Letters: New York unfriendly to gun maker

Good riddance to Remington Arms. I'm delighted that the gun maker is moving two of its top-selling lines from Ilion, outside of Albany, to firearms-friendly Alabama.

Remington's Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle was Adam Lanza's main weapon at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. The R1 pistol, which also will be manufactured out of state, is another serious firearm.

It's sad that 80 New York employees will lose their jobs, but their wages are blood money. Our cemeteries and hospitals are filled with the results of Remington's products. Why doesn't Remington remove its entire weapons arsenal from New York?

Pack up everything -- lock, stock and gun barrel -- and leave. We don't need a merchant of murder here.

Dick Reif, Flushing

I find Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's stance on gun control extremist. His policies have driven out corporations with historical significance, such as Remington Arms.

By the way, people do hunt with semi-automatic rifles like the ones the state banned.

Larry Cowden, South Hempstead

Carnal cop gets light punishment

The article "Ex-cop's guilty plea" about the renegade Officer Michael Tedesco leaves me perplexed [News, May 13]. This man violated the public trust and his oath of office. While he was paid $182,000 a year, he was shacking up with two different women, for as much as six hours a shift.

Newsday reports that this went on for "hundreds of hours." Apparently his carnal needs overcame "alarms, domestic disturbances and a report of a possible cardiac arrest," and resulted in numerous delayed 911 responses. Then he tampered with and falsified the records and lied about his work activity.

And so what happened to this crooked cop? He will forfeit some termination pay, but not his pension, and will have to perform 100 hours of community service and pay $3,700 in restitution. This is an outrage!

It is also an open invitation to any wayward cop inclined to do this sort of thing in the future. The punishment essentially says, "Go ahead, violate the public trust, put the public at risk. The worst that will happen is you may have to pay back some money that you didn't earn anyway."

William Bernstein, Dix Hills

The fact that there will be no jail time, only the forfeiture of termination pay and 100 hours of community service, for ex-Police Officer Michael Tedesco is not a "win for taxpayers," as Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice portrayed it.

Nor is it a "very fair, a very decent resolution of the charges he was facing," as his attorney, Bruce Barket, said.

It is a travesty for Nassau taxpayers because the charges Tedesco faced, misdemeanors and felonies, had to do with his official responsibilities to serve and protect the public. Instead, he spent hours at a time with his mistresses. Other officers on patrol had to do not only their jobs, but also his as well. And for this he gets to keep his pension!

His pension will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars over his lifetime. His was not a one-time mistake, but a pattern of behavior over an extended period. That certainly demands the loss of his pension.

The law must be changed so that public servants automatically lose their pensions if they are guilty of criminal charges that relate directly to the performance of their public trust.

Police officers, legislators and those involved in criminal justice must be held to a higher standard once they raise their right hands and take the oath to faithfully serve, protect and defend.

William Plackenmeyer, Deer Park

Editor's note: The writer is a retired New York City police captain.

School cameras won't prevent speeding

After reading "Nearly hit by school zone speeder" [Letters, May 15], I noticed that the writer believes that a speed camera would have prevented the speeding. Possibly.

The flaw with the camera system -- and the proof that they are mainly for monetary gain -- is that officials take your money after the dangerous speeding has already taken place.

If local politicians want to prove they have safety in mind, they would look to prevent even the first offense, instead of ticketing afterward.

Try adding a blinking yellow light and a sign warning drivers that a speed camera is active up ahead. You will see accidents prevented.

Dan Didden, North Merrick

The reduction in accidents attributed to red-light cameras is certainly good news ["Nassau red light cameras," News, May 19]. Motorists seem to be driving with increased caution, and the decrease in accidents is proof that the cameras are doing what they were intended to do.

If the cameras were meant only to improve safety, then the decreased revenues should not be a concern, and the fines should remain at their present level. Unfortunately, that may not be the case.

In Orlando, a prominently displayed sign indicates the fine for a red-light camera violation is $283. Hopefully, our counties will be satisfied with the positive safety results and not seek to use the cameras to continue to increase revenue.

Robert Caskey, Miller Place