Ferguson and Agent Provocateurs ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

As the nation (or DU, at least) braces itself for what seems to be a foregone conclusion: the Ferguson Grand Jury will return a No Bill on the case of Darren Wilson's killing of Michael Brown, and that (IMO) travesty and failure of justice will result in violent protests, there has been a lot of talk about the possibility of "Agent Provocateurs" acting to bring that violence about.

I believe we have good reason to suspect this to be the case ... from the klan's recent announcements to this summer's activities of various anarchists, not to mention the history of social movements, where persons/groups with alternative motives seek to exploit public outrage to further their own agenda.

But I would like to draw DU's attention to a little discussed, even protected, class of "Agent Provocateurs" ... the "Citizen Journalist." I know that liberals/progressives seem to think anyone with a camera is/can be considered a "member of the press", serving a/the vital role of the "4th Estate." And while we hold the "freedom of the press" in high value, I believe we would benefit from examining/discussing the role of the "Citizen Journalist" in enflaming/inciting conduct that might not occur, if these "journalist" sought to record "the news" rather than, "making" the news.

For example, this summer we saw thread after thread of "Officer F@#% Off." As you might recall, the video of the Ferguson Officer telling the guy (holding a camera) to "F@#% Off" and threatening to shoot folks.

While the Officer's conduct was clearly inappropriate, does anyone consider the "journalist's" taunting of the Officer an appropriate role of a "journalist, as it clearly done with the hope of provoking, and catching on film, police violence. This, again IMO, takes us out of the realm of reporting/recording what is occurring ... the legitimate role of the "Citizen Journalist" ... and places it into the "making of news" realm ... a non-journalistic role.

Does anyone doubt that the immediate area where this occurred was made more explosive than had the "journalist" simply been a silent recorder of what was occurring, rather than inserting himself into the scene?

Beyond the above example, does anyone doubt these same provocations were happening between "journalist" and the protesters? And/or, can anyone deny that people respond differently when they know a camera is present? ... Some people withdraw; while, others act out, especially when they are already agitated.

This subject has been troubling me since the summer ... particularly, after seeing outrage over the treatment of some journalists; while, observing significantly less outrage over the grandmother that was gassed, while in her own yard. While both had the "right" to be there, my sympathies go far more to the resident; than, the "citizen journalist."

{Disclaimer: I apologize for what I know to be a semi-coherent OP ... it was written more as a recording of my random thoughts, than a planned piece.}

[msanthrope]

1. James O'Keefe types will be there, without a doubt. So will cop wannabes and

all sorts of strange folks.

[el_bryanto]

2. Yep - it's a potential stage for all sorts of crazy ideas

I suppose anytime you know the cameras are going to be pointed in a specific direction there's the possibility of trouble.

Bryant

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Agreed.

This is a problem.No simple solution.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Agreed! n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

4. I don't buy it. Just because a citizen takes out a camera and starts recording does not

make that citizen a "journalist". Sometimes it's just a citizen recording an event of which he/she is a part. Therefore, the citizen, though wielding a recording device, is still a citizen that is most likely one of the protesters and not a "journalist". So, there is no "agent provocateur", but rather a citizen protester who also happens to have a recording device. So, whatever said citizen does is done as a participant of the protest, and is not doing as an agent provocateur.

[Savannahmann]

6. But that recording can often be used in journalism.

Now remember the Airplane crash in San Francisco. The world saw what really happened because of a private citizen taking a video. It wasn't an accredited member of the press, it was just a couple there watching the planes land on a fair weather day.

Nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine times out of a million there would be nothing worth mention seeing if you did that. But that one time, that one time is vital to the public information.

The wave of citizens journalists, people who use cell phones and small cameras to record events that would otherwise be missed by the public is the way things should be. There is an old saying, sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is why open government records laws are called Sunshine laws. To decide that recording an event is wrong, we are saying that sunshine should not reach this dark crevice. What happens here is not something that we want the light of day to be ever reach.

In public, more private cameras should be used, always. Dashboard cameras. Security cameras on houses pointing at public streets. Because when we see what really happened, when the public sees what really happens, we get outraged. Let me ask you this, was it the thought that the black community was suffering abuse and segregation that inspired the nation to stand up and say no? Or was it photographs, and news video?

I say it was the horrific photographs, when people were hung from trees for the crime of being black. When you hear of a lynching, you immediately flash to those photographs. They speak very powerfully, and very eloquently. They disgust and outrage the people of the nation.

Photographs and videos change things, they drag the dark secrets out into the light where they can be seen. Public places, we have no right to privacy in them. Neither should law enforcement. Turn on the cameras, and let the sunshine in.

[morningfog]

5. I'm still holding out hope for an indictment, probably for second degree murder or voluntary

manslaughter. I hope all the protests regardless are peaceful and that the police and agent provocateurs don't incite worse.

[logosoco]

7. Interesting thoughts...

I do recall seeing the video of "Officer Go F#$* Yourselves", I do not recall what the person filming him was doing exactly?
As a taxpayer, I don't like the cops to be out there talking this way to anyone, except maybe someone they caught in a really bad act. Then, it seems to me, cops know to stay calm. They don't talk that way to someone with a gun, do they?

From my view, wilson got mad because Mike Brown and maybe his friend smarted off to him. If you don't have the ability to handle that without resorting to pulling a gun, you should get another job (probably away from people). Would the outcome have been different if Dorian Johnson got out his camera? Officer Go F@#% Yourself could have probably handled the situation differently than resorting to threatening to shoot anyone. I can't blame the guy with the camera so much here.
I do agree that the old woman and anyone who was on private property and being harassed should have their stories on the front page.
I think in this case, the folks that are out there in the streets are the news. This is the story. They are doing what is their right, and I hope there are people filming it.
To me, a provocateur in this story is someone who is playing like they are on the protestors side and then they start throwing things at the cops. That is not a peaceful protest, they are trying to start problems. That is my fear right now, that there are people who are "planted" on the protestors side who are going to make them and their actions and voices look bad.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. The person filming ...

was the person that named the officer, "Officer F@#$ Off", as he followed the officer, after being told to stand back.

To me, a provocateur in this story is someone who is playing like they are on the protestors side and then they start throwing things at the cops. That is not a peaceful protest, they are trying to start problems.

IMO, more than a few "citizen journalists" are there for the "money shot" of police misconduct, and as that video showed, some will attempt to make the "money shot" happen.

[logosoco]

10. OKay, I went back to find that clip...

I don't see where the person filming them was doing anything out of what would be ordinary for the situation.
They seem to be walking with other protesters, when the cop pointed a gun at them they put their hands up.
Maybe they got a "money shot", but they also showed people how cops over react. The person with the camera was not in charge of the cops mental or emotional state.They were not committing a crime. When American citizens are in the street because of a grievance, cops should not be pointing a weapon at them or threatening to shoot them.
Maybe in some cases they might be "instigating" but here, I don't see it. Maybe cops need to learn about that old "sticks and stones" saying? If I give a cop the finger, is that instigating? Is that a crime? Is that a reason for the cop to point a gun at me?
People should obey laws, and so should cops, and they should listen to cops in a situation where there is a crime being committed or there is danger. I don't see that here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. We, clearly, have differing opinions of "Nothing out of the ordinary" ...

The person with the camera was not in charge of the cops mental or emotional state.They were not committing a crime.

True ... the person with the camera is not in charge of the cop's mental or emotional state ... much like a school yard bully is not in charge of the object of his/her taunting's mental or emotional state. And because something is not unlawful, does not mean it is not inflammatory.

When American citizens are in the street because of a grievance, cops should not be pointing a weapon at them or threatening to shoot them.

Absolutely not ... but like my daughter when she was young, you wish to start the incident timeline to leave out the camera man's contribution to the incident. Was the cop wrong? ... absolutely; but, was the camera blameless? ... absolutely not.

Maybe in some cases they might be "instigating" but here, I don't see it.

You don't see following behind a police officer, mocking him, after being told to stand back, instigating? Really?

Maybe cops need to learn about that old "sticks and stones" saying? If I give a cop the finger, is that instigating? Is that a crime? Is that a reason for the cop to point a gun at me?

Perhaps. Absolutely. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Maybe our life's experience is different; but, I learned early in life that the bad conduct of others does not make me blameless in what happened, even if the bad conduct is wildly disproportionate to what I did.

And further, taunting the police is in no way honoring the memory of Michael Brown.

[logosoco]

23. Maybe the situation is, in itself, out of the ordinary?

The people are out in the street protesting the shooting and the aftermath of an unarmed person. As far as I can tell, the cop who shot Brown was upset and angry that he and Johnson did not OBEY his orders. That, to me is what this is about. Cops way over using their role, not just with Mike Brown. That was the straw that broke the camels back and it is long overdue.
So, in THAT setting, the person with the camera was trying to show what is going on in many places without cameras, cops are over stepping their authority. Was the camera guy in the cops face or was he just walking in a line of protesters? I don't know. Did the cop have a reason to say "stand back"? I don't know. Did the cop have the right to threaten to shoot them> NO.

