Printable View
The first Sonoma County Sheriff Candidates forum is scheduled for:
Thursday, September 28 at 5:30 PM - 8 PM
at the Santa Rosa Veterans Building.
So far, it seems Carlos Basurto, Mark Essick, Jay Foxworthy, John Mutz and Ernesto Oliveras are running.
Being that this is such an important elected position, I am curious to know what you know and think of these candidates.
Hopefully, we can have a civil and educational discourse as we gather information to VOTE!
I have endorsed Jay Foxworthy, currently a deputy in the San Francisco Police Department. He lives here in Sonoma County. I have posted something about him elsewhere on Waccobb.net. He was brought to my attention by a progressive Santa Rosa City Council member.
i suggest people go online and check out the Community Action Coalition who held some interviews with various candidates. this is a good way to become informed considering the office of the Sheriff has run un-opposed for a quarter of a century, i'd say it's about time a little democracy started to play out in this county.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Laguna Farm:
I agree. This is a very important position, influencing, among other important issues, how inmates are handled in the jail. Please take the advice just mentioned to check out interviews with the candidates.
Seems a little soon to endorse anyone. Thank the Goddess we have choice this time. The last elected lawman took the department in the wrong direction and I worry that his appointee with throw in his hat despite promises. If you're interested in justice and the people who have no hope for it, this is the most important electoral choice here in soco. Foxworthy is cool, munce too, oleveras nix. Let's check them out and see who can handle a high pressure public job with intense player pressure, and still retain compassion while leading law enforcement in a new direction. Hope there's a video for the first meet and greet.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
The following from sheriff candidate Jay Foxworthy announces his Nov. 16, 6 p.m. Campaign Kickoff at the Glaser Center in Santa Rosa. Note the first paragraph, which is an argument by many at that link against the claim that it is to early to make an endorsement. Carpe Deim! Seize the time!
These first couple of months of campaigning have been a whirlwind!
I'm very proud of the endorsements I've earned so far, including from former State Senator Mark Leno, Pennsylvania State Representative Brian Sims, Petaluma Mayor David Glass, Santa Rosa City Councilwoman Julie Combs, dozens of law enforcement officers, and scores of community leaders.
I've met so many amazing people individually that now I just want to bring everyone together and kickoff this campaign with a big party!
Please Save the Date for our official Campaign Kickoff (more details to follow):
November 16 (Thurs.) at 6:00 PM
The Glaser Center
547 Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa
Our DONATE page is ready to take your contribution for this major fundraising event. You can also RSVP on our Facebook Event Page or by emailing my campaign manager Victoria at [email protected]. No one will be turned away for lack of funds.
We all know the challenges we face locally, and nationally. We know they're serious and we know what's at stake. I remain steadfast in my promise to run an honest campaign where the most important issues are debated openly... but that doesn't mean we can't have fun every once in a while.
Please save November 16 at 6:00 PM in your calendar and support my campaign to "Serve All of Sonoma County" as our next Sheriff.
Sincerely, Jay Foxworthy
[email protected]
707-235-5713
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Captain Mark Essick has my support-he is in West County constantly and responds when ever needed for questions/issues, etc. He is aware change is needed out here.
it's most important to really check out these people. i am sorry to say that if every Progressive in the County who could vote, did vote, Foxworthy wouldn't make it and yet, he is the most honest candidate. he is the most forthright, and truly wants to see change in this county- which is so sorely needed as we've had nothing for many years remotely resembling a Sheriff Dept. that serves the communities it's supposed to be protecting. there has been a thug mentality in this county for way too long- if people are really interested in change and some equality then take this election seriously.
Mutz, also has a track record of change and has been in Law Enforcement for many many years (if i'm not mistaken twice as long as Foxworthy. and he at least tries to listen intently to what the deep problems are in our county.
Essick was the Deputy who was in charge and commander for the complete debacle a few years back where a man in Larkfield killed himself. they came in with military equipment and destroyed his home- this man was alone in his home, he had had an argument with his wife who was no longer in the house by the way, they came in without a warrant, without even so much as negotiations or mental health crisis individuals even though they had many hours to talk this scared individual out. it was a mess, and Essick refuses to hold any responsibility whatsoever.
Essick was also on the Task Force, a shill for Freitas, he did not participate hardly at all, and he voted down 20 of the 21 final recommendations the task force proposed to the Board of Supervisors. (Really) he never wanted change then- he certainly does not want it now. status quo is good enough for him...and most recently, he answered questions by some activists, and basically, most of his answers were that he won't change anything unless he is Forced by law to do so. Wow! way to go. he refused to be interviewed by the Community Action Coalition, who are conducting interviews with various candidates, he is arrogant, dangerous and incapable of change....
Olivares, and Basurto, are lock-step cops (keep in mind Freitas supports Basurto), and you know what we got with Freitas, a Sheriff who never engaged with the community, backed up thug cops, allowed profiling, refused to give Eric Gelhaus (who killed Andy Lopez) a desk job even though communities are scared shitless of him..and he left early because Gawd forbid the huge lawsuits which the County will be paying out for Sheriff misconduct, he wouldn't want it to be on his watch! and Freitas was informed many many times over the years that the Civil Rights Commission when they came here 20 years ago, strongly recommended Sonoma County needed Oversight of Law Enforcement. he resisted it throughout his term, he resisted it every step of the way, and even after Andy Lopez was killed, he refused to allow the Board of Supervisors to use the word "oversight" in their new office which now must be called "overview". Essick supported Freitas and All his policies.
i don't support any of these people by the way- would have supported Foxworthy however, he supports the use of tasers which have killed hundreds of people across this country-
and lastly, if anyone has the stomach for it, Watch the movie "Killing them Safely"!
Tasers are now used in many law enforcement departments across the country..there is no oversight of them, and they were basically sold to LE by private taser company- they Kill, they are a lethal weapon. and if law enforcement tells you they are "less lethal" they are lying to you...you can't have the word "less" in there.
FYI y'all: John Crowley and Matt Maguire are at it again: Two Micks and a Mic will be airing tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. on 103.3 FM, KPCA. We will also be streaming live at www.kpca.fm. Hit the Listen Live button to connect on line.
In addition to our usual political and community commentary, we are having John Mutz, one of the two progressive candidates for County Sheriff, on as our guest.
On another forum Essick the candidate implored the public to call in to the sheriff if something needs to be taken care of. "If you don't call we won't know". OK, fair enough. Then people brought up several long standing issues in the river community, specific things that had been openly going on for 10 years or more like meth dealing houses. Folks said we call and call but nothing ever gets done. Essick goes silent. Same old stuff with Essick, I fear.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Codyboy1:
Progressive candidates will alienate moderate voters and boost Essick over the top.
They'd be better served by thinking hard about what their message should be. Essick is actually vulnerable on issues he is presumed to be strong on. The one mentioned above is a good example.
What IS your message??? Can you speak to moderate voters as well?
unfortunately, Essick already has the backing of the Sheriff"s Union, wholeheartedly.
yes, it seems he may wel be the next Sheriff and so the seemingly un-opposed elections for the last quarter of a century, were coming to an end and there might finally be a choice, it will not be so.
Essick, though he claims he was not an (official) member of the Task Force and was only doing the bidding of Sheriff Freitas, as some have said, Freitas didn't put a gun to his head....he could have voted freely.
however, he chose to be Freitas' shill and an impediment to any real oversight of law enforcement in our County. Moderates should be asking him "Why"?... it speaks volumes as to what his leadership will look like and so there is no surprise here.
Moderate voters must look at his record and his efforts towards healthy change for Sonoma County or whether it's still going to be a them vs. us mentality when it comes to law enforcement. and to what purpose would that serve?E]
I hope that everyone in Sonoma County takes the time to visit the candidate's web pages and read their policies. Oh, wait I am the only candidate talking about policy and telling people what it is I want to do as Sheriff. This election is so important for the future of Law Enforcement in our county the way we deal with immigration and homelessness are just two of the many important issues we face. I am posting down below a link to my policy page.
https://wwww.foxworthyforsheriff.com...fs-office.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3DWcPGJA64&t=6s
Jay A. Foxworthy
As many of you know about me, my family is the most important part of my life. My husband and my children are my world. It is with a very heavy heart that I have to share that my family is going through a major medical crisis. This crisis will take all of our time and attention to heal and to make sure that our family can one day be healthy and whole again. I appreciate everyone respecting my family’s privacy as we go through this process.
