In another thread I posted this, and I may elaborate later but its enough for now.

And be warned, if this thread goes in the direction of some of the other ones I will delete offending posts and send a warning to the poster or lock the thread.

This thread is for me and my opinion, you can disagree but don't be a d-bag. Anyone else is welcome to start their own thread.

I will be voting for Jeff over Kim.

I know them both about equally and have never had a bad experience with either. I was really torn in the beginning about who to vote for, but then the politiking commenced.

Kim could have had me if he had not took his cruiser and leaped off a cliff into a canyon of internal dept. issues.

All the nit-picking really made me look at Kim as someone who should have informed his superior officer of said complaints and worked with the sheriff and the union to iron them out. Instead he chose to take a bunch of internal dept. issues and use them to attempt to win an election.

I am so sick of this type of politiking nationwide that Kim will not get my vote. We see this in the state and fed campaigns and especially POTUS campaigns. Then we see what those politicians do when they get in office and it is nothing good. So as much as I like Kim as a person I am disgusted with the way he went about trying to get elected Sheriff.

Had he run on a platform of things he could do better and why, without airing every gripe to the public he may have got my vote.

I will vote for Jeff because he is the "strong silent type" and those are the ones who really are stronger nearly every time, Jeff did not feel the need to try to destroy Kims character. As sheriff he has access to every grievance ever filed on Kim and could have showed us a dirty pile of Kim's laundry I am sure, but he choose to run a clean campaign free of personal attacks and that is why he gets my vote. I think Jeff has great character and backbone to take all of Kims barbs without throwing any of his own and that is another reason Jeff will get my vote.

Looking at what each man did during this campaign I will vote for Jeff, he is the man I would want to have my back if I ever needed someone (a sheriff) to turn to.

Views: 723

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I think both men are capable to be Sheriff. It is a matter of opinion as to who would do the best job. There is nothing drastic enough to disqualify either one of them. The differences seem to be over management styles. Kim Cole's case for the traffic stop and arrest was dismissed. If I still lived in Mason County I would vote for Kim, but I'm not saying the present Sheriff is a bad guy. There are just differences of opinion. 

Ask your husband

You hit the nail on the head Phil. You always have the words to show the obvious to those who cannot see it.

Careful, Johanna, we have a few eligible bachelors around here that aren't as crass as Phil and Brian, who both seem to be intimidated by such an obviously intelligent, wise, and assertive woman.

At this point to debate with you any more would be frivolous.


The case was not dismissed, it was settled.  Big difference. 

We have all had the opportunity to read Kim Cole's version of events that day, using his own words, and even if we grant that every word in it is 100% true, it shows a lack of attention to detail in the respect of how former County Commissioner Martin Schilling was treated that day for doing nothing illegal.  Basic rights were ignored, accepted protocol was not followed. 

It scares me that Cole and Laude Hartrum saw nothing wrong with it, and still don't.  Pentwater look out.

I'm looking at the docket for the case on Pacer and it says that the case was dismissed. Item 16 on the Docket dated 12/02/2009 is the ORDER OF DISMISSAL.




Usual legal protocol for such instances Brian, doesn't mean exactly what the terms allege. A "settlement out of court" is usually "with prejudice". That term allows for a varying latitude of interpretations, understand? Any settlement made, is a confession of legitimate guilt, how much, depends on your perspective and what you think is ideal, just ask Jack Byers. Sometimes a $1 settlement is as good as a $1Million settlement, if the plaintiff really was trying to prove a point of law, and achieved that. Brian, your measurement of success in dollars is a betrayal of self worth, which I now know you have none, based on your posts to hurt, instead of plainly debate with facts. Atlas, very well said, this is the essence of this important election, not more dirty laundry and constant back-biting juvenile politicking.

Well put, Aquaman.  Brian, when a case in the civil court system gets settled through mediation or other out of court means, part of the process is dismissing the case so it won't be seen as 'active' by the court system.  Martin Schilling got $7500 of the County of Mason taxpayers money, because Kim Cole couldn't follow protocol, or observe the Fourth Amendment.  You can also bet there were thousands of dollars already spent on Kim Cole's lawyers by Risk Management, as well.

You could say that the Mason County taxpayers got stuck paying the $7500 because the younger Schilling was a druggie, or you could say that it was because the Senior Schilling did not cooperate. It's all a matter of perception. I do not see a good ole boy conspiracy here. If Mr. Schilling were to fall and break his nose and his arm while at the jail, you may convince me. This incident was a lot of high emotion, but nothing more than that. Mr. Schilling was under a lot of stress dealing with the son, which is normal.

Or you could say the older Schilling obviously didn't raise his kid right, so should have been taken in because his kid went bad.  All would be ridiculous. 

Martin Schilling, innocent father, cooperated at all times with what was obviously overstepping by the police-- which could turn into goosestepping in the future if such police actions are tolerated by the system.  In retrospect, I agree with Chuck Lange, the only Commissioner to vote against settlement,that the County should have went through with the trial before giving away one red cent. 

Because then the whole sordid episode would have been out there, and the jury would have easily sided with the aggrieved party, Martin Schilling. 

But on the other hand, I'm glad they didn't because the County would have been a few hundred thousand dollars poorer.


© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service