3 ms·

Nowhere in the interview you linked to did the Minnesota governor say that the journalist was arrested for filming, either. The CNN journalist was far from the

Nowhere in the interview you linked to did the Minnesota governor say that the journalist was arrested for filming, either. The CNN journalist was far from the only person arrested. If the cops were arresting people for filming, not for violating dispersal orders, why were so many other people in the area who weren't filming being arrested? Why do you insist on claiming that they were arrested for filming, when CNN's own article doesn't make this claim? There was no causal link between filming and this man's arrest. The police ordered a crowd to disperse, and the crowd didn't. Members of the crowd did not disperse, and were arrested. A journalist was among said members that did not disperse and were arrested. He would have been arrested whether or not he was filming.

smnrchrds 6y ago
The debate is whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful. What unlawful purpose did the police had in mind when they arrested the journalists is of very little effect and does not warrant a discussion. If you want to prove the arrest was lawful, bring on evidence. For example, that the journalist was charged and convicted of a crime in relation to the arrest made here later. If there are no charges and convictions, and I cannot emphasize it enough because you seem to ignore it no matter how many times I say it, the video strongly suggests and I daresay even proves the arrest was made for not legitimate reason, and the governor apologized for it, I cannot see how you can argue in good faith that the arrest was lawful.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  > What unlawful purpose did the police had in mind when they arrested the journalists is of very little effect and does not warrant a discussion. Then please edit the comment to which I originally responded to correctly state that they were arrested for violating an order to disperse. If it's of such little effect then surely you would be fine with making this modest change, correct?
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    > correctly state that they were arrested for violating an order to disperse. My understanding of the situation is that they were arrested because the police wanted them arrested, plain and simple. Not because they ignored any order, but because the police had the power and the will, though not the legal right, to punish them. I am going to stop responding to your comments as you do not argue in good faith.
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago
      > My understanding of the situation is that they were arrested because the police wanted them arrested, plain and simple. Not because they ignored any order, but because the police had the power and the will, though not the legal right, to punish them. At least we're progressing from "he was arrested for filming" to "police wanted to arrest him" and speculating why. But we don't need to rely on speculation: The reporter asked why they were being arrested. The police responded that they were arrested because they didn't disperse from an area when they were told to do so. And plenty of people who weren't filming were also arrested. And the nowhere in the CNN article you originally linked to did it claim that their journalist was arrested for filming. I'm not just taking the police at their word, I'm comparing the police's words to what happened. And it's entirely consistent with what happened. If the police arrested the reporter, and only the reporter then a causal link between filming and the arrest would be more plausible. But the police were arresting other people who were refusing to disperse, too, so their reason is more consistent with the events that occurred as compared to your claim that the police were arresting people for filming. At this point I, too, have concluded I'm not talking to someone arguing in good faith. You're making an assertion based on preconceived notion about how the police behave and operate, ignoring the fact that this isn't at all consistent with the events that transpired, and accusing people who point this out of arguing in good faith. There isn't anything more to discuss here.

smnrchrds 6y ago

The debate is whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful. What unlawful purpose did the police had in mind when they arrested the journalists is of very little effect and does not warrant a discussion. If you want to prove the arrest was lawful, bring on evidence. For example, that the journalist was charged and convicted of a crime in relation to the arrest made here later. If there are no charges and convictions, and I cannot emphasize it enough because you seem to ignore it no matter how many times I say it, the video strongly suggests and I daresay even proves the arrest was made for not legitimate reason, and the governor apologized for it, I cannot see how you can argue in good faith that the arrest was lawful.

Manfredo_1 6y ago
> What unlawful purpose did the police had in mind when they arrested the journalists is of very little effect and does not warrant a discussion. Then please edit the comment to which I originally responded to correctly state that they were arrested for violating an order to disperse. If it's of such little effect then surely you would be fine with making this modest change, correct?
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > correctly state that they were arrested for violating an order to disperse. My understanding of the situation is that they were arrested because the police wanted them arrested, plain and simple. Not because they ignored any order, but because the police had the power and the will, though not the legal right, to punish them. I am going to stop responding to your comments as you do not argue in good faith.
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    > My understanding of the situation is that they were arrested because the police wanted them arrested, plain and simple. Not because they ignored any order, but because the police had the power and the will, though not the legal right, to punish them. At least we're progressing from "he was arrested for filming" to "police wanted to arrest him" and speculating why. But we don't need to rely on speculation: The reporter asked why they were being arrested. The police responded that they were arrested because they didn't disperse from an area when they were told to do so. And plenty of people who weren't filming were also arrested. And the nowhere in the CNN article you originally linked to did it claim that their journalist was arrested for filming. I'm not just taking the police at their word, I'm comparing the police's words to what happened. And it's entirely consistent with what happened. If the police arrested the reporter, and only the reporter then a causal link between filming and the arrest would be more plausible. But the police were arresting other people who were refusing to disperse, too, so their reason is more consistent with the events that occurred as compared to your claim that the police were arresting people for filming. At this point I, too, have concluded I'm not talking to someone arguing in good faith. You're making an assertion based on preconceived notion about how the police behave and operate, ignoring the fact that this isn't at all consistent with the events that transpired, and accusing people who point this out of arguing in good faith. There isn't anything more to discuss here.