officer in the department that wanted one, all quite legal.  Not all the guns were bought.  Like I said before, the problem came from those officers selling the guns to private citizens.  That is the first fact that you and the Times Union have wrong, sorry no conspiracy theory.  Seond, the Times Union stated that the guns were illegally purchased, that is not a true statement.  Third, the Times Union make the story read like A/C Murray bought the guns for the officers just to avoid federal excise tax, again another false statement.  The City bought the guns and when they decided that they didn't want them, they sold some back to some officers, its that simple.  Now looking back, it might not have been the best idea to sell the guns to anyone.  That may have been poor judgement but its not some conspricy that you and the Times Union make it out to be.  

My point about "painting everyone with a broad brush is simple", if you have a problem with the management of the Albany Police Department or an individual officer or the mayor than say so.  But at times you ramble on about the Albany Police as a whole and that is wrong.  You even did it in your response to me.

And I never blamed the Times Union, I just stated and I know this personally that their stories are wrong at times.  

And you believe, quite wrongly may I add, that I am a supporter of anything the Mayor says or does. Again I can only speak for myself, I don't speak for the Chief or the Mayor.  

Did you ever think that they won't set the record straight because this all happened on Jerry's watch!  It's called politics but it isn't the big story the Times Union wants you to believe it is.

one flew over (none / 0) (#48)
by DIA on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:17:27 PM EST
one question - how do you know the "Powers that be" decided they weren't going to use them?   Why did they decide this?   Is that "all quite legal"?    To buy things for department use, avoid taxes and then "decide" something?  

the problems appear to be on several levels.

If your "facts" are the truth, Jennings has nothing to hide.  

you say they sold some back to officers.   What did they do with the others?  

you and i fully agree it "might not have been the best idea" as it was a crime and they are law enforcement professionals.

I have a problem with all of the officers who have committed crimes, with the mayor, with the chief and with mesley.  I say so.  Often.   I have never said i have a problem with any other member of the force.  

I have also stated the times union stories are wrong at times.   Again, we are like buddies.

I can only speak for myself as well (like you!).  The mayor and chief are known liars and cover up crimes within their organizations.  Repeatedly.   Myself sez that is really fucking wrong.  

Everything that is wrong is ignored because it occurs on Jerry's watch.   I think about that often.   That doesn't excuse the ongoing pattern of crimes committed by members of the APD.  

My point is simple.   If the mayor was an honest and decent man, he wouldn't tolerate this stuff.  Instead he cover it up.

One other interesting thing is that you admit we bought these guns with tax payer dollars.   The TU sez that the officers bought them with their own money.   I look forward to having that cleared up.   Just the facts, jack, just the facts.

[ Parent ]

