Florida sheriff says he may deputize gun owners against protesters

1. 96

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   
   Clay County Sheriff Darryl Daniels, no stranger to making viral videos appealing to tough-on-crime politics, released a video Tuesday that said he will make “special deputies of every lawful gun owner in this county” if he feels the county is overwhelmed by protesters.
   
   The three-minute video shows Daniels standing in front of 18 deputies as he derides civil rights protesters as godless disruptors and tells them to stay out of Clay County, a suburb of Jacksonville.
   
   "If we can’t handle you, I’ll exercise the power and authority as the sheriff, and I’ll make special deputies of every lawful gun owner in this county and I’ll deputize them for this one purpose to stand in the gap between lawlessness and civility," he said.
   "That’s what we’re sworn to do. That’s what we’re going to do. You’ve been warned."
   
   https://www.yahoo.com/news/ve-warned-fl … 42419.html

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What about the rest of the article, Mike?
      
      Is it true that conservatives abhor protests for its own sake or just the ones that eminate from the "left"?
      
      If people peacefully assemble and do not adversely affect normal thoroughfare, why can't they express First Amendment rights? Could you live with that?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Do you see people that "peacefully <and legally> assemble and do not adversely affect normal thoroughfare" could result in "the county is overwhelmed by protesters."?  If nothing else, the county will not issue permits for that many protests at the same time.

         replyreport
      2. 69

         abwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Cred, I protested against Government mandates and basic Government intrusion into our lives, several times in the past. Not once, did the conservatives, independents, Democrats... that protested alongside me, consider destroying anything! We didn't throw bricks through stores, in order to gain access, in order to rip off store owner, in order to feel better about 'the cause'!?! Not once did we pretend we owned the city. Not once did we do harm to a single person nor catch other people's property on fire, while ripping off businesses simultaneously, but you probably heard differently through mainstream media!!!
         
         This Sheriff is getting a handle on things early on, as he should, as every single person who has ever taken an Oath of Office should do!
         
         Every single peaceful protest {here of late} gets hijacked by the crazy, mad mobs, those working to destroy this Country.
         This Sheriff can see that as plan as day...as most everyone else does.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure that "hijacked" is the right term here; rioting and destruction has become so common in protests that I begin to believe that it is intentional and planned for as a method of gaining attention.  Did you hear, for instance, of the protest just the other day in Boise, Id?  It was on local news of course, but I didn't see anything on national news at all.  Of course there was no violence, no burning cop cars or buildings and no looting, so why bother?

            replyreport
            1. 69

               abwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               No, I have not heard of any recent peaceful protests, so it is good to know that some are still capable.
               You are right wilderness, "hijacked" is an antiquated term at this point. Mobbed?

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, the protest in Boise was against defunding/downsizing the police, so it didn't fit very will with the liberal media agenda.  But even when we had the "occupy" thing it didn't make the news, either.  Or any other protest that has happened here. 
                  
                  No violence - no coverage, and the organizers know that.  It's getting harder and harder for me to believe that those organizers are not planning violence as a part of the protest, regardless of what the hundreds or thousands of protesters are expecting.

                  replyreport
         2. 81

            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            AB, nice to see you again, I need a fencing partner.
            
            I am for peaceful protests, but they either need to hold them in a public venue like a park or otherwise get a permit. I am not for intrusion on private property nor holding up normal thoroughfare.I got irritated in Denver during the Cinco de Mayo celebration traffic when major city arteries was stopped up for hours.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               abwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               We are in total agreement Cred, will have to save our sparring for another day.

               replyreport
      3. 96

         Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         If people protest peacefully and obey the law there won't be a problem.  I think the Sheriff is making a point that looting, burning and destruction of property will not be tolerated.  I support this view.  I've been to many protests and none of them ever ended in violence and destruction of property.
         
         Why does the left support people who destroy property, loot, destroy businesses and more as part of their protest?  Sorry, I think that is unacceptable.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            "If people protest peacefully and obey the law there won't be a problem.  I think the Sheriff is making a point that looting, burning and destruction of property will not be tolerated.  I support this view"
            
            Ok, I can concur with that.
            
            On the left, I want all the needed protests as long as they are peaceful as anything else detracts from the cause.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               "On the left, I want all the needed protests as long as they are peaceful as anything else detracts from the cause."
               
               You are absolutely right. 
               
               Unfortunately, protests on the left have a history of turning into full-blown riots.  They turn violent quickly.  Burning, looting and destroying property.   It is going to take years for Seattle and Minneapolis to recover from the left's "protests."  In Minneapolis alone, there were over 1,000 buildings destroyed.  Two major corporate employers have left Seattle and others are working on moving. Baltimore still hasn't recovered from the riots that occurred during the obama administration.
               
               This not only detracts from the cause but results in many people having a lot of anger toward a cause that destroyed their city, job as well as their life.

               replyreport
      4. 69

         Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I love Florida, it will likely be the last state standing to protect one's rights to defend oneself and one's home.
         
         I could care less what people do.  But if they come to my home, or jump on my car, or try and attack my family, I am glad I live in a state where I can defend myself to the fullest and know the law and the Sheriff's office support it.
         
