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

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Try your link again, that's just a "news" page. :/

It's funny because the exact thing you said, which was "so long as you are not obstructing LEO from doing their jobs", is exactly what that quote is saying. They told him to leave, he didn't, they keep having to waste time clearing the area, which he wouldn't leave. He's interfering with them doing their job. Plain and simple, I'm just giving you the facts of what happened and if you don't like it, don't argue with me, write your congressman.

Let me quote my edited reply to you and ask AGAIN for your *direct link* and court quote that supports your point.

I edited: "just because some reporters retreat when they get scared, doesn't mean that's what they LEGALLY have to do. Just because LEO says "leave" doesn't mean that's LEGAL for them to order the press to do.

Again, please, quote that supports your claim these press people tonight were breaking any laws or didn't have the right to stay when not obstructing justice."

Staying on-scene and keeping a camera on is NOT obstructing justice. Press may be a PITA for LEO, but if they're not INTERFERING with LEO arresting people or protecting people (specifically, not just "we need you to leave because we don't like cameras while we stand on a street corner") then they're legal.

Wrong, they were clearing the area after shots fired and protesters where heading out. You could hear the police on the bullhorns warning everyone multiple times, not just the reporters, they had to head to their designated areas and this one decided not to. I don't have to quote anything again, as I already have from a respectable source. Like I said, write your congressman.

We are not talking about Tim Pool running when live shots were fired, we are talking about the local FOX reporter getting arrested after 60 seconds of not moving fast enough for the LEO at the end of the night, remember? And no, you LINKED a "news" page with multiple recent events reports, not a court case or anything specific that supports your point. Try again.

I don't think he got arrested, he got back in his car and shut off his feed.

I think they would have said something on their stream from their other reporters...and I didn't hear anything.

There were three credentialed press in the car, the driver/narrator got out and so did one other, one stayed inside, the driver/narrator got back in and said "well, [soandso] just got arrested." Then the feed cut to another live shot of a reporter in a suit after about 30 seconds.

That is not what I heard...they were all laughing asking if he was starting trouble.

I heard him say something like "well, just about got arrested".

Do you have a video of the stream? Do you have a link where FOX2 confirms one of their guys got arrested?

I don't have a video or story to link, and you may be correct, perhaps I and a few others misheard him. Can't remember who now, but other members (maybe 10 pages back?) were watching the same stream (because it was the only one still in the area) and heard/saw him get arrested. I admit I might be wrong, though, and hope I am. Reporters need to be left alone to report and die for it if they choose.

originally posted by: 00nunya00
Police scanner just reported shots fired somewhere near Northwinds Estates Dr, plus a fire

Scanner link? When I looked for one, most looked offline.

CNC cable just said twice a few minutes apart that they are standing by forthe press conference,. They seemed to think it was aboit to start, but cut to commercials.a reply to: FreeQuebec86

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: 00nunya00

Just found this tweet from Fox2...he wasn't arrested, just detained and apparently released since he is posting pictures to twitter.

twitter.com...

Awesome, thanks for the link, I wonder how long he was "detained" if he got marks from the zip ties? Perhaps that was the confusion, the driver/narrator saw him get zip-tied and said "he got arrested" when it was really just detained and the others told to leave while he was "held." ?

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Try your link again, that's just a "news" page. :/

It's funny because the exact thing you said, which was "so long as you are not obstructing LEO from doing their jobs", is exactly what that quote is saying. They told him to leave, he didn't, they keep having to waste time clearing the area, which he wouldn't leave. He's interfering with them doing their job. Plain and simple, I'm just giving you the facts of what happened and if you don't like it, don't argue with me, write your congressman.

Let me quote my edited reply to you and ask AGAIN for your *direct link* and court quote that supports your point.

I edited: "just because some reporters retreat when they get scared, doesn't mean that's what they LEGALLY have to do. Just because LEO says "leave" doesn't mean that's LEGAL for them to order the press to do.

Again, please, quote that supports your claim these press people tonight were breaking any laws or didn't have the right to stay when not obstructing justice."

Staying on-scene and keeping a camera on is NOT obstructing justice. Press may be a PITA for LEO, but if they're not INTERFERING with LEO arresting people or protecting people (specifically, not just "we need you to leave because we don't like cameras while we stand on a street corner") then they're legal.

Wrong, they were clearing the area after shots fired and protesters where heading out. You could hear the police on the bullhorns warning everyone multiple times, not just the reporters, they had to head to their designated areas and this one decided not to. I don't have to quote anything again, as I already have from a respectable source. Like I said, write your congressman.

We are not talking about Tim Pool running when live shots were fired, we are talking about the local FOX reporter getting arrested after 60 seconds of not moving fast enough for the LEO at the end of the night, remember? And no, you quoted a "news" page with multiple recent events reports, not a court case or anything specific that supports your point. Try again.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I watched the same thing you did. The police where clearing the area after the trouble started as it was getting late, the protesters where encouraged to head home and the reports the same. This guy didn't so you go to jail. Sorry. You can find it yourself, it's there. You probably won't want to because it's easier to bug me in order to try and prove your point, but it's there. Just because you don't like the outcome of something doesn't mean a thing. The guy got caught after he was told to leave. Sorry, that's what it is.

Sorry, but when you make a claim on this board, it's up to YOU to link and quote and prove your point, not tell others to do YOUR OWN research for YOU. Link, quote, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, have a good night.

I'll provide it later, it's in my history somewhere while researching this topic. Not tonight, I'm out. But I'll make sure to get on here tomorrow and link it just for you.

I won't hold my breath, but please U2U me the link to your post when you do. Thanks.

Access to Criminal Justice Information:
The Supreme Court maintains that a report has no greater legal right to criminal justice information than the public-at-large.
Branzburg vs. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 684 [1972]), the Court held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press special access to information not available to the public generally.
Pell vs. Procunier (417 U.S. 817, 843-5 [1974]) the Court guaranteed journalists constitutional section for confidentiality of sources but did not require the government to make information available to journalists that is not available to the public.

Access to Crime Scenes & Disaster Areas:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the news media has no greater legal right of access to crime and disaster scenes than does the general public.
Branzburg vs. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 684-5 [1975]), the Court excluded the press from grand jury proceedings, the Supreme Court’s own conferences, the meetings of other official bodies, and the meetings of private organizations. The Court also stated “Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded, and they may be prohibited from attending or publishing information about trials if such restrictions are necessary to assure a defendant a fair trial before an impartial tribunal, …”

There you go. The general public was told to leave the area, the newsman were too .. . . This guy didn't so he got arrested.

a reply to: 00nunya00

Did you hear about 6 walking around with firearms?

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: 00nunya00
Police scanner just reported shots fired somewhere near Northwinds Estates Dr, plus a fire

Scanner link? When I looked for one, most looked offline.

St Louis county police scanner feed

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: 00nunya00

Did you hear about 6 walking around with firearms?

I heard "16-year-old male" but not 6 people, been replying and focusing on that the last 10 minutes or so mostly.

a reply to: 00nunya00

According to this journalist tweet, two journalists were arrested about 20 minutes ago. One for intercept.com and another for Bild.de (German newspaper):

twitter.com...

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: 00nunya00

Just found this tweet from Fox2...he wasn't arrested, just detained and apparently released since he is posting pictures to twitter.

twitter.com...

Awesome, thanks for the link, I wonder how long he was "detained" if he got marks from the zip ties? Perhaps that was the confusion, the driver/narrator saw him get zip-tied and said "he got arrested" when it was really just detained and the others told to leave while he was "held." ?

Doesn't say on their twitter feed and that was the only thing they had about him being detained.

I would think they would have released a statement or a brief article about it.

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Try your link again, that's just a "news" page. :/

It's funny because the exact thing you said, which was "so long as you are not obstructing LEO from doing their jobs", is exactly what that quote is saying. They told him to leave, he didn't, they keep having to waste time clearing the area, which he wouldn't leave. He's interfering with them doing their job. Plain and simple, I'm just giving you the facts of what happened and if you don't like it, don't argue with me, write your congressman.

Let me quote my edited reply to you and ask AGAIN for your *direct link* and court quote that supports your point.

I edited: "just because some reporters retreat when they get scared, doesn't mean that's what they LEGALLY have to do. Just because LEO says "leave" doesn't mean that's LEGAL for them to order the press to do.

Again, please, quote that supports your claim these press people tonight were breaking any laws or didn't have the right to stay when not obstructing justice."

Staying on-scene and keeping a camera on is NOT obstructing justice. Press may be a PITA for LEO, but if they're not INTERFERING with LEO arresting people or protecting people (specifically, not just "we need you to leave because we don't like cameras while we stand on a street corner") then they're legal.

Wrong, they were clearing the area after shots fired and protesters where heading out. You could hear the police on the bullhorns warning everyone multiple times, not just the reporters, they had to head to their designated areas and this one decided not to. I don't have to quote anything again, as I already have from a respectable source. Like I said, write your congressman.

We are not talking about Tim Pool running when live shots were fired, we are talking about the local FOX reporter getting arrested after 60 seconds of not moving fast enough for the LEO at the end of the night, remember? And no, you quoted a "news" page with multiple recent events reports, not a court case or anything specific that supports your point. Try again.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I watched the same thing you did. The police where clearing the area after the trouble started as it was getting late, the protesters where encouraged to head home and the reports the same. This guy didn't so you go to jail. Sorry. You can find it yourself, it's there. You probably won't want to because it's easier to bug me in order to try and prove your point, but it's there. Just because you don't like the outcome of something doesn't mean a thing. The guy got caught after he was told to leave. Sorry, that's what it is.

Sorry, but when you make a claim on this board, it's up to YOU to link and quote and prove your point, not tell others to do YOUR OWN research for YOU. Link, quote, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, have a good night.

I'll provide it later, it's in my history somewhere while researching this topic. Not tonight, I'm out. But I'll make sure to get on here tomorrow and link it just for you.

I won't hold my breath, but please U2U me the link to your post when you do. Thanks.

Access to Criminal Justice Information:
The Supreme Court maintains that a report has no greater legal right to criminal justice information than the public-at-large.

Branzburg vs. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 684 [1972]), the Court held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press special access to information not available to the public generally.
Pell vs. Procunier (417 U.S. 817, 843-5 [1974]) the Court guaranteed journalists constitutional section for confidentiality of sources but did not require the government to make information available to journalists that is not available to the public.

All of those pertain to "classified" material, not reporting of news that's not classified.

Access to Crime Scenes & Disaster Areas:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the news media has no greater legal right of access to crime and disaster scenes than does the general public.
Branzburg vs. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 684-5 [1975]), the Court excluded the press from grand jury proceedings, the Supreme Court’s own conferences, the meetings of other official bodies, and the meetings of private organizations. The Court also stated “Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded, and they may be prohibited from attending or publishing information about trials if such restrictions are necessary to assure a defendant a fair trial before an impartial tribunal, …”

There you go. The general public was told to leave the area, the newsman were too .. . . This guy didn't so he got arrested.

Has this been declared a "disaster area" yet? Nope. Were the local FOX reporters on the scene of a crime being investigated or comitted at that moment? Nope, they were stopped in a car in front of a line of cops standing around not investigating any specific crime or trying to stop a crime in process ON THAT SCENE. If you can say "all of the area is a crime scene" then there would be ZERO press in LA, NYC, etc. Try again.

But thanks for your effort. Gold star for you.

I've been listening to the St Louis County Police Scanner for a while. Waiting to hear any updates on a group they were supposedly going after, 20 or so people with gas cans roaming around. I listened to the chatter when they arrested a literal truck bed load of people with weapons a while ago, too.

Kind of brings a whole new meaning to "There goes the neighborhood" tonight out there...

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: 00nunya00

According to this journalist tweet, two journalists were arrested about 20 minutes ago. One for intercept.com and another for Bild.de (German newspaper):

twitter.com...

Hmm, he says "detained" is the official term being used, sounds like they're doing everything short of booking and jailing reporters, just "detaining" them long enough to not be able to report anything. :/ Nice.

Thanks for the link!

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Try your link again, that's just a "news" page. :/

It's funny because the exact thing you said, which was "so long as you are not obstructing LEO from doing their jobs", is exactly what that quote is saying. They told him to leave, he didn't, they keep having to waste time clearing the area, which he wouldn't leave. He's interfering with them doing their job. Plain and simple, I'm just giving you the facts of what happened and if you don't like it, don't argue with me, write your congressman.

Let me quote my edited reply to you and ask AGAIN for your *direct link* and court quote that supports your point.

I edited: "just because some reporters retreat when they get scared, doesn't mean that's what they LEGALLY have to do. Just because LEO says "leave" doesn't mean that's LEGAL for them to order the press to do.

Again, please, quote that supports your claim these press people tonight were breaking any laws or didn't have the right to stay when not obstructing justice."

Staying on-scene and keeping a camera on is NOT obstructing justice. Press may be a PITA for LEO, but if they're not INTERFERING with LEO arresting people or protecting people (specifically, not just "we need you to leave because we don't like cameras while we stand on a street corner") then they're legal.

Wrong, they were clearing the area after shots fired and protesters where heading out. You could hear the police on the bullhorns warning everyone multiple times, not just the reporters, they had to head to their designated areas and this one decided not to. I don't have to quote anything again, as I already have from a respectable source. Like I said, write your congressman.

We are not talking about Tim Pool running when live shots were fired, we are talking about the local FOX reporter getting arrested after 60 seconds of not moving fast enough for the LEO at the end of the night, remember? And no, you quoted a "news" page with multiple recent events reports, not a court case or anything specific that supports your point. Try again.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I watched the same thing you did. The police where clearing the area after the trouble started as it was getting late, the protesters where encouraged to head home and the reports the same. This guy didn't so you go to jail. Sorry. You can find it yourself, it's there. You probably won't want to because it's easier to bug me in order to try and prove your point, but it's there. Just because you don't like the outcome of something doesn't mean a thing. The guy got caught after he was told to leave. Sorry, that's what it is.

Sorry, but when you make a claim on this board, it's up to YOU to link and quote and prove your point, not tell others to do YOUR OWN research for YOU. Link, quote, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, have a good night.

I'll provide it later, it's in my history somewhere while researching this topic. Not tonight, I'm out. But I'll make sure to get on here tomorrow and link it just for you.

I won't hold my breath, but please U2U me the link to your post when you do. Thanks.

Access to Criminal Justice Information:
The Supreme Court maintains that a report has no greater legal right to criminal justice information than the public-at-large.

Branzburg vs. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 684 [1972]), the Court held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press special access to information not available to the public generally.
Pell vs. Procunier (417 U.S. 817, 843-5 [1974]) the Court guaranteed journalists constitutional section for confidentiality of sources but did not require the government to make information available to journalists that is not available to the public.

All of those pertain to "classified" material, not reporting of news that's not classified.

Access to Crime Scenes & Disaster Areas:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the news media has no greater legal right of access to crime and disaster scenes than does the general public.
Branzburg vs. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 684-5 [1975]), the Court excluded the press from grand jury proceedings, the Supreme Court’s own conferences, the meetings of other official bodies, and the meetings of private organizations. The Court also stated “Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded, and they may be prohibited from attending or publishing information about trials if such restrictions are necessary to assure a defendant a fair trial before an impartial tribunal, …”

There you go. The general public was told to leave the area, the newsman were too .. . . This guy didn't so he got arrested.