Don't cops do the same thing all the time with drug dealers? Set them up and then bust them.
This is just the tables being turned.
And I will agree that someone who gives the finger to a cop is instigating as soon as we start arresting the bad bankers and polluters in this country.

Honestly, maybe I am over sensitive to this because I am really sick of hearing so many people talk about how the cop was just doing their job, and it's hard to be a cop, and Mike Brown was just a thug.
I don't know how to fight back without being a little rude. Voting did not help much. I guess I can write some strongly worded letters, but I am a middle aged woman who doesn't even have a job, not many out there worrying about what I think!

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Sorry, but this ...

Don't cops do the same thing all the time with drug dealers? Set them up and then bust them.
This is just the tables being turned.
And I will agree that someone who gives the finger to a cop is instigating as soon as we start arresting the bad bankers and polluters in this country.

Is really weak!

Honestly, maybe I am over sensitive to this because I am really sick of hearing so many people talk about how the cop was just doing their job, and it's hard to be a cop, and Mike Brown was just a thug.

I agree ... but that is a separate issue.

[logosoco]

31. Yeah, perhaps you're right. I guess I am just tired of seeing these

things happen in our country when we should be way past it.

The power has been concentrated at the top, and the cops are working for "them". Jay Nixon just about came out and said he is worried about property damage more than the safety of protestors.
Maybe I used a drug war analogy because that is one of the major ways the powers that be rigged the system to imprison or make life hell for those at the bottom.

I am middle aged and I'm tired of seeing things go backward. I have kids and grandkids, I want the world to be a better place for all of them and everyone.
We've been pushed back a hell of a lot worse than Officer Go F@*% Yourself, but we aren't threatening to kill anyone.
I want to move forward without anyone getting killed, but I am thinking things are going more and more backwards and probably more people are going to get killed. And for what? So some people feel like they have power? Are cameras upsetting the balance of power? I think so. And the ones with the power don't like it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Now here we agree. n/t

[Lee-Lee]

8. There will probably be some. There will also be the people who blame all misconduct on them

And in doing so use the notion of them, if they are there or not, as a way to excuse violence or pretend that nobody they support did it.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Agent Provocateurs are not limited in their choice of facades

So turn off the cameras because you think the "citizen journalists" are Agent Provocateurs and you give great advantage to the actual Agent Provocateurs and hobbyist inciters of violence. Such people generally pose as very passionate members of the protesting group. Should we be suspect of all passionate protesters because of that fact?
It was a citizen with a camera who recorded the beating of Rodney King and bravely brought it to the world's attention. Had George Holliday not taken those steps that would have been just yet another police beating in Los Angeles.
Most protests really want lots of cameras. The whole world is watching. That's a good thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. That not what I said, or even, implied ...

Should we be suspect of all passionate protesters because of that fact?

My thought is we keep the cameras rolling, as you correctly indicate, their presence serves a legitimate purpose. However, and at the same time, we could stop excusing/celebrating the journalist that inserts his/herself into the story through instigation.

It was a citizen with a camera who recorded the beating of Rodney King and bravely brought it to the world's attention. Had George Holliday not taken those steps that would have been just yet another police beating in Los Angeles.
Most protests really want lots of cameras. The whole world is watching. That's a good thing.

Yes it is. I have no problem with the folks filming; but when one is taunting while filming ... that is neither "protesting", nor reporting, it is instigation. There is a difference between "protesting" and instigation ... the former is not about (the person behind the camera); whereas, the former, is ALL about (the person behind the camera).

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Actually that is what you implied. You say:

"a little discussed, even protected, class of "Agent Provocateurs" ... the "Citizen Journalist."
That does not say that such agents might pose as citizen journalists, it "Citizen Journalists" are a class of Agent Provocateurs. It implies that they are protected in their provocation, as a class. Some provocateurs might pose as citizen journalists, just as they might pose as protesters. It would be wrong to claim protesters are a class of provocateurs simply because provocateurs might pose as protesters or because actual protesters sometimes provoke or taunt the other side when they should not.

Which is why I posted what I posted. If you don't like instigators, go after instigators no matter what else they might be. Questioning the legitimacy of Citizen Journalism or the open recording of the police as a way to speak to instigators posing as participants is an odd approach to the problem of participants who act poorly and those who pose as participants for nefarious reasons.
I have much street protest under my belt. Much. So I have strong opinions around it. I've seen what I'd call actual agent provocateurs, not simply opportunists but people out there telling others to go burn shit with direct intent of cause violence to occur. I wish at those times someone would have had a camera rolling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Okay, that's not what I wrote unless you ignore the rest of what I wrote. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

36. I'm not the only one who saw it that way. I quoted what I had issue with, it is exactly what you

wrote, I added nothing.

A person of bad intention could pose as a journalist, citizen or professional. They could also pose as a rank and file protester so, to claim that "Citizen Journalists" are a class of Agent Provocateurs is no more valid than saying "Peaceful Protesters" are a class of provocateurs. That's what I think. And I have said why.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. I quoted A PART of what I wrote ...

and you left out a whole lot more ... particularly the part where I specified whom I was speaking about.

Here ... Note the qualifers:

But I would like to draw DU's attention to a little discussed, even protected, class of "Agent Provocateurs" ... the "Citizen Journalist." I know that liberals/progressives seem to think anyone with a camera is/can be considered a "member of the press", serving a/the vital role of the "4th Estate." And while we hold the "freedom of the press" in high value, I believe we would benefit from examining/discussing the role of the "Citizen Journalist" in enflaming/inciting conduct that might not occur, if these "journalist" sought to record "the news" rather than, "making" the news.

And:

While the Officer's conduct was clearly inappropriate, does anyone consider the "journalist's" taunting of the Officer an appropriate role of a "journalist, as it clearly done with the hope of provoking, and catching on film, police violence. This, again IMO, takes us out of the realm of reporting/recording what is occurring ... the legitimate role of the "Citizen Journalist" ... and places it into the "making of news" realm ... a non-journalistic role.

[2naSalit]

12. INteresting thoughts

I tend to suspect that there will be plenty of the provocateurs of the type who will be there specifically to incite violence and disrupt what would otherwise be peaceful protest. A self-fulfilling prophecy already put forth by the governor and others who are already predicting violence. The James O'Keeffe types who are paid to do this. I recall many videos of other peaceful protests where off duty cops dressed up in civilian clothes and marched with protesters for a time then when close to the police line started acting out to provoke the police into a retaliatory mode and all hell broke loose with many real protesters being injured and arrested. Interestingly the faux protesters were taken aside and released to cause more trouble... and they were recorded doing this by the citizen/protesters holding cameras.

It's not what I want to see but it is what I expect will happen given all those who want to maintain the status quo of keeping the poor, underserved and non-white down.

Just sayin'

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. I guess I should narrow my scope ...

to be on those that taunt police, and/or incite protesters, with the camera rolling.

[2naSalit]

22. It's okay...

you provided a disclaimer of your post being random thoughts... and they provoked thoughts by others, which is good.

Your thoughts were a catalyst for what I had been suspecting/pondering for some time and was finally able to put it into words. Not critiquing your post but adding my thoughts and memories of what I have seen in the past which appear to be standard operating procedures for the oppression class.

I think the grand scale of protests beyond Ferguson will be appropriate and telling... If Ferguson turns into a massive catastrophuk, the other protests will balance out the intent, I hope. I've inhaled enough tear gas in the late 60s/early 70s to gag a moose at forty paces for life. I support the legitimate protesters, they have the right and appropriate cause for doing so. Sadly, the factions who would have them silenced are sure to be out in force as well and that doesn't bode well for the legitimate protesters making their point in an acceptable fashion. We all know how the corporate media will present this.

Good OP, by the way.

[freshwest]

13. The OP works for me and is my recollection of how media makes itself news. Ex: Bundy.

[2banon]

14. I agree with your point.

I've seen this in other actions by activists which made me question as to what their agenda actually is.

At the same time, we must also be mindfully aware that there are actual Agent Provocateurs who are employed by the very Police Agency deployed to "control" the citizens, most often disguised as Black Bloc Anarchist . or actually are Black Bloc Anarchist.

I agree it's a serious problem. I think worthy of discussion.

[sabrina 1]

15. Odd OP condemning the only sources people have to determine what is going on. I generally follow

citizen journalists and have NOT known them to be what you just described, UNLESS they are AGENTS PROVOCATEURS. We KNOW how much the Police and Politicians HATE to have their actions documented.

This, imo, is a very irresponsible OP considering how much good work has been done by those ordinary people doing the work the press will not do.

And then, as in OWS, because of that work of documenting everything, thousands of innocent people falsely arrested, had their cases thrown out of court when the cops lies were clearly apparent in those videos.

You must not be following the right people. Most likely plants as condemning Citizen journalism IS part of the tactics of those with so much to hide.

WE NEED CITIZEN JOURNALISM. Please stop helping those who are working so hard to silence the people. Just avoid the infiltrator, and follow those who have gained a reputation of trust.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Odd how hard people work to ignore stuff that is written ...

in order to take issue with an OP.

