Firearms Issue Will Define Sheriff Race, By: Brad Linzy


Firearms Issue Will Define Sheriff Race

Over the last few days, I have spoken with two candidates for the office of Sheriff of Vanderburgh County, Jim Tucker and David Wedding. The main topic of my conversations with each of them has centered on the issue of the Second Amendment and a Sheriff’s role in shielding the citizens within their County from criminals within as well as from overreaching government without. Before I get into their comments on the matter, let me first lay out my views on the subject, so the reader understands my bias.

This issue dives to the heart of why the office of Sheriff is an elected, rather than appointed, position in most States, including Indiana. A Sheriff maintains his office by will of the people of his jurisdiction and is there to serve them. His oath of office includes a statement of his fidelity to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Indiana. The reason for this oath is a simple one. It was traditionally meant to remind the newly elected Sheriff of his duty to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land above all else, and that every law he is asked by his State or Federal Government to enforce must be subservient and consistent with the Supreme Law of the Land. Any law passed by Congress or State Legislature, or any directive handed down by a Federal or State bureaucracy which circumvents, abridges or otherwise violates the Supreme Law, it is within his discretion to refuse to enforce.
Discretion is an important consideration when talking about a Sheriff’s powers, and it’s one that’s too often overlooked. If a Sheriff were merely a ceremonial role, or if his job were merely to enforce any and all laws passed without prejudice or discretion until told otherwise by the State or Federal Supreme Court, his position would simply be an appointed one. Either the Governor or County Council would appoint a Sheriff and he would apply all State and Federal Law without further consideration. However, due to his unique position as an elected official, sworn to uphold the Constitution, his deliberations on which laws are enforceable becomes more serious, and we begin to see just why his position is an elected one.

Just as a soldier takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and has a duty to refuse to follow unconstitutional orders even from superior officers, a Sheriff has a similar duty to refuse to enforce orders from the Governor, the President, State Legislature, US Congress, or any bureaucracy giving an unconstitutional order. How could it be otherwise? To enforce an unconstitutional law would surely be unconstitutional itself and a breach of the oath of office. By enforcing unconstitutional laws or directives, an officer is actually breaking the Law himself.

My interactions with the two candidates for Sheriff has revealed a contrast in the way they each view the office and in their understanding of Constitutional law. I asked each of them the same question regarding the Second Amendment, the issue of Sheriff discretion or “nullification” of unconstitutional law, and I posed to each of them a hypothetical scenario where they were asked by a Federal bureaucracy to confiscate the weapons of law-abiding citizens in Vanderburgh County – as was done during the Katrina disaster when the National Guard, the New Orleans Police, and the Sheriff’s Office of Orleans Parish went door to door confiscating and destroying the firearms of lawful citizens.

I first asked Mr. Tucker, “What’s your position on the duties of the office of Sheriff and where do you stand on the subject of nullification of unconstitutional Federal Law? Would you enforce a hypothetical order from DHS to confiscate the legal firearms of the citizens of Vanderburgh County?”

Here was his answer: “Mr. Linzy, Thank you for your question and concerns. I see that your question is divided in to two parts and I will do my best to answer both of those. First the duties of the sheriff are defined in IC: 36-2-13-5. As your elected sheriff, I will execute and discharge these duties to the best of my ability without prejudice.

Secondly I support and will defend the Constitution of the United States of America…. [On the issue of the hypothetical], first of all both you and I know that congress will never support such a bill to infringe on any Americans 2nd amendment rights guaranteed in the constitution. But since this is a hypothetical situation here is my answer. The DHS does not author law. Therefore any directive issued by them that would be unconstitutional would not be enforced and would be questioned by my administration to the highest level of the judicial system.”

I asked the same questions of Mr. Wedding. Here was his answer to the first part: “Brad; I am an active hunter and gun owner, so as a private citizen I enjoy my weapons. If I am elected sheriff; I will take an oath where I will swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, and that I will faithfully, impartially and diligently discharge the duties of County Sheriff according to law and to the best of my ability.”

After pointing out to Mr. Wedding that he has perhaps mistakenly forgotten to answer my final hypothetical, he offered to call me and discuss it, which he was gracious enough to do. We spent the better part of an hour conversing about these issues. I cannot offer an exhaustive overview of that conversation here, but I will hit the main points. Mr. Wedding stated he would not answer my hypothetical because he did not want to be painted into a corner. He repeatedly told me, “I don’t believe that the government will ever take our weapons.” When pressed him to give an unequivocal answer whether he would work with DHS or FEMA to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens if there was a disaster in our area and they directed his office to help them in that endeavor, he would still not answer “no”, repeating instead that he doesn’t believe it would ever happen. Reminding him of the whole purpose of the mental exercise of a hypothetical question, I gave him one last chance to answer the question definitively. He did say at that point that he could maybe envision a scenario that “would have to be crazy” and he would “have to know a lot more details about it.” Reminding him the details of this hypothetical involved him helping a Federal agency confiscate the firearms of lawful citizens, he still would not amend his comments further. He did conclude by reminding me that he “supports the right to bear arms” and that he is an “avid gun owner and member of the NRA.” He also asked me to treat him fairly and not misquote him. I assured him I would not, but informed him that he had failed to give the answer I sought and that would reflect in what I wrote about this conversation. He acknowledged he was ok with that.

In conclusion, while I have never met either of these candidates for Sheriff, I feel like I’ve gotten a good sense of who they both are, and I must say, while I thought Mr. Wedding seemed like a gentleman and a hard working family man, and while I appreciated the first part of his answer to my question, I have some very serious problems with his refusal to answer my hypothetical about gun confiscation. Simply saying “I don’t believe they would ever do that” is really not an answer. There is a long time between now and the election. I hope Mr. Wedding sits down and has a nice long think about this issue and changes his mind and answers this hypothetical question closer to a manner in which Mr. Tucker answered it – with an unequivocal “no”.

Share

Filed Under: City-CountyOther

RSSComments (154)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Friends Friend says:

    Tucker is not a politician. He gives straight answers and doesn’t avoid the questions with a BS answer.

    Mr. Wedding is being groomed by the powers that be. He will be endorsed by Williams and consequentially the Central Democratic Party in which Williams is of great influence.

  2. inquiring mind says:

    Wow. How long did it take you to cut and paste all of your post from the story where Tucker falsely accused Wedding of misusing his position to get media attention? The gun issue and hypothetical questions may define the race for you, but I am interested in integrity and truth. So far, Tucker has not shown either.

  3. inquiring mind says:

    Brad, How many other issues did you discuss before deciding this was the defining one? Surely there has to be a lot more to running the Sheriff’s department. Just because you feel Tucker gave you a better answer on one issue does not mean he is ready to handle a large budget, work with other groups, or to lead by example.

  4. inquiring mind says:

    So if someone devotes over 30 years of service to us and works their way through the ranks they are being “groomed”? If someone works hard for their boss and gets a recommendation from them it should be held against them? And then to top it off, the guy who never made rank and won’t discuss the events surrounding his “retirement” gets treated like he is the “chosen one” to fix the Sheriff’s department.
    Something does not sound right to me about that.

    • Troll Patrol says:

      Hypothetical questions?????? Really Mr. Linzy, why dont you ask him hypothetically..
      What shall we do if the sky falls? Who has time to answer all the hypothetical questions of the world? Maybe someone who works in a music store like yourself.
      Let me ask you a question Mr. Linzy. Why would the citizens of Vanderburgh county vote for a deputy that has never served in a ranking position? Deputy Chief Wedding has risen through the ranks and has a lot of experience. Wouldn’t voting Mr. Tucker in as sheriff, be like putting a private in charge of the army instead of a general?

      • Brad Linzy says:

        Placing the likelihood of firearms confiscation on the same order as the “sky falling” is pretty laughable considering the former has actually happened before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE

        I think it’s pretty telling and frankly pretty lame that your two biggest arguments on this matter consist of either A) attacking me personally for having worked at a music store as if that disqualifies me from having political opinions, or B) attacking the issue of firearms confiscation as somehow ridiculous or irrelevant when history has proven the opposite.

        When you’re vetting someone to fill an office, or some idea, or plan, the whole process is about throwing out hypothetical scenarios and seeing how the person, idea, or plan holds up to this scrutiny. That is why you see time and again when someone is appointed to the Supreme Court or other post by the President, they sit before the Senate and (hopefully) get grilled with hypothetical scenarios or decisions that might come up while they are in office. To suggest that hypothetical questions should be off limits is a point of view I can only hope – for the sake of our future as a country – doesn’t catch on any more than it already has.

        • Troll Patrol says:

          Exactly who are you to assume that THIS issue will define this race? You assume that YOUR endorsement means a lot. Are you that important that we should listen to YOUR opinion? What exactly are your qualifications and work history that we should take your word on who should be the sheriff of Vanderburgh County. Do you know what it takes to run a sheriff’s office? Before you give us the Brad Linzy endorsement PLEASE take the effort to learn all about it.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            I’m sorry, I was under the mistaken impression the Sheriff was voted on by everyone, not just the politically important people. Please point me to the nearest political opinion certification center so I can rectify my shortcomings as a common citizen.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            Hey, you’re the one that states how important your endorsement is. We will be waiting for your next article on your qualifications to tell us what makes your opinion matter. We want an article on the importance of a QUALIFIED candidate for sheriff and all the experience needed to run such an office. Not hypothetical questions. Are you an editor? This is the CCO not the BLO.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            Where did I state that my endorsement was important? I do try to make suggestions to my friends and family on important races, and I make my opinions known on this website and others, but I never said my endorsement or support was all-important. I’m just a regular guy with opinions who can express them in writing. I guess that does make me somewhat dangerous if you’re in the cross hairs. You certainly seem shaken up by me.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            Not shaken up I assure you. You seem very anti government, anti police, sheriff and fire departments. You like to post your opinion on everything like its all factual. We all have our opinions but for you to ramble on as you do is annoying. You have many quotes over time that refer to the citizens of Evansville as low class, like watching a wildlife documentary with people in it ,so on and so on. I want to know what makes your endorsement important? Most of us go to the polls and vote for who we think is the best candidate. Until you give us a good information and not hypothetical questions, share with YOUR family and friends.

        • Robert L. Leinenbach says:

          Firearms Issue Will Define Sheriff Race??? Really? Are you that dense enough to actually believe that, or are you simply bringing a Federal issue to a local sheriff’s election to pull support in from the Tea Party inbred simple minded half wits who are so lacking in intellect to grasp how the legislative process works that they need to be led to think that a Bill O’Reily style questioning to muckrake about irrelevant static that has nothing to do with a local election. Here’s an Idea for you. How’s this headline:
          Local Small Town Bible-Belt Mid-West Sheriff Election Heats Up: Abortion Rights, Gay Marriage and Gays in the Military to be the Determining Factor for Evans-patch BFE Sheriff Race
          I read through this thread thinking that this website was going to be some bastion of the cutting edge to the actual voice of the local area. I now stand corrected. I first want to predicate what I have to say with a few facts. I served in the United States Air Force – serving as a member of the 306th Rescue Squadron, stationed at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. I lost 2 weeks of my life in 1990 a little blip on the map in the East Med called Lebanon. Apparently some screw ball in Iraq was doing things that were not very nice to the Sunni Moslems in his country. One year later the world would come to know Sunni Moslems by their other moniker – Kurds. So owning a gun, holding it in your hand, and in my case the weapons were an a .45-cal. Mk23, and a Yarborough concealment knife that I was quite skilled at. And in a sad twist of fate, unlike most fire arm fanatics, I know what it’s like to have to use them on another human being within “close to feel their breath” proximity. So as a former loyal servant of the Armed Forces who took an oath to protect and defend the constitution and was deployed to do just that – I have little or no patience whatsoever for people’s 2nd Amendment fanaticism. A couple of important facts here. When I served and subsequentially sent to a s*** hole to do things I will never share with members of family, I knew why I was being deployed. I knew what was going to be the result. I personally felt – as most of my Pararescue PJ’s, that this was nothing more than a futile exercise to do dirty work work for the ONI Office of Naval Intelligence). I had many many objections. There was no constitutional threat, no search and seizure operation without lawful provocation. Now my interpretation of what was going on then was irrelevant, and I knew that from the get go. But when I took the oath, it meant something to me. It was the path I chose to protect and defend it. And that’s the job PERIOD of a police officer. If police officers – from the parking meter police all the way to the County Sheriff have an opinion on a portion of the Constitution then Bravo. Kudos. It’s important to have those opinions. But that’s where as a private citizen now – coming from a horrific military experience, I have to stop and say what needs to be said. The man who runs for sheriff and is elected through the Legislative process of the State and wins that election has the obligation to the death if need be, to uphold and defend and enforce the laws of the COUNTY. And – even in an appellate stretch of the imagination, he was obligated to protect and defend Federal legislation, even then his role is to protect and defend those laws THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS.
          You state:
          The ridiculous and completely idiotic idea that a police officer has the Constitutional obligation to pick and choose which laws from a Federal document – or local, which laws or amendments he feels are unconstitutional , needs to be thrown out the window. As a private citizen I freely voted for a nomine to run for the Sheriff’s office. And when he wins that election and takes an oath, this is going to sound harsh, but his job then is to shit his mouth and do his job. I don’t give a God Damn if he finds the law unconstitutional. My tax dollars don’t fall in his lap to be a Constitutional Law Professor. He is do support and uphold the laws AS THEY EXIST. If the man running for Sheriff has it locked in his mind that if he feels that by upholding a state law regarding the larger 2nd Amendment, then he needs to get out of the race and become a state legislator. The sheriff – as it applies to his job has the duty to grow up a little and not do anything that puts him in danger of committing too many federal laws to mention.
          You state: To enforce an unconstitutional law would surely be unconstitutional itself and a breach of the oath of office. By enforcing unconstitutional laws or directives, an officer is actually breaking the Law himself.
          Wow…. That officially is now in my top 10 list of most idiotic and sad things ever stated. And by making this postulation makes me now more resound that I am glad we vote for people who we feel are qualified to interpret the law on our behalf so they can be enforced. I have to read it again:
          By enforcing unconstitutional laws or directives, an officer is actually breaking the Law himself.
          Thank god you are not a public defender trying to sell an opinion to the masses that you as a police officer should be allotted the privilege to pick and choose which laws make you feel warm, fuzzy, and more of a man in the bedroom because you think that our “Kenyan-Born Thug-Life Home Boy from the Hood President with a larger penis than you have” wakes up every day festering about how he can overturn the 2nd Amendment so that any screwball can no longer purchase an AR-15, and Glock .9 mm hand gun to protect himself from the huge massive onslaught of Mexicans and Welfare crack addicts pining to break into his home only to see the home owner being so nervous and scared that he shoot’s his own foot, or worse yet, one of kids.
          But that’s the lowball intellectual thought process we’re dealing with. Oh yeah. You’re absolutely right. I want my sheriff to take the law in his own hands and turns his back on gun laws because me the voter oh so values his opinion of the law and carries out his duties based on HIS interpretation.
          WRONG. The sheriff has no legal or constitutional recourse but to defend and uphold ALL the LAWS. Even the ones that threaten to take one’s ability to achieve and erection. But that’s the Gun Nut’s answer to everything….more guns. More guns. If everyone has a gun then the United States becomes a well armed place, and as a result – a safer place. Hmmmmmmmm …. Let’s see. Last year alcohol related deaths were around 90,000. And to respond to this horrifying statistic, what do we do? BAM! Let’s sell more booze! Yes! Let’s lift the ban preventing distilleries to advertise liquor on TV! Yes! It will work! In 1990, there were 47,000 alcohol deaths. By 1990 it had nearly doubled. SO Oh yes yes yes. More guns and less legislation to get in the way!
          If I wake up one day and say to myself, “Ya know – today – I choose to give a rat’s ass on what my local sheriff’s opinion on the 2nd Amendment is, and how he feels he has the constitutional obligation to defend ONLY those laws he likes. Yes. I will call him and tell him that if he has an opinion, I will supply him with it. Otherwise Mr. Sheriff, shut up and do your job based on the laws of the land. When you quit your job, and then run for a congressional seat, if you win – then YOU can inform ME your opinions are. Otherwise – you are in NO position to pick and choose which Constitutional Amendment to enforce just because some of them – you feel don’t sit well with your personal low-rent, tea-party gun totin’ uber-white sense of the Bill of Rights.” What’s next? Where does it stop? I mean – let’s not be hypocrites here. Love that Constitution do ya? What if you get a wild hair up your ass one morning, go into work and decide across the board, even to go as far and like a complete moron announce it to the entire world that “I don’t black people anymore. And there’s and election next week. So if I see anyone acting in anyway threatening to any minority that attempts to prohibit their ability to vote, I am going to turn my white racist flag-waving back to them and not get involved.”
          You love that flag? You just love our constitution? Then shut the F**K up and enforce the law. Period. Finito. End of the discussion. But I love love love how every right-wing half-wit has come out of the woodwork proclaiming themselves as Constitutional Experts, but they are completely oblivious to the other 26. And trust me – being someone who can quote the Amendments word for word, and even a large chunk of the Articles, those other 26 play a far more importance in protecting its citizens. But that’s ok. Don’t read them. You won’t get far. For starters, there’s no pictures in the constitution, and there’s no US Constitution Audio Book read by Glen Beck.
          You want to actually ask questions to the candidates that have any relevance whatsoever to their ability to perform their duties to make sure that all the police officers in the county do their job? Here’s an idea. Why don’t you ask them how they plan on cracking down on the amount of drunks we have on our local county roads posing a serious threat to the rest of us law abiding citizens of Vanderburgh County, IN. Or you can ask the candidates another self-serviceing-soap-box to lead the candidates down a path to publically announce their views on a topic that in no legal sense or altruism has anything to do with what they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO ENFORCE BY LAW. I could care less what the sheriff thinks about the 2nd Amendment. He doesn’t get the right to choose to enforce or not enforce a law. He’s a cop. Tough shit. If the citizens of our nation decide to elect officials who we want to go to capitol hill to promote the notion of a national background check, or fight for it’s Chuck Heston protection, then woobee woobee dippity do! Awesome! Let’s all wait and see how it plays out. But in the mean time – sorry. So so sorry. He chooses not to enforce, then the sheriff can go to prison and rot there.
          But hey – continue to ask those serious poignant inquiries on what if’s and hypotheticals. It’s great and relevant journalism at its best. Here’s what you can ask them next, “Mr. Wedding, if you had a young 16 year old daughter and she came home and announced she was pregnant, would you want her get an abortion? Or would you fight and fight and fight to create blockades to entrances of abortion clinics? And please don’t blow me off by refusing to answer, because this has so so much to do with you doing your job here should you be elected as sheriff. I hand it to you. Woodward and Goldstein have nothing on you. I mean – why ask the candidates locally relevant questions like what they plan on doing to enforce local laws like carding underage kids who want to purchase tobacco products? Or putting the squeeze on all the white trash meth addicts who for their kids to live in squalor? But don’t waste your time asking question that a serious journalist would ask. I actually applaud Mr. Wedding on not answering you question. It’s irrelevant to the local election and your persistence on using the hot-topic du jour is just an attempt to throw the local residents off by getting them to vote on issue that has nothing to do with them.
          After all – any man running for sheriff who would be absolutely dumb enough to fall prey to such a preposterous question and publically state that as a law enforcement official he’s going to forget his duties and commit a federal crime of NOT enforcing the law. He’s an elected representation of the laws of the land. He doesn’t get to commit a crime just because of his badge. If he drinks and drives and get’s pulled over – he is a criminal. If he speed down the road doing 90 when he’s just running late for work – he’s a criminal. If he sells or used drugs or pockets the money from a drug bust – he’s a criminal. If he steals something….anything…. just grabs, steals and pockets something – he’s a criminal.
          If your so convinced that a man who is running for small-town sheriff’s opinion on the 2nd Amendment plays any relevance to this race – then I would assume that you are a gun fanatic who’s hell bent on keeping America safe then put your “Keep America Safe” diatribe in the toilet. Last year 13,522 gun-related deaths in the United States. 14 of those were children getting shot while playing with daddy’s gun. So if it’s the sanctity of life you wish to keep safe, why don’t you go after the repeal of the 21st Amendment. Last year there were 87,422 alcohol-related deaths in this country. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to bring that into this discussion…
          Quit wasting their time and your reader’s time and find an actual member of the 4th Estate to ask the serious questions that matter.
          And for the record, I am a 17 year member of the NRA, I’m a registered republican Veteran of a Foreign War.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            But Brad Linzy sells guitars. He must know all about the duties of the sheriff, Right?

          • Brad Linzy says:

            So many problems with this comment, I’m not sure where to begin, except to say you obviously feel strongly about this. A real name would have been appropriate. You go off on so many tangents here, it’s impossible to follow any cohesive argument. I will say I had no prejudice when I started this article. I had no preference among these two candidates. I didn’t set out to paint anyone into a corner. David Wedding has done that on his own by not slam dunking that hypothetical question about protecting Constitutional rights. You seem to share his dispassion for the Second Amendment. Actually that’s too nice. You seem to hate anyone who values it. I’d say you’re in law enforcement.

            As for your incoherent rants about alcohol related deaths… We could have that discussion, sure. I’d argue that more died during the gang-controlled days of prohibition, and the USDOT own study in the 1990s showed marijuana users drive better much of the time when under the influence because the overcompensate for their impairment, yet I bet you’re chomping at the bit right now to make the next big marijuana bust., even without a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.

            None of this was within the scope of this article.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            Robert, I see, you actually did leave what looks like a real name to that raving comment. My bad. Stupid smart phone.

            Why are you trying to make this about racism too? Gosh, every time I look at that meandering blob of text you submitted as a comment something else jumps out t me. WTF? Take your meds. Pick a narrow topic and then we can discuss like adults, not raving lunatics.

      • Troll Patrol says:

        Waiting on an answer.

  5. Brad Linzy says:

    This article was not meant to be an endorsement of Mr. Tucker. While I believe he clearly gave the more Constitutionally aware answer to my hypothetical, which highlights an issue that all of us should consider of supreme importance, I am not yet prepared to give my full support to either of them.

    The focus of this article is on the issue of firearms and gun confiscation. On this issue, there seems to be a stark contrast between the two. I will reserve my support for now in the hopes Mr. Wedding revises his answer before the election. Still a long way to go in this one.

  6. VandyGrab says:

    I don’t see where either candidate gave a direct, unambiguous answer to the second question.

  7. nether one says:

    The correct answer from our next Sheriff should be I don’t plan on helping or assisting with any of the federal gun laws because I have the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution on my side, and that is the laws I going to uphold.. maybe we need a third candidate to run for Sheriff..I’m sure the Sheriff Dept. has a lot of Deputy that has the balls to answer a question with out worrying what he going to be doing in 4 or 8 years when he goes out of office..which is what the Chef Deputy sound like he doing..

    • Part Two.. says:

      I think it time for one of our City Police or Deputy to step up and run for Sheriff., We need one that want the job for the next 4 or 8 years..and not so much worrying what I’m going to do after the Sheriff job is up.. Tucker not qualified to be a Sheriff ( I can write more on this) ..and Wedding want it to be a stepping stone like Ellsworth and serve one turn as a Representative and get paid for life..

      • Part Three says:

        We need a Sheriff like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona…We don’t need a yes sir man..make the jail so bad that they DON’t every want to come back..he banned smoking, coffee, movies, pornographic magazines, and unrestricted TV in all jails. He has the cheapest meals in the U.S. too. The average meal costs between 15 and 40 cents, and inmates are fed only twice daily, to cut the labor costs of meal delivery. He even stopped serving them salt and pepper to save tax payers $20,000 a year. That how you run a Jail..Our jail in Evansville is like a 5 star Hotel..

      • Troll Patrol says:

        Part two is based on?????? Stepping stone for representative? I think not

  8. Silverdome50 says:

    Hypothetical questions are about things that will never happen. Is this a smear tactic against Sheriff Wedding or are you naive enough to think that your hypothetical situation could actually happen.

  9. inquiring mind says:

    Did you speak to Tucker or is the answer you put on here what was posted on his Facebook page? I hope you spoke to both of them directly if you are using their responses in this discussion. I have heard Tucker speak before and to be honest, the wording in his response seemed a little more sophisticated than his usual banter.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      I have not spoken to him personally, no. I did speak to some of my friends in the Libertarian Party who had him as a guest speaker and confirmed that his opinion in person did not differ from that of his written words.

      You are right though. I have yet to meet either of these men in person, and have only spoken to Mr. Wedding via phone, which again, was much appreciated.

      • Troll Patrol says:

        Are you kidding me????? You have taken the time to write this lengthy article and you have NEVER spoken to Jim Tucker personally??????? ENOUGH SAID!

      • inquiring mind says:

        Ok. Have you ever spoken to Tucker at all? About anything?

        • Friends Friend says:

          I have! Count me as someone who has confirmed Brad’s accounting of Jim Tucker’s statement too!

          It’s interesting to note that someone in town is VERY afraid of this topic and is defending Weddings lack of answer.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            This is laughable. I guess in your hypothetical world, with your hypothetical question you got your hypothetical answer from Tucker’s brothers, aunts, sisters, neighbor. In the real world we want real questions and real answers from HOPEFULLY the candidates themselves.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            Sounds like to me Tucker didnt answer ANY question.

        • Brad Linzy says:

          I have corresponded with both of these men on the subject of this article and I have used direct quotes from both of them which fall within the scope of the article. If you have a complaint about a misquote, please let me know.

          I’m not sure why I’m being attacked here. Has there been some kind of complaint from either candidate about being misquoted?

          • Troll Patrol says:

            You just said that you have NEVER spoken to Jim Tucker personally. Then why did you get so defensive with all your posts on Chief Wedding not responding to you right away? Which he did soon after.You never even spoke to Tucker at all. Yet you lead these readers to believe that you had.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            Have you spoken to Jim Tucker personally? That is a yes or no.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            My complaint is this…..you haven’t spoken directly to Mr.Tucker. We want HIS direct quotes, not his friends, or his campaign manager or his neighbor. HIS. And shame on you for leading us all along that you had spoken directly to him. Though I do give you props for being honest that you had spoken to others about him, and got their answers.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            I corresponded with Mr. Tucker through his personal Facebook page and in private, but I have not spoken to him on the phone or “in person”, as in face to face. What difference does that make? I’m sure if Mr. Tucker feels he was misquoted or mischaracterized he will come here and let us all know. Furthermore, both candidates have agreed to a future debate with CCO moderation, so hopefully they can each settle this debate “in person”.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            How do you know if its Tucker you are speaking to through facebook? Anybody can create a facebook page. I’m excited about future debates with these two candidates. We will then see who is the most qualified person for this office. I am confident that it is the current Chief Deputy, not the “early retired” patrolmen Mr. Tucker.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            You’re right. I had not thought of the possibility that his Facebook page had been hijacked by a spammer who decided to answer constituent concerns.

