It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gov. Jay Nixon signs exec. order to send Missouri National Guard to Ferguson

page: 62
96
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: 00nunya00
If you were watching tonight, the police were clearly saying "everyone who is NOT CREDENTIALED PRESS must move along."

Because yes, press DOES get more access to situations like this because they are trained to not obstruct justice. Scroll back a few pages, I just hashed this out with OptimusCrime.


No press does not get more access. That access is not a right but a courtesy. I have had to remove press from scenes before because for some reason they think they can walk around inside the scenes and don't have to comply with lawful commands to move.

My statements stands - Show me in the constitution - federal/state - where media is granted immunity from laws.


Sorry, but you're incorrect. Like I said, please scroll back, read the debate we JUST had on this, provide different links to court cases than OC did, or end of story.

And on that note, I need a few hours before tomorrow morning. Busy day. See y'all again tomorrow night, if I can make it that long still awake on only 2 hours of sleep, lol.




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Press conf. Talking about a media near the gun shooting, near a van.( Vice? )



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00
My understanding, as gained from questioning a couple of constitutional lawyers, is that once the State of Emergency was declared, the rights guaranteed in the constitution are "suspended" until order can be restored. It is up to the governor and his minions to decide how much liberty will be allowed.
I'm still dumbfounded by his haste to remove all freedom by making first the State of Emergency declaration and then following it up with martial law just to make sure. Taking freedoms from folks that were boiling mad over police misbehavior just seemed the smart thing to do at the time I suppose. I have no idea how a politician's mind works.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: 00nunya00
Sometimes you have to understand reasons while not accepting excuses, otherwise no one will ever be able to move forward into peace.

There are a lot of excuses dressed up like they are reasons in this situation. Bottom line, even if the cop flat out slaughtered the kid, drug his body down the street and screamed all kinds of derogatory bull# the whole time, there are only a few outcomes that will come from rioting, and none of them are good for the rioters. Calling it 'peaceful protesting' doesn't change the fact that a destructive riot is a destructive riot.
edit on 8/19/2014 by ChaosComplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: FreeQuebec86
CNN PRESS NOW.

A priest talking first?... normal for usa ? Or bad news coming? :O


No, that is not normal in the US. This was heavily planned. Johnson is reading something that I'm not sure he wrote. I also notice that tonight, there are two black officers behind him. Previous nights, they were all white. Same white guy in a white shirt over his shoulder. He's the one that has interrupted Johnson previously and whispered in his ear.

Him answering questions--pretty sure that's Johnson sans script.

Guy on his left is Major J. Bret Johnson. Guy in the white, I think, is Replogle--the superintendent.
www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov...



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Geez, Johnson's practically in tears trying to get his points across, talk about from the heart. I guess I would be too if my town was coming apart at the seams at breakneck speed, too



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Damn... Hearing Johnson nearly cry over how much its been bothering him put me in tears. I feel for the guy. This was the press interview every one of us needed.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Listening to the press conference. The Captain makes a lot of sense. I think anyone watching that sees that he speaks from the heart and his is heavy.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   
From what i undertand, the police got like ambush ? and media were near ? ( Vice media ? )

Then they got the guns and molotov colt 45 ?

And a cop got injure ?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: kx12x
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not sure here, but can the police give orders? They enforce laws. What laws were being broken? Do they have the authority to do that?
(I'm serious here.) Can they legally and within their authority tell free media where they can and can't be in public?


When dealing with any scene and officer can order others out of the area if the they are interfering with the officers job or the scene in any matter. That includes proximity to a scene by anyone, including media.

For the most part media knows what they can and cannot do. However, when they started taking actions that interfere with police actions - IE police telling people to leave an area only to have media enter the area, which in turn creates a situation where "protestors" refuse to leave because the cameras are present,

This is not a one location incident. This is streets / blocks / areas that are having issues and often times contains hundreds if not thousands of people, both protestors, people who live there, people from outside the area.

If media is told to get out of the street / area, then they need to relocate.

Its that simple -


Refusal to disperse.

574.060. 1. A person commits the crime of refusal to disperse if, being present at the scene of an unlawful assembly, or at the scene of a riot, he knowingly fails or refuses to obey the lawful command of a law enforcement officer to depart from the scene of such unlawful assembly or riot.

2. Refusal to disperse is a class C misdemeanor.



Traffic Section -

Obedience to police and fire department officials.
300.080. No person shall knowingly fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer or fire department official.

(L. 1965 p. 445 § 16, A.L. 2002 H.B. 1270 and H.B. 2032)


I can keep listing the statutes but you get the idea. The purpose of a protest is to be peaceful.

Not to riot
Not to burn private / public property.
Not to block public rights of ways.
not to block entrances to businesses.
Not to loot.
Not to discharge firearms within city limits.
Not to shoot at Police helicopters.
Not to shoot at emergency services vehicles.
Not to shoot at other civilians.
Not to shoot at buildings, houses, cars, property, etc.
Not to shoot at law enforcement.
Not to use Molotov cocktails.

Everything being equal people should be allowed to protest and congregate where they wish so long as its not a law violation. Private parking lots open to the public are still private property and any person authorized by the owner / manager of said property can tell people to leave without cause.

In these instances you have widespread problems where the actions of a few can turn deadly for many caught in the middle. You shut it down before it gets to that point.

There is a reason they went to credentialed reporters. As has been stated media has gone over the line (some outlets) in their reporting and their actions while on scene.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: 00nunya00
No press does not get more access.


Court decisions in California do not affect the State of Missouri.
Federal court cases out of California do not affect Missouri.
Court rulings out of the federal 9th district court of appeals only apply to states within that district, which Missouri is not in.

I am in Law Enforcement in Missouri so respectfully, you are incorrect.

Law enforcement cannot prevent a 3rd party from recording law enforcement unless their actions interfere with law enforcement actions.
Law enforcement cannot seize footage from people recording unless there is evidentiary value and a warrant is obtained.
Under MO law only designated vehicles are allowed to disregard traffic ordinances / statutes.
A crime scene / secure scene is determined by the police, not the media.

The media can be moved into a safe area / directed to report from certain areas by law enforcement and is dependent on situation.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
I think anyone watching that sees that he speaks from the heart and his is heavy.


Initially though before he started taking questions, reading that paper I felt like it was the total opposite.
Like an empty suit just reading words on a page. Carefully chosen and scripted, but once he was off that page it was much more from him.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: 00nunya00
If you were watching tonight, the police were clearly saying "everyone who is NOT CREDENTIALED PRESS must move along."

Because yes, press DOES get more access to situations like this because they are trained to not obstruct justice. Scroll back a few pages, I just hashed this out with OptimusCrime.


No press does not get more access. That access is not a right but a courtesy. I have had to remove press from scenes before because for some reason they think they can walk around inside the scenes and don't have to comply with lawful commands to move.

My statements stands - Show me in the constitution - federal/state - where media is granted immunity from laws.


The First Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Immunity from laws? No, they're not immune from laws. For instance, there are laws against libel and slander that the media have to be very mindful of. They also cannot go ahead and publish information that may put military units in harm. They can't go speeding down the highway or anything like that. However, they're not to be blocked or discriminated against with arbitrary orders from doing their jobs. They go into war zones to cover what happens there. They can't cover a little protest? Get real.

However, they are also the most important part of our democracy because it is through the media that the public stays informed. If the CIA survived being outed for MK-ULTRA back in the 70's, I'm pretty sure the police departments can weather the bright light of media shining down on them when it comes to their actions and militarization.

We cried for a long time about the militarization of the police here on these forums. Not a whole lot of people heard. You can complain all you want about the media's focus on the police here on the same forums but how many ears do you think that's going to reach? Maybe the media can pick the story up if you really want it to be heard.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Lipton


originally posted by: Lipton
It's really hard to defend these people, given their actions....


This is why I say no one largely cares.

Apparently, we are content with any infringement upon the public's constitutional rights, if it can be shown a few don't deserve them. Or put another way, our rights as citizens are contingent upon the behavior of others.

Under this standard, no constitutional protection is safe from removal.


I love you for saying this.

These are my thoughts verbatim.

Thank you so much for being coherent and rational.

I've been saying that it's awfully ironic those that claim to want to protect their freedoms and constitutional rights in this country are the very first ones who want to see these protestors harmed in some way because of the color of their skin.

These people do not realize they are attacking their allies because they see colors that aren't really there and don't matter in the bigger picture.

Often people accuse the government of the "divide and conquer" tactic, but it doesn't even have to be done by the government. It is perpetrated by people who think they can decide who gets to have rights, when, and where, and for how long, and for what purpose. And as long as all of the above in accordance with their agenda, then they will agree to it. This sounds a lot more like something we would accuse the government of, never suspecting actual people to be this way. It is impossible for people with separatist types of minds to see similarities in themselves and these Ferguson protestors.

Behind the actual shooting incident itself that started the protest, these people are protesting a far larger issue than a large group of people are able to put into words. It is our jobs as fellow human beings to recognize the similarities in ourselves and these people and that we share the same struggle with them.

The harsh truth is that there is no real justice in this world because justice isn't blind like it's supposed to be, especially when all the government has to do is feed the issue to an angry mob (the viewer of the news) and let them justify injustice towards a group of people based solely upon their race, then the government doesn't even have to take any blame at all, if it was made to seem like the "people's idea" or the people's choice.

There is also no real justice in this world because of all that was said above... as long as a certain group of people exists that think they themselves deserve rights and that comes at the cost of others having to sacrifice theirs, then there can never be any justice, especially from the ones who claim to want it the most.

Anyway, yours said it way better than mine did. I really appreciate reading intelligent things like I did above and I, again, thank you for having to state the obvious.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I am familiar with the constitution.

My position stands - media has every right to report on situations. However law enforcement is empowered to enforce laws and conduct investigations, not the media. When media actions interfere they need to move on or they can be arrested.

Read my previous posts with the RSMO's in question.

Missouri authorities tell ACLU that people can record police in Ferguson - Police instructed to allow protesters and journalists to videotape their activities.


The news site reports, “The St. Louis county government, the city of Ferguson, and the superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol all acknowledged in a Friday agreement that both members of the media and the public at large are permitted to record events so long as they are not interfering with the duties of the police.”


Interference is determined by the officer, not the media.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Im not complaining about their focus on the police. I am complaining about their lack of focus on the problem. In case you missed it the police are not the ones rioting or burning down private property.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Lipton


originally posted by: Lipton
It's really hard to defend these people, given their actions....


This is why I say no one largely cares.

Apparently, we are content with any infringement upon the public's constitutional rights, if it can be shown a few don't deserve them. Or put another way, our rights as citizens are contingent upon the behavior of others.

Under this standard, no constitutional protection is safe from removal.


When do your constitutional rights end?
Where do they begin?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


originally posted by: Xcathdra
When do your constitutional rights end?


Apparently, anytime they represent an inconvenience to the state.

edit on 19-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And when an officer abuses their power as a law enforcement officer to obstruct the freedom of the press, what of that? You can't say that doesn't happen. Seems to happen a little too much I think, at least for my liking. And again, many of these journalists are seasoned reporters and have been in war zones like Rob Crilly of the Telegraph UK. He was threatened and arrested but would you claim that somehow he was interfering?

In the words of Uncle Ben, with great power comes great responsibility.

My advice to any police officers is that if you don't like media attention, then perhaps extra prudence should be used in terms of media relations. People don't like it when the press gets arrested or prevented from covering stories. The press doesn't seem to like it much either. This doesn't make the press look bad. It makes the police look bad and like they have something to hide. You want us to trust you, then trust the press.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice



They go into war zones to cover what happens there. They can't cover a little protest? Get real.


I've been seeing this and to some degree I agree with that thought. But upon further reflection I realized that those reporters going into war zones are vetted. They are briefed and given the rules. Just any indy journalist with an iphone can't just drop into a war zone. Those journalists accompany trained soldiers.
The situation in Ferguson is far different from a war zone. After seeing the crowd of gawkers gather around a police action tonight, I can understand the Captain's concerns. Now I understand why they are being penned...sigh.. what sort of fool wants to hang around when shots are being fired....
But I'm having trouble getting rid of the echoing of the cop threatening to shoot media....



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join