I was pretty clear about the folks I was speaking of. I'm pretty sure I wrote that I was NOT speaking of those recording the events; but rather, those taunting/inciting/instigating while filming.

But I would like to draw DU's attention to a little discussed, even protected, class of "Agent Provocateurs" ... the "Citizen Journalist." I know that liberals/progressives seem to think anyone with a camera is/can be considered a "member of the press", serving a/the vital role of the "4th Estate." And while we hold the "freedom of the press" in high value, I believe we would benefit from examining/discussing the role of the "Citizen Journalist" in enflaming/inciting conduct that might not occur, if these "journalist" sought to record "the news" rather than, "making" the news.

And:

While the Officer's conduct was clearly inappropriate, does anyone consider the "journalist's" taunting of the Officer an appropriate role of a "journalist, as it clearly done with the hope of provoking, and catching on film, police violence. This, again IMO, takes us out of the realm of reporting/recording what is occurring ... the legitimate role of the "Citizen Journalist" ... and places it into the "making of news" realm ... a non-journalistic role.

Yep ... I thought I had.

[sabrina 1]

24. You are crediting what are most likely plants with the word 'journalist'. That is my objection.

Why not start out by calling these disrupters what they are? We saw them during OWS, we will continue to see them every time the people find a way to expose the corruption of those in power.

I find it naive at best to even assume that those who are doing things to undermine a very legitimate cause, are actually working FOR that cause.

Imo, it is best to assume and STATE the opposite 'these morons do not represent the people of Ferguson who are only asking for what every American has a right to'. Slam them when you find them online, call them out, but do not give them credibility by referring to them as 'citizen journalists'. THEY ARE NOT.

[joeglow3]

29. Ummm, you seem to have just stated the crux of the OP

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Thank you ...

Imo, it is best to assume and STATE the opposite 'these morons do not represent the people of Ferguson who are only asking for what every American has a right to'. Slam them when you find them online, call them out, but do not give them credibility by referring to them as 'citizen journalists'. THEY ARE NOT.

That is exactly what I had wished to express. But read the thread, I use "citizen journalist" in quotes, while defining objectionable conduct; others, including yourself, have/do not.

[sabrina 1]

33. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. But I read it as a warning to be careful of Citizen Journalists.

I know many people get emotional at these events, can anyone blame them? But generally the people who are video-taping and tweeting live reports are not there to give false impressions. They are merely eyewitnesses to what is going on. Many have had no instructions on how to transmit information. But there are some who have experience with these protests. The main reason for video-taping everything possible is to get an overall view of what they don't want the public to see.

It's also possible that a few people are just so angry, they express it.

But watching the first round of Ferguson protests, and following as many eyewitnesses as I could, I did not find most of them to be acting irrationally at all.

The 'authorities' however, which even the normally complicit Corporate Media, finally exposed as the raging, rabid lunatics some of them are.

The MSM did film these abusive authoritarians in action, leading to the dismissal of at least one of them, perhaps two.

There was NOTHING by any citizen journalist that I saw that compared to the rage and expressed bigotry of some of those cops captured on film by the MSM.

To focus on a few minor things the public is likely to do in any large group, when the GROSS ABUSES of those entrusted with the welfare of the people they are supposed to be serving, is DISTRACTING from the horrific injustices, rather than continuing to point them out.

What do we want as a nation? As far as I know, Democrats at least, want an end to discrimination and bigotry especially in Law Enforcement. THAT is the issue that should remain the front and center focus when it comes to Ferguson.

What THEY do and will do and are doing. And when they try to discredit the protesters, point it out that it is NOT the protesters (we had ample evidence of how the protesters HELPED those people whose businesses were attacked by criminals, NOT by protesters) who are rioting or instigating rioting, they did not.

As for what may happen after the GJ results are released, we know what is planned by the authorities, and we know that no matter how peaceful the protesters are, they will be attacked, arrested, discredited and bigots will jump on that bandwagon.

Imo, the people should not give them what they are salivating for.

They should not take to the streets where the corrupt authorities are preparing their militarized operation.

Foil them, let them come with their tanks and military garbed robo cops. Make fools of them by working from other venues, preparing boycotts, eg, from home, taking to Social Media to gather support for a Federal Investigation.

But that's just my opinion. Because the outcome is inevitable IF protesters take to the streets of Ferguson.

Or maybe they should march on DC, or plan such a march while the Cops are waiting for them in Ferguson.

Whatever they/we do, don't play into the hands of the authorities. They know well how to play this game.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. I agree with a goodly portion of this ...

but ...

As for what may happen after the GJ results are released, we know what is planned by the authorities, and we know that no matter how peaceful the protesters are, they will be attacked, arrested, discredited and bigots will jump on that bandwagon.

That can't be ... the national guard is amassing to, alternately, protect the Black business owners' protect, or prevent the klan from rioting! I read it right here on DU!

[sabrina 1]

35. I haven't read that, but anyone who think the NG is there to protect any African Americans

in Ferguson, is delusional.

I think they didn't expect the reaction of the public to the militarized attacks on the Streets of Ferguson. They didn't expect the media to cover it the way they did. Neither did I to be honest, but was glad they did.

There were calls from everywhere to end this militarization of our civilian police. That had to scare them, to see an end to their decade long, out of control abuse of the People's Rights AND to flow of money into these departments.

I'm worried about the aptly named Riot Police rioting, as they always do, more than anyone else. Here on DU? I hear a lot of things on DU lately that surprise me!

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. I didn't see you in this thread; but, enjoy(?) ...

Look about Post #20 and beyond.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025831605

[sabrina 1]

42. Wow, just read through some of those comments.

The one that made the most sense to me, stated that it's likely members of the police are with the KKK. It may be forbidden, I don't know, but I definitely would not be surprised to find out that some ARE members and/or know friends and family who are.

I see the apologists as always.

Nixon is shameful. He is also a coward. The last time he sent out the NG, he was forced by public opinion, after a couple of them were exposed as racists themselves, to pull them back.

I guess he feels it's okay now to do it again.

I sure hope he is throw out of office at the earliest opportunity.

He's a Democrat? Who funded his campaign, I wonder.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. It is/comes to no surprise ...

for PoC that law enforcement and the klan have deep and connected roots ... it's been that way since reconstruction.

I sure hope he is throw out of office at the earliest opportunity.

He's a Democrat? Who funded his campaign, I wonder.

From the increase in Black voter registration, I suspect there are plenty of MO elected officials that will be unelected, at the next opportunity.

[sabrina 1]

53. That is probably the one bright spot in all of this, the increase in voter registration.

Imo, that is the single best way to change things in Ferguson, to topple the current power structure, by voting them out.

From what I read about their charter there, the City Manager has the power to fire the entire PD. S/he can rehire any of those who have proven themselves to be worthy of the job and replace the rest.

Nixon is a disgrace. His actions during the original protests were reprehensible, no worse than we could expect from any Republican.

Re the Klan and the Police, I have no problem believing that many of the police are kindred spirits.

According to what I read about the 'unhooding of the KKK' by Anonymous, they discovered at lease one active PO and one former Police Chief. But I have not been able to verify that yet. If it is true, you are correct, it would not be a surprise.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Yes ...

From what I read about their charter there, the City Manager has the power to fire the entire PD. S/he can rehire any of those who have proven themselves to be worthy of the job and replace the rest.

But that will only happen when the City Council has more than one African-American (or non-African American, with a sense of conscience) out of the 6 seats.

[hamsterjill]

16. You bring up a very good point.

What I've found before with some video is that actions prior to the "on" button, and after the "off" button, are sometimes very relevant to the story.

The point is that we all need to be able to think of the possibilities rather than simply be snagged in - ANYTIME - there is video.

So do I think there is more to the story in the videos showing ISIL beheading Americans? No, I think some videos are what they appear to be. But MY point is simply that there are times when some videos are not what they actually appear to be when put in context of a larger story.

I must add, too, that I am hopeful that Ferguson will not see as much violence as seems to be anticipated. Hopefully, provocation will be seen as just that, and protestors and others will understand its consequences.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. Agreed ...

And the "Officer F@#% Off" video, IMO, is NOT an example of "Citizen Journalism", anymore than the o'keefe video(s) that we widely pan here.

[TeeYiYi]

38. You need to watch the video...

I was watching this on live stream as it was happening in August. It was scary as hell. The cop was walking through the crowd with his gun raised and pointing it at everyone as he walked along. The people streaming noticed what was happening and put their hands up and announced that their hands were up. The cop walks toward them and says, "You need to get back. I'll fuckin' kill you! Get back! Get back!" The streamer and others in the crowd are shocked. They ask for his name. He says, "Go fuck yourself."

I'm sincerely amazed that you've chosen to be an apologist for this asshole scary, dangerous cop. He was shut down by the other cops and ultimately placed on leave. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/ray-albers-ferguson-protesters_n_5696715.html

It's this exact kind of cop that has the potential to get people killed in the weeks ahead.

