CNN reporter arrested live on air while covering Minneapolis protests [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
I wonder what those officers were thinking, arresting a reporter on live camera.
It's possible that they didn't know it was a live broadcast.
It really seems like their intention was to cook up charges, then realized they screwed the pooch and pretended it's all okay because now they're free. It's not. The intimidation has lasting effects and they know it.
The point is that it's not even in the officers' own self-interest.
That's being extremely charitable.
If the intent was to arrest them all, they would have said "you're all under arrest". This smells like they arrested the guy, went "oh shit lets arrest the others too so people don't say we're racist"
This is very much systemic.
Are you sure it’s as simple as “this guy was black”? If you aren’t sure it seems like a bad accusation to make.
The arrested crew did not move. They asked for clarification and were arrested. That’s wrong.
But the crew that was not arrested did move. They didn’t ask for clarification, the just moved then went back to reporting.
The accusation above is that the white, Latino and black guy were arrested because the reporter is black. Is there anything to support that?
The larger story is that there is close to zero accountability for police in this country. At least a small minority of cops are racist and violent and use the opportunity to murder citizens and other police will not speak out.
> Are you sure it’s as simple as “this guy was black”? If you aren’t sure it seems like a bad accusation to make.
Come again? First, the post doesn't rise to the level of "accusation." In fact, it explicitly leaves open the possibility that it's a coincidence.
Second, should we just not mention statistically relevant variables? Not report on facts? Do you doubt that race played a factor in this specific case, or that it is often relevant?
Except that also arrested was a white guy and a latino guy.
Aren’t those relevant variables?
At this point, from some of my friends in the city, it sounds like there just isn't much oversight at all---they've now been caught on video taking guns from people with valid licenses and now arresting the press. I don't think that we can effectively apply logic when the police system seems so disorganized.
I understand that the criminal justice system is very often lenient on police officers, and I'm strongly in favor of increased police accountability; however, there are still many cases of police officers going to prison and departments/municipalities being sued for police misconduct, so to say that there is no actual liability is hyperbole.
When they can kill someone who isn't a threat, on camera, and face no consequences, why would we expect them to face consequences for something like a frivolous arrest?
I don't doubt this, but I don't see how you get from there to "there is no liability at all".
> The present one is the first case I know of where anyone from inside the government actually called for an investigation, and it was probably because they were afraid of the very riot situation we now find ourselves in.
I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone from inside the government is called for an investigation"; do you mean you don't think police officers in these situations are never or rarely investigated, charged, etc? Or are you speaking about some other government official (and if so, I don't know what you're talking about specifically or how it relates to this broader conversation about liability).
> When they can kill someone who isn't a threat, on camera, and face no consequences, why would we expect them to face consequences for something like a frivolous arrest?
Your premise is wrong. A quick Google search turned up this collection of police department settlements[0] and this collection of police officers[1] charged in recent, high-profile killings.
Note that there is a middle ground between "there is no accountability" and "the system is working just fine"--we absolutely should increase police accountability, but "there is no liability/accountability" isn't accurate or helpful.
[0]: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settl...
[1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-ch...
You are both right. However, in the article [1] a large number of police officers were either acquitted, are awaiting sentencing, or were not punished, what the general population would consider, fairly.
When we hear about police departments agreeing to settle - that does not give us, as a society, a closure. Individual police officers have committed crimes, but now the tax payers are paying for that? That's not accountability.
My position is that there is some accountability but it's not sufficient for any reasonable standard of justice.
Now, if we'd looked at the statistics (homeownership gap, achievement gap in education) or listened to black Minnesotans, we'd know that we're not better than anyone else in the US. But there is at least a desire. We really do have folks in leadership who want to be/do better, even if we're failing at it.
> On May 18, the court turned away three of these appeals, including a jaw-dropping case in which police were granted qualified immunity after literally stealing $225,000. (There is no clearly established right not to be robbed by cops, the court held.)
[1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-sup...
In this particular instance, surely CNN has a strong case against the Minneapolis police department?
[0]: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settl...
[1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-ch...
Your link [1] shows how rarely police officers are found criminally liable for murder even in the most egregious of circumstances (only the most egregious ones are prosecuted at all and even most of those result in acquittals).
On the other hand you are right that link [0] shows that it is much more common that the police are found to have civil liability. Not personally, of course, the payments will come out of liability insurance (and, therefore, taxpayer coffers).
> Not personally, of course, the payments will come out of liability insurance (and, therefore, taxpayer coffers).
I think this might actually be eminently desirable that the taxpayer is on the hook. We shoulder a lot of responsibility for our police (not the actions of any given officer, but the system that either fails to weed out 'bad apple' officers or fails to adequately train them or whatever other systemic failure is responsible) and it's right that we shoulder the cost for our lack of will to enact police reform or take it seriously. Of course, I don't think the liability--criminal or civil--is adequate in magnitude, and I would like to see more of both.
Just put the officers on the hook instead, reform done.
Doctors are on the hook for medical malpractice, works quite well and we still have doctors.
I can't say anything about the situation with the Minneapolis PD, but it seems like it has a major training problem, there was also the case a couple of years ago of the cop that shot and killed a (white) woman in her PJs who was reporting a possible crime out of the window of their patrol vehicle.
It was pretty surreal to watch, for me, and notice absolutely no actions from law enforcement, fire departments, or the national guard on site obviously strategically chosen by some upper leadership (governor?), likely to minimize the situation from escalating. The reporter pointed this out multiple times. It was probably the right call IMHO.
I suspect when law enforcement finally did move in afterwards, it was also strategic to minimize that escalating the situation. I wouldn't be surprised if the arrest was strategic just to minimize on-the ground coverage.
I tip my hat to Omar Jimenez and crew for the coverage they provided.
Having police officers paid so little that you put up with 18 violations, or willfully ignore them out of comraderie is fundamentally a system that is not sustainable or worth having pride over.
Seattle starts at $65k+ and the avg is $100k.
Then you factor in top tier healthcare and a very generous pension program, and their total compensation balloons.
That's not even getting into collusion by the department to defraud tax payers. Quite a few departments have gotten in trouble from auditors for paying overtime to officers who didn't work the OT, which went on for years before being discovered. Then you have retirement benefits which are based on the last few years salaries, so people close to retirement get a bump in salary and OT in order to pad their retirements. That's no illegal, but I think it's unethical.
I once helped to organize a permitted bike race. As part of the permitting process, we needed approval from several city departments, including the police department.
In the prior five years of attending races, I never encountered a situation that would call for on-site security. Despite that, our permit required us to hire 4 security people. Oh, and the security people were required to be officers from the local jurisdiction.
It really felt like paying protection money to the mob.
To be clear, when I referred to making the "right call" I was referring to the choice of inaction from police and national guard units last night/this morning during ongoing protests. I think ultimately, this will lead to less damage.
I would not be shocked if a majority of the property crime was also police instigated. If they are willing to do this to people, it's far easier to knock out some windows.
Never heard it put quite this way. Well said!
That seems to be the problem. It's not so much that one gets out of hand, it's that they don't police themselves. If they want to stop it they'll have to begin with the smaller digressions - like speeding or illegal parking when there's no reason for it. Stop your bro from thinking he's above the law even when it's not a really big deal.
For a more organized version of the mentality, see the Constitutional Sheriffs movement. I forget where I first came across the movement but here's a top Google result about it:
https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/the-army-to-se...
Speaking as someone who's been to a lot of protests, ranging from "peaceful as a baby" to "as street medics we treated 1/3-1/2 of the protestors"... the same thing cops are always thinking. As an institution, they don't like the press, oversight, or public scrutiny of their actions. They react the same way to people with press credentials for less prominent organizations, and to regular humans with phone cameras who have just as much a right to record video, the same way all the time.
I can't help but feel that strong independent oversight is necessary, as the status quo is clearly insufficient.
"This man is Black, therefore he is the enemy", probably.
I'm guessing: "we do not want our actions in the next few minutes to be broadcast on live television"
In the after math of the 1999 WTO riots, many of the worst abuses were committed by LEOs brought in from the outlying areas. Scrubs who didn't have the same training as the locals (and state patrol). Nor have any kind of personal regard for the city and its people.
Even so, at the time, I was really struck by the comparison between our SPD and DC Metro. DC has more crowds, riots, protests, disturbances, etc. DC Metro has a lot more experience, training, professionalism. And it shows.
From my personal experiences in Seattle, there's no way I'd risk protesting in and around the Twin Cities, and risk some noobs shooting me.
(I'd like to believe I'd never riot.)
I have protested in St. Paul and Minneapolis many times and in general SPPD have been decent at protests, and MPD has made an effort at protests. There has been a real effort to improve community relations but there are some notable bad apples (as long as Bob Kroll is speaking for MPD employees, we are going to have trouble -- listen to any interview with him to see why.) They have experience with the Super Bowl, many Black Lives Matters protests (Philando Castile was killed in 2016), and the RNC a while ago in St Paul. I was at the RNC protests and the interaction with the police was like a dance -- a relatively polite interaction with horses and concussion grenades, in which I honestly was not that worried about bodily harm -- until the Hennepin County law enforcement came in. Whenever you bring in suburban law enforcement to the city, things get dicey.
Everyday policing has been quite different than behavior at protests. And things are different now.
"Whenever you bring in suburban law enforcement to the city, things get dicey."
Exactly. That's what I was trying to say, thank you.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-update...
Generally speaking, you don't stand around and try to have a conversation with the police. In a tough situation, the very last priority of the police is helping CNN get a nice camera shot.
Had they moved immediately upon being given the order to clear the street, then attempted to have the conversation, they likely would not have faced arrest.
Asking where to move to is a reasonable question to ask the police. Arrest is not a reasonable response.
There's no additional facts here.
Y'all were right, the footage I saw earlier was clipped after the girl had ran.
That's enough of trying to see all sides for me today. This week is hell.
----------------------- It was not a live broadcast of the "whole encounter" it was a live broadcast that started in medias res after the reporters were clearly surrounded by multiple officers of the law.
Not to mention that for the hour preceding 05:00 CDT, the National Guard and Minnesota State Troopers were announcing over loudspeakers that anyone in the area was to disperse immediately or face arrest.
So, it begs the question - what happened in the minutes leading up to when the camera started rolling?
Is it possible the crew had already been told to leave or they would be subject to arrest, and the crew did not follow this?
You're absolutely on the wrong side of this. On the wrong side of illegal arrests of the press. Of fucking CNN literally live broadcasting.
> That statement is what fng hurts me to read - it's a mentality that whatever is presented is it, facts, reality, no questioning needed.
I watched it live.
Are we counting being skeptical of a claim as taking the opposite side? Seems like the user is trying to understand the situation rather than advocate for a side.
I don't know how this style of thinking has in the past decade or so come to be thought of as "skepticism," it's just incredible bias against one side. A skeptical though process would be inventing equally fabulous motivations in all directions, not just one.
So "uniformed cop" tells you to put a soldier up in your house, you have to do it?
So "uniformed cop" tells you to empty your pockets and stand clear while they ransack your house?
So not everyone in uniform is a police officer.
Surely you are mistaken. As but one example, if a cop shows up at your house and says you need to let him in to search, you can tell him to stuff it.
That's an important distinction. If you're ordered to shoot yourself in the head by a cop, "no" is a perfectly reasonable answer, and likely to stand up in court.
In the "refuse to move on after police asked you to" scenario here, the NYC case "People v. Galpern" is often used as precedent. In that case the defendant was found guilty simply because he was, in the officer's view, obstructing the sidewalk. He was not otherwise disturbing the peace. From this case, the courts tend to side on the judgement of the arresting officer unless there are extreme circumstances.
For those who are interested in reading beyond Galpern, some other relevant classic cases are Terry v. Ohio and People v. Cohen.
They are just trying to get the camera crew out of there.
It was recorded, you know. You can watch it yourself. They were asked to move, they asked where they should move to, and instead of being told where to go they were arrested.
This is extremely disturbing, and further evidence that the U.S. is a police state. I've never felt more ashamed of my country.
Cops can hold you for some amount of time, generally around 24 hours without cause.
> What are the repercussions for these officers for falsely arresting people?
None
> Do they suffer any consequences, or do they suffer no punishment for this injustice?
No punishment.
At this point I'm basically waiting for a politician to adopt "soft on crime" as a campaign slogan and rebrand it as a rehabilitation program where you turn drug dealers into docile flower shop owners as opposed to opponents who "make crime tough" by sending people to "crime school" prisons and turning them into hardened career criminals with switchblades and facial tattoos.
The real problem is the same as it is in general -- special interest groups (in this case police and prison guard unions and private prison companies) are the ones who spend the most effort lobbying on the issue. It also doesn't help at all when we disenfranchise "convicts" because we're then disenfranchising the victims of the system whenever it makes a mistake (which is often).
