The Best Line EVER!

"This decision reflects the values we have in St. Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press," Coleman said in a prepared statement.

"However, the arrests themselves demonstrate our continuing committment to guiding First Amendment rights whenever possible," Coleman continued.

guiding First Amendment rights

Guidance through subversion of intend.

Color me not surprised.

The arrests were all about police power to control the populace. The journalists should file a lawsuit for violation of civil liberties.

Color me not surprised.

The arrests were all about police power to control the populace. The journalists should file a lawsuit for violation of civil liberties.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-21 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

I see someone never bothered to watch the videos. The first two were arrested as there was a riot going on, and they were in the area. The police detain everyone in the area. It's common fucking sense to do so. Having a press pass doesn't make you any less vulnerable to taking a rioter's rock to the head.

Then Amy, later, tried to cross the riot lines. Not at a checkpoint. Not at a media entrance area. At a totally random place along the side she started hassling the cops to bring their commander to her imemediately. Like he wasn't busy doing something more important then talking to reporters just that second. Then, when she wouldn't move back, a cop turned and asked "Should I arrest her?" At which point she LURCHED FORWARD UNDER HER OWN POWER and started yelling "Don't arrest me" That's right, she crossed the safety line AGAIN, despite police orders, and this time was screaming at the officers.

You don't do these things when there's a police line established around a riot zone. It's common fucking sense. Perhaps they should have just let her run about willy-nilly in the riot zone? Gee, that sure woulda been a nasty lawsuit.

Instead of kneejerk assuming the police are fascist bastards for PROTECTING AMY FROM HER OWN STUPIDITY, how about thanking them for not pressing charges, when they very much could and should have? The press does not have the "freedom" to cross a riot line any more then some random guy on the street.

soheifox - where is the video of Amy Goodman lurching across a police baracade? Are there witnesses? Can you provide any evidence whatsoever? From her arrest video the police appear to be acting of their own volition and there is no sign of rioting whatsoever. Thus far, I believe Amy Goodman over the St. Paul "freedom" officers.

Is distributing anti-police armor illegal? Too many people get damaged from police mismanagement. In the years that I've been watching Democracy Now! I've never seen Amy Goodman behave in any way threatening, illegal or abusive. Ever.

Police in general.. not such a good record.

"Protecting Amy from her own stupidity...."

Assuming that's what police were doing, that's not their job. It's not their job because it's Amy's job to take risks at times.

You may as well congratulate police for keeping doctors away from the scene of a train wreck. POLICE AREN'T GODS---Not even wee ones.

If it's Foxy vs. Goodman, I'll believe Amy every time. The violated reporters should most surely sue - for millions. But sue who? The party of George Dick, John and Sarah SHOULD pay, as it surely instigated the harassment. But probably the good burghers of Minneapolis WILL pay ... herm

If it's Foxy vs. Goodman, I'll believe Amy every time.

~herm

I've never seen Amy Goodman behave in any way threatening, illegal or abusive. Ever.

~RedLightRobot

Amy was in the right.
The "freedom" officers went too far.

Protest is a democratic right and unfortunately sometimes a neccessity.

Despite modern attempts to portray all protesters as dangerous, violent, criminals and possible terrorists.

Be Well.

"This decision reflects the values we have in St. Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press," Coleman said in a prepared statement.

#1 | Posted by Geo_W_Bush

Coleman should be jailed for taking over murdered Wellstone seat alone...

Amy was in the right.
The "freedom" officers went too far.

And this proves it or they would have prosecuted.

but SHHHHHHHHHHH! don't tell Chairpuddles or he will get his panties all in a bunch!

Amy Goodman should sue for punitive damages to prevent the "thought" police for doing this in the future. Reporters do have the right to be there to document these events.

Without the proper information (as shown by the Iraq War fiasco) then Democracy and "Will of the People" are just empty words.

Holy crap. Of course there was videos! Are any of you people even capable of using the search function for this very site?

The only right she had was to WALK OVER TO THE CHECKPOINT..

And this is how the right surrenders.

She willingly chose to DEMAND that the police let her speak to the commanding officer on the scene. The only right she had was to WALK OVER TO THE CHECKPOINT

Bullshit, Sohe.

She saw her two staffers have their credentials ripped off and then saw them rounded up along with photogs and the like. Not legal. She had every right to question the police chief on his overstepping of authority. Reporters who were obviously not rioters were deliberately rounded up and some were even punched by police.

This article should be questioning why the police weren't charged with over-stepping their authority here not the other way around.

America aint a police state, Sohe.

Not yet, anyway.

Be Well.

It was clearly her purpose to be arrested.

Nope.

It was clearly the police's purpose to arrest anyone and everyone they felt like that day.

Maybe that's where yer getting confused.

Be Well.

SHOIEFOX

Reporters are supposed to report on riots, that's why they should be in riot zones.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here; or perhaps you have a problem with American culture. If photgraphers and correspondents participate in live combat, as they have always done, the odd riot seems trivial.

"Do you just automatically assume everything they (police) do is wrong....?"

Not at all. I respect police, the overwhelming majority of them. I just haven't traded my nut-sack to the gendarmerie.

""Do you just automatically assume everything they (police) do is wrong....?""

Not categorically, but my ACLU chapter and others around the land push civilian review boards for police departments. As it is, in my town and Minneapolis, any complaints of wrongdoing are "investigated" by "internal affairs," then white-washed with the traditional Bush phraset, "I have investigated myself and found myself innocent of all charges." herm

civilian review boards for police make nothing but sense.

Without an outside agency holding a truly independent inquiry there is no hope fer truth or justice.

Speaking of the ACLU, Herm, wot do you think of the "I'm a Constitution Voter" campaign we see advertising here at the DR?

Spud likes the idear that the picture keeps changing everytime ya look at it.

A novel approach is that.

Spud is likee.

Be Well.

"She saw her two staffers have their credentials ripped off and then saw them rounded up along with photogs and the like. Not legal. She had every right to question the police chief on his overstepping of authority. Reporters who were obviously not rioters were deliberately rounded up and some were even punched by police."

WRONG. They even said that was wrong themselves. They had their credentials removed after they were arrested. Then Amy got herself arrested TWENTY MINUTES LATER by doing it at the sideline. Instead of going to the MEDIA CHECKPOINT. Until you get that straight in your head, you don't understand the situation and the rest of your post is not worth reading. Because by not understanding that much, you are calling the people this HAPPENED TO liars.

I don't understand why Amy had to go to the media checkpoint. Seriously. What was the basis for forcing her?

Put another way---What standing does a "media checkpoint" have in law?

Reporters are supposed to report on riots, that's why they should be in riot zones.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2008-09-21 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag

There was a media checkpoint. That is the safe zone set up by police to cover the riot from. She ignored the checkpoint, and went down the sideline and then tried to cross the police line. Do you understand that? The freedom of the press is to COVER AN EVENT. The freedom of the press does not permit them to cross a police line. Do you understand the difference?

If they permitted Amy to cross the riot line anywhere she wanted, instead of going to the established media checkpoint, then the police BECOME LIABLE IF SHE GETS HURT. If you can't understand altruism, then can you perhaps understand greed? She got tossed in jail because the city does not like losing millions of dollars when press members go places they are not permitted to.

The first two reporters taken in legally did nothing wrong. When there is a riot situation, however, everyone is dragged away in handcuffs is informed of the charges. Even if you do absolutely nothing during a riot, there is still probable cause for your arrest. Press or Joe Blow. Do you know why? Because wearing press credentials does not mean you are not a potential rioter! It doesn't! All I owned was an internet radio station and I got press credentials to cover Biden when he was in Kalispell. That means that any whackjob who wants to can get press credentials. They aren't hard to get. You go to the event coordinator, pay your fee, and get them. Or yopu just flatout fake the credentials and hope you don't get caught.

Press credentials don't mean shit IN A RIOT ZONE. And this is a good thing! The police need to get control of a situation by immobilizing every warm body in the area. This is how you prevent escalation.

Amy, however, firmly has both feet planted in the wrong. She chose not to go to the media checkpoint. She chose to pick a random spot. She was told to go back and when she refused, she was escorted back. She could have been immediately jailed and on legit charges. She then threw herself over the line again, screaming not to be arrested. Do you understand how far freedom of the press does not go?

A reporter is not allowed into a burning building, either. Are the cops scumbags for keeping reporters behind the police line there too? How about a hostage situation, should press members be allowed to walk in anywhere they want? Maybe we should let the reporters go in there and interview the hostage takers.

I know, let's let you people have it your way. Next time some maniac is shooting it out with the police, let's just let reporters go wherever they want. But before we do so, let's change the law so that the police are no longer held liable for not doing their job. And while we're at it, any medical care the receive should not have to be paid for by their insurance company, either. You wanna cross a police line wherever you wish, instead of going to the media checkpoints? Fine. But if you die, nobody gets to sue. And if you CAUSE anyone to die by getting in the way? You get brought up on manslaughter charges. Sound fair?

Put another way---If it had been a checkpoint for blond-haired women with limps, what should anyone's attitude be about it?

"That (media checkpoint)is a safe zone created by police to cover the riot from..."

Mighty white of them. What if you want to be someplace else?

Put another way---What standing does a "media checkpoint" have in law?

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2008-09-21 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

...a media checkpoint is the place where you lay out your plan of action to the officers attending the situation and they offer to escort you, unless the request is insane. Yes, that's right, the police actually escort reporters into dangerous situations if they allow them entry. If you cross _anywhere_ else, you are not legally acting as a member of the press; you are just Mary Jo Jimbob with a camera trying to cross a policeline.

Oh, I get it---Police officers get to make laws when they are being either altruistic or greedy. I had no idea they were that powerful.

Mighty white of them. What if you want to be someplace else?

#26 | Posted by Zed at 2008-09-21 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then if you go somewhere else and cross the line, and the police allow you to do so, if you get hurt, the police are liable. That means you can sue the city into oblivion, if you prove police negligence.

I asked about the legal status of such a checkpoint? Did any legislature create them?

Oh, I get it---Police officers get to make laws when they are being either altruistic or greedy. I had no idea they were that powerful.

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2008-09-21 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know who made the laws? There's a good class most people took in secondary school which taught them all about it. You know who verifies those laws when challenged? The Supreme Court. You know who upholds those laws?

THE POLICE.

I just wanted to know who made THIS law. Is it a law at all? If not, why should a free citizen give a damn?

I asked about the legal status of such a checkpoint? Did any legislature create them?

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2008-09-21 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

...allright. I see you're too lazy to bother with Google, and learn the realities of law, you just want the law to magically work the way you want it to.

Do your own gruntwork.

Does anyone have anything intelligent to say, other then "The law isn't the law because I say so!11!one!"?

I'm always amazed I am so much more conservative than many who consciously identify themselves as such.

If I'm breaking no law I get to do what I want. What's your opinion?

Too radical an idea?

If I'm breaking no law I get to do what I want. What's your opinion?

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2008-09-21 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Allrgiht, I'm gonna explain this to you slower, and ask you a question. I'm sick of answering your questions, you answer one of mine.

Where do you get the retarded idea that entering a crime scene unauthorized isn't breaking a law? Seriously, where does this braindamaged view come from? Does trespassing suddenly become legal because you're a reporter?

Taking photos once you are already there is legal. They cannot even take your camera film away. THAT is freedom of the press. But you cannot trespass on a crime scene, and that's what a riot zone _is_.

And yes, that means that those who were inside the zone and got arrested technically also broke the law. When the police say "disperse beyond such and such a point" and you refuse to do so, you are commiting a crime. The reason why almost everyone is released without charges preferred after a riot is because 98% of everyone there is doing nothing wrong except simply being there. Technically a crime if you don't immediately disperse, but no judge in the world is going to actually let those charges stick.

But coming from OUTSIDE the riot zone and demanding entry, instead of going to the checkpoint which is the only place police are willing to give you entry? That actually is disturbing the peace and interfering in the duties of an officer. Amy was 100% wrong. I understand why she did it, emotions were high, but that's why the charges were dropped. They cannot let her through any more then they can let YOU through. It is a question of altruism, greed, the policeman's own safety, and maintaining the integrity of a crime scene. You break the law when you do not obtain permission to enter. The police are not required to give you permission to enter anywhere, not even at their own checkpoints. However, if you go anywhere else, the chance of refusal is damned near 100%

I find your argument a riot is a crime scene strange, apparently regardless of the actual behavior of anyone found there.

"Ninety-eight-percent of everyone there is doing nothing wrong except being there...."

I'd say I've won this exchange.

Let me be a bit more clear: Police aren't allowed to arrest me because of the behavior of some two-percent.

Otherwise, no one has rights if some two-percent acts out. Is this what you really want?

You called me a lot of names. I'm much better at name-calling than you are. I'd hate to demonstrate that to you.

A riot zone is a crime scene.

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT.

It is a crime to enter a crime scene

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT.

Police are allowed to detain you if you are in a riot zone. Whether you, personally, are a rioter or not, if you refuse to disperse when asked to disperse, you are committing a crime

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT.

The police are not required to allow you to cross a crime scene just because you ask them to.

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT..

The police do not have to give you a reason why you cannot enter the crime scene, beyond informing you it is a crime scene.

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT.

The police will do everything in their power to prevent you from committing a crime

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT.

You seem to believe that the world and the law will conform to your personal vision of how it works. it won't. If you honestly believe that your "feelings" on the law matter in this situation, they don't. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about a law when a policeman is in your face telling you not to violate it. They can't let you commit the crime, (one more time)

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT.

See, if you don't like a law, you either peacefully go along with it protesting publically until you can get it changed (lobby Congress and whatnot or appeal your case all the way to the Supreme Court), but you do not have the right to violate that law.

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT.

You seem to have this arrogant, egotistical view that your feelings matter above and beyond the rule of law. They don't, and that makes you, quite factually, a dumbass.

So go ahead, call me whatever names you want. It won't make you any less wrong. And I'll still call you a dumbass, because you'll remain a dumbass. And I'll have the freedom to ridicule you when you do so, dumbass. That's the law as well.

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT.

Foxy's "WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT" was the key phrase for the good Germans of 1933 who thought that philosophy - and Herr Hitler - would make things better for them. It turned out ... well. differently. herm

If you cross _anywhere_ else, you are not legally acting as a member of the press; you are just Mary Jo Jimbob with a camera trying to cross a policeline.
#27 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-09-21 08:48 PM

Then what is the point of press credentials?

The St. Paul police were mobbing the press regardless their credentials - which they were shown 100% of the time right off the bat.

Why did they need to arrest so many uninvolved press?

Don't any of the St. Paul police recognize Amy Goodman? Don't any of the police watch Democracy Now!?

Not one person arrested was armed with anything other than their press pass.

Amy's arrest.
Not a riot zone.
Amy wasn't acting aggresively in the least and her arrest seemed to be an over-reaction.
#43 | Posted by dethspud at 2008-09-21 11:50 PM

OMG.. Just watched the ugly video. If that happened in front of me I'm not sure how I would react. My instinct is to help her, not the assholes in riot gear. The zip-ties were too much. They are begging for retaliation.

If that happened here in Portland there might even be a police-related death.

Where was this alleged riot? Is there video of it on YouTube? What percentage of arrested were press?

Civil suits should be slapped on these rookies ASAP.

Can't believe how pissed this makes me. Amy is a beautiful human - I would absolutely go to jail for her and spend my time calculating revenge on this particular police crew. Yes, I'm that dumb and vengeful. She was NOT resisting one bit! How can they call themselves "civil servants"?! They need to be repurposed and re-take their psychological examinations.

How can they call themselves "civil servants"?!

They prolly can't do it with a straight face.

Uncivil serpents is wot those rookies were.

Snakes in the grass.

Be Well.

Be Well.
#47 | Posted by dethspud at 2008-09-22 02:16 AM

*HUG*

You too.

btw - Even when I laugh with the occasional jackaleque joculation, I never meant to distance us. Diversity makes my clock tick and optionally rewind. You have always been my only and my favorite tuber o'doom.

Whatever happened to Johnson? Did it move to Dubai? I'd imagine Vernon re-absorbed it like the Matmos.

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY WANT THE LAW TO WORK THAT WAY OR NOT

What law?

"Go ahead call me any names you want...."

I thought I could shock you into politeness. Stupid me.

"What law...."

SILVER IRONIST has my point.

"Then what is the point of press credentials....?"

REDLIGHT has my other point.