Chaos in USA

[PHXPhlyer]

Reeve of The Shire

PP

[PHXPhlyer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff

Sheriff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For other uses, see Sheriff (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Sherif.
A sheriff is a government official, with varying duties, existing in some countries with historical ties to England, where the office originated. There is an analogous although independently developed office in Iceland that is commonly translated to English as sheriff, and this is discussed below.


Contents
1 Description
2 Great Britain and Ireland
2.1 England, Wales and Northern Ireland
2.2 Scotland
2.2.1 Sheriffs principal
2.2.2 Sheriffs
2.2.3 Summary sheriffs
2.3 Republic of Ireland
3 Australia
4 North America
4.1 Canada
4.1.1 Alberta
4.1.2 British Columbia
4.1.3 Nova Scotia
4.2 United States
5 India
6 South Africa
7 Related offices
7.1 Iceland
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
Description
Historically, a sheriff was a legal official with responsibility for a shire, the term being a contraction of "shire reeve" (Old English scīrgerefa).[1][2]

In British English, the political or legal office of a sheriff, term of office of a sheriff, or jurisdiction of a sheriff, is called a shrievalty[1] in England and Wales, and a sheriffdom[2] in Scotland.

In modern times, the specific combination of legal, political and ceremonial duties of a sheriff varies greatly from country to country.

In England, Northern Ireland, or Wales, a sheriff (or high sheriff) is a ceremonial county or city official.
In Scotland, sheriffs are judges.[3]
In the Republic of Ireland, in some counties and in the cities of Dublin and Cork, sheriffs are legal officials similar to bailiffs.
In the United States, a sheriff is a sworn law enforcement officer, whose duties vary across states and counties. A sheriff is generally an elected county official, with duties that typically include policing unincorporated areas, maintaining county jails, providing security to courts in the county, and (in some states) serving warrants and court papers. In addition to these policing and correction services, a sheriff is often responsible for enforcing civil law within the jurisdiction.
In Canada, sheriffs exist in most provinces. The provincial sheriff services generally manage and transport court prisoners, serve court orders, and in some provinces sheriffs provide security for the court system, protect public officials, support investigations by local police services and in Alberta, sheriffs carry out traffic enforcement.
In Australia and South Africa sheriffs are legal officials similar to bailiffs. In these countries there is no link maintained between counties and sheriffs.
In India, a sheriff is a largely ceremonial office in some major cities.
Great Britain and Ireland
England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Further information: High Sheriff and List of shrievalties
The Old English term designated a royal official (a reeve) responsible for keeping the peace throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king.[4] The term was preserved in England notwithstanding the Norman Conquest.

Today, sheriff or high sheriff is a ceremonial county or city official. Some commercial organisations use the term to refer to High Court enforcement officers.[5]

Scotland
Main articles: Sheriff court and Sheriff principal
In Scotland the sheriff is a judicial office holder in the sheriff courts, and they are members of the judiciary of Scotland.[6]

Sheriffs principal
The most senior sheriffs are the sheriffs principal, who have administrative as well as judicial authority in the six sheriffdoms, and are responsible for the effective running and administration of all the sheriff courts in their jurisdiction. Sheriffs principal also sit as appeal sheriffs in the Sheriff Appeal Court; hearing appeals against sentencing and conviction from summary trials in the sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts.[7] The additional duties of a sheriff principal include being Commissioners of the Northern Lighthouse Board (which is the general lighthouse authority for Scotland), and chairing local criminal justice boards which bring together local representatives of procurator fiscal, Police Scotland and Community Justice Scotland, and Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.[8][9]

Sheriffs
Sheriffs deal with the majority of civil and criminal court cases in Scotland, with the power to preside in solemn proceedings with a jury of 15 for indictable offences and sitting alone in summary proceedings for summary offences. A sheriff must be legally qualified, and have been qualified as an advocate or solicitor for at least 10 years. The maximum sentencing power of sheriff in summary proceedings is 12 months imprisonment, or a fine of up to £10,000. In solemn proceedings the maximum sentence is 5 years imprisonment, or an unlimited fine.[6]

