From The constitution still applies to “democratic” cities Deep
The city of Portland, Oregon, is still in the middle Protests against anti-police violence Growing From killing George Floyd, a Minneapolis resident, was arrested by police officer Derek Chauvin. Federal officials arrived in Portland in July and announced their presence with some involvement Very questionable methods.
Their arrival comes amid ongoing lawsuits against law enforcement officials, who have ordered all police officers to refrain from harassing or dispersing journalists. The plaintiffs He received an order. They also agreed with local police to stop reporting and viewing protesters as protesters, freeing them from dispersal orders and preventing them from being targeted by public controls such as tear gas and rubber bullets.
Federal intervention provided zero support. They were added to the order but Immediately violated. The federal excuse? Sometimes dissidents and rioters pretend to be the press so as not to disperse and / or be attacked. The local court ruled that the local police had no such charges and that they had the ability to control the population without violating their agreement.
Federal agencies have appealed. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in August He kept the order. Summary There is evidence that federal government officials will suffer irreparable damage if they are not allowed to attack members of the press and other non-opposition members. An emergency court order is allowed.
The Court of Appeals has now reversed its position in favor of the government. Federal defendants are no longer exempt from the injunction restraining journalists.
The government presented three arguments in favor of attacking journalists and observers. First, he argued that journalists would not be denied constitutional rights if they were attacked or otherwise removed from protest areas. Also, honoring or registering protests (such as observers or journalists) is not protected by one amendment – not when dispersing orders are issued. Finally, he argued that federal officers were not targeting journalists and observers as journalists and observers, and therefore any OCs leading in any direction. The final argument was made despite allegations that federal officials deliberately tried to attack journalists with pepper spray and other forms of violence.
The Appeal hearing [PDF] He says there is not much truth that the government is simply proving. There is ample evidence that federal officials deliberately targeted journalists and observers.
Preliminary order of the district court is included Twelve pages detailing dozens of cases of federal defendants being beaten, shot, and sprayed with pepper have been provided for true discovery.. The court’s findings are supported by nineteen statements and video and photographic evidence. The federal defendants did not argue that the results of any district court were clearly wrong, and we concluded that the findings were well supported.
By the time the trial court’s order was issued, the district court had ruled that the federal defendants had been working for weeks. The district court examined the plaintiffs’ statements, photographs, and video clips and found that many of the victims were far from protesters standing in public squares, sidewalks, and parks, and that they had not been involved in illegal activities when they were shot, with tears in their eyes. , Sprayed, sprayed or pepper sprayed by a federal defendantLinn Unlike Lyon, the district court ruled that some journalists and legal observers who were protesting were injured by federal defendants more than once.
The plaintiffs’ arguments are not conclusive. The actual damage has been seen. And there is good reason to believe that the federal officers will continue to do so, even though the district court has given it.
It is also clear that the court ruled that government officials did not retaliate against journalists. The Court of Appeals stated that federal officers had repeatedly retaliated. Citing evidence presented to the district court, the appellate court highlighted four retaliatory actions by federal officers.
On July 29, Plaintiff Brian Conley wore a “press” photocopy and a “Press” helmet with a large camera attached to an LED flashlight and a telephone lens. After examining the video footage of the plaintiffs, the district court found Conley spraying protesters with a line of federal officers on the street, including spraying the woman on her knees in the middle. As she climbs up the street with her hands up – a federal officer sprays Conlin in an empty space without warning.
On the night of July 19, photojournalist Jungho Kim wore a neon yellow “press” and a white “PRESS” front and back. District Court Kim, standing alone, about 30 feet away from federal agents, posing for photos was suddenly and without warning Kim shot in the chest with a non-lethal bullet. The photo with Kim’s statement shows that the word “press” was shot at the place where the plot was printed.
On the night of July 26, videographer Daniel Hollis wore a press passport and a hat with the bright orange tape “Press” and a large professional video camera. Hollis was filming a group of packed federal agents outside of federal court. Federal agents shot him “almost immediately,” and he struck him on the left. He turned around and started to escape, but was shot again in the lower back.
On July 27, photojournalist Amy Katz, wearing a “PRESS” hat and tank top, covered the camera with a camera. Katz was arresting a man and pushing him down a flight of stairs to take a photo of a federal agent. Another federal agent tried to stop Catherine from taking pictures of her arrest. Kat stepped aside to continue photographing the arrest and was chased away by the federal agent.
There are only four events. The district court is at least listed Forty-five Same scenarios – it all happened Later The government was banned from engaging in such activities. There were further cases in which the lower court ruled that it was “clear.” They were not Details of the decision.
The Court of Appeal states that the press has the same right to access the general public. It can record the actions of the authorities on public streets and sidewalks. The press certainly doesn’t Less The destination, rather than the opposition, was a government debate. The appellate court ruled that dispersing the press from these areas was not necessary in the interests of the government.
And government interests – as far as Portland – are very limited. The court does not provide a reason for the government’s protection of federal property, which requires the press and observers to remove it from public places or to deliberately target public inspection equipment.
Finally, the appellate court recalls Local The law enforcement officer had no problem obeying the ban, even though his territorial authority was far greater than that of federal buildings. Every argument the government has made about preventing attacks on journalists is rooted in an agreement reached between members of the press and Portland police. There is no problem with obeying the federal order, the Court of Appeal.
Under its terms, the District Court’s initial decision on federal defendants explores every reason why federal defendants continue to argue that their disqualification orders cannot be complied with. Preliminary injunctions barred journalists and legal observers from obstructing, obstructing, or otherwise interfering with federal law enforcement, arguing that federal law enforcement could intervene if dispersal of journalists or legal observers was not required. The first-degree order frees federal defendants from arrest if the perpetrator is dressed as a journalist or legal observer, if there is reason to believe that the crime was committed. The first order states that federal defendants will not be held accountable for violating the order if journalists or legal observers remain in the area after the order to disperse and are accidentally exposed to surveillance equipment. Finally, the district court ruled that the defendants could not afford to wear their large and unique identification work on their uniforms..
Stay tuned. The order, which was confirmed three months ago, is now in effect. If recent history indicates future performance, it will soon be violated by federal agents in Portland. But if they deliberately violate it, they will not benefit from suspicion. Efficient defense It does not apply.
Thanks for reading this textbook post. We truly appreciate that you have given us so much time to compete for so many things in this day and age. We work hard every day to deliver quality content to our community.
Texan is one of the few truly independent media outlets left. We don’t have a huge corporation behind us, and at a time when advertisers are increasingly interested in sponsoring small independent sites – especially as a report like ours refuses to draw attention to the report, we rely heavily on our local support and analysis.
While other websites use wall-to-wall, subscription requirements, and increasingly disruptive ads, we are always open to technology. But to continue this, We need your support. From direct donations to special subscriptions and good merchandise – and we offer a variety of ways to help our readers with every little help. Thank you.