Video: NYPD Blocks NY Times Photographer From OWS Arrests

Earlier today nearly 20 protesters were arrested in the atrium of the World Financial Centre following a protest against Goldman Sachs. This video appears to show a credentialed photographer attempting to photograph the arrests of protesters, being pushed back with a baton by one NYPD officer. Another officer continues to block his line of sight. "Touch me again," the photographer warns the officer before taking his name and badge number. The officer continues to block his vision, and he pulls out an iPhone to document what was occurring.

The incident in question begins at the 2:00 mark.

We're still confirming the identity of the photographer, but based on his own muffled introduction to the police officer, it appears to be Robert Stolarik, for the New York Times. Stolarik has been covering Occupy Wall Street extensively, and was one of the few journalists who was able to remain in Zuccotti Park during the November 14 raid. His photos of today's action appear with the article.

[UPDATE] Andy Newman, City Room's bureau chief, has confirmed that the photographer is in fact freelancer Robert Stolarik and that he was working for the Times this morning. We asked the Times if they plan on releasing a statement regarding the incident in light of a letter the paper signed, along with many other New York media outlets, condemning the NYPD's treatment of the press during Occupy Wall Street.

Though the paper isn't planning on releasing a statement, Eileen Murphy, VP of corporate communications for the Times, responds to our question via email:

The directive Commissioner Kelly issued reiterated that the police are not supposed to be interfering with the media’s ability to do their job and cover newsworthy events. We are disappointed that it seems, in this instance, not to have been followed or implemented on the ground.

This isn't the first time Stolarik has allegedly been mistreated by the NYPD. In 2004, the Villager reported that he was tackled to the ground attempting to photograph GOP convention protesters near Union Square.

“It’s the most uncomfortable I’ve ever been as a journalist and I’ve had a gun to my head in Colombia,” Stolarik, 35, said. “All of your rights can be taken away instantly.”

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Christopher Robbins in News on December 12, 2011 2:08 PM

Comments [rss]

Lazio_Giggalo

The Emperor and his NYPD Goon Squad Army strikes again! Of course the NYPD Goon Squad would take Civil Rights from Citizens on behalf of Goldman Sachs, they are the Banksters that made Bloomberg the richest and wealthiest monster that he is today! The Head of The Beast is Goldman Sachs, the Emperor gets his orders from the Beast! When Goldman Sachs goes down like Libya's Gadaffi and perhaps the Emperor Bloomberg seeks refuge to his country Israel we Americans can have our Constitutional Rights back! It's a Fight Against Evil and Fascism not seen since Nazi Germany! God Speed!

MordridTheGreat

HAHAHHAHH I like how the photographer bandies about these idol threats about reporting the copper for blocking his shot when there is nothing being done by the copper. All the fat photographer has to do is find another spot but he thinks he can bully the rotund copper...WRONG! What i find even funnier is that then he resorts to trying to hide behind his press credentials....HAHAHAHAH! And in the end he is swept away like the rest of the OWS trash.......I LOVE IT! When will these morons realize that the rest of the residents stopped caring about the OWS movement back in November when they tried to shut down the city. They made Bloomberg a hero after that and the OWS movement became a pariah. THE OWS REPRESENTATIVES SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT! For thlast time....OWS IS DEAD AND NO ONE CARES ABOUT IT ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA.....GET OVER IT!

FreeDumb1

Nypd animals who dont follow the rules, welcome to the police state

Vas

hey NYPD!..'You Can't Evict An Idea!
http://vimeo.com/33510884

Kevin Bud Jones

It's obvious that the NYPD has lost all morale and has no moral compass. I feel sorry for the blues who have become the army of the corporations and likely have lost their faith in the system they swore to serve when they were recruits. Rather than admit that they are powerless pawns in this game they become even more aggressive - which is a natural reaction to fear and helplessness. They know no other life. They have kids and wives and are watching as they lose the moral high ground that is the only thing that separates them from thugs with clubs. Will they ever wake up and realize they are abusing their own children and neighbors - and for what?

