Ted Cruz on Ferguson: Reporters should never be detained for doing their jobs

posted at 11:21 am on August 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

A terse statement with an important implied acknowledgment, namely, that those two reporters really were detained for no reason better than that they were doing their jobs. And if you doubt that, watch the clip below of how the cops treated a camera crew from Al Jazeera America. The crew isn’t interfering with anyone; their apparent crime is recording police activity at a moment when the police don’t want evidence preserved of how they’re behaving. Result: A faceful of tear gas for reporters and their lighting equipment dismantled.

And yet some voters would defend even this, which is why Cruz’s statement is so gently and carefully worded.

Together, we should all mourn the loss of life in Ferguson, Missouri and work to keep our communities safe and free. Police officers risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and any time a young man loses his life in a confrontation with law enforcement, it is tragic.

All of our prayers are with the citizens of Ferguson, that the violence will subside and peace will be restored. Reporters should never be detained — a free press is too important — simply for doing their jobs. Civil liberties must be protected, but violence is not the answer. Once the unrest is brought to an end, we should examine carefully what happened to ensure that justice is served.

Where’s Rand Paul in all this? His office said this morning that he’d weigh in today but he missed an obvious chance to jump out in front of it. He’s spent the last year trying to sell black voters on the virtues of libertarianism and now he’s got a jackpot example of government gone too far — police crackdowns, media suppression, and a federal government that’s disengaged now after shoveling endless federal dollars at local PDs to arm up. He might not win any votes for having spoken up sooner, but then I’ve never thought the point of Rand’s outreach to blacks was to win votes; it’s to inoculate him later from the inevitable attacks that he’s some sort of neo-confederate for questioning the 1964 Civil Rights Act and working for his dad after those racist newsletters were published. Showing up in Ferguson yesterday or the day before, if only to cool both sides down by bringing a hot political spotlight to what’s happening, would have helped with that. But maybe Paul too thinks he can only go so far in criticizing the cops before it starts to bite him in a Republican primary. Dave Weigel’s right that the consensus conservative view on all this is momentarily uncertain.

I’ll leave you with this, from Kevin Williamson, since Paul’s unlikely to say it himself:

The behavior of the Ferguson and St. Louis County police in this matter is illuminating. They are ridiculously militarized suburban police dressed up like characters from Starship Troopers and pointing rifles at people from atop armored vehicles, i.e. the worst sort of mall ninjas. They are arresting people for making videos of them at work in public places, which people are legally entitled to do, a habit they share with many other police departments. Protecting life, liberty, and property — which is the job of the police — does not require scooping people up for making phone videos; in fact, it requires not scooping people up for making phone videos.

These confrontations are a reminder of the eternal question: Who? Whom? Who is to protect and serve whom here? Is government our servant or our master?

A police department habitually conducting its business in secrecy and arresting people for documenting its public actions is more of a threat to liberty and property than those nine looters are.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

O/T – Have your eye bleach handy before viewing Drudge. He posted his honey’s recent picture.

31giddyup on August 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Seriously folks, this is no drill.

Happy Nomad on August 14, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Indeed.
And excellent summation of key ‘wtf’ factor in all of this.

verbaluce on August 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Solicitation Number:
EDOOIG-10-000004 Notice Type:
Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
Synopsis:
Added: Mar 08, 2010 10:39 am
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14″ – PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT – XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID – 14″ LOP are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
The required date of delivery is March 22, 2010.

You’ll notice the date, of course.

More government, sister, more government.

Bishop on August 14, 2014 at 11:58 AM

via politico, dem congressman with a bill
‘stop militarizing law enforcement act’

cmsinaz on August 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Yeah, the press never creates a story for market share…they would never do that.

Or do you want a list, a long list, of “journalists” creating a story for market share?

It goes back even further, but a big one was 1993, and it hasn’t stopped since…you are so easy to manipulate.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 11:42 AM

A kid is dead, under some very questionable circumstances. Stores have been looted and burned. It’s a story. No matter who you think is in the right or wrong, it’s news.