            Gosh, I might have to rethink this. Maybe Jim Tucker has been….BODY SNATCHED!!! :O

          • Troll Patrol says:

            Guess what???? Someone can give their password out for any questions to be answered when they need questions to be answered by inquiring hypothetical minds. I suspect you know that. I’ve known Jimmy Tucker for years and as someone else pointed out, that is not his normal banter. I wont slander him by saying what his normal banter is.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            Yes, I’m sure that could happen. This wasn’t really part of the scope of my article so I didn’t mention it, but Mr. Wedding did say his Facebook page was usually manned by his daughters as he comes from the old school and is usually too busy to respond to everyone, which explained why it took a while to get back to me initially. Come to think of it, I guess it’s possible they were the ones answering me under his name. I did not ask.

            I didn’t think this was a big deal anyway. He has a job and is also trying to run a campaign. not out of the ordinary to have help with that.

            Again, if Mr. Tucker feels he was misquoted or his Facebook was hijacked, he is free to contact me and I’ll be happy to issue a public apology.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            I truly doubt that he is going to admit that he is having someone else answer his face book posts. Anyone that KNOWS Jimmy Tucker knows he’s not the one answering in that kind of language I assure you. Mr. Linzy, are you concerned about any other issues about the ability to run the sheriff’s department other than being fearful that the big bad boogie man(the government) is going to somehow confiscate your weapons?

  10. DeltaBravo says:

    Courts determine whether or not a law is constitutional, not law enforcement officials, and the constitutionality of certain laws or actions is not always immediately apparent, even to those extremely well versed in such things. Don’t you think it’s a bit much to expect all our LEO’s to be judicial experts on every law or decision that our boneheaded elected officials make? Don’t you think that having LEO’s decide for themselves what laws they will or will not enforce (based on their percieved constitutionality) is a slippery slope, as well as inherently unfair to the officers?

    • Brad Linzy says:

      Which is precisely why it’s important to ask these question BEFORE an election.

      Let me pose to YOU a hypothetical, seeing as you were a Marine. Would YOU have followed an order to go door to door on US soil and confiscate any and all firearms, even from law-abiding citizens if ordered to do so? If so, how do you square that with your oath you took to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?

      What if your superior officers told you to shoot a little kid in the head? Would you follow the order? Or would you wait until after the Supreme Court had time to decide if the order was Constitutional?

      • Troll Patrol says:

        Do not answer that delta bravo. If his hypothetical questions do not get the RIGHT hypothetical answer he will not rest peacefully tonight.

      • thehighroller says:

        What Brad Linzy doesn’t understand is that police officers are always dealing with situations where they have to work out disagreements; they are always having to compromise and do what is best for the particular situation.

        For Dave Wedding to tell Brad Linzy what he would do in a “hypothetical situation” would go against the very nature of being a police officer. They can’t tell one what they are going to do a “hypothetical situation” because there are so many variables.

        Dave Wedding was showing very good judgment and the qualities of being a good sheriff by not answering this question because I am sure that whatever answer he gave, Brad Linzy had it figured out how he was going to use it against him.

        Brad Linzy is definitely for Jim Tucker for Sheriff and whatever Wedding says of does the situation is going to be twisted against him by Linzy
        .

        • Troll Patrol says:

          Best post yet.
          Brad Linzy, if Chief Wedding does become Sheriff with his over 30 years of experience in all areas of the department and your worst nightmare comes true, I’ve got a deal for you.
          As George Strait would sing……
          I’ve got some mountain front property in Kansas City, from the front porch you can see the bunker. I’ve got some mountain side property in Kansas. City , if you buy that I’ll throw in some MRE’s in for free.

    • Friends Friend says:

      If it’s of no consequence, then why bother to take an oath?!?

      • DeltaBravo says:

        If what is of no consequence?

        • Friends Friend says:

          Adherence to the oath of office.

          • DeltaBravo says:

            I don’t think anybody was saying the oath was of no consequence.

          • Friends Friend says:

            It is when you have no intentions of upholding it.

          • Blanger says:

            Most folks that take the oath don’t see it as a promise, they see it as a formality or part of the ceremony in being indoctrinated into their office. Of all the oath takers I’d bet the military have the highest regard and more belief in the oath than any other group.

            Does anyone here really believe that a mayor, senator, congressman, or president for that matter who didn’t serve in the military has any respect for the oath at all…before you answer think about the things in your life you’ve see politicians do, and get caught doing.

            JMHO

  11. DeltaBravo says:

    You aren’t going to like this, but the answer to both your hypothetical is ‘depends’.

    Does the little kid have a bomb strapped to him? Am I serving as a designated marksman and is the little kid running towards a bunker with an armload of extra ammunition for the position we’re trying to reduce? Is the little kid just sitting on a curb eating ice cream, harming nobody?

    Frankly, your first hypothetical is so extreme that it’s hard to give any answer at all. If my batallion commander just randomly decided to have his subordinate units invade a U.S. ‘berg and start grabbing guns, I think he would be taken into custody pretty quickly. Under what situation could something like that even happen in the U.S.? Congress has already passed a law preventing confiscation of civilian firearms during disasters. Link to the law http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5013/text

    • DeltaBravo says:

      ETA: My gut answer to the confiscation question is: I can’t think of a single instance under our current constitutional reality where I would follow an order to start kicking in doors and confiscating private firearms from law-abiding citizens.

      • Friends Friend says:

        Are you running for office? I thought this was about Wedding and Tucker race. Not DeltaBravo vs. Brad Linzy.

        • DeltaBravo says:

          If Brad doesn’t want to continue this conversation, I’m sure he’ll tell me. If you don’t want to read it, I suggest you ignore follow up posts between us.

      • Brad Linzy says:

        This is really all I was looking for out of Mr. Wedding. Instead, I got the run around. You answered this question perfectly, in my opinion. Answering that question should have been a slam dunk for Mr. Wedding, being a law enforcement officer already. I was actually kinda shocked it wasn’t for him.

    • Friends Friend says:

      When has there ever been a little kid with a bomb strapped to him in which a marksman was considering shooting him in the head?

      That is an extreme hypothetical question. Not Brad’s.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      Delta Bravo,

      Did you see the link I posted above about gun confiscation during Katrina? If not, watch it.

      As for US military being used as a police force on American soil, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 to prevent just that, but recent legislative actions by Congress has blurred the line and weakened Posse Comitatus severely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#Recent_legislative_events

      As for your last comment about the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006… We have a Second Amendment. Why would they even feel a need to basically restate it with legislation unless this had actually happened. In the text of that Bill, they acknowledge that citizens’ rights were violated during Katrina. Now, I’m going to ask you a very important question I’d like you to think about…If the Constitution of the United States’ Second Amendment wasn’t enough to deter this type of violation, what makes you think an Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 is going to deter anyone?

      • Brad Linzy says:

        By the way, Delta Bravo… You at least made an attempt to answer my hypothetical with a “depends”, then you added some qualifiers which gave a clear indication of your position. That is more than Mr. Wedding was prepared to do.

        I don’t think you are a bad person for saying “depends”. Sometimes hard decisions must be made and I can see where if you saw a kid with a bomb strapped on running toward a crowded theater or the like that might be a justifiable scenario. For that, I thank you. However, I can think of no justifiable scenario under which law-abiding citizens’ firearms should be confiscated, leaving them defenseless, particularly not by law enforcement officers whose job it is to protect their Constitutional rights.

  12. inquiring mind says:

    Here are my main concerns about this letter. Brad talks about this hypothetical situation and calls it the defining issue. Despite BOTH candidates saying it would never happen, he did not move on to a topic that either candidate felt was more realistic. Surely there is some other issues that are important to the people in Vanderburgh County. Ones that are based on things that both candidates agree could happen. Budget cuts, manpower issues, increased work load, things like that. The most troubling part is the last paragraph . When Brad says he as gotten a good sense of who both of these men are. Even though he has NEVER spoken to Tucker in person or on the phone. If a FB page is all it takes for you to get a good sense of who someone is, I have a friend at Notre Dame who can hook you up with his girlfriends sister!

  13. damar1 says:

    there are a lot of people in this town with way too much free time on their hands..

  14. Is he the one???? says:

    Is the same Jim Tucker the former police private that want to be Sheriff..that a bigger jump than back in 1969 when Sergeant James Lane jump all the way up to became the Chief of Police.

  15. Waldo says:

    Let’s ask each candidate if they have ever kept lost jewelry while working at a local hotel and “forgot” to turn it in???

  16. Justwondering says:

    I think it clearly shows how great Mr. Wedding’s character is considering he took the time out of his busy schedule to personally call you. Like people said before, how do you really know that it is Mr. Tucker on his facebook page? That could be anyone!

