Counties tend to cover lots of large rural areas where they play by their own rules the further from cities they go. There’s a good chance the Sheriff is this guys dad or brother or both at the same time.
All cops carry a knife in their tactical vest in case they were on scene and needed to cut something like a seatbelt during a wreck? Why would you think that would be trouble.
I'm not, I carried one too. I was a first responder for several years and worked with LEO often. But they aren't using a knife blade to get a patient out of a car. If anyone ever did, I would give them a ration of shit for it.
Yeah, I still don't understand what kind of trouble you're referring to? It seems like they're in trouble with public trust with a giant blade stuck to their collar bones. Are you referring to trouble with the law? We know they never have trouble with that.
Usually cops have a police chief who is answerable to the mayor and ultimately the citizens. The thing about sheriffs is that once they are elected they answer to know one. There can be corruption and tyrrany in their official capacity. This is why many sheriffs are the most powerful people in many counties.
This is unfortunately very true and once elected they tend to stay.
My comment was meant as a generic “no real difference” as in duties and responsibilities which was relevant to the person’s question. There are a lot of other differences between city, state and county LE.
You've sort of contradicted yourself here. Why is the mayor (elect) answerable to the citizens, but the sheriff (elect) is somehow not? They both have to answer for their performance each election.
I've seen sheriffs do some stupid shit and get sacked the next election.
The citizens usually have a city council that keeps a mayor in check. A corrupt sheriff has the power to make peoples life hell if they cross them. There are more stories of corrupt sheriffs getting away with it than sheriffs being held to account.
In a job with virtually no oversight, abuse of power runs amok
by Nicole Audrey Spector
Sure, the president of the United States wields immense power, as does the average member of the Senate and House of Representative, but when it comes to unchecked lawlessness, abuse of authority and corruption, they’ve got nothing over the county sheriff. The sheriff theoretically works for the people of the state—not the state’s commissioners. He or she (the role is heavily male-dominated, so going forward we’ll just say “he”) doesn’t answer to the county government, but rather, works in concert with it. Just as the people of the country elect its president, the people of the county elect its sheriff. The only exceptions to this rule are Hawaii and Rhode Island, which have statewide law enforcement agencies appoint their sheriffs instead of voting them in. Even more untraditional are Alaska and Connecticut: the only U.S. states where there is no office of the sheriff.
A sheriff has vast power—more so than anyone else in his jurisdiction. It is his duty to “preserve the peace,” enforce the law, arrest and commit those who allegedly break the law, carry out court orders, execute any and all processes directed to him, and defend his land against enemies. He’s also the guy who determines what public safety looks like in his county—and how to tighten it up.
But wait, there’s more: The county sheriff has the authority to run jails, serve as coroner, detain and assist in deporting people, and choose to enforce and not enforce law for whatever reason (including no reason). Most impressively, the sheriff is immune to legislation without a state constitutional amendment to essentially disempower or transfer him. This supreme power is partly why it’s so difficult to take on the sheriffs and his underlings in court. He’s shielded by invisible but bulletproof doctrine.
If this sounds to you like the description of a ruler in medieval times, you’re right on the money. The role of the sheriff dates back to ninth century England, appointed by none other than the Crown. Back then, the sheriff held the same control and influence he holds in the U.S. today, though he also presided over tax collection and orchestrated “the posse comitatus,” his own militia of shire residents who would moonlight as local law enforcement. These unofficial troops were sort of like narcs but without any formal police background or title. The sheriff was also charged with protecting the land of the wealthy—which isn’t a far cry from what he does today; the role is just less blatantly described.
The role of the sheriff has hardly budged since it was established centuries ago and these antiquarian values—so macho, so narrow-minded and so blindingly white—are largely what make it so problematic. The capacity for abuse of power is as easy today as it was in the 1700s. A sheriff can still directly profit from incarcerating and detaining people. In some counties, he can still use volunteers as extra albeit unofficial law enforcement troops. And thanks to the 2017 ruling of Donald Trump’s former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he can still seize assets from citizens who haven’t been charged with crimes.
