Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

from the because-that's-how-they-roll-in-Ferguson dept

Back in the summer, we had a few stories about the police in Ferguson arresting reporters. In response to that, the police signed a court agreement promising not to interfere with the media -- which they ignored the very same day. More recently, a court found that the "5 second rule" that police had made up as part of enforcing a "failure to disperse" law was unconstitutional, but it would appear that the police still don't care.

Over the weekend, police in Ferguson arrested yet another journalist, Trey Yingst. The St. Louis County Police Department said he was arrested for (you guessed it) "failing to disperse" when commanded to do so. Specifically, the police say he was in the street and refused to leave.
However, multiple eyewitnesses, including other reporters, dispute that claim and point out that he was on the sidewalk:




Even worse, as Adam Steinbaugh points out, on Friday, there was a series of federal court orders telling the state, county and city police not to interfere with journalists doing reporting in Ferguson. According to the order [pdf], which covers the St. Louis County police:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [police] shall not enforce or threaten to enforce any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officers the authority or discretion to arrest, threaten to arrest, or interfere with any individual, including any member of the media or member of the public photographing or recording in public places unless that person is threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.
One of the other orders, directly targeting the County of St. Louis states [pdf]:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant County of St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons under their supervision, or within their control, are permanently enjoined from interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.
Of course, this is in Ferguson, Missouri, where people have been gathering all weekend to await the grand jury results concerning officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed Mike Brown in August, setting off the widespread protests. And, in Ferguson, it seems that basic concepts in law no longer apply -- even when courts directly call the police out on them. And, of course, officials in Ferguson have been especially obnoxious towards the press. Beyond just basic stonewalling and threatening/arresting multiple reporters, officials in Ferguson have tried to avoid releasing documents by putting ridiculous price tags on FOIA requests and even requesting a no fly zone to block out press aircraft (while pretending it was for "safety"). Is it really any wonder they'd continue to ignore direct court orders in order to harass and intimidate journalists?


Filed Under: arrests, court orders, ferguson, injunctions, journalists, missouri, police, st. louis county, trey yingst


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:24am

    Since the federal court order was that the local police could not arrest a journalist doing their job, the solution is obvious. Arrest the officers involved, by order of the FBI or federal LEO.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 9:21pm

      Re:

      Since the federal court order was that the local police could not arrest a journalist doing their job, the solution is obvious. Arrest the officers involved ...

      I am not a violent man. However, after repeated judicial orders clearly spelling out what is expected of them, and their continued refusals to comply ...
      ... the police signed a court agreement promising not to interfere with the media ...

      ... a court found that the "5 second rule" that police had made up as part of enforcing a "failure to disperse" law was unconstitutional ...

      ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [police] shall not enforce or threaten to enforce any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officers the authority or discretion to arrest, threaten to arrest, or interfere with any individual ...

      Just shoot the fuckers! This is mob rule, and the mob is the police! Apparently, they're too stupid to live. Give them their wish and put them out of their misery.

      I hate it that it's apparently come to this. Who hired these goons?!?

      Holy damage control, Batman!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:26am

    Well...

    It would appear that it is time for the courts to order the Ferguson police to disperse as they are interfering with the ability of the citizens to enjoin their rights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:35am

    The police are:
    Invading, Occupying, Breaking the Law, Violating the Constitution, using Chemical Warfare, Assault, Kidnapping Citizens (it's kidnapping if you're arrested within your legal rights as far as I'm concerned)

    Nothing has happened to them.

    If I download an MP3 on the internet without paying for it, I go to jail and forfeit my life's earnings.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:44am

      Re:

      If I download an MP3 on the internet without paying for it, I go to jail and forfeit my life's earnings.

      Sounds to me like equal treatment. If the police violates the law, you go to jail and forfeit your life's earnings too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:43am

    Wow...FPD already convicted here on only the sketchiest of evidence. Given what previously transpired, it does seem more likely than not that the FPD is well aware of the legal ramifications associated with journalists engaging in the act of news gathering/reporting. Hence, it seems quite likely there is more to this story than just a simplistic "did not disperse when ordered to do so".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      That is because they have not yet earned trust back.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:54am

      Re:

      "sketchiest of evidence"?

