SCHENECTADY, N.Y. – Authorities say there has been an arrest in the arson fire at 22 Mynderse Street which happened Wednesday.
The Schenectady Police Department and the Schenectady Fire Department held a joint press conference Thursday afternoon to announce the arrest of 25-year-old Matthew Tolliver.
Tolliver has been charged with Arson in the 3rd Degree and Assault in the 2nd Degree.
Although authorities say tips and surveillance cameras on a nearby home aided in the arrest of Tolliver, the man admitted to the crime on Wednesday night.
Tolliver told authorities his friend was evicted due to unsanitary living conditions. After Tolliver helped move his friend out of the home, Tolliver returned and torched the property. He reportedly used a lighter to set fire to some debris in the home.
Fire Chief Michael De La Rocco and Firefighter Michael Komazenski suffered minor injuries while battling the blaze.
De La Rocco said "This was all black. It looked like tar. But it was burned skin. This would not have occurred if it wasn't for the crime taking place, so its an associated charge with the crime of arson."
The home had to be torn down on Wednesday night. No one was in the house at the time of the fire.
Currently, Tolliver is in Schenectady County Jail. There is no word on the motive.
De La Rocco said "This was all black. It looked like tar. But it was burned skin. This would not have occurred if it wasn't for the crime taking place, so its an associated charge with the crime of arson."
can a nurse say that every time he/she gets stuck by a needle trying to medicate a person known to have HIV contracted from needle drug use?
so can a military vet say that the CRIME of war caused her/his amputation?
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
senders, at least they investigated the cause of the fire. Schenectady government hasn't been very curious about this kind of thing for quite some time.I'll take what I can get.
senders, at least they investigated the cause of the fire. Schenectady government hasn't been very curious about this kind of thing for quite some time.I'll take what I can get.
like I said....scorched earth policy is easy in Schenectady....pay a person without a good paying job more than they would get if they had a service job in schenectady and collect the insurance $$$$.....
you know the nice parking lot on Union St at the corner......pretty ain't it....they had to clean it up quick on a SUNDAY...
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
can a nurse say that every time he/she gets stuck by a needle trying to medicate a person known to have HIV contracted from needle drug use?
so can a military vet say that the CRIME of war caused her/his amputation?
Having HIV isn't a crime. Arson is. If someone dies in a fire caused by faulty electric, it is a tragedy and no one is charged. If some dies in an arson fire, it is a crime. This was arson, someone was injured, it's a chargeable crime and always has been.
Having HIV isn't a crime. Arson is. If someone dies in a fire caused by faulty electric, it is a tragedy and no one is charged. If some dies in an arson fire, it is a crime. This was arson, someone was injured, it's a chargeable crime and always has been.
it was a TIC....
because he chose to be a firefighter just like everyone else chooses their professions....
drawing your attention to the parking lot on Union by manhatten exchange....quick fire to quick clean up....
you don't think war is a crime?
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
because he chose to be a firefighter just like everyone else chooses their professions....
drawing your attention to the parking lot on Union by manhatten exchange....quick fire to quick clean up....
you don't think war is a crime?
No, it's a crime because the fire was a crime. This isn't new, and it isn't just Schenectady. A policeman chooses his job but if he walks in on robbery and is shot you don't just say oh well, it's part if the job, you prosecute the person for shooting the cop.
And I'll be honest, I don't know about any fire near Manhattdn exchange, I don't even know what Manhattan exchange is. And war has nothing to do with a fireman being hurt during an arson fire.
If you are mentally ill, psychotic even, and you physically attack a nurse in a mental hospital who is trying to treat you, you can now be arrested for assault. But I'm digressing.
The fire near Manhattan Exchange was a suspicious fire in a vacant building. The building was torn down too fast to ever determine the cause of the fire, but not so fast that the nearby bar was unable to hold its planned St. Patrick's Day party. The city merely had a large contingent of firemen stand around and babysit, because the building was so dangerous, you see. For several hours. Then the building was torn down, and a neighboring building that occupied the site of the desired parking lot "had to" be torn down as well, even though it was undamaged in the fire. Now we have a parking lot, another one, on a main corner downtown, on what was once an extremely architecturally impressive street. Great "planning".
senders, perhaps the reason for adding the charge for the injury is to keep the perpetrator behind bars a little longer. Otherwise he might be able to plead to criminal mischief or some such thing and be out in a month or so. This is Schenectady, remember.
If you are mentally ill, psychotic even, and you physically attack a nurse in a mental hospital who is trying to treat you, you can now be arrested for assault. But I'm digressing.
The fire near Manhattan Exchange was a suspicious fire in a vacant building. The building was torn down too fast to ever determine the cause of the fire, but not so fast that the nearby bar was unable to hold its planned St. Patrick's Day party. The city merely had a large contingent of firemen stand around and babysit, because the building was so dangerous, you see. For several hours. Then the building was torn down, and a neighboring building that occupied the site of the desired parking lot "had to" be torn down as well, even though it was undamaged in the fire. Now we have a parking lot, another one, on a main corner downtown, on what was once an extremely architecturally impressive street. Great "planning".
senders, perhaps the reason for adding the charge for the injury is to keep the perpetrator behind bars a little longer. Otherwise he might be able to plead to criminal mischief or some such thing and be out in a month or so. This is Schenectady, remember.
point being that a fireman or anyone else hurt in 'the line of some kind of duty' isn't any more important than another.....
war IS a crime arson IS a crime
he'll be out sooner to complete the 'jobs' he was hired to perform
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
point being that a fireman or anyone else hurt in 'the line of some kind of duty' isn't any more important than another.....
war IS a crime arson IS a crime
he'll be out sooner to complete the 'jobs' he was hired to perform
War is not a crime, senders. It never ever has been.
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
War is not a crime, senders. It never ever has been.
because of programming....but really....IT IS......
Quoted Text
Killing Innocent People is Wrong
Does that make war immoral?
Exploring: Philosophy > Ethics & Morality > War & Morality --> --> • War & Morality • What is War? • Moralitiy of War • Just War Theory • Pacifism and War • Defending War • Defending Peace • Ethics and Morality
• Philosophy • Introduction to Philosophy • Biographies of Philosophers • Schools of Philosophy • Branches of Philosophy
• Site Resources • Main Site Index
• What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews
• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!
• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!
One of the most common antiwar arguments is the fact that wars result in the deaths of innocent people. This objection accepts that a state may have a vested interest in pursuing attackers and even killing them, but points out that the justice involved with such actions is quickly offset when innocent lives are put at risk or even lost. This deontological position argues that genuine justice requires that we preserve the lives of the innocent: terror is not a moral response to terror and killing innocent people is not a moral response to the deaths of innocent people.
This can be a powerful argument because it cuts right to the heart of even the most justified wars. For example, if a nation is the victim of an unprovoked attack and thousands of citizens and/or military personnel who have done nothing wrong are killed, there is an immediate desire to retaliate and punish those responsible. Surely if any war is justified, then such a war of self-defense and retaliation should be.
However, if the responding nation also kills innocent people as part of its quest for justice, isn't it committing an injustice of similar scope as that which caused it to engage in warfare in the first place? Why was it wrong for the attacking government to kill innocents as part of its goals, but not wrong for the responding nation? Aren't both cases examples of serious (even if not quite equivalent) injustice?
A further pragmatic point is that if the killing of innocents is part of even a justified response to an attack, this will cause resentment and hatred which will, over time, simply fuel a continual circle of violence and counter-violence. Thus, even if there are no deontological reasons to refrain from a retaliation which kills innocent people, there may be very sound pragmatic reasons to hesitate and/or seek other solutions.
Upon closer inspection we can find that this argument suffers from a number of weaknesses. The primary problem comes in distinguishing between the "innocent" and those who are justified targets of warfare. Traditionally this distinction is the same as the one between the military and civilians or combatants and noncombatants, but that isn't always justified. Who is a more justified target: a conscript on the front lines who would rather be home tending a garden, or a political functionary back home who is happily in charge of conscripting gardeners?
Who is a more justified target: a general who disagrees with the war but feels that he must "do his duty" and follow the orders of his political superiors, or a propagandist who would never actually join the military herself but who actively supports the war and is in fact personally responsible for whipping the populace into a war-frenzy? Neither the military/civilian nor the combatant/noncombatant distinction appears entirely justified here.
There are also further complications when we consider the situation of democracies. In a democracy the people are sovereign, and as such can be held accountable for the actions of their government. Even those who vehemently disagree with the government participate in the democratic process and as a consequence implicitly accept the fact that the results may be disagreeable. If all participants share some responsibility for the results, can it really be said that anyone of voting age in a democratic state can be excluded as a legitimate target in a war?
About Poll Which arguments do you think justify eliminating war? Killing Innocent People is Wrong Life is Sacred Just War Standards Can't Be Met Wars Cannot Achieve Goals War is Too Great a Risk War Shouldn't be a Government Power Wars of Aggression are Wrong War Violates International Law War is Contrary to National Self-Interest None / None of the Above
Current Results
Finally, if the argument that "killing innocent civilians is wrong" is allowed to serve as a reason to reject warfare completely, we are led to adopt the principle that there is a genuine moral difference between acts of commission and acts of omission. To understand why, it must be kept in mind that this position rejects the possibility of any war in which innocent civilians must die being just or moral.
It is easy to imagine that a dictator is repressing a religious minority, even to the point of possible extermination, but economic and political sanctions have failed to cause any change in his policies. If the people are to be saved, only military action will suffice - but that, unfortunately, will result in the death of civilians, including some of those of the minority we are hoping to rescue.
If wars are immoral when they cause the deaths of innocent people, then such a war of liberation must also immoral. Does that mean that our only moral course of action is not to act at all, even though by not acting we allow innocent people to be exterminated anyway? Isn't such inaction at least as immoral as action?
The argument that we should not act in order to avoid killing innocents suggests that such an act of omission isn't as immoral as the act of commission (war). That is a deontological position because it privileges a moral rule (do not kill innocents) over the possible consequences (saving even more innocents); as such, it is something which might be argued by a deontological pacifist, but not a pragmatic pacifist.
Perhaps that is the most reasonable and most moral position available to us, but that isn't obviously true and there are good reasons to think that such a war, even if it has some unjust consequences, is ultimately the most just and moral course of action. It seems to be an error of this argument to assume that the deaths of innocent people always means that war is wrong, but it may nevertheless be a valid objection which a particular war must overcome in order to be justified.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
