Police Handcuff NBC Chicago Photojournalist

Police Handcuff NBC Chicago Photojournalist

www.nbcchicago.com

Police held Williams and Ponce for about 10 minutes. The officer who handcuffed them is recorded on camera warning members of the media that their First Amendment rights could be terminated.
"Your First Amendment rights can be terminated if you're creating a scene or whatever," the officer said.
When asked how they were creating a scene, the officer said, "Your presence is creating a scene."


Source: www.nbcchicago.com... 6.html#ixzz1paMJFAWg

(visit the link for the full news article)

Right then, the cop says he can ammend someones First ammendment rights 'cos he wants to!?! Is there any wonder people are losing faith with law enforcement on a daily basis?

Chicago police took two members of the media into custody Saturday, including an NBC Chicago photographer.
Photographer Donte Williams and WGN Reporter Dan Ponce were detained as they attempted to cover the story of a 6-year-old girl who was shot and killed.

Source: nbcchicago.com

www.nbcchicago.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by spacedonk


Interesting, judging from that video that police officer is the one creating the scene. Who knew free speech was so easily squashed by a fouled mouth cop? Apparently that's all it takes.

the worst thing is the cop must really believe what he said or else he would have known the reporter would publicise his idiocy. The other alternative is worse to consider that he is just a total plank!

I'd rather it was an education issue than a stupidity one!

Obviously the officers life was being threatened and what i should point out is the poor skills the officer showed. He handcuffed the person instead of blowing the head clean off its shoulders, or at the very least the officer should have tasered this person who was disrupting the herd going about their daily feeding routine.

These people and their free speech, how about you journalists write the truth for a change and stop crying wolf when your ass is in being bred by a chain gang.

I hope they sue every single penny out of the police for a violation of rights. That will show them that we can and take all your money because the police were making a scene.

reply to post by spacedonk


Actually the officer is correct, but not in the manner people are taking it. A hospital is private property that is open to the public. It does not matter if the media is in the hospital or out in the parking lot, they can be tiold to leave by security and there does not have to be a reason behind the request.

Failure to leave the property can result in an arrest / citation. In this case it looks like they are trying to argue that as journalists, they have more protection than others when it comes to something like this, when in reality they do not.

In this case the officers response about the 1st amendment is correct in the sense your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others. In this case the media and their 1st amendment protections does not trump the rights of the property owner to control who can and cannot come onto their property.

As far as a side walk goes we would need to find out the status of the street it is on. One of our Hospitals has a pretty large campus with multiple "city streets" that run through the property. The streets however are maintained by the Hospital and not the city, making the sidewalks on those streets part of private property and not public. Media, especially local media, know the ins and outs of the various Hospitals / schools / buildings and know what they can and cannot do. As journalists / media though they will push the envelope in order to get the story.

If the family wishes to speak to media, they can do it off property. Having media inside a Hospital is a problem in terms of potential HIPPA violations (patient privacy etc) not to mention that its dealing with a homicide investigation.

Media doesn't think that by interviewing people they can actually be tampering with evidence. One of the thigns law enforcement does is to seperate witnesses. This is done to prevent cross contamination of what people saw. If you have 5 people witness an event, and 1 person sees something the other 4 did not and they all talk about it, chances are high that when asked the 4 people will include the information they did not witness as part of their testimony.

When media does their interviews they dont take into account cross contamination. They will ask leading questions that can skew what a person actually witnessed.

Before we jump to all sorts of conclusions we need to look at all the facts and get some answers. As a side note when it comes to criminal tresspass in that manner, at least based on my experience, law enforcement does not sign the citation. We require the security officers to sign the summons, they make their report and when the case comes to the court the security officers are subpoenaed.

Law enforcement can be called to verify information but its up to security to make the case and justify the actions.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
I hope they sue every single penny out of the police for a violation of rights. That will show them that we can and take all your money because the police were making a scene.

With all the lawsuits you propose you should be a very rich man by the end..

On topic... The police in this case were 100% right to tell these reporters to back off. I hate to say it, but their right to first amendment protections, died when they violated the rights of privacy of the grieving family. I'd love for you, who wants to sue them, to be int he same position, have a child killed, and then have a bunch of vultures circling for the best story to get ratings on the heels of your sorrow.

Sorry can't side with the press on this one, when the family decides it's news, then it's news, not before.

reply to post by Xcathdra


This would seem to negate that argument

The hospital apparently called police, complaining of trespassers. The news crews, at the request of police officers, said they had already moved from a public sidewalk directly in front of the hospital, to a median halfway across the street.

Source: www.nbcchicago.com... 6.html#ixzz1paXBKOM0

ALthough I agree they shouldnt be in the hospital and should leave the grounds if requested.

reply to post by spacedonk


The caveat is when did the media move? If security told media they had to leave and media refused to comply until police showed up, they can still be cited by security for failing to leave when first told to do so.

As far as the public sidewalk thats coming from media, who should know if its private or city. However going back to the whole getting the story and pushing the envelope.....

Originally posted by spacedonk
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

This would seem to negate that argument

The hospital apparently called police, complaining of trespassers. The news crews, at the request of police officers, said they had already moved from a public sidewalk directly in front of the hospital, to a median halfway across the street.

Source: www.nbcchicago.com... 6.html#ixzz1paXBKOM0

ALthough I agree they shouldnt be in the hospital and should leave the grounds if requested.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Didn't the news crew get off of the hospitals property and move onto the public street/sidewalk thing? From that video the crew seems to be clearly off the property. At the end of the video the police were telling them they were fine to be on the sidewalk but they were told that being on that sidewalk between two roads could be dangerous and the police recommended the crew film safely from another vantage point.

Also, from that story, either the hospital security or the news crew are lying because the security accuses the news crew of entering the hospital after being told to leave while the news crew says that never happened.

Well Mayor RE has all those delightful new laws giving him executive powers(passed for G8 and not rescinded)that the liberals wanted him to have so why not use them?Its coming to a neighborhood near you soon.Chi is just a test bed for them and they seem to be working just fine

RE's new powers mirror those that Bolt Hold Open signed last Friday in all but a few details

The fascism is for some very unbelievable reason being endorsed by the people who will not look at their children's faces, and then consider, do I go to work today, or do I group up with the people at the elected representatives offices and force them if needed to leave. I mean its your children's faces or theirs!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What isn't getting through to people.

Death or liberty is a very important concept, and I grew up with the generation who had this cold judgment on any German citizens in our country, who supported the Nazi's in any way. This was the NORM, for prejudice in Canada, BC, growing up. People really blamed the Germans!!!!

Why????

They have endorsed by their silence and obedience even, far worse to far more people, including our own, ie the homeless, those in jail who shouldn't be, as every single seed and resource of this planet belong equally to all of us, and no one can dictate anyones behavior if that person is not directly in your face hurting you.

WAKIE TIME and they're ILLEGAL FASCISTS. SO get rid of them. It does take numbers. We have to do this willingly in numbers.

There is an election coming up.

Who is phoning in to their local, regional and national representatives to explain to them: their reign of terror and fascism is illegal and it is massively over!!!! WE THE PEOPLE OWN EVERYTHING, and we don't endorse your treason your treason any longer. We won't vote for you but will select our own councils locally. You're FIRED!!! LEAVE IMMEDIATELY AND FACE ARREST BY THE PEOPLE!

Good points but the MSM and congress totally ignored Bolt Hold Opens signing of his EO and the passing of Chicagos passing of their own version of them a few weeks ago.They really don't care if they are voted for or not.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Hospitals has a pretty large campus with multiple "city streets" that run through the property. The streets however are maintained by the Hospital and not the city, making the sidewalks on those streets part of private property and not public.

Sweet does this mean that the sidewalk in front of my house that the city "owns" but depends on me to do all the maintenance on is really private property and not public? And I can restrict others from trespassing on it? Doubtful but I get your point I suppose, I am just sick of the double standard thing when it comes to property. It's one of my pet peeves.

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Obviously the officers life was being threatened and what i should point out is the poor skills the officer showed. He handcuffed the person instead of blowing the head clean off its shoulders, or at the very least the officer should have tasered this person who was disrupting the herd going about their daily feeding routine.

These people and their free speech, how about you journalists write the truth for a change and stop crying wolf when your ass is in being bred by a chain gang.

Yeah, it's funny that the journalists who are extremely complicit in the decline of liberty here, and mass brainwashing, think that they will be able to be exceptions to the rule of tyranny. I am betting our lovely congress will be just as baffled when they get herded into the gas vans.

"But - but I voted for the NDAA! I am a supporter of the Generalissimo!" "Sure, sure, Mac. Just sit back and breathe deep."

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


You make a very valid point.The MSM is 70%responsible for BHO's ability to pull off what he has yet they expect to be treated as elite.Interesting point

reply to post by Xcathdra
As much as I loathe to agree with Xcathdra, I agree with Xcathadra. If I was in hospital greaving for anyone, let alone my child, then the last thing I'd want is press cameras in my face. That is something I would thank that officer for, if i were in that situation. In that way they are creating a scene by just being there, they are creating a nuisance, upsetting and harrassing someone who is already very upset. And I am ACAB pretty much to the core, but in this case the cop done good.

Originally posted by Acidtastic
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

As much as I loathe to agree with Xcathdra, I agree with Xcathadra. If I was in hospital greaving for anyone, let alone my child, then the last thing I'd want is press cameras in my face. That is something I would thank that officer for, if i were in that situation. In that way they are creating a scene by just being there, they are creating a nuisance, upsetting and harrassing someone who is already very upset. And I am ACAB pretty much to the core, but in this case the cop done good.

edit on 19/3/2012 by Acidtastic because: (no reason given)

They weren't in the hospital, they were across the street on a public sidewalk. Whether or not you want somebody filming you in public is irrelevant.

It's pretty dismaying to see that people are willing to tolerate oppression and the erosion of public rights because something that does them no physical harm has upset their apparently fragile mental state.

Shame on you.