As the Woodland Daily Democrat reports,
“Sacramento resident Jerry Monk, 35, was scheduled to appear at the Yolo County Court house for a pre-trial conference as a defendant in a criminal matter. Afterward, he and his friend, fellow Sacramentan Ontriel Darnell Jones, 24, walked down the south sidewalk of Court Street, when they approached a man walking down the same street. For reasons unknown, Jones and Monk, verbally accosted the man, sarcastically asking what there was to do in Woodland, employing profanity in the process. The man they asked happened to be 6-foot-5, 275-pound Yolo County Sheriff E.G. Prieto. He was dressed in street clothes.
Prieto flashed them his badge. They walked away. Prieto ordered them to stop, twice. They didn’t. The 64-year-old sheriff then reached for one of the suspect’s arms and that’s when Prieto said he made a move to attack him. “He looked like he was going punch me,” Prieto said. Prieto then subdued the suspect by throwing him to the ground and held him there while fending off the other suspect.”
However, the television news coverage casts a different version of the story. There the suspects claim that in fact the Sheriff provoked them by shouting out homophobic remarks. The Sheriff of course denies this version.
However watch this video from KCRA News 3 in Sacramento.
There is no way of knowing of course who is telling the truth in this case and whether or not the Sheriff made homophobic remarks.
However, there are portions of this story that do not make a lot of sense.
For instance, if these men were looking for trouble, why target the 6-7, 275 pound Sheriff? Even if they do not know he’s the Sheriff, he seems about the last person in the world, you would want to mess with.
Second, when they show the men in question, they look to be rather small, in fact, they look like combined they are smaller than the Sheriff? Did he really feel threatened by them? Did he really feel like *they* were going to attack him?
Finally, when the subjects are interviewed, they are not interviewed in jail. Why is it that two men who were in court for drug charges would be out free the day after attacking the Sheriff?
Obviously everything that the Sheriff claims could be true, but from what I saw on the newscast, his story really does not seem to add up, but decide for yourself.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
There appears to be sufficient allegation, discrimination,and use of force related to discrimination to warrant at a minimum an independant investigation, and possibly a criminal civil rights investigation of the sheriff’s actions. What is the statement of the prosecutor who was there?
There appears to be sufficient allegation, discrimination,and use of force related to discrimination to warrant at a minimum an independant investigation, and possibly a criminal civil rights investigation of the sheriff’s actions. What is the statement of the prosecutor who was there?
There appears to be sufficient allegation, discrimination,and use of force related to discrimination to warrant at a minimum an independant investigation, and possibly a criminal civil rights investigation of the sheriff’s actions. What is the statement of the prosecutor who was there?
There appears to be sufficient allegation, discrimination,and use of force related to discrimination to warrant at a minimum an independant investigation, and possibly a criminal civil rights investigation of the sheriff’s actions. What is the statement of the prosecutor who was there?
I saw this on the news and wondered what was going on. It’s a very different story than what the Daily Democrat reported.
The DD said:
“Around 10 Sheriff’s deputies arrived on scene to find their boss in the physical struggle.”
The two men didn’t seem big enough to attack my dog let alone a 6’7″ Sheriff.
“With the men in custody, Prieto brushed off his slacks and straightened his tie as if it were nothing.”
Probably because it was nothing to him. But it was something to the two men if he in fact made homophobic comments. From what they said on the news story he saw them being affectionate and made a comment to which they responded and that’s when there was an exchange of words.
This requires an independent investigation.
The paper also reported they had outstanding warrants when in fact they had just come from the court. How could they have outstanding warrants within a few minutes of leaving court?
It sounds like the Daily Democrat may need to do another story, because the story seems far different from the story reported on Channel 3.
I saw this on the news and wondered what was going on. It’s a very different story than what the Daily Democrat reported.
The DD said:
“Around 10 Sheriff’s deputies arrived on scene to find their boss in the physical struggle.”
The two men didn’t seem big enough to attack my dog let alone a 6’7″ Sheriff.
“With the men in custody, Prieto brushed off his slacks and straightened his tie as if it were nothing.”
Probably because it was nothing to him. But it was something to the two men if he in fact made homophobic comments. From what they said on the news story he saw them being affectionate and made a comment to which they responded and that’s when there was an exchange of words.
This requires an independent investigation.
The paper also reported they had outstanding warrants when in fact they had just come from the court. How could they have outstanding warrants within a few minutes of leaving court?
It sounds like the Daily Democrat may need to do another story, because the story seems far different from the story reported on Channel 3.
I saw this on the news and wondered what was going on. It’s a very different story than what the Daily Democrat reported.
The DD said:
“Around 10 Sheriff’s deputies arrived on scene to find their boss in the physical struggle.”
The two men didn’t seem big enough to attack my dog let alone a 6’7″ Sheriff.
“With the men in custody, Prieto brushed off his slacks and straightened his tie as if it were nothing.”
Probably because it was nothing to him. But it was something to the two men if he in fact made homophobic comments. From what they said on the news story he saw them being affectionate and made a comment to which they responded and that’s when there was an exchange of words.
This requires an independent investigation.
The paper also reported they had outstanding warrants when in fact they had just come from the court. How could they have outstanding warrants within a few minutes of leaving court?
It sounds like the Daily Democrat may need to do another story, because the story seems far different from the story reported on Channel 3.
I saw this on the news and wondered what was going on. It’s a very different story than what the Daily Democrat reported.
The DD said:
“Around 10 Sheriff’s deputies arrived on scene to find their boss in the physical struggle.”
The two men didn’t seem big enough to attack my dog let alone a 6’7″ Sheriff.
“With the men in custody, Prieto brushed off his slacks and straightened his tie as if it were nothing.”
Probably because it was nothing to him. But it was something to the two men if he in fact made homophobic comments. From what they said on the news story he saw them being affectionate and made a comment to which they responded and that’s when there was an exchange of words.
This requires an independent investigation.
The paper also reported they had outstanding warrants when in fact they had just come from the court. How could they have outstanding warrants within a few minutes of leaving court?
It sounds like the Daily Democrat may need to do another story, because the story seems far different from the story reported on Channel 3.
TV news is notoriously bad. They are often incorrect on many if not all of the facts.
Second, DPD: just because a law official did something doesn’t mean it was automatically racist.
