**NOTICE**This is the 4th time (July 23, 2008 ) I have revised this blog. I have vacillated between two of the candidates. As far as I can tell all 3 of the Republican candidates are good men. One is a Baptist, one is a Methodist, and one is Assemblies of God. I have friends supporting each one of the candidates. This has been a really hard call, and all I can suggest is that you must decide for yourself who is the best choice for the next Greene County Sheriff. And I am still keeping an open mind and praying about this issue. In addition to what is available in the newspaper, TV, and the internet, the 3 candidates spoke recently at a Pachyderm meeting for Republicans on June 27th. They also spoke for the League of Women’s Voters at the Library Center on South Campbell in Springfield on July 22nd. There should also be printed information available from the League of Women’s Voters. Most if not all of the candidates are attending various functions and speaking to various groups in the mean time (as well as canvassing neighborhoods, etc.) up until August 5th. May the best man win.
I would like to be able to shake hands and be friendly with each one of the candidates, and I don’t wish to hinder any of their campaigns. I have decided to give a listing of web sites I have located (some of these are not easy to find), and give some idea of what information is available. I am also leaving the comments left by others (which are very much worth reading). Election day on August 5th is fast approaching, and there are many, many issues involved in the sheriff’s race. I am just a common citizen, and I do not claim to be very knowledgeable about the inner workings of the sheriff’s department. Someone in law enforcement or on staff with the sheriff’s department—and the candidates themselves—would be the best ones to ask.
In trying to sort out the important issues involved in the sheriff’s position, I have felt like I was interviewing someone for a job. But the more I look at the issues, I feel like I am over my head in trying to assimilate and understand some of the issues. Still as an average citizen, I would hope that my opinions would account for something. I apologize to anyone who may disagree with me, but for those who want to know, currently I am supporting Gene Thomlinson for Greene County Sheriff.
Sunday’s Springfield News-Leader [July 6, 2008] carried front-page coverage on the current sheriff candidates for Greene County, Missouri. The newspaper article focused on only one aspect of the job, and that concerns the need for further assistance in many areas of the Sheriff’s Department. With current budget problems and with the current economic situation in the U.S., it makes sense that at least some of this slack can be filled by volunteers.
Two of the candidates, Democrat Mike Ramon, and Republican Gene Thomlinson, advocated greatly expanding the volunteer base to help meet this need. Jim Arnott and Mark Webb suggested having a smaller number of volunteers. One reason is that some police duties could put a volunteer in danger. Also, they didn’t say it for the paper, but it would make sense that some information might need to be kept confidential in such a way that a volunteer should not have access to it. So there would only be certain tasks that would be suitable for a volunteer to do in the Sheriff’s Department. A fifth sheriff candidate, Jerry McGeeHee, had to drop out of the race due to health concerns.
Of more concern to me than the need for volunteers is if the potential sheriff has a concern for 1) upholding the laws as stated, and 2) respecting citizen’s rights and privacy.
Recently I heard the 3 Republican sheriff candidates speak at a Pachyderm luncheon on June 27th. They all seemed good.
Jim Arnott goes to a Baptist church, is young and energetic, and is currently assistant to Sheriff Jack Merritt. Still he has 20 yrs. experience in the force and has undergone a quite a bit of extra and specialized training, etc. He is the highest ranking deputy under Sheriff Jack Merritt, and Merritt has endorsed him. Based on experience, etc., he would be the best. He believes in fiscal accountability and will advocate to ensure crime victims have a voice in the criminal justice system. And he is a good guy.
Mark Webb is a member of a Methodist church and is a 27-year-veteran of the police department. I was impressed when I heard him in person because not only does he appear to know the law and is willing to enforce it, but he really seems to care about the rights and freedoms of individuals. He also has had a lot of specialized training in law enforcement and has been to law school. He is quite knowledgeable in a lot of areas. Yet he seems approachable and cares about the common citizen.
Gene Thomlinson appeals to me because he has been the head of security since 1969 for Evangel University, a Christian school that is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, and recently retired. His wife also is an employee with the Assemblies of God Credit Union, and I have known her for years. He also has a long tenure as a volunteer reserve officer with the Sheriff’s Department (37 years) and currently serves as Captain of the Greene County Sheriff’s Uniformed Patrol Reserve Division). Gene Thomlinson is a very personable and honest guy who listens and acts on what he hears. After conferring with an officer in the sheriff’s department and also with others who know Gene personally, this is my understanding: ”As a concerned and good listener, Gene Thomlinson has been seeking the advice of officers in the sheriff’s department who are on the front lines in their divisions. He seems to have a really good grasp of what the problems are facing the department. He is humble, and he believes in the value of each individual employee. He is another very good guy.
There was a controversial case recently in Springfield where a woman was stopped on S. Campbell a little after 2:00 a.m. She was going 10 miles over the speed limit–the only offense. She had on her emergency flashing lights and slowed down for awhile until she got to a better, well-lit location. She was upset and crying. It later came out that she was very emotional because: 1) she had just gotten married that week; 2) her husband was deployed to Iraq a day or so earlier; and 3) now she was stopped for speeding (or whatever) in the middle of the night. (But of course the officer couldn’t have known this beforehand.)
The deputies released her after writing her a ticket for allegedly driving 10 mph over the limit and failing to yield to a police vehicle. In the wake of bad publicity on a local television station that broke the story, police agreed to drop the failure to yield charge.
One headline read: ”GREENE COUNTY DEPUTIES HANDCUFF WOMAN AFTER SPEEDING STOP”
22-year-old didn’t stop immediately because she feared the car could be a fake cop — Decided to Keep Driving to Well-Lit Area
The deputies (3 of them were present) that arrested her did not know why the woman was so emotional or why she did not stop right away. She was handcuffed at gunpoint before any questions were asked, and she did not put up a fight. The only thing was that she was very emotional. Also, she probably was afraid to stop in an unlit area because this was an unmarked car. All of this can be seen on tape.
The current sheriff (Jack Merritt) seems to think the deputy was within his rights to do this, not knowing all the other circumstances. Mark Webb thinks otherwise. He believes the woman’s rights were violated. Sheriff Merritt even questioned Mark Webb about his views at the meeting (because Mark was on TV after the incident sharing these same ideas, and he was going against the views of Merritt). I have to side with Mark, and he is the one I would support because of his understanding of personal rights. I don’t see that the officers were rough in this incident, but I have to question why the young lady was immediately handcuffed before any questions were asked. She seemed cooperative, but was very emotional.
In an interview that KY3 TV did regarding this incident, only Webb reported the officer went too far. After the incident, Mark Webb stated: “If I’m the Sheriff today, and those are my officers out there, I’m going to start looking for ways to take corrective action, and maybe provide training.” He also said, “If it’s my officer these making these stops, I prefer a more citizen- friendly approach.”
Here is what the other candidates said as reported by the KY3 interview. Jim Arnott: Deputies acted “appropriately . . . did the right thing.”
Gene Thomlinson: “I didn’t see that the officer did anything wrong in what he did. This was a situation where the officer was using his best judgment I think.”
Mike Ramon: “She did what she needed to do to protect herself from her state of mind. The officers did what they needed to do to protect themselves . . . I think this is a happy ending.”
Jerry McGeeHee (no longer in the race): “I would’ve told my daughter to do the same thing.”
Gene Thomlinson was also interviewed by KY3 concerning the girl that was stopped south of town. But KY3 only put in that interview that he said the guys were okay in stopping her. He wasn’t given equal time. What they didn’t continue to air was the fact that he said they should have stopped her for the speeding incident—that would have been justified—but that they overreacted and went entirely too far with the cuffing, etc., without asking questions first. She was not, in any way, a threat to them, and they should have handled this differently. Information I have received is that the officer who first stopped her had only been “on the beat” a few months, so he might have done things differently if he had been better trained and more experienced. Gene Thomlinson also told KY3 (but it didn’t air) that he would have told his daughter or another woman to do exactly what she did. As usual, it seems that the media picks and chooses what it wants to report.
So it appears that Gene Thomlinson’s take on this incident is no different than Mark Webb’s view.
After hearing 3 of the sheriff candidates (plus the current sheriff) address this traffic stop in public, as well as other topics, and after talking to people in the sheriff’s department, as well as some of the candidates themselves, I am leaning toward Gene Thomlinson for sheriff. Although they are all good men as far as I can tell, here are the reasons I like Gene Thomlinson. 1) He wants to increase the amount of volunteers (saving taxpayer money); 2) He agrees that the officer should not have handcuffed the young lady without first asking questions; 3) He is a good listener and fair in his dealings with people (sheriff department staff and the public as well); 4) His training is good, but his experience in dealing with people is even better.
