I am the campaign manager for Jim Tucker, who is running for the democratic nomination for Sheriff of Vanderburgh Co. Recent questions have risen in regards to Jim’s record as a deputy sheriff. We have requested, paid for, and received all 666 pages of Jim Tucker’s personnel file from the Sheriff, Eric Williams. We are making the entire file available to any news outlet that wishes to view it. We are in the process of digitizing the file so it can be viewed easier by anyone on our website, but for for now the paper files are available for you to view if you wish.
We are not withholding any information in regards to Jim’s past. We hope our opponents do the same with their personnel file as well.
If you would like to view Jim’s file, or have any questions about it, or any other issue, please feel free to contact myself or Jim.
Thank you
Will Singleton
Chairman, Jim Tucker for Sheriff
812-455-4106 Cell
Jim Tucker
Candidate, Jim Tucker for Sheriff
812-586-4357
Footnote: City County Observer has accepted Mr. Tucker invitation to review his personnel records file and shall report anything that we find objectable or questionable. This letter is posted without opinion, editing or bias.
Wow this is a LOUD statement to make! I breaking out the popcorn and Bud Light for this Sheriff Showdown!
We need a sheriff who isn’t afraid to show transparency. We need someone who is accountable to the public.
why is C@P saying he bowed out?
Since when has the C&P been right about anything?
Good point.
C@P’s writer—eesh!
Talk about breaking news. Tucker cant make up his mind whether to stay in the race or not. Not the kind of decision making skills we need as Sheriff.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/19/no-headline—candidate/
I think the ring incident was answered by him pretty clearly in the CP article. Even so, the mere allegation will hurt his campaign in the short term, at least.
The fact that the ring was recovered and found to be costume jewelry is pretty telling. Even if no one knew that at the time, it’s not as if Mr. Tucker had tried to pawn it. He held onto it waiting for someone to claim it from the hotel for “about a week” until he heard from internal affairs accusing him of stealing it. Perhaps Mr. Tucker should ask that hotel manager for a written statement on his behalf corroborating his story. I think that would go a LONG way toward quelling these concerns.
Also, the squabble over whether he was “retired” or “resigned” seems like a lot of splitting hairs to me. He was being suspended for the second time in a calendar year for what he insists were wrongful reasons and decided he didn’t feel welcome or understood in the Sheriff’s Office and resigned amid what I imagine were some hurtful allegations of stealing or trying to steal a ring.
All this aside, the sheer fact that his fellow Democratic opponent flatly refused to say he wouldn’t under any circumstances aid the DHS in a hypothetical firearms confiscation effort means this should be a long and interesting campaign, whether Mr. Tucker is his opponent, or some other challenger.
Since you love to live in the hypothetical world, what if it was a large sum of money would it be ok to keep it in your duffel bag? Come on! When he hid the ring, he had NO idea it was costume jewelry.
Don’t you think if there was ANY truth to Tuckers story he would have had statements from these so called employees? THIEF, LIAR and a CHEAT!!! Tucker wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him in the behind.
I’m told he has asked the hotel manager to write a letter on his behalf to corroborate his story on the ring. That should, hopefully, put this subject to rest.
Calling a man openly a “thief, liar and a cheat” on a website while hiding behind a pseudonym is the textbook definition of ungentlemanly, and that makes you a coward, a low-life back-biter, and a snake.
If I were you, I’d either start posting with my real name and staking my own reputation on those words like a MAN, or choose my words a bit more carefully when talking about a long-time veteran of the police force.
I’ve known Jimmy Tucker for years and worked with him also! I stand by my words.
You are a huge cheerleader of Tucker and so be it. That’s your choice. I’m sure your coffee date has not happened or you would realize what a TOOL Tucker really is MR. Linzy. Cudos for you using your real name. No fear in losing your job or position of selling musical instruments.
Standing by your words anonymously is like shooting blanks from a gun at a fictitious target. You have gone through the steps, but nothing is really happening.
I’ve known Jimmy Tucker for years and worked with him also! I stand by my words.
You are a huge cheerleader of Tucker and so be it. That’s your choice. I’m sure your coffee date has not happened or you would realize what a TOOL Tucker really is MR. Linzy. for you using your real name. Kudos!! No fear in losing your job or position of selling musical instruments. To stay anonymous means no fear of retribution from a Thief, Liar or Cheat.
