Sheriff Livingston is endorsed by the Mayor of Danville, and all of the Danville Town Council members, along with County Supervisor Candace Andersen, asthey realize that in order to keep Danville a safe community they need his decades of experience and commitment to serving and protecting the law abiding members of our community. His opponent, a union activist from Richmond, is running on an anti-law enforcement, and pro-criminal platform, and his election would result in a huge increase in crime in our town. This is a very important election, and if you support law and order, and rights of crime victims, and not the criminals, please re-elect Sheriff Livingston.

This event was moderated by DanvilleSanRamon and reported by the same...
I have found them to be a suspect source of news. Too often they let their personal opinions filter the stories.
We do not need more woke candidates like the challenger. We have seen how that has worked out for our State.
I will be voting for Sheriff Livingstone and supporting our Police Department that has an incredibly tough job.

Here’s what ponytail said:

"Experience would have led you to have better policies that would not have put Officer Hall in that predicament in the first place.”

What are you talking about ponytail? Sheriff Livingston said Officer Hall acted within department policy. That being the case, why aren’t you pointing the finger at DA Benton for making this case political? You just tipped your hat in favor of progressive DA’s. Feel that way about Gascon and Boudin too?

Most presidents of Police Officer Associations are humble and do a great service for their members. However, there are others who feel engrossed with power, ego, etc., and Ponytail certainly appears to be one of them. He’s got political gains to make.

Vote for Sheriff Livingston!!!

I'm voting for Livingston and hopefully we vote Becton out. We need tough on crime in every position.

The debate between Sheriff Livingston and Benjamin Therriault was interesting, but the moment I heard the sheriff invoke 'woke' I was put off and a later attack on Democrats further convinced me that we do not need a politicized sheriff's office. Therriault's call for beefing up a crime analysis capabilities within the office resonated with me. As a retired FBI intelligence analyst, I too saw the need for an intelligence-based approach to combating the catalytic converter and retail theft issues. I do not believe we are proactively addressing these issues, and that a robust countywide approach is necessary. In Contra Costa County, the sheriff's office ought to be our lead agency.

Previous comments on sheriff’s election imply Ben Therriault is “left leaning, soft on crime”. Then will someone explain the following: In the face of rising violent crime, Sheriff Livingston denies law abiding residents their 2nd Amendment rights, by refusing to issue most applicants concealed weapons permits. Conversely, his opponent, Ben Therriault, has adopted a Tough on Crime position, stating his intention to issue such permits to any applicant who passes a background check and training. So, whose the REAL, Woke, Leftist, Soft on Crime candidate? VOTE BEN THERRIAULT

Good article on a recent Sheriff's debate which leaves no question that Ben Therriault is by far the superior candidate. Therriault is clearly forward thinking while Livingston is living in the Stone Age. He doesn't understand or respect the tools and approach which have helped Richmond and other cities reduce gun violence. At 47:03 in the included video Livingston browbeats someone for simply shaking their head. Talk about a fragile ego.

A CCW permit should not be given out like free cookies, Goldstein. Also, explain yourself in regard to the comment you made where Sheriff Livingston denies law abiding citizens their second amendment rights. Wow, I had no idea the Sheriff had that much power over the second amendment! Furthermore, has Sheriff Livingston denied you a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Did you even apply for one? A lot of people are denied CCW permits for good reason.

Maybe you should contact your boy up there in Sacramento and plead with Gavin and his bunch to support a law so that everyone in this state can carry a concealed weapon. It ain’t all up to the Sheriff, buddy. And by the way, you might want to go back and watch the last video. Therriault said that people can by ghost guns from firearm expos here in California. That, my friend is not true. Ghost guns are illegal in California, period. However, when a ghost gun receives a serial number, it is no longer a ghost gun; it becomes a registered firearm. You would think somebody like Therriault would know that. But then again, Therriault‘s lack of experience comes through, once again.

Moreover, Therriault has absolutely no administrative experience. And from what I understand, Therriault is not even a sergeant; which of course means he has no supervisor experience. You really need to pay attention to see where he is coming from. He’s a president of a public sector union. He’s full of pride and ego, and has nothing on Sheriff Livingston in terms of experience. Sure, you could argue the point that the Sheriff has pride too. But Sheriff Livingston’s pride appears to be more about his department, than himself.

VOTE SHERIFF LIVINGSTON!

Max Hex, it’s common knowledge that CCW under Livingston is pay-to-play. To him our 2A rights are irrelevant, if you’re not rich & powerful, or a member of his “Sheriff’s posse”, you’re not getting a CCW unless you can prove truly exigent circumstances. Therriault would not “hand them out like free candy”, he believes we all have the right to a CCW but will make sure you’re competent and not crazy before issuing one.