one%20flew%20east (none / 0) (#50)
by Breakupthemachine on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:51:59 PM EST
Sounds like Oneflew has inside knowledge of the dept.  Maybe he can get someone to produce the original purchase order that they used to order the guns.
~~~~In Vino Vertas~~~~
[ Parent ]
DIA (none / 0) (#49)
by one flew east on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:43:15 PM EST
You seem like a pretty intelligent person, so I think the answer to your first question, you can figure out yourself.  You have to remember this was in the early 90's, back then where wasn't a shooting every night.  I believe that after they bought them they realized that the guns were to much firepower for the streets, thus get rid of them.  They decided to sell them to some of the officers to get some of the taxpayers money back.  Like I said, maybe not the brightest idea, but never the less, an idea and all legal.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Times Union story implies that the City didn't pay taxes, which is not true. Again, the story implies that A/C Murray bought the guns for cops who were looking to buy them without paying taxes  That is simply not true.  Again, not a conspiracy, but plain and simple, piss poor planning!!

I believe several years ago the feds came and took all the other guns back that the APD still had.  And I'm not making excuses, but I don't believe that the cops who sold the guns, knew they were breaking the law, especially after they bought the guns legally.  It's easier for a cop to sell one of the guns, then it is for a private citizen.

You say that if what I'm stating is the truth then Jennings has nothing to hide.  I thought you were smarter than that.  Of course he has something to hide, even if you believe what I have to say, it still doesn't say much about the person in charge of the City, does it?

And finally, if I didn't explain it earlier, the cops did use there own money but they bought the guns from the City after the City didn't want them.  


we agree on many things (none / 0) (#51)
by DIA on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:03:17 PM EST
and now i'm sure you weren't my highschool guidance counseler (he was drunk) but he never said such nice things about me seeming to be smart.    

I'd be interested in hearing of any police department in america that ever bought these types of weapons and decided to give them to the rank and file patrols.    If there is no evidence of that your reasoning seems very flawed.

"not the brighteset idea".    That is always the excuse.   "in hindsight who would've ever suspected wilcox was prone to crime after the overtime thing, his high living....etc".   you get the idea.  

you are saying the city bought the guns for cops to use on patrol.  You offer no evidence.   And how about the ADA and the judge who ended up with these weapons?  and the gun dealers?  

You "believe" the feds came and took back the guns.   What makes you believe this?    I'm all for hearing about that.   I find a common theme with the supporters of the ongoing crime in our government in Albany.   you all have "info" that says it was all ok.   But you never provide that.   As i've said before.  If you have information that debunks the story i recommend sending it to jerry, tuffey, christian, the TU, MMM Bolton and all the rest.   Spread the word.   The locals are hungry for the truth.   You tell us you have heard it.   Please share.  

It does not say much about the person in charge of the city.    From what i've seen, nothing bordering on the truth says anything positive about the person in charge of the city.   I'll have to go back and read all your posts about how you are outraged about this fact.   Once i review those posts perhaps we can discuss his obvious problem of a corrupt and lying administration that continues to make all the good cops look bad by their behavior.   Broad brush indeed.  

the city doesn't have to pay taxes on guns if they buy them for the police force.  That is what i've read.   I may be wrong.  I don't buy guns for the city on a regular basis.    

You repeatedly say that the Jennings adminstration is guilty of piss poor planning.   We agree on this.   Who do you think our next mayor should be?   Or would you like to let the piss poor planners continue on in their role?  Do you reward incompetence?  Where do you work?   And is it ok to lie there?

I'm sorry if you feel like you are fighting with an arm tied behind your back.  You are.  You are defending criminals.   It isn't easy.  

[ Parent ]

First of all (none / 0) (#52)
by one flew east on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:10:31 PM EST
I might like your high school guidance counselor, I too like to have a few beers on occasion, does that me stupid, a drunk, a criminal or anything, I think not.  It makes me like beer!  Or maybe your high school guidance counselor was right, you tell me!

And for your information, police departments all over the country sell there old guns to officers on their departments.  What do you think they do with them?  Yes, sometimes they sell them back to a gun company but not always. Most police departments don't want or buy used guns.   I suppose you'd be happy if the last time they changed handguns, the Albany Police put all 330 handguns in the basement to collect dust.  Then you'd be bitchin' about how they're just wasting taxpayers money keeping them. They sell them to buy new ones, grant you it isn't a even swap.  I never said that they "decided to give them to the rank and file patrols", they're your words, not mine.  Like I said before, the City sold the guns to the cops, its that simple.  

And again, when I said it wasn't the "brightest idea", I wasn't saying it as an excuse, just stating a fact.  

And you have no evidence that what I'm saying isn't the truth, oh I forgot, it said so in the Times Union so it must be the truth.  And that's not a knock on the Times Union, but a knock on you, because you want it both ways.

The ADA ended up with one of the guns because he had a pistol permit and bought the gun from the APD just like all the rest of the law enforcement officers did.  And the gun dealers, thats how this whole thing started years ago.  One of the cops sold his gun to a gun dealer and the gun was used in a crime in Texas, but that was years ago.  

And I guess I have to correct myself, I "know" the feds came and took back all the guns that the APD had.  

You say that you "find a common theme with the supporters of the ongoing crime in our government in Albany".  The problem with that statement is that's not what I have described, I have only stated the facts as I know them about this one incident.  There you go with your "broad brush" again.  

And you won't find many posts of mine, I hate politics and thats what you talk about the most on this site.  

It seems that the only words you hear are the ones you want to.  I do not feel that I'm fighting with my hands tied behind my back and I am not defending anyone.  In my last couple of posts, the only thing that I have tried to do is to give the readers information about the incident.  I believe it is up to them to decide who makes more sense, my posts or the Times Union article.  

Readers!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I waiting for your comments.    

legal purchase? (none / 0) (#53)
by Breakupthemachine on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:37:50 AM EST
Wouldn't there have to be a purchase order if the dept bought the guns legally?  Why would the mayor and chief try to cover up a legal sale?
~~~~In Vino Vertas~~~~
[ Parent ]
Because (none / 0) (#58)
by one flew east on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:44:49 AM EST
The guns were bought legally and the reason the Mayor doesn't want to share any information about this is one of the guns were used in a crime.  Again, on the Mayors watch!