Therefore, I’m announcing the difficult decision to end my campaign for Sonoma County Sheriff.
I do not make this decision lightly. I have taken some time to consider how I might both take care of my family, and continue to talk about the issues that I deeply care about seeing changed in our county. For me, this race was always about making sure my home county was a safe place for everyone; a place where no one should have to feel afraid or unsafe. I still very much care about these issues and will continue to raise my voice in support of that change. I will continue to talk about immigration, Andy Lopez, the demonization of the homeless, and yard counseling, because I believe that these issues are important for all of us in Sonoma County.
I have been struggling with whether or not I should attend the Candidate Forum scheduled for Thursday, September 28. After much thought and seeking the council of others, I feel like I would do more harm than good if I participated in this this important public forum while knowing I could not continue in the campaign. I have withdrawn from the forum, but I do hope the remaining four candidates will engage in a robust debate in my absence.
For much of my life, I have had to overcome obstacles. From growing up with a mentally ill and substance abusing parent and being raised homeless, to fighting for the right to be an openly gay husband and a father, my unique experiences have taught me the power of using one’s voice for change. It was my hope to be that voice for those who feel like they have don’t have one in our Sheriff’s Department. But to those who are feeling silenced and powerless, let me assure you… you do have a voice and a right to be heard.
I will continue to speak up and to use my voice where I can. But my family needs this time to take care of each other and I am asking your understanding in this.
I am forever grateful for your support.
Sincerely,
Jay Foxworthy
We are so sad to hear he has just withdrawn!
A refreshingly open and honest statement, in addition to being a sad one. This is an example of the kind of person we need more of in politics. My hope is that healing can happen for this family, for the highest good of all concerned. Thank you Jay for being who you are, and sharing your truth with us.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
Today's PD has an article on yesterday's forum of candidates for sheriff. Did any of you go? If so, what was your take-away? After listening, whom do you support and why?
To Jay Foxworthy: I'm very sorry to hear of the medical difficulties your family is undergoing. You would have, without question, been my #1 hope for our new Sheriff...we need voices like yours! I wish you well, and hope that you may be available again in the future to help us to be heard. Thank you, and best wishes, dustyg
yes, he Was probably the Only candidate with a heart and wanted to see systemic change. this is not to say he didn't have need some education on some important issues in the Sheriff Department since they've been allowed to run amok and lack discipline for so long they need a tremendous amount of work- well, simply, they have needed "Oversight" for which we still basically have nothing except a very impotent overview office that can't oversee anything whatsoever, except Administration misconduct affairs...that's it!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:
It is down to only three at this point, UNFORTUNATELY. I'd vote for Mutz, arriving st that by the process of elimination.
Here is the Press Democrat summary of the recent debate.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/8...-violence-spur
excerpt -
Essick, 48, of Cloverdale, the only one of the three still working in law enforcement, agreed with Mutz on the need for the sheriff to be “standing on the front porch” and “taking the heat” when things go bad.
But he said Mutz’s promise to make the department workforce half women in four or five years was not realistic because of recruitment challenges.
And he criticized his opponents as lacking the current experience to manage a department with 650 employees and a $180 million budget. Olivares retired from police work 10 years ago and Mutz has been off the force for nearly 20 years, he said.
“I wouldn’t vote for either of them,” Essick said when asked to rate the two men. “They are not qualified to run the Sheriff’s Office.”
The response by the candidate endorsed by rank-and-file deputies, outgoing Sheriff Rob Giordano and most of the Board of Supervisors drew some boos.
From following this important sheriff's election and reading the entire PD article, I plan to stick with my plan to vote for Mutz. Both of the other candidates would clearly continue practices as usual, which include the unnecessary and even rewarding of the killing of Andy Lopez.