TV news is notoriously bad. They are often incorrect on many if not all of the facts.
Second, DPD: just because a law official did something doesn’t mean it was automatically racist.
TV news is notoriously bad. They are often incorrect on many if not all of the facts.
Second, DPD: just because a law official did something doesn’t mean it was automatically racist.
TV news is notoriously bad. They are often incorrect on many if not all of the facts.
Second, DPD: just because a law official did something doesn’t mean it was automatically racist.
I’m glad you clarified that anonymous 7:53, I don’t recall uttering the word racist or accusing anyone of racism. I expressly said I didn’t know what happened, only find that the facts of this case suspicious.
The TV news may notoriously get things wrong, but did they shrink the size of the alleged perps or change the physical dimensions of the Sheriff? I don’t know what happened, but the story does not seem to add up.
I’m glad you clarified that anonymous 7:53, I don’t recall uttering the word racist or accusing anyone of racism. I expressly said I didn’t know what happened, only find that the facts of this case suspicious.
The TV news may notoriously get things wrong, but did they shrink the size of the alleged perps or change the physical dimensions of the Sheriff? I don’t know what happened, but the story does not seem to add up.
I’m glad you clarified that anonymous 7:53, I don’t recall uttering the word racist or accusing anyone of racism. I expressly said I didn’t know what happened, only find that the facts of this case suspicious.
The TV news may notoriously get things wrong, but did they shrink the size of the alleged perps or change the physical dimensions of the Sheriff? I don’t know what happened, but the story does not seem to add up.
I’m glad you clarified that anonymous 7:53, I don’t recall uttering the word racist or accusing anyone of racism. I expressly said I didn’t know what happened, only find that the facts of this case suspicious.
The TV news may notoriously get things wrong, but did they shrink the size of the alleged perps or change the physical dimensions of the Sheriff? I don’t know what happened, but the story does not seem to add up.
I’ve known Ed as a friend and colleague for more than 15 years, and I’m with Ed 100% on this one. I’ve never heard him use homophobic language.
Let’s get real…a couple of minor hoodlums are upset by their day in court and choose to harrass the sheriff. He decides to take them off the street.
I think it’s pretty much his job. But good for them that they thought of converting to victims so quickly.
Investigation? Why not? It shouldn’t be a problem.
I’ve known Ed as a friend and colleague for more than 15 years, and I’m with Ed 100% on this one. I’ve never heard him use homophobic language.
Let’s get real…a couple of minor hoodlums are upset by their day in court and choose to harrass the sheriff. He decides to take them off the street.
I think it’s pretty much his job. But good for them that they thought of converting to victims so quickly.
Investigation? Why not? It shouldn’t be a problem.
I’ve known Ed as a friend and colleague for more than 15 years, and I’m with Ed 100% on this one. I’ve never heard him use homophobic language.
Let’s get real…a couple of minor hoodlums are upset by their day in court and choose to harrass the sheriff. He decides to take them off the street.
I think it’s pretty much his job. But good for them that they thought of converting to victims so quickly.
Investigation? Why not? It shouldn’t be a problem.
I’ve known Ed as a friend and colleague for more than 15 years, and I’m with Ed 100% on this one. I’ve never heard him use homophobic language.
Let’s get real…a couple of minor hoodlums are upset by their day in court and choose to harrass the sheriff. He decides to take them off the street.
I think it’s pretty much his job. But good for them that they thought of converting to victims so quickly.
Investigation? Why not? It shouldn’t be a problem.
Sure, automatically assume the cop is guilty.
Sure, automatically assume the cop is guilty.
Sure, automatically assume the cop is guilty.
Sure, automatically assume the cop is guilty.
Nobody assumed the cop was guilty, they just appear to believe that there are holes in his story. I tend to agree.
Nobody assumed the cop was guilty, they just appear to believe that there are holes in his story. I tend to agree.
Nobody assumed the cop was guilty, they just appear to believe that there are holes in his story. I tend to agree.
Nobody assumed the cop was guilty, they just appear to believe that there are holes in his story. I tend to agree.
There is no excuse for the two men to engage in any kind of struggle with Prieto. If directed to stop by an officer, you have to stop.
I don’t believe their story for a minute. I think what happened was they were elated that they went to court and made it through the hearing without being sent to jail. I do believe that they were having fun acting out and whooping it up and it got out of hand. Now they’ve made up a story to get out of this trouble that they find themselves in.
There is no excuse for the two men to engage in any kind of struggle with Prieto. If directed to stop by an officer, you have to stop.
I don’t believe their story for a minute. I think what happened was they were elated that they went to court and made it through the hearing without being sent to jail. I do believe that they were having fun acting out and whooping it up and it got out of hand. Now they’ve made up a story to get out of this trouble that they find themselves in.
There is no excuse for the two men to engage in any kind of struggle with Prieto. If directed to stop by an officer, you have to stop.
I don’t believe their story for a minute. I think what happened was they were elated that they went to court and made it through the hearing without being sent to jail. I do believe that they were having fun acting out and whooping it up and it got out of hand. Now they’ve made up a story to get out of this trouble that they find themselves in.
There is no excuse for the two men to engage in any kind of struggle with Prieto. If directed to stop by an officer, you have to stop.
I don’t believe their story for a minute. I think what happened was they were elated that they went to court and made it through the hearing without being sent to jail. I do believe that they were having fun acting out and whooping it up and it got out of hand. Now they’ve made up a story to get out of this trouble that they find themselves in.
If you are no one’s fool then explain to me why these two little scrawny guys would choose the giant 6-7 sheriff to pick on?
If you are no one’s fool then explain to me why these two little scrawny guys would choose the giant 6-7 sheriff to pick on?
If you are no one’s fool then explain to me why these two little scrawny guys would choose the giant 6-7 sheriff to pick on?
If you are no one’s fool then explain to me why these two little scrawny guys would choose the giant 6-7 sheriff to pick on?
This blog is like the extreme liberal version of Fox News: conspiracy minded, unfair and unbalanced.
This blog is like the extreme liberal version of Fox News: conspiracy minded, unfair and unbalanced.
This blog is like the extreme liberal version of Fox News: conspiracy minded, unfair and unbalanced.
This blog is like the extreme liberal version of Fox News: conspiracy minded, unfair and unbalanced.
