Printable View
I would agree that the fellow deserves some time, space and slack. However... just cause you got beat up doesn't mean the crowd was white supremacists. More likely a 15 minutes of fame moment and white supremacy is the current trigger word to get on the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfuego
I'm sure it was absolutely awful. The guy got hurt and that truly sucks. People can die in mobs like that and there is no doubt that crossed his mind while it was happening. I'm sorry that happened to him and the others. I'm sure it was very traumatic for some of them. I don't wish that on anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfuego
But to pretend to be some hard ass that "crushed an insurrection" and race bait to the media, that makes him a douchebag regardless of what it was like in his shoes. Let's not confuse what happened to him with his bullshit, race baiting hard guy nonsense after the fact. Getting assualted by a mob doesn't make his comments after the fact off limits to criticism.
The conspirators : a study of the coup d'tat by D.J. Goodspeed...Great Book!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=270F8s5TEKY
Quick question. The reporters that followed the mob into the capitol to report on the happenings.... aren't they also trespassing and subject to the legal repercussions of the action?
I am kinda torn on the issue. Sure there may have been some reporters already in the capitol to report on the vote counts who stuck around to report on the later happenings. But Bushmasterboy's video shows that specific reporter entering with the crowd. While I am not on board with reporters having to be registered and badged, I also have an issue with someone claiming to be a reporter cause they have a phone or camera despite clearly being a part of the wrongdoers just to avoid penalties.
The law considers the intent, the reporters have no intent to damage the building or harm any person. The freedom of the press is open to broad interpretation.
However, there have been cases of people just witnessing events being disciplined too. I remember back at CSU, we were told that if there was a riot or the like, you could be disciplined for just watching it, even if not being an active participant. Something like they are looking for an audience, you're providing that audience, which just encourages them more.Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
Thus, the press could be "encouraging" further activity by being there, that sort of thing.
Ok. So what if 90% of the people who entered the capitol that day claimed they were reporters with a camera (cell phones count nowadays...)? Remember, many/most didnt do anything more than wander around and take selfies and later went home. Does that fit in your broad interpretation of reporting staff?Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
While never officially charged, Mike Wallace and 2 members of his crew of '60 Minutes' were "detained" for a period of time back in 1986 when they joined a group of individuals who broke into a missile silo site in MO (I used to drive past the very silo site every day on my way to college back in the early 80's). https://apnews.com/article/385d58762...dea592fab75e84
Personally, I don't care if you're an active participant in the violence or just going along to "document the activity", if your presence is in violation of the law (trespassing), your Press credentials shouldn't be a Get Out Of Jail Free card - you should be held to the sames charges/penalties that anyone else would be held to. ..."Honest Officer, I was just here to document the activity of these bank robbers; I wasn't actually a part of them as they came in and killed the Security Guard." Regardless of intent, anyone participating in a crime is held accountable. Someone dies while in the commission of the crime and EVERYONE gets charged with murder. The Press shouldn't be exempt from this. Just my personal opinion.
I know the question wasn't posed to me, but I'll answer for myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by clodhopper
My interpretation: No.
Legal interpretation: Sometimes.
It's interesting how with the advent of things like cell phones and web blogs, some folks are officially classified "Press" without having any sort of official credentials - but only when it suits the powers that be. There are times when it doesn't suit the agenda off those in charge and those same individuals don't get the "Press" classification.
"interest of the public" and the gathering of evidence against a riotous mob versus a mere trespassing charge?
Surely you jest!
Jest? Like a clown, jest?Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
There's merit what was said.