True, but not only does the Govenor have the State Police at his disposal, he also has the National Guard. Don't tell me he doesn't have enough authority to make a squad of county deputies back down and relinquish their side arms if they prove insubordinate. Besides which, are you suggesting that the county executive holds more authority than the chief executive of the state in which they reside? The governor does have authority over those deputies in his state, period. It doesn't matter whether he hired them or pays them. That's just absurd. That's like saying the President of the United States does not have authority over the National Guard from each of the fifty states because he does not hire them or pay them. A couple of people have put forth this argument and it is dead wrong.
And his power to call out the FLA NG would apply in this case, how, exactly?
"Don't tell me he doesn't have enough authority to make a squad of county deputies back down and relinquish their side arms if they prove insubordinate. Besides which, are you suggesting that the county executive holds more authority than the chief executive of the state in which they reside?"
First of all, please understand I am on your side here. So, when I explain the way territories work, doesn't mean I like or support it.
I hold a license in my state (Oklahoma) as an armed private investigator. What I was taught about a Sheriff I will pass along. A county sheriff is the highest level of elected law enforcement there is. Because they are elected, not appointed, they weld a great deal of power in their county. Their "boss" is the citizens of the county, and only the citizens can fire them. Their funding comes from the counties revenues, not the state (I am certain there are some exceptions of course). I know it sounds strange, I didn't used to believe it either, but a county sheriff is pretty much king/queen of their county. Hence the stories about corrupt county sheriffs. Oh, even a major city that falls within a county is under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff. I have seen county sheriff deputies making traffic stops within a major metro area (a ridiculous redundancy) with city police looking on powerless to interfere.
City police are usual subject to an elected city council or manager with the Chief of Police being an appointed person who serves at the will of the governing board or maybe the will of an elected mayor; depends on the area. I cannot think of a place where the Chief of Police is elected (although there probably are examples). Whatever, the Chief of Police and the officers under him serve the city and city officials. Of course they are subject to state law, but I don't believe state law gives a governor authority over city police. I guess it depends on the state.
The National Guard does serve under the authority of the Governor, unless federalized by the President of the U.S. There are many examples in the 20th century where a governor used his national guard to enforce his will only to have the president nationalise them so they then fall under federal control.
Now all of that being said. I agree with you that I think if Governor Bush stood firm and told State Law Enforcement to take control of Terri that city and county types would back down rather than risk violence and bloodshed. Governer Bush could declare martial law and use his national guard - I don't think his brother would interfere. However, there is always the wildcard of some prideful sheriff getting stubborn, or city police for that matter. Like I said, these types tend to be extremely territorial.
Whatever, I really doubt this story is true.