Talk:Orange County Sheriff's Department

Proposal for possible subsection in " History of the Sheriff's Department" section
You are invited to join the discussion at Notability/Noticeboard. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

pov tag
this article has numerous uncited weasel words and phrases so I tagged it. 98.189.235.52 (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Corruption
There seems to be some fairly big allegations of corruption: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2015/04/oc_sheriff_informant_dekraai_espeleta_murder.php and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/29/1388819/-Judge-disqualifies-all-250-prosecutors-in-Orange-County-CA-because-of-widespread-corruption# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.225.1 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

and also:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/orange_county_prosecutor_misconduct_judge_goethals_takes_district_attorney.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.225.1 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Jail Snitch Scandal
No mention of the hail snitch scandal under Sandra Hutchens?

2606:6000:FECD:1400:79B5:2F04:9C0C:E492 (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Legal use of tasers
On May 2005, the Government Accountability Office published the report "TASER WEAPONS - Use of Tasers by Selected Law Enforcement Agencies", a 31-pages pdf which was submitted to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives. It states that "for example, of the seven agencies we contacted, two—the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department—reported post-Taser use deaths. From 2001 to 2004, Orange County reported that, of the 1,655 individuals on which Tasers were used, four later died. However, toxicology tests conducted by the county coroner revealed that all four subjects had lethal levels of drugs in their systems. Similarly, although Sacramento reported a post-Taser use death, the deceased was later found to have died of a cocaine overdose". May it be quoted in the WP article?Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 05:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Orange County Sheriff's Department (California) → Orange County Sheriff's Department – Per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:SMALLDETAILS, the sheriff's department in Orange County, California, should not be disambiguated. The department in Orange County, California, uses the term department while the sheriff's department in Orange County, Florida and Orange County, New York use the term office, therefore meeting SMALLDETAILS guidelines. The other ones, Orange County, Indiana and Orange County, Vermont, also use department but do not have a Wikipedia entry and do not come close to the notability of the Los Angeles area county. cookie monster  755  03:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  BD2412  T 14:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lack of ambiguity is always best and most helpful to our users. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Actually, while I loathe WP:SMALLDETAILS as utterly unhelpful dogma, I'm going to strike my opposition to this one simply for the reason that, on reconsideration, I agree that the California department is the clear primary topic for Orange County Sheriff's anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * not directly related to this requested move but why do you not like WP:SMALLDETAILS? The only reason I am a champion of it is because it (for the most part) conforms to WP:NATURALDIS and hatnotes are a great way to avoid confusion when using WP:SMALLDETAILS. cookie monster   755  04:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is completely unhelpful to users. How should the average person searching for an article know which words are capitalised or how the phrase is punctuated? The only purpose of disambiguation should be to help a user find what they're looking for, not to make an editor feel smug because they're conforming to some dogma. Consistency is also important, but that's it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. As a proper name title, fully capitalised, this doesn't need to be treated as if it's a descriptive noun phrase that we need to provide full disambiguation for. Given the difference between this one using Department and others such as NY, NC and FL using Office, this move seems good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412  T 14:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.