To be clear, that the alleged victim is a credentialed journalist is immaterial to the alleged crime. Please show me where special legal status is given to journalists in regard to situations like this.
To be clear, I expressed reservations about the state of journalism, and by extension journalists, but still support a free press. Don't try to portray me as a fascist.
To be clear, I said it's a matter for a judge or jury to decide if said journalist was clubbed on purpose, and likewise, to decide on a penalty, if any, if it turns out that said officer is found guilty. He's presumed innocent.
To be clear, that the alleged victim is a credentialed journalist is immaterial to the alleged crime
I disagree. I'm assuming the victim's credentials were visible. I guess whether that is correct will come out.
If I called you - or implied you were - a fascist I apologize. I should not have done that, and looking back at some of my comments I wish i hadn't been so snippy. I meant to be arguing that properly credentialed witnesses documenting a police action should not have to fear a personal attack by the police.
I agree that he is presumed innocent. The fact that there is a video allows us all to look at the second strike.
And I get that you disagree about the status of a journalist matters, but it really it is legally immaterial. Random dude smacked on head = journalist smacked on head. I get that from a subjective moral point of view because you value the press, you see it as: random dude smacked on head < journalist smacked on head.
You're right but with a little more emphasis on the smacker than the smackee. Police have special powers when it comes to smacking, and I think that special scrutiny should go along with those special powers when there is the suggestion that they have been abused.
To be clear, that the alleged victim is a credentialed journalist is immaterial to the alleged crime. Please show me where special legal status is given to journalists in regard to situations like this.
To be clear, I expressed reservations about the state of journalism, and by extension journalists, but still support a free press. Don't try to portray me as a fascist.
To be clear, I said it's a matter for a judge or jury to decide if said journalist was clubbed on purpose, and likewise, to decide on a penalty, if any, if it turns out that said officer is found guilty. He's presumed innocent.
You have two sides of this story. Remember that.
I disagree. I'm assuming the victim's credentials were visible. I guess whether that is correct will come out.
If I called you - or implied you were - a fascist I apologize. I should not have done that, and looking back at some of my comments I wish i hadn't been so snippy. I meant to be arguing that properly credentialed witnesses documenting a police action should not have to fear a personal attack by the police.
I agree that he is presumed innocent. The fact that there is a video allows us all to look at the second strike.
Meh, it's okay. Thanks.
And I get that you disagree about the status of a journalist matters, but it really it is legally immaterial. Random dude smacked on head = journalist smacked on head. I get that from a subjective moral point of view because you value the press, you see it as: random dude smacked on head < journalist smacked on head.
You're right but with a little more emphasis on the smacker than the smackee. Police have special powers when it comes to smacking, and I think that special scrutiny should go along with those special powers when there is the suggestion that they have been abused.