5 ms·

Honest question: why were these journalists arrested? Do you actually have to commit a crime or can you be arrested as part of crowd control technique and relea

Honest question: why were these journalists arrested? Do you actually have to commit a crime or can you be arrested as part of crowd control technique and released later? Did these journalists actually commit a crime? Will they be charged with something in court?

Miner49er 6y ago
The police were attempting to intimidate and silence them is the honest answer. I'm not sure if any were charged with anything that stuck, because likely none of them committed any actual crimes. It's just police abusing their power.
- screamingninja 6y ago
  > The police were attempting to intimidate and silence them is the honest answer. > likely none of them committed any actual crimes What makes you say that?
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Reading history is the honest answer. You read enough good books and articles about current events and history and then are able to make reasonable inferences. Suppressing, or evening worse distorting historical knowledge is always a tool of authoritarians and oppressors. Which is imho part of why so many folks here in the U.S. are so historically illiterate :/ :(.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    I've done some googling, and can't find any instances were a journalist was actually convicted. All I can find is instances that they weren't charged or charges were dropped.
    - justaman 6y ago
      Several of these cases involved a blogger(or other small syndication) confronting police who were responding to an incident. You don't have to look far to see these encounters on youtube. I'm not justifying the police in these situations, however the "journalists" were doing much more than observing; bordering on obstruction.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    The fact that the cops arrested people observing from their front porches?
  - macksd 6y ago
    That was also my impression from several high-profile instances of journalists being arrested this year. Here's one specific example: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arrested/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arres.... They're arrested for not standing where they were told, but at least from the portion of the interaction caught on camera, the journalists just seem confused about where they were supposed to stand and were willing to follow instructions.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    > What makes you say that? Watch the Lafayette Square clearing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L1gZApugd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L1gZApugd0 Now notice a few things: 1. The first cop who throws a punch at them is clearly abusing his power. 2. A 2nd cop realizes what's going on, pulls the 1st cop off the news crew, and provides a place for the news reporters to run away. (This isn't clear from the Australian news camera. But some people filmed this incident from a 2nd or 3rd angle. The news crew was defended by one of the cops) The officers who wish to intimidate the media exist. But there are also officers who realize this is a very, very bad idea. ----------------------- The right-wing media (which a large number of cops do follow) have been describing "the mainstream media" as the enemy of the people for years. Its not surprising that those particular cops who listen to that message are now beginning to throw punches at media crew. We're now seeing the results of that indoctrination. If the media is the enemy, then it is "fair" to arrest, punch, and otherwise intimidate them.
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      The officers who wish to intimidate the media exist. But there are also officers who realize this is a very, very bad idea We are supposed to have a rule of law because we can't rely on the beneficience of individuals. The fact that there may be good cops doesn't change the fact that, by and large, they act as if they are above the law because they in fact are. The reluctance of prosecutors and juries to address even clear police misconduct is well documented.
    - im3w1l 6y ago
      She herself says that they were "indiscriminate" and that they didn't care whether she was media or not. You are trying to make a big narrative that your video doesn't support.
      - dragontamer 6y ago
        The first thing Police Officer#1 does when the line breaks is rush over to the cameraman and punches the camerman in the face. Its pretty clear from Officer#1's actions that he did not like that camera. ---------- Here's an alternative angle, in case you're confused by the 1st person perspective: https://www.abc.net.au/cm/rimage/12312456-16x9-xlarge.png?v=6 https://www.abc.net.au/cm/rimage/12312456-16x9-xlarge.png?v=... It is very clear that this officer is attacking the cameraman. The only two people on that corner are the cameraman and the reporter, and given their equipment and press-badges, it is very obvious that they're media. (Not "little blogger on random website". Its obvious that they are big-media, ABC 7 to be specific). ----------- It should be noted that Trump was clearing the area to give a press briefing. The press belonged there, if only to cover the President's new announcement in a few minutes. The protesters had a right to be there too (but I realize this is a harder point to sell to conservatives and am willing to keep this as an aside). But it was clear that Trump chose to clear this particular group of protesters as an intimidation factor. There was no need for Trump to give a press briefing in this location (when he was already giving a briefing from the White House). Trump knew there were protesters here and wanted to physically intimidate them with a police clearing.
tppiotrowski 6y ago