  17. Justwondering says:

    Mr. Linzy, you should really follow up on your facts about each candidate before you post articles like this…

    • Brad Linzy says:

      What do you mean…”follow up on your facts”?

      Again, if anyone thinks they have been misquoted here, I’d love to hear about it.

      • Justwondering says:

        I’m not talking about this issue. I’m talking about each candidate’s past with the sheriff’s department. If you looked into it, I think you would be surprised. I also believe your mind would change on which candidate you are looking to support.

      • Troll Patrol says:

        There AGAIN, you don’t know for sure who you quoted from Tucker. You did not speak to HIM. We know Chief Wedding took the time to call you and answer your REAL question. And as you have pointed out several times, he didn’t give you the RIGHT BRAD LINZY hypothetical answer. He answered it, it wasn’t what you wanted to hear so let’s dismiss it. Shall we.

      • inquiring mind says:

        I don’t think you are misquoting him. He has to be involved in the conversation first. You are using the cut and paste feature on your computer. From his FB to your letter. The point here is not about misquotes. Even Wedding said other people post on his behalf. You should have done your research of both in the same manner. When the only one being criticized is the one who you know for sure was the one answering your questions, it does not appear to be a fair review of the issue on your part.

        • Brad Linzy says:

          This angle of trying to discredit me because of the mode of communication by which I got the quotes for the article is probably not going to be enough to make gun owners forget one of their candidates for Sheriff wouldn’t say – via Facebook, phone, pack-animal, or carrier pigeon – that we absolutely, unequivocally would NEVER come take their guns when given the opportunity.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            BLO (Brad Linzy Observer)

            After reading your posts it is obvious that you seem to be an seemingly intelligent guy. I’m starting to feel sorry for you. It must be horrible to live in constant fear over a HYPOTHETICAL situation. Please do us all a favor and look up Antoine Dodson on U tube or HIS face book page. He will teach you how to hide yo kids, hide yo wife, hide yo dog and hide yo Doritos.
            Once again….. let me ask you…. Are you concerned about any other issue of this race? Like for instance, real questions. How to operate the jail? How to oversee a budget? How to oversee a fleet of deputies? How to schedule and operate 4 different shifts? Number one question!!!! Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE in the daily running of the Sheriff’s department?
            And for Jimmy Tucker, scheduling off duty officers to work at Show Me’s really doesn’t count.

  18. inquiring mind says:

    The Brad Lenzy restaurant review:
    In order to give the public some information on the two new restaurants in town, I decided to research them and share my findings on the CCO. For restaurant “A”, I went and had dinner. I personally interacted with the staff. They told me how they cooked my food. I then asked a hypothetical question. What would they do if 3000 people left a UE game and came to the restaurant at the same time. They said it would not happen and did not want to participate in my mental exercise. I was not happy with them because they would not answer a question about something they said would not happen.
    I then wanted to check out restaurant “B”. For them, I looked at their Facebook page and left them a question about their food. The Chef or his manager messaged me back a day or so later and told me it was better than restaurant “A”. I then messaged them about the UE crowd coming all at once. Either the Chef or the Manager, or a busboy, messaged back that they too felt it would never happen. But since I asked and they wanted a good review, they answered my question. They said they would “put them over there in the corner”.
    Now that I have researched both, I am sad to say, restaurant “A” was a real let down. On the other hand, restaurant “B” really set the standard. I can’t really tell you anything of substance about “B”, but they answered my hypothetical question so they are alright by me. I hope “A” can learn from the Chef, manager, or busboy that replied to me on Facebook. Any answer is better than no answer when trying to “earn” a good review to be posted on the CCO.

  19. thehighroller says:

    This is absurd; DHS or FEMA would not confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens. Why would they do that? The guns of law abiding citizens would not stand up to our military if it came to it. Why would the DHS or FEMA want to take everybody’s guns.

    Dave Wedding is right to not address such a hypothetical bunch of non-sense.

    Also, the Supreme Court was set up by our forefathers to determine constitutionality. We shouldn’t want a sheriff who tries to define constitutionality to his opinion.

  20. John Doe says:

    The Sheriff’s race in some little Podunk Midwest town has nothing to do with a national debate on gun control. This whole argument is ridiculous. Oh, and nobody is proposing a ban of all guns. I think a background check for any gun sale is a great idea, but some like to oppose anything the other side proposed just for the sake of politics. I own guns and I’m not getting riled up here.

  21. Dr. John-Not the Night Tripper says:

    What a futile waste of time…

  22. Justwondering says:

    It seems as if these articles are doing nothing but hurting Mr. Tucker.

  23. Hat Foil says:

    If what Brad was saying actually had no merit, this subject conversation would be ignored and the fireflies that are swarming here would begone. But instead of letting Brad ask his question and judging the answers that he received based upon their own weight, you clowns are attacking Brad for asking those type of questions?!? Brad who is otherwise an upstanding citizen (who cares where he works) who has every right to an opinion just as much as the rest of you. What are you really afraid off? The truth?

    And based upon on your own twisted view that Linzy is therefore supporting Tucker in this race, you therefore are supporting Wedding in this race. And if his supporters act this way, it makes me wonder about those who support Wedding even more. And the manner in which he runs the office. Is it any wonder why the EPD can’t get along with you guys?

    I think Brad’s observations are correct on who is counter-commenting here. I believe that you bozo’s are Sheriff Deputies who are working on his campaign to keep the status quo alive. And that you have a SERIOUS conflict of interest in your viewpoint because of it. I would further guess that when the debates begin, that your voices will be silenced in public because that conflict of interest will be apparent. Your identity revealed and the weight of your words diminished.

    Whatever will you do when a hoard of 2nd amendment people show up to ask the same question of Wedding? Ignore it AGAIN? Are you really going to stand there and call these armed law abiding men names too? It’s easy to spout off on these forums. Not so easy to do so in person. You should seriously consider that as a real world possibility.

    • MsRhonda says:

      And what shall Tucker do whenever a hoard of Vanderburgh County citizens show up to ask him the question regarding him leaving the Sheriff’s department? Ignore it “again?” OR what shall Tucker do when they ask about his experience with the department? Will he make something up? Or will he choose to ignore the question?

      • Friends Friend says:

        24 years working for the Sheriff’s department is pretty significant don’t you think? I believe his Dad worked there for 30 years… I believe that both are now “retired” from the Sheriff’s department. Asking about his retirement is a good question to ask, but this should not demote the importance of the question at hand.

        FF

    • Troll Patrol says:

      You’re right, I’m sorry. I don’t live my life in a hypothetical world.
      This article is all about hypothetical questions from maybe Jim Tucker and Chief Wedding. We need to wait for the debate where REAL questions are asked and answered by the candidates themselves. Then we will see who is most qualified to run the office of sheriff in Vanderburgh County.
      Have a great day

  24. inquiring mind says:

    I do not think asking a hypothetical question is by itself that outlandish. The problem the fireflies have is that no other issues were included in the so called vetting process. I asked if any other issues were discussed before deciding this was the defining one. He never answered me. To ONLY use one issue is not a good way to decide if someone is the better candidate. Especially if it is based SOLELY on hypothetical. I do not think any candidate would want to have their campaign or the race defined in this way. At least not one who feels their campaign is based on a solid career and proven leadership at work and in the community.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      Here’s your answer…

      When I began with this, I had only planned on writing an article about what I consider the important duties of a Sheriff, and the powers he has to nullify unconstitutional laws. I felt like it might be a good opportunity since there was already buzz around this race anyway that I could include some quotes from those running. I had not intended on painting anyone into a corner, or putting anyone on the spot, or announcing my support of anybody, or making anyone look bad… I just wanted to spark a debate and get these candidates’ take on it.

      This became the “news story” it’s clearly become because one of the candidates rather unexpectedly decided he didn’t want to answer what should have been a slam dunk question. I will not apologize for my viewpoint on this subject, because I know I have the Constitution on my side. I cannot speak to why one answered and one didn’t. Maybe instead of attacking me, readers could begin asking the candidates themselves to clarify their positions in position papers to the CCO. I’m sure the Editor will be glad to publish anything they have to say in this matter.

  25. WinneckeThePooh says:

    I’m not going to waste any time getting into some tin foil hat argument on this article but there is something I would like to know.

    Whatever happened to that petition to remove Winnecke from office that Linzy was supposedly leading the charge on? I haven’t heard anything new on it. I sure hope he wasn’t just big talk.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      That was hinged on the idea – put forward by some here – that there exists a State Law which says a City must balance the books from month to month. In all my research, I never found any such statute. So while Winnecke deserved to be sacked, it appears it can’t happen the way I suggested.

      If I can’t cite a law that was broken, I can’t move forward on that.

      • WinneckeThePooh says:

        If that’s the case then why were you on here talking big talk about how easy it was going to be? May I suggest that you actually think about actually backing up what you say before you spout off about how easy it is? I know it’s easy for you to post whatever you want but it’s quite another to accomplish such irrational tales.

        • Brad Linzy says:

          It would have been easy if that law existed. I wasn’t the one who claimed it did, but I was willing to follow through on it. When I did follow through on it, it became apparent no statue actually exists to requires a City to balance the books from month to month. Are you blaming me for the absence of a law?

