Editorial: Leaders' resolve on Pulse memorial reflects our community's strength
It's time. It's time. It's past time.
Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings knows the truth of those words more than most. As the county's elected sheriff, he left his home in the pre-dawn hours of June 12, 2016 to rush to the site of downtown Orlando's Pulse nightclub. He'd stay there for nearly 24 hours, working beside his friend John Mina (who was at the time Orlando's police chief) as law enforcement frantically sought to rescue those trapped inside. Demings will likely never forget that night, nor the weeks and months that followed.
There are so many more Central Floridians who have horrific memories engraved on their souls. The survivors who huddled and hid as a gunman stalked through the club. The emergency-department staffers who worked tirelessly to save as many lives as they could. The family members who pleaded to know if their sons, daughters, spouses, friends or other loved ones were among the dead. Community leaders like Orlando Commissioner Patty Sheehan, the county's first openly gay elected official, who rushed to the site and tried to comfort family members' fear and grief. And the millions of Central Floridians who fought to reconcile the knowledge that their home had become the site of the worst mass shooting in the nation's history — up until that point. (Sadly, it's been eclipsed).
Those survivors may not need a memorial to recall the horror of those early dawn hours. But they deserve one, especially if it nurtures the lasting changes that brought Orlando-area residents together in anguish and solidarity. That compassion has centered on the LGBTQ+ community that formed the base of Pulse's clientele, and the young Hispanics who came from across Central Florida for a weekly celebration of Latin music. It was an outpouring of acceptance that transcended the political, changing Orlando for good, and for the better. It lives on in many local residents's stubborn resistance to anti-immigrant crusades and attempts to marginalize sexual minorities.
The names and faces of the 49 'angels' who died that night should never be forgotten. Nor should the terror of another 53 who were wounded but survived. The psychological scars of those who ran for their lives, or who huddled in hiding while waiting for rescue, also deserve acknowledgement.
Most of all, the tragic lessons of this hate crime should be memorialized in the hopes that it avoids a repeat. And the resilience of local residents — their steadfast refusal to let Orlando and its surroundings be redefined by hate — should be celebrated.
That's why Orange County residents should applaud the leadership of elected county and city leaders, who are joining forces to insist on (and pay for) a memorial on the site of the nightclub at the corner of Orange Avenue and Kaley Street. Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer pushed for the city to take the lead after the collapse of the nonprofit foundation that was supposed to build the memorial.
The wait has been infuriating, stretching the boundaries of trust and raising serious questions about what happened to millions of dollars raised toward the ostensible goal of creating a suitable tribute. Local leaders should continue to push — through any means at their disposal — for a thorough audit of OnePulse, the nonprofit that solicited money toward a memorial yet stumbled again and again.
But the plans for a $12 million memorial, developed under the guidance of Orlando city government, are heartbreakingly beautiful — a glowing tribute of brightly colored glass, flowing water and the names of those angels who now stand as guardians to this community's resilience, hope and love. Plans unveiled before the County Commission Tuesday show a site that will offer ample opportunity for reflection — both of the tragedy that brought Central Floridians to their knees, and the inspiration leading them to stand together in solidarity and service without prejudice.
Commissioners spent nearly two hours discussing the city's request to contribute $5 million toward the cost of the memorial, but the outcome was never seriously in doubt. The biggest point of strife: Who would make the motion to proceed with the donation.
Demings took that victory by fiat, and it's hard to criticize his decision. His early, strong leadership almost certainly broke down barriers among more conservative communities that might otherwise have responded to the massacre with silence — or worse.
There are still big questions ahead, including a continued probe into the failures of the OnePulse Foundation. City and county leaders should work together to demand answers. Some community members may also criticise the decision to remove most — possibly all — of the nightclub building and its iconic sign as the memorial is constructed. Certainly, their shared financial contribution gives every Orange County resident the right to voice their opinion; for more information, visit https://www.pulseorlando.org/Memorial.
But that should not obscure the victory here, and Orange County and Orlando residents should be rightly proud of their elected leaders for insisting that plans for a memorial move forward — despite the delays and abuse of trust. Once again, this community has chosen to transcend tragedy and hatred with hope and unity. It is the right decision, and within two years this city should have a fitting memorial to the sacrifice of young people who only wanted to dance and have fun, without boundaries or prejudice.
It is time. It is past time.