You’ve said that before. I’d like to see someone answer the question about the plausibility of those two men deciding to attack the sheriff who was bigger than the two of them put together.
You’ve said that before. I’d like to see someone answer the question about the plausibility of those two men deciding to attack the sheriff who was bigger than the two of them put together.
You’ve said that before. I’d like to see someone answer the question about the plausibility of those two men deciding to attack the sheriff who was bigger than the two of them put together.
You’ve said that before. I’d like to see someone answer the question about the plausibility of those two men deciding to attack the sheriff who was bigger than the two of them put together.
Get real. These guys are inarticulate, have criminal backgrounds, and obviously thought that two against one was a fair fight. I back the Sheriff. Stop looking for conspiracy around every corner. I’m glad the Sheriff took these two hoodlums off the street.
Get real. These guys are inarticulate, have criminal backgrounds, and obviously thought that two against one was a fair fight. I back the Sheriff. Stop looking for conspiracy around every corner. I’m glad the Sheriff took these two hoodlums off the street.
Get real. These guys are inarticulate, have criminal backgrounds, and obviously thought that two against one was a fair fight. I back the Sheriff. Stop looking for conspiracy around every corner. I’m glad the Sheriff took these two hoodlums off the street.
Get real. These guys are inarticulate, have criminal backgrounds, and obviously thought that two against one was a fair fight. I back the Sheriff. Stop looking for conspiracy around every corner. I’m glad the Sheriff took these two hoodlums off the street.
I watched this first last night, and kind of shook my head.
First of all as several others have stated, the size differential alone is enough to give one pause.
But second, one of the posters here said they were inarticulate. Actually they were not inarticulate, one of them appears to have some sort of speech impediment, possibly some sort of palsy. He certainly was not inarticulate.
Third, the criminal record as far as I understand is a drug possession. That doesn’t mean they are violent and dangerous criminals.
I think people give too much leeway to law enforcement figures and need to ask questions. The answers to those questions may be that the individual acted completely appropriately, but at least we know.
I watched this first last night, and kind of shook my head.
First of all as several others have stated, the size differential alone is enough to give one pause.
But second, one of the posters here said they were inarticulate. Actually they were not inarticulate, one of them appears to have some sort of speech impediment, possibly some sort of palsy. He certainly was not inarticulate.
Third, the criminal record as far as I understand is a drug possession. That doesn’t mean they are violent and dangerous criminals.
I think people give too much leeway to law enforcement figures and need to ask questions. The answers to those questions may be that the individual acted completely appropriately, but at least we know.
I watched this first last night, and kind of shook my head.
First of all as several others have stated, the size differential alone is enough to give one pause.
But second, one of the posters here said they were inarticulate. Actually they were not inarticulate, one of them appears to have some sort of speech impediment, possibly some sort of palsy. He certainly was not inarticulate.
Third, the criminal record as far as I understand is a drug possession. That doesn’t mean they are violent and dangerous criminals.
I think people give too much leeway to law enforcement figures and need to ask questions. The answers to those questions may be that the individual acted completely appropriately, but at least we know.
I watched this first last night, and kind of shook my head.
First of all as several others have stated, the size differential alone is enough to give one pause.
But second, one of the posters here said they were inarticulate. Actually they were not inarticulate, one of them appears to have some sort of speech impediment, possibly some sort of palsy. He certainly was not inarticulate.
Third, the criminal record as far as I understand is a drug possession. That doesn’t mean they are violent and dangerous criminals.
I think people give too much leeway to law enforcement figures and need to ask questions. The answers to those questions may be that the individual acted completely appropriately, but at least we know.
You people sound like you’ve never been around drug users. Their view of the world is different than for the rest of us. The logic of taking on someone twice their size propably was never considered. They clearly didn’t know when to or could not bring themselves to stop. They probably have an excuse for everything that happens to them and believe they are not responsible for anything. Even if there were homophobic remarks (which I don’t believe), it would not excuse their behavior – profanity, verbal abuse, threatening physical movement. What idiots!
You people sound like you’ve never been around drug users. Their view of the world is different than for the rest of us. The logic of taking on someone twice their size propably was never considered. They clearly didn’t know when to or could not bring themselves to stop. They probably have an excuse for everything that happens to them and believe they are not responsible for anything. Even if there were homophobic remarks (which I don’t believe), it would not excuse their behavior – profanity, verbal abuse, threatening physical movement. What idiots!
You people sound like you’ve never been around drug users. Their view of the world is different than for the rest of us. The logic of taking on someone twice their size propably was never considered. They clearly didn’t know when to or could not bring themselves to stop. They probably have an excuse for everything that happens to them and believe they are not responsible for anything. Even if there were homophobic remarks (which I don’t believe), it would not excuse their behavior – profanity, verbal abuse, threatening physical movement. What idiots!
You people sound like you’ve never been around drug users. Their view of the world is different than for the rest of us. The logic of taking on someone twice their size propably was never considered. They clearly didn’t know when to or could not bring themselves to stop. They probably have an excuse for everything that happens to them and believe they are not responsible for anything. Even if there were homophobic remarks (which I don’t believe), it would not excuse their behavior – profanity, verbal abuse, threatening physical movement. What idiots!
Ed was just appointed to a commission by the Gov. Lucky for him this happened after his Senate confirmation.
Ed was just appointed to a commission by the Gov. Lucky for him this happened after his Senate confirmation.
Ed was just appointed to a commission by the Gov. Lucky for him this happened after his Senate confirmation.
Ed was just appointed to a commission by the Gov. Lucky for him this happened after his Senate confirmation.
How ridiculous that you expect citizens to not question law enforcement practices at all.
Ed is a good sheriff and a nice guy, but he has made poor choices before. Let’s remember the grand jury investigation which found him using money from one fund that shouldn’t have been used for ordering flowers, etc. He paid it back, but it was inappropriate.
As for racism, there was never any mention of the word.
He wa in plain clothes and could have said something inappropriate. It warrants llooking into.
How ridiculous that you expect citizens to not question law enforcement practices at all.
Ed is a good sheriff and a nice guy, but he has made poor choices before. Let’s remember the grand jury investigation which found him using money from one fund that shouldn’t have been used for ordering flowers, etc. He paid it back, but it was inappropriate.
As for racism, there was never any mention of the word.
He wa in plain clothes and could have said something inappropriate. It warrants llooking into.
How ridiculous that you expect citizens to not question law enforcement practices at all.
Ed is a good sheriff and a nice guy, but he has made poor choices before. Let’s remember the grand jury investigation which found him using money from one fund that shouldn’t have been used for ordering flowers, etc. He paid it back, but it was inappropriate.
As for racism, there was never any mention of the word.
He wa in plain clothes and could have said something inappropriate. It warrants llooking into.
How ridiculous that you expect citizens to not question law enforcement practices at all.
Ed is a good sheriff and a nice guy, but he has made poor choices before. Let’s remember the grand jury investigation which found him using money from one fund that shouldn’t have been used for ordering flowers, etc. He paid it back, but it was inappropriate.
As for racism, there was never any mention of the word.
He wa in plain clothes and could have said something inappropriate. It warrants llooking into.
Looked into by whom? And for what purpose? What outcome would you like to see?
Let’s see…Two younger men in their 30’s against one man in his 60’s. The younger men were first to approach and engage in the conversation with to them was a stranger, though they imply that Prieto initiated the conversation after they say he observed them kissing. Their story just doesn’t add up. You could drive a truck through the holes in their story.
If it goes before a judge, then it can be looked into then. My guess is that these guys will not insist on that.
The point, of course, was that Ed Prieto is not a little guy. However, when you were quoting The Daily Democrat, you had Prieto as 6′ 5″:
“The man they asked happened to be 6-foot-5, 275-pound Yolo County Sheriff E.G. Prieto.”
A few paragraphs later, he grew two inches:
“For instance, if these men were looking for trouble, why target the 6-7, 275 pound Sheriff?”
I don’t know the Sheriff personally. When he was with the CHP in Woodland, a close friend of mine who is a top administrator with the CHP in Sacramento said Prieto had “a sterling reputation.”
I doubt the “homophobic remarks” allegation, only because I assume Prieto is a professional and he carries a professional demeanor. Randomly making such derogatory comments to strangers in a public place seems anything but professional.
However, it’s possible that there was some kind of a misunderstanding as to what was said and that led to this conflict. We’ll probably never know for sure, even with an investigation.
Looked into by whom? And for what purpose? What outcome would you like to see?
Let’s see…Two younger men in their 30’s against one man in his 60’s. The younger men were first to approach and engage in the conversation with to them was a stranger, though they imply that Prieto initiated the conversation after they say he observed them kissing. Their story just doesn’t add up. You could drive a truck through the holes in their story.
If it goes before a judge, then it can be looked into then. My guess is that these guys will not insist on that.
The point, of course, was that Ed Prieto is not a little guy. However, when you were quoting The Daily Democrat, you had Prieto as 6′ 5″:
“The man they asked happened to be 6-foot-5, 275-pound Yolo County Sheriff E.G. Prieto.”
A few paragraphs later, he grew two inches:
“For instance, if these men were looking for trouble, why target the 6-7, 275 pound Sheriff?”
I don’t know the Sheriff personally. When he was with the CHP in Woodland, a close friend of mine who is a top administrator with the CHP in Sacramento said Prieto had “a sterling reputation.”
I doubt the “homophobic remarks” allegation, only because I assume Prieto is a professional and he carries a professional demeanor. Randomly making such derogatory comments to strangers in a public place seems anything but professional.
However, it’s possible that there was some kind of a misunderstanding as to what was said and that led to this conflict. We’ll probably never know for sure, even with an investigation.
Looked into by whom? And for what purpose? What outcome would you like to see?
Let’s see…Two younger men in their 30’s against one man in his 60’s. The younger men were first to approach and engage in the conversation with to them was a stranger, though they imply that Prieto initiated the conversation after they say he observed them kissing. Their story just doesn’t add up. You could drive a truck through the holes in their story.
If it goes before a judge, then it can be looked into then. My guess is that these guys will not insist on that.
The point, of course, was that Ed Prieto is not a little guy. However, when you were quoting The Daily Democrat, you had Prieto as 6′ 5″:
“The man they asked happened to be 6-foot-5, 275-pound Yolo County Sheriff E.G. Prieto.”
A few paragraphs later, he grew two inches:
“For instance, if these men were looking for trouble, why target the 6-7, 275 pound Sheriff?”
I don’t know the Sheriff personally. When he was with the CHP in Woodland, a close friend of mine who is a top administrator with the CHP in Sacramento said Prieto had “a sterling reputation.”
I doubt the “homophobic remarks” allegation, only because I assume Prieto is a professional and he carries a professional demeanor. Randomly making such derogatory comments to strangers in a public place seems anything but professional.
However, it’s possible that there was some kind of a misunderstanding as to what was said and that led to this conflict. We’ll probably never know for sure, even with an investigation.
Looked into by whom? And for what purpose? What outcome would you like to see?
Let’s see…Two younger men in their 30’s against one man in his 60’s. The younger men were first to approach and engage in the conversation with to them was a stranger, though they imply that Prieto initiated the conversation after they say he observed them kissing. Their story just doesn’t add up. You could drive a truck through the holes in their story.
If it goes before a judge, then it can be looked into then. My guess is that these guys will not insist on that.
The point, of course, was that Ed Prieto is not a little guy. However, when you were quoting The Daily Democrat, you had Prieto as 6′ 5″:
“The man they asked happened to be 6-foot-5, 275-pound Yolo County Sheriff E.G. Prieto.”
A few paragraphs later, he grew two inches:
“For instance, if these men were looking for trouble, why target the 6-7, 275 pound Sheriff?”
I don’t know the Sheriff personally. When he was with the CHP in Woodland, a close friend of mine who is a top administrator with the CHP in Sacramento said Prieto had “a sterling reputation.”
I doubt the “homophobic remarks” allegation, only because I assume Prieto is a professional and he carries a professional demeanor. Randomly making such derogatory comments to strangers in a public place seems anything but professional.
However, it’s possible that there was some kind of a misunderstanding as to what was said and that led to this conflict. We’ll probably never know for sure, even with an investigation.
Good catch Rich. Obviously the Woodland quote is more accurate than my number written later.
I don’t know if he did or did not do this. I really don’t. I do think that his story has a few holes in it that warrant scrutiny, and I don’t think it makes me anti-law enforcement to ask those questions.
Good catch Rich. Obviously the Woodland quote is more accurate than my number written later.
