HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

> Except for the United States, no country has real freedom of speech

Ahem...

- https://youtu.be/TIClA57jWmQ

- https://youtu.be/xuAAPsiD768

Particularly the second link, the journalist is forbidden from interviewing an inmate. Also he's under special surveillance.

Call that "freedom of speech".

I too don't want to get in a shouting match but you interestingly disregarded my second point (let alone the others).

Here is a clip of a notable instance (CNN reporter and crew arrested, live): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ

If this doesn't bother you, then you are beyond reasoning with.

⬐ SpicyLemonZest

I'll close the loop then by acknowledging that it doesn't bother me.

⬐ dang

We've rate limited your account again for perpetuating flamewars on this site.

⬐ SpicyLemonZest

I don't really think it's fair to characterize any of my recent posts as a "flame war". I haven't yelled, insulted anyone, accused them of being dishonest or anything. I'll give myself a time out and see if I can't get to a healthier mode of engagement here, but I'm concerned that my opinions on a wide variety of topics are being treated as hostile and political simply because others vehemently disagree with them.

⬐ pstuart

I believe that you are debating in good faith. I'm just flummoxed by your assertions.

It frustrates me to no end that things that I think should be incontrovertible are not.

The division between "left" and "right" is destroying our country and I'm desperate to try to find some way of some dialog to find common ground. I've failed consistently so far.

Edit: "political" discourse comes in different flavors -- there's the tribal/theater/personality side (where most of the ugliness lives), and there's the policy side which is entirely germane to our lives. It is the policy issue that I'm interested in.

⬐ SpicyLemonZest

Agreed. I respect that HN doesn't want to be the place for that dialogue - having apolitical spaces is probably a key component of finding common ground - but I struggle to identify anywhere where it could happen nowadays.

⬐ pstuart

It should be positive dialog. I try my best but slip when I'm tired and frustrated, mea culpa.

Could we try this again with an explicit goal of finding common ground?

For example, I'm not a supporter of rioting (but there's some compelling thoughts that in some cases it effectively becomes necessary because the system has failed those involved). I throw that last part in to acknowledge that the topic of "civil unrest" is complicated and can't be reduced demonizing every instance and participant (e.g., the Boston Tea Party is celebrated in our annals of American History).

Likewise, I'm not for eliminating all policing, but I do think the current structure we have does not serve society well. You can't fix what ain't broke, and it ain't broke until it's noticed.

Thoughts?

⬐ SpicyLemonZest

I'd like to, but the rate limit dang mentioned leaves me unable to have long discussions - I won't be permitted to make more than a handful of comments a day. More generally, he's made it clear that my opinions on this kind of topic are simply not welcome here. I'm planning to take a break from the site through the weekend, and then start from a clean slate with a new handle SaltyLemonZest where I won't make any comments on any political topic.

⬐ pstuart

Roger that. But this "meeting in the middle" thing is a worthwhile goal, n'est pas?

My email is in my profile. If you'd like to explore this directly I would be thrilled. If not, I understand as well.

Here is the video of the CNN reporter arrest. I have included the description of the video below to help people find it:

A CNN reporter and crew have been arrested live on air while covering the Minneapolis protests over the killing of George Floyd.

Black correspondent Omar Jimenez had just shown a protester being arrested when about half a dozen white police officers surrounded him.

Mr Jimenez told the Minnesota State Patrol officers: “We can move back to where you like”, before explaining that he and his crew were members of the press, adding: “We’re getting out of your way.”

The journalist was handcuffed and led away alongside a producer and camera operator for CNN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ&t=138s

accompanying story from same publication's site:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cnn-report...

⬐ mehrdadn

Thanks! Yeah, so that seems potentially distasteful (and maybe with bad optics for the executive) but I just don't see what's illegal about it.

⬐ gpm

Arresting someone (restricting their movements) without probably cause that they are guilty of a crime is generally known as "false imprisonment", sticking them in a van and driving them away is generally known as "kidnapping", both are crimes.

If we believe the journalists that they were legally in the area, and the police either knew this or at least didn't have probable cause to support that they weren't legally in the area, I don't see how both of the above crimes were not committed.

⬐ mehrdadn

But do you actually believe police didn't suspect there was a crime? The video doesn't suggest that to me at all. Like this other person wrote [1], it doesn't seem unlikely that they were ordered to disperse or something under some public safety law and refused. (Or, I guess, you could say the reporter just didn't hear it and missed the memo. Doesn't really change it from the officer's perspective though.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23409320

⬐ gpm

I personally find it hard to believe that the police believed they had probably cause after the journalists told them that they had been instructed to stand there by another cop.

[Edit: This argument is a lot weaker than I thought it was because it's not entirely clear that the message I claim was communicated to the police was actually successfully communicated. See the replies/video below] Specifically I certainly don't believe that the journalists actually committed a crime if they had instructions from another cop that they could stand there. Those instructions would tend to negate any general order, and even if it didn't legally negate the order it would constitute entrapment and functionally negate it anyways. As a result I don't believe the police would think they had probable cause after they heard the camera crew claim they had received that instruction (and amusingly this is regardless of whether or not the camera crew had actually received the instruction they claimed to have received - to make it false arrest/kidnapping it suffices to be a probable enough claim that the police no longer believe they have probable cause).

A secondary weaker argument is that the governors order excluded the press from the curfew so even if the police had issued an order which included the press that order was illegal as applied to the press, and as a result they had no probable cause to arrest the press. It's weaker because to show they committed a crime under this theory I suspect (without checking Minnesota's statutes) you'd have to show they were aware of the contents of the governors order.

IANAL/I am not aware of the details of Minnesota's statutes - obviously details of the statues might change the above analysis in either direction.

⬐ mehrdadn

> I personally find it hard to believe that the police believed they had probably cause after the journalists told them that they had been instructed to stand there by another cop.

At what timestamp did the journalists tell the police officers that they had been instructed to stand there by another cop? I must've missed that part when I watched the video.

⬐ gpm

30 seconds in this clip of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftLzQefpBvM

I remembered this as being stated too the cops much clearer than it actually was. Likely I was mixing what they said with what the CNN reporters said later on when they were replaying this clip.

⬐ mehrdadn

Okay, yeah, this was before the timestamp the earlier link started, so I hadn't seen this bit. Looking at this segment, I can't tell if the officers heard or understood what's going on properly with their masks on and with everything else going on... and I can't really hear what the officers are saying either, so I don't know what they might've been thinking.

⬐ maskedinvader

Isn't this situational irony ? reporters covering the events that were a result of unreasonable police actions themselves were subject to the unreasonable actions of the police.

⬐ _bxg1

Honestly as a piece of reporting I don't think it could have possibly gone better.

⬐ frogpelt

This is so true. All I could think was that Omar Jimenez and CNN are as giddy as they can be about this.

⬐ Ididntdothis

Irony would be if the police had been arrested. This is just a continuation of bad behavior.

⬐ maskedinvader

yup I think you are right, Ive always had trouble identifying situational irony.

⬐ spoiledtechie

I wouldn't call it unreasonable. They were told to clear the streets. They didn't actually clear the street. They stayed on the street. Reporters not following directions.

⬐ myko

> I wouldn't call it unreasonable. They were told to clear the streets. They didn't actually clear the street. They stayed on the street. Reporters not following directions.

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.

⬐ streb-lo

There's a girl in shorts standing around behind the police -- you're going to tell me she's an officer?

They are just trying to get the camera crew out of there.

⬐ tehwebguy

Instructions from some random cop are not laws

⬐ sowbug

In my state, one must comply with any order from a police officer who is in uniform and acting in the performance of his or her duties. This is a law with criminal consequences.

⬐ iso1631

So "uniformed cop" tells you to "shoot that person", you have to do it?

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?

⬐ hcknwscommenter

>In my state, one must comply with any order from 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.

⬐ non-entity

You're in your rights too for sure, but given the semi-recent history of not giving a fuck 4th amendment along with how quickly the general public is to justify anything done by police officers I'd be scared as hell to do so.

⬐ ceejayoz

Any lawful order, I'd suspect.

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.

⬐ technothrasher

I don't know which state you're in, but all the state statutes I've seen saying that you must follow a police order use the words "lawful order" in the text. Also many of them have limited domain such as "while on a public road" or "during a civil disturbance".

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.

⬐ sowbug

I'm in California. In our state, it's part of the Vehicle Code, but courts regularly construe it as applying anywhere in public. I have personal knowledge, unfortunately, that violating the California Vehicle Code is in many cases a criminal and not civil matter. The statute doesn't include any qualifier that the order be lawful. I suspect that "and was performing his duties" is meant to cover that question, representing a legal fiction that cops would never issue an unlawful order.

For those who are interested in reading beyond Galpern, some other relevant classic cases are Terry v. Ohio and People v. Cohen.

⬐ hartator

Which state is that?

⬐ matuszeg

Any order? Even illegal ones?

⬐ ClumsyPilot

My neighbour was 'arrested' by two men in police uniform, they later murdered him, burned his body, threw remains in the river and sold his car for parts. Him family only found out after the car parts showed up in repair shops.

So not everyone in uniform is a police officer.

⬐ papercrane

According to CNN's timeline the police asked them to move at 5:09 AM, the reporter asked where they wanted them, at 5:11 AM the police arrested them. The reporter was not given the chance to follow directions.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-update...

⬐ zdragnar

This is a pragmatic point of view, not necessarily what I believe is "right":

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.

⬐ frogpelt

It's possible the police were saying things that couldn't be heard on television because the mic was not in front of their mouths and they were wearing huge masks.

⬐ danesparza

"Helping CNN get a nice camera shot" is something you read into this.

Asking where to move to is a reasonable question to ask the police. Arrest is not a reasonable response.

⬐ stronglikedan

I'm not commenting on this particular case, since we don't have all of the facts yet, but it should only take seconds to comply with a lawful order, not minutes.

⬐ camgunz

This only works if officers only ever give orders for good reasons. Oftentimes they give orders as a pretext to arrest you for noncompliance.

⬐ monocasa

Just watch the video; it was a live broadcast of the whole encounter. They were told to move, asked where was OK to move, the cops didn't give an answer (ostensibly communicating with superiors over radio), and then they were simply arrested.

There's no additional facts here.

⬐ kfrzcode

Edit because thread depth:

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?

⬐ monocasa

They were released 30 minutes later, with the governor apologizing saying there was no reason for them to be arrested.

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.

⬐ hanifc

> You're absolutely on the wrong side of this.

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.

⬐ epistasis

It's not being skeptical, it's in fact the exact opposite of any form of skepticism: it's being so credulous to one "side" that you make up falsehoods to excuse bad behavior, instead of using that same time to look for actual facts.

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.

⬐ brianwawok

I think that falls in the wrong use of irony department. The police did bad things in the past. So it is not surprising they did another wrong thing.

⬐ JSavageOne

How is it legal for a police offer to arrest someone without any warning, without even telling them why they're being arrested, and without probable cause? What are the repercussions for these officers for falsely arresting people? Do they suffer any consequences, or do they suffer no punishment for this injustice?

This is extremely disturbing, and further evidence that the U.S. is a police state. I've never felt more ashamed of my country.

⬐ bargl

Police can break the law too. An officer's actions may or may not be legal and that's determined after the fact in a court of law.

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.

⬐ wnoise

> That's because it's illegal for a citizen to resist arrest (even unlawful arrest),

This varies state-by-state, actually. Even in those where it is legal, it is very foolish, of course.

⬐ monocasa

> As someone else said, this will probably cost the police and city in a settlement.

It probably won't cost the police anything, it'll come out of the taxpayer.

⬐ iso1631

It would make far more sense to take the costs out of the police pension pot, either the city pot (if it's a systematic problem) or the individual pot (if it's a "bad apple")

⬐ mc32

Not dissimilar to someone accused of harassment at work. It’s most typical the company pays and not the offender. People go after the money.

⬐ monocasa

You don't get protected from criminal actions because you committed them at work though.

⬐ mc32

Depends on the union.

⬐ monocasa

No, it doesn't.

⬐ mc32

So sexual harassment isn’t a crime? And Unions have never defended members?

⬐ monocasa

Most workplace sexual harassment isn't a criminal offence, no.

Sexual assault is, and there's nothing a union can do to protect you from that.

⬐ bargl

Cities can cut jobs, fire police, put police on notice etc. You might not feel like that is enough, but you better believe that any officer who costs the police money is going to be punished. Maybe not equally to someone else but that's not what I was saying.

⬐ monocasa

> Cities can cut jobs, fire police

They can, but they don't because it would be political suicide.

⬐ bargl

https://www.wtae.com/article/police-department-shuts-down-af...

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.

⬐ monocasa

The closure of a two man police department when both of them got caught at the same time isn't really a great example.

In a larger department, neither would have lost their jobs, and the larger insurance would have handled it.

⬐ bargl

I'm not going to scour the internet for these examples... I found one in 5 minutes. I assume there are more out there that would require me to spend more time than I'm willing to make the point.

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.

⬐ abeppu

My understanding was in many states, the guideline for holding someone without a charge was generally 72 hours (where weekends and holidays can extend that period; prosecutors' right to not work weekends is more important than any of your rights ...), with a range of exceptions open for abuse (e.g. hold you for 48 hours, decide you're acting strangely and need a psychiatric hold, etc).

⬐ bargl

You are probably right. I don't think they have to charge you, but they do have to have cause. If there is video that they detained you without cause. I may have gotten my terms mixed up. In my understanding. Cause, is suspicion of a crime (disorderly conduct and resisting arrest are most commonly abused). Charge is the documentation of an accusation from the police of you breaking a law. The police also have to (are supposed to) document this interaction even if they don't charge you with a crime.

⬐ coffeefirst

It isn't legal. There will be a civil suit, and the city will likely settle for a dollar amount covered by their insurance.

⬐ apta

Paid for by taxes.

⬐ steveharman

If the apparent penalty for murdering a member of the public is only getting fired, I can't see anyone higher up in authority giving a rat's @rse if an officer just grabs someone and arrests them without warning.

⬐ parliament32

>repercussions

For police? In the US? Very funny.

⬐ 101404

Not even when your country murdered half a million Iraqis?

Or when your country continuously murders thousands of innocent people with "drone strikes" for more than a decade already?

Or is that nothing to "feel ashamed" about, because those murdered victims were not "American citizens"?

⬐ JSavageOne

I was in elementary school when that happened so I wasn't paying attention to politics at the time. Regardless my point isn't to compare tragedies, but to highlight the absurdity of this, and the sad state of the U.S. right now.

⬐ brudgers

How is it legal

Police carry guns. Legal is not relevant.

⬐ LyndsySimon

That's... silly. I carry a gun, too, but I don't go around arbitrarily forcing my will on others.

The difference is "qualified immunity", not weaponry.

⬐ wnoise

Qualified immunity only matters for civil suits under 42 USC 1983.

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.

⬐ corrupt_measure

What is far more disturbing than a reporter ignoring police orders and facing the repercussions is that a city is burning from mindless violence, this violence encouraged by a media and other prominent figures that relish in stoking racial tensions by selective reporting and misrepresentation of facts.

⬐ kfrzcode

Edit: I'm wrong, the video I had seen was slightly abridged.

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

⬐ JSavageOne

There were never ordered to move, it's all captured on film in that video. When the reporter asked "why am I being arrested?" the cop refused to even answer.

⬐ LorenPechtel

Everyone was ordered to move out of the area. They were asking for specific instructions on where to move to and didn't get them because there was no answer to that--the police didn't want them out of the way, they wanted the whole crowd gone.

⬐ monocasa

The other CNN crew was told that they were fine where they were. The press were absolutely allowed to be there.

