Tucker Campaign Questions Opponents Media Activity

1. For anyone interested, I recently asked Jim Tucker this question on his Facebook page:

   “Mr. Tucker, I asked one of your supporters about your stance on Federal nullification via the office of Sheriff. He really didn’t know your position, so I’ll ask you. 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?”

   This questions is of increasing relevance as I believe the Sheriff’s elected office to be the most important in any County in terms of shielding the citizenry from unconstitutional infringements on our Liberty. Here was Mr. Tucker’s response:

   “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.”

   This answer is satisfactory to me. It shows an understanding of a Sheriff’s fidelity to the Constitution of the United States. I hope Mr. Tucker understands this fidelity takes prescience over any considerations of State or Federal Law he deems unconstitutional. He has the right, nay the duty, as a duly elected Sheriff, to use his discretion and refuse to enforce such laws.

   Any among us who prize our Constitutional rights should learn to ask this question to ANY candidate for the office of Sheriff including Mr. Tucker’s opponent.

2. I have asked Mr. Wedding this same question. I will post his response when and if it is forthcoming.

   • Wedding will not answer you. I have noticed on his FB page that same question posted by another citizen and he has made no effort to reply. At least Mr. Tucker will take the time to respond to the questions posed to him. I guess Mr. Wedding is waiting for Williams to tell him what to say?

     • I think it’s hilarious how people are talking about issues that have NOTHING to do with the sheriffs department. I think you need to contact people involved with the gun control (Obama) instead of the sheriffs department!

3. I have also asked Jim Tucker a question about when he is elected.

   “When you are elected sheriff, will you appoint the outgoing sheriff as your chief deputy”
   Mr. Tucker responded, ” No, I will not appoint Sheriff Williams as my chief deputy. Furthermore, none of the current appointed executive positions will be appointed chief deputy. I feel that the people of this community wanted a change in leadership. I will respect the voters wishes and bring fresh leadership to this office.”

   • Did you ask the same question of Mr. Wedding? I would bet you that you will not get an answer to that question at all my friend.

4. To the above postings, does that apply to ridiculous laws like marijuana prohibition? They don’t have to enforce that.

   • Correct. They do NOT have to enforce them. At least with alcohol prohibition, they thought enough to do it the proper way and amend the Constitution, not so with marijuana.

     Sheriffs offices get all kinds of goodies from State and Federal they will dangle over their heads and withdraw if they don’t toe the line.

5. Getting back to the topic, I can see the legitimate argument that the Tucker campaign has. I have noticed that Wedding is starting to appear more in the media and Williams less and less. If the sheriff has historically made these types of announcements then I think it would be fair to keep it that way. In the sheriffs absence have a public information officer other than Wedding who is a candidate make all media releases. It seems to work out well for the EPD with Sgt Cullem and Chief Bolin.

6. I too agree with the Tucker campaign on this. And I am glad that Tucker answered his questions about this office. I would much rather have a Sheriff who is willing to answer questions (even if I didn’t like the answer) than one who avoids the question entirely.

   • In lieu, Mr. Tucker opts to delete questions instead of answering them. I would much rather have a Sheriff who chooses not to answer, than one who chooses to simply delete the question.

     • According to one of Brad’s post so did Wedding. What’s your point?

       • To be fair to Mr. Wedding, he did answer me in part so far. I’m still waiting on an answer to the last part about a hypothetical firearm confiscation. My comment at first seemed to have been deleted from the wall of his sheriff’s page, where I posted it, but it does appear in the sidebar under “Recent Posts by Others on David Wedding for Sheriff”. He seems to have his settings set such that any attempt to post on the wall of his page will go into that section. That’s probably not an altogether bad thing. I do hope he answers the last part of my question though.

7. Cut to the chase: How many Democrats are there in the Sheriff’s race, anyway?

   • Two at this point.

8. How does what Eric Williams is doing regarding Deputy Wedding differ from what Brad Ellsworth did regarding Eric Williams?

   Not one iota!

9. Wah Wah Incumbency has its advantages. Sheriff Williams can ask anyone on the department to speak with the media if he is unavailable. It is only logical that his Chief Deputy speak on his behalf. If Chief deputy Williams is speaking too often, that’s just too bad and so sad for Tucker.

   • Sure it does Waldo, For the Sheriff! But I think you hit the nail on the head in your post…If Wedding is elected Williams will be the Chief Deputy because they will just switch offices.

10. Throughout the beginning of this campaign, I have kept an eye on Mr. Wedding’s page, as well as Mr. Tucker’s. I did notice a question on Mr. Tucker’s page stating “Why are you not a sheriff anymore?” This post was deleted. Does anyone know the answer to this? It was alarming to me that this post was deleted. Not only did he choose not to answer it, he deleted it. Mr. Wedding has not replied to every comment either. However, I did read a post he wrote stating he will reply to everyone but to give him time due to his busy schedule and all of the messages he has been receiving. As far as the media, I have not necessarily noticed more of Mr. Wedding. He has always been a popular deputy I have seen on television and most people know who he is.

11. I also noticed one of Mr. Tucker’s main supporters posted the question on gun control a day after a citizen posted on Mr. Wedding’s. In my opinion, that seems somewhat fishy and I believe it was a setup.

    • As far as I know, I was the progenitor of this question to both of these candidates. I first asked Mr. Tucker, then asked his opponent, Mr. Wedding, who has since given me a partial answer to my question, but has not yet answered the final part specifically about guns.

      If someone else asked this question as well, I was not aware of it. I intend to write more about this topic in the near future, which will hopefully appear here.

      • Brad,

        I do not see your question on Mr. Tucker’s facebook page. Like I said, I do see the question asked by one of his own supporters one day after Mr. Wedding was asked the same question. I don’t know about you, but this seems to me as if it was set up. Have you noticed Mr. Tucker deleting posts instead of answering them? I am glad to see Mr. Wedding keeps everything on his page. Since he is the Chief Deputy of the department, I’m sure he is very busy. I hope he gets back with you! He seems the most qualified.

        • I’ll preface this by saying I am not a “supporter” of either of these candidates. I am still forming my opinions of this race. My experience so far has been that Mr. Tucker has answered my questions in a timely fashion and in full. I believe my initial question is still up on his Facebook page, or his campaign page. I can’t remember which.

          Mr. Wedding did take a little longer to answer my question I posed in a private message and only answered it in part when he finally did answer. The last portion of my question, which posed a hypothetical scenario about gun confiscation, was not answered. I’m still waiting for an answer on that from Mr. Wedding. I did notice when I posted my question on his wall after unsuccessfully getting him to answer via private message, it was deleted, and he finally answered me privately. This is not an indictment of Mr. Wedding’s behavior as I understand he is a busy man with a family. Maybe the deletion of my question on his wall was an accident. All I can say is that as an impartial observer, my experience has been opposite of yours thus far.

          But again, I am so far impartial in this race. I want to reserve my endorsement until I hear more from Mr. Wedding on the last part of my question, at least.

          • Brad, you stated in your post that you were not a supporter of either candidate but after reading all your post I think you along with Just a Dad will be big supporters of tucker. Just between you and me ,I think you will be backing a loser, take it to the bank.

        • I found the question posted by Brad, Its on Tuckers personal page not the Tucker for sheriff page. I looked at Weddings page it it appears that there are questions of the same nature asked of Tucker that are unanswered. So I dont know where your “set up” theroy comes from. It appears to me that Tucker, whom I am sure is just as busy takes the time to answer and Wedding avoids…IMHO

          • I apprehend your opinion. On the other hand, as I mentioned before, Mr. Tucker has deleted questions on his campaign page. I strongly believe one of the most substantial questions Mr. Tucker will be inquired with from the Vanderburgh county residents will be the reason behind him leaving the department. In my opinion, it is not proper of Mr. Tucker to just delete and avoid the question, instead of answering it. I am actually amongst those citizens who are wondering why he decided to leave the department and why he now wants to be the Sheriff of it.

12. Waldo, I agree with you. As far as I am concerned, the Chief Deputy position is only one position down from Sheriff. It makes sense to me to choose the most qualified person to inform the public on various subjects. I will be honest, I do not mind one bit seeing Mr. Wedding when I turn on the television!

    • I respectfully disagree with both of you. There are enough people on that department to have a public information officer. It does not have to be the second in command, especially since he is a candidate. You dont see the Assistant Chief of Police doing media releases with the EPD…Its the PIO Sgt Cullem.

      • I understand, but Mr. Wedding has been on the news, in the newspaper, etc., for years. I would agree with you if he just so happened started to appear on media after announcing his candidacy. Mr. Wedding is greatly involved within our community, therefore, he should be and is well known.

      • The Sheriff’s department does NOT have a PIO so when the Sheriff is busy, it only makes sense for the Chief to take over. Chief Wedding has been on the news for many years, covering stories, Midday with Mike, etc. Since his announcement, I have not noticed a numerous amount of stories with Chief Wedding.

13. Chief deputy David Wedding is clearly the most qualified, as well as the best choice, for vanderburgh county Sheriff. I, myself, believe he is a very hard working man and is extremely dedicated to the sheriffs department.

    • And that is exactly why we have elections.

      • wait until you find out why Tucker “resigned”
        I definitely would not want him as my Sheriff knowing what happened!

        • How about instead of vague accusations, you tell us what you know?

          • …and if you’re doing that, you should ALWAYS post under your real name.

          • the truth will come out! That’s a funny way to “retire” and then try to run for sheriff.

          • I’m really not someone who likes gossip or vague accusations of impropriety. I’d much rather see at least some kind of specific information along with a cited source. It’s far too easy to defame someone behind a cloak of anonymity on the internet these days. If you have information we should know about Mr. Tucker, sign your full name to it and give details, not vagueness and gossip. And cite sources so we can follow up and investigate.

          • This in no more vague than the letter Tucker had someone else file. I am still waiting for any information that supports their letter. Sad thing is, people took to this thread right away and started talking about something different. I think you were the first.
            You have several post about a hypothetical question not being answered. Where are the questions about real life experience? I think a person with over 30 years, many of them as a supervisor, trumps someone with no supervisory experience. Being the deputy in charge at ShowMe’s does not count. There have been questions asked on here about the circumstances surrounding Tucker’s departure from the Sheriff’s department. The response from his campaign was standby for more truth. Standby? Are they out looking for some truth? That seems like it could have been taken care of right away. Or could it?

        • He did not resign. He retired. He gets a retirement check. Just stayed tuned, more truth to follow.

          • Is his retirement check coming from Showmes? The girls that work there? Or the Sheriff’s department. I thought resigning and retiring were different things.

          • Since you replied to this post, I would guess you saw my request for more details behind your letter. If you can’t post any links, how about just putting a number. How many press releases or interviews has Wedding done since he announced he was running for Sheriff? Is it out of the norm compared to his normal amount? He has been their media person before he said he wanted to be Sheriff. And if Mr. Tucker is concerned about who as more press releases, why did he have someone else do this one for him? Seems like he could have brought up this on his own.

14. Can the Tucker campaign post a link to the stories or releases this letter is talking about? I know Wedding has done media stuff as a part of his duties over the years, but I have not seen the increase the Tucker folks are talking about. Based on this letter, Wedding has gotten a ton of media exposure since Jan 3rd. They will be hard pressed to back this claim up. This seems like a last gasp at the beginning of their campaign.

15. For those interested, here is the question and answer I got from David Wedding:

    ME: Mr. Wedding, it has come to my attention you are running for the office of Sheriff in Vanderburgh County. I posed this question to your opponent, Mr. Tucker, and I will now pose it to you…
    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 through the office of Sheriff? Would you enforce, for instance, a hypothetical order from DHS to confiscate the legal firearms of the citizens of Vanderburgh County?

    MR. WEDDING: 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.

    ME: Thanks for that answer. you answered the first part… as for the hypothetical, would you enforce a DHS or FEMA order to confiscate weapons in the event of a Federally declared emergency as was done during Katrina?

    I’m still waiting on that answer to the hypothetical. I did ask Mr. Tucker a very similar question as well and here was his answer…

    MR. TUCKER: Brad my position is this. 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.

    • It looks like Wedding answered both of your questions. By saying he will support the constitution, he is saying he will not violate it. Ie doing unconstitutional things. You can throw out what if’s all day. What if the B and the L fell off your keyboard?
      You keep talking about facebook pages and answers. So far, the only comments on here from the Tucker campaign have come from Will Singleton. So who is really answering the questions on Facebook? Just a thought.

      • “he is saying he will not violate it. Ie doing unconstitutional things.”

        ——————-

        It’s a subjective answer….subjective to someone’s (maybe his? maybe the DOJ?, maybe homeland security, or maybe the SCOTUS)interpretation of what is constitutional and what is not, he did not say just who’s interpretation he would base his decisions on…..which makes it political speak, no real answer just the illusion of answering the question.

        Since every LEO, military personal, politician, plus many many other jobs take the oath to uphold the US constitution it’s fashionable to say we believe and will uphold/obey our oath, in reality most of the oath takers look at it as a formality or ceremony…truly sad.

        In his defense….Mr Wedding gave an answer that will satisfy about 90% of the public.

        JMHO

      • I had a long conversation with Mr. Wedding on the phone this afternoon and even he admitted not only did he not answer my final hypothetical question about gun confiscation, but he didn’t like answering hypothetical questions like this, AND he refused to state unequivocally that he would NOT under any circumstances follow a DHS or FEMA order to confiscate the firearms of lawful citizens within Vanderburgh County. In other words, he could envision a possible scenario where he could follow such a dictate.

        I am NOT making this up. We had a long discussion about what the Second Amendment actually means, including the “well regulated militia” clause, which I asserted means clearly, according to the Founders’ intent, that the militias should be “well equipped” and up to standards in the event of an invasion. Mr. Wedding disagreed and actually told me he believes it means that guns should be “regulated” as in “controlled by statue”.

        This is just a taste sampling which also included his insistence he is an avid hunter and NRA Member.

        More on this to come. I can tell you now, this issue will be probably the biggest contrast between these candidates, according to my time spent talking with each of them so far. This could get messy, folks.

        • Brad….

          Don’t forget that Mr Wedding is a Democrat and as such believes and follows most of the current democratic principles….as I think you got a small taste of in your conversation, he will use his own interpretation of what the democrats say is constitutional which is what I’d expect.

          Being a “avid hunter” or NRA member does not make you a avid believer in 2nd amendment rights it just means you like to hunt and belong to a organization that is pro hunting/shooting.

          Mr Wedding like many others should take the time to really stop and think about the world we average citizens live in today, not from the viewpoint of a LEO who carries a gun and is empowered to uphold the law with his AR-15 (or full auto M-16) in the trunk of his car, or from the viewpoint of the people he has to deal with on a day to day basis, but from the viewpoint of the working/taxpaying citizen he also swears to protect and serve.

          JMHO

        • You might be right. This could get messy. But not because of your hypothetical what ifs? It will be based on “what haves”. As in what have you done in your career? What have you done to lead others? What have you done that Will Singleton does not want to talk about? When those questions are answered, I will worry about the what ifs from a person who seems to be able to post around the clock.

16. To whomever is responsible for this article, can you please explain to us why mr.tucker is no longer a police officer? I feel as if the tucker campaign may be hiding a lot of things……….kind of scary! It just does not seem logical to me for a non-police officer to be the SHERIFF of the county. Now that really scares me!!!

17. This is non sense! Wedding for sheriff all the way! He has my vote, my family’s, my coworkers, along with all of my friends! Go Dave!!!

18. Mr. Singleton, if he chose to retire, why would he delete the question from his Facebook?? I have to agree. Something is being hidden! Like I said before, Wedding for Sheriff! Best choice! Best man for the job! Most qualified!!

19. It seems like this article has hurt the tucker campaign rather than helping it! Wow..i suppose that’s what happens when you try and knock someone down way higher than you……simply sad. At least the Wedding campaign has stayed positive and respectful. Very good people.

20. I really hope the citizens of Vanderburgh county do not fall for Tucker’s words. If this county wants to improve and be professional, mr. David wedding needs to be elected. Wedding for sheriff.

21. Alice seems to all here so why show me’s? And was he the only sheriff that worked or works there? So why did he retire alice!!

    • Ask Tucker about a ring. End of Story!

22. Did he really just tell us to stay tuned for the truth? Haha now that is comical. Like what was said before, they are trying to make up a story as we “stay tuned.” What is this? A movie??? We want the truth now!!!!! Anyways, David wedding for sheriff folks!!!!!!!!!!

23. Was tucker ever promoted??? Was he ever a sergeant? I can’t imagine a middle-aged man deciding to retire without a great retirement. I also can’t imagine electing a man who has never been apart of the department’s administration. Does he even have a clue how to run the department?

24. What does gun control have to do with the sheriff of Vanderburgh county? The sheriff of the county should be elected based off experience, leadership, and wisdom. ALL that Mr.wedding has; yet none that mr.tucker maintains.

25. David wedding for sheriff!!

26. For anyone who supports Tucker obviously doesn’t know the truth about him. People laugh at the thought of Tucker taking over and putting such a great experienced chief deputy out of work, that is just absurd!

    • E I agree with you price is right. Why would the citizens of Vanderburgh county vote for Tucker when he has never made a rank while serving on the department. I wonder, by not being a ranking officer, how much knowledge would he have about the everyday operations. Meanwhile, Chief Deputy Wedding has many years of experience. He has moved up the chain of command from Sergeant all the way to Chief Deputy. To me its like putting a Private in charge of the Army instead of a General. Vote Wedding.