I don’t know if he did or did not do this. I really don’t. I do think that his story has a few holes in it that warrant scrutiny, and I don’t think it makes me anti-law enforcement to ask those questions.
Good catch Rich. Obviously the Woodland quote is more accurate than my number written later.
I don’t know if he did or did not do this. I really don’t. I do think that his story has a few holes in it that warrant scrutiny, and I don’t think it makes me anti-law enforcement to ask those questions.
Good catch Rich. Obviously the Woodland quote is more accurate than my number written later.
I don’t know if he did or did not do this. I really don’t. I do think that his story has a few holes in it that warrant scrutiny, and I don’t think it makes me anti-law enforcement to ask those questions.
I read about this last night in the Davis Enterprise. While the Enterprise story has less detail, I was immediately struck by the description of how the Sheriff reacted to these two miscreants.
Doesn’t law enforcement usually recommend that irritating people should simply be ignored? Couldn’t Sheriff Prieto have continued on his way, gotten into his car and left them on the sidewalk?
I don’t find it implausible that these two might have hassled Sheriff Prieto, despite the obvious size difference. They don’t appear to be overburdened with common sense. And in my experience in working with drug abusers, they take offense easily and react strongly to displays of authority. That they would become combative when he showed them his badge seems completely predictable to me.
I find it much more incredible that someone as big and imposing and well respected as the Sheriff would have even paid any attention to them at all, let alone throwing one of them on the ground.
I don’t think that the sheriff is lying, but I do think he did not use the best judgment in handling this situation.
I read about this last night in the Davis Enterprise. While the Enterprise story has less detail, I was immediately struck by the description of how the Sheriff reacted to these two miscreants.
Doesn’t law enforcement usually recommend that irritating people should simply be ignored? Couldn’t Sheriff Prieto have continued on his way, gotten into his car and left them on the sidewalk?
I don’t find it implausible that these two might have hassled Sheriff Prieto, despite the obvious size difference. They don’t appear to be overburdened with common sense. And in my experience in working with drug abusers, they take offense easily and react strongly to displays of authority. That they would become combative when he showed them his badge seems completely predictable to me.
I find it much more incredible that someone as big and imposing and well respected as the Sheriff would have even paid any attention to them at all, let alone throwing one of them on the ground.
I don’t think that the sheriff is lying, but I do think he did not use the best judgment in handling this situation.
I read about this last night in the Davis Enterprise. While the Enterprise story has less detail, I was immediately struck by the description of how the Sheriff reacted to these two miscreants.
Doesn’t law enforcement usually recommend that irritating people should simply be ignored? Couldn’t Sheriff Prieto have continued on his way, gotten into his car and left them on the sidewalk?
I don’t find it implausible that these two might have hassled Sheriff Prieto, despite the obvious size difference. They don’t appear to be overburdened with common sense. And in my experience in working with drug abusers, they take offense easily and react strongly to displays of authority. That they would become combative when he showed them his badge seems completely predictable to me.
I find it much more incredible that someone as big and imposing and well respected as the Sheriff would have even paid any attention to them at all, let alone throwing one of them on the ground.
I don’t think that the sheriff is lying, but I do think he did not use the best judgment in handling this situation.
I read about this last night in the Davis Enterprise. While the Enterprise story has less detail, I was immediately struck by the description of how the Sheriff reacted to these two miscreants.
Doesn’t law enforcement usually recommend that irritating people should simply be ignored? Couldn’t Sheriff Prieto have continued on his way, gotten into his car and left them on the sidewalk?
I don’t find it implausible that these two might have hassled Sheriff Prieto, despite the obvious size difference. They don’t appear to be overburdened with common sense. And in my experience in working with drug abusers, they take offense easily and react strongly to displays of authority. That they would become combative when he showed them his badge seems completely predictable to me.
I find it much more incredible that someone as big and imposing and well respected as the Sheriff would have even paid any attention to them at all, let alone throwing one of them on the ground.
I don’t think that the sheriff is lying, but I do think he did not use the best judgment in handling this situation.
If you look on the Megan’s Law website, and do a search for Jerry Monk, you can see that one of the two men was a registered sex offender. Let’s see….a child molester claims discrimination?
I think on the issue of credibility, the Sheriff wins out.
Drop this one, DPD, it’s a loser.
If you look on the Megan’s Law website, and do a search for Jerry Monk, you can see that one of the two men was a registered sex offender. Let’s see….a child molester claims discrimination?
I think on the issue of credibility, the Sheriff wins out.
Drop this one, DPD, it’s a loser.
If you look on the Megan’s Law website, and do a search for Jerry Monk, you can see that one of the two men was a registered sex offender. Let’s see….a child molester claims discrimination?
I think on the issue of credibility, the Sheriff wins out.
Drop this one, DPD, it’s a loser.
If you look on the Megan’s Law website, and do a search for Jerry Monk, you can see that one of the two men was a registered sex offender. Let’s see….a child molester claims discrimination?
I think on the issue of credibility, the Sheriff wins out.
Drop this one, DPD, it’s a loser.
Child molesters, drug dealers, rapists…they are all disgusting. So are elected officials who are not held accoutable for their actions.
However, those that break the law still have rights the last time I checked the Constitution. When they stop having rights, and when you stop having rights to post your opinions on a web sight we have serious problems. In other words don’t discount people simply because they have a record. No matter how dispicable their record might be.
What I am getting at, is that the Sheriff may have mis-used his power and he may need some sensitivity trianing with regards to LGBT issues. Who knows? It is a possibility.
Child molesters, drug dealers, rapists…they are all disgusting. So are elected officials who are not held accoutable for their actions.
However, those that break the law still have rights the last time I checked the Constitution. When they stop having rights, and when you stop having rights to post your opinions on a web sight we have serious problems. In other words don’t discount people simply because they have a record. No matter how dispicable their record might be.
What I am getting at, is that the Sheriff may have mis-used his power and he may need some sensitivity trianing with regards to LGBT issues. Who knows? It is a possibility.
Child molesters, drug dealers, rapists…they are all disgusting. So are elected officials who are not held accoutable for their actions.
However, those that break the law still have rights the last time I checked the Constitution. When they stop having rights, and when you stop having rights to post your opinions on a web sight we have serious problems. In other words don’t discount people simply because they have a record. No matter how dispicable their record might be.
