Sheriff admits that intent was to inconvenience
Outisde the jail in St. Paul on the evening of September 3rd, this Ramsey County Sheriff in his statement was asked why the prisoners were being released in undisclosed locations instead of right there at the jail where there was support and would not answer. When asked if it was to inconvenience folks he said "yeah, there you are. Ok?" Watch the video:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/09/04/18532904.php
arrestee explains what happened to a legal observer being arrested, video:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/09/04/arrestoflegalobserver.mpg
frame by frame of concussion grenade explosion on 9/2, photo sequence:
http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2008/09/64729.php
- 545 reads
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Misleading
When asked why he wouldn't give the information, there are a number of people that ask a question at the same time. The ones that say "to make it inconvenient" are on the right side of the sheriff, close to the camera. The Sheriff responds to the guy in glasses on his left, who asked a question that was inaudible. It isn't clear what the question was but the response was "yeah, there you are, ok". Not exactly a smoking gun or even a relevant piece of information. As if it matters anyway. Great, you've been inconvenienced. Thank you Saint Paul Police.
not misleading
I verified with several people after the incident including the person in the black hat with whom the cop was making eye-contact at the time. I asked the people who were talking what they had been saying at that moment, and asked other folks standing there what they heard. Everyone I spoke with agreed that although several people were talking at the same time, all of them were talking about the same thing, how the process was intentionally inconvenient. You can hear exactly that if you listen carefully to the audio with headphones.
Amazing!
I can't possibly imagine how this group of people would agree about something like that. The "interviews" that you had with these people are nothing more than hearsay. We aren't able to listen to the interviews and hear the questions you asked of them. You mean with headphones you can pick out the 4 or 5 different people talking at the same time and verify that they are all asking the same question? Those must be magical headphones. I can't find mine. Let me reiterate that this is no scoop. If true, it's the least the cops can do. You're just trying to fuel these people by consistently putting out misleading tapes and stories containing pure editorial bias.
how it works
> I can't possibly imagine how this group of people would agree about something like that.
It was simple, after I recorded it, I wanted to confirm, and I asked people, one of whom, the person in the black hat, he was having eye contact with. They all agreed.
> The "interviews" that you had with these people are nothing more than hearsay.
Yes, that is called journalism, you get the opinions of the folks who are willing to talk. "Hearsay" may not be admissible in various types of court cases, but getting opinions and trying to put them together in a coherent way is what journalists do. Journalists who rejected all hearsay would not have much material. In fact the term "hearsay" doesn't have a meaning that I understand in this context.
> We aren't able to listen to the interviews and hear the questions you asked of them.
That's true that the camera wasn't running at that point, I was just informally confirming what I thought I had just shot before getting a chance to look and listen to it later that night. Luckily, however, you can hear multiple people using the word "inconvenience" before the sheriff agreed, if you simply listen to what I put up.
> You mean with headphones you can pick out the 4 or 5 different people talking at the same time and verify that they are all asking the same question? Those must be magical headphones.
Standard headphones work just fine, you will hear what people are saying when the sheriff agrees, it's quite clear.
> I can't find mine. Let me reiterate that this is no scoop. If true, it's the least the cops can do.
Stick to that point then, it will hold up better, the "yeah maybe he said that but so what?"
> You're just trying to fuel these people by consistently putting out misleading tapes and stories containing pure editorial bias.
Well, like all journalists, we have to make opinions about the voices we trust and those we don't. Some peple seem to be more credible than others, which makes me wonder about if you might have any conflict of interest yourself.... My name is Nick, my bias is usually towards peace, justice and the voice of the less-empowered. I can be emailed at nickcooper@indymedia.org. What is your contact info?
The problem that I see is
The problem that I see is that there are so many "media" members these days that you have no idea who's really a journalist and who's just running around with a camera looking for trouble. There are many people who write their own blogs and call themselves journalists. That essentially means that there is a potential for those involved in a particular movement to be the ones reporting the stories.
What is so striking is that the mainstream media has covered these protests so differently than the independent media. I know those around here would say that the mainstream media are just trying to cover for the cops. I just fail to see how you can have a Kare 11 journalist talking about how professional the cops were, that he was treated well, that he saw no one else being treated badly, yet we hear about "torture" over and over from the independent media.
I tend to be biased on the side of mainstream media as I know that journalistic integrity is something they have to worry about on some level. Fairness is something they have to worry about. Independent media, having really one god, only have to worry about that side of the issue. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.
If you are reporting stuff like this, yes, you obviously have a bias and you've said as much. Admittedly, I don't think it's a story even if it's true and perhaps I've jumped into 2 different arguments. The problem is that every video or story you've posted either is missing part of the story, part of the audio, or unable to be disseminated, for those who are interested in the whole story. I'm not asking that you be un-biased, I'm just saying that if you were to point out those gaps within the story, you would be displaying journalistic integrity.
Isn't that part of the reason why the mainstream media is more respected, because they at least attempt to acknowledge those things and acknowledge the other side of the story? If that attempt is not made, the whole thing can be dismissed as rhetoric. That's my opinion of course, but I would say the same thing if you had been solely reporting from the opposite side of the issue.
no torture on tv does not equal no torture
The torture report was not a matter of conjecture for me. I interviewed people right as they came out of jail. The corporate media was not there. Here are the voices of several people who saw it:
http://media.houston.indymedia.org/uploads/2008/09/rncarrestees.mp3
The corporate media don't admit that they have corporate, statist, speciesist, racist, and cultural biases. I admit mine.
I think it's very important to evaluate our sources, and that's why your complaints would carry more legitimacy if they were not anonymous. For all anyone knows you are being paid to comment on indymedia pages.
Legal Observer
It wasn't clear from the video what the legal observer was charged with. Are you aware of the charges?
Post new comment