reporter arrested many different headlines from the news

[Armour666 0]

Here is a story that clearly shows how misleading news headlines are by most media outlets. A report is doing a story in Miami and is asked by School police to cross the street. He is on the Sidewalk and refuses the large (read Fat cop) say’s he was within 500 feet of a school” asking him again he is then arrested with it all on video from the news camera. It is after the take him in to custody he is found with a concealed carried.

Now after seeing the head line that first saw on digg.com was. Ok that got my attention

“MIAMI TV REPORTER ARRESTED FOR ENTERING SCHOOL PROPERTY WITH GUN”

Ok that got my attention so I follow the link it takes to a video from Local 10. I watch and then decided to find more out of interest as the title they posted for the link is clearly wrong as he was not arrested for the concealed carry but for trespassing and that knowledge came only after the fact. After a Google search “Miami reporter arrested”

Page after page other then two his own station and Critical Miami had a different head line. He was not arrested for the having the gun that only came after he was in custody for trespassing. That in it’s self was a disturbing when they try to stop the media from reporting from a public location( The side walk)

From http://carlosmiller.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/another-journalist-arrested-in-miami/Carlos miller has some other accounts of photographers and problems taking pictures from public spaces
http://wordpress.com/tag/carlos-miller/

According to Florida Statute 810.0975, which defines trespassing in “school safety zones”, a person is committing an unlawful act if he loiters in the school safety zone, but “does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone”.
The school safety zone is defined as 500 feet within a school grounds, which would mean all the reporters at the scene were trespassing, even if they weren’t packing heat.
That is, of course, if they were not at the school on “legitimate business”, which they obviously were as was Weisnier. Keeping the press from doing their legitimate business is a First Amendment violation which supersedes a measly state trespassing charge.

Now I'm not the biggest fan of the media and they reporting they do needs to be looked at with a critical mind but its disturbing when they are impeded in a public space by law enforcement.

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."

[skycop 0]

Define "legitimate". What makes his presence legitimate? The reporter was carrying a gun, the officers asked him to go across the street. HE decided to play games and pushed the situation, 2nd amendment issues aside, that was a clear violation.
Just because the press is somewhere, that doesn't make their presence legitimate, as much as they like to think it does.
Take my word for it, dealing with the press is like herding cats. This guy tested the limits and lost, it will all shake out in court. The gun will be the main factor, your other points are well taken, the gun will get him convicted IMHO.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[mnealtx 0]

Without knowing all the particulars, here are my opinions:

If the police didn't have ALL the reporters move from the buffer zone, and just concentrated on the one reporter, they're screwed.

There seems to be an issue of whether or not the reporter was on public property or not - I don't know if the buffer zone differentiates in that regard.

With the above said, the police CAN tell ANYONE to move from a location, free speech or not - *BUT* they have to be able to prove it was a public safety issue. To me, that means an immediate thread of harm to the person, or obstruction of emergency services personnel doing THEIR duty - not that he dared to report from within some buffer zone when there was no immediate danger.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skycop 0]

Not an (interfering with) public safety issue here, a violation of law is. My guess is they may have gotten word this guy was armed, he came into the "gun free zone", (again the 2nd amendment part of this is not the issue being discussed here.)
He refused to leave, he got hooked.
The officers tried to (somewhat) accomodate the reporter by asking him to go across the street.
If this was an emergency situation then the officer could have designated a media staging area, and then the media would HAVE to go there.
From the video, it appears they were the only media outlet there, just reporter and camera man.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[mnealtx 0]

I've had a chance to read a bit more on this - Florida law states that loitering in the buffer area is prohibited unless you have official business there. (not exact wording)

I would submit that a correspondent reporting on a story would be official business and not loitering. Also, evidently there were other reporters on site.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skycop 0]

None of the other reporters were armed(that they know of), that is my point. Once other media outlets show up, then it becomes a safety issue and a media area (should be/is) designated. Because once they show up the "herding cats" theory applies, they all jostle for the best positions, locations, etc.
"Official Business" is just that, what the school administration deems. Again, just because the media shows up, by no means makes them "official". Now, there is a "legitimate purpose" argument here, that is what the court may decide.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I've had a chance to read a bit more on this - Florida law states that loitering in the buffer area is prohibited unless you have official business there. (not exact wording)

I would submit that a correspondent reporting on a story would be official business and not loitering. Also, evidently there were other reporters on site.

From a legal dictionary:
loiter v. to linger or hang around in a public place or business where one has no particular or legal purpose.


I find it hard to apply this to working reporter.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Armour666 0]

I agree they were conducting business their in my mind as well. They were reporting on a story of a teacher from that school attempted suicide by cop. I think the School board cops were a little pissed with the media being in the area. But that still doesn’t make it right that they School Board Cop tell them to cross the street and to leave using the guise of the School safety zone and the 500’ rule.