Obviously cops only act in good faith, so any restrictions on them are restrictions on getting criminals off the street. </s>
Recently, in Minnesota, hundreds of people gathered in a protest on precisely this topic. They gathered to say (for their elected representatives and everyone else to hear) that they wanted a change to the laws and the system that permits police officers to kill people by kneeling on their neck when attempting to arrest them.
It was during this very protest that the CNN reporters were arrested.
So, as you can see, people are trying to solve that problem. They have been protesting loudly about it for the past decade (much longer, in truth, but there has been a renewed focus by the media within the past decade). And so far... well, you tell me whether you think it's working.
If the public so adamantly wants laws that elected representatives refuse to pass, then it seems that enabling direct democracy would be one solution to getting these laws passed.
The reason for this is that no politician is going to willingly step up for more police oversight and restricted powers, for at least a couple of reasons:
1) They will be painted by their opponents as "weak on crime" or even "supporting criminals" at election time.
2) They risk losing votes from emergency services workers, which are quite a large demographic in local elections.
"Daniel Chong Drank Urine To Survive 5 Days In Holding Cell Without Food, Water"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daniel-chong-dea-urine-cell-5...
This is simply not true. Police may not keep you detained if they do not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. However, in real life, they do this sometimes, even though it's been ruled unconstitutional.
They do occasionally face repercussions. Thousands of civil rights lawsuits are settled quietly around the country every year, and some go to court and establish precedents, such as Turner v. Driver.
They don't suffer consequences enough, though, and depend on citizens not knowing that what the police are doing is wrong. It's also difficult due to the "thin blue line" BS where cops are elevated above the rest of society.
They don't have to charge you, so they don't have to prove it.
> They don't suffer consequences enough, though, and depend on citizens not knowing that what the police are doing is wrong. It's also difficult due to the "thin blue line" BS where cops are elevated above the rest of society.
The police themselves hardly ever face consequences; the settlements come from the taxpayer.
They have to have PC to arrest someone. Even if you're not charged, PC has to be there for an arrest to be justified.
I believe this is called a distinction without difference. The police can always say you behaved suspiciously or they felt threatened by you. You can also be found guilty of resisting arrest, even if there was no reason for the arrest except that you were resisting it.
This isn't totally true, at least not for the casual use of "cause". Cops must have "reasonable suspicion"[1][2] to detain, during that detainment they can discover more information which creates "probable cause", and probable cause allows them to arrest.
My guess is they were arrested for what is commonly called "resisting arrest"[3]. The way resisting arrest laws are unfortunately written, obstructing an officer in their duty is enough, they don't have to actually be resisting arrest. Basically of the cops told the CNN crew to get off the street, and the crew didn't, that would be "resisting arrest".
Minnesota's law:
> obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties
Note that they were arrested, you can hear an officer say they are under arrest, but they haven't been charged or convicted. I doubt they will be charged. It is up to the county district attorney to press charges (the same DA who isn't pressing charges against the officer who killed George Floyd).
The press in the US are usually given a lot of freedom, and are allowed to be in places that the police don't allow regular citizens (riots areas, wildfire areas, etc.).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
[2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-reasonable-susp...
The video camera turns on while they were (likely) already told they will be arrested. They were perhaps ordered to move and did not move. The National Guard and state troopers in that particular area (< 15 miles from me) started ordering people to disperse or face arrest. I don't believe that press are exempt from this order especially when a state of emergency is declared.
Downvoters: please add comment why, or else this isn't discourse
What chaos? The scene shown in the video looks really calm, with one protester, several reporters, and a very large number of police standing around apparently doing nothing more than looking intimidating at that moment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/podcasts/1619-podcast.htm...
Perhaps it’s naïve of me to think people will want to learn about what it really means to be Black in America. But I think if you really listen to what history is saying and really listen to what Black people are experiencing right now it will change how you think about events like this.
Police carry guns. Legal is not relevant.
The difference is "qualified immunity", not weaponry.
Cops ultimately aren't disciplined because there's no political will. And there's no consequences on the ground because they have more weapons, and importantly ready backup from other cops.
If you were in a gang, and carried a gun, you could indeed arbitrarily force your will on others for some time.