For the job of sheriff, I want someone who has a high regard for citizen’s rights and who will not be implementing new programs (that might cost more taxpayer money). Fiscal responsibility is important. Just work within the system already in place and tweak it as necessary and make sure that things are running smoothly. Listen to the staff and anyone else that is willing to voice a concern. But remember that new is not always better. In any situation, one has to weigh all the facts, and I believe Gene is a person who does that. Gene is in tune with modern technological advances, but I believe he will adhere to what some would call “old-fashioned” values. This has been a hard call for me, and I still pray every day regarding this election choice (and just about every other election choice that is coming up in August and November). My best assessment is that Gene Thomlinson is the people’s choice for Greene County Sheriff.
Someone who values the input of their employees and the common citizen shows the mark of a good leader and would best help the sheriff’s department and Greene County citizens in the transition to a new sheriff.
**UPDATE: July 27, 2008—After reading the latest article (7/27/2008) on the sheriff candidates and their views, I see that Mark Webb advocates using GPS monitoring devices for lesser offenders, which I am not in favor of. (Surely there are other alternatives.) I still would have to support Gene Thomlinson for Sheriff.
SEE ALSO:
Candidates for sheriff see role for volunteers
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080706/NEWS06/807060346
Democratic candidate for Greene County sheriff drops out of race
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/BREAKING06/80619047/0/RSS
Is This The Tape That Shakes The Sheriff’s Race?
http://ky3.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-this-tape-that-shakes-sheriffs-race.html
Greene County deputies handcuff woman who waited to stop in well-lit area (included video—but now taken offline)
http://www.ky3.com/home/video/19577939.html
Greene County deputies handcuff woman who waited to stop in well-lit area (on Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums)
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92655
Woman Fails to Stop Immediately for Unmarked Police Car, Handcuffed at Gunpoint (Video, 3:20 mins., plus comments)
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=18385
Missouri: Woman Handcuffed for Waiting to Stop in Lit Area (Video, 3:20 mins., plus comments)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2412.asp
Missouri: Woman Handcuffed for Waiting to Stop in Lit Area (includes public comment)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2028826/posts
Missouri: Woman Handcuffed for Waiting to Stop in Lit Area (includes public comment)
http://artsgal.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/09/1557562-missouri-woman-handcuffed-for-waiting-to-stop-in-lit-area
One candidate for sheriff thinks controversial arrest was handled wrongly
http://www.ky3.com/news/local/19617599.html
Greene County Sheriff’s race underway
http://www.kspr.com/news/whereyoulive/greene/10245511.html
Republican Candidates for Sheriff Face Off
http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=21947
Sheriff candidates differ on policy (includes video)
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/NEWS06/806060384/-1/BLOGS09
Mike Ramon For Greene County Sheriff
http://www.mikeramonforsheriff.com/
Jim C. Arnott For Greene County Sheriff
http://www.jimarnott.com/
Arnott Kicks Off Campaign for Sheriff
http://ky3.blogspot.com/2007/10/arnott-kicks-off-campaign-for-sheriff.html
Gene Thomlinson For Greene County Sheriff
http://www.thomlinsonforsheriff.com/
Thomlinson For Sheriff
http://joelmaxwell.com/2008/01/08/thomlinson-for-sheriff/
Why I am Supporting Gene – and You Should Too
http://joelmaxwell.com/2008/01/13/why-i-am-supporting-gene-and-you-should-too/
Thomlinson for Sheriff
http://www.thomlinson.com/index.cfm/2007/8/10/Thomlinson-for-Sheriff
Mark Webb For Greene County Sheriff
http://markwebbforsheriff.com/
It’s The Prosecutor vs. The Sheriff as Moore Backs Webb
http://ky3.blogspot.com/2007/12/its-prosecutor-vs-sheriff-as-moore.html
An early article telling about Arnott and Webb:
Greene County Sheriff’s race underway
http://www.kspr.com/news/whereyoulive/greene/10245511.html
Latest articles on the sheriff candidates:
Webb, Thomlinson try to upend Arnott in race for sheriff [includes video]
http://www.ky3.com/news/political/25786929.html
Four visions for sheriff
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807270335
League of Women Voters Guide for Greene County
http://lwvsgf.home.mchsi.com/GreeneCountyVotersGuide.pdf
SEE THE MAIN SITE OF GLENN GOHR’S WEBLOG:
http://glenngohr.wordpress.com
Glen,
I knew you from Glad Tidings and am currently an employee of the sheriffs department. I am somewhat concerned about how you arrived at your conclusion to vote for Webb. This is one small thing that occurred and I have no doubt that there will be many things that Mark Webb would do over the course of his four year term that would disappoint you. As a Ron Paul supporter and advocate of civil liberties, you should know that one of Webb’s main campaign promises is to “reevaluate” the book and release process. He wants to hold people until they are “classified”. Currently, if you are arrested on a minor violation, you are booked and released and given a court date. He advocates detaining people longer until he can determine whether he should hold them for 24 hours as allowed by Missouri Law. Missouri Law states that the maximum amount of time you can hold someone is 24 hours. Case law shows that the purpose of this 24 hour hold is to get an arrestee before a judge to seek a warrant and get a bond set. Webb is supporting holding people for 24 hours who have already been given a court date to appear or will not be filed upon within the 24 hours. He would essentially detain people based on things like criminal history, because he feels the law would allow him to do so. If you are not seeking a warrant, I offer that holding them for 24 hours is an illegal, punitive measure, and is a burden to taxpayers who are paying to house, feed and clothe them in the jail.
Also, in the instance you cited about the female traffic stop, Webb stated that he would give his officers additional training. He never stated what training he would provide or how the womans rights were violated. I promise you that MOST peace officers in southwest Missouri would have handled that situation similarly. State law requires that you pull over to the right for emergency vehicles-not drive 1/2 mile turn left and go to a convenience store. While I agree that she was justified in doing so, given the circumstances, I also feel the officer was justified in taking necessary steps to preserve his safety. He was polite and did his best to calm the woman down. This was a good ending to a tense situation. Everyone did what they were trained to do and everyone walked away safely. Cops have a ton of things to remember without having to live in constant fear of being second guessed later on. When a cop makes a bad decision he should be punished, but when he relies on his training and does what he has been taught to do, he should be supported. I fear that second guessing every decision you make during a shift has already cost a good number of officers their life. The officers goal was to determine why she was not stopping. As a large man myself, this may have never occurred to me either. I promise you that we will have this in our mind when this happens again, but we will still take steps to ensure our safety. The bottom line is, the officer had no way of knowing why she was doing what she was doing at the time of the incident. Its easy for us to look at it now and say he was wrong.
Lastly, I would like to let you know that I am supporting Gene Thomlinson for sheriff. While he has been a reserve for his time with this agency, reserves answer the same calls for service as full time deputies. What Gene is bringing to the table for me is his ears. The current administration has not listened or considered any ideas they weren’t a part of. They are perfectly happy with the way things are going and as a taxpayer, I find this appalling. Gene does not claim to know everything and I believe that anyone who does is arrogant and foolish. Gene has sought the advice of the officers in the department who are on the front lines in their divisions. He has a better grasp of what the problems are facing the department than any other candidate. The reason is because he is humble and he believes in the value of each individual employee. You may discount Gene because his 37 years with this department was as a volunteer, but where Gene has excelled is bringing out the best in people and meeting them where they are. Where many people have worked for Gene for free, hundreds of well paid officers have left the department as a result of the conditions that have been created by Merritt and Arnott. I do hope that you would reconsider your decision to vote for Webb.
Two other things to add. First, Webb is a veteran of the Springfield Police Department and not the Sheriffs department. Your article doesn’t make this very clear. Second, you stated, “She was upset and crying because she was very emotional. (1) she had just gotten married that week; 2) her husband was deployed to Iraq a day or so earlier; and 3) now she was stopped for speeding (or whatever) in the middle of the night.” It is important when evaluating this situation, you review his actions based on what was known to the officer at the time of the incident. This is exactly how courts review cases on law enforcement conduct. The officer could not have possibly known any of the facts you mentioned. Additionally, point three is irrelevant because it is illegal to speed 24 hours a day. I’m not trying to pick a fight, just offer another perspective. For all we know, the last person the cop stopped might have assaulted him so he may have been emotional also.
Thanks for your comments. I value your judgment as someone in law enforcement who has worked in the sheriff’s department with the various candidates and knows more about them. I’m not totally sure how the book and release process works. You would be much more knowledgeable about that than me. One comment I have heard about this is that it can be almost a joke for someone to be arrested and then let go in about an hour. Of course if they are still accountable later on for their actions, then this probably is an OK solution for overcrowded jail cells (not to mention extra money involved in keeping people). I don’t see that Webb has said that he would change anything about the current way this is handled. Only that it would be evaluated.
Yes, I can see all your points regarding the fact that the officer would not have known beforehand all the circumstances in the lady’s life that might have caused her to be emotional, etc. And yes, I realize that law enforcement is a very hazardous (and worthy) occupation. It must be really tough to try to assess each situation (every case is different, and there is always the possibility of danger). Yes, it is illegal to speed 24 hours a day. It is very possible the lady didn’t even realize she was speeding. That was one more thing that added to her stress.
I have updated the blog to reflect some of the concerns that you mentioned in your notes. I tried to be a little more fair to the law enforcement officers. I also added each candidate’s web page for further research on the issues, and I told a little more about each one’s qualifications to make that clear.
On Vincent David Jericho, Webb stated that, “They [police officers] feel they have no other choice but to basically disengage…They [arrestees] basically get walked through the back door and released out the front before they can get their reports finished.” This statement is aimed at scaring people. They are not doing this with violent crimes, they are currently doing this with things like DWI, Driving while revoked, trespassing, camping in public, refusing to leave a commercial establishment and other minor crimes and ordinance violations. Prior to this policy, if SPD arrested someone on a municipal violation of dog at large, they were forced to either post a bond or stay at the jail for 20 hours. This is scary considering the type of charges that could be involved and the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty (Yes, SPD does arrest people for things like camping in public). Another thing to look at is the homeless population in Springfield. Many of them have serious health problems. Holding them for 24 hours puts the jail in a position of having to care for them for 24 hours and be responsible for the cost of their medical care. We have had homeless people try to get arrested just to receive medical care, a shower, and a warm place to stay. This is a waste of my tax dollars! He also fails to mention that if you have a person who would normally be a book and release candidate, the officer may choose to hold them for 24 hours. The policy requires that they be evaluating evidence and seeking a warrant in that time frame.
In the News-Leader, Webb said he’d heard, “a lot of frustration” from officers on the matter.”They say that they walk them through the back door, they take their handcuffs off, they get fingerprinted and they’re released out the door on the book-and-release before (the officers) can even get back in their car,” Webb said. He suggested the jail needs to better classify incoming offenders, determining whether they are chronic criminals before releasing them back onto the street.
If I can get paperwork, enter it into the computer, picture, fingerprint and release an inmate in the time it takes an officer to get back to his car, they need to hire faster officers. The book and release process takes between 15-30 minutes if there is no one ahead of them and it is a cooperative subject with minor charges. Even if you “classify” an inmate to determine if they are a chronic offender, the case law says you cannot hold them for any reason other than to seek a warrant. Courts have found against law enforcement agencies citing this as a punitive measure, and I am troubled that Webb is wanting to take rights away from the accused without due process. It is also troubling that many of these folks have a ticket with a court date on it. This is further proof that they will not have a warrant filed-the person already has a summons to appear before a judge in 6-8 weeks (obviously they are a threat). The bottom line is they are trying to make these people the jail’s problem. The jail has become a dumping ground for people the officers can’t or won’t deal with. If they arrest them and have them held, they won’t have to deal with them anymore. THIS is why the officer’s are frustrated! We refuse to allow them to do this. Even with Webb’s plan, a classified offender must be released if you are not seeking a warrant. He is not being honest with people about this. Most people don’t understand the process and think his ideas sound good without knowing the problems and implications. In the News-Leader story, Ramon hit the nail on the head saying, “Officers should not arrest misdemeanor suspects who aren’t a threat to the community or a flight risk. Those suspects should be written a citation, then let go. The only exceptions we currently have to this are holding periods for DWI and minor cases of domestic violence. We obviously want to give these people time to sober up and/or cool off so they don’t re offend.
Last note. Webb’s website says he will, “Modify the book and release program. The current policy allows habitual offenders to re-enter the community and continue to prey upon citizens.” Again, this is just to scare people. We care about the people too and the jail is not allowing offenders to prey on victims. The book and release policy was done in an effort to be good stewards of the taxpayers money. If someone is being victimized, we will hold them for 24 hours if the officer wants, so he can get a judge to issue a warrant. Again, the people who are booked and released are people who commit minor violations and have generally also received a summons. Holding them 24 hours would violate their rights and waste our resources. Thanks for your time.
Glenn
Mark is indeed a 27 year veteran of the SPD. He does plan on re-evaluating the current catch and release program for the reason you have mentioned. We hear on a daily bases, from law enforcement, about individuals who are arrested, laugh and say don’t worry we’ll be out soon. They are immediately released, go out and committ further crimes against the citizens. Are they held accountable for their actions, I would venture to guess that they are not, look at the outstanding warrents. Not my name, as far as the cost of feeding, housing, etc these individuals, try looking at it from the standpoint of the citizen. What about their fears, losses and possible future loses when these individuals are released back into society.
CAWEBB-If they are not being held accountable for their actions, then your beef is with the poor quality of incident reports the officers turn in, or the prosecutor’s unwillingness to file charges on those cases. They are rarely charged within the 24 hours so holding them is pointless. You can’t hold someone because the public is scared for them to be out. I am a citizen and I want bad people to be held accountable through constitutionally appropriate ways. The number of outstanding warrants implies that they are being held accountable, they have just not been picked up on the warrants yet. Regardless, Webb (if elected) will be powerless to have charges filed on these inmates any faster. That is up to the prosecutor.
To those individuals who want the unadultered facts, not sound bites from the local media or speculationns from people who have not spoken directly to Mark Webb on his opinions & plans of actions to correct the issues facing GCSD, please feel free to call him directly, as he is always willing to listen to the citizens of Greene County about their concerns and answer their questions. 848-3636.
Why call him…can’t you defend him against what I said? I have never talked to Mark Webb about this but I have talked to judges and lawyers about the law. They agree that the legal reason to hold someone is to seek a warrant. Webb has been criticized on several websites now about this and he fails to respond publicly. I want to hear how he spins it in public so I can respond with the facts. If individuals who don’t understand the law call him, he will no doubt do what it takes to win them over. This is not a testament to his plans, just his ability to convince people he is looking out for them (by scaring them). He is being unrealistic about what he can do. I pointed out legal issues and your response was, try to look at it from a citizen’s perspective. Unfortunately, citizens generally don’t know the law very well. They are trusting Mark to tell them the truth. What will happen if he convinces enough people is he will be elected and either implement this policy and be sued multiple times, or he will realize he can’t do this and not implement a policy that is the cornerstone of his campaign. Either way, the voters will be disappointed with their choice. If you would like to challenge the facts I have laid out, feel free. On this issue, Mark is wrong.
I don’t need to defend Mark, he can defend his self given the opportunity, hence the encouragement to call him directly. He does not read the blogs where he has been “criticized” he is busy campaigning. Mark has 2 years law school experience, in addition to his 27 years of law enforcement, he also has friends who are judges and attorneys, so I bet he knows the laws. Also, the “catch and release” is not the “cornerstone” of his campaign, just one of many issues. Mark is not attemping to scare the public, just informing them of what is going on. Best of luck to you and Gene, he is a great guy too. Attend the debate on Tuesday the 22nd and recieve some clarification. There really is no need to make negative suppositions without obtaining all the information.
From his website, “The current policy allows habitual offenders to re-enter the community and continue to prey upon citizens.” Name one instance where the current policy has allowed anyone to be “preyed” upon. If he is informing me of “what is going on” with this line, I would like one specific example of how the current policy has failed one citizen. If you (or Mark) can provide this, I will agree that this statement has a foundation in facts. Otherwise, it is nothing but a scare tactic aimed at getting votes!
In the News-Leader, Mark said, “They say that they walk them through the back door, they take their handcuffs off, they get fingerprinted and they’re released out the door on the book-and-release before (the officers) can even get back in their car.” Honestly now, when has this ever happened? The inmate was booked and released before the officer could walk to his car? This is seriously not a scare tactic? The booking process consists of entering charges and detainer’s in the computer, recording any tattoos, scars or deformities, checking them for additional warrants, obtaining emergency contact information, photographing, fingerprinting, releasing charges, and getting supervisors approval for the release!!! The officers park their cars approximately 50 feet from the booking area (The maximum is probably about 250 feet). Would you care to race? These officers get in foot chases, but can’t walk to their car in 15 minutes?