Mutz is surely the Only candidate who might have an iota of integrity to take this job on. i've debated with dear activist friends for months about Mutz because i know he isn't the "answer". However, i acknowledge, he is has more than enough understanding of how dysfunctional law enforcement is in this county.
we have a less than useless DA so law enforcement has no accountability and we can be sure if Essick is elected nothing will change.
Essick is a sociopath. his history in law enforcement is a shame; as he is Everything we don't want in a peace officer...he is brutal, and he supported Freitas' policies without hesitation. Mark Essick was the commanding SWAT team officer, the reckless handling of what should have been a simple response, reigned down hell on a man named Glen Swindell's home in Larkfield a few years back; the Sheriff Department virtually destroyed his home, terrorized the community, and when it was all done, Glen had killed himself (if i even believe that because no real investigation was done)..he destroyed a family, left two children without their father, a man who had never had trouble with law enforcement, had had an argument with his wife, she left the home, he was no longer considered a threat. But, Mark Essick escalated a simple dispute into a full blown arsenal attack. and people of this county should be appalled at this lack of control from Essick. Essick was on the Task Force set up by the Board, after Andy Lopez was killed by Erick Gelhaus to study and make recommendations to better serve the people of Sonoma County. Mark Essick was put on by Freitas, and though he now claims his vote were not his own recommendations but he was representing the Sheriff, why should we believe him?
At that time families in the area came to speak about the lack of communication, and lack of respect they received from the Sheriff Department when their loved ones were killed. Glen Swindell’s wife came that night and spoke too. The whole time these families poured their broken hearts out, Essick was on his Ipad, or phone and didn’t bother to look up or pay any attention to these people. His behavior that night was actually pretty indicative of his overall attitude throughout the Task Force meetings. He voted against any oversight of law enforcement too (oh, I guess he was voting for Freitas) of the 21 recommendations that finally came before the Board of Supervisors, Essick voted against 20 of them. The only thing he was proud of supporting was more law enforcement presence in schools and to add insult to injury, he has turned a blind eye to jail beatings in recent years.
A vote for Essick is like going from the frying pan to the fire and if a picture is a thousand words, take a look at the picture here on Wacco of Essick at the debate-
I first met Mutz when a few years back he came here with an ex-sheriff of Utah, Dub Lawrence and they screened the movie Peace Officer. Dub Lawrence is an officer we Wish we could have here and Mutz was his friend. I’m surprised he decided to run but he realizes it’s a mess here, the good ole boys thug mentality of the Sheriff Department, and I think he would like to see us do better, a lot better. and I hope he can, I only wish he had more support of law enforcement. Then again, why would they want to see a change when they can get away with so much brutality now.
Yes, yes, YES!!!
Met him a few weeks ago at a Rebuild Sonoma meeting and my mind was made up right then and there.
For all who'd like to see how you can support his election AND THE FIRST REAL CHANGE OF SHERIFF IN DECADES get in touch with him at https://johnmutzforsonomasheriff.com/contact-us/
Blessings, Jude
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:
I'm definitely voting for Mutz.
He is truly doing community outreach:
1.He was at the "Whose Streets" movie tonight(documentary about the police brutality involved during and after the killing of Michael Brown, ie. "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!").
2.I met him at the Martin Luther King celebration this year,
.
3.He also went to the recent Sebastopol Women's Rally, and
Several of my friends affiliated with Sonoma County Peace and Justice Center (aka PJC, in Santa Rosa) told me that as well as
4. Mutz attended the PJC's award dinner,
5.Mutz also made a presentation at the Peace and Justice Center.
According to some of Mutz's campaign literature, he was involved in law enforcement during and after the incident involving Rodney King and abusive police, pulling the community back together.
He probably isn't perfect, but he seems waaaaay better than the other candidates.
He seems truly sincere about listening and responding to people, ( including me).
Check out his campaign literature--way different than the usual crap.
