[Stat-boy]

Sinkspur wrote:

“In Texas, a chief constable is elected, then he appoints his crony friends to be deputies. None of them have to be law enforcement officers when elected, and they're given some cursory training.
IOW, they have no business carrying weapons. Stories like this illustrate why. And why does it take more than one to serve a warrant for parking tickets?
Constables are political hacks, not lawmen.”

Actually, what you said about Texas constables is not exactly true.

1. Constables are elected (as are sheriffs). An elected constable who is not a licensed cop has a certain amount of time to get that license (meaning, attend an academy and pass the state test—this is not cursory training; it’s the same training as every cop in the state). The same rules apply for a sheriff. I do not have a problem with this—citizens should be able to elect law enforcement; and the alternative can be worse. For example, the Houston Police Chief is appointed by the Mayor, and look who we have! Also as an example, some cities still have the concept of an elected Police Chief, often called the Town Marshall.

2. All deputy constables and deputy sheriffs must be licensed before being hired.

[sinkspur]

attend an academy and pass the state test—this is not cursory training; it’s the same training as every cop in the state.

Well, that's changed in the last ten years. "Process servers" (as constables are sometimes called) have always been political spoils jobs, and some of the constables I've seen were so fat they had trouble getting in and out a car.

Of course, I've seen sheriff deputies similarly endowed.