If it is not a “cornerstone” of his campaign, why is it the only objective listed on his main web page? To look at his other ideas, you have to click and go to a different area of his website. This text appears on the main page, “One of my first changes, if elected, would be to re-evaluate the current “catch and release” program, which places the safety and security of Greene County citizens at risk.”
If he says it would be one of his first pages and it is the only idea for change listed initially, how would it not be the cornerstone of his campaign?
Hi…interesting to read about each candidate for Green County Sheriff. This is no doubt the most important race coming up in the Aug 5 primary. Like many that have written here, I’ve seen and heard all three, but Mark Webb is the real standout. I didn’t know untile a few days ago that he spent 27 years with the police department, but then went to law school! That is a man who is passionate about making our sheriff’s dept better at serving us. I’m also sick of what is becoming the “scandal of the week” in our sheriff’s dept. I’m ready for a fresh approach, so after listening to all three, and reading about each, I’m going with Mark Webb, and encourage others to do the same.
RM
To clarify Ron’s post, Mark Webb has not actually finished law school. He has a couple years in but he is not a “lawyer” yet. I will agree with you that we need a fresh approach. I blame the “scandal of the week” problem on the News-Leader which has an agenda against Arnott. I am not an Arnott supporter either, but it is based on the issues and not rehashed news stories from years ago.
Notmyname or glock65803. To clarify your post neither Ron nor Mark stated he was a “lawyer”, or had finished law school, but that Webb had gone to law school and had 2 years law school experience. You must not have picked up a paper or listened to the radio, or watched the news in the last few weeks or months to say that these scandles of the week are “rehashed” stories. The news would not have anything to report if these events had not occured. Try to remember that the Sheriff is an elected position, by the people, for the people. He/she is to advocate and ensure the safety and rights of law abiding citizens, his staff is also responsible for their safety and security. The loyalty of the Sheriff’s department should be to these individuals.
If I said I “went” to the lake or the store, one would assume that I went, achieved or accomplished what I intended to do, and returned home. Saying Mark “went” to law school does imply that he finished. In the interest of accuracy, I was correcting Ron’s post. If I stated that I went to law school, but didn’t point out that i didn’t finish, I would expect you to correct me. This is only fair. Your definition of “scandles” is obviously different than mine. An officer who “located” a warrant that he tried to take care of for over two months with both the Greene and Phelps County Sheriffs Departments is NOT a SCANDAL. Officers performing a felony traffic stop on a woman who behaved abnormally (based on their training and experience) is NOT a SCANDAL. A court security officer pointing a TASER at someone is NOT a SCANDAL. The book and release policy is NOT a SCANDAL. Firing a volunteer who violated policy over a year ago and it’s just now being publicized is STILL NOT a SCANDAL. Stating that these are “scandals” or that the woman on the traffic stop received “terrifying treatment” are sensational phrases aimed SOLELY at getting votes. I’m sure Mark has some great ideas. Hopefully he will work to fix some of the issues that have been pointed out during the campaign, should he win the election. We obviously disagree on what constitutes a “scandal” and what is simply a lapse in judgment (which occur in all departments-not just GCSD during an election). If you have questions as to the content of my statements please discuss them. I feel that it is only fair I point out that he was not yet a lawyer. If I went to medical school for two years and ran for an office that dealt with the medical profession, that knowledge would be something I would list on my resume, but I would be careful not to imply that I was a doctor. His video states, “Law school and 27 years experience with the Springfield Police Department”. He did not say “two years of law school” or make any statement to point out he was not a lawyer. Like it or not Ron Miller and Mark Webb BOTH IMPLIED that he completed law school. In his defense, that information is posted on his website. Unfortunately, most citizens will not take the time to investigate any claims that are expressed or simply implied. In your last post you stated, that Mark was not using scare tactics and that he was informing the public about what was going on. I presented several questions for you to respond to offering proof that these were not scare tactics. You failed to respond. What I pointed out about Ron’s post was fair and true regarding law school. I would also hope that any educated person reading the News-Leader would understand that they are biased against Jim Arnott. If you don’t like Arnott, this is fine. Holding him personally accountable for every voluntary act his officers make is unfair. Surely you understand this. I am sure you wouldn’t want Mark held accountable for everything improper officers in his command did while he was employed at SPD.
He was held accountable by his supervisors for his officers conduct while in the SPD.
I agreed with you