11 ms·

Police in Minnesota round up journalists and take pictures of their faces

188 points by joe_the_user 6y ago

tomrod 6y ago
I get why this may be a good idea should there be a planned force response. However, this has me concerned.
- jefurii 6y ago
  There is no scenario where this behavior by the police is acceptable. This is intimidation pure and simple. The police have learned nothing from the past year of protests and continue to give us reasons why they should be replaced. Police are under the rule of law just like the rest of us.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    You're right that they technically are, but in practice it seems that they don't share the same level of scrutiny or punishment.
  - tomrod 6y ago
    There is one where is it plausibly performant without being socially acceptable, and it is dark. Premeditated attack.
throwoutttt 6y ago
I hope they don't peacefully demonstrate in my neighborhood, we've done nothing to deserve that
clcaev 6y ago
It's hard to get accurate understanding of important events if Journalists are intimidated or attacked. Some of the pictures from these conflicts give me pause. Here is one such thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/RainbowOfRed/status/1383524289542905870 https://mobile.twitter.com/RainbowOfRed/status/1383524289542... With Twitter and palm sized recording devices, what makes one a journalist (in these contexts)?
- ddingus 6y ago
  The line should be agency. If they contribute to the action, and that is not forced some how, like self defense, they are not journalists. They are actors. Otherwise, people are journalists when practicing journalism.
- viraptor 6y ago
  Official press credentials? https://uspressassociation.org/ https://uspressassociation.org/ Also for some more direct on-the-ground reporting from events like this https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja is a really good, dedicated organisation.
  - bingbong70 6y ago
    Under the 1st amendment, every citizen is "the press" if/when they choose to be. No centralized credentialing agency required to prove it.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
"After about 30 minutes, law enforcement told protesters to the leave the area in a loudspeaker announcement calling the demonstration an unlawful assembly." Unlawful assembly. "In England, the offence was abolished in 1986, but it exists in other countries."[0] "while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and in the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association"[1] I wouldn't be too excited about police in my area invoking "unlawful assembly" willy-nilly, especially when followed up by the "identification of press" actions as described in the article. I don't want to go too far off the deep end in commentary, but it's more anecdata pointing in an uncomfortable direction. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_assembly [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly
- hyldmo 6y ago
  In england they just replaced it with other similar laws, which are commonly deployed against people the police don't like [0]:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/06/law-to-stop-eveyone-everything https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/06/law-to...
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    That specific article is quite flamboyantly written. But then looking at just the intro page of the "Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act"[0] the uses cases are very wide-ranging in a way that I don't have the experience or knowledge to judge its 'normality'. eg: The Act introduced simpler, more effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide better protection for victims and communities. The Community Trigger and Community Remedy empowers victims and communities, giving them a greater say in how agencies respond to complaints of anti-social behaviour and in out-of-court sanctions for offenders. The Act also: - tackles irresponsible dog ownership and the use of illegal firearms by gangs and organised criminal groups - strengthens the protection afforded to the victims of forced marriage and those at risk of sexual harm - enhances the professional capabilities and integrity of the police - amends the port and border security powers in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, to ensure that they strike the right balance between the need to protect public safety and the protection of individual freedoms. - amends the Extradition Act 2003 to strengthen public confidence in, and the operational effectiveness of, our extradition arrangements [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/anti-social-behaviour-crime-and-police-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/anti-social-behavi...
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
I actually don't get this at all. Read the article, clearly the actions by police go against the order by the judge. So what is the point ? Why assume the risk ? What is the goal from law enforcement, and what is being achieved by the picture taking? Do cops think there are thugs cloaking themselves in fake press gear ? Do cops think press staff is actively participating in the riots? Where cops ordered to intimidate ? Who is the beneficiary from such a campaign ? So many questions, and the article explores almost none of them. Come on gents.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Why is this being referred as intimidation? That's answered in the article: "Colt described police then corralling protesters and media into one group and yelling for them to get “flat on our stomachs.” “They were the ones with the guns, so we were like, ‘OK, well, we have to do this,’” Colt said." There are more descriptions further on.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  Press means accountability - a dangerous threat to LEO
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Who is Leo? You capitalized it like you intended the abbreviation of "Law Enforcement Officers", but there are none of those here. Just a gang of lawless thugs in costumes.
    - watwut 6y ago