This doesn't happen all the time, but when police do break the law, or don't follow it correctly their actions come under scrutiny, data collected can be discarded from court, and even suffer personal blowback.
What you're asking is how did it happen? That's because it's illegal for a citizen to resist arrest (even unlawful arrest), so in the USA if you are being arrested, SAY you do not willingly submit, but DO whatever the officer tells you.
The thing many people forget is that the law doesn't happen just on the street in the US. It is a slow and flawed process, but police are just the front line of it, not the whole thing.
As someone else said, this will probably cost the police and city in a settlement.
Edit: Cops CANNOT just hold you for 24 hours. They have to have something to charge you with even if it's disorderly conduct. And you can then sue the local police if you have evidence that you were wrongly imprisoned. It is easy for cops to get cause so your chances of this are low, but it does happen. Once detained (with cause) I believe the 24 hour bit is true.
IANAL, this is based on my unprofessional research. I'd suggest you (everyone) do the same.
It probably won't cost the police anything, it'll come out of the taxpayer.
They can, but they don't because it would be political suicide.
Can and does. I'm not saying this is indicative of what frequently happens. But there can be real consequences for the police officers based on lawsuits. I also recognize this was not being pushed down from the city. My statement was an example of how police departments shutting down affect police and how that can happen.
I won't argue that police are appropriately punished due to misconduct. I will argue that they are punished.
In a larger department, neither would have lost their jobs, and the larger insurance would have handled it.
You said doesn't happen. An absolute. I am saying it can happen and it's not the only form of punishment I'm referring to.
Police (the individuals) can be punished for their infractions. It doesn't happen nearly often enough (my opinion). But if you're saying it can't/won't happen I disagree with you. I'd even go so far as to say I believe you to be factually incorrect. While I will 100% change my opinion on this if given a study that proves this has never happened. It's easier for me to assert a shmeybe than for you to assert it never happens. All I need is one instance where as you need none.
Now if you want to say, that's not enough. We won't disagree at all.
Sexual assault is, and there's nothing a union can do to protect you from that.
This varies state-by-state, actually. Even in those where it is legal, it is very foolish, of course.
For police? In the US? Very funny.
As an european... Jesus f-ing christ, this is absolutely messed up.
You can attempt to whitewash it but we all saw what happened. Sorry, but you can't will away racism
What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
If people who want violence win the next set of elections, then that should also be of concern to hackers of websites. Take a look at the actions of the US president, after being called to task for breaking TOS.
With the geopolitical changes that will come about due to the coronavirus and upheaval that is beginning in the United States, it seems that social/web technology is central to geopolitics. It really stuns me that our conscientiousness to society, or lack thereof, isn't discussed far more often.
When's the last time you saw an American reporter being arrested on live camera?
Interesting that people don't even seem to remember that those once existed
[1] This one shows a bit more at the beginning, making it look like the crew had already been asked at least a few times to move: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvbXWAHad-4
There is absolutely no excuse for this.
I'm asking if you or anyone else has video proof of that. Are national news organizations exempt from an order like this to move (I know in some cases they are, but again, the lack of contextual proof here makes me question what they were told prior to what we've seen).
I've been watching what happens, at they always come almost exactly 2 minutes after I post something - on this and another account I use. It's pretty clear that there's some downvote bot activity going on (in addition to the usual "haters").
What were these reporters doing in the hour prior to the arrest? Oh, nothing? Well, where were they at the start of the riots? Just getting to the scene? Hmm well, what's the police officer's story; has he had bad experiences with the press in the past? And so on...
Most people have seen enough coverage of police officers doing unreasonable things in order to make a judgement call based off the provided context here. By asking for even more context, it comes across as though you're trying to cast doubt on this situation and undermine what's honestly a national issue at this point - hence the downvotes.
Bingo! That's the problem. People are making "judgement calls" based on highly publicized, recent cases of police officers doing "unreasonable things". Those cases represent < 0.1% of the police officers in the country. Making judgement calls based on what others have done is called prejudice, and last I checked, people are still innocent until proven guilty in this country. That goes for the reporters and the officers involved.
As for the amount of context we have relative to the video that's been published, I think any reasonable judge would conclude that (1) the person operating the camera was almost certainly recording before what we've seen published, (2) the events on published video obviously seem to refer to events that happened before what we see, and (3) those events that happened before are not just circumstantial details - they could easily swing the case in either direction. So yes, more context in this situation is absolutely necessary. Make no confusion - I'm not asking about what they ate for breakfast.