      Have you not been paying attention to what's been going on in Ferguson over the past three months? This is not a isolated incident: it's part of a systemic pattern of behavior on the part of the FPD to intimidate and silence journalists, livestreamers, and bloggers. They've been threatened. They've been gassed. They've been arrested. They've had their gear confiscated. They've been harassed. They've been blocked. (Via RFI gear that's apparently been deployed during the last week or so. There have been multiple confirmed reports of loss-of-signal on the part of people standing in front of advancing FPD.)

      So this isn't some one-off aberration: it's NORMAL. It's part of the FPD campaign to make control information and make sure that their narrative -- and ONLY their narrative -- gets out. Expect more of this. Why not? The FPD has learned that they can break the law over and over and over again with impunity, so why should they stop doing so? Because the Justice Department will send federal marshalls to stop them? Please. While that would be nice, it won't happen.

      What will happen are more smashed phones, more bogus arrests, more beatings, more gassings. Because that's (pretty much) the only thing that FPD knows how to do. Actually standing up for the law and for the Constitution is as far beyond their pitifully feeble minds as differential equations are beyond my dog.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 25 Nov 2014 @ 1:44am

        Re: Re:

        The FPD has learned that they can break the law over and over and over again with impunity, so why should they stop doing so? Because the Justice Department will send federal marshalls to stop them? Please. While that would be nice, it won't happen.

        We are not living in Mexico, after all.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:56am

      Re:

      Wow...FPD already convicted here on only the sketchiest of evidence.

      Trust is something you EARN. They lost it, and the benefit of the doubt along with it.

      If they want that to change, it starts with them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 12:08pm

      Re:

      Hence, it seems quite likely there is more to this story than just a simplistic "did not disperse when ordered to do so".

      That's from the police themselves.

      Look, I know it's your nature to automatically accept in a kneejerk fashion any authoritarian argument, but you can at least admit here that the police themselves made the claim.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        antidirt (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:26pm

        Re: Re:

        That's from the police themselves.

        Look, I know it's your nature to automatically accept in a kneejerk fashion any authoritarian argument, but you can at least admit here that the police themselves made the claim.


        Yes, they said he failed to disperse. What you've failed to explain in your knee-jerk reaction is why they did so. What was he doing that prompted the order? Look, I know you hate authority more than most, but can you not at least admit that maybe they had a good reason?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ottermaton (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What you've failed to explain in your knee-jerk reaction is why they did so.

          Don't you think that the FPD should making those explanations? Do you think Mike has a crystal ball or somethin? Why don't they tell us what else they he was supposedly doing that caused the arrest.

          Oh, wait ... There must not be anything else or they would have charged him with it

          What was he doing that prompted the order? Look, I know you hate authority more than most, but can you not at least admit that maybe they had a good reason?

          We know that you just like to cower before your masters and make excuses for them, but can you not at least open your fucking eyes to the blatant and continued corruption that's going on?

          Why do you have to come on here and make pathetically weak knee-jerk arguments about everything?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            antidirt (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 3:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Don't you think that the FPD should making those explanations? Do you think Mike has a crystal ball or somethin? Why don't they tell us what else they he was supposedly doing that caused the arrest.

            Five seconds of research turned up this: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-reporter-arrest-20141123-story.html

            Accordi ng to that source, Yingst was with a group that was ordered to disperse because they were blocking traffic. The others dispersed. Yingst and one other did not, and they were arrested. I'm not saying that's true, but at least it offers an explanation for why he was arrested.

            Oh, wait ... There must not be anything else or they would have charged him with it

            Was he not charged? I honestly don't know.

            We know that you just like to cower before your masters and make excuses for them, but can you not at least open your fucking eyes to the blatant and continued corruption that's going on?

            I don't cower before my masters. Give me a break. Your tinfoil hat is a bit tight, I suspect.

            Why do you have to come on here and make pathetically weak knee-jerk arguments about everything?

            How is my pointing out that maybe there's more to the story a knee-jerk argument?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 4:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It's a shame FPD has to put up with all these counter-claims that Yingst wasn't in the street, but actually on the sidewalk. I wish someone would invent some way to capture a visual record of what actually happened during an arrest... something like a camera that could be worn on the body. We could call it something like, I dunno, a "Body Camera."

