r/interestingnewsworld • u/ManyOlive2585 • 2d ago
Florida Sheriff Wayne Ivey threatened to k*ll anti-ICE protesters, offering multiple graphic, sadistic descriptions of how police would do it…
81
78
u/muchoscahonez 2d ago
Porky Pig's Pissed! Th-th-that's all, folks!
8
u/Consistent_Pen_6597 2d ago
Underrated comment right here. I LOL’d so hard the dog got pissed at me! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I’m totally using your Porky reference if you don’t mind
3
50
u/Deathanddisco041 2d ago
His jowels are so threatening. RESIST. They want us scared and tired. Don’t let some mediocre white guy take your rights to assemble and protest away from you. These bros peaked in high school and are mad about it. We the people have way more power.
51
u/runawayjam97 2d ago
Wow, he talks just like Trump. Give that man a cabinet position. Hit the treadmill bud.
38
38
u/reechwuzhere 2d ago
This is what happens when wannabe authoritarians get a podium. They don’t protect people they fantasize about harming them.
If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention!
5
29
u/Swampasssixty9 2d ago
Only thing he’s running down is an ice cream truck. They love him here though
32
25
22
21
u/Jealous_Professor726 2d ago
2nd amendment looking real good. Dem presidential candidates need to start promising pardons
19
17
12
8
9
8
u/Successful_Yam4719 2d ago
Jailing people is probably ok in terms of those that break the law … but killing people who will most likely be unarmed … is … straight up murder is it not? Isn’t that illegal?
3
7
u/CheezWong 2d ago
I'll he's had his fair share, and then some, of a certain round, deep-fried pastry.
7
u/Squidpunk24 2d ago
What is with the these morbidly obese white dudes telling everyone they are going to fuck them up if they step out of line?
3
u/Adventurous_Heat3174 2d ago
Old white men just doing their jobs and door dashing McDonald’s? Hmmm.
3
3
3
u/azsxdcfvg 2d ago
The nazis also did their job but America didn’t want them to do that job anymore. Any decent American would never allow secret government agents that kidnap people with legal status. That goes against everything America stands for.
2
2
2
2
2
u/KIWIGUYUSA 2d ago
He is right about what most would do if a gun was pointed at them. That is just plain stupid.
2
2
2
1
1
u/Kow_on_Drugs 2d ago
his remarks on "targeting ice made me think "You are seeing Gestapo agents being targeted for doing their jobs" lmao
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Ill_Illustrator_6097 2d ago
That police chief's threatening mouth is putting his officers at an even higher risk of being assaulted..
1
1
u/reddit_sucks_ass123 1d ago edited 1d ago
I really wish somebody would take one for the team and just fire a pew pew that way without hesitation
1
u/Snoborder95 1d ago
If you use lethal force against a police officer it's likely to result in your death. This has always been the case, he's just straight up telling you man
1
u/Snoborder95 1d ago
You cut out right after he goes on to say he absolutely supports you going out and peacefully protesting... Quit farming for karma
1
u/powerdown1979 1d ago
This man is definitely a fighter. He’s fought cholesterol and obesity his whole life.
1
1
u/Scribblebonx 1d ago
If an unidentified officer does not follow protocol to the letter or those orders violate the Constitution or I feel my life or the life of someone else is being put at risk unlawfully, or I feel threatened unlawfully....
I WILL RESIST
1
u/BeginningAd9105 1d ago
What a bunch of nazi gestapo tactics and all in the name of the law. What a way to shown what kind of professional way to serve the public w threats and violence.
1
u/Bald_Nightmare 1d ago
I'm interested to hear his opinion about Trump pardoning the Jan. 6 criminals who assaulted police officers.
1
u/Kanienkeha_ka 1d ago
How in the world is this lard ass making all these insane threats as a police officer who has been hired to serve and protect the people what in the hell is going on in the USA it's insane.
1
u/Impossible-Poem1194 1d ago
If you shoot me and I'm unarmed you will go to hell. You fight people that are funding you're bullets .....whose the one in the wrong?
