zlacker

>>void_n+(OP)
Context is huge in cases like this, and I still haven't seen a video showing the beginning of the reporters' confrontation[1]. Does anyone have a link to a video that shows what happened prior to the videos that are being widely publicized?

[1] This one shows a bit more at the beginning, making it look like the crew had already been asked at least a few times to move: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvbXWAHad-4

>>curiou+zK
You're right, context is huge. The area had already been cleared of protesters. There was no imminent threat of any kind. The crew of a national news organization showed their valid credentials.

There is absolutely no excuse for this.

>>coucha+lL
> You're right, context is huge. The area had already been cleared of protesters. There was no imminent threat of any kind.

I'm asking if you or anyone else has video proof of that. Are national news organizations exempt from an order like this to move (I know in some cases they are, but again, the lack of contextual proof here makes me question what they were told prior to what we've seen).

>>curiou+EM
I know this is meta, but... seriously people, what's with all the downvotes? How could more information/context around a current event be a bad thing?

I've been watching what happens, at they always come almost exactly 2 minutes after I post something - on this and another account I use. It's pretty clear that there's some downvote bot activity going on (in addition to the usual "haters").

>>curiou+EU
I get that more context is always better, but the notion of "context" is infinitely expandable.

What were these reporters doing in the hour prior to the arrest? Oh, nothing? Well, where were they at the start of the riots? Just getting to the scene? Hmm well, what's the police officer's story; has he had bad experiences with the press in the past? And so on...

Most people have seen enough coverage of police officers doing unreasonable things in order to make a judgement call based off the provided context here. By asking for even more context, it comes across as though you're trying to cast doubt on this situation and undermine what's honestly a national issue at this point - hence the downvotes.

>>crakha+vl1
> Most people have seen enough coverage of police officers doing unreasonable things in order to make a judgement call

Bingo! That's the problem. People are making "judgement calls" based on highly publicized, recent cases of police officers doing "unreasonable things". Those cases represent < 0.1% of the police officers in the country. Making judgement calls based on what others have done is called prejudice, and last I checked, people are still innocent until proven guilty in this country. That goes for the reporters and the officers involved.

As for the amount of context we have relative to the video that's been published, I think any reasonable judge would conclude that (1) the person operating the camera was almost certainly recording before what we've seen published, (2) the events on published video obviously seem to refer to events that happened before what we see, and (3) those events that happened before are not just circumstantial details - they could easily swing the case in either direction. So yes, more context in this situation is absolutely necessary. Make no confusion - I'm not asking about what they ate for breakfast.