Arrested Over a Facebook Comment in Pinellas: When an Angry Post Becomes a Felony Threat

The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office says a comment under a news story on Facebook led to a tip, and the tip led detectives to a front door. It ended in the arrest of a retired New York City police sergeant on November 2, and cases like it reach people who never make the news.

Florida charges this kind of case as a serious felony. Whether the words are a crime at all depends on a constitutional line that the reports on this arrest don’t mention.

What the Sheriff’s Office Says Happened

According to FOX 13, a local media outlet posted a story on Facebook criticizing Commissioner Brian Scott’s vote to approve a mosque expansion. A user commented: “But Scott’s WAS, and he’s a Republican’ turncoat,…off with his head!”

The Tampa Free Press reported that the sheriff’s Threat Management Unit opened the investigation on November 2 after a tip, traced the IP address tied to the comment to a St. Petersburg home, and questioned Rodolfo Mienert at his residence. FOX 13 reported his age as 68. Both outlets report that he confirmed the account was his. FOX 13 reported that he told investigators he is “very vocal and not afraid to share his opinion,” and that he called Scott a turncoat because the commissioner identifies as a Republican and voted for the project. He was booked into the Pinellas County Jail on one felony count of written threats to kill.

Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said, as quoted by FOX 13, that threatening to cut off a commissioner’s head “because of his vote on a land issue is intolerable” and that the office will strictly enforce the law. Mr. Mienert has not been convicted of anything and is presumed innocent.

The Felony Charge Under Section 836.10

Section 836.10(2) makes it unlawful to “send, post, or transmit” a writing or electronic record “in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person” when that writing contains a threat to kill or do bodily harm to another person, or to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism. A violation is a second degree felony. Under sections 775.082 and 775.083, that means up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

Three things about that text matter in a Facebook case.

• The post doesn’t have to be sent to the person it is about. A comment on a public news page is something that “may be viewed by another person,” and that is enough under the current wording.
• The statute covers a threat to do bodily harm, not only a threat to kill. A comment that never mentions death can still be charged.
• Nothing in subsection (2) requires that the writer meant to carry the threat out or had any ability to. The fight is over whether the words were a true threat and what the writer understood about them.

I walked through how this statute’s current wording reaches well beyond messages sent to the person threatened, including private writing like AI chats, in my post on why an AI chat is not a private journal under Florida law.

Florida Also Has a Misdemeanor for Threatening an Official

Section 836.12 is aimed squarely at threats against public officials. It makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” threaten a law enforcement officer, a prosecutor, a firefighter, a judge, a clerk, “or an elected official,” or a family member of any of them, “with death or serious bodily harm.” A first violation is a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. A second violation is a third degree felony.

So the same words aimed at a county commissioner can fit two statutes that sit about as far apart as Florida penalties get: a misdemeanor written specifically for threats against officials, and a second degree felony written for any posted threat. The reports describe the charge here as the felony. The prosecutor, not the arresting agency, decides what is actually filed, and which statute appears on the information changes the sentencing exposure, the bond conversation and what a plea offer looks like.

Section 836.12 also has a narrower element that 836.10 doesn’t share. It requires a threat of death or serious bodily harm. Section 836.10 reaches any bodily harm.

Political Hyperbole and the True Threat Line

Neither statute can punish speech the First Amendment protects. Only a true threat falls outside that protection, and the United States Supreme Court drew the line in a case about a remark aimed at a president.

In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), an 18-year-old at a 1966 rally on the Washington Monument grounds said he had been classified 1-A for the draft and was not going, and added, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.” A jury convicted him of threatening the President. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered an acquittal. The Court called the remark “political hyperbole” and wrote that “the language of the political arena” is “often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.” It looked at three things: the context of a political debate, the conditional wording, and the reaction of the people who heard it, who laughed.

In Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), the Court added a mental state requirement. A true threat is a serious expression that the speaker means to commit unlawful violence, and the State must also show the speaker had some understanding of the threatening nature of the words. Recklessness is enough. The Court described it as a speaker who is aware “that others could regard his statements as” threatening violence and “delivers them anyway,” borrowing that language from an earlier opinion by Justice Alito.