Sheriffs also preside over fatal accident inquiries which are convened to examine the circumstances around sudden or suspicious deaths, including those who die in the course of employment, in custody, or in secure accommodation.[10][11]

Summary sheriffs
Summary sheriffs hear civil cases brought under Simple Procedure and criminal cases brought under summary proceedings. Their sentencing powers are identical to a sheriff sitting in summary proceedings.[12]

United States
Main article: Sheriffs in the United States

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Sheriff" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The office of sheriff as county official in colonial North America is recorded from the 1660s. In the modern United States, the scope of a sheriff varies across states and counties (which in Louisiana are called "parishes" and in Alaska "boroughs"). The sheriff is most often an elected county official who serves as the chief civil-law enforcement officer of their jurisdiction. The sheriff enforces court orders and mandates and may perform duties such as evictions, seizing property and assets pursuant to court orders, and serving warrants and legal papers. In some counties where urban areas have their own police departments, a sheriff may be restricted to civil procedure enforcement duties, while in other counties, the sheriff may serve as the principal police force and have jurisdiction over all of the county's municipalities, regardless if they have their own city or town/township police department. A sheriff often administers the county jails and is responsible for court security functions within their jurisdiction.

Edited for length
PP

[FD2]

If you can't find any rioters or looters, just lash out at the nearest defenceless targets:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ ... s-protests

I believe they are inventing a 'syndrome' for this sort of behaviour now, for when the forces of law and order lose control in these situations.

It can't be easy dealing with demonstrators, wherever in the world, but that is what this lot are paid for, isn't it?

[Seenenough]

Who is the higher ranking between a Sheriff and Chief of Police?

Technically a sheriff would be a higher rank, since they have jurisdiction in the entire county, including the city of the police chief. They also tend to not have a direct boss over them, like a police chief would, who serves at the pleasure of the mayor or city council.

Is the sheriff the highest authority in a county?

Not all states or counties have one, but the sheriff, an elected official, is usually known as the highest law enforcer of the county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official. The feds may have forgotten authority resides in the sheriff, but not Tenthers.Jul 8, 2013

Who is higher police chief or sheriff?

What is the difference between a Sheriff and a Police Chief? A Sheriff is generally (but not always) the highest, usually elected, law-enforcement officer of a county. Chiefs of Police usually are municipal employees who owe their allegiance to a city.


Answers found by a Google search.

[barkingmad]

Meanwhile in a land far far East of 30W here’s some local news from the land of cupcakes, Liberty, freedom and mom’s apple pie.
Just in case you horrible colonialising Europeans, who drove out the Pilgrim Fathers years ago, are for some reason unaware of the progress being made out here on the prairie.

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/

Enjoy reading your chosen topics...

[boing]

progress being made out here on the prairie.

The move across the prairies was a remarkable demonstration of bravery, endurance, and yes, a little foolhardiness on the part of some of the US population. The trek was across 1800 miles of, for one reason or another, inhospitable territory with starvation and death being a possibility. The people that made this journey may have been starry-eyed dreamers at the beginning but they were some of the toughest people on earth at its completion.

The actual time period of the trek is exaggerated. The move west began in around 1843 and it was pretty much all over by the end of the California Gold Rush (1848 to 1855). The aim of the first settlers was freedom and land, the aim of the Gold Rush was merely quick wealth. By 1869 the Transcontinental Railway was complete so the wagon trains were no longer needed.

Historical markers that non-Americans may recognise.

The Battle of the Alamo 1836.
The first sheriff's office in Los Angeles was created in 1850.
The "Gunfight at the OK Corral" took place in 1881.
The FBI was created in 1908.
The famous fight against Chicago gangs took place in the 1920s.
The National Firearms Act controlling the sale and manufacture of certain firearms such as fully-automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns etc was passed in 1934 as a belated result of the events of the 1920s and prohibition.

Since then the prairies have been utilised as one of the most important and most efficient food producing regions in the World and there is still thousands upon thousands of acres of prairie, lake and mountain available for peace and recreation and it still, exempting the urban areas, contains some of the most likeable people you could wish to meet.