Farrish Carter

While photographing activities at Occupy Wall Street I was attacked by an agitator for taking pictures of him I demanded a policeman arrest him. The office asked what I was doing and I told him, "taking pictures." The cop told me I had to stop taking pictures if someone asked me to stop. Even though I was so outraged at my situation I was more disgusted by the officer's response. I laughed at him and told him, "that what you would like isn't it? Maybe you need to check your law when you get home. Now I have an even better understanding of why the people in this park are so angry." The police want photographic evidence silenced. This is going to get a lot worse if action is not taken, action by all of us to demand transparency. If they are doing nothing wrong why are they so desperate to silence us?

Obamatheracist

Anybody else see that baby carriage bouncing down the steps?

Tim Osman

Yeah with Kevin Costner waiting to catch the baby

cloudschange2

Butseriouslythough has a good point. This is the "heat of the moment" Why didn't the protester calmly accept being arrested? Agitation on one side can only incite agitation on the other. I'd like to see more Ghandi -esque tactics on the OWS side as opposed to "baiting the beast".

TJHillgardner

The TARU unit cops (with the video cameras) will tell you that you can be arrested for obstructing governmental administration if you interfere with their taking pictures. Put the shoe on the other foot and they believe that interfering with the media taking pictures is their God-given right. And people wonder why the public is losing all respect for the police.

bobbyjfromtheuk12

Somewhere in NYC a doughnut shop owner just joined the 1%.

Gadea

Newt Gingrich, 2012 USA President.

butseriouslythough

I guess people see what they want to see. Here's what I see:

At 1:22, a "protestor" (in black ski cap) throws something at the back of a cop's head. The something knocks that same cop to the ground. (No one has commented on this yet).

At 1:30-1:35, the cops are trying to arrest the bald guy, while people in the vicinity are interfering. (Note the guy at 1:35 intentionally trip the cop).

At 1:48, in response, the cop's create a perimeter to give themselves space to make the arrest.

At 1:57, the reporter (upper left) believes this perimeter does not apply to him. (He is wrong, legally). He is then gently guided by one officer's hand to the edge of the perimeter. From that point on, he whines like a child while the cops indulge him.

What do you people think? If he has a license and press pass, he can go wherever he wants? The hysterics here about the constitution are ridiculous. People were undeniably interfering with the arrest, so cops moved people away. They can do this to effect the arrest, even to press. They don't have an obligation, in the heat of that moment, to sort between press and protesters.

nomadnewyork

I see what you see, except that I see the arrest starting before the provocateur threw something at the back of the cops head, I also saw him shoving at the cop (you missed that part). I want to see if I can figure out who that asshole was.

I see absolutely zero reason to keep the reporter back from reporting on the story.

butseriouslythough

As to this one reporter, yeah, it probably wouldn't have made a difference if he had stayed back there. But the point is that it is clearly a chaotic situation, and nearly everyone has some kind of camera. After they make the (seemingly reasonable) decision to form the perimiter, there's no way they can enforce it if they have sit around sorting between the credentialed and the non-credentialed. Believe, it is or not, the law does not choreograph every step police must take in these situations. The law allows police to make these sorts of reasonable, spur of the moment decisions in the interest of safety. And there's nothing here to me that seemed unreasonable to me--except for the reaction of that whining b of a reporter. Oh my! You TOUCHED me! I'll have your BADGE for this! Speaking of thicker skins, if he wants to get right in the thick of things like that, he needs to grow one.

Chris Malone

Assuming we both agree on why police form perimeters, and that hot headed behavior doesn't help any situation, your argument is dead right here:

"As to this one reporter, yeah, it probably wouldn't have made a difference if he had stayed back there"

Done.

As soon as you said that the discussion is over. Everything else is just shit that everyone else knows and no one is arguing. In this specific case, the cop abused his authority. He kept a press photographer form doing his job in a manner that was unprofessional and borderline childish. The response of the photographer, while it was over the top, was a response to the antagonistic behavior of the officer. When officers act inappropriately they put their fellow officers in trouble, and damage the public's trust in them.

Everyone knows that law enforcement (hell any kind of enforcement official) make judgement calls based on the situation. This officer (the uh... stocky individual) made a bad one. He acted the way he did on purpose and then continued to act like a dick, not because he had to act like a dick to do his job, but because he knows that he'll get away with it.

picaflor

bullshit excuse
yellow, very clear and obvious press pass easily distinguishes media

fuck 'em - fuck those criminals

TJHillgardner

A lot of what you say is wrong on the facts and I don't have time to go through it. But on the law, the press credentials give this photographer the right to go beyond police lines. The perimeter does not apply to him. You obviously know nothing about NYPD press credentials.

m015094

NYC Press Pass (as with many others) does allow credentialed people to cross police/fire/EMS lines. However (and I know you're not going to like this), it is at the discretion of the police so as to not interfere with ongoing operations.

Don't like it? Take it up with the Mayor. I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear your opinion on the matter.

butseriouslythough

In all circumstances? So a reporter with a valid press pass can just walk on to a crime scene during the investigation? That will come as news to those (apparently stupid) NY1 correspondents, who are are always reporting from outside the police line.

In any event, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to provide misinformation about the law applicable to press passes!

Buickciti

Just to clear up any misinformation:

This is printed on a City of New York issued Press Card: "The bearer is entitled to subject to safety and evidence preservation concerns, cross police, fire lines, or other restrictions, limitations, or barriers established by the City of New York at emergency, spot, or breaking news events and public events of a non-emergency nature where police, fire lines, or other restrictions, limitations, or barriers established by the City of New York have been set up for security or crowd control purposes."

Press Passes are issued by the NYPD after it is determined that you have a clean record and submit 6 breaking news clips from a 24 month period. (It was more difficult in the past to get Press Credentials but since the changes it has become to easy to get them)

I agree that some Police Officers have been a hindrance to Photographers in the past and at times can make things difficult for Photographers to document events. However, Stolarik overstepped his role as a journalist by interfering with the police line and verbally threatening/harassing the officer. In all seriousness, a journalist should have professionalism.

hotstepper

as this and many other videos demonstrate, the police are seriously some of the best advocates for the Occupy movement. keep up the great work!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

shocktheday

Corporations and their CEOs can stand having their products delayed from being exported and imported. Unfortunately, the bulk of people who will be hurting are the blue collar workers which won't be paid today. That includes all the smaller retailers who depend on just in time inventory to make a living unlike larger retailers who stock up at distribution centers. Great Work !

hotstepper

yeah its complicated, baby. welcome to the messy world of protest.
http://www.longshoreshippingne...

shocktheday

Longshoremen on average make almost 3x the national average; the managerial positions can make upwards of $150K - $200K; they're not hurting ... yet .... Go protest the Obama Administration who are trying to bypass our ports and have imports flow freely through the Mexican ports as well as making our truck drivers compete with Mexican drivers. http://www.economicpopulist.or...

bggb

But Emperor Bloomberg told me the NYPD doesn't interfere with the press covering OWS actions.

Damn my lying eyes.

Tim Osman

Yeah and the commish even put out a memo to remind everyone

etypical

stop chanting like a preschoolers, I can't take grown ups who chant kiddie slogans (shame! shame! shame!) seriously.

horsechoker

Oh no! What ever will they do without your respect?

etypical

Hopefully cry all the way home. Assuming their families will still take them in.

picaflor

OFFS

etypical

Is offs supposed to mean something? Maybe if you get it chanted...

picaflor

it's called Google you lazy ass

etypical

You need someone to do your work for you. Typical. Bug off.

picaflor

you got it twisted, son

but hey, your handle says it all

whysenhymer

It's behavior like this that leads to people applauding when a cop gets shot in the face by a burglar, something that never should happen. Our police have been compromised and it is bad for all of us.

Gadea

Nobody should be applauding when a Police Officer is gunned down
by a lowlife thug.
The cops were doing their job, that camera guy should have been
arrested for disorderly conduct, as he was harassing the cop.

