Live data from Hacker News

Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

niemanlab.org

161–170 of 835 posts

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#161
post #142
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, but also, there's precedent from 2014 in Ferguson. Several members of credentialed media were arrested and assaulted to various degrees. Pretty much nothing happened by way of punishment other than a settlement from the DoJ saying they couldn't kettle people anymore, enforced by what is now Barr's department. Any officer paying attention would know you won't be punished unless you act particularly egre…

> you won't be punished unless you act particularly egregiously like the one officer in Louisville reassigned to desk duty (big whoop) Isn't this honestly largely due to the police union rules and contacts, which (unions) are a key part of leftist labor relations?

Partially, maybe. But there's also a large role of qualified immunity and poor use of force policies in departments around the country. If an officer isn't required to report every time they threatened lethal force, it doesn't matter what the contract says about what should be done with use of force complaints.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 viol…

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.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#163
post #133

Disclaimer: I am a bleeding heart liberal and this may filter my observations. I have been to a few rallies/vigils/marches lately and all incidences of violence that I have witnessed either in person or through media has been instigated by the police. As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police shooting pepperspray, teargas, or whatever into the…

It's actually worse than that. Even in the killing of Floyd the Police claimed he resisted arrest, which was a lie[0], the coroner said it wasn't asphyxia that killed him (despite all the videos) and a private autopsy found that's not true[1].

They did all this amidst a huge public outcry, what do you think happens to some poor schmuck when no camera is around.

Like this[2] and this[3].........

EDIT: Here is one where the cop force the poor guy to grab his baton and leave his fingerprints so he can accuse him of whatever he wants[4].

EDIT2: What do you know "his death [Floyd's] is on their hands [protesters and looters] as much as it is those officers"[5]

[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/video-george-floyd-contrad...

[1]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/george-floyd-au...

[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/07/27/...

[3]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-woman-shot-killed...

[4]: https://v.redd.it/yo3bpzzt9h251

[5]: https://youtu.be/tIBoxt9maJs?t=64

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#164
post #155
post #133

Disclaimer: I am a bleeding heart liberal and this may filter my observations. I have been to a few rallies/vigils/marches lately and all incidences of violence that I have witnessed either in person or through media has been instigated by the police. As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police shooting pepperspray, teargas, or whatever into the…

Why did the police shoot teargas and pepper spray into the crowd?

Without having any sort of insight into police behavior, I'm assuming two likely options:

1. They are given rubber bullets and mace without any form of de-escalation training, so they just use the tools they have at their disposal.

2. Just like any kind of organism, the police force needs to preserve itself and make sure it is necessary. The military doesn't like peace, and the police cannot thrive with peaceful protests. They do what they see fit to make themselves irreplaceable.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#165

A reporter at my previous workplace, KPCC, was shot in the neck with a rubber bullet on Saturday. https://laist.com/2020/05/31/reporters_injured_protests_poli... It's unfortunate that it's gotten to this point for people to take police brutality at least somewhat seriously. I'm mistaken for being pro-police and anti-BLM merely because I'm against the looting and rioting. I've always had the stance that the police in…

Rubber bullets are suppose to be used below the waist. They can easily kill or maim someone with a head or neck hit. Whoever shot him was attempting to kill or severely injure the journalist.

https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002...

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#166

I had been heartened by the right's recent upswing in fierce support for the first amendment, but unfortunately I've seen little of that support during the protests as freedom of assembly and freedom of the press have been attacked. For example Rand Paul has not tweeted in a week. Sadly, as always, these kind of principled arguments, on both sides, are a sham to advance whatever the partisan battle of the week is.

[flagged]

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#167

I had been heartened by the right's recent upswing in fierce support for the first amendment, but unfortunately I've seen little of that support during the protests as freedom of assembly and freedom of the press have been attacked. For example Rand Paul has not tweeted in a week. Sadly, as always, these kind of principled arguments, on both sides, are a sham to advance whatever the partisan battle of the week is.

That's because their support was always fake. It's about non-existent "censorship" of conservatives, nothing more.

They seem to always go silent when they must take an actual stand. Sadly, this looks like a successful strategy.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#168

A reporter at my previous workplace, KPCC, was shot in the neck with a rubber bullet on Saturday. https://laist.com/2020/05/31/reporters_injured_protests_poli... It's unfortunate that it's gotten to this point for people to take police brutality at least somewhat seriously. I'm mistaken for being pro-police and anti-BLM merely because I'm against the looting and rioting. I've always had the stance that the police in…

I recently read that if you tend to think, "it's a shame that black people are being killed by cops like this, but the rioting and looting MUST stop," perhaps you should consider thinking more like, "it's a shame that there is rioting and looting, but black people being killed by cops like this MUST stop."

All ideas should be considered, but yours is not one I subscribe to. More people have been killed and had their lives destroyed as the result of non-protestors taking advantage of the protests to destroy communities. This is before the actual protests themselves have even been given a chance to succeed without violence. To subscribe to your perspective, I would have to believe that rioting and looting is the way to address police violence, and that the protesters and rioters are on the same page. If that were the case, then the country should be set on fire for the number of crimes it commits.

Put simply, there's no need for a "but". Once can make both statements without implying that one has precedence over the other.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#169

Hey dang, why was the headline changed from the source's?

I changed it from the article title to a shortened version of the URL slug (/well-try-to-help-you-follow-the-police-attacks-on-journalists-across-the-country). That's often a legit source title, along with the HTML doc title, and other places that articles tend to reveal what they're actually about (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

The reason I changed it is that "U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 110 times since May 28" is more baity. First you've got the aggressive verb "attacked". And then you've got the specific facts and figures (100 times, May 28). Why do these things make a title more baity? I don't know, but they are somehow active ingredients in the psychology of titles, which is why headline writers use them. I think of them as sharp edges. If you throw a spiky thing into a crowd, it gets more attention than a beach ball—but the quality of attention is not conducive to a reflective discussion on the internet (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). People react to the sharp bits.

It's in HN's interest to rewrite baity titles (indeed the site guidelines request it: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) but this is 1000x more important on inflammatory topics of the moment, like this one. We want HN to discuss this, but we want to support the discussion to stay in the intended spirit of the site: thoughtful, respectful, curious conversation. The material is provocative enough, and a title doesn't need sharp edges to make readers here care about the topic.

To clear up a misconception that sometimes arises: I'm not saying the statement in the sharper title is false. Obviously it's legitimate to use an aggressive verb to describe an aggressive action, and if the facts and figures are true then it's obviously legitimate to make a factual statement with them. As a reader I have zero problem with that title. But the moderator perspective is different: the question for a moderator, on HN at least, is always: what is the prospective effect on forthcoming discussion? Or to put it pseudotechnically: given choice A vs. choice B, what is the diff between the probability distribution of threads that A is a prefix of, vs. threads that B is a prefix of? (This is just a metaphor, but it reflects how we think about this. See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... for more.) In the case of these two alternative titles, experience has shown that there's a significant difference in probable outcomes, and titles are by far the biggest influence on threads, so it's potentially a big deal.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#170

I had been heartened by the right's recent upswing in fierce support for the first amendment, but unfortunately I've seen little of that support during the protests as freedom of assembly and freedom of the press have been attacked. For example Rand Paul has not tweeted in a week. Sadly, as always, these kind of principled arguments, on both sides, are a sham to advance whatever the partisan battle of the week is.

[flagged]

This is verifiably false.
Post reply on HN