Detective Gordon Martines is running for Sheriff of Clark County.

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

The lack of activity isn't from a lack of interest. So much corruption in Vegas, so little time.

I am not in your state,,, but I read it ALL....

I Doooo Hope YOU Are for REAL!!!

 

[Nevada Cop Block]

I'm glad you are paying attention. We could use a lot more of that here in Vegas.

I Doooo Hope YOU Are for REAL!!!

I was really arrested for protesting against the murders Metro has committed (and continues to commit). So, I won't be getting scared off anytime soon.



BTW, Gordon Martines has also said he believes the murders of Stanley Gibson, Erik Scott, and Trevon Cole were all justified. Anybody that could say they believe that is either an accomplished liar or a horrible detective. The one thing they certainly aren't is someone that would bring change to the murderous culture within the LVMPD.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

Ok, so I listened to the sound clip. What was wrong with that? I didn't hear anything illegal, or unconstitutional, or unethical, or immoral.

If I accost you while you are walking down the street... Ask where your going, demand to know where you have been, search your person. Meanwhile tacit threats of violence are imminent? You would be at code white? Would you feel a duty to inform me where your going? Do you see me accosting you while you do no wrong, any different than being accosted by an agent of the state, while you do no wrong? If so, you are not alone, but might want to do some critical thinking. What gives them this special authority?

Violence is violence, no matter who is dishing it out. Threats are no different. The whole interview is Gordon's attempt to validate the states "authority" over you. He even takes it way back with a story of how he submitted to "authority" when it was incorrectly applied to him. This justification of violence is just that. An attempt at "legalizing" one groups violence over another.

The Sheriff of Clark County is responsible for a large majority of the violence conducted in this state. Some violence is justifiable, Self defense being a good example. Officer safety, is not self defense. Officer safety is a way of conveying the idea, that as a mercenary of the State, my not getting a scratch is more important than in some cases, your life!

True authority, is situational always. when the missionary's for "God" knock on your door on Saturday morning with the intent of pushing their agenda, do you feel morally obligated to answer their questions? Now assume it is the cops, and it adds a little anxiety to the equation. That fear is real, despite the multiple times you have heard, "not all cops are bad" your mind knows where violence comes from, and it does not lie.

I used to visit with Ted Moody, He is also running for Sheriff, we would have a Starbucks every month or two for a period, he seems nice enough, and very smart. I was happy when he quit METRO (made a stand) however I am dismayed he wants to be in charge of so much violence. I won't vote for Ted, Or Gordon. I do not condone unauthorized violence on my fellow man. Whew! I guess I had to get that out.

 

[Nevada Cop Block]

I couldn't agree more.

The whole interview is Gordon's attempt to validate the states "authority" over you. He even takes it way back with a story of how he submitted to "authority" when it was incorrectly applied to him. This justification of violence is just that. An attempt at "legalizing" one groups violence over another.

His little anecdotes are basically designed to say, "see when it happened this one time, there was some sort of reason why it was actually justified." And while I disagree that those stories even effectively did that, if we concede that they did just for the sake of argument, they don't in fact justify the vast majority of the times when it actually just amounted to harassing someone who had done nothing and had no intention of doing anything illegal just because someone didn't like something about their appearance, which is the real intent of those stories.

 

[mp06011999]

I listened to it along with a bunch of many other clips on Martines. He sounds like he is the closest thing to pro-citizen as any of the choices - the most "NOT business as usual" candidate. Also, I did not hear anything disturbing in what he had said in the clip linked above. He said that you have to present ID, registration and insurance when pulled over and that was all you had to do legally. Then he went on to say that you should plead the 5th if the cop's questions sound accusatory. He did say "what would be the harm in answering simple questions by the cops" and while I have a different idea of what is accusatory and what are "simple questions" than perhaps Martines does, I did not take what he said as anything more than that. Martines doesn't see "simple questions" as accusatory but he also said that you had no obligation to answer any of them. Bingo, just what I like to hear. And will not hear from any of the other candidates.

I'm not trying to start an argument with any of you that feel Martines is not in your corner. I just ask that you be aware that in politics it IS NEVER a choice for someone who thinks like you do on everything. It is a choice for the candidate that most closely thinks like you do. For me, from what I have seen, that is without a doubt Martines.