Florida’s appellate courts have not settled exactly what mental state section 836.10 requires. In Dominguez v. State, No. 1D2024-1250 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 18, 2026), the First District noted that the district courts have reached different conclusions and declined to decide the standard. Nobody had argued in the trial court that the Counterman recklessness standard applied, and the defendant took no position on it on appeal. That is a reason to raise it early and in writing. The court also held that intent is ordinarily a question for the jury, so the argument has to be built from the full context of the words, not only from the words themselves.

In a case built on a single comment under a news story, that context is everything: what the comment was replying to, whether it reads as an insult or as a plan, whether it names a time or a place or a weapon, how other readers responded, and anything else the writer said before and after. A cropped screenshot shows none of that.

How a Comment Gets Traced to a Front Door

The reporting describes the two steps that usually make these cases. First, the IP address. The sheriff’s office linked the account to an internet connection at a home. An IP address points to a connection, and a connection can serve everyone in a household, a guest on the Wi-Fi, or a shared device.

Second, the conversation at the door. According to both outlets, the man confirmed the account was his when investigators questioned him at his home. That statement does what the IP address can’t do on its own. It ties a specific person to the account. Many of these cases are proven less by the technology than by what the person says to the detective who shows up afterward.

If a Detective Asks About Something You Posted

A call or a knock from a threat unit often comes before any arrest. What happens in that first conversation shapes the whole case.

• You don’t have to answer questions about the post, the account or what you meant. Say you want to speak with a lawyer first, and stop there. Explaining what you really meant is the most natural instinct, and it often supplies the evidence that the account and the comment are yours.
• Don’t delete or edit the post once you know there is an investigation. Section 918.13 makes it a third degree felony to destroy or conceal a record, knowing an investigation is pending, to keep it from being used.
• Do save the full context. Screenshots of the original story, the whole comment thread and the replies around your comment are what a true threat defense is built from.
• Don’t post about the investigation, the official or the arrest. Every new post is another exhibit.
• If there is an arrest, find out which statute is on the paperwork. Section 836.10 and section 836.12 are very different cases.

I defend stalking and threat charges across Tampa Bay, along with the rest of my violent crime defense practice. If an arrest has already happened, my page on bond and pretrial release in Florida covers what comes next. A strategy session is where we go through the post, the thread and the paperwork together.

Common Questions

Can you be arrested for a Facebook comment in Florida?

Yes. Section 836.10 makes it a second degree felony to post a threat to kill or do bodily harm anywhere another person may see it, and a comment on a public page qualifies. The First Amendment protects speech that is not a true threat, so whether a comment is a crime depends on what it conveys in context and what the writer understood about it.

What is the penalty for written threats to kill in Florida?

A violation of section 836.10 is a second degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 under sections 775.082 and 775.083.

Is threatening an elected official a felony in Florida?

Under section 836.12, threatening an elected official with death or serious bodily harm is a first degree misdemeanor for a first violation and a third degree felony for a second. A written or online threat can also be charged as a second degree felony under section 836.10.

Is a joke or exaggeration a crime under section 836.10?

Not if it is not a true threat. The Supreme Court held in Watts v. United States that political hyperbole is protected, and in Counterman v. Colorado that the State must prove the speaker was at least aware others could take the words as a threat of violence. Context decides which side of that line a statement falls on.

Should I delete a post if police are asking about it?

No. Under section 918.13, destroying or concealing a record to keep it from an investigation you know is pending is a third degree felony. Save the full context instead and talk to a lawyer before answering questions.

Further Reading

The sources behind this post, so you can read what I read.

1. Section 836.10, Florida Statutes
2. Section 836.12, Florida Statutes
3. Section 918.13, Florida Statutes
4. Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
5. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)
6. Dominguez v. State, No. 1D2024-1250 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 18, 2026)
7. Man accused of threatening Pinellas commissioner in Facebook post over mosque vote, FOX 13, November 3, 2026
8. Retired NYPD sergeant arrested over online threat to behead Pinellas County commissioner, Tampa Free Press, November 3, 2026

This post is general information about the law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The man arrested in this case is presumed innocent, and an arrest is not a finding that anyone committed a crime. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The law discussed is sections 836.10, 836.12, 918.13, 775.082 and 775.083, Florida Statutes (2026), Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), and Dominguez v. State, No. 1D2024-1250 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 18, 2026), read together with published reports of FOX 13 and the Tampa Free Press as of November 6, 2026.