27. The question about gun control, or to be more precise, gun confiscation, is a good litmus test for a Sheriff. It shows the level of understanding he has for the duties of his office to adhere to the Constitution and protect the rights of citizens. We don’t want a repeat of what happened during Katrina where lawful citizens’ guns were taken away in that disaster and they were left defenseless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE

    In my conversations with Mr. Wedding he indicated he did not believe the “well regulated” clause in the Second Amendment had to do with being “well equipped”. He thinks it means “regulated by statute, even though all the historical documentation clearly shows the Founders intended for the Minutemen, i.e. “militia”, which in the State of Indiana still means any able-bodied person who can handle a weapon, to be well equipped and ready and a moment’s notice in the event of an invasion or tyrannical takeover of government. In fact, it was just this armed citizenry that helped repel another English invasion in 1812 and even helped deter the Japanese from invading the mainland during WWII.

    The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The “shall not be infringed” part has already been violated by congress, the POTUS and even SCOTUS. Luckily the SCOTUS has also affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but it’s high time we started electing Sheriffs who understand their duty of office is to shield citizens from both criminals within and overreaching government from without.

    You mentioned the qualities of “leadership” and “wisdom”. I too value those qualities in a Sheriff. For me, they mean a full understanding of the Constitution and an unabashed willingness to abide by it as the Supreme Law of the Land.

    It’s a long way to the election. Hopefully Mr. Wedding changes his mind on some of these things before then.

    • Refusing to support a bogus claim against your opponent and dodging questions about why you left the agency you want to lead are good litmus test too. When you have a long conversation with Singleton, I Mean Tucker, about those issues, let us know what he says.

      • You might be right. I honestly don’t know the answer to why he left the Sheriff’s office other than what I’ve been told by him, which is that he retired, plain and simple. I’m sure a press release from them is in order considering the sheer number and consistency of calls for an explanation. I would like to see these questions addressed also.

        What does concern me is the unwillingness of those for whom this seems to be an issue to elaborate further on what they know publicly. It all seems to smack of innuendo with little substance. Maybe I’m wrong. I guess we will see.

28. Wedding is honest. Tucker just says whatever he knows you want to hear.

29. I must be missing something. I just checked the VCSO’s news releases and have not seen one from Chief Deputy Wedding going back several months. My records show that the contacts for the releases have been:

    1/28/13 – Major Pace
    1/27/13 – Major Pace
    1/14/13 – Lt. Daza
    1/10/13 – Lt. Preston
    1/10/13 – Major Pace
    1/6/13 – Major Pace
    12/16/12 – Lt. Preston
    12/11/12 – Lt. Martin
    12/6/12 – Sheriff Williams
    12/5/12 – Lt. Preston
    12/4/12 – Sheriff Williams
    12/3/12 – Sgt. Sugarman
    11/27/12 – Sheriff Williams
    11/22/12 – Sgt. Sugarman
    11/21/12 – Sheriff Williams
    11/21/12 – Lt. Daza
    11/19/12 – Sgt. Robinson
    11/15/12 – Lt. Daza
    11/8/12 – Lt. Preston
    11/7/12 – Sgt. Sugarman
    11/5/12 – Lt. Daza
    11/5/12 – Lt. Daza
    10/31/12 – Sheriff Williams

    • That’s what I thought the results would show. Will Singleton posted on his own FB page a comment about making a mistake in recent days and learning from them. He did not answer anyone when they asked what as talking about. If it was talking about this stunt, he should follow his letter with an apology on this site for the false information he floated on behalf of Tucker. He has removed his comment from his FB page for some reason.

    • WOW! Wasn’t this what the article was all about in the first place? I guess this is the proof that we have been waiting for. Tucker? Mr. Singleton? Where are you???????

    • And for the record, I’m not a supporter of either Wedding or Tucker at this point. If the news releases would have shown Wedding as the contact, I’d have posted that information. I have not paid attention to news station interviews, so I don’t know if Wedding has had a bunch of television face time.

      That being said: what does it even matter? Unless he’s using his access to the news media to openly campaign for office while he’s working, I don’t think there’s anything wrong.

30. This letter clearly shows Tucker’s campaign’s character. Sad……..it frightens me that these people are supposed to be “professional leaders within our community.”

31. I think Beyonce was singing to Tucker — Did he put a ring on it?

32. Rank has nothing to do with the sheriffs department. Rookie patrol officers fresh out of the academy make rank if your in the buddy system! The sheriffs department does not have a merit system! Officers who do their jobs are more then qualified for promotions miss out because of the buddy system on the sheriffs department. PR doesn’t not make a good sheriff or officer. It’s what you can do to ensure the communities safety and design an administration which can be ran effectively and efficiently with our tax payers money!

    • Isn’t this what the union is for? If not then why have a union?

33. Really desperate move by the Tucker camp.

Comments are closed.