Now, feel free to question how the press covers that story. But don’t sic the dogs of law enforcement on them to prevent them from covering the story. That is not a free society, not in any way shape or form…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

So, the DOJ will spy on James Rosen, Fox News, but will now defend the rights of Al Jazeera reporters…this should be fun to watch.

d1carter on August 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Media is not always honest with its coverage.

Philadelphia Daily News changes its cover after it’s criticized on Twitter

sentinelrules on August 14, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Still no word from Rand Paul the coward.

Ned Pepper on August 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Wow. You go, internet tough guy!!! Obama is typically an ass for wading into a situation long before it makes sense, but now when Rand Paul hasn’t pronounced upon the situation on a schedule to your liking – he’s a coward.

What a buffoon.

deadrody on August 14, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Yeah, that too is just reporters doing their jobs. Why aren’t the cop-haters screaming about that? Care to field that one Bishop?

Happy Nomad on August 14, 2014 at 11:57 AM

What?

Bishop on August 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Al Jizz America?

Al Jizz America!

Beat them! Strip search them!

Al Jizz is funded by Quatar, you know, the country that bankrolls all the terrorists these days. So, Allahpundit is now shilling for the terrorists, too.

Blake on August 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM

via politico, dem congressman with a bill
‘stop militarizing law enforcement act’

cmsinaz on August 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Cliven Bundy says: “Too late moron.”

sentinelrules on August 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Still no word from Rand Paul the coward.

Ned Pepper on August 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Sorry… I thought Rand Paul represents the people of the Commonwealth of KY. Did that fine state recently absorb the people of MO?

I must not have gotten the newspaper that day…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Put down the Little Red Book, Comrade.

faraway on August 14, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Seems you’re the one cheering that instructional manual.

verbaluce on August 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Journalists are special citizens, insofar as their jobs are the only ones guaranteed in the First Amendment, which obviously you must not think is that big of a deal.I’m pretty sure a Washington Post reporter qualifies as a journalist, and it is hard to agitate sitting in a McDonalds.

Again, a police department does not get to shoot its citizens and then suspend the Constitution to cover up its incompetence.

Good on my Senator, by the way.

K. Hobbit on August 14, 2014 at 11:52 AM

No, free speech and the press have rights, individuals, just because they call themselves whatever do not.

They still have to obey and follow laws…and spotlighting cops at night does not fall into “free speech” or freedom of the press…

And if the police find that something is amiss in whatever business that is in a riot situation, they have every right to clear it out…expediently.

Journalists do not have the right to define what the police do, just report what they do…just report, not become part of the story and incite.

If someone says “clear out”, you clear out, even those special journalists that you think are so “special” and have special rights the rest of us do not have.

Crying out “I’m the press” is not an excuse for civil disobedience…and if you think those bozo’s were there just for coffee, your mind is perfect for the media to dance with.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Still no word from Rand Paul the coward.

Ned Pepper on August 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Or Maxine Waters, or the mayor of Sheboygan, or the city council of Cormorant, MN.

Bishop on August 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM

sentinelrules on August 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM

heh

cmsinaz on August 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

+1000

dbilly76 on August 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Now, feel free to question how the press covers that story. But don’t sic the dogs of law enforcement on them to prevent them from covering the story. That is not a free society, not in any way shape or form…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Fine, they can cover the story…I don’t see them whining about being shut out of Obama’s meetings…but this they whine and cry about.

They are not the story, and they don’t need to incite, just report.

You think journalists are there for ratings or to inform? Let me tell you my naive friend, ratings come first…get it? They don’t care about the truth, just what gets them headlines and on the news.

The cops are not looking for ratings…so who has the vested interest in “excitement”?

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Now, feel free to question how the press covers that story. But don’t sic the dogs of law enforcement on them to prevent them from covering the story. That is not a free society, not in any way shape or form…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

And pal, don’t misinterpret what I say…the police have every right to protect themselves and other citizens…you think spotlighting cops at night, during a riot, gun shooting off, is okay?

Don’t be so entrenched in you idea you look like a fool…endangering cops lives is not a right for journalists.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Fine, they can cover the story

Handcuffed and in a police station? Apparently, in Ferguson, they can’t cover the story.

They are not the story, and they don’t need to incite, just report.

The cops made them the story, by arresting them. As far as incitement/reporting, one usually uses a pitchfork (or a reasonable facsimile) to incite; one usually uses a camera (or a reasonable facsimile) to report.

Which of these things made an appearance in this case?

You think journalists are there for ratings or to inform?

Don’t care, so long as the end product is professional reporting. Something difficult to claim, without pictures. And just who had the vested interest in a lack of pictures? Certainly not the press.

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM

What?

Bishop on August 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Why it is sometimes okay to pen reporters in a certain area when you clearly believe they should be free-range critters with a press pass that doubles as a stay out of jail free card.

Happy Nomad on August 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Don’t be so entrenched in you idea you look like a fool…endangering cops lives is not a right for journalists.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM


Excellent advice, are you going to live up to it?

Let me add some more detail.

The LOCAL news people were a half block off to the side and at 90 degrees to the planned movement by the police where police had earlier told them was where they wanted them to be.

The massed group of police started down their planned route, throwing tear gas grenades at a group of protesters who were a block away from them at the time.

As the police came alongside the camera crews WHO WERE NOT USING ANY CAMERA LIGHTS, the police turned and lobbed grenades in the direction of the local media.

Is that clear and understandable enough for everyone?

PolAgnostic on August 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM


Or are you just focused on the ONE incident at the McDonald’s?

PolAgnostic on August 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM

When you send a bunch of journalists to a town to document the burning of a town, the town will burn. They are the gasoline and the striking pad.

Buddahpundit on August 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM

And pal, don’t misinterpret what I say…the police have every right to protect themselves and other citizens…you think spotlighting cops at night, during a riot, gun shooting off, is okay?

Don’t be so entrenched in you idea you look like a fool…endangering cops lives is not a right for journalists.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM

Wait a minute. Are you trying to tell me that cops aren’t trying to be as visible a presence as possible during a riot? That they are not out there, on the front line, trying to restore law and order? Are these cops trying to hide in the shadows for some reason? I mean, that sounds more like the behavior of the rioters…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 12:28 PM

O/T – Have your eye bleach handy before viewing Drudge. He posted his honey’s recent picture.

31giddyup on August 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Seriously folks, this is no drill.

Happy Nomad on August 14, 2014 at 11:58 AM

“Is that a cigar or are you just happy to see me”?

V7_Sport on August 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Why it is sometimes okay to pen reporters in a certain area when you clearly believe they should be free-range critters with a press pass that doubles as a stay out of jail free card.

Happy Nomad on August 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Yeah, uh, never said that. What I did say somewhere on one of these fast-moving threads is that I don’t cotton to the notion that a reporter or anyone else can be detained, tossed into a jail cell for an indeterminate amount of time, and then released with nothing but a “GTFO!” from the cops who tossed them into that cell.

If they committed a crime then so be it, charge them, if there was a safety concern which initiated the detention then fine with that too, but there must be documentation of everything; the who, why, where, etc. The reporters have a right to know that information but they were told to get lost and do it now.

If the police as government agents can do it to a media reporter who has the theoretical ability to disseminate the particulars of their treatment to a large audience, then the police as government agents can sure as hell do it to Joe Little Guy.

Bishop on August 14, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Let’s break this down:

Cop shoots black kid: Not enough facts known to determine whether cop or kid was wrong.

Rioters riot & loot: Wrong.

2 reporters detained by Ferguson cops: Can’t really determine if cops overstepped their bounds or not. Reporters could be baiting the cops to act.

Tear gas fired at obvious media: Wrong.

Bitter Clinger on August 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Good summary.

slickwillie2001 on August 14, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Wait a minute. Are you trying to tell me that cops aren’t trying to be as visible a presence as possible during a riot? That they are not out there, on the front line, trying to restore law and order? Are these cops trying to hide in the shadows for some reason? I mean, that sounds more like the behavior of the rioters…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Awww, the ol “What I’m too stupid to understand” tact.

