When you’re doing your candidate research, ask yourself why there is a large number of local and neighboring community law enforcement leaders, virtually all which are non-union, who have worked (or tried to work) with the incumbent and have chosen to endorse Kevin Jensen. What do they have to gain as non-union and/or retired and not even part of the same association? Why do they virtually say the same thing, regardless of department, history, expertise, in regards to their experience in working with the incumbent?
Ask your self why a letter from the Undersheriff outlining the Metcalf incident heavily involves a “HQ Captain” throughout the event however the logs show no administrative involvement until 8:30 AM, 5 hours after the event started? Ask yourself while they say they did all that they did, why did they ignore several important issues — like the HQ Captain continued for hours to tell deputies to cut a report on vandalism and wasn’t involved on site from what logs show? That the HQ Captain, if he was involved as depth as claimed, ignored critical points like the potential for IEDs inside the scene and the need for increased cover to deal with inside the scene? They only discuss how they decided they would wait until light to call special teams to conduct a search outside for IEDs, etc. It’s not conjecture, the logs and the letter are right here on my blog.
Ask yourself why Marc Klaas, who has more reason to remain silent in the district of a missing girl if the incumbent has something to offer to the continuing search, would choose to speak out? Because there is nothing left to lose working this the incumbent?
Why would Harriet Salarno, founder of Crime Victims United of California, the largest victims advocacy group in the state, stand up and not support the incumbent? Is she also misinformed and being manipulated? Are these victim advocacy leaders and groups all as addle-brained as the sheriff would like you to believe and despite each of them having decades in their chosen area of advocacy, are simpletons misled by a handful of keystone cops according to the incumbent?
Ask yourself why an elected official in this country would use words like “coup” in regards to an election challenger and “hijacked” in reference to a union that, in legal theory, she has no legal right to interfere with therefore could not be “hijacked” from her?
There are some people who are getting upset, irritated and offended by these questions. Trying to bully the challenging candidate to back down by making baseless claims that we’re lying and bullying people when we make our points and ask our questions. That’s fine. They’re legitimate questions and if the sheriff isn’t going to step and answer them for herself and allow us to speak into the void, that is her own fault. If her choice is to allow TDF to call us losers and her campaign manager to call us keystone cops rather than speak up and prove us wrong, so be it. We aren’t making her do that.
Her opponents, pretty much all of us, have called for a public debate. She wants her voice to tell people how she’s the better candidate, virtually all of us support that action. No one is trying to silence her, like she has done to me, to her personnel, and others. We want to hear what she has to say. More importantly we want you to hear what she has to say. If we weren’t being honest, why would we be so eager to have a debate? If we were lying, why isn’t she demanding a public forum to set the record straight? If we thought there was any chance that you would find her the better candidate after a few real questions in front of an audience, why would we continue to push for a debate? She’s backed out of 3 debates now. Ask yourself why.
And yes, we want to hear what the incumbent thinks happened in these investigations. We want to see her evidence that things were done as they should have been done. Simply saying “we did a great job” doesn’t mean that’s true. Yes, the deputies are proud of the jobs they did in many of those cases — despite you and your administration, not because of it.
Despite the unmitigated disaster of an IC organization in Sierra Lamar, the deputies got the guy. They were not able to find the body, and as several people outside your office have come forward (Marc Klaas, Danny Domingo, Search for Seirra) and stated, that doesn’t seem to be of concern to you when the media isn’t watching.
Despite the poor decisions to wait to investigate the Audrie Pott situation, then the decision to not investigate only cite the offenders causing more months of delays while people outside and inside the office demanded more than that — they still managed, despite destroyed and lost phones, deleted files to at least get some kind of charges for the offenders. Not nearly what they felt they could have gotten if the investigation had been conducted properly without interference from administration, but it was something.
Yes, despite all that, the deputies are actually proud that they successfully fought their administration to get a minimum of justice for the victims, but it bothers a great many of them that it was a watered-down justice and that others received no justice at all, not due to lack of effort on their part. Their conscientious work ethic is left ill at ease over the thought of more cases being handled like this in the future. That says far more bad about the leadership… and it says that the deputies are determined and dedicated to doing their jobs regardless of the administrations obtuse understanding of law enforcement and cost savings methodology.
As a reminder what motivated me to first speak out against the incumbent, it was the mishandling of the De Anza rape case — refusing to send out sex crimes detectives and CSI on overtime which led to a failure to collect evidence that would have increased the likelihood of conviction. That and the ensuing coverup show which surely must have cost the taxpayer significantly more than the overtime ever would have. This isn’t a new problem. It’s a problem that continues to grow and people inside the office don’t want to do a mediocre job based on bad administrative decisions any more.
As we’re hearing from SJPD over the past 24 hours, their personnel continue to leave because of what their community thinks of them. Voting the the incumbent back in will send a resounding message to deputies that their work ethic and continued efforts to do the right thing for the community they protect mean nothing to the community. They will have no real reason to stay in an office with a leader more bent on revenge than rebuilding. They will go find communities that want that work ethic and appreciate it.
Whether it comes to that or not isn’t up to the incumbent, the challenger nor the deputies though. It is ultimately up to the voters to take the first steps in the right direction for this office. Vote for Kevin Jensen.