At Least 6 Journalists Face Felony Riot Charges Due to Proximity

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen
If it is shown that these people were not directly involved, they will be released and charges dropped.

Police on a scene like that can't be responsible for making decisions about who's who.

Will? They can't be responsible for recognizing people standing with cameras? Some with sound crews? Please.

You know 100% for sure these people were not involved ?

No way you can know that.

I do, I have done the research. Oddly, you suspect journalists to be part of the few people who attempted to attack a Starbucks with their bare hands. It's ludicrous. It's outrageously unbelievable.

Ridiculous.

I never accused anybody of anything.

Show us the "research". Like pictures of the ones in question being rounded up.

The Courts will see and decide.

Even Washington DC is not total mob rule (yet).

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: reldra


If you are insinuating that this is a result of the current administration?

I certainly am.

So Trump had some sort of control over the DC police department even before his inauguration? That's a stretch ma'am.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: reldra

Unless you were there rioting too, you have no idea what their participation level was or was not.

You're projecting.

Now if you weren't there and can mind read, how many raisins am I holding in my left hand?

I am not and the word is not projecting, either. But I know what you mean to say.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen
If it is shown that these people were not directly involved, they will be released and charges dropped.

Police on a scene like that can't be responsible for making decisions about who's who.

You said it was possible they did. The journalists.

Will? They can't be responsible for recognizing people standing with cameras? Some with sound crews? Please.

You know 100% for sure these people were not involved ?

No way you can know that.

I do, I have done the research. Oddly, you suspect journalists to be part of the few people who attempted to attack a Starbucks with their bare hands. It's ludicrous. It's outrageously unbelievable.

Ridiculous.

I never accused anybody of anything.

Show us the "research". Like pictures of the ones in question being rounded up.

The Courts will see and decide.

Even Washington DC is not total mob rule (yet).

You did say the journalists could have. Ridiculous.

originally posted by: Underfire2
Honestly, I think the cameras focused on crowds of protesters is a type of riot arousing tool. People that are angry have an opportunity to vent frustration by becoming violent, and the cameras incite it.

Careful with that one

Maybe that's what happened !!

a reply to: MysticPearl

Now if you weren't there and can mind read, how many raisins am I holding in my left hand?

Zero, because you ate them.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: reldra


If you are insinuating that this is a result of the current administration?

I certainly am.

So Trump had some sort of control over the DC police department even before his inauguration? That's a stretch ma'am.

Many agencies decided to 'go with the tenor of the new administration'. Entire state governments delayed legislation based on that.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: reldra


If you are insinuating that this is a result of the current administration?

I certainly am.

Then it just shows that your opinions are not to be taken seriously. How on Earth can you connect this to Trump? It has nothing, absolutely zero to do with him.

originally posted by: Underfire2
Honestly, I think the cameras focused on crowds of protesters is a type of riot arousing tool. People that are angry have an opportunity to vent frustration by becoming violent, and the cameras incite it.

No, it is not. It is how the press records what is happening.

Really??? Are you going to say the press makes crime worse then and they should not record what is happening? That is quite the incredible and horrible idea.


But THERE it is. The NEW America. If people are to find Underfire's post credible.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Tardacus
They`ll have their day in court, if there isn`t enough evidence to convict them they`ll go free.

They may not even have to go to court if the charges are dropped.

In big riots like the one in D.C. the police often scoop up everyone in the area and let the states attorney decide who to prosecute and who to release.

I`m sure they aren`t the first journalist to ever be arrested at a riot.

They shouldn't BE IN A COURT.

as I said in a post while the rioting was in progress, the D.C. police don`t mess around like the police in ferguson who stood and watched while rioters destroyed the town.i`m actually surprised that more than 200 weren`t arrested.

it`s the nations capital they are going to do whatever it takes to put an end to the rioting as fast as possible.
scoping everyone up and hauling them off is the fastest way, let the states attorney figure out who goes to court and who gets charges dropped.

it happens a lot the police arrest people on weak charges that are later dropped, just to get those people off the streets and out of the way for a bit while they get things under control.

a reply to: reldra

That is an opinion and you are entitled to it.

I could argue the exodus and backlash of government folks has been even more widespread, according to the MSM anyway.

Neither are factually sustainable.


Delaying of legislation has no impact on the current law the arresting officers were enforcing.

originally posted by: Tardacus

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Tardacus
They`ll have their day in court, if there isn`t enough evidence to convict them they`ll go free.

They may not even have to go to court if the charges are dropped.

In big riots like the one in D.C. the police often scoop up everyone in the area and let the states attorney decide who to prosecute and who to release.

I`m sure they aren`t the first journalist to ever be arrested at a riot.

They shouldn't BE IN A COURT.

as I said in a post while the rioting was in progress, the D.C. police don`t mess around like the police in ferguson who stood and watched while rioters destroyed the town.

it`s the nations capital they are going to do whatever it takes to put an end to the rioting as fast as possible.
scoping everyone up and hauling them off is the fastest way, let the states attorney figure out who goes to court and who gets charges dropped.

it happens a lot the police arrest people on weak charges that are later dropped, just to get those people off the streets and out of the way for a bit while they get things under control.

WEAK charges? They were felonies. I don't care what police region. You could say that police in small southern or SW towns certainly 'do not mess around'. They are still held to the same level as the others.

I will not be dragged into the Ferguson argument. That is OT.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Let me de-liberalize this article from NYT.

Here's the important part...

“basically identified a location that had problems and arrested everyone in that location.”

It's not some attack on the press.

I would be surprised if they didn't run into the crowd, just to play victim.

Just about on par with these wackadoos.

They should not have. De-liberalizing a NYT article is not a THING. It was a real article. I am surprised you didn't say 'fake news' or that you have 'alternative facts'.

The NYT is a horrendously slanted news source. You are trolling if you claim otherwise. Try looking them up.

You are being dishonest, just like the MSM when you claim they were attack-dogged by the administration.

Bottom line....

You run into a bank robbery with the group of robbers, you can bet you will be detained until sorted.

Why would you expect different? It is called "keeping the peace"

a reply to: reldra

right, I meant on weak evidence, evidence that they knew wouldn`t stand up in court.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: reldra


If you are insinuating that this is a result of the current administration?

I certainly am.

Then it just shows that your opinions are not to be taken seriously. How on Earth can you connect this to Trump? It has nothing, absolutely zero to do with him.

I explained HOW. You can take my posts however you like. I take yours the same.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: reldra

right, I meant on weak evidence.

If I were arrested on a Felony on weak evidence, I would sue. A police officer should not do that. They have an idea of the difference between a violation and a felony. Or they should.

It's not often you see this in America.

Corrupt Journalists being called out. Awesome.

As Journalists, they really ought to know better. Their display was anything but classy.

ps. MSM Journalists are for the most part, corrupt in their participation of untruths in the Media.

Evan Engel, case dismissed: twitter.com...


Searching the other twitter feeds, they are out.

If this is not another warning sign, I do not know what to say to those that argue. I would like to continue this, but I am tired. I have one thread to look at from earlier. A speech to watch, I think. And then I will be off. I am not recovered yet.

Thank you for participating. And go on, please if you like.

originally posted by: LuXTeN
It's not often you see this in America.

Corrupt Journalists being called out. Awesome.

As Journalists, they really ought to know better. Their display was anything but classy.

ps. MSM Journalists are for the most part, corrupt in their participation of untruths in the Media.

They were not corrupt in any way. I don;t think others even argued that here.