Martines' stated stances:
* Will NOT enforce the blue card requirement by reallocating all those workers & resources to more pertinent "police" duties and said he absolutely would not enforce gun registration of any kind
* Will support citizens right to keep & bear arms
* Supports citizens right to open carry and encourages it
* Wishes to replace ALL the upper admin in Metro in addition to filing a Federal suit against many of them
* Does not find prostitution a priority
* Will review ALL of Metro's contracts and remove the kickbacks and favoritism
* Would have had BLM agents arrested had he been Sheriff during the Bundy standoff and WILL arrest anyone breaking constitutional or State law
* Does not see immigration enforcement as a duty of Metro, which is correct
* Will require every officer to carry a copy of the Constitution so that they won't forget "the law"

The list kinda goes on and on in this direction. He sure sounds like a servant of the people and NO other candidate does. They all sound like the same old thing. Martines actually named names of people he would fire and / or arrest in Metro. WOW! While there is no guarantee that he will do anything he promises, there never is. But I do believe that he will shake things up. EXACTLY WHAT'S NEEDED.

Oh and the thing about being stopped by a cop and manhandled and detained, while I don't like it either, ya gotta remember that it does come down to probable cause. And I know cops lie. But what are you gonna do? If the cops says he has pc to stop, search and question you because you "fit the description" then that's what's gonna happen. Like I said, I don't like it, but I get it. The alternative is the cops never question anyone that fits the description and they never catch anyone. Just remember that you don't have to answer. Just like Martines said, you can always plead the 5th.

As one of the strongest political positions in the state, Clark County Sheriff will have great influence on all things gun and cops. Martines sure sounds like our best choice to end the Mob known as Metro....if they don't take him out first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP8WhdgHNHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6MFiWtHiec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uKpc2BmxCU

 

[Turbod'1]

If I accost you while you are walking down the street... Ask where your going, demand to know where you have been, search your person. Meanwhile tacit threats of violence are imminent? You would be at code white? Would you feel a duty to inform me where your going? Do you see me accosting you while you do no wrong, any different than being accosted by an agent of the state, while you do no wrong? If so, you are not alone, but might want to do some critical thinking. What gives them this special authority?

Violence is violence, no matter who is dishing it out. Threats are no different. The whole interview is Gordon's attempt to validate the states "authority" over you. He even takes it way back with a story of how he submitted to "authority" when it was incorrectly applied to him. This justification of violence is just that. An attempt at "legalizing" one groups violence over another.

The Sheriff of Clark County is responsible for a large majority of the violence conducted in this state. Some violence is justifiable, Self defense being a good example. Officer safety, is not self defense. Officer safety is a way of conveying the idea, that as a mercenary of the State, my not getting a scratch is more important than in some cases, your life!

True authority, is situational always. when the missionary's for "God" knock on your door on Saturday morning with the intent of pushing their agenda, do you feel morally obligated to answer their questions? Now assume it is the cops, and it adds a little anxiety to the equation. That fear is real, despite the multiple times you have heard, "not all cops are bad" your mind knows where violence comes from, and it does not lie.

I used to visit with Ted Moody, He is also running for Sheriff, we would have a Starbucks every month or two for a period, he seems nice enough, and very smart. I was happy when he quit METRO (made a stand) however I am dismayed he wants to be in charge of so much violence. I won't vote for Ted, Or Gordon. I do not condone unauthorized violence on my fellow man. Whew! I guess I had to get that out.

After listening to the clip, I agree with your assessment. I'll also add, that the guy doing the interview is clearly not that bright as the questions were clearly not well thought out. He should have stayed in Gotham.

 

[Turbod'1]

...Gordon that is.

 

[mp06011999]

After listening to the clip, I agree with your assessment. I'll also add, that the guy doing the interview is clearly not that bright as the questions were clearly not well thought out. He should have stayed in Gotham.

I just replayed it as well and I still don't see an issue with it. At 3:57 he even says that you don't have to answer the cop's questions. Sure, at 4:40 he says why not have a conversation with the cop if you have nothing to hide (and I disagree) but that is just how he feels about it. He still very clearly says many times that you have the right to remain silent and that by doing so may make you look guilty to some (cops) but that cops don't decide guilt, courts do.

I also read the article Martines wrote http://lasvegastribune.net/carrying-badge/ and I do not get that he wishes to kidnap people's children. I get that he understands that weed is illegal and that he really doesn't care if people are doing weed UNLESS they are a minor child. Then he feels it is his duty as a cop to intervene in the interest of the child. He said there isn't a problem UNTIL, " ...smoking (pot) also involved a Minor Child, who was in the sole care and custody of the self-righteous pot-smoker...". May be a little harsh, but I don't know. People letting their kids smoke pot - probably not a good thing. And definitely not legal. And definitely not a reason to not like Martines.

It'd be nice to hear others chime in because I see that we are looking, listening, reading the same things and getting something different from it. I like this guy.

Oh and his comment about the badge never coming off so be careful what you say, sorry but if you're stupid enough to admit to illegal activity to a guy that tells you up front that he's a cop, well ya kinda deserve what you get. Never talk to the police. And while Martines may not see anything wrong with it "as long as it's not accusatory", he and I both understand that you don't have to as it is your right to remain silent.

 

[mp06011999]

Martines: One of the very first things that I always do when I meet a political
individual or political group is to identify myself as a law
enforcement officer. From that point on, any/all information exchanged
is subject to review by any and all, and can possibly initiate some
type of further criminal investigation, if warranted.

Somebody on that link called that entrapment. Uh, did you miss the first words from his lips - I AM A COP. At that moment, I would be careful what I say, if anything.

 

[Turbod'1]

I just replayed it as well and I still don't see an issue with it. At 3:57 he even says that you don't have to answer the cop's questions. Sure, at 4:40 he says why not have a conversation with the cop if you have nothing to hide (and I disagree) but that is just how he feels about it. He still very clearly says many times that you have the right to remain silent and that by doing so may make you look guilty to some (cops) but that cops don't decide guilt, courts do.

I also read the article Martines wrote http://lasvegastribune.net/carrying-badge/ and I do not get that he wishes to kidnap people's children. I get that he understands that weed is illegal and that he really doesn't care if people are doing weed UNLESS they are a minor child. Then he feels it is his duty as a cop to intervene in the interest of the child. He said there isn't a problem UNTIL, " ...smoking (pot) also involved a Minor Child, who was in the sole care and custody of the self-righteous pot-smoker...". May be a little harsh, but I don't know. People letting their kids smoke pot - probably not a good thing. And definitely not legal. And definitely not a reason to not like Martines.

It'd be nice to hear others chime in because I see that we are looking, listening, reading the same things and getting something different from it. I like this guy.

Oh and his comment about the badge never coming off so be careful what you say, sorry but if you're stupid enough to admit to illegal activity to a guy that tells you up front that he's a cop, well ya kinda deserve what you get.

Is there a chance that you're saying that from the stand point of those of us that can't or don't record the interaction? That anything that happens should be left the 'The Man'? Short of a "Felony stop" [At that point I would hope that my description is good enough for probable cause], no one should have to explain what they're doing or where they're going --let alone be insulted and/or roughed up.

Sad to say, I've been the subject of this in the past and yet, I still respect the job they do... just be aware that not every citizen is bad and we have rights.

 

[Turbod'1]

Martines: One of the very first things that I always do when I meet a political
individual or political group is to identify myself as a law
enforcement officer. From that point on, any/all information exchanged
is subject to review by any and all, and can possibly initiate some
type of further criminal investigation, if warranted.

Somebody on that link called that entrapment. Uh, did you miss the first words from his lips - I AM A COP. At that moment, I would be careful what I say, if anything.

Entrapment is tricking/forcing someone into something they wouldn't do. Police NEVER have to admit that they are Police. The more you know.

 

[mp06011999]

Entrapment is tricking/forcing someone into something they wouldn't do. Police NEVER have to admit that they are Police. The more you know.

But he does tell people. Read it again. He said he tells people right up front that he's a cop. If they then, after being told that you are speaking with a cop, admit guilt to a crime...... well then that's just good police work. Remember, it is YOUR RIGHT to remain silent. Don't and you get what you deserve. Am I missing something?

 

[Turbod'1]

Quite a lot it seems. :/

 

[mp06011999]

Is there a chance that you're saying that from the stand point of those of us that can't or don't record the interaction? That anything that happens should be left the 'The Man'? Short of a "Felony stop" [At that point I would hope that my description is good enough for probable cause], no one should have to explain what they're doing or where they're going --let alone be insulted and/or roughed up.

Sad to say, I've been the subject of this in the past and yet, I still respect the job they do... just be aware that not every citizen is bad and we have rights.

No. I'm saying that it is unfortunate to be in that situation (and I have been in many). But look at it another way. The cop is doing an investigation and it is totally acceptable for him to question me to high heaven all he wants - assuming he has pc and as you know, they always have pc (sarcasm). While I totally disagree with being stopped, questioned or detained, I understand that this will occasionally happen as police try to fight crime. I also understand that this will happen even when they are not fighting crime but are just being jerks. But how am I to know which one it is? Life is not black and white. I cannot expect to walk thru this life never being justifiably questioned because a cop has a true probable cause. And then I cannot expect him to take the time from his pursuit of the bad guys to mend my hurt feelings. And then I also know that some cops will simply abuse that authority without justification / probably cause. And those times I will be mad. But again I ask you, how am I to know which one it is? I'd love to help the cop catch a bad guy. I'd love to not be unjustifiably harassed. Life ain't perfect. Poop will happen. Hold your ground. Exercise your rights. And learn to pick your battles.

Again, Martines NEVER said that you had to talk to the cops. He did say repeatedly that it is your right to remain silent. His "opinion" is that up to a point, talking to a cop couldn't hurt. In the real world, talking could help or hurt just as can being silent. Don't judge Martines on his "opinion". Judge him on his recognition of your right to not say a darn thing. I find that the much more important point we've learned of his character. He even said he'll make his cops carry a copy of the Bill of Rights. Awesome.

I also understand that there can be a tendency at times to focus on fault - looking for any little thing to latch onto and run with it, all the while missing the bigger picture. It's like how Cliven Bundy fell out of popularity for his so called racist comment. His words were no doubt dated and he's so not a good speaker. But his comment was basically about creating welfare babies and do people not see that as a modern day form of slavery. It was clear to me...and I agree.

But hey, I see many others that were on this thread at the beginning have not chimed in on any of the negative comments about Martines. I too should understand that not everyone will agree with me. Just as long as we can continue to be civil in our sharing of ideas. Awesome.

 

[mp06011999]

Quite a lot it seems. :/

Oh come on now. You know I couldn't be more right. The sooner you accept that the sooner we can move on. Don't worry, I'm used to being right. :lol:

 

[MAC702]

...He said he tells people right up front that he's a cop. If they then, after being told that you are speaking with a cop, admit guilt to a crime...... well then that's just good police work...

I have no problem with this or other forms of good police work, including undercover. BUT, the issue is when I disagree with what is a "crime."

 

[mp06011999]

I have no problem with this or other forms of good police work, including undercover. BUT, the issue is when I disagree with what is a "crime."

Me too Mac. That's why I was glad to see that Martines made light of people talking to him about smoking pot after they were made aware that he was a cop. But then his carefree attitude changes when he learns that the pot smokers are smoking it with their minor children. I agree with him. I have no issues with pot or booze. But I do not believe we should be getting our kids (actual children) drunk and high. Good thing it's illegal.

Now, if I have just been told that I am speaking to a cop, you bet I won't be admitting to doing anything illegal - a crime.

 

[Bulleteater]

I used to visit with Ted Moody, He is also running for Sheriff, we would have a Starbucks every month or two for a period, he seems nice enough, and very smart. I was happy when he quit METRO (made a stand) however I am dismayed he wants to be in charge of so much violence. I won't vote for Ted, Or Gordon. I do not condone unauthorized violence on my fellow man. Whew! I guess I had to get that out.

Curious, and because I have not yet voted and want to be as informed as possible, please enlighten me. If not Gordon or Ted, then who? Bill Roman? Or do you take the cynical approach and believe the entire well is poisoned and there's not a candidate in the bunch who can actually change things at Metro? And for the record I think that viewpoint has some merit, even though I may not totally agree with it. Thanks in advance.

 

[mp06011999]

My thoughts condensed: Change nothing and nothing will change. Martines is definitely "different".

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

Curious, and because I have not yet voted and want to be as informed as possible, please enlighten me. If not Gordon or Ted, then who? Bill Roman? Or do you take the cynical approach and believe the entire well is poisoned and there's not a candidate in the bunch who can actually change things at Metro? And for the record I think that viewpoint has some merit, even though I may not totally agree with it. Thanks in advance.

After being "active" helping with campaigns, voting, working with Orgs. etc. I have realized by peeling away the layers to find out why all my efforts resulted in much more of the same. (like turning cards face up, they all come from the same deck, when we vote... we are just looking for new faces)Here is a summery of the realizations I have endured.

Foundation of Govt.
If you, or us, as a group can give someone or an entity our consent to be governed, at what age does that consent occur?
If you truly consent, then how can it be governance? Why the need for police and lawmakers if we consent?
What happens when you choose not to consent? The Civil war tells us that governed by consent is a lie, as it cannot be consent if you cannot opt out.

Authority of Govt.
Authority is granted when the facts and circumstances allow, Breaking and entering is morally wrong, however if during a house fire you respond to the cries from inside.... breaking and entering is completely valid. When transferring this to Sheriff elections.... It does not matter the outfit that the "authorized" person is wearing, or if they are voted in. What matters is they have situational authority, the same as anyone would have who witnesses for instance, a purse snatching.

Conversely when voting for sheriff, we are voting for someone to do things, which we cannot. (Where do they derive their power from again?)
Some would say that the majority wants that sheriff, so that is how it works. (they consented for you.) That is psychotic thinking at best. Can a handful (majority) of losing poker players vote your consent to steal your money? Did the majority vote, somehow make Hitlers actions moral?

The idea that we need this "protection" is how Cliven Bundy was taught, it did not work for him, and Gordon Martinez, or any other Sheriff will not protect you, or your rights. They do not have the power, all they can do is disseminate massive amounts of violence throughout the valley, and call it justice! A vote for sheriff is a vote for violence.