What I am getting at, is that the Sheriff may have mis-used his power and he may need some sensitivity trianing with regards to LGBT issues. Who knows? It is a possibility.
Child molesters, drug dealers, rapists…they are all disgusting. So are elected officials who are not held accoutable for their actions.
However, those that break the law still have rights the last time I checked the Constitution. When they stop having rights, and when you stop having rights to post your opinions on a web sight we have serious problems. In other words don’t discount people simply because they have a record. No matter how dispicable their record might be.
What I am getting at, is that the Sheriff may have mis-used his power and he may need some sensitivity trianing with regards to LGBT issues. Who knows? It is a possibility.
I also meant to say, that Sheriff Ed is a good guy, but may have made a mistake as others have said.
I don’t see DPD as being anti-law enforcement. To say that is a bunch of bs. As a matter of fact he has done some good pieces on officers. I see him as being more about holding people accountable.
I also meant to say, that Sheriff Ed is a good guy, but may have made a mistake as others have said.
I don’t see DPD as being anti-law enforcement. To say that is a bunch of bs. As a matter of fact he has done some good pieces on officers. I see him as being more about holding people accountable.
I also meant to say, that Sheriff Ed is a good guy, but may have made a mistake as others have said.
I don’t see DPD as being anti-law enforcement. To say that is a bunch of bs. As a matter of fact he has done some good pieces on officers. I see him as being more about holding people accountable.
I also meant to say, that Sheriff Ed is a good guy, but may have made a mistake as others have said.
I don’t see DPD as being anti-law enforcement. To say that is a bunch of bs. As a matter of fact he has done some good pieces on officers. I see him as being more about holding people accountable.
“Prieto … asked them for their identification, suspecting the men were intoxicated.
Jones and Monk refused and continued to verbally taunt the sheriff.
Prieto flashed them his badge.
They walked away.
Prieto ordered them to stop, twice.
They didn’t.”
Wow.
“Prieto … asked them for their identification, suspecting the men were intoxicated.
Jones and Monk refused and continued to verbally taunt the sheriff.
Prieto flashed them his badge.
They walked away.
Prieto ordered them to stop, twice.
They didn’t.”
Wow.
“Prieto … asked them for their identification, suspecting the men were intoxicated.
Jones and Monk refused and continued to verbally taunt the sheriff.
Prieto flashed them his badge.
They walked away.
Prieto ordered them to stop, twice.
They didn’t.”
Wow.
“Prieto … asked them for their identification, suspecting the men were intoxicated.
Jones and Monk refused and continued to verbally taunt the sheriff.
Prieto flashed them his badge.
They walked away.
Prieto ordered them to stop, twice.
They didn’t.”
Wow.
this is why we have a justice system, to sort out the evidence and determine which story is accurate.
not having been at the scene, i’m not inclined to assume either side is telling the truth. it will out, eventtualy. no ned to pass blind judgement.
this is why we have a justice system, to sort out the evidence and determine which story is accurate.
not having been at the scene, i’m not inclined to assume either side is telling the truth. it will out, eventtualy. no ned to pass blind judgement.
this is why we have a justice system, to sort out the evidence and determine which story is accurate.
not having been at the scene, i’m not inclined to assume either side is telling the truth. it will out, eventtualy. no ned to pass blind judgement.
this is why we have a justice system, to sort out the evidence and determine which story is accurate.
not having been at the scene, i’m not inclined to assume either side is telling the truth. it will out, eventtualy. no ned to pass blind judgement.
oh, and this was funny:
And in my experience in working with drug abusers, they take offense easily and react strongly to displays of authority.
if just because i have found the same goes for many police officers, if you replace “displays” with challenges to their.”
oh, and this was funny:
And in my experience in working with drug abusers, they take offense easily and react strongly to displays of authority.
if just because i have found the same goes for many police officers, if you replace “displays” with challenges to their.”
oh, and this was funny:
And in my experience in working with drug abusers, they take offense easily and react strongly to displays of authority.
if just because i have found the same goes for many police officers, if you replace “displays” with challenges to their.”
oh, and this was funny:
And in my experience in working with drug abusers, they take offense easily and react strongly to displays of authority.
if just because i have found the same goes for many police officers, if you replace “displays” with challenges to their.”
Just as in marriage there are three sides to every story. His side, her said, and the TRUTH.
Don’t know who’s wrong here, don’t care. To say that two smaller young men are at a disadvantage to one large 60 year old is wrong IMO.
Just as in marriage there are three sides to every story. His side, her said, and the TRUTH.
Don’t know who’s wrong here, don’t care. To say that two smaller young men are at a disadvantage to one large 60 year old is wrong IMO.
Just as in marriage there are three sides to every story. His side, her said, and the TRUTH.
Don’t know who’s wrong here, don’t care. To say that two smaller young men are at a disadvantage to one large 60 year old is wrong IMO.
Just as in marriage there are three sides to every story. His side, her said, and the TRUTH.
Don’t know who’s wrong here, don’t care. To say that two smaller young men are at a disadvantage to one large 60 year old is wrong IMO.
Why waste time with an investigation. Like anything would happen. Give me a break. Freddie has it just right. Two punks messed with the wrong guy and he still has it in him to take them down. What would the damages be? What are the charges against these guys anyway? Are there even charges at all? They are out the next day. They are lucky that the Deputies didn’t treat them like they would in a James McElroy novel.
Why waste time with an investigation. Like anything would happen. Give me a break. Freddie has it just right. Two punks messed with the wrong guy and he still has it in him to take them down. What would the damages be? What are the charges against these guys anyway? Are there even charges at all? They are out the next day. They are lucky that the Deputies didn’t treat them like they would in a James McElroy novel.
Why waste time with an investigation. Like anything would happen. Give me a break. Freddie has it just right. Two punks messed with the wrong guy and he still has it in him to take them down. What would the damages be? What are the charges against these guys anyway? Are there even charges at all? They are out the next day. They are lucky that the Deputies didn’t treat them like they would in a James McElroy novel.
Why waste time with an investigation. Like anything would happen. Give me a break. Freddie has it just right. Two punks messed with the wrong guy and he still has it in him to take them down. What would the damages be? What are the charges against these guys anyway? Are there even charges at all? They are out the next day. They are lucky that the Deputies didn’t treat them like they would in a James McElroy novel.