I am very happy that one of the thugs that murdered Police Officer
Peter Figoski was caught by Officer Glenn Estrada.
After trial and conviction, the thug, Lamont Pride, should
be executed for shooting Police Officer Figoski, causing his death.
May Officer Figoski Rest in Peace.
Terrible tragedy death of a Police Officer.

whysenhymer

While I agree that nobody should be applauding, they remain a-clappin. Just look at the comments on that story. I agree that their feelings towards the fallen officer are a case of misplaced aggression. They probably really want to see pushy cop # 3 from this footage or maybe chief pepper spray from UC Davis gunned down. But I am, admittedly, speculating.

I was simply pointing out that when Police act in a manner that is perceived as affecting all Americans by disrupting free speech/ peaceable protests it damages thier relationship with the community they pledge to protect and subsequently causes a rift in empathy for the people that occupy those uniforms.

As for arresting a member of the press for doing his job I find a bit, well I hate to throw labels around, but its seems a bit authoritarian to silence the media for covering a news worthy event like this.

NYCLowNote

These are two COMPLETELY separate issues. What happened to Office Figoski is a travesty, and a true felony. The criminal who attacked him deserves what's coming to him.

However, attempting to drawn any sort of connection between protestors, who at worst, are committing nuisance level misdemeanors, and a cold blooded, self-serving felon is ludicrous.

shocktheday

The pudgy cop didn't even touch the photographer, yet the photographer kept verbally threatening that particular officer.

NYCLowNote

Yeah, I thought that too - but watch it again. He's talking to the cop who shoves him down the stairs, and who comes in behind the pudgy cop a few times. The photog then starts to vent on the pudgy cop, who continues to knowingly block his shot while giving that smug "yeah, yeah, yeah, it's no big deal" smile that police everywhere seem to learn as a tactic to distance themselves from frustrated bystanders.

Innajunglestylee

To us a classic cop-apologist refrain, you didn't see what happened BEFORE the video started, did you?

m015094

Yeah, before this video was shot, the cops were spraying the press with fire hoses and pepper-spraying the shit out of them. Also, they broke a guys arm and killed a dude.

NYCLowNote

Also: Would be kind of interesting to see what happens the next time cops get
blue flu; wonder how they would react when the national guard comes in
and beat them up. Wonder if they'd want the press to stay away then too.

m015094

Freedom on the press does not include interfering with an arrest and causing a public disturbance. Now, if they took your film, which they didn't, you might have a right to complain.

I'm sure the people who work at WFC (who aren't all Wall Street bankers!) were glad these idiots got kicked out.

TJHillgardner

The problem the cops had was that all the arrests were illegal because no one was warned or given a chance to leave. Moreover, the independent media folks were specifically trageted at this arrest. So give the "interfering with an arrest" crap a rest. Mike's private army is totally out of control.

Chris Malone

Has been for months. I'm sad to say that this kind of behavior hardly comes as a surprise. They've done plenty worse and come out w/o having any lasting repercussions. Welcome to the police state! ( just in case you didn't notice it creeping up over the last few months)

The only reason it might be a surprise to me is that Commisioner Kelly ordered his officers publicly to not interfere with the press (something this fucktard is clearly doing on film), warning that the officers in question would be subject to disciplinary action. But then again the term "disciplinary action" is vague and open ended.

The order in question was given on November 23rd:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

bggb

'interfering'? give me a f-cking break.

The cops don't actually get to call anything they want "interfering" and then justify barring press witness.

m015094

They didn't bar press witness. The "press" posted this on Youtube.

bggb

Right, they didn't harass the press. Good one.

luke_1

Yeah as we all know taking photos of an arrest sends magic beams and makes cops incapable of putting cuffs on some 20 year old liberal arts major. Cry me a river. I'm going to keep complaining.

m015094

That's funny. I just watched a video on youtube showing the people get arrested. It included the officers badge numbers and everything. So, tell me again how keeping the photographers a few feet away while the arrests were happening somehow impeded their press rights?

I mean, if there was some sort of NYPD cover-up, I wouldn't have just watched that video...correct?

Isaiah Tanenbaum

it wasn't that he was a few feet away, it's that the cops kept jumping in front of his shots, or pushing him around like he was some sort of rabid dog that had to be restrained.

Gadea

These protestors should just get out of Goldman Sachs, where they do not belong
and stop harassing the cops.

NYCLowNote

This sentence makes no sense.