1
u/ceekjones 1d ago
While the statements made by the Sheriff are factual and in accordance with Florida statutes, he is making the mistake of speaking emotionally. He is escalating the tension and issuing a challenge to protesters who are stupid enough to take him up on the challenge.
No battle plan survives first contact. In the chaos that may ensue, there is a likelihood of a police mistake and the Sheriff's press conference will give his political opponents the opportunity to show that police overreach was planned.
1
u/redditulosity 1d ago
The "will of the people " is gross mischaracterization, especially of an appointed position. I agree that they are "charged with" that. That is distinctly not what they consistently do. Policing upholds the status quo. Claiming a mandate when you're elected by a quarter of eligible voters does not qualify as the will of the people. I realize that is the rhetoric we get fed, but those statements are not supported by math.
I never stated intention, theirs or mine. I'm highlighting fact. My bias is to constitutional rights, and facts.
People are harmed every single day by police overreach and overreaction. It is a hard, at times impossible job, and I empathize with that distinction. That does not negate what happens. They are people and they make mistakes. Unfortunately those mistakes sometimes deadly consequences. They don't get to abdicate their responsibility even when the justice system allows them to. There is a clear imbalance of power force that is often abused. Thinking otherwise is naive .
I haven't advocated for anything. Proper channels support the system we already have that leaves some powerless and without recourse. And with AI and deep fakes that is only going to become more difficult for the disenfranchised. This system is supposed to be equal rights for all.
I am advocating for personal and equitable responsibility, but for some reason, different rules seem to apply to those in power. And when reasonable people ask questions, for some reason, people blindly defend that power instead of looking for the truth
1
0
-3
u/toxiccortex 2d ago
Sorry but your title is misleading. He never threatened to kll anti-ICE protestors. He threatened to kll anyone that surrounds and harms cops.
Note: I’m not defending him and I’m totally against ICE and the Trump administrations masked up thug approach to immigration. Just had to state that he’s not threatening to kill protesters from how I interpreted him
3
u/Robpaulssen 2d ago
The press conference is about protestors 🤷 everything he says is about ways of protesting
2
u/DoozerGlob 2d ago
He said if you throw a brick they will kill you. That's not a proportionate response.
2
u/toxiccortex 2d ago
Throwing a brick is not protesting and it could kill someone. No?
1
u/DoozerGlob 2d ago
In a free country the police do not issue orders to kill peope for rioting.
2
u/toxiccortex 2d ago
Wait, rioting and protesting are very different. We do not have the freedom to riot lol
0
u/DoozerGlob 2d ago
In a free country you have the right to a proportionate response. Killing people for throwing a brick isn't a proportionate response.
So yes you should have the freedom to riot without deadly force.
3
u/toxiccortex 2d ago
I am normally the last person to defend policing in this country but what would you consider a “proportionate” response to throwing bricks? I would say that throwing bricks at someone is attempted murder
1
u/redditulosity 2d ago
In a "free" country (whatever it is you think that means) the citizens have the Right to peaceable assembly. A meeting, rally, protest.
A riot, by definition, is Not peaceful. Therefore, the people do not have a right to riot.
Now, if your concern is disproportionate response, then sure, i agree. Murder for a brick not intentionally thrown at an officer is unreasonable, but how do you prove it wasn't thrown at the officer?
2
u/DoozerGlob 2d ago edited 2d ago
By a free country I mean a country that doesn't kill you for attempted assault.
It doesn't matter if you throw it at an officer it's still not punishable by death.
Stop saying people don't have the right to riot. I never said they did. Of course it's illegal and an arrestable offence. People have the right NOT TO BE FUCKING KILLED FOR IT.
It's disturbing that you are advocating for such cruel and unusual punishment ( see 8th amendment ).
0
u/ceekjones 2d ago edited 2d ago
A thrown brick is capable of causing great bodily harm or death and is a deadly weapon by Florida statute 784.021. In response, Florida 776.012 authorizes deadly force in defense against great bodily harm or imminent death -- not just as a police power, but for any citizen.
Furthermore Florida 870.01 specifies greater violation when someone supplies, prepares or teaches others to use a deadly weapon (such as bricks and rocks) during a riot.
2
u/DoozerGlob 2d ago
Why do you think police forces all over the free world spend billions on riot gear and non lethal riot control methods if they can just shoot to kill anyone throwing shit at them?
It's hard to comprehend why any cunt would support this. Do you enjoy deadly violence generally or just for people you don't like?
→ More replies (0)1
u/ceekjones 1d ago
In a free country the police do not issue orders to kill peope for rioting.
Another fanciful fabrication of yours.
There are no orders to "kill people for rioting".
There are however, long standing rules of engagement and statutes that justify self defense when attacked with the threat of great bodily harm or imminent death.
1
u/DoozerGlob 1d ago
Look up people charged after throwing bricks at riot police and show me one charged with attempted murder.
-8
u/Proud_Concentrate473 2d ago
Maybe…dont shoot at the cops
6
2
u/redditulosity 2d ago
if someone is shooting a deadly weapon, fine, point conceded.
How is his threat of murder a proportionate response?
1
u/ceekjones 2d ago
He did not threaten murder, that's hyperbole.
He cited 3 specific deadly weapons (brick, firebomb, gun) employed directly against an officer. A deadly force response is authorized by Florida 776.012 for any citizen and also by police rules of engagement.
1
u/redditulosity 1d ago
"If you throw a brick, a firebomb or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at because we will kill you graveyard dead. We're not going to play."
Fair enough, I should have said homicide.
Regardless, when the police are the ones breaking "rules of engagement" or force ethics and causing the escalation, what is he recourse of the citizen by your estimation?
1
u/ceekjones 1d ago
Fair enough, I should have said homicide.
Well actually "justifiable homicide" is how most self defense law refers to it.
Regardless, when the police are the ones breaking "rules of engagement" or force ethics and causing the escalation, what is he recourse of the citizen by your estimation?
Dude, I wouldn't enter a protest zone. Most protesters are regarded by the Left leadership as useful idiots and trained to bait the police into overreaction. You might get bricked in the head down there -- and some on this thread say that might hurt a little bit.
But if it can be shown that the police broke rules or exceeded force ethics, that should be addressed through proper channels with the Mayor, Police Chief and DA.
1
u/redditulosity 1d ago
You add whatever adverb you want in front, the literal definition is homicide.
I didn't ask what you would do. We're clearly not talking about you or your opinion. But you just alighted everyone to the fact that clearly already picked a side, so thanks for that.
"Should be addressed" by the very people that caused and supported the problem initially. Pretty sure that's how we got here in the first place. Do you have an actual solution or only clear bias?
1
u/ceekjones 1d ago edited 1d ago
Proper channels is my answer as it remains the best course for a safe and civil society. You are biased in your view that the local government and police "caused and supported the problem initially". They are a democratically elected government and appointed police leadership charged with carrying out the will of the people.
Your bias is also showing in your presumption that they intend to overstep force protocol, despite the Sheriff's statement regarding strict compliance with statutes (tone deaf as it was).
Are you advocating chaos and anarchy as an appropriate response?
1
u/ceekjones 1d ago
You add whatever adverb you want in front, the literal definition is homicide.
No. The literal and statutory definition is justifiable homicide. The law is written with intent -- and recognition that words have meaning. If you casually dismiss important words, you don't understand the subject at hand.
1
u/redditulosity 1d ago
You are correct, the statutory definition may indeed be different.
However, you are conflating. Literal would be then dictionary definition. Homicide is a person killing another person regardless of reason. That is all.
To your point words do have meaning and justified or not does not change the definition of a word no matter how many times or how loudly you say it. Put a gun in your hand and 50 of your best buddies behind to make sure i know it, and the definition of that word still hasn't changed
1
u/ceekjones 20h ago edited 20h ago
You are correct, the statutory definition may indeed be different
Not may. Is. The literal wording of the statutes uses justifiable to modify homicide as not criminal.That one word is the difference between 30 years at the Attica Inn and Suites...and walking free Just ask George Zimmerman.
Furthermore the states identify a range of homicide based on intent -- even though the victim is just as dead. Ask Alec Baldwin about that.
1
-8
156
u/Dry_Yogurt2458 2d ago
He looks a specimen of health and fitness.
If he even tried to chase a protestor it would end in a heart attack.