TYY

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Note that I said in the OP, a number of times that the cop conduct was wrongful ...

but you clearly have a narrow reading of what I was talking about ...

So do you consider the camera man a "citizen journalist"?

[TeeYiYi]

44. I consider him to be a citizen streamer...

...one of many who are keeping the cops and the community honest by providing continuous video streamed evidence, live as it happens, and then archiving it and making the archives available to anyone who is interested.

I would also have to say that he fits the definition of a journalist; a person who collects and distributes current information.

TYY

Edited to add: I have to take issue with your insistence that the guy with the camera was taunting the cop. That's clearly not how it went down. Watch the vid.

re: While the Officer's conduct was clearly inappropriate, does anyone consider the "journalist's" taunting of the Officer an appropriate role of a "journalist, as it clearly done with the hope of provoking, and catching on film, police violence.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. Okay ...

I guess I've never had the privilege of poking a lion to get his/her reaction, then be taken serious, when the lion roars back.

[TeeYiYi]

47. I don't agree...

...that the streamer was taunting the cop. That is clearly not how it went down, whatsoever. (See edit in post 44.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Okay. n/t

[TeeYiYi]

57. I just noticed you edited your post...

I sincerely don't understand how you can say that the streamer "poked the lion and then the lion roared back." Are we watching the same video?

It sounds like you're still making apologies for the scary, assault rifle wielding, hateful, expletive spewing cop. I don't get how you're taking his side. Even his fellow cops didn't take his side. They put him on leave for that bullshit.

The streamer asked the cop for his name, after the cop had threatened to kill the streamer's friend. Is that your idea of "poking the lion?"...

You and I live in different worlds if you can defend this cop's actions in the volatile climate of Ferguson, Missouri following the murder of an unarmed black teenager by a lying racist cop.

Hands up. Don't shoot.

TYY

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Why are you focused on the bad acts of the cop? ...

I have already stated that he acted inappropriately. I am NOT defending this, or any cop's bad conduct ...
But that is/was NOT my focus ... in fact, I only mentioned "Officer F@#% Off" to provide context.

Rather, I am/was speaking to the inflammatory affect those "streamers" have (in an already tense situation) when they assert themselves into the matter they are streaming, i.e., taunting/instigating/inciting the object they are filming ... IOWs, when they "make the news", rather than, unobtrusively record what is occurring.

And, on a broad note, Yes ... we do live in different worlds: My world lacks the privilege of thinking/believing I can provoke/taunt a police officer, or anyone for that matter, and be outraged when that person reacts ... even if that reaction is grossly disproportional.

[TeeYiYi]

62. I'm focused on this one example...

...your example, where you chose to blame an insane situation on the streamer. You were mistaken and I chose to defend the streamer.

There are other streamers in Ferguson, one in particular, that would have been better examples of your point.

We don't live in different worlds regarding taunting and provoking cops. They scare me. I keep a wide berth between me and them and wouldn't dream of taunting one. They have the power to do any fucked up thing they want and they know it. I'm nothing but polite when getting pulled over.

My hope is that the attention focused on police brutality by protesters in Ferguson right now will have a long lasting effect toward change everywhere.

TYY

[tkmorris]

64. I can't help but interject here

The problem is that you keep referring to this incident in the same way, that is that the person with the camera "Provoked/taunted" the police officer, and was outraged when the PO "reacted". Again and again, that is the way you describe the chain of events.

The troubles is that, near as I can tell, that is NOT what happened.

The police officer was the one being provocative it seems to me, and the person with the camera reacted to HIM, not the other way round. You could argue that his commentary AFTER the PO's provocation was excessively snarky if you like, though I would find it difficult to fault his actions after having a cop point a rifle at people and threaten to kill them. Saying however that he "provoked" the PO's actions is just false in my mind and I have to wonder why you keep characterizing it that way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. Question ...

The cop's being provocative was what? ... His having a gun leveled in what can only be described as a chaotic situation?

Maybe it's my life experienced that advises against making ANY kind of contact, verbal or otherwise, with someone with a gun, L/E or otherwise, and certainly against making snarky comments in such a situation.

[loyalsister]

39. I think this deserves a conversation

I believe we would benefit from examining/discussing the role of the "Citizen Journalist" in enflaming/inciting conduct that might not occur, if these "journalist" sought to record "the news" rather than, "making" the news.

Yes! One of the worst elements of today's "news" media is the way they promote conflict by having talking heads and guests who behave aggressively.

Promoting conflict is the FOX model that arose because of the popularity of Rush Limbaugh's hate. Sadly, I often see complaints that Democrats don't practice that disgusting WWF style dialogue enough.

