I guess we’re supposed to be impressed that Herhold gave the Sheriff’s interview a “D-“, being that he’s been one of her biggest mouth pieces. Scott so supports our Sheriff that he even went to the length of using his pen to viciously attack his own co-worker for reporting legitimate issues regarding the Sheriff in the past. The defense of the Sheriff has gone too far in the Mercury News at times and this weak broth they’re attempting as their main entrée for this story is desperately wanting.
Herhold attempts to lay the psychological groundwork in his first paragraph using the phrase “politically invulnerable” to describe the Sheriff before he even gets into the story of her ethical failings that the article intends to address in some fashion. Because we must all know, entertaining potential felons out at the gun range and failing to have the moral compass we expect of our law enforcement men and women can’t be seen as a means to weaken her political strength.
Then we’re offered all the “feel good” her administration has to offer us… “After 15 years in office, she has very high positives in the polls. And her office arrested a man in the Sierra LaMar case.” I like that last “oh and by the way…” Because having a high positive in the poll is of course more important than catching a guy who killed a little girl. A guy who’s been sitting in jail without even entering a plea for more than a year now because the Sheriff’s office STILL hasn’t gotten evidence to the DA’s office in order to pass it on to the defense team. May I say one more time in regards to this at the risk of pointing out this little girl and her family still hasn’t gotten justice…. WTF?!
And then the slap down… the only way she could lose “would be if she makes four or five more mistakes like she did in an interview with Tony Kovaleski of NBC Bay Area News a week-and-a-half ago.” Really? That was the mistake here she needs to worry about not repeating? Not trying to latch on to a celebrity under felony investigation and offering him inappropriate access? Not failing to understand the ethical implications she embroiled herself in? Her mistake was letting the public know she’s this unethical and obtuse through an interview? Or worse, that she’s that unethical doesn’t even realize it? Because hey, those kind of politicians are great to have as long as they’re smart enough to not let the general public know really how rotten to the core they are, right? If she sees this as having done nothing wrong, I can only imagine at this point what else her ethically challenged self believes to be acceptable to the public. But hey, Herhold, as long as she doesn’t tell us what she’s doing wrong, it can’t hurt us, right? And Lord know, you as a journalist laboring under the concept of the freedom of the press certainly have no obligation to inform the people of how the wheels of democracy are turning in the offices of our elected officials.
And then the “indictment” comes into it, finally. “Did the sheriff know the timing of the DA’s indictment? You can argue persuasively that she did not,” you say. And then you go on to say she should have known about the investigation. Hello? Has anyone wondered yet why her investigation didn’t render similar charges? Who cares if she knew the timing, fact remains she conducted an investigation that extended for over a year and still thought that Aldon Smith was a victim. My question is, did she expect the DA’s office to also shirk their duty in the investigation and fail to find the fact that Aldon was a resident of California when he made the gun purchases and transported the guns home? But you layer over that as if the timing of the charges and the Sheriff’s knowledge of the timing is the truly relevant point in that story, Scott. Good job. It was pointed out simply as ironic timing giving the Sheriff’s adamant statements. Good thing you missed that so you could point out we were missing the weight of that point.
And finally we hear how the Sheriff looked “petulant.” Review that interview, Scott. You know her, maybe better than many of us in some ways. That wasn’t petulance. That was anger, that was frustration over the fact that some one would dare question her and that was desperation trying to justify something that, even in her sociopathic mind, she had to know was wrong. If she didn’t, why did she go to such lengths to hide it with actions such as telling her staff no pictures, video or autographs at the event?
Who knows what is going on in the political background. I think many of us know and I think she’s calling in all her chips from people like Scott Herhold to get ready to do all the damage control they can for her. You are right, she is not popular among the troops. I’m glad you held back at saying “disgruntled employees” as you and her other minions painted people so successfully last time. Though I heard you thinking it.
Like I said before, this time, we’re better organized. This time we’re better prepared with our arguments. We know where the dirt is and we intend to begin to clean it out so we can put on our uniforms with dignity once again. She is not popular among “the troops,” but most importantly people like me, like the others speaking out, like those who are supporting Captain Kevin Jensen for Sheriff recognize one very, very important thing. The reason she is not popular among the troops is because she is a liability to the community. She is costing them solid law enforcement services and therefore their community’s safety. She is putting the safety of her personnel at risk and therefore the safety of her citizens. We will continue to point out these failures and we have months to go to lay out our argument. All we ask is that people listen to both sides this time and make an educated decision based on what they are getting for their tax dollars from the Sheriff’s Office.
It may not be showing to everyone yet, but another 4 years of Sheriff Smith and her merry band of sociopaths at the helm of the Sheriff’s Office will not benefit the community in any way form or manner.