Mark Essick is the “ONLY” one for West County-he cares about us and walks the talk-Muth has not worked in law enforcement in 40 years-but loves to go to liberal meetings-really?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:
Actually, Marcy, Essick is the "more of the same" candidate. He implores citizens to call about tweeker dealer houses and then when folks respond by saying we do call, over and over but nothing ever happens, well, then that's when he goes silent. He is big on lip service, short on results.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Codyboy1:
Amazingly when ever any of us from FROG or other Community groups email or FB him-he {Essick} responds and action is taken -even when he is off duty. So we all have different opinions-no accusations needed.
I recall having very active methamphetamine dealing going on next door at the slum rental and the Sheriff Office allowed it to go on a very long time. I couldn't believe it. What are we paying taxes for? Is there no awareness at all? Not only was it a nuisance to me, but think of all the brain damage being done to the users, and the affiliated crime such as theft to raise drug buying money, associated domestic violence related to drug use, increased homelessness resulting from drug use. I attribute most of the meth problem in this county to Sheriff Office incompetence.
The particular drug house was only put to an end by eviction by the landlord, with whom I had a contentious relationship. No credit to the Sheriff's Office. Sometimes I think the Sheriff wants lots of drug users running around because it represents job security for them.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6...micide-suspect
This is what you get when you have incompetent law enforcement unwilling to crack down on methamphetamine: (I went to school with this guy's father btw.)
Dalton Carlson was agitated and armed with a hammer, knife and ammunition outside the west Santa Rosa home he once shared with his estranged wife when police officers arrived Friday morning.
His wife, Jessica Carlson, was dead in the kitchen, killed in a savage attack.
They suspected Carlson — described as disturbed and “running around the street” — was on a stimulant like methamphetamine, and neighbors said he had smashed a car window and climbed on the roof of Jessica Carlson’s Glenbrook Drive home.
Yes-landlords and community responsible-unfortunately our DA does not like nuisance arrests-until they get deadly -Sheriff’s hands tied-anyway-enough said-don’t want to sucked into engagement vortex-just staying my own opinion re: Sheriff
Among the other places where Mr. Mutz came was the Sebastopol Grange. HIs presence was light and not dominating. It was good to see him there and connect with him. The list of community events below that he has attended is impressive and indicates that he would be likely to be a community-based sheriff.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
More of the same is an understatement- regarding Essick!
More brutality, more arrogance, more ignoring the needs of the communities, more contempt for people, more refusal of oversight of any kind of law enforcement, more refusal to hold officers accountable...more more more of Freitas in Essick's body-
absolutely nothing will change, except things can and Will get worse. Essick claims he has been in law enforcement for 20 years- to which I reply SO! So, what have you done?
Mutz has made changes to law enforcement in one of the the most difficult of places - Los Angelos- he has way more experience, honors the profession because he truly understands there does not need nor should there be, a divide between law enforcement and community- he has actually brought communities into the dialog; in the time he has become a candidate here in Sonoma he is constantly working at community outreach..
Whereas,
Essick seems to revel in making a deep divide and causing the "them/vs/us mentality
Essick has contempt for the public and if you take the time to listen to him at all he never speaks in terms of how much the public should be heard- we are treated like the old adage "we should be seen and not heard)
If people would take the time to engage personally with both these candidates, it wouldn't be long at all, you could not help recognize Essick is a deeply flawed individual..not fit for the job
And we should not be afraid of change.
As I stated-you have your opinion. I have met with both and spoken personally to them. As you already know-Mark Essick has shown our community already what he can do. Enough said
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:
Provide some specifics. Or am I supposed to already know? I'm a 5th district resident but not way out west, like I'm thinking you must mean when you say "our community." It's hardly "enough said" to someone who doesn't know what you're talking about.Quote:
As you already know-Mark Essick has shown our community already what he can do. Enough said
Well, you might be right about That- he sure has shown our community what he can do, And, it ain't Pretty. Quite dysfunctionalQuote:
Posted in reply to the post by Codyboy1:
Check out the info on Mutz. He will be a great Sheriff!
