Posted on 02/03/2010 2:33:10 PM PST by Fitzy_888
QUEENSBURY -- Town Supervisor Dan Stec has asked police to investigate whether a letter to the editor published in The Post-Star earlier this week, in which a man threatened to go to Stec's home with "50 people holding torches and pitchforks," broke the law.
Stec said concerns by members of his family prompted him to speak with Warren County Sheriff Bud York to ask the Sheriff's Office to look into the commentary from Queensbury resident Jeff Tackett.
Tackett wrote a letter published in Sunday's Post-Star about the plight of a local contractor whose work truck collided with a town of Queensbury plow truck. The town's insurance carrier would not reimburse the contractor for the truck's damage, even though State Police concluded the plow truck driver was to blame for the crash. State law exempts road maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles from Vehicle and Traffic Law.
In the letter, Tackett wrote that he believed the town should compensate the truck owner, Kevin Tucker. "I'll be in your yard with 50 people holding torches and pitchforks if I don't read that you fixed this..." the letter read. The letter ended with, "I am absolutely serious. Try me."
Stec said he read the letter Sunday, viewed it as a threat and questioned why it was published. But, he said, initially he did not plan to go to police until he talked with his family, friends and co-workers.
He said he had concerns for the safety of his wife and 4-year-old son, and concluded that he should talk to the Sheriff's Office about the letter and seek an order of protection.
"The sheriff (York) read it and said ‘That would concern me too,'" Stec said. "He said they'd look into it."
Stec said he told York that if the Sheriff's Office determined the comments broke the law, he would sign a complaint and seek a charge. No particular charges were discussed, but the Penal Law charges of second-degree harassment and third-degree menacing pertain to threats.
Undersheriff Robert Swan said the matter remained under investigation Thursday. Stec said he was told the Warren County District Attorney's Office was reviewing the law on the issue, and District Attorney Kate Hogan said that review was ongoing Thursday.
Tackett called the situation "a little nerve-wracking" and said the comment in the letter was meant metaphorically, not literally. He said he and Stec were in the same graduating class at Queensbury High School, and Stec should know that there was no threat intended.
He said the police officer who came to his home "kind of chuckled about it." Tackett said he believed Stec was pushing the issue as part of his effort to run for Congress.
"He's got a big career move coming up and he's acting foolishly," Tackett said. "I guess you have to tiptoe around these politicians."
He added with a chuckle, "I left my garage door open, I hope they don't see all the torches stacked up in there."
Stec said police told him Tackett was apologetic, and that he told the officer that the comment was not intended as a threat.
Stec said most of the people he spoke with said they viewed it as a threat.
He said his goal was to get an order of protection barring Tackett from his property.
"He crossed the line for me," Stec said. "You threaten me, I'm going to call the police. I'm going to err on the side of caution."
Stec said, "I'm all for the First Amendment" and said he has endured his share of critical letters to the editor, but he wondered why a letter that could be viewed as making a threat was published.
About the accident, Stec said the town is simply following state law, and it is among a number of municipalities that have questioned the statute.
Stec said he wrote to the town's insurance carrier to ask that it review Tucker's situation, because the decision not to pay the claim may have been made before all of the facts of the crash were known. He said he had planned to ask for that review before Tackett wrote his letter to the paper.
He said he also wrote to state Sen. Elizabeth Little, R-Queensbury, and Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward, R-Willsboro, asking them "to review this law and consider whether it should be revised out of fairness concerns."
Seems questionable whether the state law should apply to a moving violation by a snow plow. As opposed to avoiding liability for some (static) property damage a snow plow might do.
The only time I've ever seen state maintenance vehicles exempt from the rules is with regard to registration and license plates. They are still liable for any damage caused.
I guess their government is playing by a different set of Queensbury rules.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.