          • JamesT. says:

            Tell us Brad, how many other claims have you made on here would prove to be fruitless because they don’t exist if we looked them up?

          • Brad Linzy says:

            I didn’t make the claim that law existed. That claim was made by someone else. I am claiming it doesn’t seem to exist because I actually took some time and looked for it.

            Attacking me for that is just scurrilous on your part.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            You should have presented in a HYPOTHETICAL way, don’t ya think?

          • JamesT. says:

            Yes we are blaming you for the absence of the law. You came on here claiming that impeaching winnecke was easier than one would think. Now you’re back tracking and claiming it’s impossible. So once more, why should anyone believe anything you say if it’s all impractical and irrational in the modern world?

            You got everyone’s hopes up including the CCO. Then you were asked to put up or shut up. You got you’re 5 minutes of fame and attention for what has amounted to nothing but a complete hoax.

            And like others have told you, you have yet to follow up on anything you say on here with some kind action. Why is that Brad? Is it because you yourself know that you fantasies aren’t worth trying to accomplish in real life?

    • Please don’t tell me you thought he was actually going to do that. Have you ever seen him physically do something besides type up these libertarian fairy tales? This is reason numero uno for why this town has gone to complete crap.

      We have too many people spending too much time talking big talk about some ideology that isn’t practical and not enough people willing to draw a plan to clean up and fix this city in a comprehensive and practical way that is devoid of all stereotypical theories, and then go out and physically get the job done.

      What’s even worse is the fact that people like Linzy who just sit on here and hijack every thread with their pie in the sky ideologies then go and complain about those who do go out and get stuff done.

      I wake up every day expecting to turn on the news and see where Linzy was shooting at Life Flight thinking it was the black helicopters coming for his guns. There is nothing to see here other than proof as to why you should free your mind from all theories and actually start use some common sense.

      And don’t think for a second this whacked out article is going to affect Tucker’s run for Sheriff. Jim is an outstanding candidate for Sheriff and most importantly he is not a member of the machine- that’s what this race will boil down to.

      • Troll Patrol says:

        Good morning.
        First of all I need to apologize to the readers of the CCO. I have been off work due to surgery ans I have had a little bit too much time on my hands. I’m sorry for allowing this blog on this particular story to get out of hand. So for that I apologize. I have known Chief Wedding for many years and yes I am a supporter of his also. I’m sure that is obvious. Instead of arguing back in forth with Mr. Linzy I will choose to let Chief Weddings experience and character speak for itself. I’m off to church to ask for patience and understanding. Headed back to work on Monday. Can I get a hallelujah and an amen.

      • Friends Friend says:

        A fairy tale is believing that Rails will replace our roads someday. I was with you on Robert’s Jordan, but not on this.

        FF

  26. thehighroller says:

    The title of this article should be Brad Linzy shoots down Jim Tucker’s race for sheriff before it even got off the ground.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      We’ll see. I think you’ll find the opposite to be the case. He was the one who answered the question. This is a very gun-loving area. I’m sure this news will get around.

  27. inquiring mind says:

    There have been several claims that the hypothetical question is because it happened during Katrina. Guns were confiscated during Katrina. Many were removed from vacant homes to keep them away from the criminal looters who were shooting at emergency responders. Some were taken from homeowners without consent. The courts have ruled that it was illegal. State and federal laws have been passed since then to make sure it does not happen again. Here is what Brad did not bother to mention. It was NOT a federal agency that said “take the guns”. It was the N.O. Police Superintendent, Eddie Compass. He took it upon himself to interpret the constitution and as been slammed for it ever since.
    Now Brad is asking Wedding to say he will do the same thing. He thinks Wedding should do what he sees fit regardless of the laws or constitution. If Compass had followed the constitution, the guns would have not been taken. There are reasons law officers have to follow the rules, this is why. Just as Eddie Compass’ personal opinion should not have been used, neither should any sheriff or chief.

    • Troll Patrol says:

      Interesting, thanks for your post.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      As I pointed out above, the police chief of NOLA cannot order around the Louisiana State National Guard. The orders couldn’t have originated with him. This was obviously part of some cohesive, interdepartmental strategy that at least would have had to involve the Governor or FEMA.

      Even if you’re right, you’ve only succeeded in proving my point about making sure we hire prudent officers who will make the right decisions in a moment of confusion and will not act rashly.

      • Troll Patrol says:

        He is right Mr.Linzy, but that’s ok just keep on spinning!

        • Brad Linzy says:

          Look, we obviously have a difference of opinion here… Arguing on the internet, particularly when you have an advantage over me of knowing my real name and going after me personally rather than attacking the merits of my article, is going to get us nowhere.

          Your and Inquiring Mind’s behavior on this thread reminds me of a pair of cartoon characters… One of you will say something attacking me or Jim Tucker while the other stands off to the side going “Yeah, George. You tell him, George.”

          Look, I get that you have some sort of vested interest in this. You are either in Mr. Weeding’s family or circle of friends and you have launched into protect mode like I’m attacking him, when really I’m not. I’m just stating my personal position on this issue, for what that’s worth, and indicating truthfully that Mr. Wedding doesn’t share my viewpoint. I have even given direct quotes to back that up and shared the circumstances under which those quotes were culled.

          I will repeat, if Mr. Wedding has an issue or feels he has been misquoted, I’d like to hear about it so I can discuss and rectify it. However, if this is an accurate portrayal of his view on this issue of gun confiscation, I fail to see how attacking me personally is the appropriate recourse for your obvious dissatisfaction with what’s taking place.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            There again I am dissatisfied with your article because you led us to believe that you spoke to BOTH of them personally about your hypothetical question. In reality Chief Wedding spoke to you and you spoke to SOMEONE, ???? Not knowing if it was Tucker or not, via face book. Its obvious you are a Tucker supporter and it upsets you when you are questioned on your methods of your so called interview. I hope that you also inquire about many issues that your candidate has yet to answer to. Believe me they are coming. Have a good evening.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            With respect, I did no such thing. Upon being asked in the comments I immediately admitted I had never spoken to either of these men “in person” or “face to face”. While I did not specifically say the method by which the quotes were taken, I fail to see how that’s in any way material to the actual content of the quotations, nor was there ever any intent to deceive. I clearly stated that Mr. Wedding said he wanted to call me personally to discuss it via phone, which he did, and which I said in the article I appreciated very much. Other than that, the remaining quotes were culled from Facebook correspondence.

            Mr. Tucker has invited me to coffee since all of this has become such an issue. I will probably take him up on that just to quell any question of whether these are his real thoughts and words. I will report back after this meeting to allay any further fears in this regard.

          • inquiring mind says:

            Make sure you ask if there is a difference between retiring at such a young age, or resigning and then saying you retired. I believe that if you leave before your 20 years are in , its actually called resigning. Does it really make sense to you Mr. Linzy that a young deputy like Mr. Tucker would ‘retire”so early in his career when he still has a young family to raise? He is giving up a good salary not to mention off duty work opportunities, plus good health insurance, good vacation time, personal days and so forth to leave and work at a car dealership? If it smells like a skunk you better believe it is a skunk! You can take that to the bank.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            I really can’t speak to any of that. That was outside the scope of this article and while I hear a press release will be forthcoming from the Tucker camp addressing all this speculation about his retirement/resigning, I only know what I have heard from mutual friends who know Mr. Tucker, and the explanation they gave sounds satisfactory, but since I didn’t hear it from the horse’s mouth, I’m not prepared to go out on a limb and spread more hearsay around.

            I can only speak to the limited scope of this article.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            The first sentence leads the readers to believe ….In the last few days I have SPOKEN to the two candidates running for office for sheriff. Spoken to me is a lot different than face booking. When you speak to someone for an hour as you claim, you get their direct answers with no pause or practice. When you face book someone, that gives them time to come up with their answers via, google, campaign manager, television, magazine articles, so on and so on. Do you believe that you gave both of these candidates a fair opportunity to answer your questions on a fair playing field? Dead horse conversation. You will never admit it and I will never believe you had a fair discussion with both candidates.

          • Brad Linzy says:

            A better word there might have been “communicated”, but the use of the vernacular “spoken”, while perhaps the source of some confusion, was not intended as a malicious misdirection to the reader.

            That said, if you’re worried about the deliberation time each man had to respond, I posed my full question to Mr. Wedding well in advance of him calling me. He had more time between my question and his non-answer than Mr. Tucker did, truth be told.

            Maybe you would have a valid complaint here had I asked Mr. Tucker in writing, given him ample time to respond, but ambushed Mr. Wedding at a press conference or outside his home or job unexpectedly. This was not at all the case here.

          • Troll Patrol says:

            We will continue to agree to disagree.

      • inquiring mind says:

        The NRA only sued the mayor and police chief. I would think the high priced NRA lawyers would have included the feds if there was even the slightest chance that your theory is true.

