August 07, 2007
John Lovick Responds
I'm on vacation (hence light posting this week), but another of the three candidates for Snohomish County Sheriff, John Lovick, has responded to my questionnaire. His answers are below. Tom Greene's are here. Still waiting on Rob Beidler's.
1. What in your background makes you uniquely qualified to serve as Sheriff of Snohomish County?
The breadth of my experience is unique. I'm the only candidate who has fought crime both as a cop on the street and as a policy maker in Olympia.
For 31 years with the Washington State Patrol I worked the roads, taught at the Academy and, eventually, managed the Everett detachment. In that position I made decisions covering five counties. I was honored to be voted Washington State Trooper of the Year by my peers and supervisors in 1992.
As a legislator I've written laws to make our community safer, including:
- getting tough on sex offenders
- making our schools safer, and
- catching and punishing car thieves
I've risen through the ranks to a leadership position in the House of Representatives. Ask anyone who works with the state legislature; they will tell you it's not easy to preside over 97 independent-minded elected officials. It takes leadership skills. I've developed the consensus-building and negotiating skills needed to lead the Sheriff's office.
2. What in your recent public service convinced you that you should serve as Sheriff?
People have been urging me to run for Sheriff since 1996. Instead I opted to serve in the state legislature, where I could take an active role on the criminal justice and public safety committees. As a state trooper I enforced the laws; as a legislator I could help write tougher laws. But I've also learned that it's not enough to be tough on crime - you also have to be smart about crime. I've worked closely with police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges, and victim advocates to help pass some of the toughest, smartest laws in this country.
As a result, we have some darn good laws for catching and prosecuting criminals. We're building new prisons as fast as we can, just to house them all. Our prison population is ballooning, and it's costing us a lot of taxpayer dollars.
It's clearly time to put more emphasis on crime prevention. This past legislative session I wrote a strong, new law to put car thieves in jail sooner and keep them there longer. Just as important, a key element of the legislation was creation of the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority to educate the public and help local law enforcement reduce car theft.
I now want to bring that same emphasis on crime prevention to the Sheriff's Office.
3. What do you believe is the number one law enforcement issue facing Snohomish County? How will that issue be addressed if you serve as Sheriff?
I don't believe any one issue stands alone; they are interrelated. Growing gang activity brings violence, vandalism, and drugs. Drugs are directly connected to property crimes, such as burglary and car theft. Substance abuse also increases the problems of domestic violence, child abuse, and DUIs. These and other challenges are growing, along with our population, and straining the resources of the Sheriff's office. Deputies are carrying a heavy load, and so are the severely understaffed support personnel.
I'll bring a fresh perspective to the Sheriff's office. We need to be sure our existing resources are being used effectively and that work loads are properly distributed. Improved technology can help deputies and support staff work more efficiently. Better cooperation with other local law enforcement agencies can shorten response times.
One of the first changes you'll see when I become Sheriff is a rapid increase in the use of community partnerships to get citizens and local leaders more involved in crime prevention. I'll work with business, schools, community service groups, neighborhood associations, tribal governments, Naval Station Everett - any group with a desire to work together for a safer Snohomish County.
If additional funding is needed I'll use the negotiating skills I've learned as a lawmaker, along with my strong relationships with the County Executive and Council members, to secure what we need to keep Snohomish a safe place to live and work.
4. What is the greatest strength of the current Sheriff's department, and how would you continue and/or expand it if elected?
The greatest strength is the men and women of the Sheriff's office who work hard every day for the citizens. I have nothing but respect for those who currently serve under Sheriff Bart. But many of them tell me they feel overworked and underappreciated. Under my leadership they will know that they are part of a team, with clearly defined goals. They will understand their role in achieving those goals, and will be treated with the respect they deserve.
5. What is the greatest weakness of the current Sheriff's department, and how would you address that flaw if elected?
Crime prevention efforts need improvement; I'll make allocation of resources for crime prevention and community partnerships a top priority. I'll also work to improve department morale and strengthen the relationship between the Sheriff's office and the County Executive.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 07, 2007
08:57 AM | Email This
John, we need you in Olympia to keep the number of jails growing if that is the solution. The recent failure of funding for reopening Indian Ridge was disappointing.
Good comments on the big problem, but how do you improve meth control?
swatter, I don't even want Lovick in Olympia. Nothing against him personally, but his very first accomplishment listed is that he has written laws for "getting tough on sex offenders." Yet he voted against Jessica's Law Plus in 2006, which would have increased mandatory sentences for child molesters.