      I mean, for all the attempts to mock them, they are law enforcement officers. They do have legal rights of ones, they do have power and they have different set of laws that applies to them. They are not in costumes, those are really uniforms and they are really real cops. It just so happens that real cops are real people. And real people don't create pristine pure organizations straight from Hollywood movie. So what happens when the organization gets too much benefit of doubt and too little accountability is descent toward abusing power more and more.
Klwohu 6y ago
This is pretty cool. The journalists who have worked tirelessly to usher in the surveillance police state we all suffer under are finally getting the same treatment ordinary plebians have endured for years. The fourth estate, fifth column, whatever they are now are finally getting a heaping mouthful of what they've served up.
- loopz 6y ago
  Do you have sources to explain concretely what you mean here?
  - Klwohu 6y ago
    You may wish to read a book called Manufacturing Consent.
- medium_burrito 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm pretty much here. We have a few guys like Greenwald who dare stand up and nothing like a peep from everybody else. Those of us who are big L or F have just given up at this point and have kind of figured out an alternative- let's call it plan dolphin! Meanwhile fake press like we've seen over the past year at protests trying to garner sympathy... that won't work in the era of 5th generation Russia. Everybody's too polarized already to care.
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
This is the most Chinese thing I've seen US LEO do in hours - right after surveilling people not suspected of a crime.
- thablackbull 6y ago
  No, it's pretty much an American thing, you should learn a little American history. America has no problem killing its own citizens: > That night, the city of Philadelphia dropped a satchel bomb, a demolition device typically used in combat, laced with Tovex and C-4 explosives on the MOVE organization, who were living in a West Philadelphia rowhome known to be occupied by men, women, and children. It went up in unextinguished flames. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/8/8/20747198/philadelphia-bombing-1985-move https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/8/8/20747198/philadel...
  - mod 6y ago
    Right, China would never kill its own citizens. Totally an American phenomenon.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      Not what they said or suggested. You're missing the point.
    - watwut 6y ago
      The point you are responding to was that this is something America done and is doing. It is not something foreign to America and it has nothing to do with China. Trying to change the topic into what is happening in China serves only to obfuscate discussion. When Chinese imprison people, we don't call it Americanization of China either.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    That event occurred 36 years (in 1985) after MOVE fired at police and refused to vacate a house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE Got something more current, or are you planning to go back to the 17th century next?
deathanatos 6y ago
> Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed. > The incident occurred hours after a judge issued a temporary order barring the Minnesota State Patrol from using physical force or chemical agents against journalists, according to court documents. Sounds like the police don't care about the judge's order, nor the rights of journalists.
- ngngngng 6y ago
  Why would they when the worst possible outcome is to take paid leave and find a job a couple cities over?
  - glenda 6y ago
    Exactly, we have shown these people that no matter what they do we won’t hold them accountable. That needs to change otherwise we’re headed somewhere I don’t want to go.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      ...hence these very protests. And thus the outsized extra-legal response. This is a gang war, fundamentally. Cops view the protest movement as an existential threat (and strictly, they're not wrong) and are going to use whatever tools they can find to fight it. They aren't trying to enforce the law, they're trying to put down their enemies.
      - lsiebert 6y ago
        Speaking of Law enforcement gangs I just got sent this, and I'm shocked, but also not that shocked? Some great indie journalism. https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/ https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history...
      - culot 6y ago
jimbob45 6y ago
I don’t understand the point to begin with. Assume competent malice by the police. What do they stand to gain by unlawfully photographing journalists that they could not have obtained by simply lawfully checking their credentials?
- lsiebert 6y ago
  "troopers checked and photographed journalists and their credentials and driver's licenses at the scene in order to expedite the identification process." Now they know who they are, and where they live. It's a classic intimidation tactic.
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    Right but checking credentials was okay and I assume their credentials had their name (or gathering their names was surely okay). It was just the photography that wasn’t okay. However, what do you need a photograph for when you can just go pull up their file back at the station using the name on the credentials you just took down?
    - lsiebert 6y ago
      Exactly, it wasn't necessary for law enforcement functions. It served another purpose entirely.
    - kergonath 6y ago
      Intimidation is the point. None of this is required to check a journalist’s status.
- sporkologist 6y ago
  They are intimidating them, you know, like fascists do sometimes
- koheripbal 6y ago
  They are arresting violent protesters that are masquerading as journalists.
rogerdickey 6y ago
Unsurprisingly, this title grossly misleads. RTFA. The journos didn’t leave the area after they were ordered to by police and that is why they were “rounded up”.
- hncommenter13 6y ago
  I believe your reading is incorrect. The police are not allowed to order journalists to leave the area or to "round them up." The police were given a legal order by a judge not to do this. They did it anyway, issuing an unlawful order as applied to journalists. If the police can't themselves operate within the law they're sworn to uphold, why do they deserve any deference or respect?
