A more eloquent response:
A free press guards against tyranny and abuse of power," said Ramona
Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California, "and
those who abuse power inevitably seek to control the images we see
and the stories we hear."
"We ordinarily receive calls after protests," Ripston added, "but
never in my memory have we received so many calls from members of the
media who were attacked."
"Al Crespo was targeted because the recording eye of his camera
threatened to capture the LAPD's violent and lawless behavior," said
Ripston. "The bullets that struck him were not simply aimed at him.
Their ultimate aim was to dislodge the eyes and ears of the public,
to control our understanding of the events that unfolded Monday
night, and to shut down the truth-telling role that media, at their
best, can play."
"The dangers here, both physical and Constitutional, are grave," said
Ripston. "They demand of us a vigilant and swift response. We cannot
allow the Los Angeles Police Department to operate free of the
constraints of public scrutiny - we know too well what happens when
they do."
They get away with this? Down the line, the bullets won't be rubber.
john marlow
--> > 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". > > John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT