Six reporters charged with "felony rioting" while covering inauguration protests (1 Viewer)

PayOrPlay

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
6,153
Reaction score
4,843
Location
Los Angeles
Offline
Inauguration: Four more journalists could face up to 10 years in prison after covering anti-Donald Trump protests | The Independent

A further four journalists are facing up to 10 years in prison and £20,000 fines after they were arrested while covering unrest in Washington DC after Donald Trump’s inauguration.

They have been named as Jack Keller, a producer for a web documentary series, Matt Hoppard, an independent journalist who was live-streaming the events online, Shay Horse, an independent photojournalist and activist, and Aaron Cantu, whose LinkedIn profile describes him as an editorial and web intern at The Nation magazine. They were arrested at the same time as Evan Engel of the technology news website Vocativ and Alex Rubenstein of Russia Today (RT) America.

****

The criminal complaint said they had been charged with a rioting offence under section 1332(b) of Washington DC's criminal code which carries a maximum penalty of up to 180 days in prison and a fine of up to $1,000, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). But the language of the complaint refers to rioting that results in bodily harm or more than $5,000 in damage – a much more serious offence that carries a maximum penalty of a $25,000 fine and 10 years in prison.

All six appeared in the US capital's Superior Court and were released on bail until further hearings in February and March.
Interesting that one of them is an RT reporter. What will happen here?
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,812
Offline
Mistakes happen. His case will be dismissed for sure.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,462
Reaction score
41,503
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Kind of a crappy article. I get there might not be much to go on, but why mention the crowd size stuff? Seems like fluff.

Were these people just doing their jobs as journalists or not? Were they rioting? None of them work for any publications (other than the one RT guy) and one was labeled as an independent journalist and activist.

I'd want to know more before they media goes all "Journalism freedom" here.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,812
Offline
I disagree, and think you're on the wrong side of presumption here. The same was done at DAPL to intimidate. Hopefully, as there they'll eventually be dismissed by judges with more ethics than police zealous to help Trump. There was at least one reporter with a charge still to be dismissed in the DAPL intimidation bullcrap last I checked. I'm not sure what happened to her case.

People with cameras and output that's actually been visible live by third parties and credentials and jobs as journalists have a higher than usual presumption of innocence. It's a shame that false arrest charges don't end police careers the way they should across the country when it becomes clear the officer knew he was imprisoning someone without just cause.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,462
Reaction score
41,503
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I disagree, and think you're on the wrong side of presumption here. The same was done at DAPL to intimidate. Hopefully, as there they'll eventually be dismissed by judges with more ethics than police zealous to help Trump. There was at least one reporter with a charge still to be dismissed in the DAPL intimidation bullcrap last I checked. I'm not sure what happened to her case.
Maybe, but there isn't anything to go off of here.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,812
Offline
The fact that they actually had press credentials and work in journalism and at least one of them had video output covering the event are more than "anything" in my opinion.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,812
Offline
BTW, trying to seize the cameras, phones and footage is pretty pathetically showing the intent is to block press coverage. Some of it went out live, though, and others captured events, but to not return belongings clearly unrelated to commission of a crime when you release someone on bail is serious abuse of authority, and is in line with what was done on DAPL and other cases where the government has tried to use police to stifle reporting. You don't use a camera to riot.
 

SouthernMissSaint

Veteran Starter
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
427
Reaction score
628
Offline
Both sides of presumption are short of truth. Presumptions and assumptions are enemies of reason. Where are the facts? How can any reasonable person form an opinion without hearing the facts of a matter?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom