zlacker

>>void_n+(OP)
Note that Minneapolis state police have claimed that the reporters were released from jail the following morning after confirming themselves as media, which CNN responded by saying they had identified themselves before their arrest and it was only through the Goverers interference that their reporters were released the following morning.

>>TeaDru+S2
I mean, it happened live on air, they were clearly identified as CNN and willing to comply with police orders - making the police's claim laughable.

I wonder what those officers were thinking, arresting a reporter on live camera.

>>myrion+h3
(I'm a resident of the Minneapolis suburbs)

At this point, from some of my friends in the city, it sounds like there just isn't much oversight at all---they've now been caught on video taking guns from people with valid licenses and now arresting the press. I don't think that we can effectively apply logic when the police system seems so disorganized.

>>snazz+U4
These seem like flagrant violations of constitutional rights; I would be interested to hear from a lawyer what kind of legal liability the police (as a department and as individual bad-apple officers) are opening themselves up to by behaving this way. Hopefully justice is served and constitutional rights are protected.

>>throwa+1j
I don't believe they are opening themselves up to any legal liability. See [1] and links for a disturbing list of recent examples of police receiving qualified immunity. One example from the article:

> On May 18, the court turned away three of these appeals, including a jaw-dropping case in which police were granted qualified immunity after literally stealing $225,000. (There is no clearly established right not to be robbed by cops, the court held.)

[1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-sup...

>>aljg+Gr
There's not enough liability, perhaps, but there's certainly some. Here[0] is a list of police department settlements and another[1] of individual police officers being tried and/or convicted for recent high-profile killings. Note that media coverage is inherently sensational and therefore not reflective of reality--just because the media gives much more attention to killings than to the legal repercussions doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist.

In this particular instance, surely CNN has a strong case against the Minneapolis police department?

[0]: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settl...

[1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-ch...

>>throwa+wv
Good point, I retract my blanket statement of "no legal liability." I should have said that they are not criminally liable.

Your link [1] shows how rarely police officers are found criminally liable for murder even in the most egregious of circumstances (only the most egregious ones are prosecuted at all and even most of those result in acquittals).

On the other hand you are right that link [0] shows that it is much more common that the police are found to have civil liability. Not personally, of course, the payments will come out of liability insurance (and, therefore, taxpayer coffers).

>>aljg+IB
I agree. There needs to be more accountability for police.

> Not personally, of course, the payments will come out of liability insurance (and, therefore, taxpayer coffers).

I think this might actually be eminently desirable that the taxpayer is on the hook. We shoulder a lot of responsibility for our police (not the actions of any given officer, but the system that either fails to weed out 'bad apple' officers or fails to adequately train them or whatever other systemic failure is responsible) and it's right that we shoulder the cost for our lack of will to enact police reform or take it seriously. Of course, I don't think the liability--criminal or civil--is adequate in magnitude, and I would like to see more of both.