[sanderjd]

Your quick search doesn't seem to have revealed something that is the same as the story we're discussing.

Like, I totally agree with you about qualified immunity and law enforcement abuses of power, but come on, you're using this story to make extremely tangential points.

This isn't an example of law enforcement attacks on the press going unpunished. I saw this on the Today show this morning. This is mainstream national news. The criminals who perpetrated this are no longer the beneficiaries of a system that is corruptly stacked in their favor, they are f'd. They will be speaking to the US DoJ, and soon, and the conversation will not go well.

For sure, when abuses of power don't get widespread attention, they can easily go unchecked. And that's bad. But this isn't that.

[petsfed]

Its a reach on my part, granted.

My claim is that there's less distance in the mind of the police between beating up a reporter for taking pictures of the police behaving badly, and raiding a newspaper for investigating reports of the police behaving badly.

[dfxm12]

This isn't an example of law enforcement attacks on the press going unpunished.

OK, I'll bite. What was the punishment?

[sanderjd]

This just happened! The punishment is not a "was", it is a "will be"!

Do you think this is a story about something that happened last year? This happened on Friday and started receiving attention two days later, which was yesterday. This is the third day since this happened. It will take months to investigate this kind of thing, and the actual punishment, after that investigation and trials, will be years from now.

If you want to have a conversation about how quickly investigations happen, fine, but three days is a completely absurd expectation.

If this gets buried and nobody deigns to prosecute it, I'll happily pick up my pitch fork and join the rest of you, but until then, for goodness sake, have some patience.

[dfxm12]

So it's not an example of an example of law enforcement going unpunished, as you said?

If this gets buried and nobody deigns to prosecute it...

Is this one is the last straw, then?

[sanderjd]

I don't understand your first question.

To your second question, no, it's not a last straw situation. I've been outraged by specific things in the past, and I'm sure I will be again in the future. But I'm not outraged by this specific thing, in the present, because all signs point to these people being brought to justice in due time.

[dfxm12]

I don't understand your first question.

You said that the people involved were punished: This isn't an example of law enforcement attacks on the press going unpunished. You then walked back this comment when pressed: The punishment is not a "was", it is a "will be". I get it, though. Your original comment is not defensible.

all signs point to these people being brought to justice in due time

What signs? There's a history of cops doing this, getting caught and and the biggest reaction (I don't think this meets the level of "punishment") might be quietly moving them to another jurisdiction. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess it needed to be spelled out. A lack of punishment (jail time, revocation of pension, whatever), is more or less codified as QI. Maybe the city gets sued and taxpayers have make a payout to the victim (these are civil cases). You seem to be implying that this case is different because the DOJ is involved. It's not. We know, as just one recent example, based on the DOJ consent decree in place in Minneapolis, and an ACLU lawsuit against the Minneapolis police department, that (among other things) the DOJ was aware of cops assaulting the press. There was a settlement that the city had to pay, but no one involved was brought up on criminal charges from this though. This is what the signs are pointing towards.

[sanderjd]

> You said that the people involved were punished: This isn't an example of law enforcement attacks on the press going unpunished.

Where exactly do you see the words "were punished" in that quote from me, or in anything else I've written? It's not there...

Something "going unpunished" means it remains unpunished indefinitely. There are lots of examples of things happening in the past going unpunished. But this is a thing that is happening in the present, which may or may not go unpunished in the fullness of time. But not nearly enough time has passed to say either way.

The signs that justice is likely to be done here is that this created a national outrage, with the perpetrators having only local small town allies, which neither the US DOJ nor even, I suspect, the state of Kansas will find intimidating in the least.

Everything you're saying is totally true for things that don't get broad media attention. My thesis is that this case is different by dint of being featured in the NYTimes and on Good Morning America.

For instance, Derek Chauvin is in jail in very large part because he came to the attention of the Sauron's eye of the national media. This is like that, and it's why I think it's likely these people will face justice.