Define recent? Uneven application of force from the police based off of race is a known issue, and has been one for quite some time. In the past decade or so we have been able to witness more of these incidents due to the ubiquity of smartphones, but look no further than policies like stop and frisk as examples that illustrate the unjust policing of minorities [1].
In business, we have a philosophy of building goodwill. We do things to establish trust with our users so that when we inevitably screw up, they will give us a pass. But it's important to remember that goodwill is a finite commodity. Screw up one too many times without making concessions, and you will no longer get the benefit of the doubt.
No one is debating that there are plenty of good officers in the US, the issue is with the bad ones, and the lack of repercussions/changes in policy to address them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...
"What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. "
To that point, how does this situation get fixed? Personally, this seems like a total failure of local governments. This should have been a relatively easy situation to mitigate (arrest the officer involved with the murder, even if just for show to calm folks down).
Now that it's spiraled, we're seeing signs of a police state which is very ominous. The question, though, is how calculated is this? My rational mind tells me that this level of force isn't something planned or trained for; just a reaction to the current events.
But it does set a precedent and as a country, we should be absolutely on guard and discussing this.
way way worse.
100% of this is happening because police continue to refuse to arrest police.
How, exactly? I mean, it's not like the rioters are following his orders (or maybe you're saying they are?!). If you're just saying it's his responsibility, then sure, but he's not the only one. Aren't community leaders, the police, the governor and the president likewise "allowing" the riots to continue simply because they haven't stopped them?
I mean, Trump literally evoked an image of shooting rioters. Did anyone else do anything similar?
Harsh words, but at the end of the day, people will defend their property with a gun and have every right in doing so.
So no, downvoting you isn't anything to do with the constitution.
Uhm, no
[sic]
Taken from https://news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-death-twitter-flags-...
That's just one possible interpretation, if you really want to understand him that way.
Who would he be implying is doing the shooting other than the Military that will assume control?
What else could 'shooting' possibly refer to, if not the shooting of looters?
But discussion about it isn't possible, sorry. I am heavily downvoted for not following groupthink, so I am rate limited when it comes to posting.
Oh well.
Why aren't people over there more upset about those reporters getting arrested by state police on the street? That was pretty f'ed up. But I guess when it can't be blamed on Trump, people over there just don't care.
1. Introduces the military
2. Says he will assume control
3. Introduces the idea of shooting looters
Given that context, it's extremely difficult to concoct an interpretation where he's not saying he'll direct the military to shoot looters.
I mean, be serious here. Is your defense really that "The president's grammar was poor, so you can't prove he meant what he seemed to say". How many times are you going to try that trick? Wasn't it played out after he vaguely suggested injecting bleach?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177
I see I'm being downvoted. Is my account of things incorrect, or is it because I didn't explicitly spell out that it's silly for a president to give brain-dead research advice to experts?
There are many things to criticize him for. But sadly the media is so incredibly lazy that they constantly make up these "scandals" about things he supposedly "meant".
And: you are downvoted because you are not following groupthink. It doesn't matter how factually correct it is.
It's absurd that Trump thought he was in a position to give technical advice to medical researchers, and it's even more absurd that he thought injecting disinfectant could be the way to go. The hubris and ignorance on display here are shocking.
When you care more about stuff than you do about actual human lives, your evil is showing.
Shooting someone over dollar store items is dumb. But defending your sole proprietorship you have built up and is the only thing you have, understandable.
Secondly, this is a single, solitary reason out of the myriad of other reasons, why we, as as a species, invented insurance.
Please, give up your childish John Wayne fantasies, which, to be honest are barbaric and counter to the very essence of civilization, and join the adults who build societies and systems that protect people.
The opposite, actually. The civil rights movement of the 60s was infiltrated, surveilled, and disrupted by secret police, and largely ended with it's greatest leaders being assassinated and mass riots.
Then Nixon launched the War on Drugs in the 70s and mass incarceration began.
In the 80s we saw Democrats and Republicans further ramping up the war on drugs, with the passage of laws such as the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, while at the same time it was soon revealed that the CIA was helping their Nicaraguan Contra friends raise money by importing billions of dollars of cocaine into inner cities as a part of the Iran Contra conspiracy, initializing the crack epidemic. The investigations into these wrong doings was quickly shut down, the investigative journalist leading the charge was suicided, and the government officials responsible were pardoned.