Swat Commander Essick led the unnecessary SWAT attack on the home of Glenn Swindell. Mark Essick is a SWAT Commander in both attitude and action. A small domestic verbal kerfuffle that started at 9 pm ended after only five hours - when Commander Essick ordered deputies to break down the front and garage doors with a military vehicle, send in flash-bang grenades and tear gas, and then sent a motorized lighted robot into the Swindell home after the hiding and frightened man. The terrified Glenn Swindell allegedly shot himself during the attack.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by MikeH:
Essick claimed he was bound by policy to make an arrest. Damage to the house, from broken windows and doors and toxic chemicals, was $300,000. Will Mark Essick ever be held accountable for his assault on the Swindell family? Will he ever explain why he just didn't simply wait the man out? Will he ever explain why he ESCALATED the situation into a full-out SWAT attack? No! If you thought Frietas was bad, wait till you have Essick! :(
What a pity we can't have Jay Foxworthy for sheriff! ...and I hope his family member's situation resolves quickly.
Of those who remain, Mutz is the least objectionable, even though he dodged and dodged and dodged questions, particularly those concerning the degree to which he would want the department to cooperate with ICE. I'll vote for him unless a miracle happens and Foxworthy or someone of his caliber appears on the ballot.
The PD did a good article on the 3 candidates for Sherrif, including this video that asks each candidate:
"Why change is needed in the department
and why they are the right person for the job?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhjCg7YRjo
See full PD article here.
I found this open statement on the Facebook page of Sheriff Candidate John Mutz. If anyone finds any other statement regarding this issue from the other candidates, I would love to read it.
"Open statement regarding the decision to bring the polarizing COPS show to our community:
I would strongly urge the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office to reconsider their current arrangement to partner with the television show COPS here in our community. At a time when our community is working to rebuild, this seems particularly tone-deaf. I can’t imagine any community would want to be portrayed this way on national television, but especially one still very much in a place of recovery and healing.
Even more astonishing, it appears that the Sheriff’s Office has chosen Erick Gelhaus to be a liaison for this project — the same controversial deputy who killed young Andy Lopez in Roseland in 2013. This decision demonstrates a shocking level of insensitivity and highlights how profoundly out of touch our Sheriff’s office is with their community.
Not one part of this project is in the best interests of our communities. I strongly oppose this project, and emphatically urge the department to revisit this decision."
#SonomaStrong
- Sheriff Candidate John Mutz
https://m.bohemian.com/northbay/acti...nt?oid=5964351
Mr. Mutz-you should know about the media-after all Rodney King happened on your watch.
Quit throwing stones at others. Let’s be solution oriented. Glad you attend all the little liberal events in Sebastopol-but forget to show up for a planned event in Guerneville!!
I don't know why Mr. Mutz missed the event in Guerneville, but I have him speak about the Rodney King debacle and how much he learned from that experience and how it changed his outlook on law enforcement.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Codyboy1:
Those who have been to war can often speak more eloquently on the horrors than those of us who perhaps realized earlier what these wars are about. Disagreeing with an absurd decision by a part of county government is hardly throwing stones...
Abraham Entin
We can agree to disagree-I as senior value experience-and I am for community policing. Captain Essick can do both-and values his constituents enough to show up-a lot!
With regard to the Rodney King beating happening on "Mutz's watch", there is a letter in Friday's Press Democrat which seems to pretty much absolve John Mutz from any blame:
"Mutz’s track record
EDITOR: I retired from the Los Angeles Police Department and have lived in Sonoma County for 30 years. While I didn’t have the honor of serving directly under Capt. John Mutz, I am very familiar with his record. I read the letter from the past president of the Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (“Choosing a sheriff,” Letters, April 27), and I want to set the record straight.
First, Mutz was transferred to the Foothill Division a few weeks before the Rodney King beating. More important, before people began filming these incidents there was no interest in reform from chiefs or sheriffs (or deputies’ associations) anywhere. This incident and its aftermath were awful, but afterward the LAPD had to reform. This gave Mutz an opening to introduce and lead the changes he had been trying to make.
Mark Essick is suddenly in favor of accountability, standing up for immigrants, diversity. What has he been doing the past 20 years while no one was looking?
Mutz has been a champion of reform, transparency and community engagement for more than 25 years. It would be great if the Sonoma Sheriff’s Office could start that now. Please join me in voting for John Mutz on June 5.
TONY PIAZZA"
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Codyboy1:
I appreciate this former police officer for speaking up on behalf of Capt. John Mutz and setting the record straight and Luke for posting this important information. Mutz is the man to vote for.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by luke32:
Poll: Two candidates emerge as front-runners in race for Sonoma County sheriff job
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8...rge-as?sba=AAS
I participated in this Press Democrat Poll. The results are disappointing. Essick and Olivares 24% each and Mutz 10% in voter support.
Here's some excerpts I found interesting:
Petaluma-based political analyst Brian Sobel said he has observed strong support for Mutz among community groups looking for a candidate who vows to make big changes to Sheriff’s Office practices.
Poll respondent Andrea Michelsen, 71, of Healdsburg said she intends to vote for Mutz.
“He’s an outsider,” she said. “I think he’ll bring a fresh perspective to the department and doesn’t have baggage.”
The fatal shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a sheriff’s deputy five years ago left “a real scar” on the community, Michelsen said. “I think more could be done to build back the trust and I’m not sure the Sheriff’s Office has taken a real leadership stand in that.”
Rohnert Park resident Angela Coffman was among the poll participants who has yet to back a candidate in the sheriff’s race. Coffman, 45, said she planned to sit down soon and study the candidates’ biographies included in the Sonoma County voter guide recently mailed to her home.
She’s most interested in the candidates’ statements about homelessness and substance abuse, particularly problems with people abusing drugs in public.
“The drug problem that’s going on and the homeless problem are huge concerns, and I think that directly affects the sheriff’s department,” Coffman said in an interview.
“I think there need to be multiple offices involved in fixing it, and I don’t see that happening.”
Do you ever wonder how accurate these polls really are?
I do not trust the integrity of the polls and I vote for who I think is the best candidate...not who the polls say is winning.
Juna
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by MikeH:
I have heard that Musk is handicapped by a funding shortage, which means his supporters have to get out and knock on doors, etc.
Surprised and disappointed to see Mutz with only 10%. I've been a supporter of him since I first met him and heard him speak months ago. He is for fair, unbiased policing, has lots of experience and comes in fresh--not part of the old boy network. Vote for Mutz.
Lilith Rogers
Mark Essick cares about “all” of our county-rather than just liberal outposts -still bringing up A shooting that while sad-was the teenagers fault. When you pull a gun (or an exact replica) on law enforcement-they will do their job. Mark Essixk is for Community policing-engaging people and working with Homeless to get them to treatment if needed or housed. They cannot be left to die or shoved over to Guerneville. He is by far our strongest candidate.
I know Andy Lopez was 13 years old and that he was shot down in 10 seconds and it was a racist act -- a white kid would not have been shot carrying a toy gun. I know the Sheriff and the cops at the time hassled the hell out of Andy's Friends and family. And Mutz is the only candidate that speaks about how that situation could and should have been handled with compassion and respect. That matters to me NOW and ALWAYS.
And if you think the homeless problem can be solved with treatment and a few nights in a shelter, then you are quite naive about the homeless situation. People without homes are economic refugees. They are you and me. Homelessness is sown into the fabric of capitalism and solving it means seeding a complete shift in how we approach it. In my opinion, Essick is just another white cop with a badge and a system to defend that is designed to criminalize the homeless and immigrants and people of color. Mutz is the only candidate with the experience to shift this paradigm...
~ From a Liberal Outpost
Essick represents all that is wrong with the sheriff department, torturing and killing prisoners, shooting kids, publicly resisting accountability, he has done and been there for it all. If you like the way the job has been done, vote essick!
Guess you meant to say Mutz, right? And yes, we who believe he's the best guy for the job need to get out there for him. I am.
And--his funding shortfall just helps to illustrate that he's not backed by the powers that be who are putting their big money on the other guys.
Lilith
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
guess you're talking about Andy Lopez, right? And he didn't "pull a gun" or a replica of one, he was just walking down the street with a toy gun that any kid can buy at a department store and within 15 seconds-I think it was--that cop decided to shoot him--a cop who obviously suffers from PTSD from serving in the military in a war.