              It is interesting that none of the protesters have been recording their demonstrations and interactions with the police. There are all sorts of reasons I can think of that none of the recent questionable arrests have shown up on youtube, but I'd just be guessing.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                antidirt (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 5:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                A video of his arrest, and the events leading up to it, would be nice.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  DigDug, 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:32pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You mean the one that was stolen from the camera by the FPD then handed over to the feds over at the Drury Inn?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:41pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I just don't understand police objections to cameras. They protect the cops doing their jobs right and save money on settlements for false claims of police abuse. The only reason not to have them is to protect the lowest common denominator morons, who for some reason the unions seem to love.

                  The technology is too new? Doesn't stop 'em from using ALPRs, drones, and Stingrays.

                  Taxpayers wouldn't want to foot the bill? We foot the bill for, again, ALPRs, drones, and Stingrays.
                  Even super-discounted MRAPs cost quite a lot in maintenance.

                  People would misinterpret the video? If citizens already doubt every claim LEOs make, how does misinterpretation make it any worse?

                  Damn, I just noticed the beginnings of hypergraphia taking hold of a topical digression... so I'll shut up.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    David, 25 Nov 2014 @ 1:51am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I just don't understand police objections to cameras. They protect the cops doing their jobs right and save money on settlements for false claims of police abuse.

                    On a good team, everybody does what he's best at and the team gets the reward.

                    Cameras will drive a wedge between successful good cop/bad cop teams.

                    Because, let's be honest: the good cops quit long ago and went looking for a different job before getting friendly fire.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2014 @ 2:34am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Bullshit. Tell you what, there are many, many, many parts of the US and the world where you can go live and never see a cop for weeks. Go live there and fend for yourself. I'm glad I have people protecting me from baked, strong-armed robbers that reach into cars punching police officers.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2014 @ 1:01am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Go live there and fend for yourself.

                        I have lived there. Have you? Or you just trying to be sarcastic? Because it isn't working, you just look like an ass.

                        I'm glad I have people protecting me from baked, strong-armed robbers that reach into cars punching police officers.

                        Be nice for you to actually link to where that happened. 'Baked' tends to mean smoking marijuana, and I've yet to meet someone who gets violent when they are smoking weed. Generally it leads to raiding the fridge or ordering up a LOT of pizza.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What was he doing that prompted the order?

          Most likely being a journalist and in possession of the most threatening weapon a cop can face: a camera.

          They really, really don't like people taking pictures and video of them, and the level of contempt they've shown towards the press(both official and 'amateur') makes it clear 'in possession of a recording device' is considered an arrest-able crime in that town according to them..

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 3:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Maybe you are right, but then that is just a guess because there are no facts contained in the article to help you decide one way or the other...and that is precisely the problem here. An accusation is made with equivocation that a court order has been violated, and yet there is no factual background provided upon which the accusation is based. It is possible that the individual who was arrested was being harassed. Then again, it is possible that the individual may have been engaged in more than just gathering and/or reporting the news. As a reader I have no means of determining if the accusation made by the author of the article has any merit.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              icon
              antidirt (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 3:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              An accusation is made with equivocation that a court order has been violated, and yet there is no factual background provided upon which the accusation is based.

              Sadly, that summarizes many of Mike's posts.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 9:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                and summarizes every single one of your comments regarding the law. Especially anything to do with copyright.

                Hypocrite douchebag

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          He is responding to the given communication, which seems a bit too specific. While it is true that this site has a tendency for very opinionated and anti-authority reporting, your reasoning falls flat when it is always the communication that is attacked. You can find the cautious "x was arrested at time y and place z. Current police comments suggest w." on other sites. This site just represents the situation in a broader view where people on site can make reasonable comments to and where the communication about what happened is analyzed instead of slavishly referring to police source. This approach can lead to sensationalistic articles. Particularly if the news isn't revisited later.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          DigDug, 24 Nov 2014 @ 3:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No, it's the FPD, they don't have anything remotely like a good or legal argument. The entire FPD appears to be made up of KKK members to allow them to intimidate, rob and murder anyone that isn't a Caucasian resident of their tiny little township.

          Press reporting on their criminal acts? GASP - arrest them and gas them immediately.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:47pm

        Re: Re:

        You knew someone was arrested for failing to disperse, but then read into just that one fact all sorts of nefarious things, including the deliberate violation of a court order. Frankly, I would think journalism here would be more demanding of facts before proffering opinions.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 3:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Did you even read the article? The police say he was arrested for 'failure to disperse' and that he was on the street at the time. Right after that in the article are three other statements made by others stating that he was on the sidewalk when they arrested him, directly contradicting the police statement.

          Telling someone to get out of the road and then arresting them when they refuse is one thing, doing the same when they're on the sidewalk is quite another.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          antidirt (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 3:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Frankly, I would think journalism here would be more demanding of facts before proffering opinions.

          Mike turns off his critical eye whenever it suits him.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          DigDug, 24 Nov 2014 @ 3:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          When the order to disperse was an illegal order violating the right to assemble, there's nothing to be read into it.

          It was an illegal act following an illegal act, both illegal acts on the part of the FPD, meaning that the officer should be arrested and indicted on grand treason (violating the constitution during a purported time of war).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            antidirt (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 3:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            When the order to disperse was an illegal order violating the right to assemble, there's nothing to be read into it.

            It was an illegal act following an illegal act, both illegal acts on the part of the FPD, meaning that the officer should be arrested and indicted on grand treason (violating the constitution during a purported time of war).


            Treason? We should just have all the TD tinfoil-hatters form a firing squad, right?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              DigDug, 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Violating the constitution is indeed treason when you use this definition.

              "the action of betraying someone or something."

              Betraying the Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution is treason to the Constitution, the HIGHEST law of this nation.


              But then I wouldn't expect you to understand that while you wave your FPD-Nazi flag around.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:52pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Betraying the Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution is treason to the Constitution, the HIGHEST law of this nation.

                Sure, it's the highest law of this nation... but it's not the highest law of this government.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  DigDug, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:03pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  It is the highest law to the government, the military, everyone in this country.

                  They just pretend it isn't, which is what makes it treason.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:17pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I've finally stopped thinking this government is capable of violating the Constitution or committing treason. How could they? They're enemy combatants.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2014 @ 9:39am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Treason has a very specific definition in the U.S. constitution and betraying the Bill of Rights does not meet that definition.

                Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 1:44pm

      Re:

      FDP is just handling the issues as bad as humanly possible. Putting up the "our lawyers say shut up", as a police department sounds like they feel they have something to hide.

      I will bet that after the investigation, the resulting report will conclude that to a certain extend not enough evidence is available to conclusively say what happened and likely the policeman walks without being cleared 100 %. What then?

      It is the perfect crap they have baked up! The policemans refusion to step down and the police chief and mayor defending him unquestionably and unrelentingly is actually making him and the citys top look conspiratory. Just a glimmer of humility and the admission that you may be wrong would go a long way. That is just not what has happened.

      It is full blown us vs them. The police department versus the citizens. If you are unrelenting in your stance, you are forcing confrontation. Welcome to a local community that will be split for decades to come no matter the result of the investigation...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 9:29pm

      Re:

      How many independent witnesses would suffice in your opinion?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael Price, 14 Dec 2014 @ 10:28pm

      Re:

      " it does seem more likely than not that the FPD is well aware of the legal ramifications associated with journalists engaging in the act of news gathering/reporting."
      Yes specifically there will be no legal ramifications at all for "public servants" who break the law. So they broke the law. It's amazing how when someone is obviously guilty or obviously innocent of something the people who deny this say "there must have been something more going on". No, there wasn't or they'd have said.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whoever, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:43am

    We know what the Grand Jury verdict will be

    No indictment. Obviously.

    Prosecutors boast (?) about being able to get a grand jury to indict anyone and anything. If the prosecutors really wanted an indictment, it would be over by now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DiggityDiggity, 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:38pm

      Re: We know what the Grand Jury verdict will be

      He'll be shot dead by the end of the week anyway, as well as the police chief, by the FPD police officers themselves, then they'll blame the blacks and start a shooting spree.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 9:05pm

      Re: We know what the Grand Jury verdict will be

      Yep, GJ decision made a few hours ago, and no indictment. They're releasing the evidence presented, but that leaves out how it was presented. Funny thing is, given the law of ham sandwiches, why didn't the prosecutor just convince the GJ to indict?

      After all, if Wilson is so damn innocent then why not just take the case to trial so that everyone can see not only the evidence but also how it is presented to the jury? Sure seems like that would be the best way to avoid this whole mess... that is, if nobody's trying to hide anything.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:45am

    Looks like the 5 second rule is back. Ferguson police will even lie so they can keep enforcing it. I was under the belief that making false statements is a crime. Apparently that law doesn't apply to lawless thugs in Ferguson.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:56am

      Re:

      "I was under the belief that making false statements is a crime."


