“Known rabble rouser arrested for disrupting a private meeting after being told not too”
Last I looked the BCGOP was a private organization, they have a right to have a meeting without disruptions EVEN when a public figure is addressing the body.
Reminds me of Henry Copeland of Charleston. He was a watchdog, too.
The Charleston County School district was secretly threatened with felony charges. They tried to ban Copeland from public district meetings. He did not said nothing out of order. He was getting too close to the district’s secrets
SCCOL – It is unlawful to attempt by any means, measures, or acts to hinder, prevent, or obstruct a citizen in the free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States or by the Constitution and laws of this State. Copeland’s case pertained to the CCSD violation banning him from government public meetings. But this matter is not government. Merely a political party meetings
Question: Since it was a “private meeting of a private organization”, why were the “publicly-funded” police present to keep everything orderly since it was a meeting of the “party of rules and a party that doesn’t tolerate any discrimination”? Just asking.
And as an aside, inquiring minds would like to also know—directly from you, Mr. Folks, as “those of us actually fighting for liberty and exposing corruption in South Carolina regard him as a performative nuisance—an off- putting blowhard chronically afflicted with ‘look at me’ syndrome and the foulest, most toxic of tongues.. insufferably antagonistic and menacing in person—while behind the keyboard his ‘hate-filled missives have clogged email inboxes around the state (substitute social media posts for email inboxes) for years.”, why you sing a different song when it comes to your constant praise of the “great leader” and apparent adulation of a new “rising political wanna-be’” in South Carolina politics? Just asking because inquiring minds want to know.
“Shut Up and Sit Down:” Sheriff Tanner, Free Speech, and the Arrest That Should Concern Every South Carolinian
When 80-year-old Skip Hoagland walked into the Bluffton meeting of the Beaufort County Republican Party (BCRP) last week, he likely didn’t expect to be handcuffed and removed. But according to official documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, his arrest wasn’t spontaneous — it was pre-planned, directed, and executed with the involvement of Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner.
This isn’t just a story about a local trespassing dispute.
It’s a flashpoint in a deeper concern:
• the weaponization of law enforcement,
• the erosion of public trust, and
• the silencing of dissent in local politics.
Let’s walk through what happened — with RECEIPTS.
? What the FOIA Documents Reveal
According to Bluffton Police reports released under FOIA and now publicly available:
• Sheriff Tanner was present an hour before Hoagland arrived at the BCRP event.
• Five Bluffton Police officers and three vehicles were already in position, anticipating “a possible disturbance and/or trespassing.”
• The report directly states that Sheriff Tanner “reiterated” to officers that Hoagland had been warned by BCRP organizers that his presence would constitute trespassing.
In law enforcement terms, this is called “command direction.”
Tanner may not have signed the arrest warrant, but he certainly set the tone — and the wheels in motion.
?? Sheriff Tanner’s Public Denial
However, when FITSNews contacted Sheriff Tanner after the incident, he offered a very different version of events:
“It’s Bluffton’s jurisdiction,” Tanner said. “I let Bluffton do its job. I was there as a county elected official, not to interfere or give direction.”
?This directly contradicts the official police report.
So, which version is true?
The version backed by INTERNAL documents…
or the one told to the press?
This discrepancy matters — not just for Skip Hoagland, but for every resident who expects transparency and accountability from elected law enforcement.
?? Legal Perspective: Was It Even Trespassing?
Attorney Taylor Smith of Meriwether Law, LLC — a firm specializing in First Amendment and media law — weighed in:
• If BCRP is a private organization hosting a private event at a public venue, then they may have grounds to ask someone to leave.
• However, if elected officials are present and acting in an official capacity, and the event discusses public matters, First Amendment protections may APPLY.
• A criminal trespass charge requires prior warning from law enforcement, not just political organizers.
As of publication, there is no known evidence that Hoagland received any official trespass warning from Bluffton Police or the Sheriff’s Department prior to the incident.
This raises another critical question:
Was this arrest lawful — or was it political?
?The Pattern: “Shut Up and Sit Down” Politics
Skip Hoagland is no stranger to controversy. He’s outspoken, persistent, and has a long track record of calling out what he sees as corruption in Lowcountry politics. Some may call him a gadfly — others, a watchdog.
Either way, this arrest — pre-planned, backed by the county sheriff, and carried out with no clear prior trespass notice — sends a chilling message to any citizen who dares speak truth to power:
“Shut up and sit down — or we’ll remove you.”
That’s not just chilling.
It’s un-American.