- Disturbing the peace - Resisting/obstructing an officer - Failure to disperse - violating curfew (journalists are exempted here) According to the report most charges are being thrown out. Do reporters have immunity to the first 3 violations in that list during a protest?
- pwinnski 6y ago
  They should, yes. "Disturbing the peace" seems to be fabricated, and resisting and officer and failure to disperse should not be applied to journalists given our press freedoms.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > "Disturbing the peace" seems to be fabricated Aren't all laws 'fabricated' by legislators? But disturbing the peace is a law like any other, whether you think it's a 'natural' or 'fabricated' law. It's pretty ancient more like natural laws.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      Disturbing the peace is a valid law, however, if the police unilaterally assert that someone filming police actions is "disturbing the peace", that's simply a fabrication that as no disturbing the peace has actually been done by that person.
staplers 6y ago
I watched a lot of live streams from local Portland journalists and they were arrested (wearing PRESS helmets) for no reason other than being near the protests. After a while it became clear it was to deter them from returning to the protests the next day. The Portland DA dropped all charges except felony rioting (lighting fires) for most protesters.
- anonfornoreason 6y ago
  I live in Portland and watched many of these press people via Twitter. The reality is that many of these “press” are activists who document their activism and the activism of their comrades. They call themselves press, but they are press+activist. As a result they are often in the crowd of people throwing stuff at police, while screaming “hey you fucking fascist, aren’t you embarassed to be an authoritarian?” I am not saying that they are better or worse than traditional press, which I have a strong aversion to, I am just saying they are not impartial and are very often just Twitter journalists who are protesting at the same time they are working, and as such these numbers don’t tell the full story. I happily follow them to see on the ground footage, but you have to take their editorial viewpoint with a huge grain of salt. *Edited to add "many" in describing press, since my original statement implied all, which is obviously not true.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    > I am not saying that they are better or worse than traditional press, which I have a strong aversion to, I am just saying ... So you’re saying you just don’t like the press, basically. Except maybe the press that says what you like? Because tbh everything you wrote just sounds like a lot of authoritatively-stated opinion. Which tells me that you’re either uneducated about facts-, or, looking to shift the conversation away from facts. For that matter, what’s wrong with activism? And activism against what, specifically? You don’t even mention that. Just “activists”. LOL I watch twitter too and didn’t see what you saw. Here: https://www.opb.org/news/article/aclu-sues-portland-oregon-police-officers-attacked-journalists-blm-protests/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/aclu-sues-portland-oregon-p... https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2020/06/07/portland-reporter-pens-first-person-account-of-being-pepper-sprayed-while-filming-an-arrest/ https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2020/06/07/portland-reporter... “ Video taken from a helicopter by WW's news partner KATU-TV around 11:45 pm on June 6 shows a person filming police in Chapman Square, until an officer turns to him, hits him with a baton and twice pepper-sprays him in the face. ... “‘As the man sputtered and spit and gasped, I, for reasons that I'm sure are clear, shouted to get the fuck off his neck,’ Farley recalls. ‘This is the moment a fourth officer approached, reaching for his baton.’ Farley says he believes officers targeted him because he was filming the arrest.“ Press-activists indeed.
dfxm12 6y ago
why were these journalists arrested? Did these journalists actually commit a crime? The article contains this info at a high level and links to more in-depth info about it. Some jurisdictions make arrests public, btw. And all you need to make an arrest is "probable cause", so you might not always get a satisfying answer about why a journalist was arrested. Since you're asking honestly, I'm going to be honest with you. We're talking about well over 100 arrests here. It's dishonest to lump all these situations together and the HN community is not equipped to give you the info you seek anyway. Arrest records are, court records are, first hand reports are, and it is relatively easy to find this stuff, if you're honestly curious. Since this happened so recently, you can also reach out to the people directly involved. Some reports may contradict each other. Some common threads may appear. Do you actually have to commit a crime or can you be arrested as part of crowd control technique and released later? You can be arrested without committing a crime. Will they be charged with something in court? As some of these are fairly recent matters and court systems are moving slowly due to the pandemic, the answer to your last question might not be clear at this time. This will be public record if they are.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "...court systems are moving slowly due to the pandemic..." They were moving slowly even before the pandemic. In some places the difference between trial wait times pre/post covid shutdowns is 18 months now being 24 months. I'm associated with a case that was a summary offense issued in August. It's been continued twice (not related to covid) and won't be heard until January at the earliest. This is at a magistrate level which is supposed to provide quicker resolution than the "real" courts.