Fast forward 30 years, and the mass incarceration levels have been holding steady and communities are even weaker by some metrics than they were before the civil rights movement, though perhaps we've made some marginal improvements in states where cannabis has been legalized, but we've still got a lot more to do: namely, ending the tyrannical and racist war on drugs at the Federal level.
That's simply a recognition that looting begets violence, meaning that the looting must be stopped before things become more violent, and a call to action to those who appear content to let the looting run rampant as if it's somehow OK or justified.
In such an escalation both protestors and counter protestors would be shooting, so bringing the situation under control quickly is in the best interest of the protestors and the community as a whole.
Trump's tweet was just a recognition of that.
> Black correspondent Omar Jimenez had just shown a protester being arrested when about half a dozen white police officers surrounded him.
Is there any reason to assume racism? it looks like two other people in the camera crew got arrested and they don't look black. It looks to me like CNN is trying to play the race card to stir controversy when there are millions of other more likely explanations
Heck at this point the police probably have facial recognition cameras that identify a reporter and assign them a score based on how friendly their past coverage has been.
Still, does not make it racism. Plenty of cops make bad decisions, it doesn't make them all racist.
They were live on TV, so you can tell the cop's explanation was BS. When told they had to move, the reporter asked where was OK, at which point he was arrested. The crew was given no chance to comply with the orders.
Depends on your definition of racism. If you just mean "atomized, individual prejudice," you might be correct.
But this is textbook systemic racism, even if the cops aren't acting on a conscious bias. Even if their chief gave them clear orders explaining why, and the reasons ostensibly had nothing to do with race, it is still systemic racism because it falls into a pattern of systematic, nationwide discrimination which is irrefutable and that disproportionately affects people of color.
Recommend you read "So You Want to Talk about Race" by Ijeoma Oluo or "Me and White Supremacy" by Layla Saad to learn more about racism as actual experts on the subject understand it.
(Edit: typo)
Moreover, they started with the reporter, since he seemed to be the leader of the group (e.g. he was the one doing the talking).
The wording there with him seeming to be the leader of the group sounds like an anthropologist finding a completely unknown tribe of people. At any time, the police could've just used their words, instead of being silent, surrounding the entire group, then suddenly arresting one person and waiting a full 2 minutes (precisely two minutes) before simultaneously arresting the others.
However, I'm also annoyed by the stupidity of many people who blindly yell racism. Not so long ago there was a naked black male (Harvard student) walking down the streets of Cambridge, MA. Police came and arrested him. He refused arrest so they have to use force, but it was reasonable force required to arrest someone who is refusing arrest. People filmed the incident and next day many accused the police for racism. WTF!? I watched the film and there was nothing out of the ordinary. We should support good police officers and not assume all are bad and racist. They risk their life to defend us and our communities (white and black and everyone else).
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
Most businesses will try to avoid hiring someone that is going to leave right away.
When people talk about systemic racism they're talking about how the system operates as a whole. As I've commented elsewhere, people need to educate themselves about systemic racism in this country.
"So You Want to Talk about Race" by Ijeoma Oluo or "Me and White Supremacy" by Layla Saad are good places to start.
> How does nakedness justify escalating the situation to voilence? "The law is the law" is just an excuse.
Are you suggesting every person to decide what's allowed and what's not to the best of their judgment? I agree not all illegal activities are equal. If you use common sense then indeed you should try your best to avoid violence in illegal activities that don't put anyone in danger. But at the end of the day, when all fail and the person in front of you is not cooperating and refusing to put cloths on, then the police has no choice and arrest the person against their will. (If you disagree that nakedness should be illegal that's a different story and has nothing to do with the police)
> If you disagree that nakedness should be illegal that's a different story and has nothing to do with the police
I do question the logic of nakedness being illegal (in many cases anyway), but I agree that's a different story. :)
> Are you suggesting every person to decide what's allowed and what's not to the best of their judgment?
I'm assuming the case you mentioned at Harvard was this one: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/cambridge-police...
So who gets to decide what "reasonable force required to arrest someone who is refusing arrest" is? You really think that repeatedly punching someone for being naked and on drugs is reasonable? Why? Why not just detain him and work on getting him to a safe place? Why does the situation warrant violence at all? Just because it's common in this country does not mean it's justified or ethical.
