Florida sheriff warns protesters: ‘We will kill you graveyard dead’

[noonereal]

CNN headline is obviously biased. The sheriff clearly refers to people throwing rocks or firebombs, or who point a firearm at an officer.

That's not a "protester." That’s a deadly threat from a violent rioter.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/us/video/florida-sheriff-warns-protesters-we-will-kill-you-digvid

View attachment 67574519

Sheriff needs to be fired.

 

[Integrityrespec]

CNN headline is obviously biased. The sheriff clearly refers to people throwing rocks or firebombs, or who point a firearm at an officer.

That's not a "protester." That’s a deadly threat from a violent rioter.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/us/video/florida-sheriff-warns-protesters-we-will-kill-you-digvid

View attachment 67574519

Those are he caliber of "protesters we are seeing over the past. Somehow the so called peaceful protesters turn violent. There is a easy way to clear the streets, but nobody would like it. Unfortunately, many protesters are professional protesters who have no other job and a good number are trouble makers who intend to accelerate chaos and then try to blame it on the authorities. Oh the good ole days where when you put your hands on a PIG, (Pride, Integrity, Guts), or threw bricks at one, or firebombed them or their vehicle, they pulled the night stick and gave you what for. Now for some reason our left wing socialists friends think police should take it and do nothing.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

His threatening to kill anybody is disconcerting.

Reminding people that deadly assaultive behavior will result in a deadly force response is not "disconcerting." It's reality, and fully in line with standards of reasonableness.

Now the citizenry is expected to de-escalate situations with the police when that used to be their job.

The citizenry is expected to not throw firebombs or aim guns at police. In such instances, that's not the time for de-escalation, it's the time to take action. And if you mean the citizenry is expected to "de-escalate" by not engaging in acts that constitute deadly assault, then yes, they absolutely are, and that's always been their job, not the job of the police.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Something like "we don't want to hurt anyone, and if you protest peacefully and follow instructions, we will protect your right to do so. If you attack us, we will defend ourselves and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

You mean something to the effect of: "Peaceful protests are part of our democracy. We invite people to share their opinions; that's what our country is all about. The key word in that is 'peaceful.' And if it's peaceful, us in law enforcement are going to make sure you have a safe environment to do it in." And then if he went on to say: "If you resist lawful orders, you're going to jail... if you block an intersection or a roadway, in Brevard County, you are going to jail. If you flee arrest, you're going go to jail tired, because we are gonna run you down and put you in jail. If you try to mob rule a car in Brevard County, gathering around it refusing to let the driver leave, in our county you're most likely gonna get run over and dragged across the street. If you spit on us, you're going to the hospital, then jail. If you hit one of us, you're going to the hospital and jail, and most likely get bitten by one of our big beautiful dogs that we have here. If you throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your families where to colect your remains... to make it real simple, if you don't want any of those things to happen to you, obey the law. Go protest all you want. Do it peacefully. Stand on the mountaintops and yell your opinion, your views, we invite that." Would that have worked for you? It's an invitation and encouragement to express opinions and an assurance that peaceful protests will not meet with harm, and also an asurance that increasingly violent acts will be met with an increasingly violent response, none of them out of line with standards of reasonableness.

What is so hard about that?

Nothing at all, because that's EXACTLY what he did.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

LE response should be consistent to where people know what they're getting themselves into without needing this kind of messaging.

I agree it should be. One of the key points that kept being stresses is that Brevard County is not Los Angeles. The perceived lax response on the West Coast to violent and destructive acts is what drove this statement.

 

[bomberfox]

He says this because he knows liberals wont respond in kind.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Did the Sheriff say those words or not?

He did not say they would kill protesters, no.

The Sheriff did not specifically mention "riot" or "rioters", did he, if so I missed it?

That was my categorization.

Then again, I have no problem with anyone throwing a brick, firebomb, or pointing a weapon at officers having deadly force used against them.
But the Sheriff's words are an obvious escalation of rhetoric that quite possibly could incite folk to try what he will "kill you graveyard dead" over.

I don't get it. It's fine to do it, he just shouldn't say it?