The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Krys Fluker, Executive Editor Roger Simmons and Viewpoints Editor Jay Reddick. Contact us at insight@orlandosentinel.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Orange County Mayor discusses efficiency at State of the County Address
Mayor Jerry Demings gave the State of the County Address, emphasizing the importance of working together efficiently. On Friday morning, Mayor Jerry Demings gave the State of the County Address, highlighting Orange County's growth in many areas. Building together through efficiency was the message of Friday's address. Mayor Demings said he thinks the county needs to get used to doing more with less. He said they expect budget cuts at the federal level to eventually trickle down to impact state and local governments. With that, he said there is a mission to continue to focus on a culture of excellence and innovation while building better through efficiency in the county. 'I believe Orange County is a good local government,' Mayor Demings said. 'We strive for perfection but we're not there yet. We're trying to improve on our efficiency.' In some ways, that means environmental sustainability now preserving an additional 23,000 acres of sensitive land and reusing 100% of the county's wastewater. It will also allocate funds where they are most needed, such as $1 billion towards public safety and $100 million to improve area roads. 60 transportation projects were completed this year. Demings also touted record-breaking tourism numbers and a booming sports industry. Success brings its own set of challenges and even with $160 million committed to affordable housing, he believes more public-private partnerships are necessary. 'If we bring the housing cost down for low-wage owners, effectively, that gives them more discretionary income to do other things with,' Mayor Demings said. 'If we improve their skill sets through education, we're able to uplift their ability to earn a greater amount of money.' The mayor said that to continue being efficient, the county will use technology more, like artificial intelligence, in the future. Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Buzz Feed
3 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Blake Lively Gets Org Support Amid Justin Baldoni Trial
A spokesperson for Blake Lively issued a statement as the number of organizations submitting amicus briefs in support of her amid her legal battle with Justin Baldoni hit 19. In December, Blake sued her It Ends With Us co-star and director, as well as the studio Wayfarer and other parties, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Justin subsequently sued Blake, alleging defamation and extortion, among other things. Both parties have denied the allegations of the other. Before we get into the update, you might be wondering what an amicus brief is. It stems from the Latin phrase "friend of the court," which allows people who aren't parties in the case to submit documents of support, arguing that the impact of the case will also affect them. So, why are all these orgs issuing amicus briefs? Let's take one that's been signed by 14 women's and anti-violence organizations. In it, they argue, "The retaliatory defamation lawsuit instigated by the Wayfarer parties against Blake Livelyis another example of 'DARVO' tactics (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) in the post-#MeToo era where perpetrators of 'sexual violence,' in particular sexual harassment, attempt to silence their victims into submission." After a new brief was filed this week by Child USA, a nonprofit against child abuse, a spokesperson for Blake issued a statement to BuzzFeed that read, "19 leading survivors and organizations devoted to women's rights, children's rights and domestic violence have now signed onto four separate amicus briefs. All are united in opposing Justin Baldoni's attempt to dismantle a law designed to protect women who speak up—simply to protect himself." Justin's attorney has been reached for comment. "The latest briefs, filed by Child USA and Sanctuary for Families, add the voices of renowned nonprofits, victim advocates, and experts from around the world who are dedicated to safeguarding the rights and well-being of people who speak up," they continued. Justin has never been accused of child abuse. "Rather than defend his case on the facts, Baldoni is now contradicting years of his own public persona—abandoning the message of his #MeToo YouTube's, podcasts, TED Talks, and interviews, where he once upon a time urged men 'to listen to the women in your life…to hold their anguish and actually believe them, even if what they're saying is against you.' These women and organizations are sounding the alarm about his DARVO tactics, and the chilling effect they could have well beyond this case," the statement concluded. BuzzFeed has reached out to a representative for Justin for comment.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration
The principle of habeas corpus, a legal phrase, is a simple one: Translated from the Latin as 'produce the body,' it provides that a judge may compel prosecutors to supply evidence to determine whether someone has been legally detained or arrested. In the U.S., a detained or arrested individual, or their legal representative, may ask a judge to decide based on the evidence presented whether the detainee has been legally confined. That process is termed 'seeking a writ.' Suspending the privilege of the writ, also known as 'suspending the writ,' denies that individual or their representation from making that request or a judge from honoring it. The 'privilege' in that phrase is a right of the accused. In the past few months, members of the Trump administration have raised the issue of the president's power to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May 2025 shared with the media the news that administration officials were exploring the possibility of suspending the privilege of the writ to help the administration deport immigrants