Four more journalists get felony charges after covering inauguration

so crazy!
why dey do dat?

>>103464
>goes to an extremely violent and dangerous place
>gets mad when their shit is broken

sure its trump's fault, I'm sure he personally told the policemen to break their shit

The question I make is were they able to be officially identified on the site as reporters? Because if they weren't, it's their own fault for being stupid. You can't hope police lets you go just by shouting "journalist here".
Otoh, if they had their work IDs with them, things might get messy.

>>103464
That's fucked.

>>103464
> Dumbass wants to stream the riot for his YouTube channel
> Gets arrested for being part of a rioting crowd
Remember kids, if you want to riot bring a camera and call yourself a freelance journalist. Joking aside, the riot was a mass of chaos and if you park yourself in the middle you will get swept up with it. Their only hope is their own footage though that can incriminate them under encouraging violence. The laughable claim is that police used teargas unlawfully during a RIOT.

>>103519
Not really, it was a riot. They sweep up everyone to stop the violence and sort them out after. You tell me how they go into a riot and pick out one person at a time without having the crowd turn on the cops?

>>103538
It should be obvious which ones are mask wearing rock throwers and which other ones are journalists with a microphone and/or a cameraman following him around

>>103542
>Implying the rioters didn't start lying the second they got caught
>Implying that everyone with a press pass had their names given to the LT. In advance and were released shortly after collecting all of the rioters they could
>Implying periscoping the riot makes it okay to be in the riot

>>103550
That isn't how the first amendment works...

>>103556
Yes, that inalienable rights to destroy other people's property because you don't like the president. As long as you documented the destruction then you should be free to go

First America's riots look super weak. Second just because you have a cellphone doesn't make you a journalist and third how is trump involved?

>>103557
They should arrest the people who were actually destroying property then and not do a roundup of everyone in the street near the scene, including journalists.

>>103486
>>103486
Washington D.C. is extremely violent and dangerous? Compared to what? Canada?

>>103563
well it is now anyway

>>103562
nigger how do you expect to show up and just know who is doing what?

>>103562
Because this writhing crowd of rioters needs to be respected and carefully picked apart as it wrecks private property so as not to offend every blogger and streamer that may or may not be part of the destruction? You clear the area as fast as you can to minimize damages to people and property.

>>103566
Because dozens of police were standing right there in wall formation watching everything and could see with their own eyes who was throwing rocks and who was standing around filming things.

>>103570
>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.

The police shouldn't get to label every single person within a one block radius of a riot as a rioter, not because they did something illegal but just because they happened to be there.

>>103571
top kek

>>103486
>>no true peaceful scotland

what are you, 12?

>>103573
Areas were cordoned off for protesters. These people were outside of it, and demonstrably not peaceably assembled. More importantly, press were released shortly after. The "journalists" referred to in the articles were bloggers who think making a video of the riot means they weren't a part of the riot.

>>103571
>expecting policemen to use their brains
oh you

>>103577
no, the fact that they were not part of the riot is the reason they were not part of the riot

and nice use of scare quotes there, what's your entry barrier? payment?

>>103582
>Contact
so if i mask myself, go to a bank with my 2 buddies who have guns, and they rob the place... im free of all charges if i video it all with my phone?

>>103585
>buddies

try again

>>103582
The people that told the police in advance that they were journalists got released hours after the sweep picked them up. Owning a smartphone and having a blog while being inside of a riot isn't going to excuse you being in the riot. You make a pretty big leap assuming people inside a rioting crowd aren't rioters based on their word after the fact

>>103587
>try again
ok
I'm some noname blogger hanging out with my friends when they decide to kidnap some mentally challenged kid.
they take him to some apartment building and torture him, while i film and livestream the whole thing.
a few hours pass and police comes knocking in, arresting us all.
I should be free to go right? after all i din du nuffin'

>>103591
innocent until proven guilty, pal

>>103592
you would probably be arrested and questioned
but without evidence there would be no charge

but again

>friends

you're gonna need to prove that too, and in this case, i doubt that you can

>>103607
Yes, that's why there were arrested and charged dumbass. Did you read the article? They aren't being thrown in prison without trial. Most of them are walking free sans items entered as evidence to law enforcement. It's all legal process being followed.