  - rogerdickey 6y ago
    I’m saying the conversation should focus on whether or not the police were allowed to do this, not colorful language like “journalists being rounded up.”
    - ub99 6y ago
      You advocate not using colorful language while calling journalists “journos”?
    - kergonath 6y ago
      You might want that, but you can’t change the fact that they were.
- sircastor 6y ago
  This is ultimately the question though. The Press is the so-called 4th estate of government. They provide information to the people about how the government (and it’s agents) operate. The police didn’t tell the press to disperse, they told the protest to do so. So are the Press part of the protest? Are they impartial and there in an objective observer capacity only (can they be?) I don’t know the answers to those, but it’s not hard to see police using this tactic to prevent press from observing and reporting.
dpeck 6y ago
Things like this happen often and every time it does the media takes the position that they should be protected and held in a special position because of their employer. I wish we would collectively agree that press is a thing people do, not a certain “class” of people. All people should be able to observe and report on (to the extent they wish or do not wish to) actions of the state without being interfered with.
- edoceo 6y ago
  here's why credentialed press are a bit different: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
- glenda 6y ago
  The fact that the police are often the ones issuing the press passes seems like a serious conflict of interest: why would they give passes out to news outlets that are critical of their departments? They have almost nothing to gain from doing so.
  - hulitu 6y ago
    Because that's how propaganda works.
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  I have never heard someone propose this but I think I agree! Sharing and reporting and documenting news worthy events should be protected.
- clcaev 6y ago
  Agency isn't such a bright line? What about the professional journalist who stays past the curfew announced 10 minutes earlier, remains in the middle of a protest to live interview the event, and then gets caught in the police corral? Once the police collapse a large group of people into a very small area (say, with gas and shields), is there anyway that this journalist is not "involved"? Or, should this journalist, to remain an observer and not become a participant, immediately leave when the state commands them to do so... perhaps going to an authorized "observation area"? Civil disobedience has proven critical for societal progress. Why shouldn't those who are career professionals at documenting these events be given deference, acknowledging their service to the public interest?
op03 6y ago
At this point, sounds more like both sides are just hell bent on hurting each other. With the US producing Leaders all well trained to chase Likes/Followers ie Pander to their Fan clubs, de-escalation is not possible in such an environment, leave alone solutions. The only way things change is if social media algo amplification is shut down as soon as a serious incident occurs. Let people from all sides vent, but strip out the counts. Amplifying opinions algorithmically hasn't shown any promise as a route to solutions. Thats the only way local leaders on both sides get breathing space to stop pandering and do something useful.
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  One side has guns and has been shown to literally kil. I don’t think this is a particularly good example of “each side has done something wrong” or mutually equal war. The police are the “bad guys” here.
  - tjs8rj 6y ago
    The argument against this is noting that the media has a clear financial interest in riots (crises boost viewership), and it could be argued that many media outlets have worked to foment this kind of outrage by stirring the pot, running emotionally charged headlines, justifying the riots, and so on. I’m not saying I personally feel this way, but I know people who do and taking this perspective seriously is the only way we can find true resolutions to these problems.
    - kergonath 6y ago
      That is not an argument at all. You can call it rioting if the journalists actually riot, or even incite. You’d have to be specific and show that these particular journalists were guilty of it, otherwise you’re just punishing random people for things they haven’t done. Also, you cannot punish someone for doing something legal. Otherwise, the fact that their business model depends on things happening is immaterial. It’s like calling doctors mass murderers because they benefit from people getting sick.
INTPenis 6y ago
This is an old passive aggressive tactic I've seen used in many protests here in Europe for well over a decade. Either right wing people film left wing people, or undercover police film everyone at the protest. I'm sure the video might be used for training or mapping some organisation but in the end I don't think it's used in any face recognition software. I always saw it as a scare tactic tbh. But the scary thing is that we can't be sure.
252452d 6y ago
They're doing this because there's a decent chance that some nutter will go shoot up these journalists, so it's an indirect way of threatening them. Police are filth and must be disbanded, getting a gun and protecting yourself in America is by far a better option than relying on these morons for anything at all.
dukeofdoom 6y ago
Political violence is sometimes justified. Just hard to see how it is in this case. If Derek Chauvin is acquitted this week. There's a good chance he will be at least partially, based on the trial evidence of drugs and heart disease being the main cause of Floyd's death. If so, this whole incident, will be the ultimate example of misleading video, amplified by lying journalists, for clicks and violence for political gain. As soon as one side is allowed to use violence to achieve political goals, what is to prevent the other side in acting the same way. It will be interesting to see how Biden will react when the shoe is on the other foot.
- briffle 6y ago
