Do you make any distinction between sheriff's departments that are elected into their office (e.g. Jacksonville Sheriff's Office) vs commissioned LEOs?

▲

AngryData 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I personally wouldn't, both positions are going to attract the same personality and be working in the same culture with the 99% the same influences. Maybe elected sheriffs are a bit better on average, but certainly not enough for it to show through ancedotaly or trust them in any capacity.

▲

goolz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Honestly, a great question that I would have to think on. Whatever limits both their power, haha. Not really an answer, but I think what it boils down to is accountability. I work with a lot of state and federal cops. They are good people for the most part with good hearts. I am still incredibly weary of police on the whole. It seems that both commissioned and elected LEO lack the right level of accountability and we would do well to curb their immunity.

	▲	busterarm 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the thoughtful answer and not kneejerk snark and downvotes like I'm getting elsewhere in the thread. I think that I agree to a large degree, but with the caveat that elected sheriffs that don't serve their communities get voted out. Incoming elected sheriffs know well why their predecessors lost their seat. In theory, but to a much lesser degree, this should also apply to commissioned LEO, but often in large municipalities there's only one pool you can pull candidates from. This isn't perfect, but it does largely function in places with sane government/electorate. Also it kind of just follows that in such cases abuse of power (and who it is abused against) is at the direction of voters. These abuses happen because at some level, we want them to. Just not to us. Aside: I would like to see more departments where the boss of cops is not just an appointment by politicians, but an elected position accountable to voters and not controlled by other political office.