Miner49er 6y ago

The police were attempting to intimidate and silence them is the honest answer. I'm not sure if any were charged with anything that stuck, because likely none of them committed any actual crimes. It's just police abusing their power.

screamingninja 6y ago
> The police were attempting to intimidate and silence them is the honest answer. > likely none of them committed any actual crimes What makes you say that?
- adamsea 6y ago
  Reading history is the honest answer. You read enough good books and articles about current events and history and then are able to make reasonable inferences. Suppressing, or evening worse distorting historical knowledge is always a tool of authoritarians and oppressors. Which is imho part of why so many folks here in the U.S. are so historically illiterate :/ :(.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I've done some googling, and can't find any instances were a journalist was actually convicted. All I can find is instances that they weren't charged or charges were dropped.
  - justaman 6y ago
    Several of these cases involved a blogger(or other small syndication) confronting police who were responding to an incident. You don't have to look far to see these encounters on youtube. I'm not justifying the police in these situations, however the "journalists" were doing much more than observing; bordering on obstruction.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  The fact that the cops arrested people observing from their front porches?
- macksd 6y ago
  That was also my impression from several high-profile instances of journalists being arrested this year. Here's one specific example: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arrested/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arres.... They're arrested for not standing where they were told, but at least from the portion of the interaction caught on camera, the journalists just seem confused about where they were supposed to stand and were willing to follow instructions.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  > What makes you say that? Watch the Lafayette Square clearing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L1gZApugd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L1gZApugd0 Now notice a few things: 1. The first cop who throws a punch at them is clearly abusing his power. 2. A 2nd cop realizes what's going on, pulls the 1st cop off the news crew, and provides a place for the news reporters to run away. (This isn't clear from the Australian news camera. But some people filmed this incident from a 2nd or 3rd angle. The news crew was defended by one of the cops) The officers who wish to intimidate the media exist. But there are also officers who realize this is a very, very bad idea. ----------------------- The right-wing media (which a large number of cops do follow) have been describing "the mainstream media" as the enemy of the people for years. Its not surprising that those particular cops who listen to that message are now beginning to throw punches at media crew. We're now seeing the results of that indoctrination. If the media is the enemy, then it is "fair" to arrest, punch, and otherwise intimidate them.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    The officers who wish to intimidate the media exist. But there are also officers who realize this is a very, very bad idea We are supposed to have a rule of law because we can't rely on the beneficience of individuals. The fact that there may be good cops doesn't change the fact that, by and large, they act as if they are above the law because they in fact are. The reluctance of prosecutors and juries to address even clear police misconduct is well documented.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    She herself says that they were "indiscriminate" and that they didn't care whether she was media or not. You are trying to make a big narrative that your video doesn't support.
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      The first thing Police Officer#1 does when the line breaks is rush over to the cameraman and punches the camerman in the face. Its pretty clear from Officer#1's actions that he did not like that camera. ---------- Here's an alternative angle, in case you're confused by the 1st person perspective: https://www.abc.net.au/cm/rimage/12312456-16x9-xlarge.png?v=6 https://www.abc.net.au/cm/rimage/12312456-16x9-xlarge.png?v=... It is very clear that this officer is attacking the cameraman. The only two people on that corner are the cameraman and the reporter, and given their equipment and press-badges, it is very obvious that they're media. (Not "little blogger on random website". Its obvious that they are big-media, ABC 7 to be specific). ----------- It should be noted that Trump was clearing the area to give a press briefing. The press belonged there, if only to cover the President's new announcement in a few minutes. The protesters had a right to be there too (but I realize this is a harder point to sell to conservatives and am willing to keep this as an aside). But it was clear that Trump chose to clear this particular group of protesters as an intimidation factor. There was no need for Trump to give a press briefing in this location (when he was already giving a briefing from the White House). Trump knew there were protesters here and wanted to physically intimidate them with a police clearing.

tppiotrowski 6y ago

- Disturbing the peace - Resisting/obstructing an officer - Failure to disperse - violating curfew (journalists are exempted here) According to the report most charges are being thrown out. Do reporters have immunity to the first 3 violations in that list during a protest?

pwinnski 6y ago
They should, yes. "Disturbing the peace" seems to be fabricated, and resisting and officer and failure to disperse should not be applied to journalists given our press freedoms.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > "Disturbing the peace" seems to be fabricated Aren't all laws 'fabricated' by legislators? But disturbing the peace is a law like any other, whether you think it's a 'natural' or 'fabricated' law. It's pretty ancient more like natural laws.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Disturbing the peace is a valid law, however, if the police unilaterally assert that someone filming police actions is "disturbing the peace", that's simply a fabrication that as no disturbing the peace has actually been done by that person.

staplers 6y ago

I watched a lot of live streams from local Portland journalists and they were arrested (wearing PRESS helmets) for no reason other than being near the protests. After a while it became clear it was to deter them from returning to the protests the next day. The Portland DA dropped all charges except felony rioting (lighting fires) for most protesters.

anonfornoreason 6y ago
I live in Portland and watched many of these press people via Twitter. The reality is that many of these “press” are activists who document their activism and the activism of their comrades. They call themselves press, but they are press+activist. As a result they are often in the crowd of people throwing stuff at police, while screaming “hey you fucking fascist, aren’t you embarassed to be an authoritarian?” I am not saying that they are better or worse than traditional press, which I have a strong aversion to, I am just saying they are not impartial and are very often just Twitter journalists who are protesting at the same time they are working, and as such these numbers don’t tell the full story. I happily follow them to see on the ground footage, but you have to take their editorial viewpoint with a huge grain of salt. *Edited to add "many" in describing press, since my original statement implied all, which is obviously not true.
- adamsea 6y ago
  > I am not saying that they are better or worse than traditional press, which I have a strong aversion to, I am just saying ... So you’re saying you just don’t like the press, basically. Except maybe the press that says what you like? Because tbh everything you wrote just sounds like a lot of authoritatively-stated opinion. Which tells me that you’re either uneducated about facts-, or, looking to shift the conversation away from facts. For that matter, what’s wrong with activism? And activism against what, specifically? You don’t even mention that. Just “activists”. LOL I watch twitter too and didn’t see what you saw. Here: https://www.opb.org/news/article/aclu-sues-portland-oregon-police-officers-attacked-journalists-blm-protests/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/aclu-sues-portland-oregon-p... https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2020/06/07/portland-reporter-pens-first-person-account-of-being-pepper-sprayed-while-filming-an-arrest/ https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2020/06/07/portland-reporter... “ Video taken from a helicopter by WW's news partner KATU-TV around 11:45 pm on June 6 shows a person filming police in Chapman Square, until an officer turns to him, hits him with a baton and twice pepper-sprays him in the face. ... “‘As the man sputtered and spit and gasped, I, for reasons that I'm sure are clear, shouted to get the fuck off his neck,’ Farley recalls. ‘This is the moment a fourth officer approached, reaching for his baton.’ Farley says he believes officers targeted him because he was filming the arrest.“ Press-activists indeed.

dfxm12 6y ago

why were these journalists arrested? Did these journalists actually commit a crime? The article contains this info at a high level and links to more in-depth info about it. Some jurisdictions make arrests public, btw. And all you need to make an arrest is "probable cause", so you might not always get a satisfying answer about why a journalist was arrested. Since you're asking honestly, I'm going to be honest with you. We're talking about well over 100 arrests here. It's dishonest to lump all these situations together and the HN community is not equipped to give you the info you seek anyway. Arrest records are, court records are, first hand reports are, and it is relatively easy to find this stuff, if you're honestly curious. Since this happened so recently, you can also reach out to the people directly involved. Some reports may contradict each other. Some common threads may appear. Do you actually have to commit a crime or can you be arrested as part of crowd control technique and released later? You can be arrested without committing a crime. Will they be charged with something in court? As some of these are fairly recent matters and court systems are moving slowly due to the pandemic, the answer to your last question might not be clear at this time. This will be public record if they are.

giantg2 6y ago
"...court systems are moving slowly due to the pandemic..." They were moving slowly even before the pandemic. In some places the difference between trial wait times pre/post covid shutdowns is 18 months now being 24 months. I'm associated with a case that was a summary offense issued in August. It's been continued twice (not related to covid) and won't be heard until January at the earliest. This is at a magistrate level which is supposed to provide quicker resolution than the "real" courts.