They were though. The videos out of twitter are completely horrifying. An endless wave of cops hearing "Reporter! Here's my badge! I am a reporter!" and just ... not caring. Bash their face, mace them, just follow orders. I saw a video where an officer smashed their video camera. A big one, the style a professional reporter uses.

It's our democracy. And we want to hope for the best. But damn if this isn't worrisome.

EDIT: Hehe, well. Sorry you got piled on. For what it's worth, I was very much on the side of the police about three days ago, so I had to do some soul searching. In case you're in the same boat: I urge you to go seek out and find some of the videos that people are upset about. It's not propaganda; it can't be. It's just footage from citizens.

But they aren't enforcing the law with many of these actions. See the first major publicized incident with the CNN crew. No laws were broken, the crew was compliant, they asked if they should move, explained they were in that spot because other police had told them to be there.

The police have gone beyond the law in these cases, and their handling of protesters (not to mention the cases which precipitated this present set of protests). The law doesn't need to be changed, the way police behave does.

You are incorrect. The law does need to be changed. There is a specific law called Qualified Immunity which prevents officers from being brought to trial for these acts.

Change or remove that law, and things will absolutely change as you see families taking officers to court for felony murder, assault and battery, and other felony charges.

Read my comment in context. The person I replied to implied that the police actions we're seeing this past week (in particular with their behavior towards the press) is itself legal, which it is not. That they have a way out for their illegal (or at least wrong) behavior is a separate, but related, issue. The thing I was discussing was that the law is already on the side of the press, the police are violating the law. Your comment is about the separate issue of why they are violating the law (the belief, validated repeatedly, that they are above the law itself). So yes, the law needs to change, but the police are not presently acting within the bounds of the law so the issue isn't just changing the law, but reforming the police forces.

Wait. Are you saying the law allows for police to physically attack peaceful bystanders? Am I reading you correctly?

A few days ago I had that exact discussion with someone here who didn't understand that there's a distinction between legal and illegal orders (wrt the military, in that context). That it is in fact illegal to obey an illegal order, and the right of members of the military to disobey such orders (assuming knowledge that it is illegal). The other person thought that I was advocating for anarchy...

Yes, you are. Please, refer to

> https://study.com/academy/lesson/unlawful-assembly-failure-t...

So the part of that which isn't paywalled simply says that doing something illegal, or doing something legal in a threatening manner, can be broken up by police.

Maybe it's in the full-text, but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders? Because I'm not seeing it in there.

I did not see behind paywall to, but here's a relevant quote:

> However, the second element is more difficult because it concerns gathering for lawful purposes and only becomes a violation when the gathering turns violent, boisterous, or tumultuous.

After it turns violent, police generally issues an order to disperse, and then proceeds to anti-riot measures. If you don't disperse after that lawful order, you are violating the law, which even most educated people don't seem to understand.

You have to have an account with that site to see the full text, otherwise it cuts off at about paragraph 4 or so.

But anyway, to respond to your statement -----

>but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders? Because I'm not seeing it in there.

> but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders?

That's the general point of police. They do not only attack violent people, but anyone, who violates the law. In this case it is the law of unlawful assembly.

Let's turn the discussion, as I think you have some predispositions there. How do you think police should prevent looting and damage to property on the street (like parked cars, shop windows, etc) during 95% peaceful protests, when the protestors form a crowd, and the peaceful folk refuse to disperse, because "they are just peaceful bystanders"?

P.S. Regarding the paywall. It seems to cut at your screen height, so the more vertical space you have, the more text is available.

Curfew orders have exceptions for credentialed press. The law is on the side of journalists.

I bet the reason for these journalists ending up in the line of attack is not violation of curfew, but a violation of a lawful order to disperse.

I am impressed so many people on HN do not seem to understand the concept and reasoning behind it.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America supersedes local ordnances, and journalists absolutely do no have to disperse when police issues such an order to the general public.

> journalists absolutely do no have to disperse when police issues such an order to the general public

The first amendment speaks nothing about who can be where. It just denies government the right to prosecute people for making statements.

> The first amendment speaks nothing about who can be where. It just denies government the right to prosecute people for making statements.

"just" free speech? Might want to check your pocket constitution again. The first amendment also protects the free press- and the freedom to assemble. (Not to mention religion and to petition for redress of grievances)

Admittedly, I have no pocket constitution, but brisk search only talks about peaceful assembly, which riots are not.

Besides, you completely ignore the "who can be where" point.

geez 3 weeks ago all those freedoms were widely thrown out the window yet now they are unassailable??

/done with HN for today

i find that very hard to believe. Crowds are ordered to disperse when things are getting dangerous or a curfew put in place by an elected official has passed. I don't see any plausible reason why dispersal wouldn't apply to the whole crowd and only a subset.

Ah, the Nuremberg defense, neat.

what laws are they breaking by doing their job

When you say that, it makes sense if perhaps police are just accidentally brushing by them while forcing their way up a street.

What the reality is is they are literally forcing themselves onto cameramen, pushing them into walls or other obstacles, hitting them.

That sounds pretty targeted to me.

In at least some of the videos the journalists are not actually near any protesters, there's no way they just got caught up due proximity.

Multiple reporters have been shot at directly. The cops have shot into the cameras themselves to break them.

They are being arrested too. You need to deliberately select someone as a target for arrest.

I appreciate the desire for prudence on emotional topics - however, in this specific case, the description is a reasonable generalization. Maybe not all 110 cases were unreasonable or deliberate, but it's impossible to overstate the importance of the fact that many of the cases were.

journalists were deliberately chosen as targets

Well, some videos I've seen wouldn't exactly disagree.

Just like experience accounts of individual members of riots, most videos I saw are very out of context. Specifically in regards to media representatives following lawful police orders before getting caught in the push.

There is plenty of video footage of journalists being directly targeted and attacked by the police.

Intentionally picked up from the crowd?

OUR LATEST DATA:

192 total press freedom violations

—31+ arrests

—131 assaults (108 by police, 23 by others)

—30 equipment or newsroom damage.

Assault category breakdown:

45 physical attacks (30 by police)

30 tear gassings

17 pepper sprayings

46 rubber bullet/projectiles

https://twitter.com/uspresstracker/status/126787802436572365...

Nothing here shows intent to apprehend specifically journalists.

Wikipedia shows >5,000 arrests overall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests. Which I bet means journalists were arrested way less, than an average protesting folk.

Are you suggesting > .6% (31/5000) of the protesters were journalists? That seems implausible.

I've been to quite a few (admittedly smaller) protests, where the ratio was 1:2. So yes, 0.6% sounds like a small number.

Intentionally picked up from a position that police told them was okay to take. Offered to move for a subsequent officer who confronted them, and were arrested for resisting arrest. Don't take my word for it, cameras were rolling the whole time. Governor acknowledges that this was improper.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/29/cnn-reporters-cover...

Another case where a reporter shows his credentials and gets arrested anyway. Attorney General acknowledges that the action was improper.

https://www.app.com/story/news/local/how-we-live/2020/06/01/...

The first one is concerning, but the incident appears to be resolved now (?).

The second one does not seem like a major problem to me, as the police might not know a random filming guy showing some piece of paper to be an actual reporter, rather than just a friend of the rioters filming their action for YouTube. It seems it also was resolved.

Unless there's an easy way for police to make a credible determination if the media badge is valid, I would count it as an honest mistake with no major consequences.

Again, this does not support the implication of the title, that police picked journalists intentionally, and more supports my point that journalists were caught in the process.

That's two examples, literally the first two hits of an obvious search. Officials are acknowledging that these are wrongful arrests, why can't you?

There's 110 cases mentioned in this article. Instead of demanding that we spoon-feed you evidence, please continue looking into the evidence. Because there's tons of it and you know how to find it.

> The first one is concerning, but the incident appears to be resolved now (?).

Sure. Call it resolved. That does not mean that it didn't happen the way that it's being described.

> Again, this does not support the implication of the title, that police picked journalists intentionally...

This is a really weird point to get hung up on, given that the title of the original article is "U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28". Where does it say "intentional"? I can't decide if this is a strawman or goalpost shifting, but either way your approach to this conversation is odious.

It's also still trending up. It was 192 a few hours ago, now it's up to 204.

Source:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zk9oFDJ3Ocbz80Z1ISSW...

https://twitter.com/uspresstracker

> Sure. Call it resolved. That does not mean that it didn't happen the way that it's being described.

I am not arguing if the events are misstated. I will continue calling it resolved, as crew took the apology and does not seem to want anything else. So why bring it up again?

> This is a really weird point to get hung up on, given that the title of the original article is "U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28". Where does it say "intentional"? I can't decide if this is a strawman or goalpost shifting, but either way your approach to this conversation is odious.

This whole discussion is a subthread of a comment, that the title might be misleading, because for many it will imply intent to attack journalists specifically.

> Officials are acknowledging that these are wrongful arrests, why can't you?

If you want a serious talk, we should use proper legal terms. "Wrongful arrest" definitely does not apply to the second of two cases, and in the official statement that wording was not used. They did apologize for making a mistake, which happens. But it is a mistake permitted by the law due to special circumstances (e.g. a riot).

> please continue looking into the evidence. Because there's tons of it and you know how to find it.

I am not making extraordinary statements, to which I consider "police intentionally focus journalists".

Tell me that this isn't intent.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=isPkpZehssY

From that article it is very clear police wanted everyone off, and the reporters thought they needed special treatment.

Police did not single them out because they are reporters.

Legality I am unaware, but why would you assume police knew that matter worse than the reporters?

Even after identifying themselves with their press credentials? Come on.

The comment you are replying to addresses this:

> Unless there's an easy way for police to make a credible determination if the media badge is valid, I would count it as an honest mistake with no major consequences.

Either that or standing a bit away from crowd filming.

Objective data? Video? Even an account from journalists?

Plenty of videos on Twitter. These are just a few couple out of many:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1267449066947932163?s...

https://twitter.com/JordonLee/status/1267600319522971649?s=2...

You asked where they were located. I answered.

You replied to the question if they were intentionally picked from the crowd for being journalists. Not where they were located.

And some were in the crowd and others were apart of crowd. No, they were not randomly stumbled upon nor are these cases of being randomly hit while police attacks indiscriminately. Through such cases exists too.

Watching the videos posted online it certainly seems that the journalists were chosen as targets. At a bare minumum the police knew they were press (given that they are wearing badges indicating as such, often holding them above their head) and proceeded anyway.

A tragic case of passive voice addiction, reader.

The current wording is correct. The journalists are in fact being deliberately chosen as targets.

Journalists are often targeted by rogue states

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/marie-colv...

This is not the first article claiming that on HN (the previous one was flagged to death). Like the previous one, this one does not show anything objective to support this interpretation.

The last time I linked you multiple objective instances showing journalists being attacked by the police unprovoked, you made some strong efforts to try and ignore the context of those videos.

I don't think you're here to actually argue in good faith at all.

> ignore the context of those videos

Huh? There was no context in most of those videos, which was exactly the problem I was pointing to, and is the same one with this post.