By Experienced Rational Citizen
Los Alamos
I cannot debate Mr. Nebel’s concern about excessive force with certain metropolitan Police Departments in the state, given the DOJ’s findings; nor do I dispute the purpose of the military.
But his skittishness about metropolitan Police Departments is not fully applicable here in Los Alamos County. And, lofty daydreaming about Mayberry clouds judgement—the days of Barney Fife are long past.
Reading some of his letters, I believe he has a personal issue with the current Sheriff, and is unfortunately unable to split that personality from the Office (viz., Trump ultimately only *holds* the Office of the President–split the person from the office). The current question is the purpose and duties the Sheriff’s Department will perform, alongside those of the Los Alamos Police Department.
If the incumbent cannot, or will not, perform the actions as agreed to through charters/laws/agreements implemented through the County Council, then we can remove the one and re-elect a new Sheriff. I firmly believe in term limits and the election process, so there can always be the proverbial “new Sheriff in town.” I can see why we haven’t had any outside candidates with the way the Department has had it’s scope undermined and neglected.
I see this entire discussion singularly: “What is the scope of the Sheriff’s Department?” Mr. Nebel seems to be unable to distinguish the two, basing his point of view on the Sheriff’s Department by way of personal attack on Sheriff Lucero. They are two distinct issues. The law can solve one, and an election can solve another. I would invite Mr. Nebel to quit applying his hyperbolism to the discussion, and divorce the issues between person and Office. Instead, we have a question of the structure of government on the table. We all should focus and answer that first.