zlacker

It looked like they were hauling people off one-by-one, which could reasonably be standard procedure for riot situations. Isolate individuals from the group and handle them separately - that sort of thing.

Moreover, they started with the reporter, since he seemed to be the leader of the group (e.g. he was the one doing the talking).

>>maest+(OP)
I mean, there's being a leader of a group involved in a riot and then there's a reporting crew. If one of them is standing in place with a microphone and film equipment and explaining the situation in monotone while calmly asking what they need to do to comply, it's pretty clear which one they are.

The wording there with him seeming to be the leader of the group sounds like an anthropologist finding a completely unknown tribe of people. At any time, the police could've just used their words, instead of being silent, surrounding the entire group, then suddenly arresting one person and waiting a full 2 minutes (precisely two minutes) before simultaneously arresting the others.

>>maest+(OP)
So, your defense of these actions is that the cops can't discern the difference between press and rioters, so best just arrest them all "one by one"? What part of that is reasonable? Just because it's "standard procedure" does not mean it's justified.

>>acobst+R3
You may have misread me. I'm not justfying their actions - I'm just saying it's not clear they were targeting solely the reporter. It's possible that the plan was to take everyone in custody, one-by-one. You have to start with someone and the reporter seems like the natural choice.