quickly. Eleven days later, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem declared at a congressional hearing that habeas corpus 'is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country,' a misunderstanding of this foundational legal right immediately challenged by New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan. Article I of the U.S. Constitution declares that 'the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' Suspension is thus a grave and serious matter. This is not the first time that Americans have debated which branch of government – the executive branch or Congress – has the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and under what circumstances it may do so. Habeas corpus became a major point of controversy during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ, first in parts of Maryland and later throughout the nation, without seeking prior congressional approval. While the Constitution provides for the suspension of the writ, the document is silent as to who has the power to exercise this authority. Although most of this section of the Constitution concerns the powers of Congress, it also addresses the power and authority of other branches in specific instances. And the use of the passive voice – 'shall not be suspended' – in this section leaves the question of who can suspend the writ open to interpretation. The questions of who may suspend the privilege of the writ and under what circumstances emerged in the spring of 1861. On April 12, Confederate forces fired on U.S.-controlled Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, an act that is considered the formal start of the war. A week later, Marylanders supporting secession clashed with militia from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania who were making their way through Baltimore to defend Washington. Lincoln refused to honor requests from Maryland Governor Thomas Hicks and Baltimore Mayor George Brown to avoid transporting reinforcements through Baltimore. The president initially tried to skirt any conflict by routing the reinforcements through Annapolis. This proved a stopgap measure. On April 27, Lincoln authorized General Winfield Scott, commanding general of the U.S. Army, to suspend the privilege of the writ between Philadelphia and Washington, if necessary. This would permit arbitrary arrests and detaining of people determined to be acting in support of the insurrection. To protect national security, U.S. military authorities arrested John Merryman on May 25, 1861. Merryman, who was from Baltimore, was suspected of involvement in destroying railroad bridges to obstruct Union troop movements. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney honored a request from Merryman's lawyers to issue a writ of habeas corpus, only to have federal military authorities refuse to produce Merryman, who remained at his cell in Fort McHenry. Taney then ruled that neither Lincoln nor military personnel under his command could suspend the privilege of the writ when it came to civilians such as Merryman. 'If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the Legislature to say so,' wrote Taney, quoting an 1807 opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall. Days later, on June 1, Taney offered a more extended decision reflecting his reasoning that Congress, not the president, could suspend the privilege of the writ. Taney was challenging the president's authority to act unilaterally. Lincoln ignored Taney's ruling. He reasoned that in time of emergency, especially with Congress not in session, he – as president – was compelled to act in the interests of national security. He did so to protect the movement of troops through Maryland to defend the national capital. Not only did Lincoln's order remain in place, but the president later expanded its geographic scope in several instances, most notably in September 1862. On the heels of issuing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln authorized the detention of individuals accused of obstructing efforts to raise troops or who sought to support the rebellion. Unwilling to concede that Lincoln's actions need not seek congressional approval, Congress, first in 1861, then through the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 offered retroactive sanction of the actions of the executive branch and, in 1863, empowered Lincoln to suspend the privilege of the writ in the future in the interests of national security for the duration of the rebellion. Democrats, however, criticized Lincoln's actions as arbitrary, unconstitutional and smacking of tyranny. Almost a decade later, in 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant declined to act on his own to suspend the privilege of the writ to prosecute white supremacist terrorists in the Reconstruction South, requiring that Congress first pass legislation authorizing him to do so. Since the Civil War, only once has a president unilaterally suspended the privilege of the writ without prior congressional authorization. That's what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, in order to combat any suspicious activity that might be construed as espionage. With Congress currently in session, lawmakers could authorize the president to suspend the privilege of the writ to set aside debates over executive overreach. Otherwise, presidents might define as emergencies situations that do not meet the extreme circumstances envisioned by the Constitution while sidestepping congressional approval. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Brooks D. Simpson, Arizona State University Read more: Habeas corpus: A thousand-year-old legal principle for defending rights that's getting a workout under the Trump administration Supreme Court's decision on deportations gave both the Trump administration and ACLU reasons to claim a victory − but noncitizens clearly lost How constitutional guardrails have always contained presidential ambitions Brooks D. Simpson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
