A Texas sheriff whose office drew national scrutiny and an FBI investigation following a shooting last year in which a man is accused of killing five of his neighbors has lost his reelection bid.

No, not that Texas sheriff who was under scrutiny following a mass shooting, this one

Greg Capers had sought a fourth term as sheriff in San Jacinto County, which is about 60 miles (97 km) north of Houston.

But on Tuesday, Capers lost the Republican nomination for sheriff to San Jacinto County Precinct 3 Constable Sam Houston. With no Democratic candidates on the ballot Tuesday, Houston is set to be elected the new sheriff in November.

Capers drew criticism for initially providing inaccurate information about deputies’ response time to the April 2023 shooting in which Francisco Oropeza is accused of killing his neighbors after they had asked him to stop shooting his gun near their house. The attack happened near the town of Cleveland, north of Houston.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240306181509/https://apnews.com/article/texas-sheriff-greg-capers-election-d1748ed0d68d9c84f3baaa27582075f4

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
    14·
    9 months ago

    As a Canadian I’ve never understood why America elects sheriffs and judges.

    I say this because elections have become nothing more than popularity contests, full of lies and innuendo, vs qualified and vetted candidates who simply want to serve their fellow citizens.

    The last place elections should be held is in a justice system that’s supposedly there to serve the people.

    • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
      8·
      9 months ago

      Not to defend this guy, or even police in general (ACAB), but the sheriff or chief of police is supposed to be more of a political position that decides where to allocate resources and how to prioritize the needs of the community. Since that involves discerning the will of the people, it makes sense that the people should decide who fills the role and get to continually reevaluate it. The alternative is that another politician just appoints someone into the role, which has most of the same downsides while also being undemocratic.

      That’s just theory, of course, and not even considering how messed up the whole election process really is.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        3·
        9 months ago

        I’m not sure there’s much difference between worrying about the mayor making his own private army and the police chief making his own private army, except for the additional name on a ballot. And on that theme, wouldn’t how we deal with crime, safety, and how we interact with the residents of the city be things the leader of the city is also worried about? I’m not saying the reasoning is wrong, I just don’t think it solves the problems you raised.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
        2·
        9 months ago

        The alternative is that another politician just appoints someone into the role, which has most of the same downsides while also being undemocratic.

        Canada uses Police Boards to vet who should hired (from within or outside the specific force).

        Judges are appointed by provincial or federal governments, usually after being vetted by hiring committees.

        Our Supreme Court of Canada (SCoC) bases their opinions on far more than “original intent”. They also take into account our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and do not recognize businesses being equal to individuals in having those rights.

        As a result we have very few instances of any judges ruling based on their political beliefs vs prior similar rulings or what the law actually states.