There is the unedited tape now posted

http://www.local10.com/video/14413746/index.html?taf=mia

This is clearer on the whole events.

The Gun issue is a separate argument all together. The disturbing parts I see are

1. The use of a law stating a school safety zone being used to keep reporters away on an issue that is directly related to that particular school and arresting a person actively working for the media on a public sidewalk and charging him with trespassing.
2. The number of competing media sensationalizing the headlines with an inaccurate account

Now the media dose #2 often but it’s not often that there is Video and accurate report that members of the public can readily see the lie in the headline. Would this be a case of liable? He was not arrested for the concealed weapon that is a charge that followed after the arrest And as is stands from what I could find that a concealed weapons carrier is allowed within 1000’ if issued a permit but not allowed on to school property with a concealed weapon.

IF some one wants to start a thread on the gun charge that would be a good debate in it’s self.

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."

[skycop 0]

The number of competing media sensationalizing the headlines with an inaccurate account
***

Exactly why the school administration probably didn't want the media inside the "zone". I'm sure the officers were acting on orders from the administration.

You obviously have never dealt with the media, it may be business in your mind. That business is selling advertising space while reporting the news. I'm sure the school did not want to be a part of that "business". That business also has nothing to do with the day to day actual operation of the school.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Armour666 0]

Quote

The number of competing media sensationalizing the headlines with an inaccurate account
***

Exactly why the school administration probably didn't want the media inside the "zone". I'm sure the officers were acting on orders from the administration.

You obviously have never dealt with the media, it may be business in your mind. That business is selling advertising space while reporting the news. I'm sure the school did not want to be a part of that "business". That business also has nothing to do with the day to day actual operation of the school.

Unless it's an active crime scene the media is standing in the administration has no right to order police to prevent them from reporting on public spaces or property or and much as I can draw to hate the media the use of a police force or other government agency anywhere to prevent the free working and reporting of the media in a public space detests me more then my hatred towards the media

Unless it's an active crime scene the media is standing in the administration has no right to order police to prevent them from reporting on public spaces or property or and much as I can draw to hate the media the use of a police force or other government agency anywhere to prevent the free working and reporting of the media in a public space detests me more then my hatred towards the media

It may be the day to day operation of the school, city hall, a business, protest, speech, ect.ect. ect. Doses not allow the police to interfere or prevent the media from working on public property period! This is a trend being seen more and more of the police interfering or prevent the media from working.

As much as I hat most media and look at it with a very critical eye if we allow this to continue to happen or turn a blind eye to it then we do not have any media or stories being reported to have us to look at and ask critical question.

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

None of the other reporters were armed(that they know of), that is my point. Once other media outlets show up, then it becomes a safety issue and a media area (should be/is) designated. Because once they show up the "herding cats" theory applies, they all jostle for the best positions, locations, etc.
"Official Business" is just that, what the school administration deems. Again, just because the media shows up, by no means makes them "official". Now, there is a "legitimate purpose" argument here, that is what the court may decide.

You have no way of knowing if there was a safety issue or not, unless you have information I've not yet seen - the mere presence of people doesn't equate to a safety issue.

Official business is not stated as being defined by the school administration in the Florida law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skycop 0]

Once the media shows up in droves, it absolutely becomes a safety issue, unless an organized press conference is called.
This is a school, the administration is there to help the students learn. The media just showing up to start filming unannounced is disruptive in itself, times that by three or four and it becomes a huge issue.
The administration can determine who can be let into or onto school grounds, couple that with a ARMED reporter and I would have hooked the guy too.

You have no way of knowing if there was a safety issue or not, unless you have information I've not yet seen - the mere presence of people doesn't equate to a safety issue.


I absolutely know (this general kind of situation), even if I wasn't there, I deal with the media on a regular basis.
The key is if they were on school grounds, that will be decided by the court.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[mnealtx 0]

Do you have information we don't about the numbers of media and their locations? If so, please share it. I'm making a 'best guess' based on what was reported and on the reporter's website. Based on the information readily available, the cop was wrong. The reporter is still gonna get screwed over on the gun charge, I predict.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skycop 0]

He was in no way screwed as a matter of fact the officers gave him an out, the reporter chose not to take that out.
The media cannot go anywhere you can't, you can't just stroll onto school property, neither can they. The property is the real question here, the gun is just a rather large nail in the coffin.
The only thing I can fault the officer for is going after the camera. I don't mind being filmed (under certain guidelines), if somebody feels they are right, I think I'm right, and they won't budge. I'll let them know it will be decided by a jury of their peers, and someone can film that interaction all they want.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

Unless it's an active crime scene the media is standing in the administration has no right to order police to prevent them from reporting on public spaces or property or and much as I can draw to hate the media the use of a police force or other government agency anywhere to prevent the free working and reporting of the media in a public space detests me more then my hatred towards the media

Quote

I don't hate the media in any way, exactly the opposite they serve an important purpose. I just understand how and why they operate, and some of it has nothing to do with reporting the news.