      That is only if you do not work for the government. Only Citizens are not allowed to lie.

      The moment it became okay for a police officer to lie in their pursuit of justice, the moment it become impossible for police OR courts to dispense justice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 12:07pm

    so while the police and federal agents are busy arresting and abusing the protest crowds I wonder what the real civilian criminals in Ferguson are doing at the moment. My bet is proceeding uncontested since police resources are tied up right now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mcinsand, 24 Nov 2014 @ 12:15pm

    a couple of observations

    As we learned from Prenda, flouting a federal court order has massive consequences.



    Welcome to the US police state.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ysth (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 12:22pm

    no arrests of individuals! (crucial missing comma there)

    I suspect that order should have said:

    any individual, including any member of the media or member of the public, photographing or recording in public places unless that person is


    instead of:

    any individual, including any member of the media or member of the public photographing or recording in public places unless that person is

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mary Ann Ludwig, 24 Nov 2014 @ 12:30pm

    Police vs Courts

    Given that the rent-a-riot folks are unlikely to adhere to any laws, who can be surprised that the police are trying to keep order any way they can. The police know that they are targets of a completely insane crowd that will be throwing rocks, bottles and whatever as soon as the decision is released. Never mind that the Grand Jury has seen all the evidence and will have made a reasoned decision. If it does not go the way the racist crowds want it to go, there will be mayhem. (And, yes, the crowds demanding the punishment, even unto the death of Officer Wilson are the racists here.) Even though justice has been done in a proper form, there are people who cannot accept that. There are people standing by who will happily destroy the property of others no matter what transpires. If the police are a bit jumpy, who can blame them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 12:43pm

      Re: Police vs Courts

      Never mind that the Grand Jury has seen all the evidence and will have made a reasoned decision.

      No. The Grand Jury has only seen the evidence provided to the Grand Jury. That's not ALL the evidence. And it's not necessarily truthful evidence: FPD has been already caught repeatedly lying about this case.

      For example, forensic analysis of the crime scene indicates that Mike Brown was 148 feet -- half a football field -- away from Darren Wilson's car when he went down. That directly conflicts with the original report.

      See: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/20/1346374/-BREAKING-VIDEO-Police-Lied-Mike-Brown-was-killed-1 48-feet-away-from-Darren-Wilson-s-SUV#

      (which, by the way, I've analyzed in depth and can't find a problem with)

      Your faith in the grand jury process is touching, but totally misplaced. A grand jury, as is frequently pointed out over on PopeHat, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it to. Conversely, it will indict no one if evidence is systemically withheld, altered, forged or faked. And it's clear that in this case the latter has been the rule, starting from the very beginning -- when forensic evidence was destroyed and legally required paperwork (incident report) was never done.

      As to the conduct of the protestors, it's been amazingly restrained in the face of massive provocation by heavily-armed thugs who refuse to respect the law and cowardly refuse to wear their nametags. After the first couple of nights, when non-protesting looters took advantage of the situation, it's been amazingly quiet. By contrast: far more damage was done in New Hampshire at the Pumpkinfest Riot and in San Francisco ("celebrating" the World Series win). So let's not pretend for a moment that the pigs, with tanks and MRAPs and automatic weapons and poisonous gas and electric torture devices and body armor and everything else, are in much danger from a crowd armed with signs and slogans.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TMLutas (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 5:05pm

      Re: Police vs Courts

      If the police reasonably expect to be overwhelmed by a criminal conspiracy to violate the laws, they should be mobilizing the state militia. That's the proper response. Having the police violate the law is not the proper response.

      When the police are just another criminal gang, it's time for a higher unit of government to occupy and start arresting officials. That's not hyperbole. That's actually historical policy up to today.

      The police need to be professional, attempt to size up the likely problem, and if it exceeds the size of what they're supposed to be dealing with, they're supposed to call out the militia and step back until the military restores order.

      Yes, this is likely to result in more violence against protestors. The Arkansas state guard is not a police force. They aren't built for nuance. Half the problems we have with the police is that they're not bowing out when they're supposed to. They're covering for the politicians who hire them when the civilian administration loses control of the streets and start acting as paramilitaries instead of police.

      This has to stop.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AnonyBabs, 25 Nov 2014 @ 12:14pm

      Re: Police vs Courts

      Notwithstanding the rest of your laughable comment (which I have rewarded with a LOL):
      If the police are a bit jumpy, who can blame them?

