Thirty-seven days is a long time to sit in a jail cell wondering how a social media post turned into handcuffs.
WKRN News 2 reporter Kelly Milan says that’s exactly what happened to Larry Bushart, a retired Tennessee police officer who was jailed after a Facebook comment tied to a meme.
Milan reports that prosecutors later dropped the felony charge that put him behind bars, and now Bushart is firing back with a federal civil rights lawsuit.
In Milan’s Dec. 18 video report, she frames the case in plain terms: Bushart wasn’t accused of violence, but of speech. And the lawsuit, she says, argues the government crossed constitutional lines.
Bushart told Milan he never expected it. When she asked if he ever thought he would end up in jail, he answered, “No, no… No I didn’t,” sounding like a man still trying to process how it got that far.
The Post That Triggered The Arrest
Kelly Milan reports Bushart was arrested in September on a felony charge of “threatening mass violence at a school.” She ties that charge to a comment Bushart made on a Charlie Kirk Facebook post in September, after Kirk’s death.
Milan reports the meme included a photo of President Donald Trump with the quote, “We have to get over it,” and it referenced the 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa, not Perry County, Tennessee.
That distance matters, and Milan underlines it: Perry, Iowa is roughly 700 miles from Perry County, Tennessee. Yet Bushart was arrested anyway on Sept. 21, and Milan reports his bond was set at an eye-popping $2 million.
In her earlier WKRN News 2 reporting on the arrest, Milan also notes the practical problem: News 2 did not have access to the Facebook group post and could not independently view Bushart’s comment directly, relying instead on what was described in court paperwork.
Bodycam Video Shows Confusion And A Cold Process
Milan’s earlier News 2 report includes body camera video from Lexington police released to the station, showing officers at Bushart’s home as they move him toward arrest.
One officer, as Milan reported, told Bushart that “Perry County has called back again” and that a warrant had been issued, adding Bushart would have to “take it up with them and their court.” In that same reporting, Milan describes Bushart and his wife as not asking many questions, and she notes they appeared to already understand the arrest was connected to Facebook posts.
As Bushart was escorted into custody, the Lexington officer told him he was being charged with “threatening mass violence at a school.” Milan’s report captures Bushart’s immediate reaction: “At a school?” The officer answered, in essence, that he didn’t know the details either.
That part is hard to read without wincing. If the arresting officer is telling you he has “no idea,” you’re watching a system that can still move like a machine even when the human beings inside it aren’t fully confident what they’re grabbing onto.
Milan also reported that in the bodycam exchange, Bushart tried to explain himself, saying he threatened no one and he was “playing on Facebook.” The officer’s response, as Milan relayed it, suggested a resigned detachment: he wasn’t saying Bushart did or didn’t commit a crime—he was just doing what he had to do.
The Warrant, The “Missing Context,” And The Perry Mix-Up
In Kelly Milan’s Dec. 18 report, she says News 2 obtained records showing the arrest warrant was sworn out by Investigator Jason Morrow, who was tapped by Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems to arrest Bushart.
Milan reports that Morrow wrote an affidavit claiming “a reasonable person would conclude” Bushart’s comment could lead to serious injury or the death of multiple people.
Bushart’s attorneys argue the opposite, and Milan makes their key point easy to understand: they say the warrant left out critical context, including identifying the school as Perry High School in Iowa, not Tennessee.
Attorney David Rubin, speaking in Milan’s report, said the omission looked deliberate. Rubin’s argument, as Milan presented it, was that leaving out the Iowa context could “trick” someone into thinking there was probable cause because readers might assume the post referred to a local school.
Milan also reports that Sheriff Weems later said he knew the post referenced Perry, Iowa, but believed it still posed a threat.
That’s where the case stops being a simple misunderstanding and turns into something sharper: if the sheriff says he knew it was Iowa, then the argument becomes whether officials treated an ugly or provocative political meme as a criminal threat anyway.
The Sheriff’s De-Escalation Claim Was Disputed
In Milan’s earlier WKRN reporting, she reported that Sheriff Nick Weems issued a statement saying Bushart wasn’t brought to the sheriff’s office’s attention “simply because of his speech,” but because of what the sheriff called the “public repercussions” of it.
Milan reported that Weems claimed the sheriff’s office coordinated with other departments to approach Bushart and offer options to “de-escalate” before arrest, and that Bushart declined to clarify his messages.
But Milan also reported a key contradiction: when News 2 asked Weems which agency tried to get Bushart to clarify or de-escalate, Weems pointed to Lexington police—and then Lexington’s police chief told News 2 no, his department was not involved in any such effort.
That kind of contradiction is gasoline on an already hot fire. If authorities argue they tried the softer route before arrest, but the named agency disputes it, the public is left wondering what was real and what was said later to make the process look cleaner than it was.
Charges Dropped, And A Federal Lawsuit Takes Shape
Kelly Milan reports that prosecutors eventually dropped the felony charges, and that Bushart is now suing over the time he spent jailed.
In Milan’s Dec. 18 report, she says Bushart filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming his constitutional rights were violated. The suit, she reports, names Sheriff Nick Weems and Investigator Jason Morrow, alleging violations of Bushart’s First Amendment right to free speech and Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful seizure.
Milan also reported the lawsuit seeks punitive damages against Weems and Morrow, and that News 2 reached out to the Perry County Sheriff’s Office for comment on the lawsuit but did not hear back.
In additional context from Milan’s reporting, the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District in Jackson, and the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is involved.
Milan reported Bushart’s charges were dropped when District Attorney General Hans L. Schwendimann declined to prosecute.
FIRE’s Adam Steinbaugh, quoted in Milan’s reporting, warned that if police can put someone behind bars based on a “false and contrived interpretation” of a Facebook post, then nobody’s First Amendment rights are safe.
Rubin, also quoted by Milan, went even broader, saying the case isn’t just about Bushart. It’s about making sure police understand they can’t punish people for controversial opinions online.
The Bigger Question This Case Forces On Everyone
Kelly Milan’s reporting lays out something that should bother people across the political spectrum: the standard can’t be “someone got scared, therefore jail.”
Yes, schools must be protected, and real threats should be treated like real threats. But Milan’s timeline describes a man sitting in jail for over a month, under a $2 million bond, over a meme that referenced an event in another state, while even the arresting officer seemed uncertain about what the charge truly meant in context.
If the government can stretch “threat” until it covers speech that is offensive, clumsy, or politically charged, then the line between policing and censorship starts to blur fast.
Milan’s reporting also highlights a practical danger people forget: even if charges are dropped, the punishment already happened.
Days in jail, money spent, reputation damage, and the sheer stress of being treated like a potential mass killer don’t disappear just because a prosecutor later says “we’re not moving forward.”
Now Bushart’s lawsuit will force the courts to answer what social media cases always circle back to: what’s protected speech, what’s a true threat, and what kind of evidence is required before the state takes your freedom away.
And if Kelly Milan is right about how much of this hinged on missing context and assumptions, then the lawsuit isn’t just a personal fight – it’s a test of whether constitutional guardrails still hold when a viral panic meets a badge.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
