A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They're there for the same conference.

Safiel said:

A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They’re there for the same conference.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is urging lawmen to form posses, seize voting machines and investigate baseless claims of voter fraud.

www.nbcnews.com

This is a case where the loonies have positions that have real power and the potential to cause disenfranchisement and other trouble.

I have frequently spoken about the Constitutional Sheriff movement.

But we are reaching a point where States need to seriously consider reforms to defang rogue Sheriffs.

Interestingly, the most effective method, though highly counterintuitive, is to end the practice of electing law enforcement. Because there are so many small counties, you have 3,000+ potential nutjobs holding office in fiefdoms where they likely would face little real political opposition and whose departments are set up so that the county government has very little effective oversight of what a rogue Sheriff might be doing.

First of all, I would separate general county level law enforcement away from the Sheriff and place it with a county police department, headed by a Chief of Police appointed either by the county commission or by the elected county executive (if one exists), to serve at the pleasure of the respective appointing authority.

I would make Sheriffs "officers of the court" placing them within the judicial branch. Sheriffs would be appointed either directly by the courts or by the Marshal's of the Courts and would hold their office at the pleasure of their appointing authority. Sheriffs would have no general law enforcement functions, but would be able to arrest for crimes committed in their presence. They would serve process and arrest warrants, provide security and bailiff services for courts, transport prisoners and run the local jails.

The traditional Sheriff SHOULD be an officer of the court, rather than a separate local official, as his functions come under the direct purview of the courts.

At the same time, vesting general county law enforcement in an appointed Chief of Police provides accountability via the ability of the county government to directly oversee him and the accountability voters can provide if law enforcement misbehaves.

And it essentially eliminates the issue of "rogue" Sheriffs.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

How about you save me the time I'll waste reading that article by answering one simple question?

Is there a quote of those people calling for investigations of "baseless" claims of voter fraud?

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

How about you save me the time I'll waste reading that article by answering one simple question?

Is there a quote of those people calling for investigations of "baseless" claims of voter fraud?

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

How about you save me the time I'll waste reading that article by answering one simple question?

Is there a quote of those people calling for investigations of "baseless" claims of voter fraud?

Click to expand...

Safiel said:

Doesn't really matter, because that is NOT the point I am pursuing.

I am addressing the idea of rogue Sheriff's in general, not particular issues they are going rogue on.

But you really don't have to read the article gain any necessary context on the point I made in my OP.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

Oh. So the article you presented doesn't matter. Okay.

I have to wonder why you posted it, though. But never mind.

I don't share your opinion about County Sheriffs.

Click to expand...

Safiel said:

A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They’re there for the same conference.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is urging lawmen to form posses, seize voting machines and investigate baseless claims of voter fraud.

www.nbcnews.com

This is a case where the loonies have positions that have real power and the potential to cause disenfranchisement and other trouble.

I have frequently spoken about the Constitutional Sheriff movement.

But we are reaching a point where States need to seriously consider reforms to defang rogue Sheriffs.

Interestingly, the most effective method, though highly counterintuitive, is to end the practice of electing law enforcement. Because there are so many small counties, you have 3,000+ potential nutjobs holding office in fiefdoms where they likely would face little real political opposition and whose departments are set up so that the county government has very little effective oversight of what a rogue Sheriff might be doing.

First of all, I would separate general county level law enforcement away from the Sheriff and place it with a county police department, headed by a Chief of Police appointed either by the county commission or by the elected county executive (if one exists), to serve at the pleasure of the respective appointing authority.

I would make Sheriffs "officers of the court" placing them within the judicial branch. Sheriffs would be appointed either directly by the courts or by the Marshal's of the Courts and would hold their office at the pleasure of their appointing authority. Sheriffs would have no general law enforcement functions, but would be able to arrest for crimes committed in their presence. They would serve process and arrest warrants, provide security and bailiff services for courts, transport prisoners and run the local jails.

The traditional Sheriff SHOULD be an officer of the court, rather than a separate local official, as his functions come under the direct purview of the courts.