I am not a single-issue voter, but this is one of the most important issues to me, and Lovick and the Democrats have continued to fail us. I don't deny he has leadership skills, that he is well-liked, and so on. But I don't like where he often leads, and certainly don't want someone who votes against tougher penalties for sex offenders, and FOR releasing felons out into our commuity on work release, as my sheriff.
I support many of Lovick's anti-crime efforts in the legislature -- I won't oppose him on everything just because I am oppose him on some things -- but certain positions of his glaringly, negatively, stand out.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Lovick is, literally, not even qualified to be a police chief in Snohomish, let alone the Snohomish County Sheriff. I don't mean to dismiss the experience he does have, but 31 years in the state patrol, rising to sergeant, and a decade or so in the legislature, is not sufficient to be Sheriff. For my sheriff I want someone experience in administration of law enforcement in particular, and Lovick has extremely little, and let's also note that State Patrol is very different from County Sheriff. That's why I've endorsed Tom Greene.
I find it troubling that Beidler has not responded yet (I won't assume that Lovick was tardy in his response, as perhaps Eric was tardy in posting it). People have already started voting. It makes it look like Beidler has something to hide, or doesn't want to confront Sound Politics readers directly. I hope that's not the case, but he already said he would respond more than a week ago, and has not yet done so.
3. John Lovick last year
: "I know it's easy for politicians to talk tough. But talk-tough legislation doesn't solve problems."
John Lovick today: "As a legislator I've written laws to make our community safer, including getting tough on sex offenders."
4. I questioned John on the "gay rights" bill. His response to me was "We Do Not Discriminate". I asked him what about the sex-offender next door to your granddaughter, and all he could do was sputter. He wouldn't know "tough" if it bit him, and I'd never vote for him for any office, leastwise the county's top law-enforcement officer.
He voted to allow 90% of child molesters lighter sentences because they're related to the victim! That's the definition of NO LEADERSHIP and LIGHT ON CRIME....maybe the most heinous of crimes!
Any legislator who voted against tougher sentences for MOST child molester voted against the best interest of the people. They have a lot of gall asking the people to vote for them after taking such a stand.
6. Rob Beidler may be so busy out working the race that he hasn't had time to respond. He's working hard...he and Greene are both qualified (for different reasons and in different ways). Lovick doesn't have a clue about what the Deputy Sheriffs do, let alone have the knowledge or experience or leadership potential to lead that office. If Beidler and Greene both make it through the primary, then Snohomish County will get a good sheriff no matter who wins....I shudder to think what we could get with Lovick.
Wasn't the argument - supported by legal experts as well as psychologists and others with knowledge of the history in this crime - that the longer sentences would lead to those relatives not being turned in at all?
I'm not expert on the historical precedents, but that seems logical to me. And if that's likely to be true, then I'd rather those people get turned in for shorter sentences than not at all. At least that way we'll be aware of more of them.
The shorter sentences are supposed to increase the number of people caught committing disgusting crimes. Sounds like smart policy winning over the natural emotional reaction.
Too late in responding. I've already voted. Now that I can't vote at the polls I make sure my ballot is turned in in plenty of time to be counted and that I can verify this prior to election day. Since we are forced to vote by mail politians will just have to get their information out sooner or be overlooked. (Not that I'm bitter or anything like that.)
Smitty @ 7...that was the argument or more specifically, the longer sentences would lead to the victim not testifying. But reality is that if the victim is strong enough to testify about this crime, a longer sentence wouldn't be much of a difference. Also, there was no discussion on the deterrance affect on the criminal. If it's one in jail maximum compared to 10-15 years, I think that would be a strong enough deterrent to curb the crime before it occurs in some instances.
As far as I'm concerned, the legislature said that if an uncle rapes your child, he gets a year in jail and that's it. Not much of a punishment and then bragging that you were "getting tough on sex offenders" is laughable. Since 90% of child molesters know and/or are related to the victim, you did anything BUT "get tough on sex offenders". In fact, I would say that you bent over backwards to make sure sex offenders weren't punished as severely as they should be. You either stand up for the kids, or you stand up for the sex offenders. The dems and Lovick stood up for the sex offenders. End of story.
JustAnotherVoter @ 6: "Rob Beidler may be so busy out working the race that he hasn't had time to respond."
I'm sorry. He's working so hard on the campaign he doesn't have time to campaign?
If he can't be responsive now -- note that he already said he would respond -- why would I think he would be responsive if elected?
Michel @ 8: you can vote in person, either at the County Auditor's office or at several Disabled Access Voting sites around the county, for the several days prior to, and the day of, the election.
That's what I will do.
See http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/08/vote_in_person.html for more information.
12. Come on people. As Sheriff you can't really do a bad job. He can't go in there and fire everyone, and hire his union buddies from Olympia to come in and do the job of the police force. Think bigger picture. He wins Sheriff, the Dem's appoint someone to fill his leg. seat, and the GOP has a legitimate shot at taking back a seat in the House.
drw @ 9: basically, yes. But more important is the flawed logic inherent in this claim, from the article I linked to @ 3: "You need to leave a little bit of flexibility in the system," said Tom McBride, executive secretary of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and a former child-abuse prosecutor. "Fifty sex offenders in prison for life doesn't protect the community as much as 300 in prison for 10 years."
Apart from the fact that none of his numbers reflect reality -- the upper bounds of "life", the lower bounds of "10 years," or the ratio of 50:300 -- the very point is that it does very little good to keep a sex offender in prison for a mere year.
I say, they have it backward: putting 30 sex offenders in prison for one year doesn't protect the community as much as one in prison for 30 years, not just because of the deterrence factor, but also because one year will not stop that criminal from harming someone else: it is essentially useless. He will be out again and will continue to offend.
You might as well not put them in jail at all, if it is only for a year. The main point of putting someone in jail is to keep them from harming others, and the more likely they are to reoffend and significantly harm people, the more important it is to keep them away from society for a long period of time. One year is nothing: not a deterrent to crime, and not a prevention of crime.
The one benefit to short sentences is that you can require registration, whereas you can't if you don't convict, but since we don't enforce that anyway, it is currently not very helpful (and you should call your Reps to demand they meet for Special Session in September to resolve this!).
On very rare occasions, it might be worth making a plea for a shorter sentence, if that is absolutely the only way to get a conviction. But the prosecutor must be obligated to attempt to get a convction without it first, else they are not doing their job, and we should demand the prosecutors explain themselves to us every time they do it.
jacob @ 12: I hope you're kidding. In fact, the Sheriff has a lot of power to improve our safety, or destroy it. It's not about personnel so much, it's about what your priorities are, where you put your resources, how you deal with problems.
I live in unincorporated Snohomish County. The Sheriff is the only law enforcement I've got, beyond myself and my neighbors, and I am not willing to entrust that to a novice.
15. drw - that makes sense to me. I agree a year is way too little, but if it takes some flexibility in the system to get more victims to come forward and eventually testify then I think that should be factored in. But how much flexibility (i.e., leniency) to include needs to be debated much more, as one year sentences aren't enough.
16. Mr. Smitty: no, it should only factor in if that is necessary for a conviction.
17. This is my first time on here, so please bear with me...
I can only relate my experience living in North Snohomish County and needing help from the SCSO deputies....
We bought a new home on a spot lot in front of a home occupied by an older couple. We're on 3/4 acre, they are on six acres.
Things were great until they moved their son (who was recently released from prison for making meth in THEIR home) into a travel trailer in their yard. Classy. He started selling meth, beating his girlfriends, shooting guns within one hundred yards of my back door. I have children who could not even go outside. We're not talking occasionally, either, this was every day sometimes ALL day long. A felon is not even supposed to touch a gun. I called 911 to report it and they told me it was probably just fireworks. Ten days later my home was burglarized. My t.v. was laying halfway between my house and their house. The deputy who responded told me he didn't have time to ask them any questions or take finger prints and that he was just there "for insurance purposes." He did nothing.
When I did get someone to call me on the gunshots, I had to convince them that I live in a no shooting zone and that even if they could shoot on their property legally, he's a convicted felon. I had tell three different deputies that.
The final straw was on the night of January 13th, 2007. We were awakened by a woman beating on our door screaming that he'd been holding a gun to her head. They had been smoking meth for four days nonstop. We had no idea if this was a plan for a home invasion or if she actually needed help. We called 911, they sent SEVEN cars. The deputies have repeatedly told me that this guy is one of Snohomish County's most dangerous repeat offenders. Several of his convictions are for violating restraining orders and assaults. They came, they took her out of my entryway and when I asked them what was going to go down next, they said "nothing, it's too dangerous for us to make contact with that guy."
They drove away. Took her home (in a patrol car paid for by my tax dollars) and dropped her off. She was also a convicted felon who was holding a meth pipe the entire time she was at my door. That's another felony, but she just got a taxi ride home.
Too dangerous? How can that possibly be? My family was left here with a guy who was high, had a gun, and knew we'd just called the cops. It's hard not to take that as the deputies were scared, this scumbag got to watch them all drive away. Who had all the power that night? And, I have a family member who is a 20 year veteran cop in Seattle's central district, so don't tell me I want to risk lives unneccessarily. Law enforcement doesn't just respond to the "less dangerous" calls.
I called Rob Beidler and invited him to come and talk to our newly formed neighborhood watch about this issue. I told him in advance that he would be asked about it. On the night of the meeting he stated that he "didn't have a chance to look it up." The next meeting he was asked again and said that the woman was high and could not be believed and they had no responsibility to check on any of the other occupants in the house. He was rude and defensive. If they didn't believe her, then, what was the risk in going back. Beidler says he has SWAT experience, do we not have people trained for dangerous confrontations? I would think paying tax dollars would prepare them for dealing with violent criminals. They left my family here to deal with this man. When Rob Beidler says they'll risk their personal safety to help others....I don't buy it.
I believe the some of the deputies that are endorsing Beidler are doing so to not go against the union and because they like things just the way they are.
Who wants to work when they don't have to and their "buddy" could be the one in charge?
Keep in mind that Rob Beidler says he oversees the North Precinct and this is how it's been going..do we want him running the whole Sheriff's department?
If you have not already done it, I would certainly advise you to get a concealed carry permit, a .45 and a good training course! Sounds like you're on your own up there. It would be interesting to contact Tom Greene and John Lovick with your story and ask them for a response.
Great advice. Not to worry. We figured out that night that we were on our own. We are well taken care of and can defend ourselves and our children, too bad we can't get credit for our tax dollars that are being wasted.
Is it pathetic that my three year old can tell the difference between the sound of a gunshot and the sound of fireworks? Doesn't really matter, though- she now hides under the bed when she hears either one. Can't have friends of family over and don't feel safe letting our dog outside. Is that what the rest of the county has to look forward to?
20. SK, wow, what a story. That's just crazy. They won't investigate a guy who assaulted a woman with a deadly weapon because it was too dangerous? Did you contact someone over Beidler's head?
You bet. I had a meeting with Sheriff Rick Bart. I sent him an e-mail detailing everything and he sent me a response saying "sorry you are having a problem." But, you see, I wasn't "having" a problem, this guy was causing a problem. This guy had no respect for the law or the deputies. Bart himself knew the family and had personally arrested two generations of them. Keep in mind that he (Bart) and several higher ups knew about this particular guy and the situation we were dealing with (gunfire, etc.) before the January incident. I asked to meet with him to convey that I was not "crazy" and that I was not going to just go away. The only way this was going to get any closer was if it actually came inside my home....which it nearly did that January night. The 911 dispatcher told me to get my kids from their beds and put them into a closet or somewhere without windows as we didn't know where this violent felon might be walking around outside our house. Nice.
north area is Koster Country isn't it? Try that.
Reardon is also north area, too, isn't he? He is supposed to be all over the meth and high crime issue. Call him on it.
23. Hi Swatter
I did meet with both John Koster and Aaron Reardon and while both were incredulous at the actions of the SCSO that night, they could only help so much.
People saying "that's terrible" and "I can't believe that," is understandable, but what we really need as a community is for someone to help us when our lives are at risk.
And, since Beidler wasn't there that night, he CANNOT know what our family was feeling for the 20 minutes it took for them to respond and get that girl away from my door. She was screaming that he was coming to get her the entire time.
We have dealt with this guy every day and have seen him beat his girlfriends and heard him scream and yell and go on rampages. Beidler has not. So, he has no idea how much he could have helped the public that night.
Good suggestion to contact them and they were helpful, but if that guy was beating on my door with a gun they wouldn't be able to do much.
They aren't trained to, and apparently, neither are our deputies.
I'm not even saying who I may vote for, but I would love for Beidler to have acknowledged that something different should have been done or that something will change in the future. He just tried to bully me instead. I'm sure he thought I might just forget about it, but I feel people should know that if he gets by, he needs to own up and start truly taking the "crime fighting" opportunities. He sounds like he thinks he's a superhero "a true crime fighter!" Cue music.
24. So, Biedler was the North Precinct Captain?
An article in the Herald on Sunday 8/5 said Beidler "oversees" the North Precinct. It also said something about being the Division Commander.
Unclear, but he can't cherry pick and take credit for positives without owning the "issues" that need dealing with. That would make him a politician! Ha.
Either way, if he's going to run for an office with responsibility, I provided him with the perfect opportunity to explain to all my neighbors why this was handled this particular way and what might be done differently in the future. I didn't surprise him, I told him before the meeting. Overseeing the N. Precinct, or the entire SCSO...we should demand accountablity.
I have written a letter to the editor of the Herald, but of course do not expect it will be printed since they are endorsing him. I'd like to see if Beidler would have any response to this issue. I imagine it would be something like "make no mistake, we are not afraid, she was high and could not be believed...." Which, is funny, because if she couldn't be believed, where is that danger? Use your SWAT experience. That's the statement he made at our second metting. In speaking with other officers in other cities and counties, about what happened that night, all said they would have had to go back and investigate. That they would have WANTED to go back and investigate. One big city department I know had quite a laugh over it being "too dangerous" for our guys.
26. @ 17
Here is your typical whine list about meth.
Little does SK know that meth is bath tub gin all over again.
Drug free work place laws,and the cocaine war created the meth epidemic as we know it.
In Port Angeles I can show you the same thing as what SK describes in snohomish county.
I can walk into a bar and see all of the Tweakers that I know,that used to just drink beer and smoke pot,and whiff a little coke once in a while.
Now with drug testing ,I see all of my old friends resorting to Meth because they can pass a drug test in 72 hours.
The general public just refuses to admit that the Meth epidemic is a direct result of the drug war.
Good pot is almost impossible to find anymore.
All you can get these days is canadian hay,or BC BUD,which according to lovick is 600 times more powerfull than a locomotive.
We were better off with the beer drinking, good local pot smoking communities.
the drug war is a complete failure.
Take a good look SK.
You wanted drug free communities,now sit there and take your bath tub gin community,and read the whine list to someone else.
You want to stop this problem,stop the drug war.
stop being ignorant,recognize a condition of prohibition when you see it.
30 + years with the State Patrol. Years as a State Rep. and now he wants to be Sheriff? Seems like a good retirement program is in the making. In the past I have argued legislation with John Lovic and he was not prepared to defend his positions. He simply didn't do his homework. On many occasions he openly expressed limited or no knowledge on important legislation.
I certainly didn't appreciate a representative that voted with little or no knowledge on important legislation. I certainly won't appreciate a Sheriff taking actions and spending resources in the same manner. John has done little over the years that gives me confidence in his leadership abilities.
Publicbulldog: "bull" is right. Oh sure, you have a point about the war on drugs. But that has not one thing to do with the problem SK is talking about, which is that the deputies wouldn't do anything to go after a dangerous and violent person who was committing a felony.
We are not talking about root causes here. That's an important issue, but the topic on the table right now is actually going after criminals, and this guy is one.
pudge is right. Thanks pudge. I mentioned the Meth use to give people a partial history on this guy. His meth use is one small part of his violent personality. Whether he was high that night or not, he was still a crzay man going after his girlfriend with a gun outside my house. You missed the point and are trying to paint me as some chick who has no idea of what's going on around here. So, if you had this guy as a neighbor and had been dealing with the same situation you'd just sit down with him and offer him some pot and it would all just be good?
Ignorant....yeah. one of us is.
SK is whining about a culture created by the drug war.
There are 20 people or more waiting at taverns all across town for that guy every night.
They drink,and whiff until they can't even speak.
They communicate with hand gestures .
It is like being in a room with 20 third base coaches.
They want a product,that thug provides that product.
Pudge is wrong when he says the drug war has nothing to do with SK's problem.
It has everything to do with it.
Law enforcement will tell you they would rather go after marijuana users because they are way less violent.
So that is what they do.
They came to my house to get 6 medical marijuana plants,and never arrested me.
They had 22 officers, a penske truck and a k-9 unit.
They wasted our tax dollars.
Why because I was easy prey,a cripple with pot.
I know that doesnt bother pudge,because I have posted that on this site before and he took up arguments.
SK promotes a fear that instills more cries for more criminal justice spending.
King County spends 74 percent of its budget on criminal justice.
The more I spend on criminal justice, the more I need for criminal justice.
SK cries out for the sheriffs office to stop this guy,and they dont,because they want to take the easy busts instead.
SK,and pudge wont admit that they want drug free communities,and they wont pay the price for that quest.
IT is whining like that, that pushed King County criminal justice to 74 percent.
I got news for you SK ,your problem wont change if Snohomish county decides to spend 74 percent of its budget on criminal justice.
They will end up going after the weak and sick so they can live to collect a pension.
The responsibility for your problems lies with the quest for drug free communities.
They sell the fear of a new epidemic caused by the drug war,throw money at it,then spend that money on the crime of least resistance.
I am tired of the fears,and the sales jobs that
has diverted most of our tax dollars into a snowball that grows and grows.
Face it pudge and SK,If there was no drug war,they would have no choice but to go after violent thugs like the guy SK whined about.
Neither of you will stop it because you want to feel safe, so you are willing to let this problem fester,by growing a criminal justice snowball.
Soon we will be after buggar pickers and J walkers and still afraid to go after the violent criminals.
Hey Pudge,SK pull it out.
Take marijuana off their list and leave them no choice but to go after the violent thugs.
what you need is a violent crime war, instead of a drug war.........
31. Lovick has been tough on Roads and bridges,and soft on gentrification.
32. Publicbulldog: there is no excuse for leaving a violent criminal to continue to commit violent crimes. None. You can't use the "failed drug war" as a scapegoat here. You are not addressing the actual point.
You bet I can,and I am addressing the point.
I stand as a visual aide for criminal justice.
I was an easier body count for law enforcement.
Take away that ability, then they have no choice but to start going after violent criminals.
You just want to throw money at em and let em take the path of least resistance.
You are giving them a choice.
Video game playing cripple's or violent criminals.
What did you expect for your 74 percent pudge... pudge are you law enforcement,because this seems to be a sore spot for you.
34. Also Law enforcement is getting frustrated because when they do put their butts on the line and capture a violent criminal,the criminal justice system just lets em out in a year and a day.
Thanks to the DRUG war and non violent criminals that make up the larger portion of the prison population.
again, take away the non violent crime, and put them behind the treatment 8 ball, instead of the criminal justice 8 ball,and keep the violent criminals in longer and law enforcement might just be more willing to risk their lives to go after the violent criminals.
Right now criminal justice is a puffy bloated living wage job that I can't get rid of.
Soon I will be paying 10 bucks for a cornish game hen to keep the buggar pickers in jail,and the parks open,and then have to move into a shag high rise because all the bridges and roads are falling apart.
Talk to any council member, or Legislator.
They want to spend money on Criminal Justice Education,And Transit.
We get three snowballs for our adult lifetime.
Pudge,When the price of a cornish game hen hits the 10 dollar mark,and Shag starts building high rises, dont forget I told you so...
35. Publicbulldog, nevermind. I hereby give up on you. No matter the virtue of your points, they, in fact, are beside the actual point. You just want to grind your axe, and that's fine, but you can do it on your own.
36. Pudge I dont want to grind an axe I want to melt a run away snowball,three of them as a matter of fact.
37. I guess I will go to the back of the bus and sit with Toby Nixon then.
without us Pudge, you will always be a minority party.
38. So, if this guy had just been smoking pot that night...he wouldn't have freaked out and come calling with his gun? He's violent, meth or pot or no drugs at all he's still beating girlfriends and his family members on a regular basis. He's got past convictions that all label him a serious repeat offender. He's banned from having guns.
You, again, are the one who's whining.
If I had contributed more money to fighting crime...they'd have taken him away?
You think that if I'd said, "oh, he's growing pot back there.." they'd have gone after him?
It wouldn't have mattered to me why they went after him...just that they get a violent guy off the street when they have the chance.
So...I'm paying more for Cornish game hens because it's not legal for you to smoke?
You. Are. Brilliant.
Next time he comes around with his gun(after he's only smoked pot,'cause that's the BEST drug) I'll send him your way and let him shoot your mellooow self.
The drugs did not make this the issue...the dereliction of duty was the problem.
Say he wasn't on drugs at all...they still did nothing.
39. 1.There is no incentive to bust a violent criminal because he just gets out in a year and a day.
A,Because our criminal justice system is overcrowded with NON VIOLENT criminals.
2. Who do you think he comes gunning for when he gets out in a year and a day.
A. your local law enforcement officer.
3, Why does Law enforcement take the path of least resistance.
A. there is no threat to arresting NON VIOLENT criminals.
4.why do we have a Snow balling criminal justice budget.
A because when we spend more on criminal justice,we need more for criminal justice..
B.Because it is easier to arrest non violent criminals we just end up spending more to arrest more non violent criminals.
C. because we arrest more non violent criminals,violent criminals are let out in a year and a day.
5 what makes up the largest percentage of non violent criminals.
A. marijuana crimes.
6.will raising Snohomish counties criminal justice budget to 74 percent(like King Counties) solve SK 'S PROBLEM.
A. No they will just arrest more non violent criminals.
7.Why do the R's lose their a$$ every election in Washington State.
A. because they try and legislate morality
B.because you cant be fiscally conservative with a 74 percent Criminal Justice budget.
C.The fiscal conservatives und up in the back of the bus because they dont by the neo cons fears so easy.
D the neo cons make up a small pecentage here in Washington State,and can not get a majority here.
E the NEO cons refuse to adopt a fiscal conservative platform.
8. why do the neo cons make me sick to my stomach.
A.this is not the bible belt or deep south, SO THEY WILL NEVER HAVE NUMBERS..
B.THEY SELL AND BUY TOO MANY FEARS.
C. you cant be fiscally conservative buying,and selling so many fears.
D.THE COST OF THOSE FEARS GOES RIGHT ONTO THE PRICES OF GOODS AND SERVICES.
E the R's claim to be for small business,then heap on the cost of fears onto them.
9.How will the R's win here in washington.
A. get rid of the neo cons.
B. stop selling so many fears.
C. unite the true fiscal conservatives of Washington State.
D show the people of Washington State that we can get more for the people, by asking for less.
I refuse to buy your fear SK.
I will take my seat in the back of the bus.
Publicbulldog: if you can't discuss the actual point at hand, why would I care what else you have to say?
Don't bother answering, because I know your answer will be beside the point.
41. Pudge you are in denial.
You want to round up all the non violent criminals,so there is no room for the violent criminals. until you realize that I cant help you.
Until you are willing to accept the fact that we can't throw more money at the snowball to solve your problem,I will be sitting in the back of the bus with Toby Nixon.
Come and get me when you are tired of a watch salesman in a gorilla suit being the only checks and balance for washington State.
42. Publicbulldog: you keep talking, but not saying anything. You should realize that the only person I've advocated locking up in this thread is someone I want locked up for a violent crime. I never said or implied I would want to lock someone up for marijuana. I didn't discuss that point at all, because it is beside the point. You're being quite irrational by accusing me of something that I not only never said, but do not believe.
43. Pudge ,
I have kids.
I want to lock up violent criminals too.
But when we fill our criminal justice system with non violent criminals,the violent criminals just get out in a year and a day no matter how violent they are.
That is wrong.
I don't want to buy the meth fear, because I already bought the Cocaine fear,and the bc bud fear( hay that is 600 times more powerful than a locomotive).
I have the criminal justice roster spots over filled as it is.
Until folks start realizing that we put too many non violent crimes on the cart,we can never have a fiscal conservative policy or a violent criminal policy.
Sorry I didnt buy in to SK's fear sales,but I am a fiscal conservative thinker.
Try signing a triple net lease and running a small business,That may change your thinking.
Then You may see why I have such a fiscally conservative mindset.
44. Publicbulldog: sorry, I stopped reading after you continued to miss the point.
45. Like I said many times on this thread pudge,you can't arrest violent criminals and let them out in a year and a day, because there are too many non violent prisoners,it is stupid process that needs to be changed in order to solve your criminal justice problems..
You are a stubborn Neo Con,that is upset I didnt want to pour more snow on the criminal justice snowball.
What do you want 80 percent,90 percent,100 percent, escape from King County.
Enough! I say if you dont feel safe at 74 percent,you need to take a look at the system because I aint just throwing more of My money at the problem.
That leaves 26 percent for everything else.
Get it neo con.
I hereby stick my head so far up my A$$ I need to cut a switch back to get it out.
You sign a tripple net lease and put your house on the line,and see if you want to buy every fear that comes along.
The point is You can't take an opposing argument...ever pudge.
46. I stopped reading this time after you missed the point and then lied by calling me a "Neo Con."