Has this been declared a "disaster area" yet? Nope. Were the local FOX reporters on the scene of a crime being investigated or comitted at that moment? Nope, they were stopped in a car in front of a line of cops standing around not investigating any specific crime or trying to stop a crime in process ON THAT SCENE. If you can say "all of the area is a crime scene" then there would be ZERO press in LA, NYC, etc. Try again.

But thanks for your effort.

Gold star for you.

I can't say if they declared that area a crime scene or not, but you can't either. You can pick and chose what you want to believe but I'm sure if they did something illegal, there'd be lawyers all over the place going crazy, as they did have them on the scene tonight. They didn't cause a stir. That area could have been declared a crime scene after the gunshots, I don't know. You don't either.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: 00nunya00

Just found this tweet from Fox2...he wasn't arrested, just detained and apparently released since he is posting pictures to twitter.

twitter.com...

Awesome, thanks for the link, I wonder how long he was "detained" if he got marks from the zip ties? Perhaps that was the confusion, the driver/narrator saw him get zip-tied and said "he got arrested" when it was really just detained and the others told to leave while he was "held." ?

Doesn't say on their twitter feed and that was the only thing they had about him being detained.

I would think they would have released a statement or a brief article about it.

To be fair, I think most of their overnight staff is actually on-scene right now (or rubbing their wrists, lol) and the rest of the "release an article" reporters are still asleep. Probably will get more articles tomorrow and it will all be clearer what happened tonight.

If anyone's wondering what happened with Tim and the gunshots, I started skimming through Tim's video of tonight since it seems the press conference is late again. Around 2 hours and 40 minutes into the video is when they start shooting tear gas, and a few minutes later you can hear gunshots coming from the protesters. All the media lays on the ground and the swat guys come running over and tell all the media to get the heck out of dodge. You can hear the whizz or ricochet of the first few rounds fly right by them.

Side-story while waiting for press conf.


Here in Montreal, the police are on strike, they just RIOT the "hotel de ville" and other policemen didnt stop the riot :O ! ( not major damage riot, paper, water all on bureaus went on the floor )

Weird to see here police/firement/"cols bleu" riot, and police doing nothing.

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: 00nunya00
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Try your link again, that's just a "news" page. :/

It's funny because the exact thing you said, which was "so long as you are not obstructing LEO from doing their jobs", is exactly what that quote is saying. They told him to leave, he didn't, they keep having to waste time clearing the area, which he wouldn't leave. He's interfering with them doing their job. Plain and simple, I'm just giving you the facts of what happened and if you don't like it, don't argue with me, write your congressman.

Let me quote my edited reply to you and ask AGAIN for your *direct link* and court quote that supports your point.

I edited: "just because some reporters retreat when they get scared, doesn't mean that's what they LEGALLY have to do. Just because LEO says "leave" doesn't mean that's LEGAL for them to order the press to do.

Again, please, quote that supports your claim these press people tonight were breaking any laws or didn't have the right to stay when not obstructing justice."

Staying on-scene and keeping a camera on is NOT obstructing justice. Press may be a PITA for LEO, but if they're not INTERFERING with LEO arresting people or protecting people (specifically, not just "we need you to leave because we don't like cameras while we stand on a street corner") then they're legal.

Wrong, they were clearing the area after shots fired and protesters where heading out. You could hear the police on the bullhorns warning everyone multiple times, not just the reporters, they had to head to their designated areas and this one decided not to. I don't have to quote anything again, as I already have from a respectable source. Like I said, write your congressman.