At the same time, vesting general county law enforcement in an appointed Chief of Police provides accountability via the ability of the county government to directly oversee him and the accountability voters can provide if law enforcement misbehaves.

And it essentially eliminates the issue of "rogue" Sheriffs.

Click to expand...

Safiel said:

Doesn't really matter, because that is NOT the point I am pursuing.

I am addressing the idea of rogue Sheriff's in general, not particular issues they are going rogue on.

But you really don't have to read the article gain any necessary context on the point I made in my OP.

Click to expand...

JMB1911A1 said:

The fact that you think Sheriffs who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States are "rogue Sheriffs" says all more about you than it does them.

Click to expand...

Safiel said:

A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They’re there for the same conference.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is urging lawmen to form posses, seize voting machines and investigate baseless claims of voter fraud.

www.nbcnews.com

This is a case where the loonies have positions that have real power and the potential to cause disenfranchisement and other trouble.

I have frequently spoken about the Constitutional Sheriff movement.

But we are reaching a point where States need to seriously consider reforms to defang rogue Sheriffs.

Interestingly, the most effective method, though highly counterintuitive, is to end the practice of electing law enforcement. Because there are so many small counties, you have 3,000+ potential nutjobs holding office in fiefdoms where they likely would face little real political opposition and whose departments are set up so that the county government has very little effective oversight of what a rogue Sheriff might be doing.

First of all, I would separate general county level law enforcement away from the Sheriff and place it with a county police department, headed by a Chief of Police appointed either by the county commission or by the elected county executive (if one exists), to serve at the pleasure of the respective appointing authority.

I would make Sheriffs "officers of the court" placing them within the judicial branch. Sheriffs would be appointed either directly by the courts or by the Marshal's of the Courts and would hold their office at the pleasure of their appointing authority. Sheriffs would have no general law enforcement functions, but would be able to arrest for crimes committed in their presence. They would serve process and arrest warrants, provide security and bailiff services for courts, transport prisoners and run the local jails.

The traditional Sheriff SHOULD be an officer of the court, rather than a separate local official, as his functions come under the direct purview of the courts.

At the same time, vesting general county law enforcement in an appointed Chief of Police provides accountability via the ability of the county government to directly oversee him and the accountability voters can provide if law enforcement misbehaves.

And it essentially eliminates the issue of "rogue" Sheriffs.

Click to expand...

Safiel said:

A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They’re there for the same conference.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is urging lawmen to form posses, seize voting machines and investigate baseless claims of voter fraud.

www.nbcnews.com

This is a case where the loonies have positions that have real power and the potential to cause disenfranchisement and other trouble.

I have frequently spoken about the Constitutional Sheriff movement.

But we are reaching a point where States need to seriously consider reforms to defang rogue Sheriffs.

Interestingly, the most effective method, though highly counterintuitive, is to end the practice of electing law enforcement. Because there are so many small counties, you have 3,000+ potential nutjobs holding office in fiefdoms where they likely would face little real political opposition and whose departments are set up so that the county government has very little effective oversight of what a rogue Sheriff might be doing.

First of all, I would separate general county level law enforcement away from the Sheriff and place it with a county police department, headed by a Chief of Police appointed either by the county commission or by the elected county executive (if one exists), to serve at the pleasure of the respective appointing authority.

I would make Sheriffs "officers of the court" placing them within the judicial branch. Sheriffs would be appointed either directly by the courts or by the Marshal's of the Courts and would hold their office at the pleasure of their appointing authority. Sheriffs would have no general law enforcement functions, but would be able to arrest for crimes committed in their presence. They would serve process and arrest warrants, provide security and bailiff services for courts, transport prisoners and run the local jails.

The traditional Sheriff SHOULD be an officer of the court, rather than a separate local official, as his functions come under the direct purview of the courts.

At the same time, vesting general county law enforcement in an appointed Chief of Police provides accountability via the ability of the county government to directly oversee him and the accountability voters can provide if law enforcement misbehaves.

And it essentially eliminates the issue of "rogue" Sheriffs.

Click to expand...

Safiel said:

Bull shit.

They say with their mouth that they are upholding the Constitution, when in reality, their intent is to SUBVERT the Constitution, particularly with the blatant lie that County Sheriffs are superior to Federal authorities in their counties. And their threats to interfere with elections in a manner contrary to law.

A Sheriff who actually SUPPORTS the Constitution shuts his mouth and restrains himself to ENFORCING THE LAW as written, not his conspiracy theory laden idea of what the law is supposed to be.

Click to expand...

Tenth Amendment​

Jessie C said:

Georgia is ATE UP with rogue Sheriffs, Victor Hill is one of the worst...in fact most of our former Sheriffs and mayors are behind bars themselves, it's laughable!

Click to expand...

With the latest payout, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has cost Arizona taxpayers $100M​

Ginger Ale said:

Oh gosh so true! Sheriffs seem to think they're above the law, and working in the old western times. lol

Remember Sherrif Joe? Ugh, that guy was a joke!
Oh and his posse', so stupid dangerous. So glad he's gone! I hated that guy.

With the latest payout, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has cost Arizona taxpayers $100M​

PHOENIX — Nearly five years after Joe Arpaio was voted out as sheriff of Arizona's most populous county, taxpayers are covering one of the last major bills from the thousands of lawsuits the lawman's headline-grabbing tactics inspired — and the overall legal tab has hit $100 million.

Officials in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, agreed last week to pay $3.1 million to cover the county's portion of a settlement with a restaurant owner who alleged Arpaio defamed him and violated his rights when raiding his businesses.

The payout boosted the cost stemming from Arpaio's six terms to $100 million for attorney fees, settlements and other costs the county has paid from lawsuits over things such as jail deaths, failed investigations of the sheriff's political enemies and immigration raids of businesses.

Click to expand...

Jessie C said:

Omg, I almost forgot about him! YOU WIN the worst Sheriff ever award!

Click to expand...

Jessie C said:

Omg, I almost forgot about him! YOU WIN the worst Sheriff ever award!

Click to expand...

Ginger Ale said:

AZ wins all the "worst" best awards. lol

Click to expand...

JMB1911A1 said:

Tenth Amendment​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Click to expand...

Safiel said:

A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They’re there for the same conference.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is urging lawmen to form posses, seize voting machines and investigate baseless claims of voter fraud.

www.nbcnews.com

This is a case where the loonies have positions that have real power and the potential to cause disenfranchisement and other trouble.

I have frequently spoken about the Constitutional Sheriff movement.

But we are reaching a point where States need to seriously consider reforms to defang rogue Sheriffs.

Interestingly, the most effective method, though highly counterintuitive, is to end the practice of electing law enforcement. Because there are so many small counties, you have 3,000+ potential nutjobs holding office in fiefdoms where they likely would face little real political opposition and whose departments are set up so that the county government has very little effective oversight of what a rogue Sheriff might be doing.

First of all, I would separate general county level law enforcement away from the Sheriff and place it with a county police department, headed by a Chief of Police appointed either by the county commission or by the elected county executive (if one exists), to serve at the pleasure of the respective appointing authority.

I would make Sheriffs "officers of the court" placing them within the judicial branch. Sheriffs would be appointed either directly by the courts or by the Marshal's of the Courts and would hold their office at the pleasure of their appointing authority. Sheriffs would have no general law enforcement functions, but would be able to arrest for crimes committed in their presence. They would serve process and arrest warrants, provide security and bailiff services for courts, transport prisoners and run the local jails.

The traditional Sheriff SHOULD be an officer of the court, rather than a separate local official, as his functions come under the direct purview of the courts.

At the same time, vesting general county law enforcement in an appointed Chief of Police provides accountability via the ability of the county government to directly oversee him and the accountability voters can provide if law enforcement misbehaves.

And it essentially eliminates the issue of "rogue" Sheriffs.

Click to expand...

PoliSciPulse said:

Murder, rape, etc. are all not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Does that mean the federal government should scrap all of its laws governing murder and rape?

Click to expand...