Michael Bloomberg

Citizen Journalist Demonstrates How to Stand Up to NYPD

|

In today's New York Times, Michael Powell notes that the New York Police Department is not wild about letting journalists get near uncomfortable situations such as the early morning removal of Occupy Wall Street's Zuccotti Park encampment on November 15 — even if those reporters have official press credentials. But some media outlets are not interested in being corralled by the NYPD, even if it's for their own "safety."

On Monday, The New York Times and 12 other organizations sent a letter of protest to the Police Department. "The police actions of last week," the authors said, "have been more hostile to the press than any other event in recent memory."

Their letter offered five examples. I'll mention one: As the police carried off a young protester whose head was covered in a crown of blood, a photographer stood behind a metal barricade and raised his camera. Two officers ran at him, grabbed the barrier and struck him in the chest, knees and shins. You are not permitted, the police yelled, to photograph on the sidewalk.

Gothamist points to an awesome woman who knows her rights, knows how to stand her ground, and manages not to antagonize the cops, who don't seem as angry about her defiance as they seem baffled. The woman is Barbara Ross, apparently an activist with Time's Up! "NYC's Direct Action Environmental Organization." Regardless of her politics, Ross is a champion at not backing down.

According to Gothamist: 

Ross tells us she stood there for about two hours, defying repeated orders to disperse. she says. "I was so angry at what was going on around me I decided I was needed to be there to document this outrageous, illegal, unjust action orchestrated by Bloomberg and Kelly, and would do anything needed to get it on video. Finally I was physically pushed by a couple of female officers into the press pen."

Reason on cops, their militarization, and clashes between them and cameras.

NEXT: Mitt Romney Won't Give Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants. What About the Millions Who Will Remain In the Country? Er, Uh, He Definitely Won't Grant Them Amnesty

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You are not permitted, the police yelled, to photograph on the sidewalk.

    And, in view of the prevailing policy that their every utterance carries the force of law, we have a new and unassailable precedent.

    1. fortunately, that’s NOT prevailing policy.
      see: judicial review.

      unfortunately, many cops, some judges, etc. are ignorant of the constitution

      recording cops ANYWHERE in public is (almost always) completely constitutionally protected

      whether or not one is paid by a media outlet or not to be a journalist is IRRELEVANT

      we, the people, are ALL part of the “press”

      press is defined by ACTIONs, not bona fides

    2. You are not permitted, the police yelled, to photograph on the sidewalk.

      If only they enforced this rule against tourists.

      1. clearly it’s racist. THEY HATE THE JAPANESE!!!!

        1. It ain’t the Japanese, it’s other Americans

  2. you reasonoid bigots just want to believe bad things about the police. you weren’t there, you don’t know that the police didn’t act properly.

    1. rubbish. in this case, the cops ARE acting improperly.

      reasonable people can make those distinctions

      1. reasonable people can make those distinctions

        Drink?

        1. a bit early, but wth…

          stop!

          margarita time!

          1. I would actually prefer it if you were out cracking the heads of Washingtonians (sic?) instead of making inane observations here.

            1. Cracking the heads of Washingtonians v making inane observations on H&R

              Sloopy’s Choice?

              1. yea, another dumb example

                like i said, sucking some govt. teat on injured leave was fun.

                thanks taxpayers (giving epi a smooch)

                1. I hope he shits straight into your mouth while you’re down there.

                  Or by “kiss,” do you mean kiss the taxpayers with the business end of your baton as you club them out of more money for your legacy benefits?

            2. Dude, why do you want H&R to speak in unison?

              I like dunphy’s analyses and I appreciate the perspective he brings with his experience. (Here’s a guy who’s sympathetic to some but not all aspects of libertarian criminal justice policy.)

              I mean, it’s not like he’s a troll who says shit just to get our hackles up.

              I like diversity of opinion.

  3. a photographer stood behind a metal barricade and raised his camera. Two officers ran at him, grabbed the barrier and struck him in the chest, knees and shins.

    STOP RESISTING!

  4. The police state continues apace, and most media outlets actively help it along unless they are directly inconvenienced by it.

    1. ah yes. the media are on the side of the police canard…

      another ignorance based canard loved by the bigorati

      1. Poor dunphy. The media only sucks cop dick 96% of the time, so they’re against the police.

        1. false. as usual, the situation is more nuanced than the bigorati admits

          but the canard that the media is in bed with the cops, carrying their water is clearly a bunch of shit that only a deluded ideologue could believe

          1. I thought we were the gliberati, dunphy.

            No one said the media was “in bed” with the cops, you moron. The media’s deference to ridiculous statements from the police, and their complete disinterest in cop malfeasance except for a few sensational instances, is all the water carrying I can stomach.

            1. actually, you said “The media only sucks cop dick 96% of the time”

              which is utter rubbish, and that most people would equate with them being in bed with the cops.

              are you retracting that statement?

              1. No. Sucking cop dick isn’t being in bed with them. I’d be curious if there’s anyone here who can’t make that distinction besides you.

                1. Reciprocity is absent from fellatio (eo ipse).

              2. One can do that act in places other than a bed. While standing, in a car, etc.

                1. It actually is pretty unsafe while you’re driving. Just sayin’

              3. There is some symbiosis between the credentialed “press” and the cops. If only because credentials place those holding them on a higher plane than stinky bloggers and other amateurs.

                Not to mention the inherent pro authority bias that comes with being an establishment institution that needs access to government functionaries to produce their product.

            2. Nuanced? Cops? In the same sentence?

              HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa!

          2. only a deluded ideologue could believe
            You apparently know little about the “media,” dunphy. I worked on a City Desk for 18 years, and the number of times a reporter ever questioned a cop’s account of anything was small, indeed. But perhaps my rag is an extra special place.

            1. anecdotes. you haz them. as do i. and i have given examples as well

              funny how that works

            2. So, you expect us to treat your anecdotal announcements as professional opinion, but those of someone with eighteen years of experience as a reporter are inherently suspect?

              Srsly, dunphy, you really ought to seek professional help for your persecution complex. Seriously.

              1. points for misrepresenting

                as usual

                1. Got help yet?

        2. note also the strawman. and the logical fallacy

          it’s referred to in analytical reasoning as “excluding the middle”

          epi falsely repeats the canard that media are in bed with police

          i call bullshit

          i do NOT claim that they are “against the police” which would be the opposite end of the spectrum

          epi, claims i did, that’s the exclusion of the middle

          the reality IS in the middle. it’s more nuanced. in many respects, they are against, in many respects for the police. it depends on the outlet, the story, and how it plays in peoria

          logical fallacies. epi haz them

          1. Keep trying, dunphy; maybe one day someone will believe you.

            1. it has nothing to do with belief

              it has to do with rationality, and analytical reasoning.

              you want to play the logical fallacy game, go ahead.

              i call bullshit on the canard that the media is 96% for the police

              you then falsely claim i am saying they are AGAINST the police

              that’s simply logical fallacy rubbish

              you can protest all you want, but any first year logic student could see the game you are playing

              engage in the facts, and use valid arguments. nope.

              1. It has everything to do with rationality. All you have to do is contrast the reporting by Balko against most media accounts. Then the most rational thing is to conclude the media almost never questinons the police, or, to use my term, “sucks cop dick”.

                Stop being a disingenuous prick, dunphy.

                1. balko does far more than question the police. he;s an anti-police polemicist.

                  hey, at least gillespie (correctly) claims that most cops do a good job and support recording. as i have quoted.

                  if all journalists were like balko, the media would NOT be doing their job

                  much like our adversarial justice system, media needs an adversarial system too.

                  you can have your crusaders like balko, but ALSO have people like heather macdonald who use extensive research and reasoned arguments to debunk many of the anti-police myths created by a (largely) leftwing media

                  and if you HONESTLY think that 96% of the media sucks cops dick, you REALLY are deluded. that’s fine. i realize you are a completely anti-cop ideologue. you are not apparently interesting in truth. i get it

                  here’s what’s funny

                  many cops would say 96% of the media are ANTI-police

                  you think that 96% of them are copdick sucking

                  what’s obvious to me is that you both are deluded, coming from your respective camps

                  the truth is neither of you are right. but both sides are equally vociferous in their delusion

            2. Given the facts that (1) police officers enjoy qualified immunity with respect to claims asserted against them by plaintiffs who allege that their constitutional rights have been violated by the police and (2) such qualified immunity is nowhere to be found in the original constitutions of any state or the federal constitution and (3) such qualified immunity and its philosophical underpinnings are utterly repugnant to our founding priniciples, how many reporters, even the court tv types, inform their listeners, readers and viewers of the aforesaid facts in their reportage of cases in which police mischief is at issue?

              A good argument can be made that a failure to cite the above in a police misconduct matter IS SUCKING COP DICK.

              1. Emanations and penumbras, Dude, emanations and penumbras.

                1. Although there is a good deal to like about WOD, he really did do an intellectual belly flop in Griswold.

          2. If you’d like, I’d be happy to go one floor down and fetch the guy who was working the night cop beat until last year (we’re having beers after our shifts) and have him tell you just how interested his editors were in him ever pursuing any story that ever questioned the “official” version of things.
            Idiot.

            1. anecdotes. you haz them. clearly, ONE guy at one media outlet PROVES that the media is in bed with the police, 96% of the time.

              logic and facts…. how do they work?