>>103610
it's why they were arrested, not why they were charged

>>103542
>>103562
>>103571
>>103573
>>103582
retard

>>103615
>Be inside a crowd of rioters
>Get arrested for rioting

I mean the law should account for all of those cases where riots just spring up around innocent bloggers but that's not the world we live in.

>>103618
are you suggesting that bloggers cause riots?

>>103617
great rebuttal, look forward to talking with you again

>>103622
I'm suggesting that the people inside of this particular riot were rioters.

>>103626
and your evidence for that is?

>>103566
>innocent until proven guilty

>>103628
That they were rioting. Inside of a riot. A riot that there is clear evidence of having happened. It's pretty reasonable to charge someone with rioting charges when they are inside a riot. Are you being intentionally dense?

>>103630
no, you are

the people streaming were not rioting

feel free to provide video evidence of a person who is streaming taking part in the riot

>>103623
if you want a better answer
you are a overly idealistic simpleton
you want everything to be perfectly fair
and every individual handled separately without any understanding of how hard that is.

Protesting means standing up against injustice.

There is no injustice here. They are rioting because of their feelings.

Some idiots Being scared of what Trump will do is not my fucking problem. Idgaf about these communist agigitators.

This is okay. It's okay for our first amendment rights to be degraded. It's okay for lives to be ruined.

We won. We won.

Keep repeating that and it will all be okay.

>>103634
oh well might as well just throw everyone in prison then, fuck it, why bother treating people as individuals

great plan

>>103638
try to treat everyone individually all the time and nothing ever gets done
the riot probably would have lasted much longer that way.

>>103631
You have no understanding of how the court system works and you are proving that every post you make. They are being charged for leaving the peaceful protests and joining a crowd of rioters. If the charge should result in a guilty verdict based on evidence they will be in prison. The evidence is on devices within police custody and will be used, warrent in hand, to put away anyone damaging property or taking active part in this riot regardless of their journalist claims.

Claiming to be a journalist is not going to grant immunity to being arrested during a sweep of a riot.

>>103617
idiot

>>103636
Lol, its been like 1 day.

Have you numbskulls never read the boy who cried wolf?

Best part is
ITS ALREADY TO LATE HAHAHA

No matter what he does, his supporters wont give a fuck because you've lied too much already. Maybe in his 8th year well be ready to hear criticisms.

>>103636
>The freedom of speech covers riots that cause 6 figures in property damage
Read the thread, that discussion is already underway.

>>103646
not seeing any evidence there

>>103638
and its fine to treat people as individuals when its possible,
but during a riot, that just isnt a good choice at all.

>>103652
You are dense beyond saving, you may proceed to strut about and shitposting declaring victory

>>103654
lmao how hard can it be
just go on periscope and find an incriminating stream
won't take you that long if you're right

>>103466
Felony Journalism - Spreading fake news instead of alternative facts.

>>103656
Yes yes congratulations your shining ignorance is truly a sight to behold, I am bested by your inability to separate where evidence and probable cause are needed.

>>103658
well find a video showing probable cause
i'll accept that

until then your claims are hollow, sorry

>>103550
>implying the police are even remotely competent at handling this kind of event

If they had been kettled properly this wouldn't of happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling

So called conservatives and authoritarians are often very quick to blame the plebs, but truth is that it is authority's failings that allow discontent to descend into disorder.

>>103653
>and its fine to treat people as individuals when its possible
Kill all white men desu.

>>103659
>Police see a crowd rioting
>Police collect up rioters
>Police confiscate devices with mounds of evidence
>But anon needs additional evidence to warrant the arrests of these rioters inside this riot
No need to brag about your ignorence, we see it plain as day and it's astounding

>>103662
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dcist.com/amp/articles/create%3Farticle_id%3D58839e52ada6e21d1227dfb2
>230 rioters arrested
>These poor disenfranchised rioters can't help but riot! Police need to control them better they cant control their actions!

