Rooth “No Trackers Allowed” Manndingy, a corrections employee, jumped in to scold Tom Webster, saying a candidate for sheriff “should know the law” about campaign signs. Then she claimed “no trackers were allowed” on the signs, said Kenny Freeman is “not stupid enough” to put evidence in his own dumpster, and told people to look closer instead of automatically convicting him because he “did a lot for this county.”
That is a legal smoke machine powered by friendship bracelets and denial.
Let’s start with the funniest part. A corrections employee is lecturing someone else about knowing the law while publicly serving up pretend law in a paper bowl. That is special. That is not just missing the point. That is driving past the point, hitting a mailbox, backing into the evidence locker, and then blaming the GPS tracker for being rude enough to notice.
She says Tom should know the law. Fine. Then she should know the law too.
A campaign sign is property. Your property does not stop being your property because it has your name on it. It does not become holy election foam board protected by imaginary tracker angels. If Tom put a tracker on his own sign because his signs were disappearing, that is called tracking his own property. Note this was all before any citations and warnings were given.
This should not confuse anyone who works around inmates, evidence, reports, probable cause, chain of custody, and criminal behavior for a living. But here we are.
“No trackers were allowed.”
Allowed by who? The Yard Sign Pope? The Dumpster Licensing Board? The Department of Rules I Made Up Because My Sheriff Got Caught?
If there is a law saying a candidate cannot place a tracker on his own campaign sign, show it. Bring it out. Put it on the table. Let it breathe. But if the “law” is just something somebody heard from the Facebook Academy of Criminal Excuses, then maybe do not announce it with your whole chest while telling someone else they should know better.
And then comes the crown jewel of the dingbat society: “Kenny is not stupid enough to put evidence in his own dumpster.”
Except by his own explanation, he put the signs in his dumpster because he does not allow signs at the Sheriff’s Office. So which is it? He is too smart to put evidence in his dumpster? Or he put the signs in his dumpster but we are supposed to ignore his confession and pretend that sounds normal because.. you got a gold medal in mental gymnastics?
That defense folded faster than a lawn chair at a county fair. You cannot say “he would never put evidence in his dumpster” after the story already left the station with “Kenny confessed to putting them in his dumpster.”
That is not reasonable doubt. That is a correctional employee doing mental gymnastics over a pothole and landing face-first in the booking room.
And let’s be clear. If signs were actually placed where they were not allowed, there is a lawful process for that. The proper authority handles it, the state/county highway or the street department/code enforcement officer. You document it. You follow procedure. You do not get to turn the sheriff’s personal dumpster into the county’s unofficial political sign disposal program.
That is not law enforcement. That is “because I said so” with a badge and a trash lid.
And the “he did a lot for this county” defense needs to be retired immediately. So do taxpayers you’re treating like ignorant fools.
Doing your job does not earn you a coupon for alleged theft, obstruction, official misconduct, or perjury. Public service is not a punch card. You do not get nine “good public servant” stamps and then a free “oops, campaign signs in my dumpster” upgrade.
You can like Kenny. You can think Kenny helped deputies. But none of that changes the basic math here.
Tom’s sign had a tracker. The tracker led to Freeman’s property. The sign was found in Freeman’s dumpster and Kenny confessed.
And the defense we are hearing is, “Tom should know the law, trackers are illegal because I said so, and Kenny is too smart to do the thing he confessed to doing.”
Before a corrections employee publicly lectures anyone else about knowing the law, maybe she should make sure her own argument is not wearing jail themed clown slippers while chewing on a crayon. Because defending alleged criminal behavior with imaginary rules does not make you look loyal. It makes you look like you saw the facts, panicked, and started throwing balloon animals at the crime scene
