Police reports for Newtown, Conn., for the period of June 13-20, 2020.
Published: Jun 25, 2020 10:19 AM
A 24-year-old Sandy Hook resident was arrested this week after Connecticut State Police were notified of a threatening tweet.
Sandy Hook Resident Arrested After Threat To Law EnforcementA 24-year-old Sandy Hook resident was arrested this week after Connecticut State Police were notified of a threatening tweet.A 24-year-old Sandy Hook resident was arrested yesterday after Connecticut State Police (CSP) were notified of a threatening tweet.On June 24 at 11:43 am, CSP received a complaint from a resident in Virginia, who reported a tweet on Twitter that has been posted at 11:39 am. The tweet said: “imma kill a cop today and when they ask me why I did it, imma tell them he was acting nervous and looked at me wrong.”CSP-Western District Major Crime Squad was assigned to investigate the incident. They were assisted by CSP Troopers from Troop A in Southbury.Within hours the accused was identified as Alexander Timothy Hassinger, 24, of Sandy Hook. Hassinger was located, and placed under arrest at his home.Hassinger was charged with Breach of Peace-Second Degree and Harassment-First Degree. He has been given a court appearance on July 15 at Waterbury Superior Court.Hassinger was released on a $10,000 Non-Surety Bond.
I would suggest you look up the Connecticut Constitution. The present one (that State and Local officials take an oath to uphold) was adopted by referendum, in 1965. Black people did vote in Connecticut then and were present at the Constitutional Convention. As to the Federal Constitution, it has been construed by the Supreme Court to apply to All Citizens.
Could The Bee please explain the article published last week, but not available on the website, about how Eversource had actually lowered generation rates, starting 7/1/2020? There was no mention of the rate increase that folks are complaining about. I have been quite confused about what is going on, although of course what matters most is the "amount due" on the bill. The regulations and the way our bills are broken out are confusing, but it doesn't help when the local news source seems to be reporting something so different from what people are actually experiencing.
Not a criticism of you, but I am appalled you had to define "Pandora's Box". What is the state of our education system.
Good points all, and they have kept coming up since we purchased Fairfield Hills all these years ago.
What will the effect be on our municipal services. Will we need more police ? Will our all volunteer Fire Departments be able to handle the building project at completion. (Last year the Fire Chief in Brookfield spoke against a apartment project saying in part, they did not have sufficient apparatus and in the event of a major incident they could not guarantee sufficient manpower.)
What exactly is "affordable housing". I know it is a percentage of the median income. My brother lives in Stamford. A developer got around zoning by building affordable units. To qualify you can make up to $80,000 a year. Of course they are making rents at the high end of "affordable".
We need to do something with Fairfield Hills. Maybe we should have gone with a golf course or Horse facility. It is not generating any tax revenue, is taking money from the town, and those abandoned buildings, and tunnels underneath, are becomming more and more dangerous every year.
While I concur that labelling people or judging people is not helpful or right, there are some inconsistencies in what is written here.
First, for many, masks are not being pushed nor are they being worn to protect the wearer. Informed wearers understand that a primary benefit of wearing a mask is to protect those around us - to prevent the wearer for transmitting the disease to others - not to protect themselves. It is known that even asymptomatic people can spread the virus. The last paragraph in the letter acknowledges that masks trap the virus or particles or droplets that carry the virus. A main mode of disease transmission is for such droplets to reach an uninfected person. So, unless one believes that a mask is 100% transmissive - that is, it does not at all restrict the flow of particles or droplets - then there is unquestionably some level of risk reduction for people in the vicinity of the mask wearer. We can debate the degree of risk reduction, but it is certainly more than not wearing a mask at all. In making the personal choice not to wear a mask and then go to public places where one might come into contact with others, one is choosing to not to provide whatever degree of protection a mask provides to others in that public place. I am not passing judgement or labelling anyone who chooses not to wear a mask. Where it gets complicated is making that choice, thereby increasing risks for people around us. For example, should it be a personal choice for students returning to classrooms in the fall as to whether to wear a mask or not?