SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Snopes reports
Six journalists could spend up to 10 years in prison after being arrested during protests against President Donald Trump's inauguration.
The Guardian identified the journalists as freelancer Aaron Cantú; Vocativ senior producer Evan Engel; Jack Keller, producer for the online documentary Story of America; independent journalists Matt Hopard and Shay Horse; and RT America reporter Alex Rubinstein.
The group was charged under a District of Columbia statute penalizing "every person who willfully incited or urged others to engage" in a riot causing more than $5,000 in property damage with the potential 10-year prison sentence and a fine of up to $25,000. More than 200 people in total were arrested the day of the 20 January 2017 inauguration; they were reportedly arraigned the following day and will be back in court in February and March.
[...] Another independent journalist and documentarian, Tim Pool, said on Twitter that he and two NBC News journalists were also arrested during the 20 January 2017 demonstrations but released without charges. Pool said that a supervising officer told him "no less than three times" that they were under arrest. NBC News has not responded to our request for comment regarding Pool's account.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:12PM
> I didn't realize Trump was out arresting protesters on his Inauguration day. Fact is these people were arrested that day,
That's not how it works. People are not automatons rigidly following orders.
People in the ranks take cues from the people at the top.
Trump's been broadcasting cues are loud as he possibly could since the day after the election and the people in the ranks that like him are particularly susceptible to taking those cues.
For example, the border agents who turned away canadians based on their opinions of trump. [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 27 2017, @01:09AM
> People in the ranks take cues from the people at the top.
district of Columbia, London City, Vatican... who is at the top?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by schad on Friday January 27 2017, @03:12AM
"I was only following orders" isn't a legitimate defense, and neither is "I was only doing what I think the guy in charge would probably have wanted me to do."
Of course, a powerful person can make your life very unpleasant if you don't do as you're told. Which is why police have all sorts of protections against just that sort of thing. Seriously, if we're going to require anyone to refuse to follow unlawful orders, it's got to be cops.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @03:35AM
Its literally the opposite of following orders. Its indulging your biases because you think you've now got institutional cover to do it.
Cops have discretion because real life needs slack. Rigid adherence to the rules makes everything grind to a halt.
But the price we pay for that slack is that it will be abused. The people at the top set the tone for whether, and what kinds, of abuse will be tolerated.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:20AM
Rigid adherence to the rules makes everything grind to a halt.
Only because bureaucracy is out of control. Force every agent of the state to follow the rules, and the politicians will be forced to simplify the rules until they get so simple that anyone can understand them. Then the people will also be able to follow the rules, and only real criminals will be criminals, who gets thrown into prison will no longer be a matter of "discretion".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @05:59PM
Again you've got it exactly backwards.
The rules constrain the cops more than they constrain the people.
Less rules, means more discretionary power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @07:19PM
"The rules constrain the cops more than they constrain the people."
good!
(Score: 3, Informative) by wisnoskij on Friday January 27 2017, @05:15AM
That is not how the law works. No country allows you in after you say you are coming to protest. You area allowed to come in and spend thousands of dollars (otherwise they do not want you). I have seen people who were harassed for not carrying enough money with them (they only had access to $4K).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @06:01PM
> No country allows you in after you say you are coming to protest.
I'll take made up facts for $1,000 Alex!
> I have seen people who were harassed for not carrying enough money with them
100% irrelevant to the discussion. A further sign you aren't playing with a full deck.