Cops' war on free speech hits home
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Cops' war on free speech hits home
Keeping America safe from the evil Associated Press:
If police and protesters skirmish around the Republican National Convention, count on Philadelphia Associated Press photographer Matt Rourke to be in the middle of the action.
He was rewarded for his efforts Monday by being doused with pepper spray, knocked down and arrested by St. Paul police.
Rourke was shooting photos of the protesters at a parking lot at 7th and Jackson streets, in downtown St. Paul, when police converged from three directions on protesters that they regarded as particularly troublesome.
"We were encircled, and as I moved toward the officers in front of me in a passive manner, my legs were taken out from behind in an aggressive manner," Rourke said yesterday after 12 hours in jail.
That's why we all need to condemn this unnecessary abuse of power by the police in St. Paul -- there's no excuse for confusing a newsman doing his job with actual lawbreakers. If it could happen to a regular Philly guy like Matt Rourke, it could happen to you.
Comments (88)
"as bird11 did before he wandered off into Republican Lackeyland" LOL!!! This seems to be a very popular place with many of the posters on here.— Damgoodbodies- "Not being charged doesn't make you innocent - it means they didn't have enough evidence to charge him." --- Read this again, everyone, and think about what this really means.— Politburo
- Is there any video of Rourke walking passively toward the police? Why does the left describe these kinds of events like a child would do? Why is it always like, "We were minding our own business, and the police attacked us." My children always claim complete innocence when confronted about a disaster that occurs in their proximity? The police are far from perfect, but come on!!— A Friend
Politboro - what it "really means" is that during a riot you get control first and then you make a decision on what should be done about prosecution. What are you going to have 250-300 trials that involve a police officer saying, I saw this guy throw a rock? And even if they have video by the time it hits court the lovely citizen suddenly owns a suit, has a haircut and shave, and isn't wearing a bandana around his face. Thats what it "really means".— bird11- damgood - it is almost as popular as the name calling directed to anyone with a point of view that differs from Will Bunch.— bird11
- bird11 - In our justice system, innocence is presumed. You don't appear to believe in that fundamental concept.— Politburo
- Hey Will, what's a regular Philly guy? In my old neighborhood a regular Philly guy would have been someone willing to fistfight over nothing. Again I ask, what is your point? Have you been watching the same newscasts that I have? All I see are anarchists destroying property and attacking civilians and Police with the Police responding. There have been no peaceful demostrations. If you defend violence as freedom of speech, then I demand my right to use force as a counter measure.— junethe4th
- Oh Goodie Politboro, let's play the semantics game, yeahhhhh!!!!!!! Wow, I thought this was going to be some deep conspiracy theory. Obviously my point was clear but since it disagrees with your opinion I am suddenly un-American.— bird11
- C'mon Politburo, clearly the poster who said "Not being charged doesn't make you innocent - it means they didn't have enough evidence to charge him." meant that while the person may not be innocent, the police didn't have probable cause.— legatus
- "Obviously my point was clear but since it disagrees with your opinion I am suddenly un-American." Your point was far from clear. You played a guessing game with the cameraman's intentions, then went so far as to suggest that even while he may not have did anything wrong, he may have *gasp* agreed with the protestors. As ofr the second part of your sentence, didn't you basically say that anyone who disagrees with the police are anti-police?— RG
- Hey bird11, don't waste your breathe responding to the comments from neosocialistic recreants. Their minds are closed to any idea that does not conform to theirs.— junethe4th
- Leaving aside the principle of presumed innocence, the police were right there the whole time. If they didn't have probable cause regarding events in their plain view, then it's quite likely the man is indeed innocent by most any definition. But you seem to think that isn't the case.. do you not believe the police?— Politburo
- No RG it was clear - here I'll summarize. I made the statement that Rourke may have sympathized with the protesters and went from photographer to participant then back to photographer when it became convient to do so. And I made it CLEAR that I was just hypothesizing. BTW the police chiefs comments which were posted saying "If a reporter is committing crimes while they're under their credentials," (Police Chief)Harrington added, "I think they become regular citizens" tells me that someone else believes he may have gone from photographer to participant. RG, POLIBORO, PAL, DAMGOOD, et al - you would never agree that what a police officer does while wearing a uniform is ALWAYS legal, why wouldn't you believe the possibility that someone could break the law while wearing a "press credential" - which I imagine are given out like candy to these things.— bird11
- Politboro - since your post was not addressed to anyone in particular I will just point out that I never said the police lacked "probable cause" which is the only threshold they needed to meet - I said they either lacked the "beyond a reasonable doubt" (although not in those words)standard or made the prudent financial decision to not pursue because the time and money necessary was not worth it. The police controlled the riot - what cost/benefit would be involved with pursuing a prosecution.— bird11
- And terein lies your problem, bird11. You are hypothesizing, guessing, or imagining while ignoring the basic facts. Rourke works for a well known media outlet, the AP, had the appropriate credentials, and in the end wasn't charged with anything. But somehow, you've derived from this that he a) participated in the riot, b)egged on the protest by taking pictures or c) simply agreed with them.— RG
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: