
CNN reporter arrested live on air while covering Minneapolis protests [video] - void_nill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ
======
TeaDrunk
Note that Minneapolis state police have claimed that the reporters were
released from jail the following morning after confirming themselves as media,
which CNN responded by saying they had identified themselves before their
arrest and it was only through the Goverers interference that their reporters
were released the following morning.

~~~
myrion
I mean, it happened live on air, they were clearly identified as CNN and
willing to comply with police orders - making the police's claim laughable.

I wonder what those officers were thinking, arresting a reporter on live
camera.

~~~
snazz
(I'm a resident of the Minneapolis suburbs)

At this point, from some of my friends in the city, it sounds like there just
isn't much oversight at all---they've now been caught on video taking guns
from people with valid licenses and now arresting the press. I don't think
that we can effectively apply logic when the police system seems so
disorganized.

~~~
throwaway894345
These seem like flagrant violations of constitutional rights; I would be
interested to hear from a lawyer what kind of legal liability the police (as a
department and as individual bad-apple officers) are opening themselves up to
by behaving this way. Hopefully justice is served and constitutional rights
are protected.

~~~
aljg
I don't believe they are opening themselves up to any legal liability. See [1]
and links for a disturbing list of recent examples of police receiving
qualified immunity. One example from the article:

> On May 18, the court turned away three of these appeals, including a jaw-
> dropping case in which police were granted qualified immunity after
> literally stealing $225,000. (There is no clearly established right not to
> be robbed by cops, the court held.)

[1] [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-
sup...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-supreme-
court-police-qualified-immunity.html)

~~~
throwaway894345
There's not enough liability, perhaps, but there's certainly some. Here[0] is
a list of police department settlements and another[1] of individual police
officers being tried and/or convicted for recent high-profile killings. Note
that media coverage is inherently sensational and therefore not reflective of
reality--just because the media gives much more attention to killings than to
the legal repercussions doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist.

In this particular instance, surely CNN has a strong case against the
Minneapolis police department?

[0]: [https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-
settl...](https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settlements)

[1]: [https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-
ch...](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-charged-
shootings-66017791)

~~~
aljg
Good point, I retract my blanket statement of "no legal liability." I should
have said that they are not _criminally_ liable.

Your link [1] shows how rarely police officers are found _criminally_ liable
for murder even in the most egregious of circumstances (only the most
egregious ones are prosecuted at all and even most of those result in
acquittals).

On the other hand you are right that link [0] shows that it is much more
common that the police are found to have _civil_ liability. Not personally, of
course, the payments will come out of liability insurance (and, therefore,
taxpayer coffers).

~~~
throwaway894345
I agree. There needs to be more accountability for police.

> Not personally, of course, the payments will come out of liability insurance
> (and, therefore, taxpayer coffers).

I think this might actually be eminently desirable that the taxpayer is on the
hook. We shoulder a lot of responsibility for our police (not the actions of
any given officer, but the system that either fails to weed out 'bad apple'
officers or fails to adequately train them or whatever other systemic failure
is responsible) and it's right that we shoulder the cost for our lack of will
to enact police reform or take it seriously. Of course, I don't think the
liability--criminal or civil--is adequate in magnitude, and I would like to
see more of both.

~~~
ric2b
Your argument for the taxpayer being on the hook is that it gives us an
incentive to do police reform?

Just put the officers on the hook instead, reform done.

Doctors are on the hook for medical malpractice, works quite well and we still
have doctors.

~~~
throwaway894345
How do you suppose you increase accountability for police officers (or any
other police reform) without public support? And how does increasing
accountability give police officers the special skills that they increasingly
need, for example, to for interacting with mentally unwell members of the
community? "Figure out how to be a mental health professional or face jail
time"? To use your "doctors" analogy, we also have a system that adequately
trains doctors and filters out the unfit.

------
maskedinvader
Isn't this situational irony ? reporters covering the events that were a
result of unreasonable police actions themselves were subject to the
unreasonable actions of the police.