We are not talking about Tim Pool running when live shots were fired, we are talking about the local FOX reporter getting arrested after 60 seconds of not moving fast enough for the LEO at the end of the night, remember? And no, you quoted a "news" page with multiple recent events reports, not a court case or anything specific that supports your point. Try again.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I watched the same thing you did. The police where clearing the area after the trouble started as it was getting late, the protesters where encouraged to head home and the reports the same. This guy didn't so you go to jail. Sorry. You can find it yourself, it's there. You probably won't want to because it's easier to bug me in order to try and prove your point, but it's there. Just because you don't like the outcome of something doesn't mean a thing. The guy got caught after he was told to leave. Sorry, that's what it is.

Sorry, but when you make a claim on this board, it's up to YOU to link and quote and prove your point, not tell others to do YOUR OWN research for YOU. Link, quote, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, have a good night.

I'll provide it later, it's in my history somewhere while researching this topic. Not tonight, I'm out. But I'll make sure to get on here tomorrow and link it just for you.

I won't hold my breath, but please U2U me the link to your post when you do. Thanks.

Access to Criminal Justice Information:
The Supreme Court maintains that a report has no greater legal right to criminal justice information than the public-at-large.

Branzburg vs. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 684 [1972]), the Court held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press special access to information not available to the public generally.
Pell vs. Procunier (417 U.S. 817, 843-5 [1974]) the Court guaranteed journalists constitutional section for confidentiality of sources but did not require the government to make information available to journalists that is not available to the public.

All of those pertain to "classified" material, not reporting of news that's not classified.

Access to Crime Scenes & Disaster Areas:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the news media has no greater legal right of access to crime and disaster scenes than does the general public.
Branzburg vs. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 684-5 [1975]), the Court excluded the press from grand jury proceedings, the Supreme Court’s own conferences, the meetings of other official bodies, and the meetings of private organizations. The Court also stated “Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded, and they may be prohibited from attending or publishing information about trials if such restrictions are necessary to assure a defendant a fair trial before an impartial tribunal, …”

There you go. The general public was told to leave the area, the newsman were too .. . . This guy didn't so he got arrested.

Has this been declared a "disaster area" yet? Nope. Were the local FOX reporters on the scene of a crime being investigated or comitted at that moment? Nope, they were stopped in a car in front of a line of cops standing around not investigating any specific crime or trying to stop a crime in process ON THAT SCENE. If you can say "all of the area is a crime scene" then there would be ZERO press in LA, NYC, etc. Try again.

But thanks for your effort.

Gold star for you.

I can't say if they declared that area a crime scene or not, but you can't either. You can pick and chose what you want to believe but I'm sure if they did something illegal, there'd be lawyers all over the place going crazy, as they did have them on the scene tonight. They didn't cause a stir. That area could have been declared a crime scene after the gunshots, I don't know. You don't either.

Fair enough, neither of us know the specific facts of this specific incident, and it looks like they weren't even actually "arrested" either, just "detained" long enough to not be able to report anything that was going down. And if so, that supports my point even further-----LEO knows how to use the loopholes and wiggle room to skirt the legal rights of citizens and reporters. If they had done something illegal, you can bet your butt they would have been booked. And seriously, lawyers don't go on-scene to riot areas, they file the papers afterwards with the evidence.

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: 00nunya00

According to this journalist tweet, two journalists were arrested about 20 minutes ago. One for intercept.com and another for Bild.de (German newspaper):

twitter.com...

Hmm, he says "detained" is the official term being used, sounds like they're doing everything short of booking and jailing reporters, just "detaining" them long enough to not be able to report anything. :/ Nice.

Thanks for the link!

Yeah, they switched from arresting to "detaining" earlier today though honestly "detaining" sounds oddly creepier to me. Maybe because it's so close to "detainees". Same thing happened to journalists a few years ago during Occupy.

This photo looks more like an advert for a video game but it's not, it was taken by David Carson of St. Louis Post Dispatch: twitter.com...

a reply to: buni11687

Mhmmm, this is why Tim Pool now sports a shiny new vest. Guy is like a bullet magnet, I swear.