And yes, I agree with the comment someone made here that if he had been white he'd have been alright.
Lilith
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Codyboy1:
I wouldn't vote for someone who thinks that "do(ing) their job" includes shooting the teenager, regardless of whether it was partly his fault. I want a sheriff who's less supportive of the hair-trigger militarized response that's designed primarily for the safety of the officer, not the public. I don't mean to imply disregard for the officer's safety, but the rules and culture of the sheriff's office must create a different balance between their safety and the safety of the public they are there to protect & serve.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Codyboy1:
While John Mutz may have not shined in public speaking at some events(He did at others), What I know is that he cares deeply! He is a part of a community that welcomes diversity, is TOTALLY for Social Equality, and if elected, we would have a Sheriff's department that SERVES the people. It is way past time that we consider candidates, not on their policing skill; The sheriff is not on the streets; But, on their vision, ability to create a department that actually serves all of the people regardless of race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or gender. We will have a Sheriff that stands up for the policies that we, the people, want implemented. We are in a time where fear mongering is being used to scare the heck out of us and they are using it to take away all the progress that we have made towards a fair , just society. Mr. Mutz will head us back in the right direction. I have worked in the County for 27 years with criminal justice and the stories I could tell you would scare the heck out of you. I am not going to tell the stories now because I would prefer to focus on the solution, not the problem. Mr. Mutz will implement solutions if he is elected!!!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
And I have worked for criminal justice for 30 yrs-that is why Mark Essick who stands for all-and shows up gets my vote!!
You know one thing I find funny? Scott Thorne went on trial for excessive force. Essick even testified for the prosecution. Thorne's defense boiled down to he was following policy. And there was no conviction. It was a split decision, a hung jury, but for the most part it was not guilty. I seem to recall 10 of the 12 jurors said not guilty. So we have no clarity on even something as simple as this. Someone calls 911 claiming they hear an argument or yelling from the house next door. Deputies will go to the house, kick down the door if need be, hit the dude with a taser, expecting to haul him in for domestic battery, even if the woman there says to them we were just having an argument. So the claim that this went according to policy carried weight in the criminal court system.
Put it this way: I think Essick may not really understand, and that policy promotes abusive behavior that violates civil rights. But it comes down to he really doesn't give a shit about that. All he really cared about is that the video of the incident, when it went public, made them look bad.
I concur. Despite his being intentionally obtuse when question publicly as to his policy on dealing with ICE,
I still think Mutz is the least ridiculous of our options: Curly, Moe and Larry.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by MikeH:
I've seen some Mutz for Sheriff yard signs, two of them one block over. I think they have an impact and so I'll get one, and anyone else so inclined can do the same. Fill out the form on this link and request a sign or just email them.
https://johnmutzforsonomasheriff.com/join/
[email protected], or [email protected] ( I think this is some sort of campaign manager )
The Calif. Senior Advocates League just sent out its endorsement of John Mutz for sheriff. As we noticed in the last presidential election, polls can be wrong. In recent days Mutz also has received the endorsement of the Democratic Party and a Latino group. I would feel so much safer here in a rural area if Mutz were sheriff.
I am a senior-vote for Mark Essick if you want a safer and healthier community. I could list all the numerous endorsements of Mark-I do not need to -his actual work record and training says it all. He will be happy to deliver signs to you personally and speak to all.
This was posted in a private group for the Sebastopol Independent Charter School (Waldorf):
"John Mutz, one of the candidates for Sonoma County Sheriff, is a dad at Summerfield. His wife Heather and their boys came to my BACDS Family Week music & dance camp. Heather told me that if John were to win he would be the only Waldorf parent sheriff, ever!"
That wins my vote!
We could use more Waldorf wisdom in our sheriff, as well as this family man who had the wisdom to send his children to Summerfield, one of the best schools in Sonoma County. Please read more about Mr. Mutz and what he could bring to our county.
Wow-are you trally saying the other 2 are not great family men-becsuse their kids go to public school and do not live In Sebastopol? More reasons to “not” vote for Mutz-unless you are privileged like him.
Wow-how objective?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry: