Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

from the because-that's-how-they-roll-in-Ferguson dept

Back in the summer, we had a few stories about the police in Ferguson arresting reporters. In response to that, the police signed a court agreement promising not to interfere with the media -- which they ignored the very same day. More recently, a court found that the "5 second rule" that police had made up as part of enforcing a "failure to disperse" law was unconstitutional, but it would appear that the police still don't care.

Over the weekend, police in Ferguson arrested yet another journalist, Trey Yingst. The St. Louis County Police Department said he was arrested for (you guessed it) "failing to disperse" when commanded to do so. Specifically, the police say he was in the street and refused to leave.

@TreyYingst reporter from D.C. taken into custody for failure to disperse. Was asked to leave street by the commander and refused. #Ferguson

— St. Louis County PD (@stlcountypd) November 23, 2014

However, multiple eyewitnesses, including other reporters, dispute that claim and point out that he was on the sidewalk:

Police refused to say why reporter @TreyYingst of @news_2_share arrested In Ferguson. Was on sidewalk of S Florissant Rd along from the PD

— Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) November 23, 2014

Police arrested this man after he said he was a journalist standing on the side walk outside the ferguson police dept pic.twitter.com/AG46fMTyOv

— Alex Wroblewski (@alexwroblewski) November 23, 2014

This is false. He was on the sidewalk. #Ferguson https://t.co/VEOzCCWiq7

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) November 23, 2014

Even worse, as Adam Steinbaugh points out, on Friday, there was a series of federal court orders telling the state, county and city police not to interfere with journalists doing reporting in Ferguson. According to the order [pdf], which covers the St. Louis County police:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [police] shall not enforce or threaten to enforce any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officers the authority or discretion to arrest, threaten to arrest, or interfere with any individual, including any member of the media or member of the public photographing or recording in public places unless that person is threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.

One of the other orders, directly targeting the County of St. Louis states [pdf]:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant County of St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons under their supervision, or within their control, are permanently enjoined from interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.

Of course, this is in Ferguson, Missouri, where people have been gathering all weekend to await the grand jury results concerning officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed Mike Brown in August, setting off the widespread protests. And, in Ferguson, it seems that basic concepts in law no longer apply -- even when courts directly call the police out on them. And, of course, officials in Ferguson have been especially obnoxious towards the press. Beyond just basic stonewalling and threatening/arresting multiple reporters, officials in Ferguson have tried to avoid releasing documents by putting ridiculous price tags on FOIA requests and even requesting a no fly zone to block out press aircraft (while pretending it was for "safety"). Is it really any wonder they'd continue to ignore direct court orders in order to harass and intimidate journalists?

Filed Under: arrests, court orders, ferguson, injunctions, journalists, missouri, police, st. louis county, trey yingst

Employee Fired After Posting Pictures Of DHS Vehicles Parked In Hotel Parking Lot

from the no-expectation-of-privacy...-or-security dept

What happens in public isn't afforded an expectation of privacy -- unless you're the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS is all about shutting down people taking photos in, around or of public structures. According to the many piles of useless paperwork compiled by the many useless Fusion Centers, the most effective terrorist weapon is any device that captures still images or video.

The nation is loaded with phone-wielding terrorists. But thanks to the swift corrective action applied by a former Secret Service agent and the multi-billion dollar agency, guests at the Drury Park Plaza Hotel in Chesterfield, Missouri, are safe from the terrorist activity of 28-year-old US Navy veteran (and now, former hotel Houseman) Mark Paffrath.

Mark says that on Thursday after work he snapped 2 photographs and a short video of several dozen Homeland Security vehicles in the parking garage. He then uploaded them to his Facebook page. In his post he writes "why are all the cop cars here...I wonder if it has anything to do with Ferguson", he also included the hashtags #Ferguson #NoJusticeNoPeace.

Hooray for the First Amendment! … oh, wait.

On Friday, shortly after arriving to work at the Drury Plaza Hotel, Mark stated that he was called to the office of Jeff Baker, the General Manager. Upon arriving Mr. Baker advised Mark that he needed to remove the photos and video from Facebook. Mark immediately complied and removed the post. Mark then continued and finished his shift.

A private company decides to insert itself into a situation where no one -- not even the DHS -- needed to step in. Having achieved its goal of suppression, one would think the story ends here. But it doesn't.

Saturday, Mark stated after being at work no more than 30 minutes, he was again called to the General Manager's office. Waiting for him was Jim Bohnert, Director of Security for Drury Hotels Company, LLC. Mark told ASN that Mr. Bohnert advised him that his Facebook posts almost cost the company a $150,000 contract with the Department of Homeland Security and because of this he was being terminated.

Jim Bohnert -- formerly of the Secret Service and the St. Louis Police Department -- had more to say on the matter. He called the former military member a "terrorist" and told him he had "dishonorably served his country" by posting pictures of vehicles parked in a garage where any guest or employee of the hotel could have seen them. In fact, any member of the public could have seen them simply by entering the garage, which is not secured. Argus Streaming News writers were able to see "over 100" DHS vehicles in the garage while driving through it on their way to speak to the hotel's manager.

Bohnert also threatened Paffrath with arrest if the photos were reposted (presumably by someone with more power than Director of Security for Drury Hotels, Bohnert's current position).

Now, it's quite obvious the DHS was unhappy that someone gave away their super-secret hideout, one that is a) a structure accessible by the public and b) littered with dozens of vehicles clearly marked as belonging to the DHS. If secrecy is what the DHS agents were looking for, maybe they should have arranged for a fleet of less clearly-marked vehicles. You can't -- at least not logically -- roll up in a DHS convoy and then demand that no one acknowledge this fact or speak about it to the outside world.

Apparently, hotel management thought this was a containable circumstance. A message written to hotel employees by a supervisor notes several things, the first of which is the open acknowledgement that employees are going to want to talk about a hotel full of DHS agents.

Mark told ASN that there is a large whiteboard which the hotel management writes notices to employees and on Friday, after he was told to remove the Facebook post the Front End Manager wrote a message that reads "The Department of Homeland Security Group: Confidential in nature, which means brag to your family about it after they check out".

Why the DHS's stay would be "confidential in nature" is beyond me. Despite having the word "security" in its title, it's not an agency that's always "entitled" to secrecy -- and certainly not when it announces its presence with over 100 official DHS vehicles. The DHS does perform undercover investigations (see also: The Great Kansas City Panty Raid of '14), but a massive presence isn't likely associated with an undercover investigation.

The hotel may have had the right to fire the employee for violating guest confidentiality by posting photos of the parking garage, but even that argument is tough to make. Private companies are not government entities and business policies aren't federal law, but in defense of license plate readers, law enforcement agencies have long held that vehicles are not personally identifiable -- i.e., a license plate identifies the vehicle, not the driver. So, a parking lot full of vehicles -- especially government-issued vehicles -- identifies nothing other than the agency present. In any event, nothing noted here seems to have anything to do with company policies (Bohnert mentioned no violated policies in his dismissal of Paffrath) and everything to do with soothing the frayed nerves of the DHS.

Likewise, privacy is not security, but a parking lot crammed with easily-identifiable government vehicles isn't anyone's notion of "secure." Paffrath's posting didn't destroy the DHS's nonexistent security but it did apparently irritate the hotel's head of security, who then called for the ceremonial sacrifice of an employee on the altar of Homeland Security.

Filed Under: dhs, employment, ferguson, homeland security, hotel, mark paffrath, social media
Companies: drury park plaza hotel

Police In Ferguson Set Up No-Fly Zone Solely To Keep Journalists Out, According To FAA Audio Recordings

from the that-thing-you-suspected?-yeah,-it's-true dept

A few more details have come to light on the police state experiment conducted in Ferguson, MO over the past couple of months. Despite repeated denials that continued all the way up until October 31st, the real reason for the FAA's no-fly zone over Ferguson has been revealed.

"They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out," said one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series of recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press. "But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that could be going on.

At another point, a manager at the FAA's Kansas City center said police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."

Law enforcement put FAA staffers in an awkward position with this request. The FAA (obviously) has nothing in the rule books that provides for blocking First Amendment-protected activity. While there would be the heightened danger of collisions if police helicopters were also in the area, it's not like this sort of situation hasn't been handled without incident before. (See also: news coverage of every demonstration/riot/police pursuit to this point.)

No, law enforcement simply wanted to keep news coverage to a minimum and control the narrative through the indiscriminate use of tear gas, a ridiculous (and unconstitutional) "five second rule" and the casual detainment of reporters at ground level.

St. Louis police claimed over and over and over again that the no-fly zone was for "safety," citing a single incident where a police helicopter was allegedly shot at -- an incident that only existed in the minds of those looking to keep the press from circling overhead.

[P]olice officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."

Small concessions were made when law enforcement realized what it was asking for was impractical (and mostly illegal). As one news director pointed out, his crew was eventually told it could fly over Ferguson but only at an altitude above 3,000 feet -- not exactly a height that produces optimal (or even usable) footage.

Whatever your stance on the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, the fact remains that nearly everything local law enforcement did in response was poorly thought-out at best, and an outright abuse of power at worst. Officials have lied to the public, paywalled public documents, released information in a purely self-serving fashion (and over the objections of Eric Holder and the Justice Dept.) and approached the citizens they serve as an occupying force, rather than trusted allies.

Filed Under: ferguson, journalism, media, missouri, no fly zone, police state

Court Says '5 Second Rule' Used By Police In Ferguson To Arrest Protestors Is Unconstitutional

from the good-news dept

A district court in Missouri has granted an injunction filed against the police in Ferguson for their ridiculous "5 second rule" that was used to arrest numerous protestors. The rule was that if you stood in place for more than 5 seconds, you could be arrested -- with the goal of (a) keeping protestors moving and (b) having an excuse to arrest a bunch of protestors. Mustafa Abdullah, with help from the ACLU, sued over this and the court has agreed that the rule is clearly unconstitutional, and thus a preliminary injunction has been granted. The court notes that standing in place for 5 seconds is not a legitimate standard to be used for Missouri's "failure to disperse law" (or any other law).

First, the court doesn't buy the police's claim that the 5 second rule matches up with the failure to disperse law:

This statute provides no defense to this suit for several reasons. First, people were not told to “disperse” – in other words, to leave the area. Instead they were told to keep moving. Second, the order was given even when there were fewer than six people gathered. The evidence included examples where the order was given to one person alone, to three people attempting to pray, to a reporter and one other person, as well as to larger groups. And the order was given to people who were doing nothing to indicate they intended to violate laws of any sort, much less to engage in violence. In fact, nearly all of plaintiff’s fact witnesses testified that despite gatherings that were peaceful and law-abiding at the time, officers told people they must keep moving or they would be arrested.

Then there's the question of due process. And, once again, the 5 second rule is problematic:

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of showing that the keep-moving policy violates due process in both ways. Of course, in this situation there is no statute or ordinance being challenged. Rather, it is an unwritten policy, given to officers at their roll calls, instructing them to order people to keep moving whenever the officers thought it was appropriate to do so. Some officers told everyone to keep moving, so if plaintiff was unlucky enough to be standing in the vicinity of those officers, he would be told to move. Some officers told people they would be arrested if they did not move, but at least one officer told people that they had to keep moving but probably would not be arrested if they failed to comply. Some officers interpreted the policy to mean that people had to walk at a certain speed, others told people that they could not walk back and forth in a certain-sized area. Some officers applied it to members of the press, while others did not. Plaintiff and his other witnesses testified that they could not tell what would or would not be allowed at any given moment.

The rule provided no notice to citizens of what conduct was unlawful, and its enforcement was entirely arbitrary and left to the unfettered discretion of the officers on the street. This policy “necessarily entrusts lawmaking to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat.” See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 360 (brackets and quotation marks omitted). Like the gang loitering ordinance found unconstitutional in Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), the keep-moving policy cannot meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.

And then the good old First Amendment:

I conclude that it is likely plaintiff will prevail on the merits of his First Amendment claim, and given my conclusions about the Due Process claim, I need not at this time discuss the First Amendment issues in detail. The keep-moving policy – as it was applied to plaintiff and others – prohibited citizens from peacefully assembling on the public sidewalks. Although the state has a valid interest in maintaining order on its streets and sidewalks and in preventing violence by crowds, this interest is not sufficient to apply such a blanket rule to people assembling peacefully.... The evidence showed that the strategy burdened substantially more speech than was necessary to achieve its legitimate goals. In fact, one of the police witnesses testified that it only worked well during the daytime when there were no large crowds and no threats of violence – when the crowds grew unruly, telling them to keep moving was not an effective strategy. Thus, defendants’ own evidence shows that this strategy fails the requirement that “the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government’s interest,”

Nice to see this ruling, though it would have been nicer to have this earlier -- but hopefully it will at least prevent future such actions.

Filed Under: 5 second law, due process, failure to disperse, ferguson, first amendment, free speech, missouri, mustafa abdullah, right to assembly

Ferguson's Strategy Regarding Journalists: Charge Insane Fees For FOIA Requests

from the filing-charges dept

Say what you want, but one thing has become abundantly clear since the whole Ferguson debacle began: the people running and policing that city aren't interested in your concerns. Throughout this entire process, the city and its police force have obfuscated the facts and people involved in the shooting of a civilian, they have cynically released information and videos when it suits them, and they've treated journalists covering the story with the kind of contempt they normally reserve for their own constituents. And now, utilizing a method previously beta-tested by both local and federal law enforcement agencies, they've decided the best way to respond to the ongoing outcry is to try to charge insane amounts for FOIA requests.

Officials in Ferguson, Missouri, are charging nearly 10 times the cost of some of their own employees' salaries before they will agree to turn over files under public records laws about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The city has demanded high fees to produce copies of records that, under Missouri law, it could give away free if it determined the material was in the public's interest to see. Instead, in some cases, the city has demanded high fees with little explanation or cost breakdown.

In one case, it billed The Associated Press $135 an hour — for nearly a day's work — merely to retrieve a handful of email accounts since the shooting. That fee compares with an entry-level, hourly salary of $13.90 in the city clerk's office, and it didn't include costs to review the emails or release them.

Allow that to sink in for a moment and marinade in your brain juices: information that could be given for free if it was of public interest is instead being billed at ridiculously high rates. Does anyone seriously want to argue that more transparency out of the Ferguson government isn't in the public's interest? Of course not. This is all about intimidating journalists and trying to put roadblocks in front of likely damning information. Ferguson has a public relations problem in the truest form and their strategy appears to be to freeze out journalists trying to provide information to the public. That won't win them any friends.

And don't think that this strategy is used rarely.

The Washington Post was told it would need to pay $200 at minimum for its requests, including city officials' emails since Aug. 9 discussing Brown's shooting, citizen complaints against Ferguson officers and Wilson's personnel file. The website Buzzfeed requested in part emails and memos among city officials about Ferguson's traffic-citation policies and changes to local elections, but was told it would cost unspecified thousands of dollars to fulfill.

Inquiries about Ferguson's public records requests were referred to the city's attorney, Stephanie Karr, who declined to respond to repeated interview requests from the AP since earlier this month. Through a spokesman late Monday, Karr said Missouri law can require fees but she didn't address why charges specific to the AP's request were nearly tenfold the lowest salary in the city clerk's office. Karr said searching emails for key words constitutes "extra computer programming" that can bring added costs.

Searching emails by keyword now equals "programming?" Brilliant! Although I suppose it's not as egregious as suggesting shooting unarmed civilians equals "policing."

Filed Under: fees, ferguson, foia, journalism, mike brown, missouri

Ferguson PD Lies About Why It Released Videotape Of Store Robbery, Lies Some More When Confronted With The Facts

from the worst.-wagon-circling.-ever. dept

In the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown, the Ferguson Police made several ill-advised moves. The biggest was the paramilitary force that greeted protests, looking for all the world like a unit flown in from Kabul, followed shortly thereafter by the detainment of several journalists. The decision to withhold the officer's name was also received poorly, but this was complicated by one baffling move -- the release of a store surveillance tape that appeared to show Brown stealing cigarillos from a local store shortly before he was shot dead.

This tape's release was purely self-motivated. Even the Dept. of Justice -- which had stepped in shortly after everything went to hell in Ferguson -- advised against it. The only conceivable reason for the release was a post-facto "justification" of Officer Darren Wilson's decision to shoot an unarmed man several times.

But the Ferguson PD tried to cover up this motivation. Matthew Key at TheBlot has dug into the events surrounding the release of the surveillance tape and found nothing but Ferguson PD lies.

The chief of police for the Ferguson Police Department misled members of the media and the public when he asserted that his hand was forced in releasing surveillance footage that purported to show 18-year-old resident Michael Brown engaged in a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store minutes before he was fatally shot by a police officer.

The tape -- released on the same day the PD belatedly revealed the name of the officer who shot Brown -- was supposedly released as the result of "multiple" FOIA requests from journalists and other citizens.

“We’ve had this tape for a while, and we had to diligently review the information that was in the tape, determine if there was any other reason to keep it,” Jackson said at the press event. “We got a lot of Freedom of Information requests for this tape, and at some point it was just determined we had to release it. We didn’t have good cause, any other reason not to release it under FOI.”

But another FOIA request exposed this claim for what it is. TheBlot used a FOIA request to obtain all FOIA requests sent to the Ferguson PD. And it couldn't find a single one that specifically requested that tape.

Last month, TheBlot Magazine requested a copy of all open records requests made by members of the public — including journalists and news organizations — that specifically sought the release of the convenience store surveillance video. The logs, which were itself obtained under Missouri’s open records law, show only one journalist — Joel Currier with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — broadly requested any and all multimedia evidence “leading up to” Brown’s death on Aug. 9.

With that lie uncovered, the Ferguson Police decided to double down. A statement issued to TheBlot claimed that multiple other FOIA requests were made orally, due to heavy traffic to the city's website and email server. Possibly believable, but was anyone logging these verbal requests? And could this be where the multiple requests for the surveillance video originated? The answers are "yes," "well, actually no," and "shut up."

The first response:

City of Ferguson attorney Stephanie Karr said that “many requests were made verbally due to the fact that the City’s website and email were down at several points during that week” and that “city personnel cataloged all requests and treated them in the same manner as it would any Sunshine Law request.

So, if they were logged, there'd be some record of a bunch of people asking for the release of the surveillance tape, right? Cue backpedal #1:

Karr responded to a request for comment Saturday afternoon by denying the City of Ferguson had a log of verbal records requests.

“You assume that the Custodian of Records, somehow, logged every single question, statement or request for information, verbal or otherwise, made to every single police officer, city employee, consultant, appointed official or elected official,” Karr told TheBlot by e-mail. “That assumption is, quite simply, wrong and unrealistic.”

Actually, TheBlot didn't "assume" anything. It simply took Karr's first statement at face value. Apparently, everything about the first statement was a lie. On top of that, the Ferguson PD may have violated the Sunshine Law by not logging requests it filled or denied. TheBlot has a request in for the logged verbal FOIA requests and in the meantime notes that the PD is still withholding both the incident report for the shooting (which may not even exist) as well as the incident report for the robbery.

Just a little more evidence pointing towards the unreliability of public officials, especially when caught in the middle of misconduct. Not only has the PD apparently lied about its reasons for releasing the tape, but it continues to withhold information about its involvement in the shooting of Michael Brown. Earlier, it claimed Officer Wilson suffered injuries -- possibly severe -- during his "interaction" with Brown. Those have proven false as well, with Wilson's own post-shooting text messages saying nothing about sustaining an injury as well as citizen video showing Wilson standing around the shooting scene for several minutes without seeking medical attention.

Odds are, no one directly requested this video. The release of the video coincided with the forced release of the officer's name in a blatant attempt to provide justification for his actions. While undoubtedly true that the city's website and email server have been hit pretty hard during the past few weeks, that's no excuse for city employees to fulfill or deny FOIA requests without documentation -- especially when its track record so far shows an urge to bury and obfuscate.

Filed Under: ferguson, foia, lies, mike brown, missouri, police, release, videotape

Why Do Police In Suburban St. Louis Have More Powerful Weapons Than Marines In Afghanistan?

from the just-wondering... dept

We've been covering some of the more troubling details of police militarization across the US, and specifically what's going on in Ferguson, Missouri over the past couple of weeks. However, we knew fairly little about the actual military equipment being used there. And we know that sometimes scary looking military equipment isn't necessarily so scary when put to use. So it's interesting to read a former Marine's analysis of the military equipment being used in Ferguson, which more or less confirms that it not only looks scary but absolutely is scary. Much of the discussion is about how all those "non-lethal" "riot control" weaponry is actually quite dangerous and potentially lethal. Here are a few examples:

There are scattered reports of stun grenade use in Ferguson. Also known as flashbangs or flash grenades, this weapon of choice for American SWAT teams (and Israeli soldiers) originated in the British special forces community more than four decades ago. Ostensibly less than lethal, stun grenades have been known to kill or severely injure numerous victims, and the device was recently in the news for burning a 19-month-old baby in Georgia, resulting in a coma, during one of the thousands of domestic police raids this year. They are designed to temporarily blind and deafen, thanks to a shrapnel-free casing that is only supposed to emit light and sound upon explosion. Nonetheless, the list of casualties is long, and the number of flammable mishaps is disconcerting. In Rise of the Warrior Cop, Balko recounts a story of an FBI agent accidentally lighting himself and his vehicle on fire.

[....]

These "pepper balls" are lethal; the Boston Police Department banned them after a young woman was killed by one. It passed right through the eye and skull to the brain. She was guilty of being present in a rowdy crowd after a Red Sox v. Yankees game in which the former won. The ACLU condemned the use of such projectiles for the purposes of crowd management back in 1997, following an unfortunate incident in Eugene, Oregon. They even convinced Eugene officials to do the same. It's about time St. Louis County and the rest of the country followed suit.

[....]

Like the stun grenade, employing wooden pellets as a form of riot control was spearheaded by the British decades ago, mainly in Hong Kong. As the ACLU makes clear, considerable litigation has proceeded in the aftermath of such tactics, including suits brought by protesters in Oakland who bore the brunt of these measures around the beginning of the Iraq War. Longshoremen on their way to work also suffered and sued accordingly. As a result, the Oakland police department caved and beating residents with wooden projectiles as a means of crowd management was rendered illegal.

There's a lot more in the article as well. But here's the bit that really stood out for me. After posting a picture of militarized police moving down the street looking pretty scary, the former marine, Lyle Jeremy Rubin, explains how they're more well armed than the actual military in Afghanistan:

What we're seeing here is a gaggle of cops wearing more elite killing gear than your average squad leader leading a foot patrol through the most hostile sands or hills of Afghanistan. They are equipped with Kevlar helmets, assault-friendly gas masks, combat gloves and knee pads (all four of them), woodland Marine Pattern utility trousers, tactical body armor vests, about 120 to 180 rounds for each shooter, semiautomatic pistols attached to their thighs, disposable handcuff restraints hanging from their vests, close-quarter-battle receivers for their M4 carbine rifles and Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights. In other words, they're itching for a fight. A big one. It's a well-known horror that the US military greets foreign peoples in this fashion as our politicians preach freedom, democracy and peace. It's an abomination that the police greet black communities in the States with the same trigger-happy posture. Especially on the occasion of an unarmed teen's death by cop.

He also discusses the general rule that people repeat in our comments all the time: "never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." And yet, of course, in pretty much every picture of the police here, we see them pointing weapons. And sometimes worse. Here's some video of a police officer in Ferguson not just pointing a weapon at some people livestreaming the protests, but telling the livestreamers that "I will fucking kill you." When the streamers ask him for his name, he says "Go fuck yourself." And, again, remember that this is not in response to any terrorist threat, but to some protests after a fellow police officer killed an unarmed teenager. While that particular officer has since been suspended, it seems worth questioning this particular approach to policing.

Actually, isn't it about time we rethought the entire way that this country handles policing?

Filed Under: ferguson, militarization, militarized police, missouri, weapons

LAPD Officer Says Tragedies Could Be Prevented If Citizens Would Just Shut Up And Do What Cops Tell Them To

from the NOW,-DO-YOU-UNDERSTAND-WHY-I'M-BEATING-YOU? dept

In the continuing furor that is Ferguson, Missouri, someone is finally asking, "Won't anyone think of the poor police officers?" Naturally, the person raising this question is a police officer -- a 17-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department. And the question isn't so much being raised as it is being thrown in the reader's face.

Sunil Dutta wants to make a point about the difficulties faced by police officers every day. But he does so by boiling down his argument to little more than, "Shut your mouth or I'll beat your ass." Dutta begins by stating the obvious:

[C]ops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed.

Sure. And most people aren't saying that cops are murderers. But they are calling them out for deploying excessive or deadly force far too often. That's homicide (in the rare cases when it results in charges). Murder is premeditated and while there are likely a very small number of cops who commit murder, there is a far larger percentage deploying excessive force -- force that sometimes results in death.

Once Dutta's erected his strawman, he casts about seeking to validate the sort of force escalation that seems far too common these days. It's not cops that are bad, it's just that people won't listen.

Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.

Now that Dutta has made it clear that the public needs to exercise self-control because many police officers clearly can't, he moves on to explaining why it's so hard for officers to resist deploying excessive/deadly force.

Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority.

I'm still unclear as to when police officers were guaranteed a "safety zone" while on patrol and the rest of this plea for sympathy is similarly misguided. Scott Greenfield makes the obvious point that taking a job as cop is to willingly place yourself in situations where people become irate at your very existence.

Did someone tell you at the Academy that the public would be showering you with kisses and adoration? Perhaps they suggested you would carry all that cool hardware on your service belt because people would get in your personal space to request your autograph, you rock star you. Oh wait. You were a cop. Your job was to deal with people who were often unpleased to see you. Are you complaining? Do you want to give back your pension?

After illustrating how he resolved a potentially dangerous situation without force, Dutta moves on to explain why nearly any use of force is justified. There's only one way to (almost) guarantee that a police officer like Dutta won't move past an "ostentatious display of the lethal (and nonlethal) hardware resting in my duty belt" and into full deployment of the mini-arsenal. And that's to never do anything that might signal your respect for the police officer "interacting" with you is anything less than 100%.

[I]f you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

Dutta says "cooperate," no matter what. No matter if you're just being hassled for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or if you're the wrong color or just walking insouciantly, when a cop orders you to do something, do it. But this isn't "cooperation." That word suggests people working together. What Dutta demands is something else entirely. Scott Greenfield breaks it down:

When you use the word “cooperate,” you do so applying the cop definition. We, non-cops, are to cooperate with you, cop. We, as you’ve already told us, are to do as you say. Your idea of cooperation has nothing whatsoever to do with cooperation. It’s just a much better word than “comply or I will inflict pain, perhaps even death…"

The problem is that life isn't nearly as clear cut as Dutta portrays it. There are nuances at play at any given time, but Dutta only sees it as black and white. Submit or pay the price. That's how Dutta defines "cooperation."

The disconnect seems to be that the public just won’t do whatever a cop says. Sometimes they won’t do it fast enough. Sometimes, they don’t do it right enough. Sometimes, they won’t do it at all. Your solution is just do it or you’ve brought the wrath of the police down on your own head.

Among the many problems with Dutta's column is this: he expects the public to have respect for law enforcement while officers show an active disrespect for the laws governing their behavior. He throws this sentence into the mix without a hint of self-awareness.

Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.

This legal prohibition doesn't seem to be prohibiting the use of excessive force. And the words "stop resisting" are muttered over and over again as personal permission slips to deliver more blows, whether or not the suspect is actually resisting. Cops are given desk duty or paid suspensions for violating this law while those on the receiving end spend time in the hospital… or the morgue.

Dutta also delivers this remarkable paragraph with a straight face.

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.

Take your beating and sue later! Enjoy having your future destroyed by bullshit charges! Our justice system presumes you're innocent, except for all the evidence otherwise! Let the system runs its course, with citizens molested and cops unmolested! Use your time and money to sue us and watch the courts grant us immunity! Use YOUR OWN MONEY (taxes) to pay for our misdeeds in the odd event that a settlement is agreed to!

If this is the argument for police actions in Ferguson, it's an insanely shitty one. If this is what passes for justification, then it's clear there's no excuse for excessive force. No one truly believes all cops are murderers, but there's enough harboring the potential to do serious harm that citizens are justifiably wary that any encounter with police officers could go horribly wrong -- especially if they attempt to stand up for the rights these officers deny them.

Filed Under: authority, civil liberties, civil rights, ferguson, free speech, lapd, missouri, obedience, police, sunil dutta

Police In Ferguson Sign Court Agreement Promising Not To Interfere With Media... Then Go Threaten And Arrest Media

from the because-who-cares dept

We've been writing about the efforts by the police in Ferguson, Missouri to intimidate and arrest reporters trying to cover the protests and the police (over)reaction there. What's now come out is that, last Friday, the police actually signed a court agreement promising not to interfere with the media:

Parties acknowledge and agree that the media and members of the public have a right to record public events without abridgement unless it obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of others, or physically interferes with the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their duties.

This was based on a lawsuit brought by Mustafa Hussein, the reporter for radio station KARG (Argus Radio) who got some attention last night after a police officer yelled at him to "get the fuck out of here or you're going to get shelled with this" while pointing some sort of weapon at him: Note that the agreement was signed by Hussein and parties representing St. Louis County, the City of Ferguson and the Missouri Highway Patrol... on Friday the 15th. The threat to Hussein came on Sunday... the 17th.

And those kinds of activities are continuing today. Here's an Instagram video of a Getty photographer, Scott Olson, being arrested. Olson, if you don't know, is the guy who has photographed many of the most iconic images of what's happening in Ferguson, including this astounding shot. Here are a few more Olson images, courtesy of Getty's recent embedding program:

#453505316 / gettyimages.com

#453768692 / gettyimages.com

#453769244 / gettyimages.com

#453582860 / gettyimages.com

#453769068 / gettyimages.com

And the police arrested him. Yeah, you can see how they thought he was a "danger"... to them trying to control the narrative of what's happening.

And here's a video of police threatening CNN's Don Lemon -- which I've now seen, but for reasons that I don't understand, the video seems to disappear at times (as does the embed code).

No matter what, it seems pretty clear that police are continuing to stamp on the rights of just about everyone, including those with cameras and microphones (so you can just imagine how they're handling those without such things). The fact that there's a signed court agreement promising not to do this doesn't seem to matter to anyone.

Filed Under: ferguson, free speech, journalists, media, missouri, press, scott olson

Police In Ferguson Back To Threatening And Arresting Reporters: Tells Them To 'Get The Fuck Out Of Here'

from the wonder-what-they-say-to-protestors dept

The situation in Ferguson seemed briefly like it was getting better last Thursday, but that didn't last long. Over the weekend, the militarized and threatening police fired tear gas at protestors and continued to escalate the situation, rather than de-escalate it. The governor declared a state of emergency and instituted a curfew -- which created some more problems, and resulted in continued protests, but also some looting. In the last few hours, however, things have gone from bad to worse again. Police went back to arresting journalists, including Robert Klemko from Sports Illustrated and Rob Crilly from the Telegraph (who, believe it or not, is the "Pakistan and Afghanistan correspondent" for that paper -- now reporting live from... Ferguson, Missouri). While both were quickly released, police appear to be quite aggressive towards reporters. Chris Hayes, the MSNBC TV host reports that he was threatened with being maced:

Riot cop to me just a few minutes ago: "Get back! Or next time you're gonna be the one maced."

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) August 18, 2014

A live stream from the local radio station KARG (Argus Radio -- which is a local volunteer run radio station that has been doing amazing work) caught police screaming, "Get the fuck out of here or you're going to get shelled with this" while pointing a gun at the reporter. Many reports claimed that he was saying, "You're going to get shot," but it's pretty clearly "shelled." Not sure it really makes a huge difference. As you can see from the video (thankfully clipped and uploaded by Parker Higgins), another police officer, "Captain Todd," claims that the lights from the reporters are the problem, not that that somehow makes it okay to point guns at reporters and threaten to "shell" them (or to arrest them). Meanwhile, Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post reports that reporters were ordered to "leave the area and head back where we wouldn't be able to witness anything for ourselves."

We are being told to leave the area and head back where we wouldn't be able to witness anything for ourselves.

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 18, 2014

All of this really ought to make people wonder: if this is how the police act when they know the world is watching them and live streaming what they're doing, how do you think they act when no one is watching? The photos from Ferguson feel unreal, but are, in fact, quite real:

Biggest barrage of gas so far. Multiple flashbangs #Ferguson pic.twitter.com/EXJzmj3lKZ

— Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) August 18, 2014

The situation has become so ridiculous that Amnesty International has sent in a human rights team, saying this is the first time ever that the group has done so inside the US. Think about that for a minute or two...

The situation in #Ferguson has prompted us to send human rights teams. First time we've deployed inside the US. http://t.co/09HQClqy76

— Amnesty New Zealand (@AmnestyNZ) August 18, 2014

And then recognize that the press are almost certainly being treated significantly better than the residents who are protesting.

Filed Under: ferguson, first amendment, free speech, michael brown, militarized police, missouri, police, police brutality, reporters