[Cerek]

Originally posted by Lady Sedai: The only comment I have about that long post of "people against the sherriff", Tom, is that there's a good possibility that those complaining are either family of the inmates or political opponents who will try and drag the man down just to win the election against him. I'm not saying there aren't some complaining who, like some who've expressed their opinions here, have a legitimate concern that the sherriff is going too far, but something tells me that those are few and far between...that the majority in that county/state have no problems with how the place is being run. Of course, I can't prove my "theory" at this point, but that's what it usually turns out to be in such cases. [img]smile.gif[/img] Just food for thought about all those "negatives" in your post.

That was my first thought also, Lady Sedai, but the more I read the article, the more legitimate the complaints seemed to be. The accusations of retaliation might be a bit overblown - then again they may not.

We had a crooked sheriff in my hometown for over 20 years. He finally got convicted for buying votes and was sent to prison. The guy that became sheriff after him was a very popular person. He had been a Ranger with the local Forest Service for several years and was well-liked by most everyone. Of course, he didn't really have a hard act to follow when it came to being popular as sheriff. Most of the town was disgusted with the previous sheriff, so it was only natural that they were happy with him. When he won the office, he said he wasn't interested in making a second career as the sheriff and he wouldn't run for re-election. But 4 years later, he changed his mind. Most people didn't mind because he was still very popular. But when he came up for re-election a second time and won a 3rd term as sheriff, some people started remembering the comment about "not wanting to make a second career" - yet he seemed to be doing just that. There were also rumors from employees within the sheriff's department that he was getting a bit paranoid and overbearing towards employees that disagreed with him or his decisions. One of the girls that operated the 9/11 switchboard also worked as a courier for the hospital where I worked and she told me several incidents the sheriff had done within the department that the general public didn't know about.

The point is that, once this guy got a "taste" of the power and popularity of his office, he didn't want to give it up and he got very vindictive in trying to defend his position. In the last election before he retired, he finally HAD decided he wasn't going to run for re-election again. But he STILL put his name in the primary election - JUST to keep one of his former deputies from getting the chance to run for sheriff. The guy had no intention of being re-elected - but he wanted to make sure this deputy that he had had a personal dispute with didn't have a chance to get elected either.

The point is...as much as I admire some of the actions taken by the sheriff in Arizona...I have seen first-hand the type of mentality described by his former associates exhibited by somebody I would never have suspected of acting that way.

I'm sure there is a fair amount of half-truths and exaggeratioins being made by his adversaries also, but the criticism of the SWAT units can't be denied. It's obviously public record that he disbanded these units and then applied for a grant when no unit was in place. Those accusations can't really be denied.

Also, the sheriff here that became "power hungry" was about the same age as this guy. Given his defense of his Tent Jail, I can certainly believe at least some of the accusations about retaliation within the department are also true.