~~~
spoiledtechie
I wouldn't call it unreasonable. They were told to clear the streets. They
didn't actually clear the street. They stayed on the street. Reporters not
following directions.

~~~
papercrane
According to CNN's timeline the police asked them to move at 5:09 AM, the
reporter asked where they wanted them, at 5:11 AM the police arrested them.
The reporter was not given the chance to follow directions.

[https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-
update...](https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-
updates-05-28-20/h_4d1cff5a7a7797c0dcf2ed4bd184552a)

~~~
stronglikedan
I'm not commenting on this particular case, since we don't have all of the
facts yet, but it should only take _seconds_ to comply with a lawful order,
not _minutes_.

~~~
monocasa
Just watch the video; it was a live broadcast of the whole encounter. They
were told to move, asked where was OK to move, the cops didn't give an answer
(ostensibly communicating with superiors over radio), and then they were
simply arrested.

There's no additional facts here.

~~~
kfrzcode
Edit because thread depth:

Y'all were right, the footage I saw earlier was clipped after the girl had
ran.

That's enough of trying to see all sides for me today. This week is hell.

\----------------------- It was not a live broadcast of the "whole encounter"
it was a live broadcast that started _in medias res_ after the reporters were
clearly surrounded by multiple officers of the law.

Not to mention that for the hour preceding 05:00 CDT, the National Guard and
Minnesota State Troopers were announcing over loudspeakers that anyone in the
area was to disperse immediately or face arrest.

So, it begs the question - what happened in the minutes leading up to when the
camera started rolling?

Is it possible the crew had already been told to leave or they would be
subject to arrest, and the crew did not follow this?

~~~
monocasa
They were released 30 minutes later, with the governor apologizing saying
there was no reason for them to be arrested.

You're absolutely on the wrong side of this. On the wrong side of illegal
arrests of the press. Of fucking CNN literally live broadcasting.

> That statement is what fng hurts me to read - it's a mentality that whatever
> is presented is it, facts, reality, no questioning needed.

I watched it live.

~~~
hanifc
> You're absolutely on the wrong side of this.

Are we counting being skeptical of a claim as taking the opposite side? Seems
like the user is trying to understand the situation rather than advocate for a
side.

~~~
epistasis
It's not being skeptical, it's in fact the exact opposite of any form of
skepticism: it's being so credulous to one "side" that you make up falsehoods
to excuse bad behavior, instead of using that same time to look for actual
facts.

I don't know how this style of thinking has in the past decade or so come to
be thought of as "skepticism," it's just incredible bias against one side. A
skeptical though process would be inventing equally fabulous motivations in
all directions, not just one.

------
JSavageOne
How is it legal for a police offer to arrest someone without any warning,
without even telling them why they're being arrested, and without probable
cause? What are the repercussions for these officers for falsely arresting
people? Do they suffer any consequences, or do they suffer no punishment for
this injustice?

This is extremely disturbing, and further evidence that the U.S. is a police
state. I've never felt more ashamed of my country.

~~~
monocasa
> How is it legal for a police offer to arrest someone without any warning,
> without even telling them why they're being arrested, and without probable
> cause?

Cops can hold you for some amount of time, generally around 24 hours without
cause.

> What are the repercussions for these officers for falsely arresting people?

None

> Do they suffer any consequences, or do they suffer no punishment for this
> injustice?

No punishment.

~~~
JSavageOne
That's horrifying. Why don't we change the law?

~~~
mcherm
Consider how one goes about changing a law. Generally it starts with citizens
making a fuss to inform their elected representatives that they think the
existing laws need to be changed.

Recently, in Minnesota, hundreds of people gathered in a protest on precisely
this topic. They gathered to say (for their elected representatives and
everyone else to hear) that they wanted a change to the laws and the system
that permits police officers to kill people by kneeling on their neck when
attempting to arrest them.

It was during this very protest that the CNN reporters were arrested.

So, as you can see, people are trying to solve that problem. They have been
protesting loudly about it for the past decade (much longer, in truth, but
there has been a renewed focus by the media within the past decade). And so
far... well, you tell me whether you think it's working.

~~~
JSavageOne
Seems like our political system is broken then.

If the public so adamantly wants laws that elected representatives refuse to
pass, then it seems that enabling direct democracy would be one solution to
getting these laws passed.

------
tuan
A follow up video from the reporter who was arrested
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gsXevAjNbw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gsXevAjNbw)

------
znpy
I've spent half an hour watching various videos, this in the link and the
video where mr Floyd is murdered. Then I watched some more videos of the kind.

As an european... Jesus f-ing christ, this is absolutely messed up.

------
tibbydudeza
Add reporting while black to suspicious activities.

~~~
stronglikedan
Then we should also add filming while latino and producing while white.

~~~
ianleeclark
The most insightful part of the video is where the start handing all the shit
to the non-black film crew, then realize how bad it'll look if they only
arrest the black guy.

You can attempt to whitewash it but we all saw what happened. Sorry, but you
can't will away racism

------
blunte
Why was this post flagged?

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
Because it's not on topic. It is almost definitely crime or politics. From
FAQ:

What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a
sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual
curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters,
or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-
topic.

~~~
moosey
Hackers should be interested in this. It's clear that social media has a hand
in the current state of society, however you feel about it. I have a sense
that people that don't want violence are going to win politically, and soon.
When they do, there will be repercussions for all social media and commenting
style systems. HN won't escape this.

If people who want violence win the next set of elections, then that should
also be of concern to hackers of websites. Take a look at the actions of the
US president, after being called to task for breaking TOS.

With the geopolitical changes that will come about due to the coronavirus and
upheaval that is beginning in the United States, it seems that social/web
technology is central to geopolitics. It really stuns me that our
conscientiousness to society, or lack thereof, isn't discussed far more often.

------
buboard
While this is terrible, the special protections that journalists enjoy should
apply to all citizens. If these weren't journalists but some poor random
persons we wouldnt even know. Everyone can be a reporter nowadays thanks to
technology, and there shouldn't be a class of officially recognized,
untouchable arbiters of facts

------
nine_zeros
China's installing surveillance to spy on citizens. We need surveillance to
spy on the government because without it, we are dead ducks.

~~~
101404
That would be a pretty good idea. Just need to come up with some way to limit
access to only the own citizens for sensitive information. Maybe if only
certain trusted people had access, and they would do it as their job, and then
they would report their findings, and investigate wrongdoings they found, and
then we would give them money to be able to read those reports about
government wrongdoings... hm, how could we call those people?

~~~
colejohnson66
Internal Affairs? While I’d like to believe the IA exists to stop the police
from doing wrong, it’s more like an HR for the police.

~~~
101404
I was going for "Journalists".

Interesting that people don't even seem to remember that those once existed

------
strooper
Gradual militarisation of US police is one significant development since 9/11.

------
th0ma5
So you have multiple crews, and bring out each one as they each get arrested?

~~~
elil17
Actually they did have multiple crews. The other CNN crew was positioned in a
similar way didn’t have any Black people in it and the police didn’t arrest
them.

------
systemshutdown
American police showing their true colors on live National TV.

------
curiousgeorgio
Context is huge in cases like this, and I still haven't seen a video showing
the beginning of the reporters' confrontation[1]. Does anyone have a link to a
video that shows what happened prior to the videos that are being widely
publicized?

[1] This one shows a bit more at the beginning, making it look like the crew
had already been asked at least a few times to move:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvbXWAHad-4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvbXWAHad-4)

~~~
couchand
You're right, context is huge. The area had already been cleared of
protesters. There was no imminent threat of any kind. The crew of a national
news organization showed their valid credentials.

There is absolutely no excuse for this.

~~~
curiousgeorgio
> You're right, context is huge. The area had already been cleared of
> protesters. There was no imminent threat of any kind.

I'm asking if you or anyone else has video proof of that. Are national news
organizations exempt from an order like this to move (I know in some cases
they are, but again, the lack of contextual proof here makes me question what
they were told _prior_ to what we've seen).

~~~
curiousgeorgio
I know this is meta, but... seriously people, what's with all the downvotes?
How could more information/context around a current event be a bad thing?

I've been watching what happens, at they always come almost exactly 2 minutes
after I post something - on this _and_ another account I use. It's pretty
clear that there's some downvote bot activity going on (in addition to the
usual "haters").

~~~
crakhamster01
I get that more context is always better, but the notion of "context" is
infinitely expandable.

What were these reporters doing in the hour prior to the arrest? Oh, nothing?
Well, where were they at the start of the riots? Just getting to the scene?
Hmm well, what's the police officer's story; has he had bad experiences with
the press in the past? And so on...

