Police in Minnesota round up journalists and take pictures of their faces
usatoday.com
usatoday.com
> The incident occurred hours after a judge issued a temporary order barring the Minnesota State Patrol from using physical force or chemical agents against journalists, according to court documents.
Sounds like the police don't care about the judge's order, nor the rights of journalists.
This is a gang war, fundamentally. Cops view the protest movement as an existential threat (and strictly, they're not wrong) and are going to use whatever tools they can find to fight it. They aren't trying to enforce the law, they're trying to put down their enemies.
I just got sent this, and I'm shocked, but also not that shocked? Some great indie journalism.
https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history...
The dramatic brush you're painting this with is extremely unrealistic.
I'm just wondering whether that is the case and it's a conscious decision made by the officers on the ground, or if they just don't know an order has been issued.
If anyone in leadership gets called before the judge to answer for this, I'm sure they will argue that they needed a way to identify the journalists so they can keep them "safe". The intimidation is just a fortunate byproduct.
Maybe they could assume everyone is press and not use force or chemical agents at all.
But frankly I don't think he will do much. About the only two things I can recall being reported from Biden are tripping when entering a plane and him calling the lifting of the restrictions in Texas a huge mistake.
How do you prevent anyone saying they are a journalist to avoid getting arrested for unlawful protest.
Got any link for more info ?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-19/donald-trump-us-capit...
Cops scan code: to verify, don't even need to go near them, easily know who to avoid... it's not fucking rocket science...
They see this as a war against the media and anyone who supports the protestors.
The protests became unlawful and rightfully so.
> A lot of journalists like myself were slow to leave the area,” Colt said. “We didn’t think we needed to, and we wanted to cover what was happening.”
> Colt described police then corralling protesters and media into one group and yelling for them to get “flat on our stomachs.”
Sounds like if you had the full context it wouldn’t be so outrageous.
How do we know people are press and not pretending to be to sneak behind police lines and set fire to the police station or things like that.
I'm sorry, I'm not from USA, can somebody explain why it has _just_ been _temporarily_ banned to use "force or chemical agents" against journalists? I was under the impression that using such things against journalists was banned a long time ago in most of the developed countries, what with the freedom of the press and so on... Is Minesotta an exception here? Or USA?
I think that was common in Portland over the last year.
The order here[1], which the OP did not cite/link to, is a temporary order to provide relief while a court case is decided.
My understanding of the argument is that the journalists claim that physical force is being used to prevent them from reporting on protests, and that their presence is lawful. The police claim that they are issuing disperse orders to people on the street. The cause of the disperse order is not clear to me: it seems like it could be that there is a curfew presently establish — however, the curfew exempts the press, and so would not apply to them. It could be that they believe the crowd unruly & are trying to maintain safety, however, that action needs to (IMO) be enforced against the individuals that are the cause of the unsafety/riot if there is one, which press acting solely as press cannot by definition be. As the order states,
> Accordingly, in order for the State Defendants' general dispersal orders limiting the press's access to be constitutional, the State Defendants must demonstrate that general dispersal orders are "essential to preserve higher values and [are] narrowly tailored to serve that interest." The State Defendants fail to do so here.³
> ³Indeed, although the State Defendants argue that their general dispersal orders were "necessary for obvious safety reasons," they make no attempt to demonstrate that the general dispersal orders were narrowly tailored to address those safety concerns.
[1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20618077-tro-minneso...
Unlawful assembly.
"In England, the offence was abolished in 1986, but it exists in other countries."[0]
"while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and in the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association"[1]
I wouldn't be too excited about police in my area invoking "unlawful assembly" willy-nilly, especially when followed up by the "identification of press" actions as described in the article.
I don't want to go too far off the deep end in commentary, but it's more anecdata pointing in an uncomfortable direction.
[0]:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/06/law-to...
eg:
The Act introduced simpler, more effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide better protection for victims and communities.
The Community Trigger and Community Remedy empowers victims and communities, giving them a greater say in how agencies respond to complaints of anti-social behaviour and in out-of-court sanctions for offenders.
The Act also:
- tackles irresponsible dog ownership and the use of illegal firearms by gangs and organised criminal groups
- strengthens the protection afforded to the victims of forced marriage and those at risk of sexual harm
- enhances the professional capabilities and integrity of the police
- amends the port and border security powers in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, to ensure that they strike the right balance between the need to protect public safety and the protection of individual freedoms.
- amends the Extradition Act 2003 to strengthen public confidence in, and the operational effectiveness of, our extradition arrangements
> Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington says throughout the night, and particularly from 8 p.m. onward, officers came under threat from a variety of new individuals who began to approach and contest the area around the police department with items like baseball bats, plywood, shields and "liquid products."
> There were reports of some protesters shaking the perimeter fencing, while lobbing objects over the fence at officers on the other side.
> Harrington outlined how attempts to breach the outermost ring of fencing by more belligerent protesters was handled with some amount of restraint, with officers repairing the breach and backing off rather than immediately proceeding to clear the area around the station.
> Unlawful assembly is a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. ...if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot.
Now you might say "Arrest those people in the crowd actually committing crimes during the riot.". ...but the obvious counter-argument there is that since they are assaulting police officers with rocks, bats, etc... then there's no way to do that safely for officers.
The protests seem pretty well segregated between the peaceful crowd before midnight, and then the violent crowd after midnight after the order to disperse is made.
What's strange to me is why the same violent participants are released from jail each morning to participate in the riot again the next night. This seems like a significant disconnect between the police action and the prosecutors office/local judges.
I would love to know more about the conversations going on behind the scenes between those two groups.
Endless low-altitude helicopters circling over neighborhoods:
https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/02/09/endless-helicopter-...
Mass arrests and harassment of peaceful protesters. Including my niece. People are picked up by the police, but not 'booked' until 9-10 hours later, and they sometimes have unexplainable injuries by the time they are booked. Cell phones are confiscated as evidence; good luck getting it back in less than 5 years.
Police are not the good guys. This is not the country I was taught to believe in.
Assuming you are not right-wing, imagine having endless Trump people on the street protesting - there is no way you would reach the same conclusion.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/
In every country in the world the rules of protests are legislated.
Peaceful protests can turn violent or break the rules and then police can shut them down.
It's easy to take pictures of a group of peaceful protesters, and then some pictures of the police arresting people after midnight to construct a false narrative that the police are assaulting and arresting innocent people.
The reality is exactly the opposite. ...and that deception is exactly why the police are frustrated with the press.
I wish we would collectively agree that press is a thing people do, not a certain “class” of people.
All people should be able to observe and report on (to the extent they wish or do not wish to) actions of the state without being interfered with.
What about the professional journalist who stays past the curfew announced 10 minutes earlier, remains in the middle of a protest to live interview the event, and then gets caught in the police corral? Once the police collapse a large group of people into a very small area (say, with gas and shields), is there anyway that this journalist is not "involved"?
Or, should this journalist, to remain an observer and not become a participant, immediately leave when the state commands them to do so... perhaps going to an authorized "observation area"?
Civil disobedience has proven critical for societal progress. Why shouldn't those who are career professionals at documenting these events be given deference, acknowledging their service to the public interest?
The modern method of suppressing it is to impose a penalty of twenty years in prison and three generations of bankruptcy for anyone caught ruffling the wrong feathers, when the offense in question would otherwise justify a night in jail or a modest fine. That's a problem we need to solve for everybody and not just state-sanctioned journalists.
> Law enforcement quickly identified media and escorted them to a line where they were asked for credentials and identification. Law enforcement took pictures of journalists' credentials and IDs as well as photos of the journalists’ faces.
So let them. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The government's job is to make people aware of the risk, not to stand between worthy recipients and their Darwin award.
And most people aren't suicidal, so most of the people who go there and take that risk are going to be doing it for a reason. We can suffer a few people lying about which reason it was when there aren't all that many of them and they still fundamentally had one.
If you can prove you belong to such an organisation that’s great, you’re press. In the U.K. press have a card to prove this, issued on behalf of the police. It doesn’t give you any rights by law, but if the police started locking down the press like they do in countries without guarantees on the freedom of the press - China, Myanmar, USA, etc, then it becomes a political matter.
Someone could be smashing windows one moment and then claiming they are press the next.
- encircle the crowd and ask who is press
- person who was smashing windows (unbeknownst to the police) claims they are press
- person is escorted out
- person goes smashing windows somewhere else
What would you change about this process?
So I don't buy the premise in the first place. In practice it's an authoritarian, abusive method.
If you have a legitimate reason to disperse people because elements are threatening violence, then disperse them - don't lock the those who are peaceful in with the violent elements.
This is more difficult than you expect. Police are drastically outnumbered in any crowd control situation. You can watch videos from Minneapolis riots where police just watch windows being smashed and shops being looted because they don’t have enough people.
It takes more than once officer to arrest someone too so things like Kettling need to be done for safety of everyone.
The rules are simple: if you get dispersion order it’s time to go. It’s not like they are not given a choice. I think a lot of people showing up to protests are just a bit unaware of the law. The number of times you see someone complaining about being asked to move on and they shout back that they are “on the sidewalk - can’t I just walk in my own city blah blah”. It’s just a misunderstanding of the law or a willingness to violate democratic law.
If you believe keeping everyone squashed together in a small space is safe, then you've basically admitted the crowd is not a risk to each other and can be contained, in which case there is not justification for it.
I don't care that the "rules are simple". Every authoritarian governments tends to have simple rules like that. That does not make this kind of authoritarian use of power justified.
Read the article, clearly the actions by police go against the order by the judge.
So what is the point ? Why assume the risk ? What is the goal from law enforcement, and what is being achieved by the picture taking?
Do cops think there are thugs cloaking themselves in fake press gear ? Do cops think press staff is actively participating in the riots? Where cops ordered to intimidate ? Who is the beneficiary from such a campaign ?
So many questions, and the article explores almost none of them. Come on gents.
That's answered in the article:
"Colt described police then corralling protesters and media into one group and yelling for them to get “flat on our stomachs.”
“They were the ones with the guns, so we were like, ‘OK, well, we have to do this,’” Colt said."
There are more descriptions further on.
It just so happens that real cops are real people. And real people don't create pristine pure organizations straight from Hollywood movie. So what happens when the organization gets too much benefit of doubt and too little accountability is descent toward abusing power more and more.
Only the ones who speak up against (or ideally arrest) their corrupt coworkers deserve to be called Law Enforcement Officers. If the rest stopped existing, law and order would actually increase.
> Only the ones who speak up against (or ideally arrest) their corrupt coworkers deserve to be called Law Enforcement Officers. If the rest stopped existing, law and order would actually increase.
This sort of thinking is what prevents real steps to stop abuse of power. Because it assumes these are individual issues, that those doing something bad are different and apart from the rest. That if we removed bad apples, all would be good.
In fact all are law enforcement, including bad ones. Being named law enforcement is not badge of honor that makes you better person then everybody else. It does not make you less prone to abuse power, to act on peer pressure or to act on irrational fear. As long as people assume that law enforcement is or should be composed of better people, they wont be able to implement proper limits on their power nor proper checks on what they do.
But this mass action is different. Here, they are acting together to defy a court order as well as the Constitution. Even the mayor is powerlessly criticizing them with "gassing is not a human way of policing". The entire organization is in open rebellion against our civil society. At this point, it seems the only things that could contain these lawless thugs are actual "law enforcement", the national guard, a citizen militia, or maybe cutting their funding.
And one of the necessary steps to doing any of those is to delegitimize this group of goons. They're no longer called "law enforcement", because they've chosen to not respect the law. They're wearing those uniforms to fuel their own ego, not because they're granted any authority by our society - their abuse should bother all legitimate law enforcement. And they need to be treated like any other lawless paramilitary force.
do good job: same pay just grind to pension.
do bad job: same pay, just grind to pension
many govt employees have this issue because there is no risk when they screw the public. its more than police that lack accountability (but the guns and traveling in packs makes them a bit more dangerous)
It is even worse. In many jobs the only time the public employee takes any risk is when they actively try to do some good for the public they serve. Whoever that is benefitting from the status quo, often with significant resources amassed from those benefits in the past, comes down hard on that employee. The public shows very little concern or support when this happens. So we get the situation you mention.
That happened last year, didn't it?
I think it was even bragged about in online forums that I had access to, most likely HN or Reddit.
It’s amazing that every comment seems to imply sinister motives to every action by every police officer, when the more obvious answer is that most police actually do their jobs well and there are circumstances they must deal with that commenters here are not privy to or want to perpetuate a narrative.
The same commenters of they met police or had friends who were police would think very differently. Police are dehumanized to the extent that people want to go out and attack them in the streets
I don’t think any officer goes out wanting to attack people and start fights. Look at videos of police. They stand in a line and have projectiles thrown at them and verbal abuse yelled at them. 90% of the time they have to stand there and do nothing. And if it gets too much they clear the protests.
The vast majority of society do not want to go yell at police in the street.
The biggest problem is takeovers of protests by anarchists and I don’t know the solution to this. If anarchists consistently escalate protests then it takes away people’s rights to protest. But I see this as a problem to be solved by protestors.
They hope to benefit by making journalists a bit more scared about writing something too negative.
> Read the article, clearly the actions by police go against the order by the judge.
Yes but they (the police) are the coercitive part of the law. > So what is the point ? Why assume the risk ?
There is no risk or the risk is very low.
> What is the goal from law enforcement, and what is being achieved by the picture taking?
Intimidation. (take care we know who we are). If it worked so well in USSR why should not work in US ? (I know: US is a "democracy")
> Do cops think there are thugs cloaking themselves in fake press gear ? Do cops think press staff is actively participating in the riots?
No. The cops know exactly who they are.
> Where cops ordered to intimidate ? Who is the beneficiary from such a campaign ?
The state and the repressive apparatus.
> So many questions, and the article explores almost none of them. Come on gents.
Do you really expect quality journalism. It is good that they report something is happening.
Yes. Everyone has phones now. Everyone can claim they are press or they have a YouTube channel. These people don’t wear press gear.
A lot of the time the police are not suspecting press and they get more access so people claiming they are press are more of a threat, which is why they must verify.
Say you are trying to light a fire in a police station or break a barricade. Should police allow you to loiter and go wherever you want rather than stay with the crowd?
If you think it through you will realize that unless identification is done it creates immense risk.
Journalists will always complain on an individual level, but police are working on reducing threat level and maintaining order of a wider context.
Some of the pictures from these conflicts give me pause. Here is one such thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RainbowOfRed/status/1383524289542...
With Twitter and palm sized recording devices, what makes one a journalist (in these contexts)?
They are actors.
Otherwise, people are journalists when practicing journalism.
Also for some more direct on-the-ground reporting from events like this https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja is a really good, dedicated organisation.
> That night, the city of Philadelphia dropped a satchel bomb, a demolition device typically used in combat, laced with Tovex and C-4 explosives on the MOVE organization, who were living in a West Philadelphia rowhome known to be occupied by men, women, and children. It went up in unextinguished flames.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/8/8/20747198/philadel...
Totally an American phenomenon.
Trying to change the topic into what is happening in China serves only to obfuscate discussion.
When Chinese imprison people, we don't call it Americanization of China either.
Had you said "This is the most authoritarian thing I've seen" that'd be fine. But the racists in the 1800s were using "Chinese" or "yellow" as derogatives to liken things not related to Chinese culture at all.
https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-s...