When we deal with the media we have competing interests in some situations, the good media outlets understand that and cooperate as best they can. The more sensational ones provoke confrontation. The vast majority of ones I deal with would have moved across the street when asked, it doesn't affect their shot or report. Some of these "investigative" journalists provoke confrontation, that's what people watch, the more people watch the more advertising revenue. If it bleeds, it leads. That is the bottom line.
Have them zero in on you a few times and you'd understand.***

This is a trend being seen more and more of the police interfering or prevent the media from working.

I would venture to say the opposite, we (the police) have no obligation to feed the 24-hour news cycle. The afternoon local newscasts now are 90-min in many markets, that space has to be filled. The media, mainly television go out looking for news where before there would be none, sometimes even MAKING news, as evidenced here.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He was in no way screwed as a matter of fact the officers gave him an out, the reporter chose not to take that out.
The media cannot go anywhere you can't, you can't just stroll onto school property, neither can they. The property is the real question here, the gun is just a rather large nail in the coffin.
The only thing I can fault the officer for is going after the camera. I don't mind being filmed (under certain guidelines), if somebody feels they are right, I think I'm right, and they won't budge. I'll let them know it will be decided by a jury of their peers, and someone can film that interaction all they want.

Based on the information given so far, the police had *no* right to tell him to move, as he had valid reason to be within the buffer zone.

Just as an FYI for you...the public has a perfect right to take pictures or film anything that they wish, so long as it is not in a POSTED 'no photos' area - you may want to remember that, the next time you macho up on someone and tell them "it will be decided by a jury of their peers".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skycop 0]

Just as an FYI for you...the public has a perfect right to take pictures or film anything that they wish, so long as it is not in a POSTED 'no photos' area - you may want to remember that, the next time you macho up on someone and tell them "it will be decided by a jury of their peers".
***


I'm perfectly aware of the what the public can and can't do, but thanks for the info. As far a "machoing up", this guy decided to turn this into a pissing contest. When people turn situations I'm involved in into pissing contests, I give them all their options, trial by jury is just one.

I watched the unedited video, the guy initially went across the street then called his boss. The guy actually says "I'm going to get arrested, film it" or something along those lines.
That is making news not reporting it, as I posted earlier. It also appears school was letting out and the reporter was positioned by a gate that students use to leave, this gate appears to lead to a heavily traveled multi-lane street. The mere presence of the reporter (on the school side of the street) caused a large group kids to gather on the sidewalk out of curiosity. Couple that with a busy intersection, distracted kids and that IS a safety hazard. I'm sure the cops and administration didn't perceive it to be as much of a hazard across the street, at least that's how I read it. All the guy had to do was stay across the street and everything is good. Again, that location doesn't affect his shot or story.
Could this have been handled better, sure it could. I would venture to say that school board police and many administrators didn't have much training in dealing with the media, they will now.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Just as an FYI for you...the public has a perfect right to take pictures or film anything that they wish, so long as it is not in a POSTED 'no photos' area - you may want to remember that, the next time you macho up on someone and tell them "it will be decided by a jury of their peers".
***


I'm perfectly aware of the what the public can and can't do, but thanks for the info. As far a "machoing up", this guy decided to turn this into a pissing contest. When people turn situations I'm involved in into pissing contests, I give them all their options, trial by jury is just one.

I watched the unedited video, the guy initially went across the street then called his boss. The guy actually says "I'm going to get arrested, film it" or something along those lines.
That is making news not reporting it, as I posted earlier. It also appears school was letting out and the reporter was positioned by a gate that students use to leave, this gate appears to lead to a heavily traveled multi-lane street. The mere presence of the reporter (on the school side of the street) caused a large group kids to gather on the sidewalk out of curiosity. Couple that with a busy intersection, distracted kids and that IS a safety hazard. I'm sure the cops and administration didn't perceive it to be as much of a hazard across the street, at least that's how I read it. All the guy had to do was stay across the street and everything is good. Again, that location doesn't affect his shot or story.
Could this have been handled better, sure it could. I would venture to say that school board police and many administrators didn't have much training in dealing with the media, they will now.

I'm unable to get the video over here - it's blocked, so I could only comment on what I could find posted - I appreciate the additional info.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706