Most people have seen enough coverage of police officers doing unreasonable
things in order to make a judgement call based off the provided context here.
By asking for even more context, it comes across as though you're trying to
cast doubt on this situation and undermine what's honestly a national issue at
this point - hence the downvotes.

~~~
curiousgeorgio
> Most people have seen enough coverage of police officers doing unreasonable
> things in order to make a judgement call

Bingo! That's the problem. People are making "judgement calls" based on highly
publicized, recent cases of police officers doing "unreasonable things". Those
cases represent < 0.1% of the police officers in the country. Making judgement
calls based on what others have done is called _prejudice_ , and last I
checked, people are still innocent until proven guilty in this country. That
goes for the reporters _and_ the officers involved.

As for the amount of context we have relative to the video that's been
published, I think any reasonable judge would conclude that (1) the person
operating the camera was almost certainly recording before what we've seen
published, (2) the events on published video obviously seem to refer to events
that happened _before_ what we see, and (3) those events that happened before
are not just circumstantial details - they could easily swing the case in
either direction. So yes, more context in this situation is absolutely
necessary. Make no confusion - I'm not asking about what they ate for
breakfast.

~~~
crakhamster01
> People are making "judgement calls" based on highly publicized, recent cases
> of police officers doing "unreasonable things".

Define recent? Uneven application of force from the police based off of race
is a known issue, and has been one for quite some time. In the past decade or
so we have been able to witness more of these incidents due to the ubiquity of
smartphones, but look no further than policies like stop and frisk as examples
that illustrate the unjust policing of minorities [1].

In business, we have a philosophy of building goodwill. We do things to
establish trust with our users so that when we inevitably screw up, they will
give us a pass. But it's important to remember that goodwill is a finite
commodity. Screw up one too many times without making concessions, and you
will no longer get the benefit of the doubt.

No one is debating that there are plenty of good officers in the US, the issue
is with the bad ones, and the lack of repercussions/changes in policy to
address them.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-
frisk_in_New_York_Cit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-
frisk_in_New_York_City)

------
philipov
Why is this flagged?

~~~
ativzzz
From the posting guidelines:

"What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters,
or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-
topic. "

~~~
rglover
This is worthy of discussion here, though. This is a confusing and excessive
use of authority—the implications of which are significant and alarming.

To that point, how does this situation get fixed? Personally, this seems like
a total failure of local governments. This should have been a relatively easy
situation to mitigate (arrest the officer involved with the murder, even if
just for show to calm folks down).

Now that it's spiraled, we're seeing signs of a police state which is very
ominous. The question, though, is how calculated is this? My rational mind
tells me that this level of force isn't something planned or trained for; just
a reaction to the current events.

But it does set a precedent and as a country, we should be absolutely on guard
and discussing this.

------
andarleen
No, this is not Russia, North Korea, China. This is the US, 2020.

~~~
koheripbal
Have you ever had an encounter with the police in China, North Korea, or
Russia as a black person?

way way worse.

~~~
boruto
Why should US even be compared to those countries. It is a functional and
mature democracy. Going through the thread I find it shocking that police
brutality and unaccountablity is a common thing in USA.

------
newacct583
Not an argument for this site I guess. But this is what happens when you have
political leaders picking sides in violence. Trump literally tweeted "when the
looting starts the shooting starts" (not before this event, of course -- it's
an example). You think rhetoric like that doesn't have the effect of
empowering police to abuse their power against people they don't like?

~~~
spoiledtechie
Police abuse their power when leaders pick sides? And what about the Mayor?
Has he not chosen sides? He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to
continue. Actions and words.

~~~
blunte
The mayor doesn't have authority over the police.

~~~
creaghpatr
Who does?

~~~
blunte
It will depend on the type of police force. In the case of a state police, it
would be a combination of the state legislature and state judiciary. The real
answer is surely lengthy and complicated, but suffice to say the mayor
(thankfully) does not control the police... just as thankfully the president
does not control the military.

~~~
thejynxed
I'd like to know exactly when the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
doesn't control the military.

------
ponsin
from the description of the YouTube video

> Black correspondent Omar Jimenez had just shown a protester being arrested
> when about half a dozen white police officers surrounded him.

Is there any reason to assume racism? it looks like two other people in the
camera crew got arrested and they don't look black. It looks to me like CNN is
trying to play the race card to stir controversy when there are millions of
other more likely explanations

~~~
monocasa
The other team a block away was white and didn't get arrested.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
If it was because the reporters here were 'too close' then that does kind of
fit the narrative the cops gave, except they should have told them where they
should go instead of arresting them of course.

Still, does not make it racism. Plenty of cops make bad decisions, it doesn't
make them all racist.

~~~
monocasa
> If it was because the reporters here were 'too close' then that does kind of
> fit the narrative the cops gave

They were live on TV, so you can tell the cop's explanation was BS. When told
they had to move, the reporter asked where was OK, at which point he was
arrested. The crew was given no chance to comply with the orders.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
Cutting off my post right before I say "except they should have told them
where they should go instead of arresting them of course." is incredibly
misleading.