Ok MrFriends friend. I’ve never seen that name in the phonebook.
You are right. Troll Patrol is not in the Phonebook.
Stand by your words like a coward under a pseudonym. That’s meaningless. You aren’t a man, you are a back-biting rogue. If you ARE a current law enforcement officer, then your actions taint your badge…coming on here defaming a 24-year veteran without so much as giving us your real name is LOW. These are not the actions of a gentleman.
Friend’s Friend isn’t attacking anyone calling them a “thief, liar and cheat”… YOU ARE.
From my perspective, you need to stand by your words and put your name to them, or get lost.
Dont post angry Mr. Linzy
Its been like FOREVER! Where is this so- called letter from the hotel employee? That’s right! It doesn’t exsist!
I’m not angry. I’m actually quite amused by your lame tactics and dodging.
I sincerely pray you are not in law enforcement. I really do. You are a disgraceful excuse for a man.
Now, are you going to stand behind your statements with your real name, or are you going to continue to wear little girl panties?
The hotel manager was only just asked to write the letter, from what I gather. A copy is to be sent out to both CCO and C&P.
Something tells me even after that, you will still be a backbiting coward unable to muster the fortitude to put your real name and reputation on anything you say. Whatever happened to honor?
FF, Brent you don’t have a clue what you’re arguing.
So you are telling me that if this manager existed and it was as simple as writing a letter to clear up the situation, Tucker wouldn’t have taken care of this theft then????? Its better to RETIRE=RESIGN, give up a career with benefits for a young family and not clear your name? That’s ridiculous !
I only know what I’ve gathered from others… Mr. Tucker felt unwelcome at the Sheriffs Dept., he felt it was a “hostile work environment” (his words) and others have told me he chose to take his accrued retirement rather than risk it on a gamble because he also had a lucrative side business outside the Dept. Not sure on the truth of that last part. That’s just what I was told by people close to him.
I have been told they have the letter from the hotel manager and should be releasing it very soon.
None of this changes the fact that you and inquiring mind have been harping on this without offering any evidence of his guilt, and you’ve been doing it in a cowardly way…anonymously.
He only turned the ring in after he was called in to internal affairs. I think that says a lot about his intent.
He violated policy and then only turned it in AFTER being accused of stealing it. That says a lot about his character.
What policies do you think should be followed and which ones should it be ok to ignore? What property should depuites be allowed to keep and which property shoud they have to turn in? Just because he answered your one question they way you wanted it to be answered DOES NOT excuse his history.
Ask him if he has ever lied during an internal investigation. He did in fact lie to his bosses. That makes him a lier. It also means he should be on the Brady list. The Brady list is a badge of shame in law enforcement. If you on it, every lawyer trying a case where you are the arresting deputy or a witness for the State gets to tell the Judge and jury that you are a lier. That may be why he was removed from being a road deputy making arrests to a transport deputy driving a van.
I support Jimmy Tucker! Williams has been out to get him for years. Tucker was outspoken and challenged authority at times. Generally, he was right even when he lost. Tucker is 100% correct, he had a target on his back.
I’ve known Jimmy and his father for years. Both have integrity and are street smart. From my civilian perspective, Jimmy did a good job out on the street. He was a K-9 unit for years. This spot isn’t given to a deputy that is known to be a screw up.
Wedding hasn’t seen the street for years. Hasn’t made an arrest in what? A decade? You tell me.
I think that any police officer with 20 or more years of service is going to have something in their file. Williams goes back to 2004 to dig up stuff.
This is all about Williams trying to beat up Tucker in the media.
I hope the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth comes out. Then let the voters decide.
The timing of this is suspect. Is Williams just trying to deflect all the negative PR he’s getting related to Sgt–sorry Deputy Mosby? The C & P still hasn’t printed anything about why Mosby got demoted. When I tried to talk about it in an earlier post with the C & P it got blocked. Let’s just say the reason for the demotion and suspension of Mosby is (in my opinion) much worse than the Ghost employment issue related to Mosby claiming grant overtime for work he didn’t do.
Williams is also getting bad PR about the $5 MILLION lawsuit.
Is this a “Wag the Dog” scenario? Google it if you don’t understand the connection.
I do see a problem with Williams releasing his file or Wedding’s file. They’ve been in charge for many years and who would know if some negative documents against them got lost or not. I sure wouldn’t trust that they didn’t sanitize certain files. They sure over documented against Tucker to paint him in a negative manner.
Wedding was K-9 also. Wedding got it because he competed for it against other Deputies who also appiled for it. You are right, they select the best person for it.
Tucker got it because he bypassed the slection process and bought his own dog and paid for his own training. He did not compete in a process where the best choice selected. Tucker bought his way into the position.
You are out of your mind! Tucker did not buy his own dog and pay for the training. He is a certified k-9 handler and went through training his dog like everyone else. No one would purchase their own dog at the cost of these animals. If you know so darn much, you sure aren’t showing it in your posts. People like you make me sick when you have no clue what you are talking about.
He has a FB page. Ask him about it. I will wait for an update. And I never said he was not certified. He paid for his own training. The previous poster referred to him being K-9 like he was the best choice. The problem with that is he chose himself.
So let me get this straight… What you’re saying is Jim Tucker paid his own way through a certification process while David Wedding went through on the taxpayer dime… And that’s a slight on Jim’s record how again?
I’m not following your logic here, and I’m certain your argument won’t fly far with anyone even remotely conservative.
When the previous poster said K-9 is not given to a screw up, I was pointing out that Tucker was not given K-9. He has to pay for it himself. When determining if Tucker is a screw up, I did not have to look any farther than his disciplinary file. Those who have EARNED then right to get special assignments should not have to pay for it. And don’t give me that wore out taxpayer crap. The deputies pay taxes too. And most taxpayers don’t want people like Tucker on the payroll.
If someone with Tucker’s record gets sued after their umpteenth F-up, people like you scream that he should have been fired long ago. Why are you so willing to ignore his history? Oh yeah, it was just people out to get him.
For more on the candidates:
Firearms Issue Will Define Sheriff Race, By: Brad Linzy
https://city-countyobserver.com/2013/02/01/firearms-issue-will-define-sheriff-race-by-brad-linzy/
Yeah, it’s the defining issue; but only if you are so hung up on Tucker that you are willing to overlook ongoing issues with honesty, integrity, and work ethic.
Anyone who thinks that two Democrats running for Sheriff is better than just one running for re-election has got to be out of their mind. In what way do two members of a corrupt, morally bankrupt political party make Vanderburgh County a better place in which to live? Until a Republican enters this race I’m going nowhere near a polling place: I have better things to do with my time!
Hit man and a concern citzens on cp blog must be same person
Probably. It looks identical. But what’s your point?
Yes, I am. If you look me up on the Indy Star you’ll see my facebook information. There was a way too similar user name on this site.
Smoke and Mirrors there Jimmy. Your personnel file shows that you were transferred from one assignment to another. Your DISCIPLINARY file shows WHY you were transferred. Any chance the CCO and its’ readers can see that file? I read the C&P story and it only covered your few years as a merit deputy. Is there anything in there from your time as a jailer?
Policy- When at firearms training, unload the gun before pulling the trigger..
Incident- Tucker discharges loaded weapon because he did not clear the round out of the chamber..
Fault- the people “out to get him”
Policy- When dispatched to an accident, complete a report so the motorist can turn it in to their insurance to get the car fixed..
Incident- Tucker failed to complete multiple accident reports and then lied about it to his bosses
Fault- the people “out to get him”
Policy- Turn in ALL property given to you by a citizen when you are acting under your authoirty as a Deputy
Incident- Tucker is given a ring while working as security at a hotel and keeps it in his bag. He fails to turn it in to the property room as required by policy..
Fault- the people “out to get him”
If Tucker is not willing to or able to follow policy himself, how can he be expected to lead others and expect them to follow policies? His pattern is to blame someone else and say they are out to get him. It seems to me that he was given several chances to save his career but chose to continue to violate policies. His response when he finally has to reap what he sews? Blame it on those out to get him.
Where there is smoke there is fire. When will the “Tuckerites” see through the smoke?
Wait a minute… According to the C&P article, the one who was cited for discharging his weapon because he left a round in the chamber was WEDDING.
You just criticized David Wedding.
What’s funny is, when I read that about David Wedding accidentally discharging his weapon my mind zoomed to Barney Fife and his one bullet.
I am really enjoying reading Inquiring Minds posts. Tucker has ruffled some feathers and I see a pissed off Deputy behind the name trying to defend Wedding.
I can’t wait until we see Weddings records. Oh wait, I bet they won’t release it. BECAUSE too many people have called to complain about Wedding and his Holy Than Thou attitude in life.
Ff
Once again, have no clue what you are talking about.
Skeletons.
You are correct. It was Wedding. However, I do not recall him ever blaming anyone else or saying anyone was out to get him after it happened.
Well, Barney Fife never blamed anyone else either when he accidentally discharged his weapon, didn’t make it less foolish or serious.
Barney Fife also had a little trouble with the Constitution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuPQgV8yBM
With all your rants,your TV references, and “glory to me because I use my real name”, you still fail to acknowldege that Tucker was wrong in how he handled several events. If he would say, yes, I violated policy but I learned from it, then maybe people would say ok and move on. But the ” It was people out to get me” stuff that will end his run for Sheriff. You can promote your one issue all you want and ignore the other stuff all you want. It is not going to have an impact on the outcome of his campaign.
How did his first “challange” of the Wedding campaign work out for him? Not well, not well at all. It left his mouth piece, Will, eating crow on his personal Facebook page. A man with real Character would have came out and apologized for that stunt.
I never said anything in defense of him in any regard other than his answer on my firearms question and the baseless ring accusation which reached a fevered pitch, but seemed to carry no corroborating details or evidence.
I think many of the Wedding supporters, yourself included, are acting in a manner that is ungentlemanly and dishonorable. Even IF Mr. Tucker is guilty of all these things of which he is being accused, it is befitting such a serious accusation against a 24-year veteran to put your real name to your accusations and detail them in full, not hide behind pseudonyms on a website and lob innuendos.
Your right. I should have not done it that way.
Baseless? He says he did what we have been saying he did. He took property that did not belong to him and only returned it when he was accused of stealing it. A week later. Did he in any way document the ring prior to being caught with it? No. The whole i told him and he knew that you knew that I knew is silly. That was all he could come up with after being caught. Why would he take a reduced pension if all it took to clear it up was a note from a hotel employee? Maybe you can ask him that. I know it is a real question and that’s not your specialty, but it is worth a shot.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the hotel employee did just that, and God Williams was still going to make something out of nothing? Anyone with any sense knows that the only reason Wedding is the chief is because he raised the most money to get Williams elected. If you know Wedding, you know he is in over his head for the position he is in. Kind of like the vice president. If he is elected sheriff, he will need Williams around to show him the way.
That makes total sense….. if I was accused of theft of a ring, I would get a hotel manager to write a letter explaining my action of hiding it in my duffel bag, not saying anything about it for a week, until the person who found it called to see if anyone claimed it, then admit to having it after being caught. Then I’m going to give up a good job, with great benefits, retire, because Williams hid the letter. Genius!
While not necessarily voting for Tucker, I am sure not voting for ANYONE associated with Williams. He showed his true colors over the Consolidation issue at last years Vanderburgh Co 4H fair!!
Under that reasoning, every deputy who has worked Williams is out of the running, including Tucker. Williams is his own man. He did not have to have Wedding’s ok to do his “Yes” activity. The people voted it down. Will Williams have to worry about that? If he runs for any other office, he will have to deal with it.
It amazes me that people are not willing to hold Tucker accountable for his own actions, but they want to hold Wedding accountable for Williams’ actions.
Wedding walks lock step with Williams. Wedding’s personnel file might prove to be interesting.
Because wedding supported it too…why because his puppet master (Williams) told him too. There were pictures of him in a yes for unification shirt on his FB page. Sure is funny they ate not there now. Just remember that when you respond to this not to post angry….
What’s gonna be funny is when news 25 finally nails down the fact the Williams and Wedding covered up the felony fraud on a financial institution that was committed by a “former deputy” and rht rhe entire ghost employment issue happened under chief Wedding’s watch. Hopefully the prosecutor Nick Herrman will charge all three of them or at least give the an opportunity to resign.
Be real. Do you think that Williams and Wedding would actually cover up Mosby’s actions? Why?
Eric Williams is a constitutionally elected official. Nick Herman wouldn’t have the authority to do anything to him. It would have to be a lot higher. Possibly, state attorney general. Probably, the justice department but it would not be Nick Herman.
I’m pretty sure that’s not true. The County Prosecutor has the authority to pursue charges against anyone for criminal acts committed in the County in which he is elected. He would present his evidence to a Grand Jury and proceed from there, I think.
He could bring charges against anyone, including the Sheriff, Mayor, or other elected official if they’ve been accused of, or there is reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed by them and there’s enough evidence to indict.
Please clarify “Constitutionally”. As there seems to be some difference in opinion on that now.
Constitutionally as in the Indiana State Constitution requires the County to elect county officials including a County Sheriff. Article 6 Section 2 of the Indiana State Constitution. (History: As Amended November 3, 1970).
Section 2. County officers
Section 2. There shall be elected, in each county by the voters thereof, at the time of holding general elections, a Clerk of the Circuit Court, Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, Sheriff, Coroner, and Surveyor, who shall, severally, hold their offices for four years; and no person shall be eligible to the office of Clerk, Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, Sheriff, or Coroner more than eight years in any period of twelve years.
The sheriff shall be removed on conviction of a felony. There is a provision for impeachment of all county officer which would be done by State House of Representatives.
Again, another poster that knows what is really going on. The recent deputy that resigned committed at least one felony as well as some Misdemeanor offenses.
They directly covered it up and let him resign. They (Williams and Wedding) committed official misconduct.
But, if they now turn the file over to the prosecutors office it will make them look like heros instead of zeros.
Let’s all go out to the Hornet’s Nest and have a drink with Wedding.
Ok so let me get this straight. The C&P reported that Tucker was suspended for failing to submit required reports. The sheriff sends Tucker a letter stating that he is going to fire him unless he agrees to a 30 day suspension and agrees to the charges as written. Tucker says that he did this to avoid being taken before the merit board in which he obviously would not have been given a fair hearing since the sheriff appoints 3 of the 5 merit members. Now this recent “former deputy” gives his girlfriend his credit card, she runs up $1000 plus dollar bill, the former deputy can’t pay it, goes to the bank (5/3 I beleive 25reported) after ordering one of his subordinates to take an official police report and reports the card stolen so that he can recoup the money. The detective office questions the report and this former deputy finally admits he made it up. The sheriff suspends this former deputy for 15 days and demotes him, why? Because anything more than 15 days must go before the merit board and becomes public information. This is called fraud on a financial institution a class c felony and false reporting. Any “general” citizen would have been arrested on spot!! But since this former deputy has a very political name this was all swept under the rug. So it looks to me like the sheriff failed to file required reports that he was “elected” by us to do. Makes me wonder what else is going on there and how are tax dollars are really being spent.
So you leave out the theft of a ring which at the time looked like an expensive ring?
Besides that and many other issues, yes the process was started on investigating the issues.
The SHERIFF and merit board make the decisions. Same as in the Mosby case. The SHERIFF and merit board make these decisions, NOT the chief deputy.
If there was a theft why were there no charges filed?
Where did I say anything about the chief deputy? Don’t post angry now.
That’s why he chose to resign….opps, retire. Have a great day daddy.
Oh I’m sure it is, not disputing that with you deputy. I am merely saying that given the circumstances and the sheriff making the statement that he was going to take him before the merit board in which he controls the majority of the votes It appears to me that he had two options, resign or retire (whichever) and get what ever pension partial or otherwise or go before the one sided merit board and loose it all. Great deflection though officer, you must be on the fast track to being promoted in the Williams administration. The question is if there was a theft why were there no charges filed? And the second part is why is the cover up of the former deputies felony fraud being avoided by your so called leader.
And thank you, I am having a great day….idiot
Dont post angry. Ask the SHERIFF. Hey, if you want Tucker to be your sheriff, vote for him.If you dont mind his theft and other issues, so be it. If you dont like the way Williams handled the situation, question him. Williams isn’t running for sheriff. Tucker and Wedding are.
Oh I’m not posting angry officer, the sheriff has been asked over and over again by news 25 and each time he will not answer. As far as Tucker committing a theft I suggest that if you can prove it charge him. My guess is that you can’t.
Dont have to, remember????? he did that on his own.
Just say that you can’t. It’s east to say, and it makes you look less of the idiot that it appears that you are….. Well maybe not. Truth is he produced it when asked. He held it at the request of the hotel manager. There was no theft. Now what I’m interested in is how your boss is going to respond to this felony cover up? Surely he’s not going to lie and try to worm his way out of this. You and inquiring mind will have to attack him then…..
Ohhhhhhh, ok, thats it, thanks
Your welcome glad i could help
Still waiting for the proof troll?? If you need help with it just ask. You are just like my kids, when you get confronted with a tough question that you dont know how to answer you run and hide. I will ask again If Tucker committed a theft why were there no charges filed? answer, because there was NO theft. I hope Tucker gets an attorney and sues the C&P the Sheriffs Office and Eric Williams for every stinking penny they have. This really showed the true colors of the Wedding camp. I also hope everyone that read that article on the C&P could read through the BS that was being shoveled and decidedly votes against Wedding.
Ok daddy, the reason no charges were filed is because NO VICTIM (the owner of the ring) wasnt concerned about a piece of costume jewelry. Good thing for the thief Tucker. But the lack of a criminal case did not stop the sheriff from pursuing an internal case for violation of department policy. Because Tucker had SEVERAL. Previous investigations into violation of department rules and policies, his career ended under a cloud of suspicion. He took a modified retirement in lieu of being fired.
By the way is little Jimmy Tucker one of your kids? Noooooo, couldnt be, he’s a good man. Too bad his son didnt follow in his footsteps. That’s the TRUE tragedy in this whole situation.
That’s about the fifth time I’ve seen this coward behind the “Troll Patrol” username refer to Mr. Tucker as a “thief”. What a disgraceful way to behave. Is there really no honor any more? If you’re going to defame someone like that, at the very least you should do it openly under your real name and stand by it, not hide yourself away in your mother’s basement.
Jim and Dave…welcome to politics, you haven’t seen anything yet and there is a long hot summer to go.
Ditto.
and next year too
I don’t understand the thinking behind the Tucker committee. First, a false accusation, and now inviting the public to look over his discipline record that includes insubordination and, at least, the allegation of theft? And all at a time when they should be focusing on raising money for the campaign that is still over a YEAR away? I’ll give the strategy credit for being unconventional, but I doubt that it will be very effective. At least, not in the way they’d hope it to be.
2014 looks like a good time for a Republican Sherriff. They got a good one that is going to run!
Who is it?
I can tell you that EPD Officer Brian Underwood is NOT “a good one.”
His past history when he owned a bar will be an issue.
Here’s another example Mr. Linzy…….
What if the EPD officer who had several thousand dollars in found cash had put it in his PERSONAL bag and kept it for a week and did not document it or tell anyone in the department that he received it? And then only turned it in when he was confronted about it by his bosses, what would you be calling that officer?
In case cco is your only news outlet, this very scenario happened yesterday and was covered by the local TV stations. Kudos to that EPD officer for being a true good citizen and representative of the EPD.
Oh, gotta go, my mom just made me a sandwich. Have a great night.
I don’t believe Mr. Tucker’s actions, as I understand them, contain any indication of malice whatsoever. Not following Dept. procedure to a T, and being a “thief” are two different things. One is an infraction perhaps deserving of a reprimand while the other is a crime.
You want to criticize Mr. Tucker and question his integrity and honor…I suppose that’s your right as a free man. However, doing it in this manner, hiding in the shadows and using guerrilla tactics is both unbecoming behavior for a law enforcement officer, if that is indeed what you are, and it’s a disgraceful testament to your manhood. Have some honor, Sir.
You are right that many on this website criticize and accuse and point fingers at public officials, most are deserved, some are not, but few are accusations of criminality. Those that are absolutely should follow up such an accusation with any and all documented evidence and be prepared to stand behind them.
I love the way you scoot around the issues…..you never answer in a direct way. You are so full of insults and you love to twist and twist your story. I’m on to your way of thinking. I assure you everyone else is to. Had that coffee date yet?
The documentation is there. You just choose to see it differently. I would think that someone that “has a target on their back” would choose to follow simple procedures in an effort to avoid violating them when they know it will get them in trouble. If Tucker was unable to grasp that concept, he does not appear to be ready to lead others.
The ring issue was one of many for Tucker. As a good employee, I would be mad if I had to work with someone who refused to do things right. I would be even more upset if someone who failed to follow the rules repeatedly was put in charge of enforcing the rules.
You did not answer the question. What would you call the EPD officer if he kept the found money in his bag until he was called in by his bosses a week later?
You would call him the Governor of Illinois.
If the circumstances were the same and the manager of the off-duty hotel where money was found asked the officer to hold onto it until the rightful owner showed up to claim it, I suppose I wouldn’t think much of it, particularly if, when asked about it by superior officers, the money was produced in its entirety.
