why is there no video shown of the people throwing rocks at the police? they said it happened, did they not think that was worthy of being shown on film, or are they trying to blame the police for this ugly incident by only showing the police response?

some of the police went too far. but if the media were objective and fair, they’d have shown video of the people throwing rocks and bottles antagonizing the police. those people are as responsible for the outcome of this situation as the police who went too far.
the lack of coverage of the people responsible for the outbreak of violence (protesters throwing stones etc) is as bothersome to me as the police who went too far. if they had any journalistic integrity they would have reported the fact that this whole thing was started by people attacking the police with stones and bottles. the reporter glossed over the cause with one mention of people throwing stones, and then a couple minutes of video and commentary about the police response. most people won’t walk away from that story remembering that the violence was initiated by protesters, they’ll walk away thinking how cruel the police are. another case of piss poor journalism.

“peaceful demonstrations” do not include throwing stones at the police. doing that will put a lot of people at risk. police in riot gear armed and prepared to prevent a riot will use overwhelming force to do just that. it’s how they’re trained. squash the rock throwing before it escalates into looting, flipping cars, and setting buildings on fire. often times innocent people get hurt, but i blame that on those who couldn’t demonstrate peacefully and felt the need to assault policemen.

i don’t know where you’re getting the info that they “bulldozed the entire crowd”. that’s a huge exageration seemingly meant (just like the news story) to strike at people’s emotions to garner support. and i think that description is up for debate. they didn’t bulldoze the crowd, they cleared it, and they did so using less force than has been used in more peaceful marches. we all should remember the vivid images of the dogs and firehoses being used on peaceful activists in the 60’s. my point is, i’ve seen the police do worse for less. it’s unfortunate some people got hurt, they should be as willing to sue the people throwing rocks at the police as the police. but my guess is that’s not even up for consideration. i wonder why.

AJ

i saw no bulldozer, no dogs, no firehoses, just people getting pushed and shoved because they refused to follow lawful commands from the police. while some police went too far, they are not the only ones who need to be held accountable.

police accidentally killed someone after the Red Sox won the world series while trying to disperse rioters. if i remember correctly a rubber bullet struck her in the eye and killed her. it didn’t get as much press as this story. why is that?

Wallace-
that’s kind of my point. even though a life was lost in Boston, this story gets more press for one reason: politics. there is a political movement so the press plays up this incident, which has nothing to do with the validity of the movement itself. but it does drum up support for alleged victims and their cause. but if the press was truly concerned about the victims, they would have made a bigger deal out of the girl in boston being killed by police. they don’t care about the people, they care about the politics, and they’ll gladly use the victims to advance their beliefs.

the images of the dogs and waterhoses is different because the police response was part of the reason for the marches. fundamental civil rights were being denied, and the treatment of peaceful marchers by the police demonstrated that fact. in that instance the response and the movement were intertwined.

i’m not sold on that being the case in this latest “immigration” rally.

AJ

I might have given the impression that I thought this was along the same lines. It was no where near it. But the realization was made and then actively utilized since the 60’s to display images in the media to provoke feelings. I am in no way endorsing the tactic but answering the question. (Which is why I thought you chose to leave it an open question instead of making a statement.)

In our current time of less overt aggression we can argue till we are blue in the face about whether the response to the crowd by those police officers who went to far were motivated by some form or bigotry. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the officers overreacted to the situation and it got bigger then it was. But the media should show all of the footage that is relevant to the incident not what just gets the highest ratings.

Media coverage aside there were children in there that could have or were injured during the melee. That is irresponsible handling of the situation.