              1. No. Not one guy. I know a boatload. After about a decade of banging their head against the wall (it took me two) they usually end up in features.
                In fact, there are two other libertarians sitting within crumpled-paper-ball throwing distance of my cubical as we speak.
                While mine is but a moderate-sized fishwrap, I assume this phenomenon happens all over.

              2. Gee dunphy, you expect us to conjure an endless stream of journos? That’s setting an impossible task.

                Yet, YOUR experience, YOUR opinions, are sacrosanct.

            2. And yes, I admit that my professional comrades, as a rule, suck ass.
              Would that dunphy were so honest.

              1. well, i agree with the public who rate cops WAY above journalists 🙂

                imo , my comrades, as a rule , do a decent job.

                a small %age are lazy, bullies, incompetent, etc.

                a larger %age are heroic, wonderful people

                the majority are good people doing a difficult job pretty well

                1. But nearly every last one is willing to cover up for the small segment of lazy, incompetent bullies.

                  1. and that you BELIEVE that is proof of your delusion

                2. The majority are fuck-tards that dont get off on the actual criminality but that let their “brothers” in La Copsa Nostra get away with shit that would get a “regular” guy put away for life. There are no good cops, just fucking thugs and their apologists. We know you’re an apologist fuck wad, but I bet you fuck some folk up when you get the chance.

                  1. I disagree. There are a lot of good cops, and a lot of “brave” cops, in the sense that they accept the physical risks their jobs entail. But “brave,” in the sense of willing to buck the blue line? — not so much.

                3. Awww, dunphy actually believes those survey results are completely accurate and reliable. That would be cute in a child but it’s just sad for an adult.

                  1) Surveys don’t measure the opinions of those who refuse to take surveys.

                  2) Even within the population of people who will at least sometimes participate in surveys, it’s questionable whether you’re getting honest answers about this question.

                  But do continue to comfort yourself that “the public” loves its Heroes In Blue(tm).

                  Srsly, dunphy, you’re hated here. Surely there’s somewhere else on the interwebs you could hang out…

            3. CN, I am curious is this a result of lazyness or intent. All too often the press just prints press releases. When I was learning to write them for politics the basic teaching is “Write it so they don’t have to do anything” i.e. add quotes, phrase in a narration, provide perfect grammar and punctuation etc. Just once I would like to see a major outlet say “we got this press release and we call BULLSHIT!”

              p.s. they seem to do this for companies too not just government hence I lean towards lazy as a reason.

              1. Balko: How about when all of the anecdodtes and isolated incidents are added together?

                Dunphy: It still equals only one rotten apple in the bunch.

                1. no, it equals a PROBLEM

                  even one bad cop is a problem.

                  but when you consider the # of cop/citizen encounters, the RARITY of uses of force, whether or not justified, the incredible rarity of deadly force by police, etc. ….

                  cops are doing a damn good job

                  are there excesses and bad cops?

                  of course

                  are there systemic issues? e.g. overuse of SWAT and Tasers? of course

                2. Pwnage. Nice.

              2. Yeah — “lazy” is probably the operative word, or, to be fair, perhaps “rushed.”
                It’s easy to fall back on the official version of events. I did it myself all the time.
                I never covered business, but I did the night cop beat for a couple of years, way, way back in the day. When you’re running to three shootings a night (my dad is a retired cop, and he claims I was at more homicide scenes in two years than he was in 25) you pretty much have to take the cops’ word on what went down. Sometimes you’d get lucky and find a witness. But then you’ve got an editor on the phone who wants you to dictate five inches immediately so it can make the second run the next morning.
                And we didn’t even bother to cover drug busts at night — but somehow the day-side staff always seemed eager to print the sheriff’s latest press release on the latest “record” pot bust.

                1. If a newspaper reporter, especially one on deadline, points out to his editor that something doesn’t seem right about the “official version,” the most likely response will be a weary sigh.
                  Following up on those doubts is gonna mean delay. Delay might mean overtime. Or not getting the “trend” story you’ve been assigned done for Sunday, when your editor’s boss is expecting it. Or you can’t follow up on why the snow hasn’t been plowed on the street where the assistant city editor lives.
                  Come on, dude. Let it go. The presses are running.
                  And the best reporters you got are probably gonna be on the City Desk. (Public affairs reporters are a whole ‘nother category of suckitude.)

                  1. CN, what you have described is one reason, not the most important or not the controlling reason, but just one of many reasons why the newspaper industry is in the late autumn of its years.

                    1. But aren’t the leaves pretty?

                      At least we were at the scene. Back in my day, there’d also be a radio reporter or two there and a couple of tv crews at any major crime scene. Now radio news is completely dead.
                      And tv? Fuck — tv is the worst, far worse than newspaper reporters, my friend.
                      And city council meetings and statehouse hearings, and school board budget meetings — yes, at least we had eyes there, even if those eyes were too credulous. And now…?
                      Yes, I believe you’ll miss us when we’re gone.

                    2. So the micro rag (actually a congolomerate of considerable size but with micro, cookie cutter, locals) in my town send one person to city council faithfully…who then dutifully reports the far left agenda. We have an independant e-mail/online newsletter run by some retired, angry, and persistant old libertarians the waste no time in calling the coun cil dumb shit, well, dumb shits. And at the same time callign the local rag a piece of shit. It is awesome. I think 12 people read the paper and 2-3 hundred the newsletter.

                  2. And — to be fair to dunphy and his ilk, the cops usually were reliable, especially when they were only involved after the fact, like with a homicide investigation.
                    But “officer-involved shootings”? Eh, we all knew the cops, right or wrong, would cover for themselves, but whatta ya gonna do? The presses are rolling, and the victim was probably just some druggie scumbag who had it coming. Amirite?

                    1. except i PERSONALLY know cops that will not cover for bad cops, and there are a million examples of it e.g. the paul schene case. he was turned in by another cop.

                      sure, a cop who is involved in a BAD shooting in some cases will lie. just like ANY person who commits a crime will often do so to protect themself.

                      otoh, i have not seen a tendency of investigators of the shooting to do so.

                      has it happened? sure

                      but MOST cop shootings are so obviously justified it’s a non-issue

                      many aren’t e.g. the BART shooting and the punishment was just as even balko admitted

                    2. You always say it happens all the time and then can only pull up the schene case. I think you need to learn math again, 1 =/= 1,000,000.

                    3. Dude, I was with you about Epi’s logical fallacy. And then you go and commit a couple of your own. Let’s be consistent here.

                      1. “except i PERSONALLY know cops that will not cover for bad cops” = ANECDOTE

                      2. “there are a million examples of it e.g. the paul schene case.”

                      If there are a MILLION examples, why do you constantly refer to just the one?

                    4. Anecdotal “evidence.”

                    5. except i PERSONALLY know cops that will not cover for bad cops, and there are a million examples of it e.g. the paul schene case. he was turned in by another cop.

                      OK, that’s 1. Only 999,999 examples to go. I’ll wait.

                      many aren’t e.g. the BART shooting and the punishment was just as even balko admitted

                      Well, Balko’s wrong there. I said it, and I’ll take heat if I have to. Hell, Mehserle probably should have been suspended when he shot and murdered Oscar Grant, were it not for the persistent culture within the ranks that covers up misdeeds at all costs.

                2. who wants you to dictate five inches immediately

                  *ahem*

                  I rest my case.

                3. and they always report them as “cops say” or “according to police”

                  that doesn’t ASSUME cops are telling the truth

                  1. and they always report them as “cops say” or “according to police”

                    that doesn’t ASSUME cops are telling the truth

                    Correct. It’s when the media fails to followup on the cops’ allegations/assertions/lies that the assumption of truth comes into play.

                    1. it often isn’t the COPS allegations. it’s the cops acting on others’ allegation

                      Cops arrested john after he punched a woman, cops say

                      yes, COPS are saying it, but as proxies for SALLY who made the statements initially

                      these are just run o the mill crimes

                      sally may well be lying, of course, but that has nothing to do with police misconduct

                      they don’t ASSUME truth from cops any more than other citizens as when they say

                      “the cops beat him unmercifully according to …”

                      etc

                    2. yes, COPS are saying it, but as proxies for SALLY who made the statements initially

                      If cops are concerned with justice at all, they would let Sally speak for herself and stop trying people in the court of public opinion.

                      Sally’s mouth works. Let her use it and stop grandstanding for your own ego’s sake.

                  2. Uh, dunphy, it’s not just the po-po. Lots of reportage uses this passive voice attribution of sources.

                    Got help for that persecution complex, yet?

    2. To wit:

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoor…..-a-food-pr

      1:50: “I don’t think we have the right to monday morning quarterback the police.”

      1. not only the right, but the duty…

        1. As you’ve stated in the past, polls show police are highly respected.

          So the question becomes: Are people like Oreilly afraid to question police because his average viewer respects them so much? or do people respect the police so much because they listen to people like Oreilly?

          1. oreilly is not THE MEDIA.

            oreilly clearly likes and respects the police, like most of society.

            in that respect, the media REFLECTS society.

            LOTS of media outlets are incredibly suspicious of the police.

            most journalists, as poll after poll shows, are biased well to the left of the populace at large and journalists are MORE likely to be suspicious of the police than the populace at large.

            oreilly =/= THE MEDIA

            while i have seen oreilly criticize the cops, SOMETIMEs for shit they should be criticized for, and sometimes imo for stuff they shouldn’t, i don’t think anybody would argue that oreilly supports the cops in general.

            1. i don’t think anybody would argue that oreilly supports the cops in general.

              WTF are you talking about.

              O’Reilly supports cops all the fucking time, even when other cops are criticizing specific egregious behavior.

              1. that’s a typo. my bad

                should have been DIDN’t support the cops in general. iow, he does

                as should have been clear from context

                my bad

            2. I suspect the bias in the old media comes from the kind of policies being carried out by the police – since being tough on crime is only a synonym for racism, don’t you know.

              But if the cops (or other armed govt officers) are enforcing a transfat ban, arresting prolife demonstrators, charging lacrosse players with rape, etc., then the bias starts flowing in the cops’ direction.

              1. And let some police agency release a report on “right-wing” violence and it’s on with the kneepads.

              2. right, and of course the alleged racism is complete hogwash. thank god for heather macdonald’s statistic based debunking of racial profiling

                (note: of course SOME cops racially profile, whether against blacks, whites, hispanics or whatever). but institutionally speaking, and statistically speaking, there is no evidence it is widespread. again, thank god for macdonald

              3. please don’t get me started on the duke case.

                that case was so obviously bull from the beginnign. i remember me and two sex assault detectives discussing that case within a week or so of it coming out and all 3 of us bet it was unfounded, and she fabricated

                it was THAT obvious. these are cops who investigate these crimes exclusively. they know when a case smells to high heaven. so do i.

                it was that obvious. the fuckign liberal assholes at duke should never live that debacle down.

                1. The racism comment was simply to repeat an old media narrative, not endorse it – specifically, the narrative that concerns about law and order are just a cover for racism. Because we all know that voters would be perfectly OK with crime as long as it was being committed by white people. Every crime related dispute is George Wallace versus the forces of light.

                  In the narrative, cops can be instruments of an evil policy (ie, liberals don’t like it), or selfless public servants doing necessary work (protecting the public from transfat, raising the alarm about Tea Party terrorism, etc).

                  If the media is doing one of those are-your-children-safe articles (film at 11!), then cops are trusted sources about the danger of the day.

                  If it’s some left-wing person or member of a “protected group” claiming abuse, then the narrative is repressive cops defending the honky status quo.

                  Of course, if those claiming abuse are right-wingers, then it probably won’t get reported, or if so, it’s Danger on the Right, not police abuse. Cops don’t abuse right-wingers, because cops are all right-wing fascists!

                  Consistency isn’t exactly a hallmark of this reporting.

                  1. And if the press copies police press releases without doing much digging, the flip side is some “respected” (progressive) group releases some report on (say) racial profiling, it gets similar uncritical attention.

                    Combine bias and laziness, and the result really isn’t journalism. Or if it is, then journalism isn’t really so great.

                  2. well yes. again, most reporters are liberals. they lean overwhelmingly left of center.

                    they tend to support the nannystate, etc.

                    but we have never had a more democratized media (internets, etc.) at any time in history

                    and even major news outlets routinely run investigative longterm investigations into police corruption, alleged or real

                    there are few better ways to earn a pulitzer, accolades, etc. than to do that.

                    and it’s HARDLY rare

                    look at this series etc.

                    it’s RIDDLED with half-truths, inaccuracies, reportings of allegations as if they must be true, etc.

                    but yea, sure. the media sucks cop dick 96% of the time (rolls eyes)

                    http://o.seattlepi.com/conductunbecoming/

                    1. “most reporter are liberal” Got stats? Or is this you expecting us to treat your preconceptions as word-o-god again?

      2. Goddamn O’Reilly is a fucking jackass.

  5. Official press credentials? The “press” in freedom of the press is the printing press. It’s the mechanism of speech. It’s not a profession. Why do we give journalists special privileges? Why do allow them to be surrogates for our rights? Any person should be allowed to stand there and film.

    (Yeah, I know, for some reason I’m outraged at the wrong thing here.)

    1. Plenty of outrage to go ’round, and that’s definitely worthy of it.

    2. absolutely true. when it comes to filming, photographing in public there should be NO distinction

      anybody with a camera has just as much right to record as anybody else

      that much SHOULD be clear from the constitution

      unfortunately, since the constitution is oft-ignored, we need these journalists to stand up to the cops, demand their rights, and we need the legislature, judges and or citizens via initiative, to remedy this situation, and to hold cops/PD’s accountable for violating the constitution

      1. unfortunately, since the constitution is oft-ignored, we need these journalists to stand up to the cops, demand their rights

        Absolutely. I think the problem is that while the media shriek like banshees at any percieved infringement of their rights, they seldom raise a peep about the trampling of others rights by the police, and it would be nice if they would use their platform to do so on regular basis.

        1. i think this is utter hogwash, but i realize it’s the reason canard.

          imo and ime they will jump over backwards to investigate and report on ALLEGED trampling of others rights by the police. many are so biased they will not give cops a fair shake and they are biased against the police.

          many aren’t

          1. see for example, our local Seattle-pi’s longstanding crusade against SPD and KCSO

            MANY of the things they report as alleged corruption aren’t.

            for example, they routinely (every year) post examples of the biggest overtime “offenders”

            what they consistently fail to note that several of these agencies are purposefullly MASSIVELY understaffed (as compared to the national average of cops per capita)… THAT’s why there is so much overtime

            they also fail to report that it is cheaper to understaff and pay out overtime than it is to staff fully due to personnel, medical, vacation , recruiting etc. costs which EVERY study (and simple math) shows.

            biased? of course

            1. see for example, our local Seattle-pi’s longstanding crusade against SPD and KCSO

              Could you give a link to their “Subscribe” page, please?

          2. Sure, I agree that some are biased against the police. But as CN noted, it is fairly unlikely that they will ever question the ‘official’ version of events. Whether this is due to simple laziness, lack of curiousity, not wanting to upset their sources of information, or whatever is open for debate.

            1. it’s not that they won’t question it. it’s that they generally require evidence, and ARE willing to look at both sides of a story.

              note how they report (and should do so)

              they don’t say “sally assaulted jane” when the cops report that

              they say “according to police, …”

              or “cops say…” they are reporting on ALLEGATION… just like WE are often arresting same

              when i write a report, i don’t say

              “i arrested john after he punched sally in the face”

              i write

              “I arrested John for Assault IV DV 9a.36.041 after investigation revealed that his wife Sally claimed that John punched her in the face. Sally had a bruise, roughly 2″ by 2″ on her left temple, that appeared based on my training and experience as a police officer and former firefighter and medic, as consistent with a closed fist punch. Checks in databases revealed that he has two prior arrests and one prior conviction for DV assault with a different victim (note this is relevant to PC whether or not admissible). John claimed that he did not punch her and that she was fabricating her story in order to get back at him for infidelity. I examined John’s knuckles and saw no slight redness on the knuckles of his right hand.”

              etc.

              I don’t say X happened. I report what people claim and i report on evidence.

              i am not biased FOR the alleged victim. i want to look for evidence, whether it tends to incriminate the alleged suspect OR help exonerate him

              and journalists should do the same

              some are obscenely biased for or agains the police. many TRY to be unbiased. some do a better job than others.

              (note the above is an abbreviated example. it does not reference any specific case)

              1. typo should be “saw slight redness” or “no redness” depending on the circumstances. again, it’s a hypotheticlal

                1. note also, at least with our local papers…
                  when a “citizen” is accused of a crime andor arrested they will not, per policy print the name UNLESS the person is charged

                  when a COP is accused, they will usually print the name, whether or not arrested or charged

                  double standard?

                  yes

                  they will also even print a PICTURE of the cop (if they can find one), even if neither arrested nor charged

                  double standard?

                  sure

                  against cops?

                  sure

                  acknowledged by reason?

                  of course not

                  i had a friend accused of (what turned out ot be totally bogus) allegations.

                  they printed his name AND picture in the paper.

                  this was based on allegation of something that allegedly happened several YEARs ago, based on two specious victims making that claim now

                  and SOLELY based on their stories, the newspaper printed an article, named him, and showed a photo

                  they would and don’t do that with ‘civilians’ only cops.

                  welcome to the seattle -pi

                  1. oh and when he was exonerated did the newspaper put it in an article ? no

                    1. *TWEEEET**Throws flag*

                      Illegal use of anecdote!

                      Seriously, Seattle must be some magical place. Some years ago a friend of mine, who was working doing wall papering at the time, got pulled over at 5:00 am after working an all nighter to get a job done, and was dead tired. He was driving his brother’s car, who is a diabetic. The cops decided that he was obviously high on heroin (based on his fatigue)the wall paper glue was dried vomit, from a reaction to the heroin he was shooting with the needles his disbetic brother had in the car. And that some plaster powder was the heroin. The paper printed the police report including his name and address, the arrest details including all of the charges and allegations, and made it look like he was a complete dope fiend and menace to society. After he went to court and was fully exonerated, the paper of course refused to print that information, even though he called them and asked them to in order to try to clear his name. (By the way, cops are also ‘civilians’.)So maybe things are just different where you are, and that’s why you find such things so hard to believe.

                    2. i don’t find them hard to believe at all

                      what i am saying is that for every anecdote of bad cop behavior there are hundreds if not thousands of perfectly good cop behavior

                      the stats show that use of force is amazingly rare, deadly force even more so.

                      and i am speaking to MY local paper. if your paper prints names w/o charges, groovy. mine only does WHEN it’s a cop

                    3. dunphy, you do realize that nobody is buying the bullshit proposition that “for every anecdeote of bad cop behavior there are hundreds if not thousand of perfectly good cop behavior”?

                      It is utter nonsense. A, you could not ever possibly prove such a phantasmajoric claim.

                      B, it is utterly at odds with human nature. People who are attracted to force are of low character. It is not the best and the brightest who are attracted to force and it is certainly not the people who make and invent and produce and create wealth that are attracted to force. It is certainly not the rugged individual or the enlightened who are attracted to force and it is certaninly not the independent person who does not want to belong to a top / down command pyramidal organization.

                      C, only cowards join state sponsored military or paramilitary organizations.

                      D, every time a cop pulls over a motorist for speeding or operating without license plates or expired registration stickers or expired emissions stickers, a cop is aggressing and using force. If he writes the ticket, he is compounding his bad behavior by acting as the highwayman thief for the political class.

                      Likewise, everytime a cop breaks into a dwelling without the express consent of the owner / occupant, he is aggressing; he is using force and civilized people do not use force unless it is to repel those who attack them.

                  2. i had a friend accused of (what turned out ot be totally bogus) allegations.
                    they printed his name AND picture in the paper.
                    this was based on allegation of something that allegedly happened several YEARs ago, based on two specious victims making that claim now
                    and SOLELY based on their stories, the newspaper printed an article, named him, and showed a photo
                    they would and don’t do that with ‘civilians’ only cops.
                    welcome to the seattle -pi

                    oh and when he was exonerated did the newspaper put it in an article ? no

                    Shorter dunphy: I’ve got a buddy who’s a cop. Someone accused him of something and it made the news. They ran his name through the mud because he’s a cop and never printed a story exonerating him when it turned out he was right.

                    I will not tell you his name or any of the details of the story, however, because it might tell you who I am. But take my word for it, it’s for reals!!! Pinkie swear.

                    Fuck you, you lying cockbag. Either link to a source or STFU with your “stories” you refuse to corroborate for “your own safety.”

                  3. In my local rag, they always print the accused’s name. Ironically, they never print the name of cops involved in assault/shooting incidents.

  6. Could someone provide a quick overview of the conversation for the audio-impaired at work?

    1. Same-old, same-old. Police ask person to move. Person says they have right to be their. Police respond that they’re asking them to move. Person responds, “I know my rights.” And around and around they go.

  7. “I’m a cretinous bully; I cannot be expected to restrict myself and my fellow officers to obeying the law. Save me from myself.”

  8. Nice. Fosdick throws the flag for “illegal use of anecdote”.

    1. i recognize that anecdotes are just that. we all haz them. and we all tend to use, remember, etc. those that support our particular metanarrative

      hth

  9. Someone should really start an “Everyone Photograph the Cops Day.”

    1. i’d be first in line.

      cops should record and cop observers should record

      dishonest cops outed

      bad cops outed

      false complaints against cops outed (and hopefully punished)

      valid complaints against cops supported and cops punished

      win/win

      1. Did you help officer Ramon Perez of Austin, TX in his time of need? He was fired for refusing to obey an order to taze an elderly suspect. Perez was declared unfit to be an officer because of his rigid christian beliefs being an impairment to his being able to function as a police officer.

        This cop was not a bad cop. He refused to subject an elderly man to what he thought could be a fatal assault. He gets the axe while police departments all over the country go out of their way to cover up and / or whitewash the criminal assaults of their officers.

  10. There’s one cock-sucker on here that this may apply to.

    Let’s see how the bastard defends this fucking bullshit. Of course, the SPD calls it justified. They kill men whittling and call it justified.

    Motherfucking dunphy, will you defend them? Or will you call for their prosecution? There is no middle ground.

    1. FTA:

      Despite how violent all this may look to a good deal of the public, independent police procedure analyst, and former Bellevue police chief, Don Van Blaricom, defends SPD’s actions as “appropriate.” He reviewed the videotape before speaking with KIRO Team 7 Investigators.

      “Had they shot him or something of that nature, I think we’d all be saying that was excessive, but what they did was they took him into custody, using physical force, no question about that, and he was injured in the process. I think that’s unfortunate, but it’s not unreasonable under the circumstances.”

      ^^THIS^^ is the shit dunphy defends every time he comes on here.

      Fucking scumbags, every one of them.

      1. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

        and fwiw, when the cops blue light you and you make all sorts furtive movements, duck down, etc. as the video CLEARLY show this guy doing…

        jesus h christ.

        1. Did he commit a crime to justify the stop? Did they have a warrant to search the vehicle? Is what gave them “probable cause” recorded somewhere to corroborate their story?

          “Furtive movements,” like looking around so you can see behind you as you back up? Or reaching to your glove compartment for your registration?

          Ant they even said, “just yank him out.” Motherfucker got out casually than the second officer came in and they proceeded to beat the fuck out of him.

          Your scumbaggery knows no bounds. I hate to say this to anyone, but I truly wish ill upon you.

        2. When he pulled over, there were three people in good physical health. Two of the three men initiated a confrontation with the third man, who did not resist their aggression. At the end of the night, there were two in fine health and one beaten to a pulp. The man that was beaten to a pulp, it has been concluded, committed no crime.

          Now, what is the logical conclusion?

    2. you are a liar.

      as usual.

      the DID Not call the whittler shooting justified.

      within a couple of days of that shooting, the shooting board called it UNjustified

      do the lies NEVER cease?

      1. Shit, you’re right. They did call it unjustified. I stand corrected.

        Now, what prison are those cops serving their sentence in again? Or are they working desk duty?

    3. i’m not defending anything.

      what i see is the cops pull a guy from the car after they (supposedly) saw a hand to hand and then when they bluelighted him, he backed up AND ducked down and clearly did look like he was concealing shit, amking furtive movements etc.

      i can’t see the TAKEDOWN on the video, which is the key part to determine justification or not

      i just see the beginniong of the takedown

      1. So balko is an anti-police polemicist? If so, how is that a bad thing in a free society?

        Balko reports facts. You don’t like the facts cause they expose cops for who they are. Civilized people do not take part in the prosecution a war on drugs or a war on terror or a war on guns or a war on transfats or a war on cigarette sales. Civilized people do not break into homes of others and civilized people make or produce something on a voluntary, consensual basis. Cops don’t.

        How about William Norman Grigg? Is he an anti-police polemicist?

      2. Even if he was concealing shit, big fucking deal. He got out of the car casually, then they proceeded to beat the fuck out of him.

        If they were decent cops, they would have got him out using the force made necessary by the suspect’s actions, not some “feeling” they had about what “might” happen, but by the reality of the situation.

        Then, once he was removed, they could search the vehicle for whatever he may have hidden. They could have used their keed police detection skills to uncover whatever he had squirreled away. It’s not like it was going anywhere once he hid it. They may have even been able to call in the police dogs and/or the bomb squad to make their erections all the more engorged.

        There are so many more reasonable, logical and legal ways this situation should have gone down. The fact that you can’t see that makes you all the more disgusting.

      3. i can’t see the TAKEDOWN on the video, which is the key part to determine justification or not

        i just see the beginniong of the takedown

        Yeah? well I can’t see the alleged hand to hand on the video, which is the key part to determine justification for the stop in the first place.

        I just see the end result of a beatdown that was not preceded by a crime.

  11. Great, dunphy. Let’s shake hands and do that mutha!
    Oh, wait. I’m a reporter. You’re a cop. Our respective superiors might look askance at (if not outright prohibit) such activism.
    Anyone else?

  12. Had they shot him or something of that nature, I think we’d all be saying that was excessive, but what they did was they took him into custody, using physical force, no question about that, and he was injured in the process. I think that’s unfortunate, but it’s not unreasonable under the circumstances.
    It’s like fucking poetry.

    1. I swear to fuck I have no idea how Epi can live there. dunphy I get. He’s a fucking pig and is probably fapping away to the video as we speak.

      But Epi? Even he’s too classy for that fucking haven for citizen-beaters.

      1. you are clearly deluded. first you claim cops called the whittler shooting justified. i have never seen a shooting board come to a conclusion more quickyl than that case. within days, everybody fromthe chief to the shooting board was calling it unjustified

        now, you think seattle is a haven for “citizen-beaters?”

        you really are deluding

        1. You do realize that you are dealing with adolescent imbeciles?

          1. Dude, are you gonna sockpuppet too, now?

  13. What a shocking example of police brutality!! Those cops stood there and calmly reasoned with her for like two minutes! How dare they?

    Oh yeah, she didn’t assault them, spit on them, or otherwise force a confrontation. Amazing how that works huh? Reminds me of the old Chris Rock classic;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

  14. Nice ad hominem attacks, officer. Pretty much admitting they have nothing on her.

  15. Told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  16. Episiarch|11.23.11 @ 2:02PM
    Stop being a disingenuous prick, dunphy.

    Ha ha!

  17. Sloopy’s Choice:
    1. Get beaten by cops and get settlement but no apology or admission of wrongdoing.
    2. Spend a month in “Real World”-type setting with three agro-cops, two SEIU organizers and a Jezebel editor.
    3. Become Michele Obama’s personal bather.

  18. What troubles me most about these all-too-common confrontations is that the police officers involved — most of whom are probably fine and professional people in most respects — really do not seem to know the law they think they are “enforcing”.

  19. I wonder who keeps putting people like Bloomberg into office?

    Hmmmmm…..

    1. I was gonna say Idiot New Yorkers, but I hate being redundant.

  20. nop i did’nt like cops i am with media guys

  21. My how you do go on,wasn’t the issue at hand about the journalist who stood her ground? After reading your bickering and one up-manship I had to go back to make sure.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.