In the video, at time stamp 0:10, in response to the officer’s, “Let’s go,” the reporter replies, “You see me working, don’t you?” The reporter’s finger appears in the frame, showing he’s not using that hand to do any kind of packing up. At 0:33, he asks the officer if he has enough time to answer the question posed about the car. At 0:37 he again advises the officer that he was working. His hand is still visible, showing he wasn’t packing belongings with anything approaching ordinary urgency.
Life in a free nation requires a bit more backbone that you’ve displayed in this thread. Perhaps the United States is not a good place for you to live.
Because the police are in fact being over-militarized. A US government program calledthe 1033 program has dispensed billions of dollars worth of surplus military goods to civilian police departments throughout the US. The US Homeland Security department has ALSO handed out billions of dollars in grants to police departments, providing police departments with equipment that bears little relation to the amount of violence in their communities or the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
SWAT teams have also been used for wildly inappropriate tasks, like raiding frat parties where underage drinking has been reported, or busting a comedian for making a reference to violent resistant in a (humorous) tweet.
Many US veteran from Iraq and Afghanistan have said that they used less equipment and less confrontational tactics than those used in Ferguson to handle demonstations in WAR ZONES.
Finally, the CULTURE of the police has been slowly shifting from one of regarding citizens on the street from people they are protecting from criminals, to “the enemy.”
Interestingly, even Fox News is alarmed by this as shown by Fox News’ John Stossel’s piece on the topic … it’s apparently not a politicized problem, everyone, right left and libertarian, thinks we need to reign in the militarization.
He says “I’m working on it” in response to the first “Let’s Go.” What he says a few seconds later is pretty clearly a reference to his working on getting packed up in that context. Which is consistent with his account of it as well. Otherwise, see my last post.
Non sequitur. The fact that they were not charged with a crime does not mean that it was not on the interest of public safety to detain them.
Journalists in war zones shouldn’t act surprised when they get caught in the crossfire.
No system of government - liberal, conservative, capitalist, socialist, fascist, or other - can function in the absence of authority. When the government lacks the power to protect the public from people with no respect for the rights of others, the end result is Somalia or Iraq.
If that’s the kind of country you want to live in, feel free to move. I like it here in America.
Years ago I had a colleague (German) who expressed surprise at how Americans view the police. He felt the level of reverence and deference was inappropriate. He assumes this is because we Americans never had to deal with shit like the Gestapo. I think he is right.
Personally, I don’t think Americans should have to actively distrust police, but I do agree that a certain level of scrutiny is warranted. I think every police action and interaction with the public should be filmed. Traffic stop? Film it! Arresting someone? Film it! Frankly, the fact that police want cameras to STOP makes me very suspicious. If I were there, I would want cameras rolling to show that I was doing everything right. The only reason I would want cameras off is if I knew things were not right.
I’m going to Kreskin Smapti’s response to this:
If that’s what it takes to maintain an orderly society, then so what? If you don’t break the law, you have nothing to fear, no matter how “militarized” the police become.
(I know that wasn’t difficult, but I feel all tingly and Will Grahammy. Profiling!)
…I accept your concession. For your assertion to be correct Molotov cocktails would have to have been used on every occasion that police used tear gas. Allegedly throwing Molotov cocktails at another incident is not throwing Molotov cocktails every time tear gas was used. One of the videos I cited was quite lengthy, shot with quite a wide angle, and hadn’t been edited. There was no evidence of Molotov cocktails throwing: the people protesting were standing on their own property, and the police fired a tear gas canister at one of the protesters head, fortunately it missed because he ducked. In all the video footage I’ve seen so far, the lack of Molotov cocktails is particularly telling. I’ve seen a couple of photos of men trying to light Molotov cocktails: (which the reporter states failed to light) and thats it.
Your assertion that " It’s when the Molotov cocktails start flying that the tear gas comes out" is wrong, and I’m going to charitably assume this was stated as hyperbole. If you continue to repeat the assertion I’m going to conclude that you are willfully lying.
As for the arrest of the reporters: the Chief of Police is already on record as stating that the policeman who arrested the reporters was “probably somebody who didn’t know better” and it took a single phone call from him to get them released. That doesn’t sound to me like the police on the scene conducted themselves appropriately.
That is definitely a nominee for “most assholish thing posted in this thread.” Be proud; you have some really stiff competition!
All they need is probable cause.
They don’t have to be part of the group. They merely have to be present at the scene of an unlawful assembly.
Now, if you’re saying that there was not, at the time the order was given, any unlawful assembly at all, then I agree with you. One cannot fail to disperse from an unlawful assembly that does not exist.
You… have zero understanding of how policing works, either as a philosophy or an institution. Wow.
Luckily, others do, which is why the Ferguson police have been relieved of their oh-so-properly-conducted duties.
So a warzone is your idea of America?
Why is being over prepared a problem?
Underage drinking and terrorist threats are both crimes, and both can potentially turn violent. I see nothing “inappropriate” about being prepared for a violent confrontation.
And how stable is Iraq these days? I don’t think that’s an example you want to use when talking about how hands off touchy feely law enforcement is so much better.
Criminals are the enemy. Whose side are you on?
The level of suspicion is irrelevant to my point. If they have probable cause that he is dilly-dallying but dilly-dallying doesn’t count as non-compliance, then probable cause is moot. I’m suggesting that taking an additional, what, 30 seconds, is not likely to be non-compliance in this context.
Right. Is there any evidence at all that they were “present at the scene of an unlawful assembly” given the definition of “unlawful assembly”? There certainly is no support for that in the video, or in his account, or in the fact that the McDonalds is near a prior scene of unlawful assembly from the previous night.
He was - with one hand, while recording with the other (and snarking off at the same time). Delaying, in other words.
It equally invites the inference that the Chief’s policy was to allow reporters to work, and not disperse them, even though the law permits him to do so. And “not knowing any better,” refers to not knowing the policy of leaving reporters unmolested.
Or, as you say, it could be an admission that there was no legal ground whatsoever.
I’d be interested in an actual cite of what was going on outside the McDonald’s when the dispersal order was given.
For the purposes of probable cause? Dilly-dallying certainly supports probable cause to believe he was not complying.
I agree that this is the key point. The unlawful assembly cannot be conjectural.
Just Ferguson.
Cite for a specific law, not disorderly conduct, loitering, or “following a lawful order” but a specific law that says the press (have to name them as the press) can be dispersed? Something that overrides a right to assembly or a right to a free press?
The only thing I can think of is trespassing, which they were NOT charged with, or has even been mentioned, and the President himself, very fucking strongly, and apparently the Chief of Police now, have condemned the arrests as without cause. How is that not enough for you?
For the Nth time, it has to do with whether “understandable” means “justifiable”.
You may think so, but “I would never loot and burn stores” is explicitly a moral judgment, and if someone would, that places them lower, on morality scale, than you.
Of course not. Because you think you could do the same. Why would you think you’re morally superior? And if you would do something, that is automatically “justified”. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t do it.
…I’m a photographer and often edit in the field, so I had to think about this one for a minute. Could I pack up my field kit with one hand quickly while I had my other hand up recording?
So I tried it, and I can. It is a bit slower, but not by a big margin. Its really only pulling cables and putting stuff in the bags. The behaviour of the police in Ferguson has been so at odds with what I would describe as “normal first world police behaviour” that if I was in the same situation I would be recording as well.