Fun fact, they did get kettled. There's lawsuits being filed because the kettling caught lawyers and journalists who just happened to be in the riot for some wierd inexplicable reason

>>103668
>properly

Do it right and you don't need to arrest 230.

>>103668
>Police confiscate devices with mounds of evidence

if so then this evidence will be sitting online, streams are archived

>>103668
>wierd inexplicable reason
Could you be more biased, with your weasel words?

No wonder people call you a shill.

>>103670
>Too many rioters were arrested, we should have let a bunch get away with it

>>103672
Well do you have a reason for why these people were inside a rioting crowd if they were not rioters? The closest we have so far is 4 people whose blogs and YouTube channels prove they are journalists that totally arnt taking part in a collective tantrum

>Be part of a violent riot blocks away from every living US President
>"WHY DEY GOTS TA BE OPPRESHIN US MAN?"

Look, it sucks ass for the people there that actually didn't destroy anything or attack anyone, but shit like this needs to, and is going to be, cracked down on as hard as humanly possible under the law.

If you're innocent then you can prove it in court, but showing up with a cell phone and livestreaming people rampaging doesn't grant you a blanket immunity, especially when given repeated orders from fuck-you-in-the-ass federal officials charged with protecting the President's life to disperse the crowd you're in. If you want press privileges and shit then you need to have registered for press credentials so that the cops actually know for a fact you are who you claim to be.

>>103673
>Well do you have a reason for why these people were inside a rioting crowd if they were not rioters?

Don't know them personally maybe I should research and find out?

>The closest we have so far is 4 people whose blogs and YouTube channels prove they are journalists that totally arnt taking part in a collective tantrum

Hold on you already have. There you have it. The journalists were covering the protest.

Is that a 'wierd inexplicable reason'?

>>103678
>you need to have registered for press credentials

nope

>HOW DO I OBTAIN PRESS CREDENTIALS IF I DO NOT WORK FOR A NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE OR IF I AM A FREELANCER?
>–
>It is important to realize that you do not need a press "credential" to take pictures or cover events in public places (streets, parks, sidewalks that are not closed off to public access).

source: https://nppa.org/page/press-credentials

stop talking shite

>>103678
>If you're innocent then you can prove it in cou
Prove your innocence?

Legal opinion discarded.

>>103679
>Having a YouTube channel or a blog makes you exempt from arrest during a riot
It's the closest anyone has to areason and it's not a good one. Press credentials were distributed and even they got arrested during the sweep. They walked away without charges because they had clear evidence that they were journalists with a reason to be there besides rioting. Everyone and their brother has social media and a smartphone. That doesn't mean they're journalists with a pass to join a riot, regardless of reason.

>>103681
This is in regards to obviously non-violent events, dumbass.

Clearly no one was arrested for taking photos of morons wearing pussies on their heads during the actual protest marches, but once a riot breaks out then you are required to actually obey law enforcement instructions.

>>103694
>This is in regards to obviously non-violent events, dumbass.

show me which piece of legislation limits the activities of journalists in public places in the usa

i'll wait

>>103697
>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/riot
>Principal rioters are those who are present and actively participate in the riot. All persons present who are not actually assisting in the suppression of the riot can be regarded as participants when their presence is intentional and tends to encourage the rioters.

And further down under defense
>There is never any justification for a riot. The only defense that can be claimed is that an element of the offense is absent. Participation is an essential element. Establishing that an individual's presence at the scene of a riot was accidental can remove any presumption of guilt.

Press credentials provide a case that you were not there to participate in the riot. Otherwise, you were caught inside a riot during a riot, which gets you charged for rioting

>>103704
wow you fucking delivered, consider me btfo, america is a prison state who knew

>>103558
>First America's riots look super weak
>bragging about how neanderthal America isn't.
We'll let you have that one

>>103707
i doubt its any better in other countries.
we dont have omniscient policemen that can instantly pick out the innocent from the guilty in a fucking riot.

>>103711
get more cameras

>>103714
we already do.
you still have to go over the footage which takes time.

>>103707
>america is a prison state
Lol fuck off kid

>>103563

DC has always been a shithole

>>103714
>Goes to check the cameras
>Gets a positive ID on people who are causing actual destruction
>Moves in after giving every cop a list of people to look for
>Block is reduced to rubble, 19 dead, hundreds injured and hundreds of thousands in property damage because they spent hours on making sure the rioters werent just poor misunderstood journalists

>>103722
obviously you need better face recognition and tranquilizer guns on little turrets everywhere

>>103725
I'd rather just arrest rioters for rioting. We don't need to become England over some communists throwing a tantrum

>>103727
yes just arrest everyone, that's far more civilized, great job

>>103730
Well yes. When people disturb peace and order in a violent matter you arrest them. That's part of being in a civilized society. When it's a large crowd, you arrest a large crowd. When the riot is no longer happening that's when you start separating who was rioting and who wasn't. For what makes you a rioter or not see >>103704

>>103735
no i get it, it's so easy to implement, very slick
no way to escape

>>103682
Not him but being inside a riot is considered evidence that you are part of a riot, which is a felony. As much of a surprise as that might be to you.

They are presumed innocent until they are found guilty at their trial. However the mere fact that they were inside a riot is considered evidence enough that they were part of a riot. So don't expect any sympathy from me for them because in my eyes they are fucking criminals. If they prove otherwise at their trial then fine, they aren't.

>>103737
You can always just not spend your afternoon rioting, that pretty much guarantees you won't be caught rioting and then arrested and charged.

>>103773
so does documenting it, apparently

>>103769
Land of the free indeed.

>>103779
>crowds of rioters don't get whipped up my sympathetic journalists egging them on by documenting how brave they are for lighting a trash can on fire

You know how people postulate that mass shooters seem to feed on the MSM's non-stop dramatic coverage of their mass shootings? Same concept.

"Hey go smash that shit, it'll look great on camera!"

>>103464
If only there was a designated "free speech" zone, or a friendly rope technician willing to rope all the journalists up into a designated spot and lead them round like cattle.

>>103783
tbf this happened in the uk a few years ago
but i think this is what trump actually wants, mass rioting

>>103789
Looks good for him when his opposition's supporters burn, loot, and destroy. Same thing as Democrats smearing trump based on his basket of deplorables.

>>103794
most of the protesters in dc were just protesting
a couple of guys set fire to some garbage and the cops cleaned up

easy way to shut down any protest, just send a couple of dudes in masks to start a fire or two

but no i think trump wants everyone to riot, not just dems

>>103798
>i think trump wants everyone to riot
This is a really cool opinion. Dont forget to take your medication, ok?

>>103801

>Consider this excerpt from an explosive February 2014 interview [with Trump] on Fox News:
>“You know what solves it?” he said of America’s sorry state. “When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell and everything is a disaster. Then you’ll have a [chuckles], you know, you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be when we were great.”

and this quote, from an interview with Steve Bannon, last year:

> “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.
>Shocked, I asked him what he meant.
>“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

>>103808
[citation needed]

>>103813
https://qz.com/751320/donald-trump-and-his-followers-could-destroy-america-even-if-he-loses/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html

>>103816
So a daily beast article recounting a private talk with Steve Bannon that has not so much as a recording to corroborate the claims that bannon is a Leninist, and an interview where Trump states that if the economy crashes people will riot. What exactly is this supposed to prove?

>>103820
who said i was trying to prove anything?
believe whatever you like

>>103822
Well you (or someone you are defending) claimed that Trump wanted riots and when someone told you that was insane you provided those links. It's okay to be wrong sometimes.

>>103824
i said
> i think
and it was an aside, the only reason we're discussing it is that it was the only part of my post you could think of a smart reply to

>>103825
Im the one who replied. I was serious man, its a cool opinion. Just dont forget the meds, so you grow big and strong!

>>103828
thanks man

>>103816
...you're serious with those citations?

QZ article is a biased leftist tirade taking a phone interview on Fox he gave about Obamacare causing more full-time jobs to be replaced with part-time jobs. You could have just posted the interview itself, instead of taking it out of context and trying to frame it.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3179604851001/donald-trumps-2014-political-predictions/?#sp=show-clips

He's giving his opinion on how people who question the "New Democratic Line" in response to the FT/PT job issue are going to have a tough time being heard, and the only way it might end up being resolved is after people are rioting in the streets because of the economic damage done by Obamacare. That's a far cry from outwardly wishing for riots in the streets.

That Daily Beast article doesn't even contain an interview, it's all 3rd party from some dude saying that Bannon claimed to be a Leninist who wanted to smash the state in a private conversation, and later claimed to have never said that when he said he wanted to publish it.

>I emailed Bannon last week recalling our conversation, telling him that I planned to write about it and asking him if he wanted to comment on or correct my account of it. He responded:
>“I don’t remember meeting you and don’t remember the conversation. And as u can tell from the past few days I am not doing media.”

"He said extremist things to me in private but is now publicly denying them, news at 11" is like the oldest click-bait tactic in the book.

>>103836
Yeah, but his retarded opinions based on retarded sources were just an aside. The meat of the argent is that Trump clearly sent sabateurs into these peaceful protests so he could suppress the opposition and make them look like violent maniacs http://www.projectveritasaction.com/video/rigging-election-video-i-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-incite-violence-trump-rallies

>>103864
How do we know that that's not the false flag to cover for libtard violence?

>>103864
>his
Lol, no.

>http://www.projectveritasaction.com/video/rigging-election-video-i-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-incite-violence-trump-rallies
>evidence that democrats incited riots is evidence that trump incited riots

Wtf mate

>>103865
Are you trying go act like false flagging doesnt real

Who would do this? Hmm..

>>103782
Free =! Free of the consequences of your actions

Crossing Police Lines where they are not allowed to be, encouraging rioters to riot, anyone and everyone with a camera and twitter account being called a "reporter."

Some of these shits deserve to be arrested. It's called breaking the law for a reason.

>>103563
DC has been one of the most criminally active cities in the US for decades and that isn't a political joke.

>>104034
Well it kinda is

>>104019
that's OK but one person acting out of line can't always be grounds for using physical force to disperse an entire crowd, because freedom of assembly becomes impossible then.

>>104052
Freedom of assembly isn't really called into question where riots are concerned

>>103464
>cover him negatively
Lying. Lying about him. Intentionally lying. I'm sure you meant to say that, right?

>>104052
>hundreds of people destroying properties
>attacking others
>but its just one person acting up really

And the winner in with a perfect score in mental gymnastics is >>104052

>>103464
>journalists
TMZ.com
I you start shit don't cry about your outcome.

>>104079
is there evidence for that?

>>104065
the problem with cracking down on "rioters" is that the term is totally subjective. like a cop "fearing for his life", or in states with Stand Your Ground laws, a gun wielder "fearing for his life".

the cops badger and harass and abus the protesters, and when one finally pushes back, the cops go fucking ape on his ass. when it comes up in court, the cop just say the magic words "he was rioting. I feared for my life", and the judge throws up his/her hands.

>>104100
Now you're talking about a fictional situation, what about the situation where there are people rioting and setting shit on fire, should the cops not arrest them? And what about the situation where there are peaceful protestors like you say, getting agitated by the cops and nobody acts like a fucking chimp because it's a peaceful protest?

>>103514
>>103536
>>103550
>>103557
>>103566
>>103577
>>103618
arrested =/= charged you fucking tards
after they arrested them and reviewed the footage you could clearly see that they weren't rioting and shouldn't get felony charges for rioting

Funny how the anti-Big Government libertarian/Right Wingers have so much blind faith in the Police.

If anyone was going to take your guns away or fuck up your private property, shoot your dog it would be the Police not some college liberal "rioter".

>>103464
>protests
You mean riots.