In either scenario, no theft has occurred. A breach of Dept. policy perhaps, but certainly no theft. While we’re on the subject, can one of you kindly produce the Dept. policy in writing so we can see exactly what policy was infringed by Mr. Tucker? Not trying to be a smartass; I’m genuinely curious.
First off, when Tucker was working in uniform AT the hotel, he was still working FOR the Sheriff because the Sheriff allowed him to work there. The hotel manager does not decide how Tuker or any other deputy handles this type of issue. Sheriff department policy does.
Hypothetical question. What if the owner of the ring comes in a week later and says I lost a valuable ring. Tucker then gets asked about it and says, oh yeah. I have it in my bag. He then gives the ring to the owner and the owner says, Hey, this is costume jewelry. He switched my diamond ring for this fake one. What happens then?
Policies are in place for specific reasons. Tucker repeatedly violated policies, not just this one time. To continually violate the rules that you know you are expected to follow is not a good career move. To try and turn yourself into the victim of a conspiracy because you keep getting caught is even worse.
I do not know how many people you work with, but I have worked with people who were just like Tucker. They skated by and were always on the fringes of the rules. When they got caught, the complained about the boss. They never owned up their own behavior. Even tough it killed morale for everyone else, they all eventually met the same fate as Tucker. He is more fortunate than most because he was in a position to collect some form of retirement, even though it is a reduced benefit retirement.
Ok, please share the written regulation so we can look at what it actually says. I know enough to ask for that because in the past people on this site, I will not name names, have insisted laws and regulations existed that did not, so I must ask you to produce the actual Dept. regulation before I will agree Mr. Tucker violated them.
Also, in that same pursuit of information, I’d like to know if Mr. Tucker was doing a private security job outside the official duties of the Sheriff’s Dept., and if so, what are the written regulations, if any, governing such side jobs?
That said, if he violated a Dept. regulation, I would have to agree with you in that regard. He should not have violated regulations. However, that’s a far cry from someone being a “thief”. You must at least admit that much.
…and all of this is a completely separate issue from Mr. Wedding’s refusal to say he wouldn’t under any circumstances confiscate the lawful firearms of Vanderburgh County residents. Mr. Tucker’s guilt or innocence in this ring incident still does not excuse that non-answer. This is a BIG issue to a lot of people, myself included, and it cannot be put to rest simply by attacking Mr. Wedding’s opponent.
You can ask Williams for the policy.
As for the your gun question, I doubt anybody outside your inner circle really cared about your hypothetical question. Of course the Tucker camp liked it too. But truth be told, on Tuckers FB page he answered the same way Wedding did. He said he would enforce the law. When pressed for more detail, he repeated he would enforce he law. He told you your scenario would never happen, but then gave the answer that you wanted to hear. In return, you posted your agenda driven writing.
There is a federal law that prohibits the confiscation of weapons during a disaster. That is all the logical voter is concerned with.
Indiana theft code: Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if:
Was Tucker authorized by anyone to keep this ring in his bag? No. In fact, he was specifically told not to keep property, ever. Would he have ever turned this ring in if he was not called by his bosses? Based on his previous issues with honesty, I do not think he would. He is an admitted liar.
As a taxpayer and logical person, I would call any law officer a thief if they were keeping property that was supposed to be turned in. If they are allowed to “hang onto stuff” until they are questioned about it’s existence, then there would be a continual outcry from the public and many claims of thievery.
The law you just cited is not what I asked for. I asked for Sheriff’s Office internal policy. Besides, the IC you just cited clearly states “intent to deprive” must be proven for it to be a theft. Firstly, the alleged “victim” is unknown, it being a lost ring, secondly, Tucker’s clear intent was not to “deprive” the rightful owner of his or her property. This clearly isn’t a case of a theft. It’s a possible case of violating internal Office policy, but that hasn’t been shown either. Where is the policy he violated?
I told you where to get the policy. I know what I sent you.
You asked why I call him a thief. The law I sent you is why I call him a thief. If you feel that people should be allowed to keep your stuff as long as you don’t come looking for it, than that’s your choice. I disagree. If you were the owner of the thousnads of dollars that was turned into EPD the other day, would you think it was legal for the finder to keep it? Maybe you do. I disagree. Would you be ok with the officer keeping it until his boss asked about it?
Hypathetical question. What if the officer kept it in his bag for a week and when it was given back, the owner said money was missing? Would you say it was just a rule violation?