[ Parent ]
Not possible (none / 0) (#55)
by AlfredMoisiu on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:41:10 AM EST
You're forgetting that all actions taken by city employees since 1992 are the acts of drunken criminals.

Only DIA is pure.

[ Parent ]

alfred (none / 0) (#57)
by DIA on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:03:35 AM EST
alfred.   There you go again.   There is nothing wrong with being drunk.   Its not against the law.  There is something wrong with being drunk and driving.  Its illegal.  And showing up to work drunk when you are a police officer.    

You forgot to mention that the DA is also pure and shits golden eggs and I have started a religion worshipping him as The One Who Can Do No Wrong.

you fuckers are amusing, i'll give you that.


[ Parent ]

Schenectady copper egg case (none / 0) (#60)
by Breakupthemachine on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:31:56 PM EST
Remember this case?  The coppers were successful in protecting the names of egg throwing coppers but Albany can't seem to protect illegal gun buyers.  
~~~~In Vino Vertas~~~~
[ Parent ]
fire sale at traffic safety (none / 0) (#54)
by joealbanyny on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:49:42 AM EST
If it is old and not useful anymore then its surplus equipment.  Surplus equipment usually is sold through an auction/bid type sale, or scrapped (that's funny I know)

Did this happen, if so how much discount did the buyers get.  Sounds like an expensive weapon was purchase in a way to avoid most of the taxes (city purchases are tax exempt I think) due then sold as surplus at an even lower cost to the buyer.  

So if its surplus equipment, wouldn't it be a conflict of interest to sell directly to the people that claimed it's no longer useful.  I believe that's why they don't allow DSG/city employees to purchase old dpw equipment without going though the auction/bid process.  

I would think much like the weapons in question the DGS boys and girls would all be driving some nice 1 year old used city trucks home.


Question ... (none / 0) (#56)
by 1894 on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:57:07 AM EST
First of all the guns were purchased by the Albany Police Department for departmental use.  After buying the guns, the powers that be, decided that they weren't going to use them so they offered to sell them to any police officer in the department that wanted one, all quite legal.

Should we take your word for this, particularly the part about the guns being purchased for departmental use? The story has been out there for a few days. Why haven't the "powers that be" come out to say the T-U was wrong?

Again (none / 0) (#59)
by one flew east on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:49:37 AM EST
I can't myself any clearer, the reason you don't hear from the powers that be is one of the guns was used in a crime.  Even though its not quite the conspiracy the TU wants you to believe, it still was the brightest idea.  

Worser ... (none / 0) (#61)
by 1894 on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:23:27 PM EST

Here's clarity for you: If you're right that one of the guns was used in commission of a crime, that's even worse than the "conspiracy" the T-U wrote about.

One flew east (none / 0) (#62)
by integritypd on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:14:32 AM EST
likes to float a lot of bad info. The feds didn't take the guns they took one from the gun store. None were used in a crime but some ended up in western US and some weren't found. They were never intended for street use. They were bought for "SWAT" team but half the guys getting them werent SWAT members. Murray never told the higher ups they were doing it cause it was a secret buy back when the federal ban was signed by clinton and everyone panicked thinking they wouldnt be able to get these anymore.
integritypd
Integritypd, I agreed with some of your first post (none / 0) (#63)
by Jim Travers on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:04:46 PM EST
but then your wrath towards Soares came thru.