  28. madk217 says:

    Hey Brad, I’d be more interested in whether they think the shooting of Mr Johnson, at this home, for throwing a dull roofing hammer, was justified.
    The repeat of that seems more likely in Vanderburgh County than an order to seize firearms.

    Besides, I already know what will happen if the Sheriff shows up at my house requesting my guns, so I don’t really care about his opinion on that issue.

  29. Mark Strobel says:

    On what basis does Tucker – if elected, and his propaganda minister Brad Linzy decide which laws are unconstitutional and which are not? If I were to build to a surface-to-air missile capable of destroying an airliner, can I assume that Sheriff Tucker and Cato – his trusty musician side kick would not only refuse to enforce federal registration, but would actively prevent federal agents from arresting me?

    None of President Obama’s 23 executive orders would confiscate legally owned weapons. Even if the White House eventually manages to convince Congress to restrict ownership of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which amendment to the Constitution says that a 30-round clip is an absolute right? But this is not the point. One must wonder what other laws these sheriffs would selectively enforce. Speed limits? Civil rights? The right to remain silent? Would these sheriffs still be heroes if they decided that federal laws discriminated against illegal immigrants, and refused to arrest them? The local law enforcement officials who decide to take their interpretation of the laws into their own hand are nothing more than inferior cowards who should be – if they take it upon themselves to pick and choose which laws they will enforce should be taken directly to prison.

    County sheriffs enforce the laws. They don’t make them. If law enforcement officers feel so strongly about a law that they cannot enforce it, then they should resign in protest. Or, they should use the prestige of their badge to convince lawmakers – and the voters who elect them – to change those laws. This is the right thing to do. Refusing to enforce the laws is wrong, and one that will someday backfire on those who support these sheriffs. Those who break to law to defend your rights can also break the law to take them away. I would advise Mr. Linzy a couple of ideas to take heed to. First – and I am being dead serious. It is people like yourself who are going to end up costing this election for Tucker. He needs your support as much as he needs cancer. The other thing? Since we’re all talking here about law enforcement officials taking the law into their own hands, I would not want to vote for anyone running for sheriff who was asked to resign because they stole a diamond ring from someone’s home. See what your 2nd amendment crap has done here Brad? Just keep on campaigning for your horse there and I am sure all kinds of people are going to come out of the woodwork to tell you even more details about how your benefactor pissed away a career by committing petty theft. You want me to go on? Trust me Gibson Les Paul collector. There’s much more waiting to be revealed. And if you find this so difficult to believe, I am thinking right now would be a marvelous time to speak to Tucker about how he’s got real ballz even throwing his hat into this race.

  30. inquiring mind says:

    What do you expect from someone who on the Feb 1 Is It True complained about officers “applying the letter of the law equally in all cases.” If he agrees with the law, he wants it enforced. If he does not agree, than he wants someone in charge of law enforcement that agrees with his personal opinion and be willing to pick and choose what laws they want to enforce.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      You’re intentionally quoting me out of context. That was a different case, but is still somewhat related. The law you’re referring to is the one that somehow required a Conservation Officer to state that he would have to kill Dani the Deer so no harm could come to him.

      The man now facing jail time and fine because he saved a little deer is a police officer.

      The Conservation Officer is clearly just doing his job. He is not at fault. In this case it is clearly the bureaucracy that created the senseless, ill-conceived law that is at fault.

      Not sure this would apply so much to Conservation Authorities, but my point was police officers have discretion. They can choose to use this discretion to ensure the law isn’t misapplied or used to do more harm than good to society. Citizens have an opportunity in our Sheriff election to pick someone who will apply the law fairly and sensibly, which includes the ability to use discretion when appropriate. A hypothetical case of being ordered to violate someone’s Constitutional rights is one of those cases where discretion would definitely be appropriate.

  31. inquiring mind says:

    And if DNR used discretion from the beginning, you would be on here complaining that he was given special treatment because he was a cop. Then you would want to know why they did not apply the law equally. I agree that discretion should be used, but you only want it used when it supports your views. Your argument is that you want one rule enforced to a “T”, but anything else should be enforced as the cop sees fit. This is not about the sheriff, this was just a chance for you to instigate a gun control debate. That’s why you posted all the same stuff on the letter from the Tucker campaign about Weddings media activity. That letter was complete rubbish, yet the great Vetter Brad Linzy NEVER questioned any aspect of it. If you are truly interested in this race beyond the one issue you want to repeatedly hound on, your vetting would have started then. But it did not.
    It makes since to support someone with similar beliefs. But you can’t be so blinded by one issue that you agree on that you don’t or won’t look at anything else. So far, that is all you have done. Maybe in the future, that will change.

  32. Mark Strobel says:

    I would advise Mr. Linzy a couple of ideas to take heed to. First – and I am being dead serious. It is people like yourself who are going to end up costing this election for Tucker. He needs your support as much as he needs cancer. The other thing? Since we’re all talking here about law enforcement officials taking the law into their own hands, I would not want to vote for anyone running for sheriff who was asked to resign because they stole a diamond ring from someone’s home. See what your 2nd amendment crap has done here Brad? Just keep on campaigning for your horse there and I am sure all kinds of people are going to come out of the woodwork to tell you even more details about how your benefactor pissed away a career by committing petty theft. You want me to go on? Trust me Gibson Les Paul collector. There’s much more waiting to be revealed. And if you find this so difficult to believe, I am thinking right now would be a marvelous time to speak to Tucker about how he’s got real ballz even throwing his hat into this race.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      I don’t know how many different times or ways I can say the same thing, but here goes… I DO NOT SUPPORT EITHER OF THESE CANDIDATES.

      This article has a narrow scope. If you have other issues you feel are important or information you feel is pertinent and not libelous, I’m sure the Editor would happily publish your article o the subject.

      • JoeyP says:

        As Beyonce says — “If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it”

        • JoeyP says:

          So why don’t you ever reply to topics that you KNOW are true — you seem to AVOID comments that you can’t argue with (the ring ) . You just keep talking about hypothetical situations.

  33. Mark Strobel says:

    Libel – in this case, seeing that Jim Tucker became a public figure when he announced he was running for a public servant nomination, is therefore not permissible to file a complaint or suit for libel. The principle of absent malice in the arena of the first amendment allows for anyone to say what they like about Mr. Tucker in a public forum. The only recourse he would have is to file suit. And if the judge would not decide to allow the suit, at that point the plaintiff’s only recourse to be awarded the ruling of libel or defamation of character would be to swear under oath that what has been said is indeed false. And in this case – if he denied the theft on the witness stand, he would be committing perjury.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      If it’s true, it’s not libelous. But if it isn’t true, whether he’s running for office or not, he could still sue you in civil court for libel if you are making specific false accusations you know to be false that defame with malice and he can prove it.

      If you’re speaking the truth, you have nothing to worry about. Write a letter to the Editor. Like I said, I’m sure he’ll be glad to publish it.

  34. Superstitious says:

    I haven’t read the CCO in awhile but I’m happy to see it still has its thumb on the pulse of this community.

  35. FireWayneParke...Again says:

    This article has back fired on you big time Brad. I sure hope you take notice and finally realize that everyone is tired of your quixotic ramblings.

    • Friends Friend says:

      Not entirely. I bet both campaigns have been talking about this subject matter extensively since this article has been written. It is an issue that other Sheriff Departments are discussing across the nation. And to say this subject matter is a non-issue is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and just saying it isn’t so.

      Ff

      • Blanger says:

        I have to agree, the article’s topic is widely being discussed all across the nation and should be a point of interest or topic to discuss for not only any candidate running for the position of sheriff but every law abiding citizen…gun owner or not.

        The topic is much deeper than 2nd amendment rights, it has more to do with all rights granted by the bill of rights, the question Mr Linzy poses is direct and to the point on one issue but the answers have a much broader scope and give insight into the personal beliefs of the would-be sheriff’s.

        Change the topic to the 1st amendment and ask the same question, would the responses be different?…they really shouldn’t be, it’s really the same question.

        One last thing…. (I believe)the reader responses here on the CCO is one of the highest post counts for any individual article, I’m sure the CCO thanks each and everyone for the post/traffic surge. :)

        JMHO

  36. Hoosier says:

    I know neither one of these gentlemen, but I am appalled at the accusations being made about Mr. Tucker. I cannot believe that anyone would put themselves into the public eye if they had been made to retire due to theft. Also, and I am sure this is coming from Mr. Wedding’s campaign, since your stories are contradictory, maybe this is a ploy to give the opposition a bad name. And who in the world would make up a Facebook page for questions to be answered by someone else? Does Mr. Linzy know for a fact that he was speaking with Wedding when he received the call? Perhaps it was someone from another county office that snuck into Mr. Wedding’s office and used his phone. How preposterous! We all went through months of mud slinging with the presidential election. Please, don’t start it again with the Sheriff’s race. Enough is enough.

