> The escalated tensions probably adds way more stress to the officers there and they snap and start doing heavy handed policing because they want the protest to be over so they can go home.

If they can’t manage the stress in a way that doesn’t prevent them from doing their job correctly they should be fired.

The same logic applies to you or I, what is so special about the police?

They have a strong union.

police don't nor should get to brutalize civilians just because they don't like being called out for the corruption and abuse of power rampant in their profession

I'm not saying it's right, just that it's understandable. To use a software analogy it would be like if for your job you were forced to help make a website for anti-software developers who hate you and your profession, and you are treated poorly while trying to do your job. That environment is not going to cultivate craftsmanship to say the least. The right thing to do is to dutifully and professionally execute your tasks, but in reality people have emotions and some software engineers in that position might sabotage the project out of spite.

Well "understandable" sounds dangerously close to acceptable. Because it's foreseeable departments need to be extra judicious in which officers they send into emotionally charged situations, officers lacking self-control are going to do the country more harm than good in protest situations.

Indeed. I think it's important to humanize the police officers and acknowledge that they are people with emotions too though. Protestors can get angry and smash/burn stuff, police can get angry and arrest people and disperse crowds. People are people, and this situation is particularly tricky because the opposing parties do not like each other. In an ideal world only the cream of the crop would be sent to police these protests, but I would wager most police departments are understaffed and have to make do.

They don't get to snap.

This. The last thing that anyone should want to hear is that the police are snapping under high-pressure situations, which are the situations where the average citizen is going to need them the most level-headed.

Was anyone suggesting it was a coincidence? It makes sense more journalists were arrested, but it's still notable.

Well I went into the article (based on the title) thinking police all over the nation were randomly deciding to arrest journalists more often. But this makes it clear that no, it's only journalists at anti-police protests getting arrested at elevated rates. This article could very well have been titled "Record Breaking Number of Anti-Police Protests in U.S. This Year"

It’s also not like they have press cards in their hat or some press pass lanyard. They look like everyone else and are probably recording/photographing like everyone else. An arrest by itself doesn’t mean much in this context. But I assume they are released once they can be proven to be a journalist and no charges are brought.

That's not a particularly moving defense. There are no de jure rights afforded specifically to journalists (whatever your definition). And even if there were, the threat of arrest is still an intimidation tactic the police can use to subjugate civilians — journalist or not.

If you want to ignore the context I mentioned and make this a broad statement about policing in the US that’s fine but it’s also a completely different topic. Generally speaking, journalists are allowed to do their jobs and have a low risk of being arrested. They got caught up in the mix of the riots not dispersing as ordered, is my take. It’s not a trend or a bigger statement about the nations criminal justice system, no matter how flawed. This data shows nothing when context is applied.

It is understandable that the police want to arrest the press when the press is reporting on a movement against police brutality. Its still bad.

In that case, they should perhaps consider taking a job more commensurate with their abilities.

Policing is difficult. That's not an excuse for doing it badly. Anyone who can't do it properly should be retrained, fired, or in some of the cases which occurred recently, criminally prosecuted.

Unless you ramp up pay in order to get better talent, this is just a recipe to have understaffed police units.

Maybe I'm wrong but it seemed like anyone could go in there with a camera and "journalist" written onto their shirt and behave like they don't need to follow orders from the police.

Why are the Police giving anyone orders unless they're committing a crime?

Police don't need to know of you're committing a crime, only think that you might be. It's up to the courts whether you did

If a cop thinks it's illegal to have your shoes untied, or to be jogging, they can arrest you

That's a circular argument.

Why are the police giving orders to people at all? If they think they're committing a crime, arrest them. Otherwise, leave them alone.

Who said they weren't commit a crime? Many, if not most, were.

When they complain about journalists being arrested... I'm guessing they are implicitly limiting that to non-criminal journalists.