⬐ kaitai

Yeah, not to pile on... but you're being downvoted because what you say is simply false.

⬐ elil17

Actually they had been filming continuously, and they had been previously told by police to stand where they were standing, and they had received no new instructions from the police since then, and there was an all-white group of reporters standing in a similar position on the other side of the police who did not get arrested. I understand the desire to come up with an explanation for what happened, I really do, but the fact of the matter is that police arrested these reporters for no reason.

⬐ corrupt_measure

While it may be tempting to jump to a racial interpretation of the arrest, it appears that the CNN reporters were just standing in the wrong place and in the chaos of the moment were arrested.

⬐ mturmon

You have just scolded the above commenter for jumping to a racial interpretation, and then jumped to an opposite conclusion yourself, on the basis of no evidence.

⬐ elil17

I hope that anyone seeing this situation and thinking, “I’m not sure how race plays into this,” will go back and learn some more about the history of race in America. I think a good starting place is the podcast “1619” which does a really good job investigating where racial problems in America came from.

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.

⬐ corrupt_measure

The entire 1619 Project and its premises have been rejected by many prominent historians, both black and white. The 1776 Project was actually formed by a number of prominent black intellectuals in repudiation of the 1619 Project and I would encourage you to take a look at their work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_Project

Given that the NY Times has been involved in some nasty racist scandals and reporting in recent years, it's difficult to take their 1619 Project as anything more than racist propaganda at this point.

Let's take a step back from how it may feel to be black in America and consider the facts and reality of what it actually means (generalizing of course) to be black in America. The large majority of interracial violence per capita is committed by blacks themselves, blacks are far more likely to have children out of wedlock, are far less likely to graduate from high school, etc.

I care a great deal about the well-being of blacks in America and the best way to actually improve their circumstances is addressing the actual root causes of their inequality, not by blaming external forces that today have relatively little impact on the Black experience.

If more leaders in the progressive movement - like those behind the 1619 project - recognized this, they would do far more good for the black community than they are doing now.

⬐ monocasa

The 1776 project is the epitome of the very propaganda you're talking about.

⬐ elil17

Ah yes, the NYT is fake news but we should trust a Wikipedia article that is in the process of being deleted because it is fabricated.

⬐ corrupt_measure

The New York Times appears to me and many others misguided on the issue of race.

The 1776 Wikipedia page does not appear to be slated for deletion, I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

⬐ elil17

It says it on the talk page.

When a group of white people and a group with a black person are doing the exact same thing (reporting for cable news), positioned equidistant on opposite sides of a group of police offers and one group gets arrested and the other does not, how is that not racism? It is literally a natural experiment with a single variable (race) changed.

⬐ corrupt_measure

You're assuming that a single variable is being changed, but the far more likely explanation is that, given the high complexity of the situation, there are some other variables that you're not accounting for.

⬐ elil17

What variables?

⬐ wtallis

> and in the chaos of the moment were arrested

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.

⬐ corrupt_measure

Perhaps chaos isn't the best word. Hightened tension is more appropriate.

⬐ colejohnson66

Heightened tension is not an excuse to arrest someone. Police (in theory) exist to lower tension, not add to it.

⬐ monocasa

> How is it legal for a police offer to arrest someone without any warning, without even telling them why they're being arrested, and without probable cause?

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.

⬐ voxic11

Note also that 24 hours usually doesn't include Sundays and holidays, often Saturdays are excluded as well. Meaning if you get arrested before a long weekend it could be 4 days before anyone legally has to consider releasing or charging you.

⬐ kindatrue

And then sometimes they forget that you're there

"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...

⬐ antoncohen

> Cops can hold you for some amount of time, generally around 24 hours without cause.

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...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest

⬐ heraclius

In this case, in the video, Jimenez asks the police whether they'd like him to move somewhere else, they don't respond, and then they arrest him, so it is quite hard to justify the claim that they were resisting arrest even on that definition.

⬐ JSavageOne

That's horrifying. Why don't we change the law?

⬐ camgunz

Courts are normally extremely deferential to law enforcement. Coupled with the fact that increasing oversight or increasing restrictions on law enforcement leads to a barrage of "soft on crime" political attack ads, and you get what we have today.

⬐ AnthonyMouse

The "soft on crime thing" was a lot more effective in the 90s when there was a lot more actual crime and so people were more afraid of it.

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).

⬐ bityard

Laws that give the police _less_ power are generally written in blood. Meaning, there has to be a pattern of clear and obvious abuse for any change to happen. For instance, the now near-ubiqitous police body cams are a result of multiple well-publicized unprovoked beatings and murders.

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.

⬐ monocasa

Because we have decades of it being political suicide to not be "tough on crime".

Obviously cops only act in good faith, so any restrictions on them are restrictions on getting criminals off the street. </s>

⬐ ATsch

Nobody has rioted hard enough so far and most of the victims of this law are not white.

⬐ ikeyany

How much time do you have?

⬐ mcherm

Consider how one goes about changing a law. Generally it starts with citizens making a fuss to inform their elected representatives that they think the existing laws need to be changed.

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.

⬐ JSavageOne

Seems like our political system is broken then.

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.

⬐ pionar

> Cops can hold you for some amount of time, generally around 24 hours without cause.

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.

⬐ mdpopescu

> Police may not keep you detained if they do not have probable cause...

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.

⬐ Lendal

And cops know this and will verbally threaten you with it. I've had it happen to me. The cop actually said to me during a traffic stop he could arrest me for resisting arrest. I don't know why he said that. I guess I was not showing sufficient gratitude for the ticket he was writing me. I was being respectful, even though I knew of no law requiring me to be respectful to cops. That was over 20 years ago. It's nothing new.

⬐ kindatrue

They also depend on citizens not having the financial or time resources to sue.

⬐ monocasa

> 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 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.

⬐ umurkontaci

Burden of proof is different for detaining, arrest and when in court if one is charged.

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.

⬐ Drip33

They can detain you briefly for something as simple as wearing jeans if someone committed a crime while wearing jeans but typically this is only for a handful of minutes. These reporters were fully arrested which is a different standard as you've written already.

⬐ pionar

They actually do have to articulate their PC. If they don't, again, you can sue for civil rights violations. Not saying it doesn't happen, it does, but it's not correct to say they're "allowed to".

⬐ monocasa

They have 24 hours to articulate that or let you go.

⬐ pas

They still have to explain why you have been detained, right?

⬐ monocasa

No

⬐ thejynxed

From my experience having been arrested and held like this before: No. They don't even have to attest to probable cause until the 24-hr limit hits, in which case they will then formally arrest you by taking you to be fingerprinted, a reading of Miranda, etc along with paperwork containing the attestation of probable cause, or let you go, again, with a pile of paperwork, and sometimes both, in which case they arrest you formally, give you paperwork, and an issued summons to appear in court before sending you on your way.

⬐ tuan

A follow up video from the reporter who was arrested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gsXevAjNbw

⬐ znpy

I've spent half an hour watching various videos, this in the link and the video where mr Floyd is murdered. Then I watched some more videos of the kind.

As an european... Jesus f-ing christ, this is absolutely messed up.

⬐ tibbydudeza

Add reporting while black to suspicious activities.

⬐ stronglikedan

Then we should also add filming while latino and producing while white.

⬐ monocasa

I really don't understand this argument of "they arrested a latino man, and white coworkers of the black man (last), so it can't have been racially motivated"

⬐ ianleeclark

The most insightful part of the video is where the start handing all the shit to the non-black film crew, then realize how bad it'll look if they only arrest the black guy.

You can attempt to whitewash it but we all saw what happened. Sorry, but you can't will away racism

⬐ blunte

Why was this post flagged?

⬐ ApolloFortyNine

Because it's not on topic. It is almost definitely crime or politics. From FAQ:

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.

⬐ _bxg1

Geopolitics - ideally separated from personal politics - are a frequent subject of posts/discussion here. Particularly around freedom of speech, authoritarianism, etc. Whether or not they technically should be, it's absolutely the norm.

⬐ soraminazuki

> unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon

When's the last time you saw an American reporter being arrested on live camera?

⬐ blunte

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

⬐ moosey

Hackers should be interested in this. It's clear that social media has a hand in the current state of society, however you feel about it. I have a sense that people that don't want violence are going to win politically, and soon. When they do, there will be repercussions for all social media and commenting style systems. HN won't escape this.

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.

⬐ buboard

While this is terrible, the special protections that journalists enjoy should apply to all citizens. If these weren't journalists but some poor random persons we wouldnt even know. Everyone can be a reporter nowadays thanks to technology, and there shouldn't be a class of officially recognized, untouchable arbiters of facts

⬐ nine_zeros

China's installing surveillance to spy on citizens. We need surveillance to spy on the government because without it, we are dead ducks.

⬐ 101404

That would be a pretty good idea. Just need to come up with some way to limit access to only the own citizens for sensitive information. Maybe if only certain trusted people had access, and they would do it as their job, and then they would report their findings, and investigate wrongdoings they found, and then we would give them money to be able to read those reports about government wrongdoings... hm, how could we call those people?

⬐ colejohnson66

Internal Affairs? While I’d like to believe the IA exists to stop the police from doing wrong, it’s more like an HR for the police.

⬐ 101404

I was going for "Journalists".

Interesting that people don't even seem to remember that those once existed

⬐ strooper

Gradual militarisation of US police is one significant development since 9/11.

⬐ th0ma5

So you have multiple crews, and bring out each one as they each get arrested?

⬐ elil17

Actually they did have multiple crews. The other CNN crew was positioned in a similar way didn’t have any Black people in it and the police didn’t arrest them.

⬐ systemshutdown

American police showing their true colors on live National TV.

⬐ curiousgeorgio

Context is huge in cases like this, and I still haven't seen a video showing the beginning of the reporters' confrontation[1]. Does anyone have a link to a video that shows what happened prior to the videos that are being widely publicized?

[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

⬐ jsf01

Based on the language in the video, especially in the few extra seconds from the one you linked, it does seem like they were asked to clear the area that they were in. It is impossible to know for sure without the minute or so of footage that was clipped off prior to this incident. Completely agree that that additional context would be critical for making an accurate judgment of the situation.

⬐ couchand

You're right, context is huge. The area had already been cleared of protesters. There was no imminent threat of any kind. The crew of a national news organization showed their valid credentials.

There is absolutely no excuse for this.

⬐ curiousgeorgio

> You're right, context is huge. The area had already been cleared of protesters. There was no imminent threat of any kind.

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).

⬐ curiousgeorgio

I know this is meta, but... seriously people, what's with all the downvotes? How could more information/context around a current event be a bad thing?

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").

⬐ crakhamster01

I get that more context is always better, but the notion of "context" is infinitely expandable.

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.

⬐ curiousgeorgio

> Most people have seen enough coverage of police officers doing unreasonable things in order to make a judgement call

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.

⬐ crakhamster01

> People are making "judgement calls" based on highly publicized, recent cases of police officers doing "unreasonable things".

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...

⬐ dmix

Promoting violence should have always been the red line. This is very different than regulating 'facts'.

⬐ dmix

CNN reported they've been released from custody.

⬐ philipov

Why is this flagged?

⬐ ativzzz

From the posting guidelines:

"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. "

⬐ rglover

This is worthy of discussion here, though. This is a confusing and excessive use of authority—the implications of which are significant and alarming.

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.

⬐ 4cidix

this looks like how manufactured consent is created

⬐ None

None

⬐ andarleen

No, this is not Russia, North Korea, China. This is the US, 2020.

⬐ koheripbal

Have you ever had an encounter with the police in China, North Korea, or Russia as a black person?

way way worse.

⬐ boruto

Why should US even be compared to those countries. It is a functional and mature democracy. Going through the thread I find it shocking that police brutality and unaccountablity is a common thing in USA.

⬐ xxs

so many new accounts on hacker news, lately

⬐ cecja

yup, 4chan is leaking.

⬐ MaxBarraclough

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

⬐ cryptica

CNN staged it obviously. There was a riot, the police came in as they should have.

CNN team intentionally disregarded orders to vacate the area to cause a stir. Then they were arrested as they knew they would be. CNN team basically setup and staged their own arrests on camera with the intent of deceiving the American people into thinking they were hapless victims.

This is exactly why people vote for Trump. This behavior encapsulates exactly the kind of phony rhetoric which has split the US into two. On one had you have people who totally buy all that rhetoric (tears and all) and on the other hand you have those who see right through it and only feel disgust.

These media companies soiled their own reputation by being politically biased to get extra eyeballs. They yielded to corporate and political pressure and created the current political climate so I have no sympathy for them.

All US media companies deserve to go out of business IMO. They set the stage for their own demise.

As much as I hate to say it, they've just handed the crown directly to Facebook. Even Facebook knows not to pick sides.

⬐ kevstev

Do you have any proof to support your "obvious" claim? They were arrested live on air- early in the morning- I saw the 2 minutes or so leading up to their arrest, but not anything before.

⬐ cryptica

Do you actually believe that the police force would send 50 heavily armed and shielded police officers to an area for the sole purpose of arresting 5 CNN reporters?

Clearly, they were not actually sent to arrest 5 CNN reporters. The CNN reporters were arrested for interfering with the work of police officers on the site of a violent riot. If there was fire and broken stuff all around and a small army of police officers arrived at the scene and told me to leave, I would leave the area immediately and I wouldn't feel that this is impeding my freedom in any way. Given the extreme situation, CNN people had no right to interfere with the work of police officers. What if there was a bomb in the area which had to be diffused urgently?

⬐ kevstev

For your first question- I have no idea. There was a heavy police presence in the area- I think they could have very well been sent to intimidate.

Your second statement is not clear to me at all, and you appear to have absolutely nothing to back up your statement. In the video they clearly asked where they should move to and got no response aside from "You are under arrest."

You are making baseless claims and don't even appear to have even watched any of the incident's video.

⬐ cryptica

Obviously a lot of stuff happened long before the live stream started... The fires and thoroughly vandalized infrastructure indicate that. Based on my own experience with the media, I wouldn't be surprised if they only started transmitting the video when the situation started to fit their rhetoric. That's how the media works these days.

⬐ skrtskrt

American police forces are white supremacist institutions, front to back. Claiming anything else is simply ignorance.

⬐ void_nill

Since this entry was flagged without justification, which shows me that censorship is taking place, I will not use HN in the future or support it in any other way. I will discuss with my lawyer how I can enforce the deletion of my account according to European guidelines.

⬐ zenexer

That flag indicates users flagged it--it doesn't mean any action has been taken by HN staff. It's essentially been reported to moderators by users, but unless you see the "[dead]" tag, it remains public and alive on HN.

User-flagged content can be pushed down on the rankings (comparable to a downvote), but if enough people upvote, it shouldn't make much difference.

⬐ xxs

The post is gone effectively from HN already. There are enough 'new' accounts (incl. top post) that just press 'flag'

⬐ iso1631

It's current story #24, with 222 up points.

⬐ xxs

The story likely got reviewed and unflagged. Yet, it just went puff few minutes after making it to top 10 or so while it still had quite massive (140+ or 160+) points. It was gone for quite some hour.

The reply was about the fact the upvotes do not work well enough in contrast to flagging.

⬐ ciarannolan

I thought you couldn't flag until you had some minimum level of karma, no?

⬐ xxs

It is 51 karma, which is quite low to clear as it takes only 10 to be x-upvote. OP - used to be 140+ points, which should put it easily on the 1st page - but it's flagged and gone.

⬐ ciarannolan

Got it, thanks. I think I'd be okay with an even higher threshold before you get some kind of quasi-moderation powers. 250-500+ somewhere.

⬐ elliekelly

I could be mistaken but I thought even though users have the ability to flag a post the post itself doesn’t become “flagged” until several different people flag it.

⬐ xxs

Of course. That's the point: creating new accounts and getting 51 karma is not hard - there are no requirements to be "different people", just different accounts.

⬐ dang

The flags were overwhelmingly by long-established users including many whose past comments suggest that their sympathies would be with CNN in this situation.

Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23349814)? They ask you not to post like this for a reason. The reason is that the posts are nearly always wrong. Probably more than 99% of the time even if one counts generously.

⬐ snazz

The flagging was done by users. HN doesn't want political arguments, which this is turning into. It's well within Y Combinator's rights to create a user-controlled off-topic flagging system. The moderators can restore this if they want to and cancel the flags.

⬐ hjek

Thanks for posting this. Much appreciated. Sad that it's being flagged.

⬐ meragrin_

Why is it sad it is flagged? There's nothing really to discuss. The video just shows some arrests with very little other context. I don't care whether they call themselves journalists. People are rioting in the area. For all I know, they could have been taking actions to harass the cops for no good reason prior to the part they posted. "Journalists" are quite known for removing important context from video/audio to tell a story they want the viewers to believe. Now I'm not saying that is what they did, but it is just as believable as the racism story being pushed.

⬐ dsomers

I agree, I’ll also be sending a GDRP request.

⬐ effingwewt

It's sad how bad the echo chamber is getting recently.

Yet another black man dead to police violence and it gets flagged when a post about it stays up. This happened days ago (George Floyd being murdered, not this arrest), this is the 1st post to stick and gets flagged instantly, but there are how many posts about the Twitter/Trump fued?

Seems more and more recently that we simply aren't allowed to discuss certain things here at all. Pretending they aren't happening because discussion would be too hard doesn't make them go away.

edit to clarify George Floyd died days ago

⬐ s0l1dsnak3123

It's time to start demanding more. If the constitution of this website claims this topic is irrelevant, vote with your actions and/or demand that the rules are changed.

This story should not leave our mouths and ears until something is done.

⬐ meragrin_

There is nothing to discuss about the George Floyd story. The cops seriously fucked up. I have yet to see anyone dispute that. I haven't even seen a union remark defending the cop. This is not the place to check out the latest news stories. You want the latest news stories, go to Google, Yahoo, CNN, or where ever.

As for the Twitter/Trump feud, there is still debate on whether Twitter has grown into something which is a public space. While the Supreme Court has not declared social media the modern public square, they have referred to it as the modern public square in a ruling. It is worth to debate whether and what types of rules should be applied to the dominate social media sites. They certainly are moving away from just hosting for user content.

⬐ wcoenen

> flagged without justification

From the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html :

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.

This story was not only covered in TV news, it literally was the TV news.

⬐ newacct583

Not an argument for this site I guess. But this is what happens when you have political leaders picking sides in violence. Trump literally tweeted "when the looting starts the shooting starts" (not before this event, of course -- it's an example). You think rhetoric like that doesn't have the effect of empowering police to abuse their power against people they don't like?

⬐ kfrzcode

Where's the HN-for-politicking? (not /r/*)

⬐ corrupt_measure

> "when the looting starts the shooting starts"

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.

⬐ popularrecluse

Thank you for Trumpsplaining that one. Boy, I need to get better at hearing it like it is.

⬐ spoiledtechie

Police abuse their power when leaders pick sides? And what about the Mayor? Has he not chosen sides? He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to continue. Actions and words.

⬐ snazz

Frey's actual power over the police and the Hennepin County Attorney is relatively limited.

⬐ blunte

The mayor doesn't have authority over the police.

⬐ creaghpatr

Who does?

⬐ blunte

It will depend on the type of police force. In the case of a state police, it would be a combination of the state legislature and state judiciary. The real answer is surely lengthy and complicated, but suffice to say the mayor (thankfully) does not control the police... just as thankfully the president does not control the military.

⬐ thejynxed

I'd like to know exactly when the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces doesn't control the military.

⬐ newacct583

> He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to continue

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?

⬐ tehwebguy

The mayor told the police to do the one thing that could’ve stopped all of this: arrest the murderer.

100% of this is happening because police continue to refuse to arrest police.

⬐ sparkling

> when the looting starts the shooting starts

Harsh words, but at the end of the day, people will defend their property with a gun and have every right in doing so.

⬐ newacct583

Trump was talking literally about directing the military to shoot looters (it's right there in the tweet!), not expressing an abstract right of people to defend their own property.

So no, downvoting you isn't anything to do with the constitution.

⬐ sparkling

> Trump was talking literally about directing the military to shoot looters

Uhm, no

⬐ newacct583

Quote the tweet then.

⬐ MaxBarraclough

> ....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

[sic]

Taken from https://news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-death-twitter-flags-...

⬐ 101404

So, were did he say "to shoot looters"?

That's just one possible interpretation, if you really want to understand him that way.

⬐ pwillia7

> Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we [The Military] will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.

Who would he be implying is doing the shooting other than the Military that will assume control?

⬐ MaxBarraclough

No, it isn't one of several reasonable interpretations, it's what he quite plainly wrote.

What else could 'shooting' possibly refer to, if not the shooting of looters?

⬐ 101404

Shooting could refer to guns use by the looters. It could refer to self defense of police attacked by looters. It could simply be a word to symbolize violence of any kind. And there are many more interpretations.

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.

⬐ colejohnson66

Trump is authoritarian. He started by saying the military is on its way. Then followed that up by saying “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Tell me you don’t see the connection.

⬐ newacct583

It's true that the president's writing here is characteristically vague. But right here in this one tweet he:

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?

⬐ MaxBarraclough

In the interests of precision, Trump didn't suggest that people try injecting bleach, he suggested that researchers look into injecting disinfectant as a means of treating those with the virus.

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?

⬐ 101404

Yes, that's another thing Trump said that was purposefully "misunderstood".

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.

⬐ MaxBarraclough

The truth of it is still scandalous. Does it absolve Trump of responsibility for idiots drinking disinfectant? At least partially, yes. It's still a ridiculous way for a leader to behave.

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.

⬐ sparkling

If you are downvoting me, you are downvoting the constitution, so go ahead :)

⬐ Hamuko

Is the US Constitution a sacred cow?

⬐ kfrzcode

It is the supreme law of the land

⬐ sparkling

Yes

⬐ wtallis

From the site guidelines:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

A one-word answer to a question that was clearly probing for more details about your opinions is not an appropriate response.

⬐ splitrocket

Yes, extrajudicial murder to protect physical property, that's justice.

When you care more about stuff than you do about actual human lives, your evil is showing.

⬐ pwillia7

Your insured stuff even...

⬐ sparkling

Okay, please roll out the red carpet for the people coming to loot your home or business, good boy.

⬐ splitrocket

"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."

Martin Luther King.

More recently, though, someone whose business was, in fact, damaged:

"Let my building burn, Justice needs to be served, put those officers in jail."

Ruhel Islam, a Bangladeshi immigrant and owner of Gandhi Mahal Restaurant

https://www.facebook.com/GandhiMahalRestaurant/posts/3030378...

If you value civility and property over justice and human life, well, then, I'm sorry... You might be the baddies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

⬐ bruceb

Depends where you live. The duty to retreat is different depending on location.

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.

⬐ splitrocket

Frankly, if you value stuff over people's lives, well, I don't know how to teach you that you should care.

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.

⬐ acobster

"Not an argument for this site I guess," hence the downvotes, heh. I agree though. And I'd take it a step further and say that the institution of policing in the US has historically always been on the side of systemic violence. Police forces literally started as night patrols to catch runaway slaves, which as about as racist as it gets. If there was a point in history where they somehow severed ties with their racist origins and underwent fundamental, institutional change, I've yet to learn about it.

⬐ banads

>If there was a point in history where they somehow severed ties with their racist origins and underwent fundamental, institutional change, I've yet to learn about it.

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.

⬐ ponsin

from the description of the YouTube video

> 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

⬐ blunte

Get to know some black people and talk to them about their experiences. The chances that race were a factor in this arrest are better than 50%.

⬐ mindslight

A Black reporter is more likely to be filming people similar to himself peacefully protesting, rather than focusing on the damages caused by agents provocateurs (there is video of the windows of Autozone being smashed by a dude who is definitely not a protestor).

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.

⬐ meragrin_

If it were only the reporter arrested, I could believe it was racism. Since the other two were arrested, not so much. It also helps that they seemed to have been the only camera in the area. I have been unable to find any other video of the arrest.

⬐ monocasa

The other team a block away was white and didn't get arrested.

⬐ kfrzcode

What source claims the other crew to be only a block away?

⬐ elil17

They were also a CNN crew

⬐ ApolloFortyNine

If it was because the reporters here were 'too close' then that does kind of fit the narrative the cops gave, except they should have told them where they should go instead of arresting them of course.

Still, does not make it racism. Plenty of cops make bad decisions, it doesn't make them all racist.

⬐ acobster

> still, does not make it racism

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)

⬐ monocasa

> If it was because the reporters here were 'too close' then that does kind of fit the narrative the cops gave

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.

⬐ ApolloFortyNine

Cutting off my post right before I say "except they should have told them where they should go instead of arresting them of course." is incredibly misleading.

⬐ monocasa

Not really, because that clause does nothing to excuse the first clause.

⬐ tibbydudeza

Bingo.

⬐ onemoresoop

Maybe. CNN is no angel of appeasing, but regardless of skin colors, these people were reporters doing their job.

⬐ throwaway829

> doing there job We have zero context for why they were being detained. We can assume they did nothing wrong, but it's just an assumption. It would be great if CNN released the video that preceded the detainment.

⬐ gundmc

The linked video and description are from The Independent reposting CNN's feed. The CNN video has no such description:

https://youtu.be/ftLzQefpBvM

⬐ 101404

> Is there any reason to assume racism?

Increases clicks. More readers/viewers. More money.

Sure, it destroys society just a little more.

But hey, money!

⬐ fiblye

I can't say exactly what the reasoning was, but watching the full video, they hauled off the black reporter alone, then after a substantial delay, arrested the others all at once. Almost as if they had an "oh wait people might notice this" moment.

⬐ maest

It looked like they were hauling people off one-by-one, which could reasonably be standard procedure for riot situations. Isolate individuals from the group and handle them separately - that sort of thing.

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).

⬐ acobster

So, your defense of these actions is that the cops can't discern the difference between press and rioters, so best just arrest them all "one by one"? What part of that is reasonable? Just because it's "standard procedure" does not mean it's justified.

⬐ maest

You may have misread me. I'm not justfying their actions - I'm just saying it's not clear they were targeting solely the reporter. It's possible that the plan was to take everyone in custody, one-by-one. You have to start with someone and the reporter seems like the natural choice.

⬐ fiblye

I mean, there's being a leader of a group involved in a riot and then there's a reporting crew. If one of them is standing in place with a microphone and film equipment and explaining the situation in monotone while calmly asking what they need to do to comply, it's pretty clear which one they are.

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.

⬐ opwieurposiu

Technological solution: Attach a laser to a gimbal camera. use YOLOv3 or similar to target the eyes of cops or armed persons within 100foot radius. Set up a few gimbal with mutually reinforcing fields of fire. If they can't see, they can't shoot. Everyone is safe with no killing.

⬐ e12e

If they can't see, and do shoot, no one is safe.

⬐ tinyhouse

What happened to Floyd is horrible and police abuse is a real thing. I never understood why police officers in the US have no common sense. I recall many incidents where they shoot and kill people trying to escape (so no threat to them). I'm happy the public is doing something about it.

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).

⬐ tom_

The more usual term for an adult human male is a "man".

⬐ kindatrue

Fun Fact: A court determined it was legal for the NYPD to discriminate against hiring police officers that had IQs too high.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...

⬐ bruceb

Yes because they would leave the police force quickly. Training officers takes time and money.

Most businesses will try to avoid hiring someone that is going to leave right away.

⬐ non-entity

Anecdotal of course, but I was discussing this with someone who told me their cousin, despite being bipolar (although currently treated) and a raging racist online was being recruited by local police offices.

⬐ 0xddd

Yes, what a heroic display we're commenting on here. What exactly is your point and how is it relevant to this unsettling video? Just the platitude that not every interaction is necessarily racist?

⬐ st1ck

I wonder if it's also a sexism. Public exposure is usually more acceptable for women than men.

⬐ tinyhouse

That's true but I'm not sure it would've been the same if a woman did that. The main difference is how the public would react.

⬐ josephorjoe

that is some bizarre and creative whataboutism

⬐ Miner49er

Police don't defend normal people or communities, that's not their job. Their job is to enforce the law, no matter how unjust the law is.

> We should support good police officers and not assume all are bad and racist.

There is no such thing as a non-racist or good police officer. The police system as a whole is racist. Anybody who chooses to participate in and support that system everyday of their lives is racist.

⬐ 101404

> Police don't defend normal people or communities, that's not their job. Their job is to enforce the law, no matter how unjust the law is.

That's the difference between calling them "police" or calling them "law enforcement".

I think that it is no coincidence that Americans were "trained" to say "law enforcement".

Call them police, because a police officers first duty is to the community.

⬐ tinyhouse

What drugs are you on? What's the alternative you're suggesting then? Are you saying we don't need police and everyone can just own a gun and defend themselves when they need to?

⬐ Miner49er

I'm just pointing out facts. The police's purpose is not to protect people. [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Anytime a police officer tries to fight the system they are a part of, they always cease to become a police officer. They're forced out. The system doesn't allow "good" police to exist.

⬐ pwillia7

Similar to many of the other 'machines' that exist in our society. You can only be a cog in it serving its greater will or you are cast out.

⬐ tinyhouse

You're ignoring the question. You said you cannot be not racist if you're part of the police system. Yet you don't offer any alternatives.

⬐ Miner49er

It would require massive fundamental change to society, but one idea is eventually citizens could "police" themselves. The majority of people could go through training and work together to provide security and protection in their own communities when need be.

⬐ tinyhouse

Well, that's what I thought you're suggesting...

I know some places around the world that operate like that. I suggest you go and live there before suggesting something crazy like that. Good luck.

⬐ banads

>The police system as a whole is racist. Anybody who chooses to participate in and support that system everyday of their lives is racist.

What about all the Democrats and Republicans who are ultimately responsible for the laws governing the police system and who have for years tacitly or explicitly supported the war on drugs?

⬐ Miner49er

Yeah also racist.

⬐ UncleMeat

Of course. Anti-racist activists have long been extremely critical of the lawmakers. The dems tend to be better than the republicans, but both participate in and contribute to a system that ultimately is racist at its very core.

⬐ banads

It seems like most people (especially mainstream news such as CNN) focus the majority of their criticism on the police, while ignoring the politicians of both parties that are the root cause.

⬐ acobster

How does nakedness justify escalating the situation to voilence? "The law is the law" is just an excuse.

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.

⬐ tinyhouse

Thanks for the book recommendation.

> 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)

⬐ acobster

You're welcome!

> 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.

⬐ tinyhouse

You make valid points but it's clear you never had to deal with such situations. When you ask why not just detain him and move him to a safe place. Did you ever try to detain someone who is not cooperating? If you're dealing with someone strong, even 3-4 people can have a very hard time. You have to be physical and it can turn to some levels of violence. The key again is using common sense. The police system should educate their people and also change their hiring process so that people who lack good common sense don't become police officers. Saying that police officers had the choice not to join the police is not serious. Don't also forget that many minorities join the police.

⬐ acobster

You seem to think that violence is the only option. You obviously think it's justified, but you still haven't stated a reason why being naked in public justifies bodily harm, maybe because you think the need to physically subdue this person was self-evident, by whatever means necessary? I disagree with that premise. This is why one of the central demands of the movement for black lives is "counselors not cops."

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.

⬐ tinyhouse

Well, if a counselor could help resolve such situations quickly I'm all for it. But I'm doubtful based on my previous experience with troubled people. People have many opinions and ideas until one of those people become their own personal problem.

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...

⬐ acobster

"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings."

- Ursula K. Le Guin

⬐ lurquer

So, state police -- on a loudspeaker -- are "ordering" people to "leave the street immediately."

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.

⬐ jmull

In the video linked here -- which you seem to be referring to -- the reporting team is surrounded by police throughout and can't move anywhere.

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.

⬐ kaitai

The camera crew was told where to stand by the police prior to the arrest.

⬐ monocasa

He was released 30 minutes later with the governor admitting it was a bad arrest.

⬐ lurquer

Whether they are charged with a crime is up to the governor, ultimately.

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.

⬐ monocasa

The reporter was complying; he was asking which direction they should go when he was arrested.

⬐ lurquer

How much time should the police give him to decide whether to walk 10 feet to the left, or 10 feet to the right?

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.

⬐ kaitai

The cameraman was literally standing where directed to stand by the police.

⬐ None

None

⬐ ilikehurdles

Additionally, there was another CNN crew within sight of this one that was approached, handled the situation in the same way with the same answers, and was told that they're good to stay where they are. That one was led by a white reporter.

⬐ sasasassy

I don't have an issue with this.

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.

⬐ fzeroracer

So you're saying if a police officer walks up to you and tells you do to something and you ask 'Why', that's grounds for them arresting you?

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.

⬐ sasasassy

The grounds to arrest me are me not obeying a direct order, not asking "why".

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.

⬐ wnoise

They weren't even asking why. They were asking _how_.

⬐ bittercynic

On some level the people involved here were civil, but it seems like a pretty dire problem when the police want to get rid of journalists.

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.

⬐ sasasassy

Of course I agree, but it reminds me of a situation many years back where I live.

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.

⬐ TeaDrunk

Note that Minneapolis state police have claimed that the reporters were released from jail the following morning after confirming themselves as media, which CNN responded by saying they had identified themselves before their arrest and it was only through the Goverers interference that their reporters were released the following morning.

⬐ hharlequin

I'm not sure where the report of the following morning is coming from. They were released after about an hour and back on the air. That doesn't excuse anything, as they clearly identified themselves and were live on the air, but this is an exaggeration of what happened.

⬐ apta

Do those crewmen have an arrest record now? How can it affect their future employment or other conducts?

⬐ jjeaff

With a short explanation of what you were doing where, this arrest record probably couldn't hurt.

⬐ kaonashi

If there's no repercussions for lying, then the cops will lie about everything that allows them to accomplish their goals. Their goal here was to chill media coverage.

⬐ myrion

I mean, it happened live on air, they were clearly identified as CNN and willing to comply with police orders - making the police's claim laughable.

I wonder what those officers were thinking, arresting a reporter on live camera.

⬐ epistasis

I think the level of impunity of "I am the law" instead of laws being laws, has taken over far too many in the police department. The level of police misconduct that's been captured in camera in the last few days is disturbing. There's always one police officer that rushes into a peaceful situation, from behind, and starts violence. This sort of assault on humans is taken to be their responsibility, apparently, and all the rest of the police stand idly by as one of those in their uniforms commits acts of violence against peaceful people.

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.

⬐ klenwell

> I think the level of impunity of "I am the law" instead of laws being laws, has taken over far too many in the police department.

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...

⬐ take_a_breath

==I think the level of impunity of "I am the law" instead of laws being laws, has taken over far too many in the police department.==

Never heard it put quite this way. Well said!

⬐ Jenz

Being a punctuation mark enthusiast, I’m very interested where you got that ⟨==xxx==⟩ notation from

⬐ take_a_breath

I like the way it highlights a quote without having to deal with a bunch of actual quotation marks. If something you want to quote includes quotation marks it can be confusing to read (especially on mobile). It also reminds me of commenting out things when programming.

⬐ lrdd

It is also the header syntax for Vimwiki[0]

[0]: https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

⬐ mixmastamyk

Looks like one of the wiki dialects.

⬐ meshaneian

I saw similar punctuation on "Forensic Files" used by a serial killer. Not that anyone who uses odd quotes is a serial killer. ~~Just sayin'~~

⬐ phkahler

>> all the rest of the police stand idly by as one of those in their uniforms commits acts of violence against peaceful people.

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.

⬐ bsenftner

We need stronger whistle blower protections, laws and incentives. The only people who can police the police are the police. So society needs to create the situation where the incentives to police themselves reward them greater than the current corrupt, immature and racist rewards they reap today.

⬐ orestarod

You can't reward someone who is in power into not being corrupt and not abusing their power. You prohibit, stop and punish them. Begging only goes so far.

⬐ Frost1x

It took quite awhile before they decided to arrest the reporter (Omar Jimenez). I suspect the decision came from higher up given the time delay (due to communication). I was watching this particular reporter late last night / early this morning and his coverage was, IMO, excellent to give some context and feel for the ongoing situation.

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.

⬐ _bxg1

And let the Streisand Effect begin.

⬐ relativitypro

Cannot be the right call. The tax payers lose in the coverage and they lose in the lawsuit.

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.

⬐ bruceb

I don't know about MN but police officers are not paid a low salary in a number of jurisdictions.

Seattle starts at $65k+ and the avg is $100k.

⬐ Frost1x

>Cannot be the right call.

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.

⬐ mywittyname

Police officers make bank. In many places their salaries are public record. Plus, they get overtime and contract work as well. So their salary might be $80,000 per year, but they get overtime at like $60/hr, and they get work doing private security for movie theaters, events, etc. Probably at a similar rate.

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.

⬐ labcomputer

> and they get work doing private security for movie theaters, events, etc. Probably at a similar rate [...] That's not even getting into collusion by the department to defraud tax payers.

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.

⬐ smabie

It didn't just feel like that, it is exactly like that. The mob, cartels, and government are pretty much all the same. Some group that claims a monopoly on force.

⬐ derangedHorse

I also had to go through this process when throwing an event. The little money we had for a < 300 private event venue was then put at risk and we had to raise money last minute. It was almost funny how many obstacles we had to go through in general for that event, but the requirement of security made everything a little bit worse

⬐ snazz

(I'm a resident of the Minneapolis suburbs)

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.

⬐ throwaway894345

These seem like flagrant violations of constitutional rights; I would be interested to hear from a lawyer what kind of legal liability the police (as a department and as individual bad-apple officers) are opening themselves up to by behaving this way. Hopefully justice is served and constitutional rights are protected.

⬐ _bxg1

It's become clear time and again that they never open themselves up to actual liability. But it would be interesting to hear how wide the gap is between law and reality in this case.

⬐ throwaway894345

> It's become clear time and again that they never open themselves up to actual liability.

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.

⬐ _bxg1

We've seen multiple murders by police happen on camera in the past couple years, with little to no action taken. 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.

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?

⬐ throwaway894345

> We've seen multiple murders by police happen on camera in the past couple years, with little to no action taken.

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...

⬐ corrys

> Your premise is wrong.

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.

⬐ throwaway894345

I generally agree with the above, but you're framing this as a disagreement which makes me think you misunderstood the context of the thread.

My position is that there is some accountability but it's not sufficient for any reasonable standard of justice.

⬐ kaitai

People inside the gov't here are calling for an investigation because we actually think, in Minnesota, that we're "better than this". White people in Minnesota (and I am one) truly do think that we have less racism & we're better than folks in Ohio, California, Tennessee, Florida, NY. That's why if you look at videos of the protests here, so many white Minnesotans have showed up.

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.

⬐ bcrosby95

Individuals are basically never accountable. In general, "I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that" is a legal defense when it comes to police actions. This comes up time and time again when they e.g. misuse tasers. Of course the department might lose a lawsuit, which the taxpayers will pay for.

The incentives here really are fucked.