Gadea

Those protestors do not work in Goldman Sachs, they are not
employees they do not belong there.
They should get the hell out of the building and stop bothering
the cops.
The camera guy was obstructing the cops in the performance of
their duty.

NYCLowNote

Ok, that's a fair statement; and it's one that I don't think we can fairly argue about because it sounds like you and I have two differing perspectives - and hey, that's cool, this is the US, we're allowed to disagree. Granted, just so we're clear, this means that if you're ever pissed about anything and wish to publicly decry it, you'd have to get a job at the place you wish to protest. Somehow, I don't buy that. And if you say that they should be in a public place, then fair enough, but this was a public atrium, so bear that in mind too - they're not exactly in the lobby of GS. The whole POINT of what they're doing is create a scene, and all of them go into it willing to be arrested; the issue isn't even if they're trespassing (which is debatable) - it's that the force used to evict them was unnecessary and the right of the press to cover it was being challenged.

m015094

The WFC is owned by Brookfield Office Properties and is not public property - even the atrium as you claim.

NYCLowNote

It's a public atrium on private property, so yes, you're correct in suggesting that people can be evicted if the property owner wants them gone. This is irrelevant in the context of the conversation, however. The protestors are breaking the law, and the media has a right to cover it, which was being limited. The only time the police can prevent the media from covering an event is if it puts the media in immediate danger, which this clearly doesn't.

TJHillgardner

Seems all the arrests are unwarranted as the "trespassers" were never notified that they were trespassing nor given an opportunity to leave.

luke_1

Goldman Sachs should get out of everywhere that they don't belong, too.

Tim Osman

FUCK YES

Rolo Dex

The NYPD, how fucking pathetic. Unionized pieces of shit, meat shields for the ultra-wealthy. How is it that some of them do this shit, then bitch about pensions? Not an OWS'er (whose actions I think are pretty immature) but the stupidity of these cops...

NYCLowNote

It is sort of heartbreaking - I keep WANTING to defend the police and believe that they're "just doing their job" - but time and time again they keep, as the video says, "embarrassing themselves." Plus, seems to me that police are supposed to respond to force with equal force, not instigate - which is EXACTLY what they're doing with this photographer. Moreover, how stupid can they be, bringing a TARU guy over to shoot it, generating only MORE of a record of their bullyish behavior. This is embarrassing, and it's sad.

Also, tangentially, how is that cop remotely in appropriate physical shape to be an officer? Let's assume that serious crimes were being committed here, do you really think he could chase down a suspect? What a mess this all is.

nomadnewyork

Me too. I've almost lost my faith. I keep waiting for the NYPD to regain it. I still have a tiny ounce of hope.

Chris Malone

Was wondering if any protesters were going to start using vuvuzelas. Would have thought they would have been much more widely used now that collapsible versions are on sale online for like $5.

Tim Osman

The only more annoying sound than a vuvuzela is a car alarm

Bernie_Geotz_Squirrel_Luv

I'm really glad no one got hurt. Yes, that includes the cops. I can only imagine how painful being slammed on the marble floor would feel like and if a head got bashed into the stairs is another one. But one side had the helmets.

NYCLowNote

It's true. The scale of the force used here is grossly disproportionate. These are non violent offenders, and I can't imagine how civil disobedience and, at worst, trespassing warrants this kind of behavior.

splicernyc

Because the police think and act like abusive parents who beat their kids for "talking back".

Bernie_Geotz_Squirrel_Luv

The NYCLU protects the civil liberties for all including the Facebook NYPD, but the NYPD protects the civil liberties for only a few. One day they'll learn but by then it's too late. The World has a way of balancing out.

randomtransplant

Seriously, can the NYPD please stop raising my blood level to the point I join the protests again!?

Every damn time my schedule starts to get back to normal, they have to go and remind me just how important this shit is all over again. I'm trying to at least half concentrate work, but the NYPD makes that really hard.

This shit is why you can learn more about the ports blockade on Twitter than the freaking "news".

