My eyes are watering buckets of tears for poor, self-described "victim" Councilwoman Toffler, who believes laws do not apply to her. If she breaks them, she is entitled to a pass as some resident do not agree with her leftist, tax-crazy, and destructive views about what is good for Teaneck. She deems being caught on camera leaving the scene of an accident to be "retaliation." How horrible. Police Brutality. Let's organize a million people to march on Washington to protest the unspeakably horrible, "retaliation" against this scofflaw. It is the injustice of the century.

This is a minor incident which Councilwoman Toffler will undoubtedly address. It hardly even qualifies as news given the many serious incidents the town is grappling with, including the unsolved heinous murder of Joan Davis. I don't even think the writer Sarna would disagree that Toffler will respond directly and forthrightly to any charges related to the fender bender. I am curious about the level of sarcasm and invective Sarna uses in his depiction of a local civil servant. Had the town listened to Toffler about the ill-fated appointment of a public safety director we would have been spared the waste of time, embarrassment and potential expense of a lawsuit. Frankly, I've been the recipient of damning emails and letter writing campaigns attempting to malign the councilwoman, so her charges are probably not unfounded. Sarna's charges however, I'm not so sure of.

Please, Ms. DeVoe, re-read what I said. What charges did I level? That some residents think Ms. Toffler is leftist, tax-crazy, and holds destructive views about what is good for Teaneck? Well, for you information, many residents do believe exactly that.

I did not say that Ms. Toffler should not get a pass for fleeing the scene of an accident. The Police did.

I certainly did not say that properly charging her was "retaliation." Ms. Toffler said so.

Ms. Toffler's inexcusable charges are demagoguery, pure and simple. Criticize her for breaking the law, and it is "retaliation."

Come on.

The jury is still very much out on the appointment of a public safety director, and in any event it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ms. Toffler's belief that she is somehow above the law.

Ms. DeVoe's comment is a total non-sequitur, which is OK. But it is troubling to see her try to defend the indefensible within the context of a democratic society, just because she she agrees with Ms. Toffler on this or that view on a local issue.

It is unlikely that the police officer looking at the film had any idea who was the car owner who fled the scene of an accident. The police officer saw a law being broken. He or she issued a summons. There is not a scintilla of evidence that there was any kind of retaliation. Those on the left should study how much they suffered for their views during the McCarthey era before making McCarthey-like unsubstantiated charges full of innuendo.

I think this incident would be a "big nothing" if she would have done the right thing - "I'm embarrassed that I didn't get out and leave my card -- but I didn't, thinking there was no damage," Toffler said in an e-mail Thursday. "A video camera picked up the incident, the car owner and I have spoken, and if there is any repair cost I will pay it."

In addition, people do stuff like this all the time and it isn't publicized but at least for the last year, Ms. T has been so disrespectful to the citizens of Teaneck at Council Meetings that human nature is they will make a big deal out of a small thing. Think Leona Helmsley...

"Hmm, in a post snowstorm situation with dirty snowbanks and dirty cars, it seems possible that a driver could feel like they had hit an object and, bothering to inspect, see no damage. Late model cars with "5 mile an hour" bumper designs are, after all, designed to suffer no damage from low speed contact. Could any of us say, without a doubt, that they would have behaved differently? Using this event as an excuse to attack a Council member seems pretty much a stretch to me."
Art Vatsky

Why is this so news worthy?? Once the identification of both parties were known, the police's job was done. Certainly Ms. T. should have left her card, but thats the purpose of the cameras and insurance policies. Can we move on to more important issues?

Mr. Thornton asks a reasonable question.
As they say, "dog bites man" is not news. "man bites dog" is news.
No one in Teaneck should care about the incident itself. Indeed, it isn't newsworthy. But when an elected councilwoman makes false and unsubstantiated charges that she was "targeted" by the police in "retaliation" for her views, then she has crossed a line. It becomes everyone's business. It is, in fact. McCarthyism. She is attempting to intimidate with vague, unsubstantiated charges. It is very wrong.
No matter what one's views on an matter before the Council, Ms. Toffler's response to getting a ticket was wrong. And it is noteworthy because it reflects very badly on her character. She needs to publicly apologize to the Police that she besmirched, as well as to all the citizens of Teaneck. Then (and not before) there will be cloture on the incident.