Power. It being completely hypocritical means nothing to them. The romans conquered Europe, even though they were surely told that they wouldn't like it if they themselves were invaded.
The vast majority of these protesters are expressly non-violent. They camp to bring public attention to injustice. Some stay past curfew, deliberately practicing civil disobedience. They anticipate being gassed, maced, shoved, dragged, and otherwise abused by police -- and do so without retaliation.
Of course, there can be other actors with their own agendas. Some looting. Some rioting. However, it does us a disservice to blindly clump those practicing civil disobedience with those practicing violence, or to write about the former as if they were enacting violence, when the opposite is true.
If group accountability is a thing, why only for one side?
e.g., https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/neo-nazi-proud-boys-groups-p...
Civil disobedience is a term that I don't equate to many of the violent actions that they are engaging in.
The protesters that are peaceful early in the evening are not the ones being arrested, pepper sprayed, etc...
The protesters that stay past midnight and assault the police are.
The notion that the "vast majority of protests are peaceful" is irrelevant, because the police actions we are talking about are against the violent protesters.
It's Floyd's fault, he was minutes from death's door, wheezing and barely hanging on to life, when the police showed up and tried to extend his life by kneeling on his neck, but he was too ill and he passed away as if by coincidence
Authoritarianism seems to be on the rise.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/journalist...
In France they are routinely attacked and their reaction is gentle (recent example: explosives and molotov bombs were thrown directly at them, they responded by lacrymogen gas). Paris streets were being destroyed and they did not attack the hooligans.
For attempting to kill policemen by burning them alive in their car (it was a trap, police was called to come), out of 16 attackers only 8 were jailed for 8 to 16 years.
I miss something in between France (the world of teletubbies) and the US (Mad Max)
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/11/brookly...
They are kind of burying the lede here.
How the hell did we reach a point where judges have to intervene to order police to stop tear-gassing and beating up journalists? As a society, this is not a good place to be.
Now they know who they are, and where they live. It's a classic intimidation tactic.
It was just the photography that wasn’t okay. However, what do you need a photograph for when you can just go pull up their file back at the station using the name on the credentials you just took down?
Either right wing people film left wing people, or undercover police film everyone at the protest. I'm sure the video might be used for training or mapping some organisation but in the end I don't think it's used in any face recognition software.
I always saw it as a scare tactic tbh.
But the scary thing is that we can't be sure.
However, this has me concerned.
If the police can't themselves operate within the law they're sworn to uphold, why do they deserve any deference or respect?
So are the Press part of the protest? Are they impartial and there in an objective observer capacity only (can they be?)
I don’t know the answers to those, but it’s not hard to see police using this tactic to prevent press from observing and reporting.
With the US producing Leaders all well trained to chase Likes/Followers ie Pander to their Fan clubs, de-escalation is not possible in such an environment, leave alone solutions.
The only way things change is if social media algo amplification is shut down as soon as a serious incident occurs. Let people from all sides vent, but strip out the counts. Amplifying opinions algorithmically hasn't shown any promise as a route to solutions.
Thats the only way local leaders on both sides get breathing space to stop pandering and do something useful.
I’m not saying I personally feel this way, but I know people who do and taking this perspective seriously is the only way we can find true resolutions to these problems.
Otherwise, the fact that their business model depends on things happening is immaterial. It’s like calling doctors mass murderers because they benefit from people getting sick.
These two are separately supported, one does not suggest the other independently, but considered together can be argued to be a motivation and resulting action.
Doctors make money from more sick people: true. If we found that doctors we’re poisoning the water supply frequently, we might take that observation and consider it in the light of their financial incentives.
How would it matter, in this instance, even if it were the case? A judge has explicitly ordered the police to leave journalists alone. So, the police is enforcing its own version of the law, in disagreement with the judiciary?
So your excuse is that it’s ok, it’s just the police going rogue?
> These two are separately supported, one does not suggest the other independently, but considered together can be argued to be a motivation and resulting action.
Punishing people for things they might have done hypothetically because of their profession is a strange conception of justice. Either they are guilty of doing something illegal (which inciting riots is and should be), in which case you try them and punish them for that, or they aren’t. This is irrelevant to whether they should be intimidated for covering protests, which they most certainly have a right to do.
> Doctors make money from more sick people: true. If we found that doctors we’re poisoning the water supply frequently, we might take that observation and consider it in the light of their financial incentives.
And harass them, round them up, and intimidate them, regardless of what they have done or not? Somehow I doubt it.
My original point was to argue the idea that journalist aren’t some innocent class of truth seekers getting a bad wrap, but that there is an observable strong and growing anger/distrust at journalistic institutions and so we should consider those perspectives and treat them seriously.
I’m not saying to round up the journalists, I’m not saying the police are justified, I’m not even saying hating journalistic institutions is justified. My direct and explicit point was to mention the counter argument against the idea that journalists are innocent and getting unjustified blame/anger directed at them.
I implore you to reread this comment chain with an open mind instead of what you currently seem to be doing, which is falsely trying to predict which ideological game I’m playing.
That's the real problem, not the headlines.
So basically we assume everyone is evil and guilty until proven innocent?
That's insane and not worth taking remotely seriously.
Aside: > I know people who do and taking this perspective seriously
No. It is not a serious argument. Take people seriously, belittle bad arguments in respectful ways to the individual.
I don’t have any opinion on this matter. I am only playing devil’s advocate because your comment sounds either incomplete or poorly formed.
The argument is much more complete if you finish the sentence.
Police kill to get their way. Its not their job to kill. People should not get killed by police. In the case of this article, the court literally told the police to leave the press alone... then they corral the press and intimidate them .
The argument is that police pointing guns (which they actively use!) at the press (who are reporting on a protest centering around police over-use of deadly force) is not comparable in the sense that "both have done wrong".
* Police force here is especially trained to de-escalate * We don't have liberal gun laws; when a police officer has to deal with somebody, it is highly unlikely that this person ever pulls a gun.
That all does not mean that German police doesn't have problems. For example just a few weeks ago eight policemen beat up a 15 your old. Or deaths in police custody. Or they constantly turn a blind eye to right wing crimes. Or the police fore themselves is soaked with right wing activists. The list goes on.
From what I've read most police officers in the US are barely high school graduates.
Even in Romania, which is kind of low on the European ladder of development, the Police Academy is an actual university. You go there to study for ~4 years, if I recall correctly, and there's stiff competition to get in (back when I finished high school I think there were 5-10 candidates for 1 spot).
Where did you read this?
I'd love to be proven wrong and find out that the majority of US police officers are well educated, and I mean that in the sense that they have advanced training about their jobs, de-escalation, law, etc.).
I do know that there is no "US police academy" or standardized national training curriculum; it's all at the state level, and within states even municipalites can have their own requirements and standards.
https://www.insider.com/some-police-academies-require-fewer-...
Where a cop should be required 4 year degree at a minimum, with required courses in sociology, communications, psychology, anything else that might help them w/ behavior and de-escalation and staying calm under pressure.
They should also have the same requirements for continuing education as nurses, doctors, teachers.
I recently worked with a police officer on a side gig. Most of the officers in that police force had a baccalaureate and several were former attorneys. The distinction of rate of education seems to come down to level of compensation.
That would be a reasonable assumption if the number of unarmed victims were 0. Over 15% of the victims are unarmed though. https://jech.bmj.com/content/75/4/394
If you go by households with a gun the numbers are more reasonable, however. The US is driven up by a small proportion of gun owners that own a large number of guns.
I don't think that contradicts your argument that it's a difference in gun culture, though. On the contrary - I think it's a demonstration of one aspect of the difference.
It's not that more people have guns in the US, but that more people have guns for self-defence. And a subset of those hoard large number of guns.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...