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".
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.