Man up and manage your men, Kelly. This sick joke of a hack job does more to keep OWS relevant than any simple protest.

jfu222

It's infuriating. I often wonder whether the "police state" rumblings is just another rehash of protests of yesteryear ..only sounding new to people like me because I did not live through the 60's - 70's (I'm 37)

But someone please feel free to educate me, Is this the closest we've ever been to losing our civil liberties? Are things really "worse than ever before" or does it just seem that way because I never lived through anything like this?

nomadnewyork

I think that in allot of ways, it's worse. I was just a little kid in the '60s but I don't think that the cops were actually military in those days. I think that when they used to use the National Guard for that shit.

I also think that the press used to have allot more freedom in this country than they do now. I think that freedom of the press was more respected. This bullshit about needing a special NYPD press pass is outrageous. I've been watching them do this to the press and get away with it for almost 10 years, I know of at one reporter who was badly injured in 2012.

randomtransplant

On the one hand, people arn't getting fire hoses & dogs turned on them yet. The army hasn't been called in to bust up any strikes at a Ford plant.

But on the other hand, they didn't have stop frisk, ketteling, ENY squatters weren't being evicted in a matter of 24 hours, councilmen weren't beaten up for trying to join a peaceful gathering, Senator Levin wasn't accusing the President of insisting that citizens be denied due process live on CSPAN (http://sherriequestioningall.b.......

All I know is, it would be harder to fight the civil rights battles of the past in the current climate. I don't want all those people who sacrificed, to have scarified in vain.

Obviously this is all just my personal perspective.

Tim Osman

I think the main difference is not the issues being protested against but the control of information. It used to be until very recently that people had to rely on the media for information but now with cameras and the internet it's a different game. Additionally that means the authorities have to be restrained in their responses or risk losing support.

Tim Osman

Did you not pay attention to the Patriot Act? Do you not have any idea what the Department of Homeland Security does? Do you not know about this - http://www.truth-out.org/wall-... ?
Do you not know about what was just passed in congress and is waiting for the president's approval - The National Defense Authorization Act?

jfu222

I do ..and have.. I am just not a huge history buff and unsure if the general sentiments of the country are simliar to any other period of american history.

Tim Osman

We could analyze history all day - I would venture to guess that civil liberties are being taken away unlike never before.

I think we should try to focus on what is happening here and now and if it is indeed a police state.

jfu222

They should not have purposely blocked his camera as he moved around. Wtf.

Tim Osman

It's something out of an SNL skit, only kids do immature stuff like that

galaxytime

my tax money... :(

gaelic47

Yes, your tax money is being wasted on paying a short, squat, fat, out of shape dickhead to be an officer of the law. There's no way in hell that guy could run a mile and a half in 12 minutes (requirement to get on the NYPD) or pass their obstacle course in 2 and a half minutes.

galaxytime

mm, iono...i've seen some fit cops hanging around my neighborhood.

Gothamist_Cynic

Learn how to use a telephoto lens you moron.

oanda

Guess what thats a 24-70 lens. Not a telephoto lens. So how about you get educated before you open your mouth?

Isaiah Tanenbaum

spoken like someone who doesn't know a damn thing about photography.

or, you know, his first amendment rights.

PhotoR

Telephoto lenses don't give you the look that sells papers/subscriptions.

Senen L

"If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough" - Robert Capa

That stement is as true as it ever was.

Tim Osman

So very true!

Tim Osman

Que?

Guest

First Amendment or no, threatening a cop is STUPID!

Isaiah Tanenbaum

he was threatening to report the cop for getting in the way of his shot and pushing him around. that isn't a threat, it's a defense of his rights as a photographer. if nobody is willing to report police crimes then they will continue to happen and there will be no rights.

you're acting like he was threatening to slug the cop or something.

Guest

"Touch me again" is not a threat about getting in his way. We know what he meant. His right as a photographer is to get pictures of whatever he is reporting about. I don't know about you or him, but my camera phone gets a really good shot from a distance. I'm betting his equipment is even better. The cop did not stop him from taking pictures. I can't stand cops, but I can't stand whiny punks either.

Isaiah Tanenbaum

You think he meant he was going to punch a cop. I don't see that. He clearly was collecting badge numbers. "Touch me again and I report you" is what he meant, and obviously he acted on that threat. Oh no. The horrors.

