search
top

Palm Bay: Tres Holton Is Upset Chief Of Police Rogers Did His Job.

Palm Bay Councilman Tres Holton is back in the news again and again for all the wrong reasons.

According to Holton, he was stopped at a City Council meeting and asked by Chief of Police Jim Rogers if Holton was in possession of a concealed weapon. In a FaceBook post (seen below) Holton says Rogers is a “good man” who was “obviously set up to bust me.”

It appears that Holton thinks that Chief Rogers would not act outside the color of law. As that is the case, Holton should realize that Rogers, or any officer, cannot simply stop people without causes. Rogers was executing was it now typically referred to as a “Terry stop,” named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio.

The case involved whether the police could stop and interrogate a suspect based on several factors such as the area, known criminal activity or a “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity had occurred or was afoot.”

One has to believe that Rogers had information or a belief that Holton was carrying a weapon into a Council meeting which is why Rogers stopped him otherwise Rogers would have been breaking the law and even Holton never makes that claim.

According to Florida Statute 790.06:

(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
1. Any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05;
2. Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
3. Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
4. Any courthouse;
5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
6. Any polling place;
7. Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
8. Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
9. Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
10. Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
11. Any career center;
12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
13. Any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
14. The inside of the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. (emphasis ours)

If Rogers was acting on information he had been given, he had a duty to stop and ask Holton if Holton was illegally carrying a weapon into a Council meeting. Holton makes no assertion that Rogers searched or frisked him, which Rogers could have legally done.

In short, there was nothing illegal that Rogers or anyone did in this instance.

Yet Holton decided to play the victim.

Tres Holton’s Facebook post

Holton also told FloridaToday:

“My concern was who put [Rogers] in a compromising position,” Holton said, adding he has no idea for the impetus of Rogers’ inquiries.

What compromising position? Is Holton really saying that Rogers should not investigate a potential crime? How is Rogers “compromised” by doing his job? Can anyone explain such a bizarre statement by Holton because we cannot figure it out.

Police investigate potential crimes all the time. Is Holton saying that he is special for some reason and that if the Chief of Police has reasonable suspicion based on a tip, a comment or other information that Holton should be treated differently than any other citizen in Palm Bay?

As you can see, Holton makes the charge in his post that someone was trying to “set him up.” He later makes the charge that someone was trying to “entrap” him.

When dealing with law enforcement, the word “entrap” means to be lured into doing something illegal they would not normally do. Obviously that does not apply in this situation as Rogers was not trying to trick Holton into going into the meeting with a weapon. Holton then says that he was trying to use the word “entrap” to mean “to catch in or as if in a trap.” That makes no sense as the question has to be “what trap?”

Exactly what “trap” was someone trying to catch Holton in? Breaking the law? Is that a trap or stupidity for a sitting Councilman to be breaking the law with a concealed weapon in a meeting?

There’s no “trap” and therefore no “entrapment.”

It is Holton, as usual, playing the victim. Even when a judge found probable cause for Holton having committed an ethics violation, he blamed other members of the City Council for his actions.

Now that he sees himself as the victim in a legal stop by the Chief of Police, Holton ups the ante and claims he believes in the Second Amendment and somehow this stop and questioning is part of a plot for “politics to supersede rights and safety.”

You see, in his mind, people are less safe because he was legally stopped for potentially violating the law.

If this were the end of Holton’s hypocrisy, we’d laugh it off.

But there is more to this than meets the eye.

The FloridaToday goes into detail about a series of bizarre emails Holton sent out about this incident.

In one email Tuesday night to City Manager Gregg Lynk, Holton wrote:

“Police Chief Rogers wanted to know my concealed weapon permit before last Council Meeting on December 7th. He asked me for permit or this confirmation on Thursday, December 21st? He asked if firearm on my person.

“Either Chief acted on his own or someone in City Hall tried to inject their politics to ‘intrap’ [sic] me? Who made Jim Rogers ask me? Step up! I am a defender of Second Amendment, and champion of right to carry, notwithstanding, a meeting of our City Council, even though there is no guaranteed protection because Clerk and City Manager has done nothing regarding scanners or constituents/staff safety. Getting tired of BS!”

