If the police tell them to disperse, they must disperse. It’s as simple as that. It’s not as if they’ve in anyway been prevented from reporting on what’s happening.
Anyway, if the press are interfering in the police operation - as the Huffington Post people were, based on their own stories, they are ignoring their duty, which is to report, not participate. A journalist who joins a protest or riot deserves no more protection than anyone else involved.
Two wrongs don’t make a right but I understand the desire for revenge. not saying that is what is going on here but understandable doesn’t mean justfied.
As I said, “understandable” does not mean “justified” only if you think that it is not possible for you to behave that way. And then that means that the person you’re talking about is lesser, morally and ethically, than you.
An assembly is a group, not an entity. A person may commit a crime, he may even be part of a group, but the group does not then become a criminal.
Further, seems to me that if a group has a criminal intent, then they are the one’s most likely to be anxious not to be covered by reporters with cameras and stuff. So, then, where are all the reports of protestors interfering with the press, if they are so anxious?
Where are you getting that from?
The press were being fired upon and teargassed, and their equipment tampered with. Previously, the press was being turned away from even entering the city. A no-fly zone was created to keep news helicopters away. The press is clearly being prevented from reporting.
They were sitting in a McDonald’s charging their phones and tweeting. There was no interference in anything.
The Constitution guarantees a right to assembly. When police in a tank are driving through the protest, the fact they are shouting “Your right to assemble is not being violated!” only adds to the irony.
I don’t think you’re fairly characterizing the actions of the reporter’s actions in the video. I do agree he wasn’t being compliant. It seemed to me that he was trying to prolong how long he could stay there for some reason. I thought this particular cop acted fine. He has a guy who is not complying, and wants to have a discussion. But he never gets personally in the guys face and doesn’t ratchet up the situation. If a cop is clearing someplace out, you need to leave. It’s really as simple as that.
And you have fifteen seconds to comply…
The journalist who, instead of leaving when instructed to by the police, started filming him and shouting to his colleague to tweet about what was happening. Leave first, then report.
Now, if he’d been followed and prevented from reporting after getting out of the way of the police, that would be a different matter, but he didn’t, he deliberately failed to follow instructions and tried to claim that being a journalist meant he didn’t have to - whilst refusing to actually show his ID.
All this is from his own story…
I had read that the reason for the no-fly zone was that police helicopters were fired upon. Do you have a cite that shows the reason you cite as the one?
You keep saying that. It persists in being wrong.
So, they didn’t know he was a reporter, then? Reports I have seen indicate he was wearing his credentials around his neck, pretty standard procedure when it is important to be seen as a reporter.
A specific quote otherwise would be useful.
When you’re asked, by a cop, to stop videotaping and leave the place, asking “Am I not allowed to videotape the cops” as the reporter did is being a dick. He is not asked to stop videotaping the cops. He is asked to leave, which means stop what you’re doing (in this case, videotaping) and leave. To continue videotaping, while gathering your belongings with one hand, is to continue being a dick.
Why do you ask? You haven’t given us a cite saying that police helicopters were fired upon.
For those blaming the reporters, do you think we have an obligation to follow every order from the police? Under what authority did the police order people out of McDonalds?
They are not being prevented from reporting. They are being prevented from getting in the fucking way, putting themselves, the police, the rioters/protesters, and the innocent citizens at further risk.
Believe it or not, the right of everyone involved to get this mess cleared up and the ongoing crime stopped is a bit more fucking important than your right to get on the spot tweets rather than slightly delayed reports.
The no-fly zone was because people were shooting at the fucking helicopters. People’s safety is far more important than the right of journalists to fly over the area.
No-one is being prevented from reporting what’s happening - unless you’re aware of any gagging orders, or attempts to prevent people either leaving Ferguson to talk to journalists, or phoning them, or whatever.
Ah, felony dickitude!
I think its both.
During the LA riots it was weird to see Black rioters burning down stores and Mexican looters backing up vans to loot the contents of the store, sometimes as a rioter was setting the goddam place on fire. Of course some of the rioters were Mexican and many of the looters were black but it wasn’t all avarice
The rioters felt that they were being forced to hold up their end of the social contract (and imprisoned for failing to do so) and when it was time for the rest of society to hold up its end, they called a mulligan. So what use is the social contract to them? Why respect the rule of law if it is only ever used as a cudgel against them and never as a shield for them?
Its never just one incident that causes a riot. Our police have become more militarized and adopted a more military rather than police mentality.
Obviously not, since they’ve reported everything you just said. No reporter has been fired on or teargassed who was simply doong their job and not interfering with police action. They have been turned away from entering riot areas, because the police are responsible for their safety and can’t protected them from a rioting horde. The no-fly zone exists to allow police helicopters to operate safely and because the rioters have attempted to shoot down helicopters.
They were interfering in the dispersal of the crowd from that McDonalds.
It guarantees a right to PEACABLY assemble. Throwing Molotov cocktails and setting fires is not a protest, it’s an insurrection, which the Constitution empowers the government to use force against.