Gambling Update

Tattoos & Scars,

I've seen officers actually play the machines and cash in on them for the last 30 years.

You are correct in your statement that the Tuckers would still be running their operation if they had been connected to the right people. A few thousand paid in on the blind eye tax would have went a long way.

-- Posted by somecommonsense on Thu, Nov 12, 2009, at 5:24 PM

I must be a little confused. Just what is the blind eye tax? Is that the tax that the local auction company paid when they sold machines at the old duetz tractor building? Or when they were sold at the Nashville fair grounds? Could it be only the people that sold machines out at the old Shelbyville Mills School or the place beside the Pantry on N. Main, where a certain blogger use to work, were paying the blind eye tax.

If I remember correctly all those businesses were raided and successfully prosecuted. So the operator of the machines at the restaurant went to federal prison. He must not have been paying the "blind eye tax" or was not "connected" please, REALLY can you point to a single official and prove they are on the take. No. you can not.

So what is everyone really complaining about? It sounds a lot like the one car out of ten that were speeding, that got stopped, and got a ticket and started yelling "why did you stop me when everyone else is speeding? The answer is because you came up on radar. The next answer is you knew you were speeding because it is a knowledge based crime. The people that were running the poker game knew they were gambling and breaking the law. The same as the dealers. So why then are they yelling why me, why me and not this person or that person.

sounds like sour grapes from out on the farm....

Tattoos & Scars,

I've seen officers actually play the machines and cash in on them for the last 30 years.

You are correct in your statement that the Tuckers would still be running their operation if they had been connected to the right people. A few thousand paid in on the blind eye tax would have went a long way.

Accurate Fact...Thanks for the thoughtful comment. The two dealers who went to trial did have a "record." This is on the record in open court. All priors were misdemeanors not felonies. I wonder if speeding tickets, also misdemeanors, would have risen to the dastardly level of dictating these young men were due no compassionate consideration. I have no problem with the fact that all involved broke the law. I just think many were over-charged considering their actions injury to society.

I have no problem with Chad or anyone else and will readily accept he is a good fellow. I know his Mother and step-Dad and used to see them a lot. My problem is the over zealous, hypocritical and selective manner is which law enforcement and prosecutors treated these cases. This town is absolutely rife with illegal gambling activity. Much of which is "poker machines" out in front of God and everybody. Also many devices designed to encourage children as young as perhaps five, to gamble. There has been for years, a game that would make this one look like child's play considering the stakes, that operates just over a block from the courthouse! Yet no law enforcement clamor........Why......???

Thanks again for your comments. Look forward to hearing from you in the future. BTW, I meant to tell you the other day, I had lunch with your Mother that day.

I understand this couple have small children. Although I believe they should pay for their crime, I am happy that this mother is allowed to stay at home with her children. Probation, I'm sure, will cause her to reflect on her gift of being able to stay home. One would hope!

The Tuckers may be good people, but they broke the law and should pay the piper for their actions, good or not they knew what they were doing.

Seems like a light sentance compared to what the dealers were sentenced with. She should have to serve some time being she was one of the ring leaders. This does not set a good example for the judicial system.

Beyond a doubt it proves your point.

But I'm not suprised. Once you are able to remove the abuse and misuse of authority that is often found in small local courts you will see a system operating without predjudice and personal vindication. I think in the Federal enviroment feelings are replaced with mere facts.

Local courts are a disadvantage though. It has to be harder and more difficult on local officers, D.A.'s and judges to escape the temptation of allowing personal feelings and sentiment to influence their vigor and make unbiased decisions on who and how they will prosecute in a town this size where most everybody knows somebody.

Although they are at a disadvantage and have to try harder than a Federal system would to accomplish fairness and justice there is no excuse for the D.A. to be so overly zealous as you stated and as I agreed that he was in prosecuting the case nor in a judge's likewise harsher sentence.

These same officers, D.A. and judge know of the others that are engaged in the same activity and have been for even a longer period of time and have not been as zealous with this knowledge as they were with the target Tuckers.

There is a reason out there why the Tuckers were chosen.