~~~
monocasa
Not really, because that clause does nothing to excuse the first clause.

------
opwieurposiu
Technological solution: Attach a laser to a gimbal camera. use YOLOv3 or
similar to target the eyes of cops or armed persons within 100foot radius. Set
up a few gimbal with mutually reinforcing fields of fire. If they can't see,
they can't shoot. Everyone is safe with no killing.

~~~
e12e
If they can't see, and do shoot, no one is safe.

------
tinyhouse
What happened to Floyd is horrible and police abuse is a real thing. I never
understood why police officers in the US have no common sense. I recall many
incidents where they shoot and kill people trying to escape (so no threat to
them). I'm happy the public is doing something about it.

However, I'm also annoyed by the stupidity of many people who blindly yell
racism. Not so long ago there was a naked black male (Harvard student) walking
down the streets of Cambridge, MA. Police came and arrested him. He refused
arrest so they have to use force, but it was reasonable force required to
arrest someone who is refusing arrest. People filmed the incident and next day
many accused the police for racism. WTF!? I watched the film and there was
nothing out of the ordinary. We should support good police officers and not
assume all are bad and racist. They risk their life to defend us and our
communities (white and black and everyone else).

~~~
kindatrue
Fun Fact: A court determined it was legal for the NYPD to discriminate against
hiring police officers that had IQs too high.

[https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-
cops/st...](https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-
cops/story?id=95836)

~~~
non-entity
Anecdotal of course, but I was discussing this with someone who told me their
cousin, despite being bipolar (although currently treated) and a raging racist
online was being recruited by local police offices.

------
lurquer
So, state police -- on a loudspeaker -- are "ordering" people to "leave the
street immediately."

The reporter admits he was told "to clear the area."

The loudspeaker -- again -- explicitly states to "go back in the direction you
came from."

The reporter admits on air that they were "requested to move back."

The cameraman also admits on air that "We were just out here reporting the
CLOSURE OF THE STREETS."

The dumbasses -- despite all this -- refused to get off the street, instead
saying things like "we COULD move back to where you'd like..."

Being a reporter does not give you special permission to violate a direct
order by state police in the middle of a riot (with a burning building in the
background.)

If you're told to get off the street, get off the street... IMMEDIATELY. If
you don't, you'll get arrested.

~~~
monocasa
He was released 30 minutes later with the governor admitting it was a bad
arrest.

~~~
lurquer
Whether they are charged with a crime is up to the governor, ultimately.

But, the state police -- if they order a street closed -- are well within
their rights to CLEAR the street. If the person won't budge, they can forcibly
remove them. Which they did. That is being 'arrested.' There are no exceptions
for reporters.

~~~
monocasa
The reporter was complying; he was asking which direction they should go when
he was arrested.

~~~
lurquer
How much time should the police give him to decide whether to walk 10 feet to
the left, or 10 feet to the right?

Three minutes?

Five minutes?

An hour?

The cameraman was literally STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET while stating
that they were there to report on the CLOSURE OF THE STREET.

~~~
kaitai
The cameraman was literally standing where directed to stand by the police.

------
sasasassy
I don't have an issue with this.

Both the police and the reporters were calm and polite. The police told them
they had to clear the street and instead of obeying the order they asked to
let them know when they were going to actually walk down the street. Since
they refused to obey the order they were detained and escorted out of the way.

Being a reporter does not give you a free pass to disobey orders, specially
during situations like that. Being a police offer also does not give you the
right to mistreat people of course, but in this video everyone actually
behaved very well.

~~~
bittercynic
On some level the people involved here were civil, but it seems like a pretty
dire problem when the police want to get rid of journalists.

It would be great if the police could figure out how to serve the public in a
way where they could be proud of their work and want the journalists to help
the world see the good work they're doing.

~~~
sasasassy
Of course I agree, but it reminds me of a situation many years back where I
live.

There was a big protest and people started throwing rocks at the police, and
the media were in the middle of the police at that moment. It actually made
the police's response much slower and dangerous because they first protected
the media and escorted them out from the protesters range, before charging and
arresting people.

I'm sure they have trained some protocol to how to control mobs, and throwing
innocent civilians in the mix wrecks the whole thing.