And he said it, by the way, in a heated moment in the middle of a protest after he had already been shoved down half a flight of stairs by baton-wielding policemen. I think you can afford to give him a little bit of leeway before assuming he was saying he was going to punch someone.

And your shitty cameraphone pictures won't get picked up by the NY Times. Nor will a telephoto shot taken from across the street. And even the best cameras can't shoot through cops' bodies.

Guest

If that's what he meant, that's what he should have said. When people say something doesn't matter. I've been angry enough to kill, but I didn't do it because I knew better. Blaming emotion or heat of the moment for making a stupid decision is a path taken by weak, guilty people.
Also, if even the best cameras can't shoot through cops' bodies, then why make this into a Federal case? You're disproving everything you've brought up. And yet you still can't admit that threatening a cop is stupid. I feel sorry for people like you that are so stuck in their own agenda that they can't see things as they are.

Isaiah Tanenbaum

Your first paragraph is just simply ignoring everything I wrote and re-stating that you believe it to be a physical threat, despite the evidence, the context, the video right in front of you, and the very actions of the photographer that followed that "threat" (ie he recorded badge numbers and, presumably, reported them).

Maybe you're not a New Yorker, Cowboy fan, but surely you're acquainted with our, shall we say, aggressive speech patterns? It's part of the culture of New York, and it was part of the context of a protest being forcibly put down all around them. Context matters. Evidence matters. Actions matter. Your wild suppositions do not.

Your second paragraph doesn't even make sense. Cops aren't allowed to deliberately block credentialed photographers from recording police actions. Cops bodies block cameras. Therefore, yes, the photographer can, and should, "make a federal case" if need be. Literally.

Guest

Aggressive speech patterns or not, you DON'T threaten an officer. It's just dumb. Did Martin Luther King, Jr. ever threaten an officer during his marches? No, and you see how well that ended. Very well. And a cop has just as much right to stand in a certain place as anyone else. You are the one not making sense. You are defending the actions of an idiot. Technology today means that you don't have to be 2 feet away from what you're taking a picture of. In fact, being above the action, in a building taking pictures from a distance would be the best line of sight and give you the best pictures.

Isaiah Tanenbaum

You are a goddamn fool and, probably, a troll, but I just can't stop. So good for you, troll. But this is my last post on the matter because part of me believes there is still hope for you to see how wrong you are.

It's already been very patiently explained to you that:

a) journalist photographers do not, and cannot use telephoto lenses for this type of work

b) even if they could, this was indoors, so there is no possibility of "taking pictures from above" or "across the street" as you have variously suggested

c) even if (b) and (c) weren't true, according to the law, cops cannot interfere with the work of credentialed photographers except where there is an imminent safety threat. It is a wild, wild misrepresentation of the facts to pretend that that was going on here. The cop isn't just "standing in a certain place" he is deliberately putting himself between the photographer and his shot, adjusting his position so as best to block the shots. Others were pushing the photographer around, including down a flight of stairs.

d) therefore, these law-breaking cops can and should be reported. This was the nature of the "touch me again" threat WHICH CAN BE SEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE VIDEO, despite your wild and completely unsupported claims that this was a threat to violence, which is not seen in the video.

Promising to report police officers who break the law, even if there are ways for you to accommodate that law-breaking (which, in this case, as has been said many times, there were not), is not "threatening cops", it is not stupid, it is your RIGHT as a citizen.

I only hope you are so fortunate that you never have to decide between advocating for your rights and your usually well-placed deference for men in uniform.

Good day, see you on another thread.

Guest

First off, let's start off with my initial comment. I said that threatening a cop is STUPID! If you disagree with that, then please go up to a cop and threaten them. Secondly, since my initial comment, the author of this post has reworded it. Thirdly, I never once said the cop wasn't illegally impeding the photographer. ALL I FUCKING SAID WAS THAT THREATENING A COP IS STUPID! You and many other dumb shits made it into something completely different. Even making it into something different, I'm STILL FUCKING RIGHT. The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to do as they please in its name. Period. Now, I will see you on another thread, and I expect your reading comprehension will be just as borderline retarded as it was in this one.