I think it would show more nuanced sentiment to say, that on 110 occasions journalists ended up caught in aggressive police action since May 28. Current wording would have an implication for many people, that journalists were deliberately chosen as targets.
They were though. The videos out of twitter are completely horrifying. An endless wave of cops hearing "Reporter! Here's my badge! I am a reporter!" and just ... not caring. Bash their face, mace them, just follow orders. I saw a video where an officer smashed their video camera. A big one, the style a professional reporter uses.
It's our democracy. And we want to hope for the best. But damn if this isn't worrisome.
EDIT: Hehe, well. Sorry you got piled on. For what it's worth, I was very much on the side of the police about three days ago, so I had to do some soul searching. In case you're in the same boat: I urge you to go seek out and find some of the videos that people are upset about. It's not propaganda; it can't be. It's just footage from citizens.
But they aren't enforcing the law with many of these actions. See the first major publicized incident with the CNN crew. No laws were broken, the crew was compliant, they asked if they should move, explained they were in that spot because other police had told them to be there.
The police have gone beyond the law in these cases, and their handling of protesters (not to mention the cases which precipitated this present set of protests). The law doesn't need to be changed, the way police behave does.
You are incorrect. The law does need to be changed. There is a specific law called Qualified Immunity which prevents officers from being brought to trial for these acts.
Change or remove that law, and things will absolutely change as you see families taking officers to court for felony murder, assault and battery, and other felony charges.
Read my comment in context. The person I replied to implied that the police actions we're seeing this past week (in particular with their behavior towards the press) is itself legal, which it is not. That they have a way out for their illegal (or at least wrong) behavior is a separate, but related, issue. The thing I was discussing was that the law is already on the side of the press, the police are violating the law. Your comment is about the separate issue of why they are violating the law (the belief, validated repeatedly, that they are above the law itself). So yes, the law needs to change, but the police are not presently acting within the bounds of the law so the issue isn't just changing the law, but reforming the police forces.
A few days ago I had that exact discussion with someone here who didn't understand that there's a distinction between legal and illegal orders (wrt the military, in that context). That it is in fact illegal to obey an illegal order, and the right of members of the military to disobey such orders (assuming knowledge that it is illegal). The other person thought that I was advocating for anarchy...
So the part of that which isn't paywalled simply says that doing something illegal, or doing something legal in a threatening manner, can be broken up by police.
Maybe it's in the full-text, but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders? Because I'm not seeing it in there.
I did not see behind paywall to, but here's a relevant quote:
> However, the second element is more difficult because it concerns gathering for lawful purposes and only becomes a violation when the gathering turns violent, boisterous, or tumultuous.
After it turns violent, police generally issues an order to disperse, and then proceeds to anti-riot measures. If you don't disperse after that lawful order, you are violating the law, which even most educated people don't seem to understand.
> but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders?
That's the general point of police. They do not only attack violent people, but anyone, who violates the law. In this case it is the law of unlawful assembly.
Let's turn the discussion, as I think you have some predispositions there. How do you think police should prevent looting and damage to property on the street (like parked cars, shop windows, etc) during 95% peaceful protests, when the protestors form a crowd, and the peaceful folk refuse to disperse, because "they are just peaceful bystanders"?
P.S. Regarding the paywall. It seems to cut at your screen height, so the more vertical space you have, the more text is available.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America supersedes local ordnances, and journalists absolutely do no have to disperse when police issues such an order to the general public.
> The first amendment speaks nothing about who can be where. It just denies government the right to prosecute people for making statements.
"just" free speech? Might want to check your pocket constitution again. The first amendment also protects the free press- and the freedom to assemble. (Not to mention religion and to petition for redress of grievances)
i find that very hard to believe. Crowds are ordered to disperse when things are getting dangerous or a curfew put in place by an elected official has passed. I don't see any plausible reason why dispersal wouldn't apply to the whole crowd and only a subset.
I appreciate the desire for prudence on emotional topics - however, in this specific case, the description is a reasonable generalization. Maybe not all 110 cases were unreasonable or deliberate, but it's impossible to overstate the importance of the fact that many of the cases were.
Just like experience accounts of individual members of riots, most videos I saw are very out of context. Specifically in regards to media representatives following lawful police orders before getting caught in the push.
Intentionally picked up from a position that police told them was okay to take. Offered to move for a subsequent officer who confronted them, and were arrested for resisting arrest. Don't take my word for it, cameras were rolling the whole time. Governor acknowledges that this was improper.
The first one is concerning, but the incident appears to be resolved now (?).
The second one does not seem like a major problem to me, as the police might not know a random filming guy showing some piece of paper to be an actual reporter, rather than just a friend of the rioters filming their action for YouTube. It seems it also was resolved.
Unless there's an easy way for police to make a credible determination if the media badge is valid, I would count it as an honest mistake with no major consequences.
Again, this does not support the implication of the title, that police picked journalists intentionally, and more supports my point that journalists were caught in the process.
That's two examples, literally the first two hits of an obvious search. Officials are acknowledging that these are wrongful arrests, why can't you?
There's 110 cases mentioned in this article. Instead of demanding that we spoon-feed you evidence, please continue looking into the evidence. Because there's tons of it and you know how to find it.
> The first one is concerning, but the incident appears to be resolved now (?).
Sure. Call it resolved. That does not mean that it didn't happen the way that it's being described.
> Again, this does not support the implication of the title, that police picked journalists intentionally...
This is a really weird point to get hung up on, given that the title of the original article is "U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28". Where does it say "intentional"? I can't decide if this is a strawman or goalpost shifting, but either way your approach to this conversation is odious.
> Sure. Call it resolved. That does not mean that it didn't happen the way that it's being described.
I am not arguing if the events are misstated. I will continue calling it resolved, as crew took the apology and does not seem to want anything else. So why bring it up again?
> This is a really weird point to get hung up on, given that the title of the original article is "U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28". Where does it say "intentional"? I can't decide if this is a strawman or goalpost shifting, but either way your approach to this conversation is odious.
This whole discussion is a subthread of a comment, that the title might be misleading, because for many it will imply intent to attack journalists specifically.
> Officials are acknowledging that these are wrongful arrests, why can't you?
If you want a serious talk, we should use proper legal terms. "Wrongful arrest" definitely does not apply to the second of two cases, and in the official statement that wording was not used. They did apologize for making a mistake, which happens. But it is a mistake permitted by the law due to special circumstances (e.g. a riot).
> please continue looking into the evidence. Because there's tons of it and you know how to find it.
I am not making extraordinary statements, to which I consider "police intentionally focus journalists".
> Unless there's an easy way for police to make a credible determination if the media badge is valid, I would count it as an honest mistake with no major consequences.
And some were in the crowd and others were apart of crowd. No, they were not randomly stumbled upon nor are these cases of being randomly hit while police attacks indiscriminately. Through such cases exists too.
Watching the videos posted online it certainly seems that the journalists were chosen as targets. At a bare minumum the police knew they were press (given that they are wearing badges indicating as such, often holding them above their head) and proceeded anyway.
This is not the first article claiming that on HN (the previous one was flagged to death). Like the previous one, this one does not show anything objective to support this interpretation.
The last time I linked you multiple objective instances showing journalists being attacked by the police unprovoked, you made some strong efforts to try and ignore the context of those videos.
I don't think you're here to actually argue in good faith at all.