You know exactly what I meant when I used the words “spotlight”…in the dark, an officer does not want to be spotlighted. Ever look into a bright light at night, and try to discern what is happening in the shadows, it blinds you, and look at the video, they had bright lights casting on the officers.

Nice try playing stupid, you are really good at it…

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:39 PM

factfreeordie’s head to explode

gwelf on August 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM

You know exactly what I meant when I used the words “spotlight”…in the dark, an officer does not want to be spotlighted. Ever look into a bright light at night, and try to discern what is happening in the shadows, it blinds you, and look at the video, they had bright lights casting on the officers.

Nice try playing stupid, you are really good at it…

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Are you saying these reporters were blinding the police? Seriosuly?

So, bright lights are now cause for firing live ammunition, now. Blindly.

Got it…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Or are you just focused on the ONE incident at the McDonald’s?

PolAgnostic on August 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM

I have no argument that the police make mistakes, especially in a high anxiety state…with a lot happening, they are just people, well trained, but hardly seasoned soldiers.

And I was not talking about McDonald’s, but the video showing camera crews spotlighting police and the police backing them off.

I thought the video was pretty obvious.

There is going to be plenty of finger pointing and blame…my point is, journalists are not without blame. They are not some protected species that can do whatever they want, and they have to obey the law and the people enforcing the law. They are looking at a story, the police are looking at a riot and potential loss of life…which, btw, is what the journalists want, ratings.

So who wants ratings more…the journalists or the police, and who benefits the most from violent situations, the press or the police?

Who benefits from chaos, the police or the press?

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:46 PM

So, bright lights are now cause for firing live ammunition, now. Blindly.

Got it…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Your posts are getting more stupid…it was a tear gas canister and bean bag at Al Jeezara, I am sure they were there just covering the story for all of us to enjoy.

And yeah, it was stupid for them to put up the lights…you think they did that to get a better picture? Look at the video…never mind, you won’t get it because it will undermine your premise.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Who benefits from chaos, the police or the press?

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Not trying to raise hell on another front here but there could be a basis for saying the police would benefit from this. They’re militarizing, and with situations like this they can try to justify the militarization, i.e. this is why their city needs a few MRAP’s.

Obviously you could go the other route too, that an MRAP comes in handy because there’s no way to tell when molotovs might be tossed.

And then there’s the counter counter arguments….and on and on and on.

Good debates here today though, very lively threads.

Bishop on August 14, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Boy this thread is a hoot!

You would think so called “constitutional conservatives” would find this a perfect opportunity to soapbox about their 2 favorite causes – constitutional freedoms and government over reach. Can’t find a more perfect storm than overzealous and highly militarized government actors (the police) violating the constitutional rights of the press (1st amendment, remember that one?).

But no, you guys can’t really muster up that courage, can you? You’d rather blame the press for being there, than the cops for their reaction.

I think most of you idiots would rather see a silenced press than a reformed police, further proving most of you are just fascists in conservative clothing.

cornfedbubba on August 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Boy this thread is a hoot!

You would think so called “constitutional conservatives” would find this a perfect opportunity to soapbox about their 2 favorite causes – constitutional freedoms and government over reach. Can’t find a more perfect storm than overzealous and highly militarized government actors (the police) violating the constitutional rights of the press (1st amendment, remember that one?).

But no, you guys can’t really muster up that courage, can you? You’d rather blame the press for being there, than the cops for their reaction.

I think most of you idiots would rather see a silenced press than a reformed police, further proving most of you are just fascists in conservative clothing.

You mean the same conservatives that have been frothing with apoplectic hysteria for the past 6 years over the lying, duplicitous, conspiratorial, liberal propagandists, disciples of Goebbels, fawning Obama idolators? Today is the day we rise up and shout PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF THE MEDIA!!! ? Give me a f—ing break.

Yeah, F— the police. Bring in the well trained superior National Guard. How about another Kent State.

Mitochondrion on August 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Still no word from Rand Paul the coward.

Ned Pepper on August 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM


You’re always a dummy.

Schadenfreude on August 14, 2014 at 1:30 PM

I think most of you idiots would rather see a silenced press than a reformed police, further proving most of you are just fascists in conservative clothing.

cornfedbubba on August 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Second worst comment from you, in the same day.

Schadenfreude on August 14, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Good debates here today though, very lively threads.

Bishop on August 14, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Yes, but I think you get my drift…in the forefront of every journalist is “get the front page”…not every police office wants the front page, except maybe in honor, but not in what is happening, they would rather be at the doughnut shop.

The police have done wrong, no surprise, it’s complex situation, but the journalist have much more to gain with “high drama”…I doubt the police are looking at tv ratings to see how they are doing.

I don’t trust the police fully, but more so, I don’t trust the media hardly at all…

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Are you saying these reporters were blinding the police? Seriosuly?

So, bright lights are now cause for firing live ammunition, now. Blindly.

Got it…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Are you saying the cops fired lived rounds at those reporters? Seriously?

I’ve yet to hear about reporters being blindly *fired* upon – do update me, please.

Midas on August 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Bubba I see opinions all over the place but at least you’re better than all those faux cons…right?

Jamson64 on August 14, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Still no word from Rand Paul the coward.

Ned Pepper on August 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM

You’re always a dummy.

Schadenfreude on August 14, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Ned Pecker never fails to peg the stupid meter here at HotAir.

slickwillie2001 on August 14, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Midas on August 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM

He always thinks a lie or exaggeration wins the argument…that is how he rolls.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 2:57 PM

There’s a lot of conflicting information, which is to be expected.

First, one of the detained reporters says he and another reporter were told by police to leave a McDonalds where they were paying customers. He didn’t say anything about how many times he was told to leave before he was detained.

Then someone from Ferguson who lives in the neighborhood where that McDonalds is located says it had been closed and boarded up because of the rioting and looting and the police were there to protect the neighborhood from looters and rioters.

I guess it all depends on your perspective.

Kritikal on August 14, 2014 at 3:15 PM

cornfedbubba on August 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Agreed. Doesn’t seem to make much sense, does it. I think your take on it is probably accurate.

earlgrey on August 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Brownshirt wannabees, or making sure they get to go home to their families ??

Hell of a job they have even if they are wrong. Stories abound both positive and against the police. It’s a no win situation for them.

Texyank on August 14, 2014 at 3:37 PM

I think most of you idiots would rather see a silenced press than a reformed police, further proving most of you are just fascists in conservative clothing.

cornfedbubba on August 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM

I think the police need to be better trained, especially during riots, not exactly an every day occurance.

But you seem trust that the media is so special, as if they don’t go for the one thing that is important to them…ratings.

Few care about the story, they care about ratings, and if the story is not their, they will create one.

If you think that the press is so honest, than I would venture you have to be a flaming liberal…and you are not.

The press is no friend of the police, and no friend of conservatives…so you tell me, are the police making these errors for better ratings, or is the press after better ratings.

Mistakes have been made by the police,no doubt, but I don’t trust the “press” to report the truth…especially real time…”Film at 11:00, a City under Attack—Breaking news!!!”

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM

The minute one of these commie activists disguised as journalists gets his head blown off when a firefight breaks out, they will blame the cops for not protecting them.

I’ve had my cold dead eye cocked on the fraud Ted Cruz since he first elbowed his way in front of a TV camera. He’ll be hugging Al Sharpton on Glenn Beck’s TV show before this thing is over.

Joseph K on August 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

You’re welcome…

JohnGalt23 on August 14, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Nice try, you know you were saying “live rounds” as in rifle fire…I just stated it was canister of tear gas, you responded with live rounds of fire…

Your welcome…

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Nice try, you know you were saying “live rounds” as in rifle fire…I just stated it was canister of tear gas, you responded with live rounds of fire…

Your welcome…

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 4:42 PM

.
You ARE aware that a tear gas grenade is a pyrotechnic device and regulated as such, correct?

You are also aware it is NOT supposed to be thrown directly at people because it can cause severe burns and potentially fatal problems with the lungs.

And that any responsible police department has an after action investigation for the use of each and every such pyrotechnic device?

Throwing a tear gas grenade at LOCAL reporters who were positioned in accordance with police directions is CLEARLY over the line, correct?

PolAgnostic on August 14, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Why is everyone attacking the police and assuming that the people attacking them are innocent and playing it straight?

Count to 10 on August 14, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Throwing a tear gas grenade at LOCAL reporters who were positioned in accordance with police directions is CLEARLY over the line, correct?

PolAgnostic on August 14, 2014 at 5:06 PM

No, first it is not generally ever considered a “live round of fire”…

And if I was a cop, late at night, dark, and some bozo’s shined their lights in my face illuminating me, and blinding me from doing my job…that stupid journalist is going to pay.

You can’t shine a lazer into a helicopter, you can’t shine a bright light into an officer(s) during a riot…how stupid is that?

Look at the video again, they were setting up a photo shoot like it was a premier movie…they are lucky they were not shot.

Is that a camera or a gun…you tell me with those lights shining in your face on a dark night, with gunfire around you.

Don’t be stupid, at least pick your fights logically.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Why is everyone attacking the police and assuming that the people attacking them are innocent and playing it straight?

Count to 10 on August 14, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Because the media tells them too…they don’t understand, the press makes money from this, the police do not make money off of higher ratings.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 6:06 PM

No, first it is not generally ever considered a “live round of fire”…

And if I was a cop, late at night, dark, and some bozo’s shined their lights in my face illuminating me, and blinding me from doing my job…that stupid journalist is going to pay.

You can’t shine a lazer into a helicopter, you can’t shine a bright light into an officer(s) during a riot…how stupid is that?

Look at the video again, they were setting up a photo shoot like it was a premier movie…they are lucky they were not shot.

Is that a camera or a gun…you tell me with those lights shining in your face on a dark night, with gunfire around you.

Don’t be stupid, at least pick your fights logically.

right2bright on August 14, 2014 at 6:05 PM

.
Let’s take your continued misdirection for what it is … a preference for a police state over a Constitutional Republic.

I have been very specific about the police lobbing tear gas at LOCAL media people on ST Louis Channel 2′s live coverage last night.

You keep throwing out your straw man “shining their lights in my face” nonsense – WHO did this WHEN?

Kewl “completely unrelated to everything distraction comment about a LASER”, dude! /s

FYI, your straw man does NOT constitute grounds for felonious assault … in the country WE live in.

If a police officer throws a tear gas grenade at someone with insufficient cause, it is felony assault.

Is THAT “live fire” enough for you?

Prediction 1: ALL of the local media people (note: not talking HuffPo or WaPo) who WERE subjected to felonious assault and want to file a civil suit are going to take home LARGE settlements courtesy of the Ferguson Police Department.

Prediction 2: Some of the police officers who committed felony assault last night are going to end up needing criminal lawyers for the actions taken against LOCAL media

Recommendation: Given your public preference for living somewhere where police can shoot someone for “shining a light in their face”, move to North Korea – you will fit right in.

PolAgnostic on August 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

cornfedbubba on August 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Mitochondrion on August 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM

earlgrey on August 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM

.
What’s needed, is public recognition of God.

A society that rejects recognition of God can NEVER be a law abiding society.
.
That statement is axiomatic in the most absolute sense . . . . . no exceptions.

listens2glenn on August 15, 2014 at 1:23 AM

Looks like a lot of “Conservatives” will be just fine with the police arresting them if they’re out and about (even on their own property) if and when they ever do impose martial law and curfews.

All the government will have to do is state that they’re out looking for Commies and Muslim terrorists, and most right wingers will stay out of the way, peeping through their curtains. They don’t need to antagonize us. They just need to play on our collective fears and BS.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 15, 2014 at 2:17 AM

It looks like the Ferguson PD is just taking a page from the Obama Administration’s “Handbook on How to be Transparent”.

We shall see how closely they follow the handbook.

The deciding metric perhaps will be in how many emails about Ferguson PD officer training and discipline will be found to have been ‘lost due to hard drive crashes’ in the coming weeks.

s1im on August 15, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2