>>105379
You're putting quotes around rioter like it isn't an objective observation that they've been happening lately.

And it's not really that funny. People are inclined to trust those they perceive to naturally align with them. The libertarians are hardly alone in having their fair share of convenient hypocrisy.

>>104074
What lies are they telling? The one where he autistically screeched alternative facts about crowd sizes?

fuck them

>>103798
>easy way to shut down any protest, just send a couple of dudes in masks to start a fire or two

ahem

>>103798
>>107428
If the people protesting made it undeniably clear that black bloc retards aren't welcome anywhere near their protests it'd be a lot easier to pick out who's who. Have some organized stance against them.

>"If you're wearing a mask go the fuck home, we don't want you here and if you pull any shit we will not do anything to protect you from the cops."

There you go.

>>106058
>cherry picking
fag

>>103486

That's what reporters do, they go in to dangerous environments under the protection that they are journalists as long as they do not engage. It is the duty of both military and police to protect journalists.

>>107727
Yeah, that's actual reporters though. If someone doesn't have a press badge then nobody's obligated to treat them as such.

>>103464
Trump was always a loser. There is no reason to change my mind about that pathetic excuse of a man. However, lots of ignorant americans deserve what they get with him.

fuck em

>>107813
>wins
>loser

project more

>>103563

...

seriously?

the strip is one thing, it has massive security and the nogs don't go there. but downtown DC is basically detroit/chicago tier. one of the worst, most criminal and violent places in america.

>everyone with a phone is a journalist

likely story.

>>107727
>It is the duty of both military and police to protect journalists.

No, they have a duty to protect society as a whole, not risk injury or their lives to protect individual "journalists" who knowingly and willingly put themselves in a dangerous situation.

If you jump into the middle of a riot, you shouldn't be surprised if the cops beat YOUR ass in the process of stopping the riot.

t. journalist

You're next. You could've avoided this if you just tried being honest. Thats's all you EVER had to do.

>>103464
It's a message being sent to Journalism. The Canadian gestapo are cracking down on journalist rights in Canada too. Part of an over-all sssault on our freedoms. Stand together or we fall.

>>103486
It's unsettling to see law enforcement singling out and prosecuting people specifically for taking video recordings of unrest.
One can easily see how this might be abused to censor unflattering coverage of law enforcement.
Unless the journalists were committing violence, they had a right to be in a public space and using their cameras.
Normally I would mind less but Trump's administration has not earned my trust that they respects democratic institutions because he like to say outrageous things about the press and courts and autocrats with an unusual frequency that one might suspect it's intentional. Maybe he's just trying to be controversial but I don't know for sure and I don't want to wait to find out before judging him about that.

>>107693
It wouldn't immediately occur to me if I was picketing for or against Trump to simultaneously picket the "black bloc". I didn't even know who they were until after the inauguration.

>>110868
>singling out and prosecuting people specifically for taking video recordings of unrest.
this didnt happen. the exact opposite did, they were treated like every other rioter there. no special treatment or singling out.

>they had a right to be in a public space and using their cameras.
its a fucking riot, the police dont have the time to pick it apart person by person just so they dont get the few that didnt do anything.

>we are live from jail

>>110856
Firstly, some dipshit with a camera phone and a quest to "make the world a better place," is not a journalist. You want protection to cover shit in the middle of a riot then get a fucking press badge and stop Vice larping.

Secondly, journalism certainly could have policed itself a little bit better than letting the profession fall to such an abysmal low that their approval ratings are below that of Congress. They've made themselves a very attractive target and to be honest a lot of the antipathy they're receiving is not completely unwarranted. They were told time and time again to cut the shit because in addition to all the problems shitty press brings, it opens the door for nefarious parties to use that ensuing disdain as a justification for their own ends.

>>110870
Their MO is known now though. After Berkeley it should be obvious when these assholes show up that bad things are going to happen and it's best to put distance between yourself and whatever bullshit they're about to pull.

And I still say protest organizers need to ban the wearing of masks and make it clear anything throwing punches or being violent will get thrown to the pigs immediately.