HOLLYWOOD, FL – Ex-Executive Officer to the Sheriff Russell DiPerna (who served under Ex-Sheriff of Broward County Scott Israel) was guest speaker at a past meeting of the Weston Republican Club in March. There he said, “Law enforcement in South Florida is run like the Keystone Cops,” ineptly, without a clue. He would know.
The people of South Florida need to be more demanding with respect to the kind of leadership they elect to the agencies of law enforcement. Otherwise, conditions will not improve. They need to require from candidates for office answers to pertinent questions, in order to evaluate the likelihood that any given candidate might be a useful leader in law enforcement.
A simple question should be answered by every candidate for county sheriff, so that voters interested in improving rule of constitutional law might assess the candidates’ aptitude and eligibility, per the Constitution, to serve as sheriff. That question is:
Big Tech is censoring our publication severely reducing our traffic and revenue. You can support our mission of truthful reporting by making a contribution. We refuse to let Silicon Valley crush us into becoming just another regurgitated, propaganda driven, echo-chamber of traditional news media and we need your support. You can also help by liking or sharing us on social media or by signing up for our featured story emails.
“Would you as sheriff enforce constitutional law by refusing to employ deputies or others who demonstrate their adherence not to the Constitution but to Sharia, which is antithetical to the Constitution?”
People have a right to know whether the candidate intends to keep the oath of office by actually supporting and defending the Constitution; or whether their oath will resemble that of so many in public office, who took the oath only because it is a lawful prerequisite to taking office, but who then violate the oath at will, routinely, in contempt of law, rights, and the lawful limits of delegated powers.
Another pertinent question that should be answered by candidates for sheriff should be:
“Since official corruption is so prevalent, such that the Public Corruption Unit of the State Attorney’s Office declines to indict officials concerning whose crimes evidence is readily available, would you support and defend the Constitution by bringing charges against such officials, who violate the law or commit misprision of felony, for example, by refusing to act on evidence of official criminality in their possession?”
The duty of the Public Corruption Unit of the State Attorney’s Office includes prosecution of corrupt public officials. Enormous sums of public resources are expended by that agency, but too often with little effect.
Large salaries paid to ineffectual, culpably negligent bureaucrats drain public treasuries for what? Apparently for the purpose of helping them to keep their eyes closed as the public is fleeced, defrauded, and abused in various ways.
The sheriff should not be complicit or culpably negligent with regard to this, but investigate and bring charges against such officials, even if they happen to be prosecuting attorneys.
Another germane question that should be answered by candidates for sheriff should be:
“Since evidence exists to support the fact that the Internal Affairs Bureau of the sheriff’s office is corrupt, since it refuses to conduct authentic investigations of valid complaints of criminal behavior by law enforcement officials whose crimes it wishes not to investigate, will you support and defend the Constitution by reforming the Internal Affairs Bureau, restructuring it in such a way that would prevent that corrupt practice from continuing?”
When corrupt officials refuse to act to prevent other corrupt officials from continuing to commit criminal acts, all of society suffers in many ways. The candidates for sheriff should be required to answer questions such as these. Voters have a right to know what to expect from the candidates.
And one more important question that candidates for sheriff should have to answer, given the prevalence of mass shootings, is this:
“The courts have said that police have no duty to protect individuals, despite the fact that state statute requires police to detect and prevent crime. Will your official policy as sheriff require deputies to intervene when members of the public were under attack by an armed assailant? Or would you allow them to stand down while members of the public were being murdered?”
The public has a right to know what to expect from all candidates. The public needs to present these and other pertinent questions to the candidates regarding all of their valid concerns. Candidates who cannot or will not give satisfactory answers should be discarded as viable alternatives for county sheriff.