About two hours later, at 11:43 p.m, Holton fired off another email to numerous city officials. Laden with misspellings, it said: “Which one of you tried to entract me? Terese? Andrew? Or you, or Jim Rogors did this own his own with your wife? More lonely ans likely Capote?”

“Terese” is presumably City Clerk Terese Jones, and “Andrew” is presumably City Attorney Andrew Lannon. It is unclear what Holton meant in his reference to Rogers or to Mayor William Capote.

About 20 minutes later, at 12:02 a.m. Wednesday, Holton sent this email to numerous city officials: “Forgive typos. Simple truth is this … which one of you laid low, but cost our city Millions of taxdollars in yhe process?”

(Note: All typos in the original.)

We have no idea how a legal stop by the Chief of Police “cost [Palm Bay] Millions of taxdollars in yhe process?” (typos in original)

Holton’s rant is deeply disturbing on some level.

“Millions of dollars?” Politics over safety because Holton was legally stopped? Is that really where Holton wants to take us and the City?

As one of the staff members here said, “it makes one wonder whether Holton is mentally stable to even have a concealed weapons permit.”

Yet we think Holton’s actions go even further and show the type of individual he is.

We have a running dispute with Holton over his breaking the law in not producing emails. Because of the holidays, we have set that issue aside but will be revisiting it soon. In one meeting, Holton said after our representative had spoken:

“I take offense when accusations are made against the City and this Council.”

Yet here we have accusations being made not only against the Chief of Police, the City Manager, and the City Clerk but against all other members of the City Council.

Is Holton “offended” by his own conduct in making accusations against those folks? Or is his outrage and offense swept under the rug when he is making the accusations?

Secondly, even the FloridaToday found Holton’s comments and emails to be a violation of the very “civility pledge” that Holton advocated and was passed by the City Council.

This summer, Holton pushed a “civility pledge” that was adopted in July by the city council. The pledge called for the mayor and council members to “strive to be civil in addressing city staff, members of the public and my fellow elected officials; to listen attentively to speakers; to respect the right of others to hold different opinions; and to avoid rhetoric intended to humiliate others.”

It is difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to see Holton’s emails as living up to that pledge. Once again, it is a case of Holton believing he is above the rules.

Third, in his attack on us, Holton said that he would rather we had addressed the issue of the emails with him privately and has “never shied away from meeting with anyone.” The clear implication was that Holton doesn’t like his dirty laundry to be out there for the public to see and discuss, but yet he has no problem making FaceBook posts attacking people.

If Holton had an issue with Chief Rogers’ actions, why not meet with him? If Holton had issues with other Council members, why not talk with them? (Such a conversation would not be a violation of the Sunshine Laws as “did you tell Chief Rogers to stop me?” is not a legislative issue that would ever come up for a vote.)

Instead of keeping the issue private and professional, Holton took to FaceBook to blast everyone involved.

Once again, this is Holton doing what he demands others should not.

We also found it interesting that Holton had no issue with bringing people’s wives into this mess.

Which one of you tried to entract me? Terese? Andrew? Or you, or Jim Rogors did this own his own with your wife? More lonely ans likely Capote?”

Yet Holton claimed he and his family were victims when discussing the finding of a judge on an ethics violation against him:

So to drag this out further, Mayor Capote, Councilman Anderson and Councilman Bailey were very clear that they want this to drag out past my ability to enjoy time with my family, and put this frivolous complaint behind us.

[….]

So please consider this; I’d like my family to have a very prosperous, happy New Year, and I think the City does too.

Apparently in Holton’s mind, it is okay for him to make accusations against people’s wives, but the rest of the world needs to take into account his wife and family when discussing his actions.

You just can’t make up this type of hypocrisy from a person. No one would ever believe it.

Holton will probably continue to push this as some sort of political issue or even a Constitutional issue and the Second Amendment. Of course, that’s a distraction. Nothing more, nothing less.

What is the issue is that Holton is crying that he was legally stopped for a legitimate reason.

He has whined about things like this before.

This time, however, the childish whining from Holton is nothing more than “Mommy, the mean Chief of Police did his job!”



No Responses to “Palm Bay: Tres Holton Is Upset Chief Of Police Rogers Did His Job.”

  1. […] We wrote about the whole stop issue here. […]

top