  37. Mark strobel says:

    Brad… we’re all waiting patiently for you to ask Mr. Tucker about how was given chance to resign about stealing a diamond ring, telling the owner it was stolen and assuring her that he would submit the report…. but when the lady went to file her claim with the insurance company an they called the EVPD they discovered there was nothing reported to them about her or her ring by Jim Tucker, yet his special lady was walking around with a nice new rock as hot as the sun. That’s why he was given the choice to be fired or resign. Ask him Brad. Ask him! Yeah oh yeah. His views on the 2 amendment are definitely going to be the reason I won’t vote for him. We’re all waiting Brad. Ask him why voters should elect a common thief as Sheriff. I think Tucker’s view on theft and him being asked to resign because he committed theft is more pertinent to the topic. But don’t ask Tucker’s view if your scared to. Ask some other EVPD staff. They have been gag ordered but if you ask around enough.. someone will talk. Or are you too scared to ask him in an interview? Come on journalist wannabe. 2nd amendment questions I would expect from a 9 year old. The tough ones? Guess that’s where you will never have what takes to be anything but an arm chair blogger. Ask him….. dare you. Ask him…. But you won’t because you posted this BS as a way to give your political views to the masses. Nothing more. You’re irrelevant. Unless of course you ask him……. ask him…. it would be your blog of the century …. ask him… tick tock tick tock….

    • Brad Linzy says:

      I have been told by the Tucker camp that he intends on making a press release to address all these accusations about his leaving the Dept. I know nothing more than that.

      If you have a direct accusation against Mr. Tucker or information pertaining to some past impropriety, which you claim to have, what you should do is write up an article detailing how you came upon this information and specifically what evidence you have and specifically from whom or where that evidence gleaned so others can actually ask appropriate questions and investigate further. Don’t expect me to do this work for you. I don’t know enough about the subject to ask appropriate, prying questions.

  38. Hitman says:

    First, I want a COP as the Sheriff, not a politician. Tucker was a real COP. He was on the streets fighting crime and in my opinion getting criminals off the street. When was the last time Wedding made an arrest? He’s been a desk jockey making policy not arrests. Who has more political clout? Clearly Wedding. Who has the law enforcement background? Clearly Tucker. So ask yourself “Who do you want for sheriff?” A COP or a Politician?

    Also, just because Tucker never had to do a budget or run a jail, he will still have people in those positions that have that experience.

    I also find it interesting that for the last 25+ years Wedding never offered a single sound bite for the media. Now he’s the point man for the Sheriff’s Department. This is very common. You see it every time the Chief Deputy runs for Sheriff (and is supported by the current Sheriff). We saw it in Posey, Gibson, and Warrick counties. This is very common and predictable.

    Some of you mention a situation involving “lost jewelry.” Facts are very lacking, I’d like to hear more about it.

    I would also like to say that it was very obvious that the current Sheriff had it out for Tucker and helped in Tucker’s early retirement! There are current deputies that have done much worse and they still wear the badge. More on that later!

    • Troll Patrol says:

      Are you serious? This is comical.

    • Troll Patrol says:

      To answer your question I would like to have a Deputy as the Sheriff. Someone with a lot of experience. Not someone who “resigned”::oh, excuse me, “retired” because of many bad decisions HE choose to make.

    • inquiring mind says:

      If he was such a good cop, why did he get removed from the patrol unit? If his cop skills were so great why did he end his career driving prisoners from the jail to the courthouse? Could it have anything to do with his laziness? Could it be because of the people who were in car wrecks that Tucker responded to and failed to complete a report as required by department policy? No wonder you are against Wedding. Your guy does not follow policy, so he blames his woes on the policy maker. To refer to someone else’s wrong doing to lesson the seriousness of yours is ridiculous.
      And yes, there is a policy about NOT keeping any property that is not yours. But again, lets blame the policy maker. Your reasoning about Wedding’s role as an administrator being a bad thing would be like making a line worker at Toyota the new CEO just because he has built a van more recently than the guy who worked his way up from the line after 30 years with the company. Again, that’ s ridiculous.

  39. James Brooks says:

    How does Jim Tucker feel about the 2nd Amendment…hmmm. Maybe it’s me, I know I look at the issues of jurisprudence and it’s localized much differently than say – a musician, but as far as the issues I think about, look at, deal with that affect my voting decision for sheriff, I think I will look at the issues that are local that affect me and how laws are enforced on the local level, and not and the federal level like Brad Linzy seems to want to use as a bridge than to do nothing more than be a an arm-chair journalist. He simply wants to advertise his personal beliefs on gun control but he’s to much of a coward to ask the serious questions that a real journalist should be asking a local candidate running for sheriff. Like for example:
    Mr. Tucker – how do you expect to be respected enough by the voters to elect you for sheriff when the EVPD asked you to resign for stealing a ring from a household, telling the owner that it was stolen and that you would report it to the EVPD, and when the owner called the EVPD a week later to get the case number for the insurance, they had never heard of her or the ring, and then you give the rink to your special lucky lady, and then you get caught, and then the EVPD gives you the choice of being fired or resign, that anyone would expect anyone with half a brain to vote for someone like that? Come on Brad uber-journalist. Ask that question. Ask. I am sure he will not lie at this point. And ask enough EVPD staff about it. Sure they’ve been gag-ordered, but ask enough – you will find someone who’ll talk. Come – either you are wanting to do some serious journalism here or you’re just a half-rate guitar player who’s more interested in blogging your opinion about BS. That’s what you’re doing here. Finding any issue to blog about and using the sheriff’s race as an excuse to blab your opinion about something that no one cares about. Not saying no one cares about the issue of the 2nd Amendment, it’s just that no one cares about YOUR opinion. This site isn’t the real news of Evansville. It’s a vanity glorified sounding board for cops to whine about other cops. Real news of Evansville. That’s hilarious. You’re not even a cop. So why are you posting? If you want to impress everyone on this site with your immense skills of the 4th estate – then grow a pair and call Tucker on the phone, report this to him, get his comments and post them like a true journalist. If not then I guess your nothing more than a blogger, and not even a good one at that, so go blog somewhere. Or ask Jim Tucker the real journalist question….. ask him…. ask him…. or are you scared to offend a good ol boy buddy of yours.
    Ask him….. ask him….. ask him….. inquiring cops (that’s the only group who reads this), but if you don’t have the cahones to ask him, stick to selling Ernie Ball Super Slinkies.

    • Brad Linzy says:

      I’ll tell you like I told the people above… If you have information you think is relevant and you feel strongly about, write about it. Don’t tell me to do it like you’d tell me to come mow your yard for you. I’m not your slave.

      Give names, dates, witnesses, and any other specifics pertaining to this “ring” incident in your writing and submit it to CCO Editor. He will want the who, what, when, where, why, and how of it. If you cannot provide that yourself, I can only conclude this is another unsubstantiated smear campaign against an honorable guy.

      You write the article next time…I’ll comment on it and attack your profession. How about that?

  40. Brad Linzy says:

    I must have missed it, but the Indiana Sheriffs Association issued a statement on February 5th about gun control. For those of you who said this issue wouldn’t be important this election cycle, it is more than clear here that the ISA disagrees. Here is the full text of that statement:

    Indiana’s Sheriffs join our Nation as we mourn the loss of our children at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. In the aftermath of that tragic day, much focus has been directed at issues pertaining to guns and gun control.

    While the debate stirs strong feelings across our Nation, Indiana’s Sheriffs have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Unites States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Furthermore, we have sworn to do this according to law and to the best of our ability.

    Millions of law abiding Americans lawfully possess and use firearms daily for recreation and protection.
    We must not forget those most vulnerable and their ability to protect themselves from the miscreants and those focused on harming us. Furthermore, our discourse should not cast a shadow of doubt on these millions of law abiding Americans. Firearms are inanimate objects that have no will of their own.

    However, they can be exploited by malevolent souls as instruments of violence. We must work tirelessly to see that those who show no respect for the sanctity of life are punished to the fullest abilities of the law. We also believe that the energy of this debate would be better focused on the issues that we agree upon. It is critical that we continue to work to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would use them to commit acts of violence against our citizens.

    We must increase our efforts to identify those individuals in advance and better use the system that we have in place now to prevent them from gaining access to firearms. The approach to this multi-faceted problem must be comprehensive in nature. In addition to the vigorous prosecution for those who break the law, we must also focus our efforts on strengthening the safety and security of our school facilities, providing better access to mental health treatment, and enhanced training and resources for those who may be targets of violence.
    Indiana’s Sheriffs also recognize that no attempt to prevent the violence that occurred at Sandy Hook will be complete unless we find a way to address the culture of violence that negatively impacts today’s youth. While these tasks may seem daunting, sheriffs stand ready for the challenge and the opportunity to address these issues.

    As Indiana’s Constitutional Sheriffs, we remain focused on solutions, but we will not accept any concept that separates law abiding citizens from their 2nd Amendment Rights without due process.

    The authority of the Office of Sheriff is derived from the Indiana Constitution and those who have entrusted us with our office. Those documents bind us together as a people, both as Hoosiers and as Americans. At a time when those who are governed have less trust in those who govern, it is important that we hold steadfast in this belief and focus our attention not on what divides us, but instead, what keeps us together!

    God Bless America and the State of Indiana.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site