  No doctor that treated him or performed his autopsy has given any evidence of heart disease, or drugs contributing to his suffocation. A defense witness speculated, but had no evidence.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    > He affirmed his findings about Floyd's health problems and drugs, saying again "those are not direct causes. Those are contributing causes." https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-said-that-with-underlying-heart-conditions-arrest-was-just-more-tha/600044000/ https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-s...
  - dukeofdoom 6y ago
    The case for "Reasonable Doubt" ... came across it on reddit. >he had severe heart disease >he had an enlarged heart >he had 75% to 90% occlusion of his three major coronary arteries >he had untreated severe hypertension >he had a previously recorded BP of 216/160 >he had a tumor (extra-adrenal paraganglioma) associated with hypertension/heart attacks >his lungs were 2-3x heavier than normal (pulmonary edema) >he had COVID >he was a smoker >he was nodding off/passed out when police arrived at his SUV >he had to be physically nudged to be awoken >he was in the SUV with his personal drug dealer(s) >he had a white substance in his mouth >he was saying he couldn't breathe before restraint >the knee on the back of the neck is a technique used by the MPD and nearly every other law enforcement agency in the world >it is used to prevent them thrashing about and harming others (and themselves) >it is an extremely common method of restraining an individual's range of motion and view >it did not occlude both (or even one) of the carotid arteries or restrict the airway >it is well documented to be generally very safe >EMS was called early but arrived late >the hobble was not used to avoid further delaying medical care >the hostile crowd distracted the police and the EMS didn't want to give on-scene medical care because it was not secure for their safety >he had an oxygen saturation of 98% at the hospital >the autopsy revealed no abrasions, bruising, hematomas, or fractured bones in the shoulder/neck area >he had a number of drugs in his system, including fentanyl (depressant) and methamphetamine (stimulant/vasoconstrictor) >he had a fatal amount of fentanyl in his system >he swallowed drugs during his 2019 arrest >fentanyl/methamphetamine pills were found in the back of > the squad car, containing Floyd's DNA, also in the SUV
imwillofficial 6y ago
What is the Biden Administration doing to stomp on this kind of behavior?
King-Aaron 6y ago
America: Land of the something something
mellavora 6y ago
This needs to be seen in a larger context. The police have been actively harassing citizens since the protests began. Endless low-altitude helicopters circling over neighborhoods: https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/02/09/endless-helicopter-noise-over-minneapolis-has-residents-on-edge/ https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/02/09/endless-helicopter-... Mass arrests and harassment of peaceful protesters. Including my niece. People are picked up by the police, but not 'booked' until 9-10 hours later, and they sometimes have unexplainable injuries by the time they are booked. Cell phones are confiscated as evidence; good luck getting it back in less than 5 years. Police are not the good guys. This is not the country I was taught to believe in.
- robin21 6y ago
  Peaceful != Legal Assuming you are not right-wing, imagine having endless Trump people on the street protesting - there is no way you would reach the same conclusion.
  - SuchAnonMuchWow 6y ago
    I don't live in the US, so I'm not familiar with the law there, but I don't understand why a peacefull gathering would be illegal ? Are large gathering illegal somehow ?
    - Shugarl 6y ago
      Well, in some places, gatherings have been temporarily banned because of the covid. No idea if that's the case here.
    - robin21 6y ago
      “Peaceful” gatherings are not illegal as long as they follow the rules. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/ In every country in the world the rules of protests are legislated. Peaceful protests can turn violent or break the rules and then police can shut them down.
- 6y ago
timoth3y 6y ago
> The incident occurred hours after a judge issued a temporary order barring the Minnesota State Patrol from using physical force or chemical agents against journalists They are kind of burying the lede here. How the hell did we reach a point where judges have to intervene to order police to stop tear-gassing and beating up journalists? As a society, this is not a good place to be.
_nalply 6y ago
Loudspeaker telling the crowd to disperse. OK. And what do Deaf people do?
- SuchAnonMuchWow 6y ago
  They are following their peers when they disperse, or ask around why everyone is dispersing.
  - _nalply 6y ago
    But not everybody, for example the journalists, did disperse.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  What do people who don't understand English do?
  - _nalply 6y ago
    They hear the loudspeakers and know that something is wrong.
RickJWagner 6y ago
Photographers have also been turned away from the crisis at the US/Mexico border. Authoritarianism seems to be on the rise. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/journalists-banned-border-facilities-migrants/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/journalist...
sharken 6y ago
It's relevant to mention why this is happening https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/11/brooklyn-center-minnesota-shooting-police/7184964002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/11/brookly...
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
It is interesting how police is wildly different between countries. In France they are routinely attacked and their reaction is gentle (recent example: explosives and molotov bombs were thrown directly at them, they responded by lacrymogen gas). Paris streets were being destroyed and they did not attack the hooligans. For attempting to kill policemen by burning them alive in their car (it was a trap, police was called to come), out of 16 attackers only 8 were jailed for 8 to 16 years. I miss something in between France (the world of teletubbies) and the US (Mad Max)

