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
It's become clear time and again that they never open themselves up to actual liability. But it would be interesting to hear how wide the gap is between law and reality in this case.

>>_bxg1+Pl
> It's become clear time and again that they never open themselves up to actual liability.

I understand that the criminal justice system is very often lenient on police officers, and I'm strongly in favor of increased police accountability; however, there are still many cases of police officers going to prison and departments/municipalities being sued for police misconduct, so to say that there is no actual liability is hyperbole.

>>throwa+9o
We've seen multiple murders by police happen on camera in the past couple years, with little to no action taken. The present one is the first case I know of where anyone from inside the government actually called for an investigation, and it was probably because they were afraid of the very riot situation we now find ourselves in.

When they can kill someone who isn't a threat, on camera, and face no consequences, why would we expect them to face consequences for something like a frivolous arrest?

>>_bxg1+lp
> We've seen multiple murders by police happen on camera in the past couple years, with little to no action taken.

I don't doubt this, but I don't see how you get from there to "there is no liability at all".

> The present one is the first case I know of where anyone from inside the government actually called for an investigation, and it was probably because they were afraid of the very riot situation we now find ourselves in.

I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone from inside the government is called for an investigation"; do you mean you don't think police officers in these situations are never or rarely investigated, charged, etc? Or are you speaking about some other government official (and if so, I don't know what you're talking about specifically or how it relates to this broader conversation about liability).

> When they can kill someone who isn't a threat, on camera, and face no consequences, why would we expect them to face consequences for something like a frivolous arrest?

Your premise is wrong. A quick Google search turned up this collection of police department settlements[0] and this collection of police officers[1] charged in recent, high-profile killings.

Note that there is a middle ground between "there is no accountability" and "the system is working just fine"--we absolutely should increase police accountability, but "there is no liability/accountability" isn't accurate or helpful.

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

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

>>throwa+vs
> Your premise is wrong.

You are both right. However, in the article [1] a large number of police officers were either acquitted, are awaiting sentencing, or were not punished, what the general population would consider, fairly.

When we hear about police departments agreeing to settle - that does not give us, as a society, a closure. Individual police officers have committed crimes, but now the tax payers are paying for that? That's not accountability.

>>corrys+3s1
I generally agree with the above, but you're framing this as a disagreement which makes me think you misunderstood the context of the thread.

My position is that there is some accountability but it's not sufficient for any reasonable standard of justice.