         I deplore states like NY and CO where they have gun-free zones and laws on the books that make it illegal to defend yourself or your home.
         
         NY, MI, WA, CA, enjoy your progressive paradise.  It looks like a lot of fun from what I have seen, reminds me of the days when I was deployed overseas while in the Army.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            abwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Hear, hear Ken...me and my family are prepared to do whatever we need to do when and if that time ever comes.
            It's so good to know that our State, Florida, has our back!
            Thank you God that we didn't elect Andrew Gillum!!!

            replyreport
         2. 81

            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, you can defend yourself but be careful that you are not caught abusing your right to self defense and pulling a "Trayvon Martin" sort of confrontation. People can get very litigious these days, you know

            replyreport
            1. 69

               abwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I don’t go looking for trouble.

               replyreport
            2. 69

               Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I cross the road to avoid trouble, and I loathe every trip into a city.
               
               The very reason I probably will never have to defend myself or my family is due to the fact that this state not only makes it legal for you to do so, the Sheriff and the State encourages you to do so.
               
               This does not go unnoticed by those that would prey on others, it is likely in the back of the mind of anyone that would consider breaking into someone's home, or pursuing something worse.
               
               Civility does NOT come from banning weapons, or making something illegal.  Civility comes from knowing that anyone could be carrying a gun, and that any house could be home to an entire family trained to use guns and willing to defend themselves.
               
               Deterrence comes from knowing there will be consequences for one's actions.  When there is belief that there will be NO consequences, you get the looting, assaults, and murders we've seen in various 'progressive-liberal' cities in our nation the past month or so.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely true.  Well said!

                  replyreport
               2. 69

                  abwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  replyreport
         3. 87

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Living in Michigan I am very pleased to have the right to carry and protect my home if I need too. With all that has been going on, we have added to our gun collection. One never really knows how far these protesters will choose to go. Never hurts to be prepared. It's very clear local Governments are not protecting us at this point letting these protesters do what they please.
            
            Gun sales soar 145% in June amid protests, It would appear peaceful mined conservatives have had enough and will be very ready if these fools decide to come to their neighborhoods. Common sense has shown me the police are not being allowed to do their jobs, and on top of that many are slow rolling.

            replyreport
   2. 87

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think he is doing the right thing. Rioting and violence should not be permitted. It's a very simple, common sense. Protesting should be peaceful. No citizen or business owner should be affected by rioters. Peaceful citizens accept law enforcement to keep the peace. And if it takes deputizing citizens due to lack of manpower so be it.
      
      Conservative communities expect and demand that the peace is kept. One reason that most rioters take their violence to Liberal run locations. Should be something most would notice that the riots are always in Liberal cities.
      
      If protesters want to take to the streets with violence they should be ready to have a fight on their hands in Conservative cities.
      
      Sheriff Darryl Daniels was hired to keep law and order, and he appears to have come up with a great solution due to needing more hands-on deck.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      LeslieAlexposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Works for me.

      replyreport
2. 69

   abwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   Love it! We also have another, here in the Sunshine State, who 'will not tolerate bs', Sheriff Grady Judd, Polk County.

   replyreport
3. 69

   abwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   I believe that many {maybe most} of these violent agitators are paid by groups of people working to destroy the U.S. as we know it. It all stems out of Mission: We will fundamentally transform the United States of America.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I certainly think you're right.  And it isn't hard to hire violence, not when it includes the opportunity for arson, general destruction and, most important, looting.

      replyreport
4. 59

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   I'd be leery of allowing myself to be deputized. What with the lynch mob mentality going about today, toward police officers.
   
   But, I have to say I'm against the idea in general. Look what happened in Chaz with the self appointed police mowing down a teenager.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think there is a big difference between people being deputized by law enforcement to prevent looting and rioting....and rioters and looters taking over a section of a city using weapons.
      
      The Sheriff would only deputize legal gun owners.  They would not be "self appointed."  I don't think that was a concern with Chaz.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I get where you are coming from but you are talking about average citizens with no law enforcement training. I don't see a lot of difference in the probable outcome of that and the already observed outcome in the Chaz.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            It depends on how selective they are.
            
            I would imagine he could find a few hundred military veterans that have had many years of training with weapons that served in hostile environments living within his county.
            
            There is a major difference between some 19 year old with no formal training running around with a semi-automatic rifle and a 45 year old  veteran who served 10 or 20 years in the Army.
            
            When you do something for 10 years or longer in your life, the discipline and the training never really goes away. 
            
            When you are 19 and playing revolutionary, you have no discipline, no training, and no real clue about anything.
            
            I would say the difference is substantial.

            replyreport
5. 69

   abwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   Hi Live to Learn, I went through an intense course when acquiring my permit to carry a firearm.
   It wasn't some thing I did and that was that.
   I shoot my weapon often, for the sake of my gun and for me. It is important to take care of your weapons and stay comfortable in handling them.
   
   Also, there is a BIG difference in law-abiding citizens who go through the necessary procedures in obtaining a permit and the law-ignoring, child-like misfits of Chaz and Chop and Over-the-Top and whatever names they may come up with.
   There would be nothing to compare!

   replyreport