Tough Questions for Those Who Vote for Sheriff Candidates

[XLFD]

On Tuesday night, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) moderated a forum of candidates running for office from the area including the local Michigan Congressional race Allen O'Shea v. Ray Franz (which has been very contentious in my mail; I could make a magazine with all the glossy fliers I have received from both these guys), the Probate Court Judge race with Nick Krieger v. Jeff Nellis and the Sheriff race between Kim Cole and Jeff Fiers. 

 

The latter sparked a wide range of discussion when both candidates vied in the Republican primary, and Cole came out on top.  Fiers kept in the race by sparking a write-in campaign for office, making him have the distinction as starting the year off a Democrat, becoming a Republican in spring, and becoming non-partisan in the summer.  By the end of this fall, he may be a Libertarian looking for a new line of work.   Still, I had an interest in reading the COLDNews article labelled "Tough Questions for Sheriff Candidates" in the paper and E-edition, because of what it promised.   

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/67655-tough-questions-for-sh...

One of the questions the COLDNews received by E-mail was asked, as explained in the article:

“I was sued back in 2006-07 by an individual whose son tried to run over a county deputy,” Cole said in response to a question asking if either man had ever been individually named in a lawsuit. “I was sued for five counts of alleged violations of this individual’s civil rights — $50,000 for each count.”

Cole said he received a set of questions from the plaintiff’s attorney and he answered all but three. He refused, under threat of contempt of court, to provide his social security number, to provide the names and ages of his children and to provide the name of his wife and any high school girlfriends as well as contact numbers for each.

“I refused to answer these questions,” Cole said. “I retained my own attorney and the damages went from $250,000 to $7,500 - you figure out why.”

Cole said he didn’t want to settle the suit but was told by the county attorney it was a business decision.

 

Let's review this answer, and herein I offer two threads the Torch did on this topic: Cole' sLaw where we look at the father's lawsuit, and Another Side of Cole's Law, where we look at both sides of the issue .  Cole directs the focus to the son of the person who filed suit for infringement of rights, and says that he 'tried to run over a county deputy'.  A reading of Deputy Davila's account does not lead me to that conclusion.  His son had ran when Dep. Davila said he was under arrest, was shot at by a taser, got in his car, had the deputy smash his window and grab his steering wheel, and was about to draw his gun when the son moved forward and pitched Davila into the snowbank.  At no time had the son tried to 'run over' the deputy.  Did he resist arrest, and cause damage to the deputy, yes.  But playing loosely with facts is not a good quality for a sheriff to possess.

He explains factually the counts of the lawsuit, not going into detail about why he says the rights violations were incorrect, but instead once again deflecting the focus onto the other party's lawyer who he says went to far in his questioning of him.  Funny, that's part and parcel of what the lawsuit said you did, Sergeant Cole.  I wonder what you might have done if Martin Schilling was other than cooperative with you?

Lastly, Cole told me himself that he had acquired his own attorney for the case, but took the settlement, which basically showed their was some merit to Mr. Schilling's claims.  If he was interested in showing he was guiltless of all five counts, he should have went forward with his own attorney, and not cost the taxpayer any more money defending the sorry deeds he did that day.

 

But the answer he gave is his canned answer; I received the same song and dance blaming everyone but himself for the actions he took that day.   Frankly, I like Kim Cole in many ways, but I see this as too big a character flaw to entrust him to be our next sheriff, so I cannot bring myself to vote for him.  Jeff Fiers, remaining silent at the forum about this without further probing, shows he may lack the spine, and the moral clarity he says he offers, nor was there too big of a surprise that the COLDNews didn't probe further.

 

And, of course, the COLDNews did not brooch the real tough questions such as I sent to Steve Begnoche via the E-mail:   

 

In the summer of 2009, a Ludington resident was gang-tackled, repeatedly tasered, and arrested by three current sheriff's deputies. A reading of the depositions of all parties involved does not indicate the citizen had done anything to necessitate the brutal actions of the deputies, or the arrest. He was then taken to the hospital to treat the damage the deputies caused, where once again he was repeatedly tasered by the deputies for not sitting on his hospital bed. He has filed a federal lawsuit against the County and the deputies. What is your position on the way this citizen was treated, and why have these actions been kept secret from the public?

Steve, I would appreciate your own answer to the last question, as well. Why hasn't the only local paper apprised the citizens of this incident, and what is your position on the way he was treated? Thanks.

Tom Rotta

The Ludington Torch

Jeff, Kim, and Steve, you still have ample opportunity to answer that question(s) before the election in a way that will not jeopardize the County's coffers.  But since you continue to ignore the real tough questions from any angle, I think the electorate can infer that you are more concerned with the image of the MCSO and the careers of their officers more than the rights of the individuals who they supposedly serve and occasionally trample over.

(Photos courtesy of Mason County Press taken at their debate earlier this summer)