?? A Sheriff’s Power — and the Public’s Right to Know
Sheriffs are elected by the people. They are not above criticism. And when one appears to use their position to silence a local critic under questionable legal circumstances, the public deserves answers.
• ?Why did Sheriff Tanner direct officers to arrest Hoagland if it was not his jurisdiction?
• ?Why did he deny involvement to the press — when FOIA documents clearly suggest otherwise?
• ?Why wasn’t Hoagland given an official warning in advance?
These aren’t political questions.
They’re ethical.
They’re constitutional.
And if they go unanswered, they set a precedent where law enforcement becomes a political weapon — not a public service.
? Conclusion: This Isn’t Just About One Man
This story deserves more than a footnote in local media or a sarcastic blog post.
It demands:
• Oversight.
• Transparency.
• And a public reckoning with the growing tension between private politics and public power in South Carolina.
If we allow elected officials to hide behind badges, contradict records, and silence critics — we’re not just protecting bad actors.
We’re erasing democracy at the community level.
And that’s where democracy either lives or dies.??
Blue Wall No More: Sheriff PJ Tanner Didn’t Just Silence the Public — He Betrayed His Own
BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC — When the story first broke about the arrest of outspoken political critic Skip Hoagland at a Beaufort County Republican Party (BCRP) meeting, most assumed it was a routine trespassing case.
But newly released FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) documents suggest something much more troubling:
“a coordinated arrest operation ordered by Sheriff P.J. Tanner, and a public denial that left his own officers carrying the blame.” Deputy
This story is no longer just about one man in handcuffs.
It’s about a sheriff who turned his badge into a podium, used his influence to silence a critic, then threw his own department under the bus when the truth began to surface.
? The Facts: Orders Given, Blame Denied
On the night of the BCRP meeting:
• Sheriff Tanner was on-site nearly an hour before Skip Hoagland arrived.
• According to official Bluffton Police records obtained via FOIA, Tanner explicitly directed officers regarding Hoagland’s arrest, “reiterating” that Hoagland had been warned not to attend and should be removed for trespassing.
• Police presence was preemptively staged: five officers, three vehicles, and a tactical stance that suggested Hoagland’s arrest was a “DONE DEAL” before he even walked through the door.
But after the arrest drew scrutiny, Sheriff Tanner took to FITSNews with this statement:
“It’s Bluffton’s jurisdiction… I let Bluffton do its job.”
That’s not just inaccurate. It’s disgraceful. He BLAMED Bluffton and The Officers He Commanded.
?? When the Sheriff Points Fingers, Who Takes the Fall?
In denying responsibility, Sheriff Tanner did more than deflect public criticism — he abandoned the very officers who carried out his orders.
Let’s be clear:
• He gave the directive.
• The officers followed the chain of command.
• Then, when the spotlight got too hot, he said it was “Bluffton’s call.”
This is the kind of “command betrayal” that shakes departments from the inside. In a profession where loyalty, leadership, and unity are everything, Tanner chose political preservation over professional integrity.
“It’s one thing to silence a citizen.
It’s another to betray your brothers in blue.”
? The Impact: Morale, Trust, and Ethics
Blame-shifting of this scale has serious consequences:
• ? Officer Morale: Deputies rely on leadership that backs their lawful decisions. Tanner’s move signals that when things go sideways, they’ll be left holding the bag.
• ? Public Trust: If the sheriff can mislead the media while FOIA documents contradict him, how can the public believe any official statements going forward?
• ? Chain-of-Command Ethics: In law enforcement, command responsibility is sacrosanct. “You give the order, you own it. Period.”
But that’s not what happened here.
What happened was cowardice in uniform.
? This Isn’t Just One Incident — It’s a Pattern
Sheriffs in South Carolina hold tremendous power. They’re independently elected and largely insulated from day-to-day oversight.
But with that power comes a sacred obligation: to protect not just the public, but the integrity of the badge.
When a sheriff:
• Directs an arrest, then
• Publicly denies involvement,
• Letting his “own men take the heat,”
That’s not leadership.
That’s political theater wearing a badge.
And the ripple effects aren’t just internal. They set precedent. They teach young officers that truth is optional, and loyalty is one-directional — upward.
? Final Thought:
“You can’t lead a department with one hand on the mic and the other pointing fingers. If you gave the order, own it. Otherwise, you’re not protecting the public — or your own officers.” Anonymous.
It’s time we stop treating “Blue Wall” silence as loyalty — and start treating truth as the highest form of brotherhood.
Because when the truth breaks rank, and the public gets the receipts, there’s no wall left to hide behind.
5 comments
So the real headline is:
“Known rabble rouser arrested for disrupting a private meeting after being told not too”
Last I looked the BCGOP was a private organization, they have a right to have a meeting without disruptions EVEN when a public figure is addressing the body.
Reminds me of Henry Copeland of Charleston. He was a watchdog, too.
The Charleston County School district was secretly threatened with felony charges. They tried to ban Copeland from public district meetings. He did not said nothing out of order. He was getting too close to the district’s secrets
SCCOL – It is unlawful to attempt by any means, measures, or acts to hinder, prevent, or obstruct a citizen in the free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States or by the Constitution and laws of this State. Copeland’s case pertained to the CCSD violation banning him from government public meetings. But this matter is not government. Merely a political party meetings
Question: Since it was a “private meeting of a private organization”, why were the “publicly-funded” police present to keep everything orderly since it was a meeting of the “party of rules and a party that doesn’t tolerate any discrimination”? Just asking.
And as an aside, inquiring minds would like to also know—directly from you, Mr. Folks, as “those of us actually fighting for liberty and exposing corruption in South Carolina regard him as a performative nuisance—an off- putting blowhard chronically afflicted with ‘look at me’ syndrome and the foulest, most toxic of tongues.. insufferably antagonistic and menacing in person—while behind the keyboard his ‘hate-filled missives have clogged email inboxes around the state (substitute social media posts for email inboxes) for years.”, why you sing a different song when it comes to your constant praise of the “great leader” and apparent adulation of a new “rising political wanna-be’” in South Carolina politics? Just asking because inquiring minds want to know.
Is FitNews-Really Fit?
“Shut Up and Sit Down:” Sheriff Tanner, Free Speech, and the Arrest That Should Concern Every South Carolinian
When 80-year-old Skip Hoagland walked into the Bluffton meeting of the Beaufort County Republican Party (BCRP) last week, he likely didn’t expect to be handcuffed and removed. But according to official documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, his arrest wasn’t spontaneous — it was pre-planned, directed, and executed with the involvement of Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner.
This isn’t just a story about a local trespassing dispute.
It’s a flashpoint in a deeper concern:
• the weaponization of law enforcement,
• the erosion of public trust, and
• the silencing of dissent in local politics.
Let’s walk through what happened — with RECEIPTS.
? What the FOIA Documents Reveal
According to Bluffton Police reports released under FOIA and now publicly available:
• Sheriff Tanner was present an hour before Hoagland arrived at the BCRP event.
• Five Bluffton Police officers and three vehicles were already in position, anticipating “a possible disturbance and/or trespassing.”
• The report directly states that Sheriff Tanner “reiterated” to officers that Hoagland had been warned by BCRP organizers that his presence would constitute trespassing.
In law enforcement terms, this is called “command direction.”
Tanner may not have signed the arrest warrant, but he certainly set the tone — and the wheels in motion.
?? Sheriff Tanner’s Public Denial
However, when FITSNews contacted Sheriff Tanner after the incident, he offered a very different version of events:
“It’s Bluffton’s jurisdiction,” Tanner said. “I let Bluffton do its job. I was there as a county elected official, not to interfere or give direction.”
?This directly contradicts the official police report.
So, which version is true?
The version backed by INTERNAL documents…
or the one told to the press?
This discrepancy matters — not just for Skip Hoagland, but for every resident who expects transparency and accountability from elected law enforcement.
?? Legal Perspective: Was It Even Trespassing?
Attorney Taylor Smith of Meriwether Law, LLC — a firm specializing in First Amendment and media law — weighed in:
• If BCRP is a private organization hosting a private event at a public venue, then they may have grounds to ask someone to leave.
• However, if elected officials are present and acting in an official capacity, and the event discusses public matters, First Amendment protections may APPLY.
• A criminal trespass charge requires prior warning from law enforcement, not just political organizers.
As of publication, there is no known evidence that Hoagland received any official trespass warning from Bluffton Police or the Sheriff’s Department prior to the incident.
This raises another critical question:
Was this arrest lawful — or was it political?
?The Pattern: “Shut Up and Sit Down” Politics
Skip Hoagland is no stranger to controversy. He’s outspoken, persistent, and has a long track record of calling out what he sees as corruption in Lowcountry politics. Some may call him a gadfly — others, a watchdog.
Either way, this arrest — pre-planned, backed by the county sheriff, and carried out with no clear prior trespass notice — sends a chilling message to any citizen who dares speak truth to power:
“Shut up and sit down — or we’ll remove you.”
That’s not just chilling.
It’s un-American.