You are correct in that they could legally own them and the chief's signature and letterhead were required for their purchase. The cops who received the weapons were also legally exempt from paying the taxes another person would incur, but only if they were used in the line of duty.

If they were no longer going to use them in the line of duty they should have been prohibited from selling them to anyone other than a collector and they would have to made permanentely inoperable prior to their transfer of ownership.

No private citizen is allowed to own a machine gun, not even a cop if its for their private use.

In that they were always owned by the cops who received them, the city didn't need to auction them off nor could they due to the Federal ban on assault weapons that was in place.

If the police officers sold them to anyone other than to another police chief for his departmental use, they broke the law. If they didn't pay taxes on that income, they broke the law.

If the guns were never intended for departmental use only but for their personal use, they and the chief broke some very serious laws by defrauding the government in order to obtain machine guns.

Yes AM, I did mean the M-16 and not the M-14 was evolved from the AR-15.

Al #7, I have to skip your first question because I don't know the answer to this. To your second, yes. But at that time they were illegal to own in NYS and unless they were permanently disabled before the transfer.

Al you don't have the facts straight in your fourth. It not only prohibited for sale any weapon manufactured aftr the ban, but allowed for continued ownership of those purchased pre-ban. Those pre-ban owned weapons were illegal to sell to private citizens once the ban went to effect.

the date of manufacture


[ Parent ]

Jim, not sure what anti-Soares (none / 0) (#64)
by integritypd on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:42:46 PM EST
wrath you extrapolated from my comments. He's not involved in this right? Your points all well taken. These cops and Murray broke the law and were never prosecuted ... end of story.
 
integritypd
One Flew East ... (none / 0) (#65)
by Jim Travers on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:27:52 AM EST
If the purchase of the weapons were for duty use it would have been legal for the officers to purchase them, but if they were for their private use, that is, non-duty related, it would have been an illegal purchase.

In #47 "The City bought the guns and when they decided that they didn't want them, they sold some back to some officers, its that simple.  Now looking back, it might not have been the best idea to sell the guns to anyone.  That may have been poor judgement ..."

It was beyond poor judgment, it was illegal for the Police Dept to offer the guns for sale to anyone other than to another police dept chief for his duty arsenal.

And how is it that the dept. sold the guns to the officers? I thought the cops originally purchased them with their own money? Do you mean they were sold to other cops who weren't in on the original purchase who didn't already own any of them?

In pointing out the excise tax avoidance the TU had it wrong, as the Dept. would be exempted from paying this tax, but if the chief was 'fronting' for the cops in order for them to get their hands on prohibited weapons for their personal use, knowing they were too powerful and dangerous for duty use aforehand, it would indeed be considered a 'conspiracy' of the chief and officers to circumvent the law.

Integritypd, I reread your post and realize it was more of a criticism of Brendan then of Soares.

The one thing in this I am unclear on is when the original purchase took place. Anyone have anything more concise than "the early '90s"?

Penal Law of NYS:

§ 265.10 Manufacture,  transport,  disposition and defacement of weapons
             and dangerous instruments and appliances.
    1. Any person who  manufactures  or  causes  to  be  manufactured  any
  machine-gun, assault weapon, large capacity ammunition feeding device or
  disguised gun is guilty of a class D felony. Any person who manufactures
  or causes to be manufactured any switchblade knife, gravity knife, pilum
  ballistic  knife, metal knuckle knife, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, metal
  knuckles, Kung Fu star, chuka stick, sandbag, sandclub or  slungshot  is
  guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
    2.  Any  person  who  transports  or  ships  any  machine-gun, firearm
  silencer, assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device  or
  disguised  gun,  or  who transports or ships as merchandise five or more
  firearms, is guilty of a class D felony. Any person  who  transports  or
  ships  as  merchandise  any  firearm,  other  than  an  assault  weapon,
  switchblade  knife,  gravity  knife,  pilum  ballistic   knife,   billy,
  blackjack,  bludgeon, metal knuckles, Kung Fu star, chuka stick, sandbag
  or slungshot is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
    3. Any person who disposes of any machine-gun, assault  weapon,  large
  capacity  ammunition  feeding  device or firearm silencer is guilty of a
  class D felony. Any person who knowingly buys, receives, disposes of, or
  conceals a  machine-gun,  firearm,  large  capacity  ammunition  feeding
  device,  rifle  or  shotgun  which  has  been defaced for the purpose of
  concealment or prevention of the detection of a crime or misrepresenting
  the identity of such machine-gun,  firearm,  large  capacity  ammunition
  feeding device, rifle or shotgun is guilty of a class D felony.
    4.  Any  person  who  disposes  of  any of the weapons, instruments or
  appliances specified in subdivision one  of  section  265.01,  except  a
  firearm, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor, and he is guilty of a class
  D felony if he has previously been convicted of any crime.
    5.  Any  person  who  disposes  of  any  of  the weapons, instruments,
  appliances or substances specified in section 265.05 to any other person
  under the age of sixteen years is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
    6. Any person who wilfully defaces  any  machine-gun,  large  capacity
  ammunition feeding device or firearm is guilty of a class D felony.
    7. Any person, other than a wholesale dealer, or gunsmith or dealer in
  firearms   duly   licensed  pursuant  to  section  400.00,  lawfully  in
  possession of  a  firearm,  who  disposes  of  the  same  without  first
  notifying  in  writing the licensing officer in the city of New York and
  counties of Nassau and Suffolk and elsewhere in the state the  executive
  department,  division  of  state  police, Albany, is guilty of a class A
  misdemeanor.

the purchase order (none / 0) (#66)
by integritypd on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 05:01:19 AM EST
letter they posted showed 1994, about two months after the federal ban was enacted. Also, one flew east is wrong. They bought these for personal use out of the gate, and everyone put up their own money. They were not "resold" when the higher ups decided they weren't for police use.
integritypd
Integritypd, (none / 0) (#67)
by Jim Travers on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 05:16:44 AM EST
thanks for the clarification.


[ Parent ]
Different Purchase Order (none / 0) (#68)
by Breakupthemachine on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 04:40:01 AM EST
IntegrityPD,

The purchase order (PO) I referred to in my response to one of the ethically and morally challenged posters is the bill which is submitted through the comptrollers office for payment and not the fraudulent letter sent on APD letterhead.  The comptroller I believe said his office wasn't involved in the transaction.

Their assertion that the guns were purchased legally by the dept which later decided they didn't want them and "resold" is as preposterous as the notion we can believe anything the mayor or chief says.
~~~~In Vino Vertas~~~~
[ Parent ]

Absolutely (none / 0) (#69)
by integritypd on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 05:07:08 AM EST
this was not a legitimate purchase. That's why ridiculoous for Nitevision and others to try to argue these guns were going to be used on the street. They were outlawed toys and were purchased at the initial time of purchase by non-cops.
integritypd
Mayor Jennings - Suppressing illegal arms dealing within the APD? Hard work, indeed. | 69 comments (69 topical, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:
create account | faq | search