No one’s fool,
It sounds like you might be the Sheriff’s fool.
I think the point that was missed by a lot of people is that if we have a man in a position of power using homophobic remarks… Guess what people? It’s a problem. That is what needs to be looked into.
Nice guys get caught making big mistakes too.
No one’s fool,
It sounds like you might be the Sheriff’s fool.
I think the point that was missed by a lot of people is that if we have a man in a position of power using homophobic remarks… Guess what people? It’s a problem. That is what needs to be looked into.
Nice guys get caught making big mistakes too.
No one’s fool,
It sounds like you might be the Sheriff’s fool.
I think the point that was missed by a lot of people is that if we have a man in a position of power using homophobic remarks… Guess what people? It’s a problem. That is what needs to be looked into.
Nice guys get caught making big mistakes too.
No one’s fool,
It sounds like you might be the Sheriff’s fool.
I think the point that was missed by a lot of people is that if we have a man in a position of power using homophobic remarks… Guess what people? It’s a problem. That is what needs to be looked into.
Nice guys get caught making big mistakes too.
Anonymous 10:39 AM – Unless you were there you don’t know what the Sheriff said. That’s the point. If it is proven that he did provoke the young men with inappropriate dialog or actions than he should have to answer for that.
From what I have read it is a matter of he said, she said. I think it should be looked into and both sides are innocent until proven otherwise.
Anonymous 10:39 AM – Unless you were there you don’t know what the Sheriff said. That’s the point. If it is proven that he did provoke the young men with inappropriate dialog or actions than he should have to answer for that.
From what I have read it is a matter of he said, she said. I think it should be looked into and both sides are innocent until proven otherwise.
Anonymous 10:39 AM – Unless you were there you don’t know what the Sheriff said. That’s the point. If it is proven that he did provoke the young men with inappropriate dialog or actions than he should have to answer for that.
From what I have read it is a matter of he said, she said. I think it should be looked into and both sides are innocent until proven otherwise.
Anonymous 10:39 AM – Unless you were there you don’t know what the Sheriff said. That’s the point. If it is proven that he did provoke the young men with inappropriate dialog or actions than he should have to answer for that.
From what I have read it is a matter of he said, she said. I think it should be looked into and both sides are innocent until proven otherwise.
I agree with you Darnell, I don’t know what the Sheriff said during the incident. I don’t know what happened. The reason this was even posted is that I have heard what he said afterwards, and if you read the newspaper accounts and compare it to the TV interview, there are some discrepancies as well. Some things just do not add up here. I’m neither willing to automatically accept the word of the Sheriff nor automatically dismiss it.
I agree with you Darnell, I don’t know what the Sheriff said during the incident. I don’t know what happened. The reason this was even posted is that I have heard what he said afterwards, and if you read the newspaper accounts and compare it to the TV interview, there are some discrepancies as well. Some things just do not add up here. I’m neither willing to automatically accept the word of the Sheriff nor automatically dismiss it.
I agree with you Darnell, I don’t know what the Sheriff said during the incident. I don’t know what happened. The reason this was even posted is that I have heard what he said afterwards, and if you read the newspaper accounts and compare it to the TV interview, there are some discrepancies as well. Some things just do not add up here. I’m neither willing to automatically accept the word of the Sheriff nor automatically dismiss it.
I agree with you Darnell, I don’t know what the Sheriff said during the incident. I don’t know what happened. The reason this was even posted is that I have heard what he said afterwards, and if you read the newspaper accounts and compare it to the TV interview, there are some discrepancies as well. Some things just do not add up here. I’m neither willing to automatically accept the word of the Sheriff nor automatically dismiss it.
We live at a time when it seems that everyone has a hard time speaking the truth. The correct view is – do not believe either side.
Second observation, there are far too many people who are overly sensitive to words. People spend too much time trying to interpret comments. One person may interpret a comment one way when the comment was not intended that way at all. Both sides of this incident might be right and wrong at the same time.
Both parties had ample opportunity to turn and walk away. Neither one did. What does a good umpire do – he makes a call and at the first sign of a dispute he turns and walks toward the outfield. I doubt there was a good reason for the arrest to happen.
On the other hand, if a police officer asks for your ID you have to give it to him. There is no excuse for not doing so.
We live at a time when it seems that everyone has a hard time speaking the truth. The correct view is – do not believe either side.
Second observation, there are far too many people who are overly sensitive to words. People spend too much time trying to interpret comments. One person may interpret a comment one way when the comment was not intended that way at all. Both sides of this incident might be right and wrong at the same time.
Both parties had ample opportunity to turn and walk away. Neither one did. What does a good umpire do – he makes a call and at the first sign of a dispute he turns and walks toward the outfield. I doubt there was a good reason for the arrest to happen.
On the other hand, if a police officer asks for your ID you have to give it to him. There is no excuse for not doing so.
We live at a time when it seems that everyone has a hard time speaking the truth. The correct view is – do not believe either side.
Second observation, there are far too many people who are overly sensitive to words. People spend too much time trying to interpret comments. One person may interpret a comment one way when the comment was not intended that way at all. Both sides of this incident might be right and wrong at the same time.
Both parties had ample opportunity to turn and walk away. Neither one did. What does a good umpire do – he makes a call and at the first sign of a dispute he turns and walks toward the outfield. I doubt there was a good reason for the arrest to happen.
On the other hand, if a police officer asks for your ID you have to give it to him. There is no excuse for not doing so.
We live at a time when it seems that everyone has a hard time speaking the truth. The correct view is – do not believe either side.
Second observation, there are far too many people who are overly sensitive to words. People spend too much time trying to interpret comments. One person may interpret a comment one way when the comment was not intended that way at all. Both sides of this incident might be right and wrong at the same time.
Both parties had ample opportunity to turn and walk away. Neither one did. What does a good umpire do – he makes a call and at the first sign of a dispute he turns and walks toward the outfield. I doubt there was a good reason for the arrest to happen.
On the other hand, if a police officer asks for your ID you have to give it to him. There is no excuse for not doing so.
And ultimately the VAST majority don’t what wu ming or dpd say or think. Ed took two jerks out for being jerks.
And ultimately the VAST majority don’t what wu ming or dpd say or think. Ed took two jerks out for being jerks.