⬐ aljg

I don't believe they are opening themselves up to any legal liability. See [1] and links for a disturbing list of recent examples of police receiving qualified immunity. One example from the article:

> 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...

⬐ throwaway894345

There's not enough liability, perhaps, but there's certainly some. Here[0] is a list of police department settlements and another[1] of individual police officers being tried and/or convicted for recent high-profile killings. Note that media coverage is inherently sensational and therefore not reflective of reality--just because the media gives much more attention to killings than to the legal repercussions doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist.

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...

⬐ ric2b

Those settlements are usually paid by the taxpayer, not the officers.

⬐ aljg

Good point, I retract my blanket statement of "no legal liability." I should have said that they are not criminally liable.

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).

⬐ throwaway894345

I agree. There needs to be more accountability for police.

> 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.

⬐ ric2b

Your argument for the taxpayer being on the hook is that it gives us an incentive to do police reform?

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.

⬐ throwaway894345

How do you suppose you increase accountability for police officers (or any other police reform) without public support? And how does increasing accountability give police officers the special skills that they increasingly need, for example, to for interacting with mentally unwell members of the community? "Figure out how to be a mental health professional or face jail time"? To use your "doctors" analogy, we also have a system that adequately trains doctors and filters out the unfit.

⬐ kaitai

To folks saying "they're highly organized", listen to Walz's press conference -- they're not organized, the National Guard didn't get a plan so didn't go in, it's a series of excuses.

⬐ xvf22

They're organized but their goals and values are different than you think they are.

⬐ acobster

They're highly organized. I think perhaps a better word for their actions is "unjustified," or if you're feeling less charitable, "unjustifiable."

⬐ craftinator

I think that government backed thuggery of this nature was one of the driving forces behind the Second Amendment.

⬐ yborg

There are police departments that are an organizational mess and there are departments that are even corrupt. There was a case here in Illinois in Cicero 20 years ago where the State Police were brought in to take over the force until the leadership could be replaced because of corruption.

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.

⬐ kmonsen

The arrested reporter was black, there was another White CB reporter standing nearby that was not arrested. Perhaps it’s all coincidence. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arres...

⬐ chooseaname

> Perhaps it’s all coincidence.

That's being extremely charitable.

⬐ iso1631

Or sarcastic

⬐ SV_BubbleTime

The crew headed by the white reporter moved when police asked, they were behind “the line”. The crew that was arrested should not have been but it’s not the same scenario.

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.

⬐ monocasa

The crew headed by the black reporter was complying and simply asking where was OK to move to when they were arrested.

⬐ SV_BubbleTime

Yes, that is what happened. I never said otherwise or disagreed.

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?

⬐ aljg

The person you are replying to just pointed out the race of relevant parties.

> 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?

⬐ SV_BubbleTime

> race of relevant parties.

Except that also arrested was a white guy and a latino guy.

Aren’t those relevant variables?

⬐ craftinator

I don't think the police of that city hold a high enough social credibility to be given the benefit of the doubt right now. There is a long and well documented history of racism in that department. So when they do something that might be driven by racism, and the only information we have to go in is past behavior, it would be foolish to assume that racism didn't play a part in their decision.

⬐ kmonsen

Of course we can’t know, but the police are giving bogus explanations so it’s hard to give them good faith. They would probably do the same if they arrested a white crew.

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.

⬐ meragrin_

The producer and camera man were not so it was not strictly based on race. I just find it very convenient there is no other video of the arrest. They were probably the only camera crew around and the cops wanted them gone.

⬐ acobster

And that is a defense of the cops' actions how?

⬐ maest

Convenient for who?

⬐ meragrin_

Either of them. CNN essentially controls the story. The cops could have thought they could have quietly gotten rid a potential source of trouble.

⬐ ric2b

The cops could have controlled the story by not arresting a journalism crew.

⬐ dmix

The whole CNN team of four was arrested including the white producer and a latino cameraman.

⬐ monocasa

Racists view brown as the new black, and those working with people of color who don't know their place as race traitors.

Also, there was an all white CNN crew a block away who didn't get arrested.

Just because they arrested some white people who were obviously working with people of color, isn't evidence at all that the arrests weren't racially motivated.

⬐ Infinitesimus

How it played out was interesting though. Arrested reporter first and only after some time came back and arrested the others.

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"

⬐ kaitai

Yep.

⬐ runawaybottle

Sounds like their modus operandi. What would they do in most situations? Find a reason to justify their actions. Who knows about all the bullshit they came up with on so many prior charges.

This is very much systemic.

⬐ onemoresoop

Who gave the order is responsible for this reasonless arrest. I grew up under a dictature only to emigrate to ‘the free-est’ country in the world and see it turn into a dictature is a sad thing. And what’s to come is even worse and more dangerous.

⬐ kaonashi

If there's no repercussions for lying, then the cops will lie about everything that allows them to accomplish their goals. Their goal here was to chill media coverage.

⬐ specialist

My first hunch is the arresting officers were scrubs, brought in from other jurisdictions to staff up in response to the riots.

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.)

⬐ thejynxed

The outside officers were also acting on direct orders from the FBI and not SPD or the city mayor in the case of the WTO riots. Having been in said riots where idiots dressed in black started smashing things, thus drawing in the FBI (and there's been numerous accusations over the years that the Black Bloc groups were also under FBI direction). Getting whacked by a baton while I was filming was not fun but I got whacked because the officer missed his actual target who was standing slightly behind me and had been busy throwing bricks and then dodging in behind other people.

⬐ kaitai

You are more or less correct. The arresting officers were State Patrol; they're from all over but they're not from the community.

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.

⬐ specialist

Thank you for your misc replies, based on your firsthand experience and being onsite. Stay safe.

"Whenever you bring in suburban law enforcement to the city, things get dicey."

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say, thank you.

⬐ josephorjoe

> I wonder what those officers were thinking, arresting a reporter on live camera.

I'm guessing: "we do not want our actions in the next few minutes to be broadcast on live television"

⬐ mnm1

What was the officer who murdered Floyd on live camera thinking, fully aware that Floyd was dying? Probably the same thing as these assholes. That they will get off without any punishment because of qualified immunity. The same thing every police officer in America thinks when they are about to murder or hurt another person. It's hardly a secret.

⬐ Hamuko

>arresting a reporter on live camera.

It's possible that they didn't know it was a live broadcast.

⬐ kmonsen

He was telling them they were live, I think he was reporting while being black.

⬐ Hamuko

There's a difference between being told something and knowing something.

⬐ take_a_breath

Kinda like when someone says "I can't breathe" and you can't really know until they die.

⬐ chance_state

Did you watch the video? He very clearly tells them "we are live on air".

⬐ fiblye

I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that it's okay to arrest them if they're not live? (Not attacking you--just hard to understand intention through text)

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.

⬐ throwaway894345

> I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that it's okay to arrest them if they're not live?

The point is that it's not even in the officers' own self-interest.

⬐ take_a_breath

Neither is pushing your knee so hard into someone's neck that they choke to death. It still happened.

⬐ throwaway894345

Why are you responding to me like I expressed some opinion that you disagree with? I was just providing clarifying context.

⬐ chance_state

"We got away with murdering a man in broad daylight, who cares about arresting a couple journalists?", would be my guess.

⬐ M2Ys4U

>I wonder what those officers were thinking, arresting a reporter on live camera.

"This man is Black, therefore he is the enemy", probably.

⬐ eyelidlessness

> I wonder what those officers were thinking, arresting a reporter on live camera.

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.

⬐ jdashg

Since there clearly aren't penalties for corruption (even corruption-lite like this), it's no surprise that it persists. While we can understand why they do it, that does not make it acceptable, and there have to start being consequences.

I can't help but feel that strong independent oversight is necessary, as the status quo is clearly insufficient.

⬐ DocSavage

The police unions and particularly this administration have been actively undermining strong independent oversight.

Watch the full video the whole crew was arrested not just the black reporter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