188 points by joe_the_user 6y ago

tomrod 6y ago

I get why this may be a good idea should there be a planned force response. However, this has me concerned.

jefurii 6y ago
There is no scenario where this behavior by the police is acceptable. This is intimidation pure and simple. The police have learned nothing from the past year of protests and continue to give us reasons why they should be replaced. Police are under the rule of law just like the rest of us.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  You're right that they technically are, but in practice it seems that they don't share the same level of scrutiny or punishment.
- tomrod 6y ago
  There is one where is it plausibly performant without being socially acceptable, and it is dark. Premeditated attack.

throwoutttt 6y ago

I hope they don't peacefully demonstrate in my neighborhood, we've done nothing to deserve that

clcaev 6y ago

It's hard to get accurate understanding of important events if Journalists are intimidated or attacked. Some of the pictures from these conflicts give me pause. Here is one such thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/RainbowOfRed/status/1383524289542905870 https://mobile.twitter.com/RainbowOfRed/status/1383524289542... With Twitter and palm sized recording devices, what makes one a journalist (in these contexts)?

ddingus 6y ago
The line should be agency. If they contribute to the action, and that is not forced some how, like self defense, they are not journalists. They are actors. Otherwise, people are journalists when practicing journalism.
viraptor 6y ago
Official press credentials? https://uspressassociation.org/ https://uspressassociation.org/ Also for some more direct on-the-ground reporting from events like this https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja is a really good, dedicated organisation.
- bingbong70 6y ago
  Under the 1st amendment, every citizen is "the press" if/when they choose to be. No centralized credentialing agency required to prove it.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

"After about 30 minutes, law enforcement told protesters to the leave the area in a loudspeaker announcement calling the demonstration an unlawful assembly." Unlawful assembly. "In England, the offence was abolished in 1986, but it exists in other countries."[0] "while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and in the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association"[1] I wouldn't be too excited about police in my area invoking "unlawful assembly" willy-nilly, especially when followed up by the "identification of press" actions as described in the article. I don't want to go too far off the deep end in commentary, but it's more anecdata pointing in an uncomfortable direction. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_assembly [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

hyldmo 6y ago
In england they just replaced it with other similar laws, which are commonly deployed against people the police don't like [0]:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/06/law-to-stop-eveyone-everything https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/06/law-to...
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  That specific article is quite flamboyantly written. But then looking at just the intro page of the "Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act"[0] the uses cases are very wide-ranging in a way that I don't have the experience or knowledge to judge its 'normality'. eg: The Act introduced simpler, more effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide better protection for victims and communities. The Community Trigger and Community Remedy empowers victims and communities, giving them a greater say in how agencies respond to complaints of anti-social behaviour and in out-of-court sanctions for offenders. The Act also: - tackles irresponsible dog ownership and the use of illegal firearms by gangs and organised criminal groups - strengthens the protection afforded to the victims of forced marriage and those at risk of sexual harm - enhances the professional capabilities and integrity of the police - amends the port and border security powers in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, to ensure that they strike the right balance between the need to protect public safety and the protection of individual freedoms. - amends the Extradition Act 2003 to strengthen public confidence in, and the operational effectiveness of, our extradition arrangements [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/anti-social-behaviour-crime-and-police-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/anti-social-behavi...

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

I actually don't get this at all. Read the article, clearly the actions by police go against the order by the judge. So what is the point ? Why assume the risk ? What is the goal from law enforcement, and what is being achieved by the picture taking? Do cops think there are thugs cloaking themselves in fake press gear ? Do cops think press staff is actively participating in the riots? Where cops ordered to intimidate ? Who is the beneficiary from such a campaign ? So many questions, and the article explores almost none of them. Come on gents.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Why is this being referred as intimidation? That's answered in the article: "Colt described police then corralling protesters and media into one group and yelling for them to get “flat on our stomachs.” “They were the ones with the guns, so we were like, ‘OK, well, we have to do this,’” Colt said." There are more descriptions further on.
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
Press means accountability - a dangerous threat to LEO
- mindslight 6y ago
  Who is Leo? You capitalized it like you intended the abbreviation of "Law Enforcement Officers", but there are none of those here. Just a gang of lawless thugs in costumes.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I mean, for all the attempts to mock them, they are law enforcement officers. They do have legal rights of ones, they do have power and they have different set of laws that applies to them. They are not in costumes, those are really uniforms and they are really real cops. It just so happens that real cops are real people. And real people don't create pristine pure organizations straight from Hollywood movie. So what happens when the organization gets too much benefit of doubt and too little accountability is descent toward abusing power more and more.

