zlacker

>>sorami+(OP)
I read through the whole complaint and it's a pretty shocking catalog of abuse of power, discretion, and force. And it only covers actions against journalists, and only in the city of Minneapolis.

>>zucker+Kb
It's also bizarre because it's so stupid. Normally, police don't beat journalists because they're conscious that if you force the media to side with the protesters, it's pretty much all downhill from thereon in. Once the media has a narrative, politicians will start picking up on it for political capital, and then it's only a matter of time before low and mid-level police start getting thrown under the bus.

I'd be interested to know to what extent it is that the police have simply internalized Trump's media antipathy. Perhaps the insane self-destructiveness of his time in office is leaking...

>>pasaba+ku
I think it's the other way around: the police had that narrative before Trump and Trump picked up on it (and probably studied/learned of Nixon's strategy).

The police and police wives in my family were already very cynical of journalists way back before Trump got roasted at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

Every journo article that criticizes the work of an officer, a criminal case of the department, or any slight of the honor/reverence that Blue Liners have for the profession / individual LEOs is taken very seriously. The irony is that the journos can't publish accurate information without sources and police and their families don't/won't/can't be sources which would make their stories more accurate.

In the end, you get a media outlet either echoing the statement of the PR department of the Police or you get an investigative reporter doing the actual "checks and balances" role of the media. I just think police culture (and the legal/employment restrictions placed on officers) can't be comfortable with freedom of the press.

>>thephy+vD
> police and their families don't/won't/can't be sources which would make their stories more accurate.

That's not true at all. Media coverage of law enforcement matters is filled with quotes, anonymous and named, from the police community. That's not less true right now.

There's nothing stopping these people from talking to the press. Like anyone with an opinion, they're happy to do it for the most part.

>>newacc+NF
Yes and no.

It's true that police officers and their families do have 1st Amendment protections, but they are also governed by employment law and can be castigated by brass, fellow officers if they cause ripples which screw up a case or department morale.

> There's nothing stopping these people from talking to the press.

If you work for a company, were told that only the communications office was allowed to talk to the press about company business, the press asked you for a quote about something your company did, and you undermined the company's product/feature/initiative in a named quote, do you think your employer has the legal right to fire you for insubordination?

If it's police wives, they probably aren't allowed to have the information by department policy, so the officer who passed on that information could (and should) receive a reprimand.

With legal cases, police officers can't just go talking to press about a case because it could be used by the defense attorney to muddy the facts of the investigation or get some evidence thrown out.