?? A Sheriff’s Power — and the Public’s Right to Know
Sheriffs are elected by the people. They are not above criticism. And when one appears to use their position to silence a local critic under questionable legal circumstances, the public deserves answers.
• ?Why did Sheriff Tanner direct officers to arrest Hoagland if it was not his jurisdiction?
• ?Why did he deny involvement to the press — when FOIA documents clearly suggest otherwise?
• ?Why wasn’t Hoagland given an official warning in advance?
These aren’t political questions.
They’re ethical.
They’re constitutional.
And if they go unanswered, they set a precedent where law enforcement becomes a political weapon — not a public service.
? Conclusion: This Isn’t Just About One Man
This story deserves more than a footnote in local media or a sarcastic blog post.
It demands:
• Oversight.
• Transparency.
• And a public reckoning with the growing tension between private politics and public power in South Carolina.
If we allow elected officials to hide behind badges, contradict records, and silence critics — we’re not just protecting bad actors.
We’re erasing democracy at the community level.
And that’s where democracy either lives or dies.??
Blue Wall No More: Sheriff PJ Tanner Didn’t Just Silence the Public — He Betrayed His Own
BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC — When the story first broke about the arrest of outspoken political critic Skip Hoagland at a Beaufort County Republican Party (BCRP) meeting, most assumed it was a routine trespassing case.
But newly released FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) documents suggest something much more troubling:
“a coordinated arrest operation ordered by Sheriff P.J. Tanner, and a public denial that left his own officers carrying the blame.” Deputy
This story is no longer just about one man in handcuffs.
It’s about a sheriff who turned his badge into a podium, used his influence to silence a critic, then threw his own department under the bus when the truth began to surface.
? The Facts: Orders Given, Blame Denied
On the night of the BCRP meeting:
• Sheriff Tanner was on-site nearly an hour before Skip Hoagland arrived.
• According to official Bluffton Police records obtained via FOIA, Tanner explicitly directed officers regarding Hoagland’s arrest, “reiterating” that Hoagland had been warned not to attend and should be removed for trespassing.
• Police presence was preemptively staged: five officers, three vehicles, and a tactical stance that suggested Hoagland’s arrest was a “DONE DEAL” before he even walked through the door.
But after the arrest drew scrutiny, Sheriff Tanner took to FITSNews with this statement:
“It’s Bluffton’s jurisdiction… I let Bluffton do its job.”
That’s not just inaccurate. It’s disgraceful. He BLAMED Bluffton and The Officers He Commanded.
?? When the Sheriff Points Fingers, Who Takes the Fall?
In denying responsibility, Sheriff Tanner did more than deflect public criticism — he abandoned the very officers who carried out his orders.
Let’s be clear:
• He gave the directive.
• The officers followed the chain of command.
• Then, when the spotlight got too hot, he said it was “Bluffton’s call.”
This is the kind of “command betrayal” that shakes departments from the inside. In a profession where loyalty, leadership, and unity are everything, Tanner chose political preservation over professional integrity.
“It’s one thing to silence a citizen.
It’s another to betray your brothers in blue.”
? The Impact: Morale, Trust, and Ethics
Blame-shifting of this scale has serious consequences:
• ? Officer Morale: Deputies rely on leadership that backs their lawful decisions. Tanner’s move signals that when things go sideways, they’ll be left holding the bag.
• ? Public Trust: If the sheriff can mislead the media while FOIA documents contradict him, how can the public believe any official statements going forward?
• ? Chain-of-Command Ethics: In law enforcement, command responsibility is sacrosanct. “You give the order, you own it. Period.”
But that’s not what happened here.
What happened was cowardice in uniform.
? This Isn’t Just One Incident — It’s a Pattern
Sheriffs in South Carolina hold tremendous power. They’re independently elected and largely insulated from day-to-day oversight.
But with that power comes a sacred obligation: to protect not just the public, but the integrity of the badge.
When a sheriff:
• Directs an arrest, then
• Publicly denies involvement,
• Letting his “own men take the heat,”
That’s not leadership.
That’s political theater wearing a badge.
And the ripple effects aren’t just internal. They set precedent. They teach young officers that truth is optional, and loyalty is one-directional — upward.
? Final Thought:
“You can’t lead a department with one hand on the mic and the other pointing fingers. If you gave the order, own it. Otherwise, you’re not protecting the public — or your own officers.” Anonymous.
It’s time we stop treating “Blue Wall” silence as loyalty — and start treating truth as the highest form of brotherhood.
Because when the truth breaks rank, and the public gets the receipts, there’s no wall left to hide behind.
Not even in Beaufort County!