      Me. I can blame them. Police officers are supposed to be trained not to be "jumpy". The person with the deadly weapon is the one who needs to remain level-headed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 12:37pm

    America live by the sword, die by the sword. Military rule now available at home!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 12:47pm

    Ferguson officials aren't ignoring the orders they just don't know how to read.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DigDug, 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:28pm

      Re:

      Hand them their arrest warrants as you throw the cuffs on them.

      They've violated federal law and multiple judicial orders - they are at a minimum, in contempt of court, if not full blown federal fugitives now.

      They'll figure it out.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 1:13pm

    The terrorists posing the greatest threat to the citizens of the US are the police departments in the US.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TruthHurts, 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:26pm

      Re:

      The PotUS and the SCotUS that don't uphold the Constitution are the greatest terrorists in this country.

      Next is Congress.

      Finally, all the alphabet organizations.

      Then state, county and local constabularies.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 1:58pm

    Easy to explain

    Is it really any wonder they'd continue to ignore direct court orders in order to harass and intimidate journalists?

    And uh, how many officers have been fired or even reprimanded due to their actions so far? If memory serves, officer 'Go Fuck Yourself' got the can, but I can guarantee that was only because he was caught on tape and easily identifiable, so far the rest of them seem to be able to do anything they want, ignoring any court orders or orders from other parts of the government, and suffer absolutely zero repercussions for their actions.

    As such it's hardly surprising they continue to act this way, they have no reason not to do so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:04pm

    Cant have the riffraff reporting what we do now, otherwise we'd be forced to act within the boundaries of the law.......and stuff

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:18pm

    Since the police seem to be such a hassle to Ferguson. They might as well just find a new agency to work for where they will be respected. It's only a matter of time until the Ferguson citizens realize how much they are needed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    limbodog (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:28pm

    How this will play out

    The journalist will be released after a while with a "my bad" from the police. Who will then repeat the process.

    A piece of paper doesn't protect you from police who don't follow the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:34pm

    United States is truly a fascist country.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 4:15pm

    Take a look at this by the investigative journalist and author of “Glenn Greenwald And The Irrelevance Of Electoral Politics” ( https://twitter.com/MintPressNews/status/536875159357898752 ): http://www.endarken.co.nz/diary-of-a-person-of-interest/ Here’s some background on the “Urewera 4″ and the Crown’s attack on Maori indigenous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMoHzAJjgvs See any parallels? "Dirty Wars" much?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 4:55pm

    average_joe and his fanboy supporting random arrests of citizens - anyone surprised?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 4:56pm

    Since there is no accountability, the police easily skirt the law and do as they please. In some locals it seems, they are encouraged to violate laws and are promoted for their valiant efforts at suppressing the low life peon class.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    drjimmy (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 5:01pm

    The only way that local governments and their hired yarddogs will learn is to pay. If I were this journalist, I'd hire myself a really attorney and sue them for $5 billion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 9:27pm

      Re:

      Of course, the award money from a lawsuit wouldn't come out of the pockets of local government officials or the police. It would be paid using taxes from the very citizens that are already getting screwed over by the same people as Yingst.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    tracyanne, 24 Nov 2014 @ 7:22pm

    Darren Wilson Not charged

    I just now received a message from a friend in the US, Darren Wilson not charged over shooting of Michael Brown.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DigDug, 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:24pm

      Re: Darren Wilson Not charged

      The grand jury was probably threatened with death if they did charge him.

      He's guilty as hell and we all know it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2014 @ 1:31am

      Re: Darren Wilson Not charged

      meh. If you charge Darren Wilson for shooting at a guy that went after his gun when said guy/suspect was in the back of a police car and went for his gun, then it's a slippery slope to anarchy. Sucks, but it is reality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GEMont (profile), 26 Nov 2014 @ 2:36am

    Occupying Federal Forces coming to your home town next.

    Methinks its quite obvious that the same cops who got that court order to "stand down", also got a call from the feds telling them they could ignore it with impunity, as it was totally for PR purposes only.

    Looks like the Shock Test in Ferguson is going just fine.

    The federal fascists should come away from this with a ton of good data on crowd control and information suppression tactics.

    Just another day in the conquest of America. Watch it all live on Channel Nine and have another beer!!!

    ---

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.