I think that there have been citizen journalists who have published information with integrity, and others have followed the lead of conflict driven media. It has bee accepted as a legitimate journalistic technique for long enough that young people who want to participate don't really know differently. I don't think enabling it at the grassroots level is helpful.

Aside from that, it was in this region that Fred Phelps perfected his system to rake in money by being a provocateur and bringing lawsuits over the responses. I feel sure that there are racists hoping for an excuse to shoot people. I do not want to see them provoked by anyone because no matter who makes them angry, the target they seek is NOT a white citizen journalist.

The biggest danger here are provocateurs. In a similar situation, a friend pointed out the need to get between the worst disruptors and black men. The only way we are going to be able to stay safe and keep our friends safe is to not respond to them. Anyone who tries to provoke anger in this movement is an enemy of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Yes, this ...

Anyone who tries to provoke anger in this movement is an enemy of it.

However, with this:

It has bee accepted as a legitimate journalistic technique for long enough that young people who want to participate don't really know differently. I don't think enabling it at the grassroots level is helpful.

I think you are being a tad charitable ... I think those engaging in the instigation know exactly what they are doing: attempting to elicit a respond that will make them "Worldstar Heros", if not gain them an interview with some talking head, somewhere.

[loyalsister]

49. True

I'm always trying to perfect my diplomatic efforts. You're exactly right about the quest for fame.

This conversation reminds me of the scene in Silver Linings Playbook where Robert DeNiro's character grabs the camera from the neighbor kid filming their family altercation.

[KingCharlemagne]

50. Did the liverstreamer 'taunt' Officer Ray "Go Fuck Yourself" Albers? All I recall

is the livestreamer asking Officer GFY for his name and badge number. If that constitutes 'taunting,' then methinks the constablulary need to grow thicker skins.

I'd like to take up your deeper questions too -- about participatory journalism vs. traditional passive journalism -- but before I do, would like to get your take on just what taunting, if any, was really going on.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Go back a listen to the livestreamer's remakes ...

immediately before the name and badge number question and immediately after the clearly inappropriate: "F@#% yourself" statement.

[KingCharlemagne]

63. I assume you made a typo and meant 'remarks' (and not 'remakes'). That said,

I did not preserve links to the relevant exchange. Do you (or anyone reading this) have a good link or links?

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Yes, that was a typo ...

here's a link to as much of the encounter as I have found.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5834946

As I have said ... repeatedly ... I am not defending the cop ... his conduct was clearly inappropriate.

[ProfessorDoom1]

52. Ferguson

What about the citizen journalist who was only pointing a camera and had a POS cop yell at him and others to move or he would kill them. You don't seem to bring that, just only the snippets to make an argument! The fact is non of us are there to see what has led up to any thing being said for the camera to see. To me the argument is moot anyway; the fact is this has stopped being about M. Brown or D. Wilson. This is about cops all across the U.s. shooting people needlessly and beating people senselessly! No gov entity has made any effort to put a stop to these out of control cops and it is hi time either they do or the people should come together as one and do it for them. The good cops could come together and bring internal justice against the bad cops so that the people will know there is some decent men and women behind the badge and since they make no effort to even do that I say Viva Revolutiones!

[TheKentuckian]

55. More and better journalism than the lying ass and irresponsible corporate media

Methinks someone is playing a little "chess" and trying to construct a narrative to justify and support a DiFi like effort to limit journalistic protections to corporate mouthpieces.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Who would that be? n/t

[KMOD]

58. I agree wholeheartedly,

This subject has been troubling me since the summer ... particularly, after seeing outrage over the treatment of some journalists; while, observing significantly less outrage over the grandmother that was gassed, while in her own yard. While both had the "right" to be there, my sympathies go far more to the resident; than, the "citizen journalist."

Especially the above.

Between Officer F*** Off, who I also agree was way out of line, and unprofessional, although I believe as you, was provoked for a story, and the Huffington Post reporter in the McDonalds, who made a huge story of his arrest, (he wasn't arrested, he was detained), even though he as well was provoking law enforcement. They both were looking to make themselves the story.

Both instances took away from what should have been reported, and seem to have given them their 15 minutes of fame, or what have you. Whatever it was, it wasn't true journalism. They should be there to report the story, not be the story.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. I'm starting to believe that ...

the Jersey-shore/Kim Kardishian-Westismization of our society will destroy one institution after the other until we are no more.

The goal of everyone seems to be celebrity, above all.

[Inkfreak]

60. Rec, very interesting thoughts. I have similar views. (Nt)