Klwohu 6y ago

This is pretty cool. The journalists who have worked tirelessly to usher in the surveillance police state we all suffer under are finally getting the same treatment ordinary plebians have endured for years. The fourth estate, fifth column, whatever they are now are finally getting a heaping mouthful of what they've served up.

loopz 6y ago
Do you have sources to explain concretely what you mean here?
- Klwohu 6y ago
  You may wish to read a book called Manufacturing Consent.
medium_burrito 6y ago
Yeah, I'm pretty much here. We have a few guys like Greenwald who dare stand up and nothing like a peep from everybody else. Those of us who are big L or F have just given up at this point and have kind of figured out an alternative- let's call it plan dolphin! Meanwhile fake press like we've seen over the past year at protests trying to garner sympathy... that won't work in the era of 5th generation Russia. Everybody's too polarized already to care.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

This is the most Chinese thing I've seen US LEO do in hours - right after surveilling people not suspected of a crime.

thablackbull 6y ago
No, it's pretty much an American thing, you should learn a little American history. America has no problem killing its own citizens: > That night, the city of Philadelphia dropped a satchel bomb, a demolition device typically used in combat, laced with Tovex and C-4 explosives on the MOVE organization, who were living in a West Philadelphia rowhome known to be occupied by men, women, and children. It went up in unextinguished flames. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/8/8/20747198/philadelphia-bombing-1985-move https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/8/8/20747198/philadel...
- mod 6y ago
  Right, China would never kill its own citizens. Totally an American phenomenon.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    Not what they said or suggested. You're missing the point.
  - watwut 6y ago
    The point you are responding to was that this is something America done and is doing. It is not something foreign to America and it has nothing to do with China. Trying to change the topic into what is happening in China serves only to obfuscate discussion. When Chinese imprison people, we don't call it Americanization of China either.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  That event occurred 36 years (in 1985) after MOVE fired at police and refused to vacate a house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE Got something more current, or are you planning to go back to the 17th century next?

deathanatos 6y ago

> Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed. > The incident occurred hours after a judge issued a temporary order barring the Minnesota State Patrol from using physical force or chemical agents against journalists, according to court documents. Sounds like the police don't care about the judge's order, nor the rights of journalists.

ngngngng 6y ago
Why would they when the worst possible outcome is to take paid leave and find a job a couple cities over?
- glenda 6y ago
  Exactly, we have shown these people that no matter what they do we won’t hold them accountable. That needs to change otherwise we’re headed somewhere I don’t want to go.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    ...hence these very protests. And thus the outsized extra-legal response. This is a gang war, fundamentally. Cops view the protest movement as an existential threat (and strictly, they're not wrong) and are going to use whatever tools they can find to fight it. They aren't trying to enforce the law, they're trying to put down their enemies.
    - lsiebert 6y ago
      Speaking of Law enforcement gangs I just got sent this, and I'm shocked, but also not that shocked? Some great indie journalism. https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/ https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history...
    - culot 6y ago

jimbob45 6y ago

I don’t understand the point to begin with. Assume competent malice by the police. What do they stand to gain by unlawfully photographing journalists that they could not have obtained by simply lawfully checking their credentials?

lsiebert 6y ago
"troopers checked and photographed journalists and their credentials and driver's licenses at the scene in order to expedite the identification process." Now they know who they are, and where they live. It's a classic intimidation tactic.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  Right but checking credentials was okay and I assume their credentials had their name (or gathering their names was surely okay). It was just the photography that wasn’t okay. However, what do you need a photograph for when you can just go pull up their file back at the station using the name on the credentials you just took down?
  - lsiebert 6y ago
    Exactly, it wasn't necessary for law enforcement functions. It served another purpose entirely.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    Intimidation is the point. None of this is required to check a journalist’s status.
sporkologist 6y ago
They are intimidating them, you know, like fascists do sometimes
koheripbal 6y ago
They are arresting violent protesters that are masquerading as journalists.

rogerdickey 6y ago

Unsurprisingly, this title grossly misleads. RTFA. The journos didn’t leave the area after they were ordered to by police and that is why they were “rounded up”.

hncommenter13 6y ago
I believe your reading is incorrect. The police are not allowed to order journalists to leave the area or to "round them up." The police were given a legal order by a judge not to do this. They did it anyway, issuing an unlawful order as applied to journalists. If the police can't themselves operate within the law they're sworn to uphold, why do they deserve any deference or respect?
- rogerdickey 6y ago
  I’m saying the conversation should focus on whether or not the police were allowed to do this, not colorful language like “journalists being rounded up.”
  - ub99 6y ago
    You advocate not using colorful language while calling journalists “journos”?
  - kergonath 6y ago
    You might want that, but you can’t change the fact that they were.
sircastor 6y ago
This is ultimately the question though. The Press is the so-called 4th estate of government. They provide information to the people about how the government (and it’s agents) operate. The police didn’t tell the press to disperse, they told the protest to do so. So are the Press part of the protest? Are they impartial and there in an objective observer capacity only (can they be?) I don’t know the answers to those, but it’s not hard to see police using this tactic to prevent press from observing and reporting.

