zlacker

>>sorami+(OP)
Man, this seems like such an uphill battle. I feel like unless they can show police were trying to deliberately target the press rather than just treating them like any other members of the public, they'll have that much more difficult of a time getting past qualified immunity and winning a lawsuit.

>>mehrda+1y
I agree with you this probably won't be easy. But the video of the CNN arrest is quite damning in my non-lawyer opinion. They had press credentials. They clearly and calmly identify themselves as press. They clearly and calmly state that they will move back to wherever the police want them. They are arrested 1 by 1 over the course of several minutes.

>>TallGu+my
The CNN arrest was not violent, not were they held long. The reporter later said everyone was nice, and they had orders to arrest anyone in the path of the crowd who did not immediately disperse. If there is an example of the police acting badly, or treating press differently, this is not it.

>>anewdi+Xz
Unfortunately, I don't think this comment should be voted down. I suspect it's exactly the orders police are given when the order to disperse a crowd/protest is given.

>>thephy+cE
It’s downvoted because it’s arguing that because the arrest was short and not violent, it’s ok. That’s not how the law works; An unlawful arrest is an unlawful arrest.

>>colejo+c01
They were not saying "it's ok". Those words are getting put into their mouth by other people. They were saying it's not an example of "police violence", which was the allegation in the lawsuit.