Therriault’s comment about ghost guns is 100% accurate. Anyone can buy 80% kits online or at gun shows without a background check. The problem is that many of those kits are being fabricated and fed directly into criminal networks rather than being serialized and registered per State law.

Last, it’s Livingston’s pride which has made him resist advances in 21st century policing, to the detriment of us all. It’s time for a change to a smarter, responsive policing model at the Sheriff’s office and Therriault has the skills and experience to succeed.

Re: Malcolm Hex response to my post:
(removed)
Where is my post have I, in any way, implied CCW permits “should be given away like free cookies”?
FACT: They should be granted only after qualified applicants have passed background checks and firearms training, as is the policy of most sheriffs.
FACT: Sheriff Livingston does NOT follow this policy. He does, in fact, deny citizens their 2nd Amd. rights by requiring applicants to demonstrate “Special Need” before granting applicants their “Right to (Bear) Arms”.
Suggestion to Malcolm: Work on your reading skills. Start with the U.S. Constitution.

@ M Goldstein

Love to debate you, but Danville / San Ramon is apparently censoring everything, as you noticed in your last post regarding a comment I made.

Most likely, this post will not make it to print. Socialism has apparently taken hold here too.

(Removed)
First, I did not imply, or state that you said CCW permits should be given out like free cookies. I said a CCW should not be given out like free cookies. I was speaking from my perspective, not yours.

On to the debate…

Mr. Goldstein, you stated the following: “They (CCW permits) should be granted only after qualified applicants have passed background checks and firearms training, as is the policy of most sheriffs.” Wrong. You have to show cause.

Assembly Bill No. 2103 specifically states the following:

1. You are of good moral character;

2. Good cause exists for issuance of the license because you or a member of your family is in immediate danger;

3. You meet certain residency requirements; and

4. You have completed an acceptable course of firearms training.

Immediate danger has to exist as part of the other qualifications. And that is why Sheriff Livingston cannot simply issue a CCW to everyone who wants one. By the way, when you said that Sheriff Livingston does not follow the policy of most Sheriff’s (presumably in California) what policy are you referring to? Notwithstanding, California State law reigns supreme.

Congratulations Sheriff Livingston!!! Oh, and congratulations to Chesa Boudin, for making a fool of yourself.

Justifying wrongful police shootings is not what a sheriff should be expounding and DA Bection chose the right course in prosecuting a chronic trigger-happy law enforcement officer.

The Danville shooting (as shown on video) could have easily been prevented as the deputy's life was not in any immediate danger. Even the person who captured the incident on his cellphone camera was aghast.

It is time for Contra Costa County to evolve past its reputation as a reactionary locale that praises and endorses wrongful police actions while criticizing a highly qualified DA purely on the basis of her race and progressive ideology.

Kudos to DA Becton for getting a rogue law enforcement representative off the streets and shame to Sheriff Livingstone for endorsing the wrongful murder of a mentally ill and unarmed individual.

"...shame to Sheriff Livingstone [sic] for endorsing the wrongful murder of a mentally ill and unarmed individual."

^ Nothing to gain here by issuing such a callous response other than to appease those who endorse questionable police shootings with no accountability.

Diana Becton took the high road by prosecuting a law enforcement officer who apparently lacked the temperament, restraint, and good judgement to be a deputy.

Endorsing the wrongful police murder of a mentally ill transient posing no imminent danger to either the deputy or the residents of Danville is cause for concern.

Though we are far outnumbered by a county-wide far right-wing & reactionary constituancy, there are still some here who still stand for common decency and restraint on the part of our public safety officers.

A civilized society is not one that shoots first & asks questions later.

Do the majority of Danville residents including it's Town Hall members actually approve of and condone wrongful police killings?

If so, it's no wonder they voted for Sheriff Livingston.

"Endorsing the wrongful police murder of a mentally ill transient posing no imminent danger to either the deputy or the residents of Danville is cause for concern."

"Diana Becton took the high road by prosecuting a law enforcement officer who apparently lacked the temperament, restraint, and good judgement to be a deputy."

^ That's it in a nutshell.

"Endorsing the wrongful police murder of a mentally ill transient posing no imminent danger to either the deputy or the residents of Danville is cause for concern."

"Diana Becton took the high road by prosecuting a law enforcement officer who apparently lacked the temperament, restraint, and good judgement to be a deputy."

^ That's it in a nutshell.