 

[Cameron]

You mean something to the effect of: "Peaceful protests are part of our democracy. We invite people to share their opinions; that's what our country is all about. The key word in that is 'peaceful.' And if it's peaceful, us in law enforcement are going to make sure you have a safe environment to do it in." And then if he went on to say: "If you resist lawful orders, you're going to jail... if you block an intersection or a roadway, in Brevard County, you are going to jail. If you flee arrest, you're going go to jail tired, because we are gonna run you down and put you in jail. If you try to mob rule a car in Brevard County, gathering around it refusing to let the driver leave, in our county you're most likely gonna get run over and dragged across the street. If you spit on us, you're going to the hospital, then jail. If you hit one of us, you're going to the hospital and jail, and most likely get bitten by one of our big beautiful dogs that we have here. If you throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your families where to colect your remains... to make it real simple, if you don't want any of those things to happen to you, obey the law. Go protest all you want. Do it peacefully. Stand on the mountaintops and yell your opinion, your views, we invite that." Would that have worked for you? It's an invitation and encouragement to express opinions and an assurance that peaceful protests will not meet with harm, and also an asurance that increasingly violent acts will be met with an increasingly violent response, none of them out of line with standards of reasonableness.


Nothing at all, because that's EXACTLY what he did.

Thanks for providing the full quote, which I will note was not included in your OP or prior to my post. I do think he started well, but as you must also admit he went quite a lot further toward the end then in the example I offered for an appropriate and professional police statement, fantasizing about "big beautiful dogs" chewing people up and leaving people as "remains" to be "collect[ed]," and sending people to the hospital for spit. So my proposed examples is not, in fact, "EXACTLY what he did," is it?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Pigs in a blanket oink oink.

Ummm…. (You want someone using language like that about what you do/did for a living? No? Then please refrain from using it against others. A few bad apples isn’t basis for smearing an entire group of people.).

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thanks for providing the full quote, which I will note was not included in your OP or prior to my post.

Exactly, due to media bias (by omission).

I do think he started well, but as you must also admit he went quite a lot further toward the end then in the example I offered for an appropriate and professional police statement, fantasizing about "big beautiful dogs" chewing people up and leaving people as "remains" to be "collect[ed]," and sending people to the hospital for spit. So my proposed examples is not, in fact, "EXACTLY what he did," is it?

 

[Cameron]

Exactly, due to media bias (by omission).

I think you're right to a degree. Best practice would have been to include the word "violent" in the headline and the full statement in the video. I didn't notice when I originally got here this was in the media bias forum.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think you're right to a degree. Best practice would have been to include the word "violent" in the headline and the full statement in the video. I didn't notice when I originally got here this was in the media bias forum. OP could have helped by making his point a little clearer, but I'll acknowledge my mistake.

OK, but what the Sheriff actually did was make a clear distinction between the LEO response to peaceful protests vs. criminal activity. That’s a 100% valid presentation of LEO policy to the public.

What CNN did was apply their own bias, making it appear the Sheriff said LEOs would treat peaceful protests as criminal activity.

 

[Cameron]

OK, but what the Sheriff actually did was make a clear distinction between the LEO response to peaceful protests vs. criminal activity. That’s a 100% valid presentation of LEO policy to the public.

What CNN did was apply their own bias, making it appear the Sheriff said LEOs would treat peaceful protests as criminal activity.

In the clip of the video they showed, the officer said "If you ____, X will happen." The newsworthy part was the relish and detail he went into when it came to the police response. I already said I would have added a word to the title. As far as media bias goes, I view this is pretty small potatoes. If you go on FoxNews right now they are doing the same thing on a much broader scale to the entire No Kings protest.

 

[VySky]

If an Oathkeeper or Proud Boy points a gun at a protestor, will Sheriff shoot them graveyard dead?

Last I checked the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys are not law enforcement.

Your question fails on so many levels.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Thanks for providing the full quote,

Credit should go to @ttwtt78640 for providing the link to the whole presser.

which I will note was not included in your OP or prior to my post.

Of course it wasn't. The thread is about CNN's misrepresentation of his statement, not what else he could've said to perhaps not draw their lying wrath.

I do think he started well, but as you must also admit he went quite a lot further toward the end then in the example I offered for an appropriate and professional police statement, fantasizing about "big beautiful dogs" chewing people up and leaving people as "remains" to be "collect[ed]," and sending people to the hospital for spit. So my proposed examples is not, in fact, "EXACTLY what he did," is it?

I'm not seeing where you get the "fantasizing" part. He describes actions and goes on to describe what people should expect the police response to be. I don't see any point at which he expresses a desire for adverse outcomes. He did exactly what you wanted him to do, just with more details.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In the clip of the video they showed, the officer said "If you ____, X will happen." The newsworthy part was the relish and detail he went into when it came to the police response. I already said I would have added a word to the title. As far as media bias goes, I view this is pretty small potatoes. If you go on FoxNews right now they are doing the same thing on a much broader scale to the entire No Kings protest.

Simply because other media bias exists (classic whataboutism) doesn’t make this example of media bias any less valid.

 

[Cameron]

I'm not seeing where you get the "fantasizing" part. He describes actions and goes on to describe what people should expect the police response to be. I don't see any point at which he expresses a desire for adverse outcomes. He did exactly what you wanted him to do, just with more details.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The vibes to me are more "I dare you to hit me, I'll happily kill you," not "I don't want to hit you, and I only will if I have to," the tone of what I proposed. This story did not blow up because of the matter that was omitted.

 

[Cameron]

Simply because other media bias exists (classic whataboutism) doesn’t make this example of media bias any less valid.

You're right, it just makes it harder to take ya'll seriously when you engage in your own bias over what media to complain about. I have amply addressed the OP here.

 

[j brown's body]

Police are pretty well known for violating protesters' rights. Maybe it would be best if the Sheriff focused on their peace keeping rather than gaming out their opportunities for violence.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You're right, it's just makes it harder to take ya'll seriously when you engage in your own bias over what media to complain about.

You’re free to start a thread about other media bias, but to try to justify CNN’s bias by pointing out Fox News’s bias is lame. The OP pointed out a clear case of media bias by intentional omission (the most common form of media bias).

What Fox News did (concerning the ‘No Kings’ protests) is similar, yet they cited limited examples of violence at some (selected) locations and tried to imply that all similar events elsewhere were (must have been?) equally violent.

 

[Cameron]

You’re free to start a thread about other media bias, but to try to justify CNN’s bias by pointing out Fox News’s bias is lame. The OP pointed out a clear case of media bias by intentional omission (the most common form of media bias).

What Fox News did (concerning the ‘No Kings’ protests) is similar, yet they cited limited examples of violence at some (selected) locations and tried to imply that all similar events elsewhere were (must have been?) equally violent.

I do not believe the OP has proven that this was intentional manipulation of the story. I think I have already acknowledged what I see as the problem in the CNN article, several times. I'm not persuaded that there was anything else wrong with it. I very much appreciate the rest of your response.

 

[j brown's body]

CNN headline is obviously biased. The sheriff clearly refers to people throwing rocks or firebombs, or who point a firearm at an officer.

That's not a "protester." That’s a deadly threat from a violent rioter.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/us/video/florida-sheriff-warns-protesters-we-will-kill-you-digvid

View attachment 67574519

I did not know that MAGA distinguishes the two.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I do not believe the OP has proven that this was intentional manipulation of the story. I think I have already acknowledged what I see as the problem in the CNN article, several times. I'm not persuaded that there was anything else wrong with it. I very much appreciate the rest of your response.

Taking a small snippet (sound bite?) from a (longer) public speech or announcement is classic media bias by omission. That was previously done to make Trump appear to have said (implied?) that he saw Nazis and/or white supremacists as good people - using the ‘good people on both sides’ snippet (sound bite?) without the remaining context (content).

 

[LouC]

He did not say they would kill protesters, no.

Yes he did, if said protestors became violent so that deadly force would become neccessary.

That was my categorization.

Yes I know. It didn't fit.

I don't get it. It's fine to do it, he just shouldn't say it?

That isn't what I said. His specific rhetoric was over the top and needlessly and violently worded, escalating the tension rather than working to deescalate the situation.

 

[pedex]

My position is that CNN's headline is biased and false.

So is their selective editing of what was actually said.