The key consideration in the latter, if I understand the situation, is that US police are disinclined to respond to direction in a way no British or Canadian organization would tolerate, have acquired the notion that they (as a collective) have some sort of right to a voice regarding, and should indeed be the pre-eminent voice, in matters of public order, and are therefore, even if directed, prodded, guided, or whatever by lawful authority, inclined to do whatever they want. Their various unions comment on matters enormously far outside the scope of "labour issues," and generally seem to act as an obstacle to any sort of real reform. Finally, they've developed a clannish and self-isolating culture, not helped in some jurisdictions by the vast majority of the force living well outside their own jurisdictions.Isn't she an elected official, like all AGs are? Which is what gets me about the whole Septic system of law enforcement (although I am happy to be corrected). You don't appear to have to apply for a job, get interviewed and then selected to fill the post like the UK appears to do it, but you get elected into the position for a period then have to get re-elected to stay in post.
It just politicises the whole thing too much. Yes we may moan that the head of the Met only got her job because we suspect they were filling a minority box, but electing the head of the Met would lead to whoever kissed the most babies of colour and mouthed the popular slogans of the day getting the job.
Have I missed the point completely with the US system? If BLM are correct and they are being oppressed then why do so many police chiefs, AGs and Mayors at least appear to be POC?
I'm betting the elective nature of judges and IIRC DAs etc. doesn't help: at first glance, neither's going to do well politically by doing anything but looking busy Protecting Decent Citizens, and whatever official or unofficial feedback occurs with the local cops will reflect their ambitions.
On the union front - I'm in one, and very much pro-organized labour - their needs to be a clear definition of what isn't actually the union's business, and one item very much meeting that standard is "if the employer tells you collectively to go ahead and suck (as you see it) at your job."