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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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?
> 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.
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.
> 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.).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
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.
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.
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
Readit News
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.
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.
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
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.)
I'm guessing: "we do not want our actions in the next few minutes to be broadcast on live television"
It's possible that they didn't know it was a live broadcast.
Dead Comment
"This man is Black, therefore he is the enemy", probably.
Deleted Comment
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-update...
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.
They are just trying to get the camera crew out of there.
This is extremely disturbing, and further evidence that the U.S. is a police state. I've never felt more ashamed of my country.
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.
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.
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
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.
This varies state-by-state, actually. Even in those where it is legal, it is very foolish, of course.
It probably won't cost the police anything, it'll come out of the taxpayer.
For police? In the US? Very funny.
Dead Comment
Police carry guns. Legal is not relevant.
The difference is "qualified immunity", not weaponry.
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
As an european... Jesus f-ing christ, this is absolutely messed up.
You can attempt to whitewash it but we all saw what happened. Sorry, but you can't will away racism
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.
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.
When's the last time you saw an American reporter being arrested on live camera?