dpeck 6y ago

Things like this happen often and every time it does the media takes the position that they should be protected and held in a special position because of their employer. I wish we would collectively agree that press is a thing people do, not a certain “class” of people. All people should be able to observe and report on (to the extent they wish or do not wish to) actions of the state without being interfered with.

edoceo 6y ago
here's why credentialed press are a bit different: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
glenda 6y ago
The fact that the police are often the ones issuing the press passes seems like a serious conflict of interest: why would they give passes out to news outlets that are critical of their departments? They have almost nothing to gain from doing so.
- hulitu 6y ago
  Because that's how propaganda works.
vineyardmike 6y ago
I have never heard someone propose this but I think I agree! Sharing and reporting and documenting news worthy events should be protected.
clcaev 6y ago
Agency isn't such a bright line? What about the professional journalist who stays past the curfew announced 10 minutes earlier, remains in the middle of a protest to live interview the event, and then gets caught in the police corral? Once the police collapse a large group of people into a very small area (say, with gas and shields), is there anyway that this journalist is not "involved"? Or, should this journalist, to remain an observer and not become a participant, immediately leave when the state commands them to do so... perhaps going to an authorized "observation area"? Civil disobedience has proven critical for societal progress. Why shouldn't those who are career professionals at documenting these events be given deference, acknowledging their service to the public interest?

op03 6y ago

At this point, sounds more like both sides are just hell bent on hurting each other. With the US producing Leaders all well trained to chase Likes/Followers ie Pander to their Fan clubs, de-escalation is not possible in such an environment, leave alone solutions. The only way things change is if social media algo amplification is shut down as soon as a serious incident occurs. Let people from all sides vent, but strip out the counts. Amplifying opinions algorithmically hasn't shown any promise as a route to solutions. Thats the only way local leaders on both sides get breathing space to stop pandering and do something useful.

vineyardmike 6y ago
One side has guns and has been shown to literally kil. I don’t think this is a particularly good example of “each side has done something wrong” or mutually equal war. The police are the “bad guys” here.
- tjs8rj 6y ago
  The argument against this is noting that the media has a clear financial interest in riots (crises boost viewership), and it could be argued that many media outlets have worked to foment this kind of outrage by stirring the pot, running emotionally charged headlines, justifying the riots, and so on. I’m not saying I personally feel this way, but I know people who do and taking this perspective seriously is the only way we can find true resolutions to these problems.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    That is not an argument at all. You can call it rioting if the journalists actually riot, or even incite. You’d have to be specific and show that these particular journalists were guilty of it, otherwise you’re just punishing random people for things they haven’t done. Also, you cannot punish someone for doing something legal. Otherwise, the fact that their business model depends on things happening is immaterial. It’s like calling doctors mass murderers because they benefit from people getting sick.

INTPenis 6y ago

This is an old passive aggressive tactic I've seen used in many protests here in Europe for well over a decade. Either right wing people film left wing people, or undercover police film everyone at the protest. I'm sure the video might be used for training or mapping some organisation but in the end I don't think it's used in any face recognition software. I always saw it as a scare tactic tbh. But the scary thing is that we can't be sure.

252452d 6y ago

They're doing this because there's a decent chance that some nutter will go shoot up these journalists, so it's an indirect way of threatening them. Police are filth and must be disbanded, getting a gun and protecting yourself in America is by far a better option than relying on these morons for anything at all.

dukeofdoom 6y ago

Political violence is sometimes justified. Just hard to see how it is in this case. If Derek Chauvin is acquitted this week. There's a good chance he will be at least partially, based on the trial evidence of drugs and heart disease being the main cause of Floyd's death. If so, this whole incident, will be the ultimate example of misleading video, amplified by lying journalists, for clicks and violence for political gain. As soon as one side is allowed to use violence to achieve political goals, what is to prevent the other side in acting the same way. It will be interesting to see how Biden will react when the shoe is on the other foot.

briffle 6y ago
No doctor that treated him or performed his autopsy has given any evidence of heart disease, or drugs contributing to his suffocation. A defense witness speculated, but had no evidence.
- nwienert 6y ago
  > He affirmed his findings about Floyd's health problems and drugs, saying again "those are not direct causes. Those are contributing causes." https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-said-that-with-underlying-heart-conditions-arrest-was-just-more-tha/600044000/ https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-s...
- dukeofdoom 6y ago
  The case for "Reasonable Doubt" ... came across it on reddit. >he had severe heart disease >he had an enlarged heart >he had 75% to 90% occlusion of his three major coronary arteries >he had untreated severe hypertension >he had a previously recorded BP of 216/160 >he had a tumor (extra-adrenal paraganglioma) associated with hypertension/heart attacks >his lungs were 2-3x heavier than normal (pulmonary edema) >he had COVID >he was a smoker >he was nodding off/passed out when police arrived at his SUV >he had to be physically nudged to be awoken >he was in the SUV with his personal drug dealer(s) >he had a white substance in his mouth >he was saying he couldn't breathe before restraint >the knee on the back of the neck is a technique used by the MPD and nearly every other law enforcement agency in the world >it is used to prevent them thrashing about and harming others (and themselves) >it is an extremely common method of restraining an individual's range of motion and view >it did not occlude both (or even one) of the carotid arteries or restrict the airway >it is well documented to be generally very safe >EMS was called early but arrived late >the hobble was not used to avoid further delaying medical care >the hostile crowd distracted the police and the EMS didn't want to give on-scene medical care because it was not secure for their safety >he had an oxygen saturation of 98% at the hospital >the autopsy revealed no abrasions, bruising, hematomas, or fractured bones in the shoulder/neck area >he had a number of drugs in his system, including fentanyl (depressant) and methamphetamine (stimulant/vasoconstrictor) >he had a fatal amount of fentanyl in his system >he swallowed drugs during his 2019 arrest >fentanyl/methamphetamine pills were found in the back of > the squad car, containing Floyd's DNA, also in the SUV

imwillofficial 6y ago

What is the Biden Administration doing to stomp on this kind of behavior?

King-Aaron 6y ago

America: Land of the something something

mellavora 6y ago

This needs to be seen in a larger context. The police have been actively harassing citizens since the protests began. Endless low-altitude helicopters circling over neighborhoods: https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/02/09/endless-helicopter-noise-over-minneapolis-has-residents-on-edge/ https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/02/09/endless-helicopter-... Mass arrests and harassment of peaceful protesters. Including my niece. People are picked up by the police, but not 'booked' until 9-10 hours later, and they sometimes have unexplainable injuries by the time they are booked. Cell phones are confiscated as evidence; good luck getting it back in less than 5 years. Police are not the good guys. This is not the country I was taught to believe in.

robin21 6y ago
Peaceful != Legal Assuming you are not right-wing, imagine having endless Trump people on the street protesting - there is no way you would reach the same conclusion.
- SuchAnonMuchWow 6y ago
  I don't live in the US, so I'm not familiar with the law there, but I don't understand why a peacefull gathering would be illegal ? Are large gathering illegal somehow ?
  - Shugarl 6y ago
    Well, in some places, gatherings have been temporarily banned because of the covid. No idea if that's the case here.
  - robin21 6y ago
    “Peaceful” gatherings are not illegal as long as they follow the rules. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/ In every country in the world the rules of protests are legislated. Peaceful protests can turn violent or break the rules and then police can shut them down.
6y ago

timoth3y 6y ago

> The incident occurred hours after a judge issued a temporary order barring the Minnesota State Patrol from using physical force or chemical agents against journalists They are kind of burying the lede here. How the hell did we reach a point where judges have to intervene to order police to stop tear-gassing and beating up journalists? As a society, this is not a good place to be.

_nalply 6y ago

Loudspeaker telling the crowd to disperse. OK. And what do Deaf people do?

SuchAnonMuchWow 6y ago
They are following their peers when they disperse, or ask around why everyone is dispersing.
- _nalply 6y ago
  But not everybody, for example the journalists, did disperse.
thinkingemote 6y ago
What do people who don't understand English do?
- _nalply 6y ago
  They hear the loudspeakers and know that something is wrong.

RickJWagner 6y ago

Photographers have also been turned away from the crisis at the US/Mexico border. Authoritarianism seems to be on the rise. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/journalists-banned-border-facilities-migrants/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/journalist...

sharken 6y ago

It's relevant to mention why this is happening https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/11/brooklyn-center-minnesota-shooting-police/7184964002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/11/brookly...

BrandoElFollito 6y ago

It is interesting how police is wildly different between countries. In France they are routinely attacked and their reaction is gentle (recent example: explosives and molotov bombs were thrown directly at them, they responded by lacrymogen gas). Paris streets were being destroyed and they did not attack the hooligans. For attempting to kill policemen by burning them alive in their car (it was a trap, police was called to come), out of 16 attackers only 8 were jailed for 8 to 16 years. I miss something in between France (the world of teletubbies) and the US (Mad Max)