> My understanding of the situation is that they were arrested because the police wanted them arrested, plain and simple. Not because they ignored any order, but because the police had the power and the will, though not the legal right, to punish them.
At least we're progressing from "he was arrested for filming" to "police wanted to arrest him" and speculating why.
But we don't need to rely on speculation: The reporter asked why they were being arrested. The police responded that they were arrested because they didn't disperse from an area when they were told to do so. And plenty of people who weren't filming were also arrested. And the nowhere in the CNN article you originally linked to did it claim that their journalist was arrested for filming.
I'm not just taking the police at their word, I'm comparing the police's words to what happened. And it's entirely consistent with what happened. If the police arrested the reporter, and only the reporter then a causal link between filming and the arrest would be more plausible. But the police were arresting other people who were refusing to disperse, too, so their reason is more consistent with the events that occurred as compared to your claim that the police were arresting people for filming.
At this point I, too, have concluded I'm not talking to someone arguing in good faith. You're making an assertion based on preconceived notion about how the police behave and operate, ignoring the fact that this isn't at all consistent with the events that transpired, and accusing people who point this out of arguing in good faith. There isn't anything more to discuss here.