What if they had shot him, or knelt on his neck and killed him? Would that be "reasonable"? Where, then, is the line?
Right now, cops basically have 100% discretion to decide where that line is. Because they are not actually accountable to anyone but themselves, they just act and draw the line after the fact. The only difference between this and the murder of George Floyd is degree. That's what I meant.
> If you use common sense then indeed you should try your best to avoid violence in illegal activities that don't put anyone in danger
I agree in the abstract, but unfortunately there's a racial element to this "common sense." In the US, black people especially must use a different kind of common sense, and must always remember that any kind of transgression - up to and including "looking suspicious" - is grounds for detention, which can escalate arbitrarily to execution on the spot. So there's really no "avoiding violence" when your mere existence is grounds for murder with no consequences.
And again, just because you can have a "reasonable" expectation of violence from the cops does not mean that violence is justified.
> the police has no choice
Well, they had a choice to not become cops in the first place, to not enter a system that lacks accountability. They have a choice to not enforce unjust laws, especially in situations where no one's in danger. They have a choice to challenge their colleagues to justify their actions, whether that's kneeling on someone's neck or punching them in the stomach. They have a choice between violence and deescalation.
But they choose violence and escalation with alarming frequency in this country. And the system protects them.
I'm 100% serious. Your mistake is in thinking it's a few bad apples. Certainly there are varying degrees of prejudice operating on the police force, but that's not the same thing as racism. The more you learn about the police force as it exists in America, the more you come to find that its roots are embedded in systemic racism. Cops may not realize it, but that doesn't mean it's not on them to decide to what degree they support the system. "Common sense" isn't enough because the system doesn't reward common sense, it rewards blind loyalty to the force. This is America's banality of evil.
There has been systematic racism everywhere. Did we close academia because of systematic racism? The system will need to change. But there are no alternatives like some people here try to suggest. I think we will need to agree to disagree...
- Ursula K. Le Guin
The reporter admits he was told "to clear the area."
The loudspeaker -- again -- explicitly states to "go back in the direction you came from."
The reporter admits on air that they were "requested to move back."
The cameraman also admits on air that "We were just out here reporting the CLOSURE OF THE STREETS."
The dumbasses -- despite all this -- refused to get off the street, instead saying things like "we COULD move back to where you'd like..."
Being a reporter does not give you special permission to violate a direct order by state police in the middle of a riot (with a burning building in the background.)
If you're told to get off the street, get off the street... IMMEDIATELY. If you don't, you'll get arrested.
But, the state police -- if they order a street closed -- are well within their rights to CLEAR the street. If the person won't budge, they can forcibly remove them. Which they did. That is being 'arrested.' There are no exceptions for reporters.
Three minutes?
Five minutes?
An hour?
The cameraman was literally STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET while stating that they were there to report on the CLOSURE OF THE STREET.
If there's video from earlier that shows the reporting team doing something arrest-worthy, it would be good for your argument to link to it since there's nothing here that looks like it.
Both the police and the reporters were calm and polite. The police told them they had to clear the street and instead of obeying the order they asked to let them know when they were going to actually walk down the street. Since they refused to obey the order they were detained and escorted out of the way.
Being a reporter does not give you a free pass to disobey orders, specially during situations like that. Being a police offer also does not give you the right to mistreat people of course, but in this video everyone actually behaved very well.
It would be great if the police could figure out how to serve the public in a way where they could be proud of their work and want the journalists to help the world see the good work they're doing.
There was a big protest and people started throwing rocks at the police, and the media were in the middle of the police at that moment. It actually made the police's response much slower and dangerous because they first protected the media and escorted them out from the protesters range, before charging and arresting people.
I'm sure they have trained some protocol to how to control mobs, and throwing innocent civilians in the mix wrecks the whole thing.
Police officers don't have carte blanche to issue orders and force people to comply. We're a nation of laws (supposedly). They were asked to move and they understandably wanted to know where they should move. Then they were arrested.
Police officers have the authority to make quick judgement calls in many situations. Obviously we are all human and I could ask why and try to plead my case, but I should also expect that after some time of non-compliancy I may be detained. The felony is called something like "failure to obey a police officer".
And it's in the laws of the nation.