Reporters arrested while reporting, after having asked about where to position themselves, and while asking for further instructions about how to cooperate with police.
Over-militarized police. Put people in armor and combat gear and they immediately slip into the totalitarian oppressor mentality just as demonstrated in the Stanford prison experiment.
It's interesting that when they arrested the team, the arrest happened after Jimenez showed his card. Then, as Jimenez was being led away, a police officer handed the mike to another of the staff. So at that point it doesn't seem like the officers had any intention to arrest the rest of the crew. Only after did an officer return to arrest the rest of the crew, perhaps after realizing the optics of arresting the sole colored of the crew and the only one who identified clearly as a reporter.
That's not the point in this specific scenario -- noting this as "importantly" indicates you believe this is no big deal.
People are often arrested and released without charge. It's a tactic to get people out of a situation and sort it out later. I would have expected no less.
Arresting a news crew reporting on an event like this breaks significant norms (and possibly laws?).
> ... noting this as "importantly" indicates you believe this is no big deal.
Your assumption is 100% wrong.
I absolutely think this is a big deal but I thought it was important that people reading the article and comments were aware that the journalists had since been released.
We've got the rest of our lives to discuss this event but the most important thing -- the immediate concern -- is that the news crew was no longer in police custody.
Imagine it was not a reporter, but rather someone who allegedly had burgled a house or stolen a car--someone who, unlike the reporter, is not sure that they are going to be released soon probably without being charged. Someone who maybe has prior convictions and might be looking at the wrong end of his state's "repeat offender" laws.
It's pretty obvious you'd handcuff them as soon as you arrested them, because even if they are not resisting or trying to flee now, there is a real risk that they are only not doing so because they don't think the odds are good at that moment, but will do so if the opportunity arises. They might just be waiting for the officers to be distracted, or to be left along with only one officer.
None of that applies to the reporter, of course, but do we want police making that kind of judgement? At the very least it would raise thorny issues about bias in how they choose who to handcuff and who to not handcuff.
Why does police brutality happen at all in the first place? Why do police fail at handling riots? Seems like there needs to be some major changes made.
I wonder if people will still be asking this question when the tanks roll into San Francisco.
(Sure, HN's leaky "no politics" rule, but ultimately you can refuse to deal with politics only so long as politics refuses to deal with you. It will be interesting to see what the effect of the Section 230 executive order will be... which also got flagged off HN)
I would hope the tanks roll in if they try to burn the city down. The politicians in SF/CA have made every attempt to disarm the public. What happens when the SFPD abandon their post and looters are going house to house?
And it's not so much a refusal to deal with politics as much as we are already dealing with it everywhere else. It's nice to have a refuge. Although I find it strange that thread was pruned as Section 230 is definitely related to tech.
Interested in what they were using. That was a flawless video. If it was a LiveU that implies that general cell service is still working well. If it was an older fashioned setup. I didn't see an SNG or links truck as they spun round at the start.
CNN @CNN · 57 m
A black reporter from CNN was arrested while legally covering the protests in Minneapolis. A white reporter also on the ground was not.
> CNN's Josh Campell, who also was in the area but not standing with the on-air crew, said he, too, was approached by police, but was allowed to remain.
1:47 2:40 wow
Reporters arrested while reporting, after having asked about where to position themselves, and while asking for further instructions about how to cooperate with police.
Over-militarized police. Put people in armor and combat gear and they immediately slip into the totalitarian oppressor mentality just as demonstrated in the Stanford prison experiment.
>just as demonstrated in the Stanford prison experiment
That's like one of the worst example because that was pretty much a fraud experiment and was debunked several times
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17796953
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17387601
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8073748
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108801
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20660709
And somehow I’m not surprised. Shocked. But not. Some incredible footage.
Crystal clear 1st Amendment violation. Feels like the pivotal scene in a documentary about how things fell apart.
It's interesting that when they arrested the team, the arrest happened after Jimenez showed his card. Then, as Jimenez was being led away, a police officer handed the mike to another of the staff. So at that point it doesn't seem like the officers had any intention to arrest the rest of the crew. Only after did an officer return to arrest the rest of the crew, perhaps after realizing the optics of arresting the sole colored of the crew and the only one who identified clearly as a reporter.
Importantly, the news crew was released about an hour later (per CNN).
That's not the point in this specific scenario -- noting this as "importantly" indicates you believe this is no big deal.
People are often arrested and released without charge. It's a tactic to get people out of a situation and sort it out later. I would have expected no less.
Arresting a news crew reporting on an event like this breaks significant norms (and possibly laws?).
> ... noting this as "importantly" indicates you believe this is no big deal.
Your assumption is 100% wrong.
I absolutely think this is a big deal but I thought it was important that people reading the article and comments were aware that the journalists had since been released.
We've got the rest of our lives to discuss this event but the most important thing -- the immediate concern -- is that the news crew was no longer in police custody.
Is it normal to immediately put handcuffs on someone that is arrested when there is no resistance at all?
The entire protest kicked off after putting a knee on the throat of a nonresisting arrestee. Police excessive force is the very subject of discussion.
Yes, "for your own safety as well as mine", according to the officers.
Imagine it was not a reporter, but rather someone who allegedly had burgled a house or stolen a car--someone who, unlike the reporter, is not sure that they are going to be released soon probably without being charged. Someone who maybe has prior convictions and might be looking at the wrong end of his state's "repeat offender" laws.
It's pretty obvious you'd handcuff them as soon as you arrested them, because even if they are not resisting or trying to flee now, there is a real risk that they are only not doing so because they don't think the odds are good at that moment, but will do so if the opportunity arises. They might just be waiting for the officers to be distracted, or to be left along with only one officer.
None of that applies to the reporter, of course, but do we want police making that kind of judgement? At the very least it would raise thorny issues about bias in how they choose who to handcuff and who to not handcuff.
Yes. It's normal in a highly volatile situation to put handcuffs on immediately upon detention, even if it won't ultimately result in an arrest.
This is not surprising. Clearly the police of Minnesota are not well trained and are not in an environment that promotes serving the people.
It is terrible, and should not happen, but until the police culture of Minnesota changes we should expect more of the same.
Why does police brutality happen at all in the first place? Why do police fail at handling riots? Seems like there needs to be some major changes made.
Automatically plays video and has audio.
OK, for the future, can someone explain why warning others about this gets down-voted? Thanks.
Why is this on HN? It's not remotely tech/culture. I don't want to be a jerk but please keep this stuff on reddit where it belongs.
I believe everything is related. You’re right this is breaking news which generally holds no,value.
I wonder if people will still be asking this question when the tanks roll into San Francisco.
(Sure, HN's leaky "no politics" rule, but ultimately you can refuse to deal with politics only so long as politics refuses to deal with you. It will be interesting to see what the effect of the Section 230 executive order will be... which also got flagged off HN)
I would hope the tanks roll in if they try to burn the city down. The politicians in SF/CA have made every attempt to disarm the public. What happens when the SFPD abandon their post and looters are going house to house?
And it's not so much a refusal to deal with politics as much as we are already dealing with it everywhere else. It's nice to have a refuge. Although I find it strange that thread was pruned as Section 230 is definitely related to tech.
Legitimate initial question.
I made sure to mark the precise spots in the video where the key actions occurred.
People here seem to be interested in 1st amendment issues, and this was a startling example happening in realtime.
If you don't agree, flag, or ignore and the group lets it sink, is my understanding of the protocol.
Interested in what they were using. That was a flawless video. If it was a LiveU that implies that general cell service is still working well. If it was an older fashioned setup. I didn't see an SNG or links truck as they spun round at the start.
Black CNN reporter. The white CNN reporter wasn't arrested.
The full video shows all 4 crew members being arrested one at a time. They left the camera rolling on the ground.
CNN @CNN · 57 m A black reporter from CNN was arrested while legally covering the protests in Minneapolis. A white reporter also on the ground was not.
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1266323257520766976?s=20
Ahh, I see. Okay thank you.
Watch the full video the whole crew was arrested not just the black reporter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ
> CNN's Josh Campell, who also was in the area but not standing with the on-air crew, said he, too, was approached by police, but was allowed to remain.
-- https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arres...