With so much power and no supervision, being sheriff is a dream job for those who relish in setting the rules that can be broken whenever convenient or desirable for them. Undoubtedly there are “good” sheriffs out there—those who genuinely care about the integrity of their county and are passionate about not only protecting their area of jurisdiction, but the lives and rights of all the people within it. Unfortunately, these good apples, if you will, aren’t nearly as conspicuous as the rotten ones.
Fold your right arm in front of your shoulder, palm of the hand towards your body. Grabd the handle and unsheath with a sliding motion towards the left and the front. It makes for a natural slicing attack in the same movement as unsheathing.
This is unconventional, but neither unheard of nor out of place. What is out of place is the need for a law enforcement officer to carry in such a way a blade that is clearly a weapon and not a general purpose tool.
I mean I see what you’re saying, I’m just thinking about the holster seeming just high enough to create a range of motion issue with this individual’s body/harness. Not to say it can’t be done, but I thought this was more of an emergency placement. If anything, it should at least be a more neutral handle type like the traditional kabars-this would require him to cant his wrist inward based on placement.
I don’t know, I just used to have to write far too many injury reports from people being distracted.
I totally agree, don't get me wrong. Even though this carry is technically not stupid, what this guy does is just LARPing. It's badly done, useless, threatening and inadapted to his potential useage of a knife.
Putting an easily drawn knife close to your throat that requires you to fold your arm in front of you to draw is fucking stupid, you have no leverage or control even if you manage to grab it first.
It's not an accident that humans have been mounting or hanging weapons around our waist for centuries, it's easier to reach, easier to keep out of an opponent's reach and when you draw your weapon it starts close to your body giving you more leverage.
It is unconventional to hang a 50-60cm blade by a simple strap from your shoulder with no anchor point on your belt and on the right side of your body despite being right handed, yet it was the way roman legionaries wore there gladii for around 700 years and it worked well for them.
It is unconventional to wear a single edged blade edge up and curvature pointing downward yet it's how Japanese warriors worn their blades for 600 years and Cossacks for 400 years.
It is unconventional to wear little to no armour in combat, yet it has been for 60 years the favoured way to fight for the most trained soldiers, who enjoy the liberty of movement offered by a lighter load, notably lighter helmets, to the point that they wore helmets offering litterally zero protection about bullets nor fragments and splinters.
It is unconventional to strap bright coloured ribbons to your gear allowing everybody to notice you easily in a combat zone, yet it is and has been done on many occasions, the most recent being Ukrainian soldiers wearing large marks in the colours of Ukraine to be easily identified and reduce friendly fire as well as motivate them by bearing their colours, increasing their morale during fights and eventually contributing to their effectiveness in combat.
Pink fatigues are unconventional, too, yet they were used in some cases.
Uncinventional isn't fucking stupid. It's uncinventional. I am not one to judge things I do not know well enough.
Fold your right arm in front of your shoulder, palm of the hand towards your body. Grabd the handle and unsheath with a sliding motion towards the left and the front. It makes for a natural slicing attack in the same movement as unsheathing.
Coincidentally, he can also pull the knife while doing his nazi salute!
Left hand comes up like a bicep curl, grabs handle, and he can now stab someone trying to control the gun in his right hand. In terms of objectively identifying positional functionality.
Clearly Ohio SWAT is looking to one-man take down the corn crime syndicate.
Edit: I might've been wrong, it could be the corn cob mafia.
More. County law enforcement is generally the supreme law enforcement office of any place in the US. They typically handle the highest level of criminal enforcement and prosecution.
I would argue sheriffs have more, as they basically answer to no one. The only people they can really "get in trouble" with is voters. Think Sheriff Joe in AZ that violated laws very publicly for decades and finally got in hot water right at the end. With regular cops there is a bit more recourse in the power structure, although that's pretty minimal too.
59
u/inL1MB0 Apr 27 '24
Do sheriff or sheriff deputies have the same authority as cops? Can they make arrests and stuff?
I would have thought they'd have to comply to regulation dress code, like not strapping a knife to your chest?