And ultimately the VAST majority don’t what wu ming or dpd say or think. Ed took two jerks out for being jerks.
And ultimately the VAST majority don’t what wu ming or dpd say or think. Ed took two jerks out for being jerks.
You can certain make that assertion, but I think you largely have little evidence for either the first part of your statement or the second.
You can certain make that assertion, but I think you largely have little evidence for either the first part of your statement or the second.
You can certain make that assertion, but I think you largely have little evidence for either the first part of your statement or the second.
You can certain make that assertion, but I think you largely have little evidence for either the first part of your statement or the second.
Adding to my last point, one of the interesting things about this case is I saw it in the paper when it first happened. It wasn’t until the Channel 3 and later another channel had a news story that I started getting a string of emails on the topic. It was only after I got three or four within a very short period of time that I watched the TV link itself and saw why people were dubious about the claims.
It’s at least worth asking the questions. If these two really were jerks and got what was coming, an investigation should bear that out. I do not understand why people become so hysterical about asking questions about the actions of public officials including law enforcement officers. Everyone is human and is prone to making mistaking. Because they wear a badge are they suddenly super-human? No. Maybe it happened like the Sheriff said. But there are at least three different variations he tells to each media entity, and the facts alone give one pause.
Adding to my last point, one of the interesting things about this case is I saw it in the paper when it first happened. It wasn’t until the Channel 3 and later another channel had a news story that I started getting a string of emails on the topic. It was only after I got three or four within a very short period of time that I watched the TV link itself and saw why people were dubious about the claims.
It’s at least worth asking the questions. If these two really were jerks and got what was coming, an investigation should bear that out. I do not understand why people become so hysterical about asking questions about the actions of public officials including law enforcement officers. Everyone is human and is prone to making mistaking. Because they wear a badge are they suddenly super-human? No. Maybe it happened like the Sheriff said. But there are at least three different variations he tells to each media entity, and the facts alone give one pause.
Adding to my last point, one of the interesting things about this case is I saw it in the paper when it first happened. It wasn’t until the Channel 3 and later another channel had a news story that I started getting a string of emails on the topic. It was only after I got three or four within a very short period of time that I watched the TV link itself and saw why people were dubious about the claims.
It’s at least worth asking the questions. If these two really were jerks and got what was coming, an investigation should bear that out. I do not understand why people become so hysterical about asking questions about the actions of public officials including law enforcement officers. Everyone is human and is prone to making mistaking. Because they wear a badge are they suddenly super-human? No. Maybe it happened like the Sheriff said. But there are at least three different variations he tells to each media entity, and the facts alone give one pause.
Adding to my last point, one of the interesting things about this case is I saw it in the paper when it first happened. It wasn’t until the Channel 3 and later another channel had a news story that I started getting a string of emails on the topic. It was only after I got three or four within a very short period of time that I watched the TV link itself and saw why people were dubious about the claims.
It’s at least worth asking the questions. If these two really were jerks and got what was coming, an investigation should bear that out. I do not understand why people become so hysterical about asking questions about the actions of public officials including law enforcement officers. Everyone is human and is prone to making mistaking. Because they wear a badge are they suddenly super-human? No. Maybe it happened like the Sheriff said. But there are at least three different variations he tells to each media entity, and the facts alone give one pause.
The notion that the “correct view” is to not believe either side strikes me as incredibly cynical. Perhaps a more thoughtful position would be to say “let’s wait until an investigation is completed before rendering a verdict.”
As for the apparent fact that neither party walked away it’s important to remember that a law enforcement officer is trained to recognize a potential problem. Two individuals who would reportedly approach another person on the street in such an aggressive manner are likely to pose a threat to public safety. After all, what if instead of the Sheriff this had been an older woman? Would we be so quick to by sympathetic to them then? To the contrary, some question the story simply because they approached a large man. However a man in a business suit is often perceived by perpetrators to be a “soft touch” and less likely to engage or to offer repercussions. Much criminal behavior is learned behavior. Given the records of these two and their rather erratic performance on film, I’d side with the Sheriff on this one.
The notion that the “correct view” is to not believe either side strikes me as incredibly cynical. Perhaps a more thoughtful position would be to say “let’s wait until an investigation is completed before rendering a verdict.”
As for the apparent fact that neither party walked away it’s important to remember that a law enforcement officer is trained to recognize a potential problem. Two individuals who would reportedly approach another person on the street in such an aggressive manner are likely to pose a threat to public safety. After all, what if instead of the Sheriff this had been an older woman? Would we be so quick to by sympathetic to them then? To the contrary, some question the story simply because they approached a large man. However a man in a business suit is often perceived by perpetrators to be a “soft touch” and less likely to engage or to offer repercussions. Much criminal behavior is learned behavior. Given the records of these two and their rather erratic performance on film, I’d side with the Sheriff on this one.
The notion that the “correct view” is to not believe either side strikes me as incredibly cynical. Perhaps a more thoughtful position would be to say “let’s wait until an investigation is completed before rendering a verdict.”
As for the apparent fact that neither party walked away it’s important to remember that a law enforcement officer is trained to recognize a potential problem. Two individuals who would reportedly approach another person on the street in such an aggressive manner are likely to pose a threat to public safety. After all, what if instead of the Sheriff this had been an older woman? Would we be so quick to by sympathetic to them then? To the contrary, some question the story simply because they approached a large man. However a man in a business suit is often perceived by perpetrators to be a “soft touch” and less likely to engage or to offer repercussions. Much criminal behavior is learned behavior. Given the records of these two and their rather erratic performance on film, I’d side with the Sheriff on this one.
The notion that the “correct view” is to not believe either side strikes me as incredibly cynical. Perhaps a more thoughtful position would be to say “let’s wait until an investigation is completed before rendering a verdict.”
As for the apparent fact that neither party walked away it’s important to remember that a law enforcement officer is trained to recognize a potential problem. Two individuals who would reportedly approach another person on the street in such an aggressive manner are likely to pose a threat to public safety. After all, what if instead of the Sheriff this had been an older woman? Would we be so quick to by sympathetic to them then? To the contrary, some question the story simply because they approached a large man. However a man in a business suit is often perceived by perpetrators to be a “soft touch” and less likely to engage or to offer repercussions. Much criminal behavior is learned behavior. Given the records of these two and their rather erratic performance on film, I’d side with the Sheriff on this one.