Another short story.

A group of us drove from the West Coast to Wyoming on a hunting trip planned by one of the group. We arrived at our destination, a remote ranch, very late at night. One of the group went to the ranch house and told the old rancher we had arrived and he told us where to erect our tents.
The next morning we found out that we were at the wrong ranch.

Now, this rancher had been disturbed at 10 pm at night on his remote ranch by a bunch of strangers arriving totally unannounced asking to be given hunting privileges on his property. Under the circumstances you would expect to be greeted by a shotgun but no, these people are so generous and friendly to strangers that he simply set us up for the night like guests. I spent many happy hours chatting to the rancher, it was amazing how much he knew about soil, grasses, wildlife and cattle.

.

[boing]

More pointers for those who need trying to understand the US which might relate the timescale of UK events to the US events.

Queen Victoria ruled 1819 to 1901.
The Great Exhibition took place in 1851.
The design of Westminster Palace and "Big Ben" were completed in 1852.
My Wife's predecessors made the trek west by wagon-train in 1852.
New Zealand gained self-rule in 1859.
The Oregon Territory became a State in 1859.

I suppose one point I am trying to make is that the US is still very much a project in development. It has changed from a massive land area with little population to being, presently, the most powerful nation in the World --- in the time since Big Ben was built. Do they get everything right here? Certainly not but neither does a teenager grow up immediately and although the trimmings may need some work the core is solid unless the Confederation allows itself to be destroyed from within by allowing the political classes to weaken it.

Interestingly the property we live on was part of the land grant made to my Wife's family in 1852. The original 600 acre grant was divided between family members over the years but we happened to purchase part of the original property from a relative and subsequently gained more of the surrounding original property. This probably makes my Wife's family one of the oldest in Oregon State to be living on the granted property their presence preceeding Statehood by seven years.

.

[barkingmad]

Boing, many thanks for the history lesson and the settlers did a marvellous job of subduing the natives, stealing their ancestral lands, nearly wiping them out totally and taking over with strange European ways, religions and diseases.

Yes, the British were in there too, early on, but as they weren't welcome after some politics went wrong, they then went back east and provided a buffer between the Yankees and some very nasty types still lurking in Europe who'd have loved to join you, and they did try in WW2, on the prairies with all that wonderful land and resources.

I think the reference I supplied referred to the 21st Century and how things are going badly wrong so maybe I'd better move that reference, a locally produced one from the USA, to the other US history thread?

[boing]

BM

No doubt the settlers considered the Indians a problem but the draconian solution was the product of the US Government rather than the settlers. It was the US Government that introduced the Cavalry, the various forts which became the nuclei for towns and the reservation system.

Likely the nastiness would have taken place regardless.

.

[fin]

Who can forget the settlers roasted live over a fire head down.

[TheGreenGoblin]

Who can forget the settlers roasted live over a fire head down.

Humans are despicable. The things we do and have done are unconscionable...

[John Hill]

Who can forget the settlers roasted live over a fire head down.

Did the Indians not know how to put down a hangi?

[TheGreenGoblin]

How many ears can we take?

These days I would personally rather scalp my enemies...

[boing]

For clarification, in the US the Sheriff runs county law enforcement and the Police chief runs city law enforcement. There is also usually a State patrol which is run by the State. Since the States are able to design their own systems there is some confusion. For example some States, particular in the east, use military ranks whereas most States use civilian nomenclature. The boundary between authorities is flexible, for instance an officer from one administration can usually follow a suspect over the boundary into the next one in hot pursuit but he could not work in the next area on a routine basis.

Police training is generally standardised at the State level although individual cities can design their own training to meet that goal. Since this is so the quality of training can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based on budgeting and staffing levels as long as it meets the State requirements. Some jurisdictions prefer ex-military police officers, others put cadets through their own training centres and yet others prefer to hire locally.

