zlacker

According to CNN's timeline the police asked them to move at 5:09 AM, the reporter asked where they wanted them, at 5:11 AM the police arrested them. The reporter was not given the chance to follow directions.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-update...

>>paperc+(OP)
This is a pragmatic point of view, not necessarily what I believe is "right":

Generally speaking, you don't stand around and try to have a conversation with the police. In a tough situation, the very last priority of the police is helping CNN get a nice camera shot.

Had they moved immediately upon being given the order to clear the street, then attempted to have the conversation, they likely would not have faced arrest.

>>paperc+(OP)
I'm not commenting on this particular case, since we don't have all of the facts yet, but it should only take seconds to comply with a lawful order, not minutes.

>>zdragn+Qd
"Helping CNN get a nice camera shot" is something you read into this.

Asking where to move to is a reasonable question to ask the police. Arrest is not a reasonable response.

>>strong+bf
Just watch the video; it was a live broadcast of the whole encounter. They were told to move, asked where was OK to move, the cops didn't give an answer (ostensibly communicating with superiors over radio), and then they were simply arrested.

There's no additional facts here.

>>strong+bf
This only works if officers only ever give orders for good reasons. Oftentimes they give orders as a pretext to arrest you for noncompliance.

>>monoca+jg
Edit because thread depth:

Y'all were right, the footage I saw earlier was clipped after the girl had ran.

That's enough of trying to see all sides for me today. This week is hell.

----------------------- It was not a live broadcast of the "whole encounter" it was a live broadcast that started in medias res after the reporters were clearly surrounded by multiple officers of the law.

Not to mention that for the hour preceding 05:00 CDT, the National Guard and Minnesota State Troopers were announcing over loudspeakers that anyone in the area was to disperse immediately or face arrest.

So, it begs the question - what happened in the minutes leading up to when the camera started rolling?

Is it possible the crew had already been told to leave or they would be subject to arrest, and the crew did not follow this?

>>kfrzco+en
They were released 30 minutes later, with the governor apologizing saying there was no reason for them to be arrested.

You're absolutely on the wrong side of this. On the wrong side of illegal arrests of the press. Of fucking CNN literally live broadcasting.

> That statement is what fng hurts me to read - it's a mentality that whatever is presented is it, facts, reality, no questioning needed.

I watched it live.

>>monoca+Wo
> You're absolutely on the wrong side of this.

Are we counting being skeptical of a claim as taking the opposite side? Seems like the user is trying to understand the situation rather than advocate for a side.

>>hanifc+Pv
It's not being skeptical, it's in fact the exact opposite of any form of skepticism: it's being so credulous to one "side" that you make up falsehoods to excuse bad behavior, instead of using that same time to look for actual facts.

I don't know how this style of thinking has in the past decade or so come to be thought of as "skepticism," it's just incredible bias against one side. A skeptical though process would be inventing equally fabulous motivations in all directions, not just one.

>>zdragn+Qd
It's possible the police were saying things that couldn't be heard on television because the mic was not in front of their mouths and they were wearing huge masks.