Here is what I find the most interesting. You spend hours on here commenting on our elected officials and how they conduct their business. Most of the time your are pointing out why they are not good public servants. If you are willing to ignore all of the red flags during the election, you don’t have any credibility when someone like Tucker gets elected. It’s like you want to tell everyone how bad our elected officials are but then want to do whatever you have to do to prove yourself right.
You don’t have a legal leg upon which to stand here. The very law you quoted is in stark disagreement with you, yet you’re obviously too thick to see that. Read the law again and then reread my criticism directly below that, and (hopefully) you’ll begin to see your fallacy. If you don’t, I’m sure everyone else, with the likely exception of Troll Patrol, will.
BL, There are many posts on here by people using screen names. Many include statements about someone’s character. The only poster you ever talk about using a screen name is Troll Patrol. Just a Dad ha posted that wedding cheates on a promotion test. Are you willing to call out any of the Tucke folks?
It’s not having a screen name that’s the issue… It’s hiding behind a screen name and lobbing insults that strike at the core of a man’s character. It’s the same concept as shooting a man in the back…one should simply have more honor and more self-respect than that.
It’s the same reason you salute a man or shake his hand as a way of presenting yourself honorably in your dealings with him, you do NOT stab him in the back with a pair of pantyhose covering your face.
This is what separates civilized men from pack animals.
Ok. I am not against what what you are saying. I asked why you only think it is an issue when it is a comment about Tucker. There have been attacks on Wedding and even an EPD officer who has not said he is running for Sheriff. When you decide that everyone should be held to the same standard, not just those who don’t agree with you, you will have some credibility.
I’m not the CCO police. I’ve been in this particular conversation with a few particular people, yourself included. I have not seen any other posts by people or followed any particular threads in which people behaved in this sort of disrespectful and dishonorable manner, i.e. referring to someone as a “thief” or other type of criminal. That is a serious charge precisely because it is a crime.
People are free to express their opinions on others, within the parameters set by the CCO Editor, but this is more than a mere opinion on someone, this is a serious charge of criminal behavior. A bit different.
If you peruse some of my past commentary, you will see I am very balanced in my criticisms of others. If I think you are deserving of criticism, I will spell out exactly why in bold relief and use my real name in doing so, if however, I think you are being criticized unfairly, even if you’ve been at the sharp end of my own criticism before on other issues, I will come to your defense. To put that another way, if I saw someone referring to David Wedding as a rapist, a thief, or some other moniker reserved for criminals, I would demand they back up their accusations with facts.
I simply think we should all be more gentlemanly in our behavior and our critiques of one another.
Funny shi####! If I’m not mistaking, YOU were the one referring to Wedding as Barney Fife. And before you insult these readers intelligence, WE know it is meant to be a slam towards him. Hey I’m more direct…. I don’t twist and twist and use play on words like you do Mr. Linzy, A thief is a thief as a liar is a liar. End of story.
…he says, once again from behind the veil of a username.
I only brought up the Barney Fife parallel because of something YOU brought up, namely the fact Wedding nearly took his own foot off with an errant shot, and I also couldn’t ignore the other parallel, which was that Barney Fife didn’t seem to have a grasp on the Constitution.
All of that is a far cry from calling him a “criminal” like you’re doing to Mr. Tucker…anonymously.
Mr. Linzy, ONCE AGAIN, why am I the only one you take issue with using a screen name? I have read many statements on the cco that haven’t been favorable to many people, including many of your posts. It seems to me that you are only upset with the posters that don’t agree with your point of view.
If Blanger, Friends friend, Hitman, Delta Bravo, Inquiring minds, Just a dad, Della,The Joker, etc,etc are real names, their parents must have been drunk when they named their babies. So Please,get over it.
Because no one else is accusing someone of a crime.
Oh please! I’m not accusing him of stealing. Im saying without a doubt, he stole that ring, period. You can spin it any way you choose. Hypothetically, in reality, I don’t care. You choose to support this man no matter what. I know, I know, you SAY you dont support him but he is the one that answered your hypothetical question the way you wanted. You’ve said it many times and with your Brad Linzy spin, you try to say your not supporting Tucker. We all know better. That’s your right. Good luck.
Does anybody know why Tucker is running for Sheriff? Because right now I get the feeling that he’s in it to try and get back at the people that he felt wronged him.
It’s a Coup!
Comments are closed.