Defense or Distraction? Breaking Down the Statement on Officer Llinas


 When something goes viral, the first thing that follows isn’t always the truth—it’s control of the narrative. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing with the recent statement from the Coastal Florida Police Benevolent Association defending Daytona Beach officer Joel Llinas.


Let’s be clear from the start—this statement is not an investigation. It is not evidence. It is not the final word on what happened.


It is a defense.






What This Statement IS



This is a union-backed defense of an officer. Police unions exist to protect their members—legally, publicly, and politically. That means their statements are designed to support the officer, not to present a neutral version of events.


Calling public concern a “witch hunt” and “dog-and-pony show” isn’t about facts—it’s about shaping perception.





What This Statement is NOT



Let’s break it down real simple:


  • ❌ Not body cam footage
  • ❌ Not an internal affairs report
  • ❌ Not a court ruling
  • ❌ Not sworn testimony



👉 That means this document does not prove the officer was right.





The Law Doesn’t Work Off Opinions



In Florida, use of force is governed by Florida Statute 776.05.


This law allows officers to use force—but only if it is:


  • Reasonable
  • Necessary
  • Proportional to the situation



And here’s the part people ignore:


👉 Just because someone doesn’t comply does NOT automatically justify excessive force.


Courts have already made that clear through cases like:




So no—“they didn’t comply” is not a blank check.





Facts the Public Should Know



  • Police unions always defend officers—that’s their role
  • Public accountability is not a witch hunt—it’s a constitutional right
  • The First Amendment protects the public’s right to question authority
  • Real truth comes from evidence, not press releases






Comparing This to Our Previous Blog



In our last blog, we talked about accountability—on all sides. We said people need to take responsibility for their actions.


That still stands.


But accountability doesn’t just apply to the public—it applies to law enforcement too.


You can’t demand compliance from citizens while rejecting scrutiny from the community.





Let’s Talk Reality



When something goes viral, people aren’t reacting for no reason. They’re reacting to what they saw.


And instead of addressing that directly with transparency, this statement:


  • Deflects
  • Dismisses
  • Labels critics



That’s not accountability—that’s damage control.





Final Word



This situation isn’t about picking sides—it’s about truth.


If the officer acted within the law, evidence will show it.

If he didn’t, that truth will come out too.


But one thing is certain:


👉 A union statement is not the truth—it’s a strategy.


And in a time where trust matters more than ever, people aren’t asking for perfection…


They’re asking for honesty, accountability, and facts.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Daytona Beach Police Department: When Officers Assault and Get Away With It, Who’s Watching Them?

Image
I just watched a video that should make every resident of Daytona Beach sick to their stomach. A young man is on the ground. His hands behind his back. And an officer from the Daytona Beach Police Department is sitting on top of him, punching him in the face repeatedly. Two other officers stand by, doing nothing while people around scream and record.  Let’s be clear: this man was restrained. He was not a threat. Yet he endured violence at the hands of those sworn to serve and protect. In America, we have the First Amendment to the United States Constitution . That means people can talk back, criticize, or even “trash talk” police without fear of physical retaliation. Words are not a crime. Being disrespectful is not a crime. Yet, in this video, restrained words meet relentless fists. Officers are also bound by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution , which protects citizens from excessive force. And the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Section 1983) allows people to sue ...
Read more

Daytona Beach Police Misconduct: The Full Story They Don’t Want You to See 🔥

Image
Polite at first, Anderson complied. He handed over his drink when asked by the officer. He spoke back verbally, like normal people do—and that’s legal. This is America; freedom of speech protects verbal expression, even if it’s directed at law enforcement. There’s no law forbidding someone from talking back to a cop.   Watch the full video link of the officers’ body cam.  Officers body cam Legal reference: U.S. Const. amend. I – Freedom of Speech Fla. Stat. § 843.02 – Resisting arrest does not include lawful speech; turning your back or walking away is not resisting arrest. How Things Went Wrong The escalation began before Anderson was even placed in the patrol vehicle. Anderson had his hands behind his back, already restrained. Officer Llinas, a large man, sat on Anderson and pressed his arm into his head, forcing his face into the pavement. The amount of force used was significant given Anderson’s size. Anderson was punched multiple times while on the ground. He was...
Read more

They Not Calling It a Gag Order… But Watch What It Does

Image
  Say what you want—this ain’t random. Florida bills SB 1632 / HB 1471 and SB 1712 / HB 945 are expanding power. Period. One lets the state label groups as “domestic terrorist organizations” and punish people tied to them. The other builds a state intelligence unit to monitor and investigate threats. Now let’s talk real. You give the government power to: Decide what group is a “threat” Watch and track people tied to it 👉 That’s where speech starts getting quiet. They not calling it a gag order—but when people feel like: What they post What they support What they say online …can be watched or used against them? Yeah, people move different. That’s how you don’t have to ban speech to control it. ⚠️ My Final Word This ain’t about fear—it’s about awareness. Because once laws start deciding: Who’s a threat What counts as support The question ain’t “can you speak?” It’s “will you still feel safe enough to?”
Read more