Hastur wrote:Recon wrote:
I can understand that. A neutral and trying to remain above it all police officer. Not open to one side or the other but what about the political system, the prosecutor, the bureaucracy and the judicial system all being influenced and infiltrated by these two families? And a broader criminal and corrupt society? How would a Sheriff get elected if he doesn't have major political and social organizations to support him? Did you see "clean" sheriff's or police chiefs in other examples of corrupt cities or states? I am just asking. I think it would be more likely. The Sheriff tries to ignore everything to do with these families, he pushes most of it off to the police departments. He doesn't want to rock the boat. Or get involved. If you pick one side, the other take you down. If you just follow the law, you will anger both sides over time and the judges will overturn your cases. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't.
Here's the thing. I'd imagine that both sides would probably keep the sheriff close, and if anything they're would probably be an agreement of some kind on both sides to get around this. Someone has to mediate between them after all, and a corrupt sheriff making sure they don't kill each other while taking a healthy cut from both sides makes sense. That being said, if the sheriff isn't in on any of it, that puts both their operations at risk. And if one side seizes power of the sheriff, then the other side is just going to tank him. That's the real wire act right there.
Absolutely, but he has to be corrupt or why would anyone trust him? If you take the money, if you dirty yourself, people will trust you. Knowing they have dirt on you. A honest man, is a dangerous man. I like Kentucky's idea of a FBI agent, a true outsider. Not beholdened to anyone.