The hiring process for officers can be difficult for the departments. They have to meet overall quotas, various equality quotas and to keep in mind that generally they want somebody who can be an effective police officer not a trained ape. Ability with a firearm is not an essential hiring point since the departments are supposed to be able to train almost anyone to the required skill level. Strange things happen, in one county the police adopted a new handgun at great expense then found out the the size of the grip and power of the recoil was too much for the increasing number of ladies with small hands so they had to go through the process again with the adoption of a new pistol with arguably reduced effectiveness.

As a matter of interest, most police officers never fire their handguns in anger for their whole career. The joke is that if it was not for use in periodic training and subsequent cleaning many of the pistols would not work if needed.

Police Unions in large cities and States can be very powerful, as with the old BALPA in the UK they are very protective of their membership. This also leads to officers normally enjoying very good pay and benefits. This is not so much the case in smaller departments although the officers still do well.

The police community can be very inward looking, this is not surprising with the amount of flak thrown at them by some segments of the population. Since police officers sometimes have to work with each other in tense situations it becomes a matter of trusting friends to cover your back just like pilots in a formation. This leads to an insular camaraderie, being accepted by a group of police officers is a bit like joining the Masons.

In most of the States that permit concealed carry of a firearm this fact is stored in your driver's license database. In a traffic stop you present your license to the police officer who plugs the number into the State computer so when he returns to your car he may ask if you have a handgun in your possession. This is very much a non-event because, if other things are cool, he knows that anyone with a concealed weapons permit has been background checked and approved so he likely has no problem. They will ask where the weapon is and tell you to keep your hands away from it while you are talking.

Overall interaction with the police is a painless event for the average person. Drive drunk or drugged or carry out dangerous driving and things get more interesting. Of course,it is a good idea not to take part in riots, be insolent or yell insults because this may cause a sense of humour failure.

.

[FD2]

boing - I fear that a lot of the violent incidents we are seeing on TV now are tit-for-tat responses. If rioters injured a fellow policeman it is quite understandable that revenge would be on the cards next time an encounter took place with a demonstrator. Likewise the demonstrators see the violence inflicted on people who are not resisting and also feel justifiably aggrieved.

I would support serious actions being taken against the violent rioters and looters who always appear in these situations like scum on boiling jam, but the violence inflicted on unresisting, unarmed demonstrators should not be happening. I can also see that a traffic stop can be alarming for a cop in case the driver or passenger(s) are armed, but the over-reaction of police against clearly unarmed demonstrators in public places should not be tolerated. Some of those people in uniform just had no sense of humour to start with.

[boing]

This is an example of what anyone who demonstrates against the demonstrators might suffer. Forget the personalities involved because its not important, the logic is. According to certain protestors the sole right to protest belongs to them and counter protests must be stopped.

The assailant was a college professor.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/26/ ... oes-viral/

.

[TheGreenGoblin]

This is an example of what anyone who demonstrates against the demonstrators might suffer. Forget the personalities involved because its not important, the logic is. According to certain protestors the sole right to protest belongs to them and counter protests must be stopped.

The assailant was a college professor.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/26/ ... oes-viral/

.

It is war Sir, and people suffer. Trump has summoned up the dybbuk. Can he put it away again...?

The American dystopia is only beginning...

[boing]

GG

"The American dystopia is only beginning..."

You may be right. The US has been through several events of violent rioting over one thing or another but the situations eventually calmed down with very little change occurring. Perhaps one of the future events will actually result in separation of the States based on geographic or other divisions in the country. I am tempted to say this may be part of the US democratic learning process but I doubt the results will be particularly democratic.

.

[FD2]

A QC, who was a neighbour a few years ago, replied to a point I made about the London riots of 2011 that it was quite normal for people to have a good riot from time to time. A lot of them enjoyed the excitement and it let off some steam for those living in the cities especially. A bit of research supported that view. I think these US riots seem more widespread nationwide than previous ones I remember, like the Rodney King ones, but that's an outsider's opinion.

[llondel]

Looking at that video, if they can identify the lock-wielder then he should be prosecuted for violent assault. Same rules apply to all sides in this, you assault someone then you should suffer the consequences.