Re: Transparency, was re: On January 28th, Criminals No Longer Another Face in the TampaStadium Crowd

From: John Marlow (
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 00:01:14 MST

There's also a PR on the aclu site--but it's less interesting. The
facts as alleged by the aclu are presented in the article I sourced--
along with some additional perspectives not included on the aclu
site. The character of the LA Weekly thus becomes largely irrelevant,
and in fact I was wondering what sort of comments might arise which
were unrelated to the story itself.

Go read this instead:

You'll be happier.

I tell you this, however: Police trained in the use of "less-than-
lethal" weapons are specifically warned that aiming at the head with
baton, flashlight, rubber bullets, whatever--IS DEADLY FORCE.

If you see nothing wrong with police deliberately
intimidating/attacking journalists and seizing/destroying the
evidence thereof, well--perhaps you'd find eastern Europe to your


On 4 Feb 2001, at 10:14, Chris Russo wrote:

> I read your post and what you quoted and thought, "Wow, that sounds
> bad. Some guy was shot by the cops in LA?" But when I followed the
> link, I learned that the cops were only firing rubber bullets. I'm
> sure they sting like an SOB, but if the guy had been shot in Kosovo,
> it wouldn't have been with rubber bullets.
> The whole time I was reading the article, I was wondering about the
> motivation of the police officers. Did a riot seem imminent? Had
> officers been injured? Was there some type of perceived threat to
> innocent bystanders or public property? Unfortunately, the article
> doesn't cover the police perspective except for one little quote from
> a police spokesperson. Instead of providing any real information
> about the event that might have given a discerning reader a full
> picture of what happened, the article seemed only to pander to
> typical anti-police sentiment in the worst one-sided way.
> Even if you take all of the complaints as true - a dubious decision
> at best - the worst things that happened were that a woman was
> knocked down and cut her knee, and a guy lost his camera. If that's
> all that happened and a serious riot was prevented, I say,
> "Congratulations to the LAPD".
> I'm curious. How can you read such an obviously one-sided article
> and reference it here as though it validates your argument?
> Such a wonderful news site, that A real paragon of
> journalism. Here's a little teaser from another article they're
> running:
> >President Jackass
> >
> >America may want to
> >forget and move on, but
> >the evidence keeps
> >piling up on just how
> >badly Stupid George
> >lost the election. By
> >John Seeley
> Ugh,
> Chris Russo
> >You wanna practice full disclosure? Here's what happened to the likes
> >of David Horowitz, NBC, ABC, AP, etc.--in full view of one another.
> >What do you think would happen to YOU, alone, on a lonesome road (or
> >crowded freeway, for that matter)?
> >
> >Your intentions may be good--but you know where that road leads...
> >
> >
> >
> >As one photog put it:
> >
> >“There’s clear time on both sides to recognize who we are, who the
> >police are and who the press is. And you know, we are supposed to
> >have a white flag,” Crespo said. “I was in Kosovo last year, you
> >know, and I didn’t get shot there. I got shot in Los Angeles.”
> >
> >john marlow

John Marlow

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT