|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 4 users and 20 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: Who's new
|
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 9:23am.
I see that the Olympian isn't as quick to their usual rush to judgment when one of their own -- an award-winning photographer -- is accused of assaulting a police officer. I hope this incident serves as an eye-opener for some people.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
|
I'll wait for the police report
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:05am.nt
For what? The objective perspective?
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:08am.Yes
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 5:07pm.I saw Tony pepper-sprayed with my own eyes...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 5:52pm.if that's what you're alluding to. I don't think the officers singled him out, they were just spraying the crowd and Tony was in the middle of. But he got a direct blast.
Edit: Later, the Olympian published an editorial that minimized what happened to better fit their editorial position. That is, the police acted correctly at all times.
You and a dozen other people
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 7:17pm.Norm, if you ever wear a skirt
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 9:36pm.OK....there are a few things I don't want to see
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 10:53am.Norm in a skirt is one and Gug blowing smoke up it is another.
Smoking is only allowed on the patio at the Broho, right?
Enough scotch and you never know. On to the subject -
I'd guess that Tony stays with The Olympian for M-O-N-E-Y. Since print media is taking it in the shorts and graduation photos are sort of seasonal, photo journalists must compromise themselves as we all do for the almighty dollar.
I'm sitting in the cheap seats watching this one take shape. My guess is that it will be "settled" in a week, to never be spoken about again. There are two organizations that need each other - the police and the local newspaper.
Watch for the silent handshake.
Oh, come on now Larry
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 12:18pm.Horror
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 6:46pm.Please explain how this
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:17am.Please explain how this would be an eye-opener for some of us. Given your rep for bashing The Olympian I see it as nothing more than your usual assiduous behavior toward our local paper.
Assiduous?
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:43am.Thanks, but I'm quite sure,
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 4:05pm.Thanks, but I'm quite sure, when you look at all the possible applications of the word, that it is used correctly. But, if that's all you've got, instead of an answer, well...
Try this one - constant; unremitting. I digress.
Wrong again.
Submitted by jlw on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 6:54am.Although my attitude toward the Olympian is unapologetically acerbic, my behavior toward the rag is hardly assiduous, constant OR unremitting. If that were the case, I could never have let this joke of an editorial pass without comment. (Who would Jesus bomb? The port protesters!) Personally, I hope Jesus stays in his grave, but Strunk and White return to earth and wreak havoc on people who use pretentious words incorrectly.
Is This Dialog One of
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 3:08pm.anger issues or having the last word on one's part? Either way, no reason to respond to my rhetorical question. EG took the high road.
There is a remarkable difference in tone
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 12:04pm.when you compare the Olympian's story about Overman with almost any story about port protests. I imagine some folks might see that difference and take note. But not everyone will. Some folks just aren't so inclined.
Intesting, haven't noticed anyone expressing thier lack of sympathy for Tony's injuries. Didn't he "get what he deserved?"
What a waste of a
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 4:09pm.Excellent point perhaps.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 3:28pm.Yeah, a real eye opener.
Submitted by wilson on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:19am.I don't think this is about police corruption.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 12:08pm.The prefered eye opener:
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:22am.Cops are just like everyone else, which means that some of them are wild jerks. Some are cool too.
The difference is that cops carry the full power of the State, which is terrifying when put in the hands of a wild jerk.
The Canaanite's Call
Mistakes were made
Submitted by Laurian on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:41am.A cop over stepped his authority. Tony did not have his camera taken away or his pictures destroyed and was released within a half hour. This is not to defend the cop's actions. From what I read is sounds like the cop was in the wrong. Dropping the charges, a training/review of press liberties and an apology seems in order. To err is human and cops are of that species.
Yes I see the Olympian's double standard vis a vis the PMR resistors as well but it is the nature of tribes to defend their own. The folks of the Olympian are humans too.
Pointing out the short comings of the Olympian is like shooting fish in a barrel: Way too easy and not much of a sport.
I believe it's necessary, though
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 12:05pm.True
Submitted by Laurian on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 12:53pm.I was tired, too, until I tried....
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 1:35pm.Now I have the energy to criticize multiple law enforcement agencies, the city council, AND the local media! Another dose, and I'll be downright assiduous!
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning
Submitted by Matthew Green on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 3:12pm.Yes, it gets tiring pointing out the biases in the Olympian (like this one: good or bad police behavior is defined by how well the Olympian likes the recipient of the behavior, not by the behavior itself).
Yet, it must be pointed out. The most crucial audience is those people who pay enough attention to read the Olympian, but not enough to analyze it in depth.
If someone says something enough, and no one challenges it, it becomes the truth. If we care, we have to challenge it.
Matthew
Absofrakinglutely!
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 3:21pm.Tony Overman Didn't
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 3:21pm.impede traffic needlessly, throw rocks through windows, put children in danger, demand a arrested person's release, hold up government supplies and property or physically assault the detective or his property.
It's no wonder The O wrote the story about Overman the way they did vs. the story they wrote about the protest(s). The man was simply doing his job and trying to stand up for respect for the press, a belief he stands firm in. The protesters were simply wreaking havoc and chaos. The O was correct in all it's editorials about the protestors.
QED
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 3:22pm.Gug
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 3:25pm.Oh, I'm a whisky drinker
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 3:28pm.Well,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 5:03pm.You simply can't equate what the peaceful protesters did with what the handful of rock throwers did, one had nothing to do with the other. One group was engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and the other was capitalizing on an opportunity to use violence as a tactic while hiding in the crowd.
The big point is that Overman staged a protest that day and got arrested in the act of disobediently standing up for the rights of the press. I'm not sure how the court case would pan out, we'll probably never know as most likely the charges will be dropped.
Really? The article I read
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 6:12pm.EDIT: Nope, I just re-read it - says nothing about Tony crossing the line. He was arrested for allegedly assaulting the officer.
Unless I'm wrong,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 6:41pm.I feel like you were one of the folks who came down fairly hardline on the protesters with the opinion that they should obey the cops and move out of the street when told to and if they decide not to then they shouldn't complain about the reaction they get. I don't see how there is a difference here.
Overman himself has made this about him defending his rights and the rights of the press, more likely for legal reasons than for reasons of principal, but he did it anyway. His protest was to stay inside the police line when told to move out of it, he got arrested and probably was handled roughly, but the cops have a job to do that doesn't involve babysitting uppity journalists, right?
Rob, you are wrong on this one. Check the article
Submitted by Laurian on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 7:16pm.Here, I did it for you.
Overman said that while he was taking photos, an officer put up a police-tape boundary behind him. Overman said that when Lacey detective David Miller told him to move outside the boundary, he complied. The Olympian June 8 2008
I read the article, I think I just understand it differently.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:06pm.We can only speculate as to what really went down here, but this article really does little to shed light on it. When the police report comes out, hopefully we'll be able to know more, at least then we'll have both sides of the story.
While walking away
Submitted by Laurian on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:26pm.With a bit more context...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 9:46pm.I'm suprized anyone knows where Tony was standing...other than Lacey...by a house. Sounds to me like he hadn't stepped out of the line yet. But rather, he turned in his tracks to ask a question. But...I don't know jack.
The bloggers here will call out another media group
Submitted by JT on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 4:40am.for being hypocritical, but will go out of their way to defend and rationalize their fellow Olybloggers hypocrisy.
"A dog is not 'almost human', and I know of no greater insult to the canine race than to describe it as such." - John Holmes
itchyhitch.blogspot.com
nt
Submitted by Mike on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 7:35am.By your measure everyone is a hypocrit.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 12:13pm.Intense Encounter
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 4:27pm.Of course, it would help to have an objective and impartial first-person analysis of the encounter to help understanding of what actually took place.
peace, bert
Some new info from
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 5:50pm.the National Press Photographer Association. Obviously a group with their own agenda, but it has more details about the incident.
If accurate, the article also clarifies where Tony was standing and when. He was outside the line when the altercation took place.
As Arte Johnson From Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 6:52pm.would always say "veeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting".
Thanks for providing another perspective!
Very interesting indeed.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 10:00pm.How was Tony in the wrong?
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 5:44am.well,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 9:18am.Nose to nose
Submitted by rainy gray on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 8:34pm.Sounds like...
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 6:16am.Other officers are going to let this Detective go at this one alone.
The Olympian:
I may be reading between the lines a little too much, but when someone doesn't see something - again, he may not have. Nobody can say but the officer writing the report - you have to wonder whether it's simply being used as a plausible way to remove oneself from a situation.
Copwatch Experience
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:16pm.The main reason it doesn't happen to me is that I never take verbal issue with the unreasonable officer at the moment. Irrational armed anger junkies are unlikely to de-escalate regardless of the argument I might make. Once they have established their dominance I just sit back and let them think they have won. The press always gets the last word anyway, and it's called CopWATCH, not CopSTOP.
Tony has, in my presence, been angry and upset. I know that his reactions can be driven by anger and righteousness, but I also know that using that against someone trained to dominate the conversation and escalate to physical violence when that fails is a losing proposition. My credibility as a Copwatcher depends in part on NOT being the subject of the arrest.
I know that grey areas upset many of those who would prefer right/wrong and good/bad dichotomies, but the simple fact is that "...there are no 'good guys,' there are no 'bad guys,' there's only you and me and we just disagree." Tony was wrong. Detective Miller was much more wrong. But both could have avoided this. Detective could have whispered his order (but did not because it was intended as a threat to Tony) and Tony could have shrugged it off (but didn't because he sensed that it was a threat and decided, stupidly, to argue with an unreasonable man armed with a gun and handcuffs and training and backup). Lacey PD admin is NOT in control of their Agency. Their police guild is. (They literally check with the guild on document releases to Lacey Copwatch). If Detective Miller is part of the guild, no lasting change will happen here.
1st Amendment vs Copwatch
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 6:29pm.1st off let me say I really respect the work of Copwatch.
That said, being a member of the Press is different from Copwatching and so different tactics are appropriate. Due to the 1st Amendment, members of the Press, be they someone who contribute to the Olympian, Works in Progress, or Olyblog, have superior rights to citizens when it comes their role in reportage. Assualting and arresting a member of the Press is very serious because it is an assault on all our civil rights.
Mr. Overman's personal foibles, if they are such, should not matter when it comes to his 1st Amendment rights to report events in our community. I for one appreciate an aggressive approach to reporting. If you let the power structure roll over you they will continue to do so. If nothing else comes out of this incident, the Olympian has the institutional resources to make the LPD think twice about assaulting another reporter.
Injustice in the field happens in an instant. The truth to can be erased in seconds and all the subsequent legal proceedings will not bring it back. Mr. Overman was defending more than his ego, he was defending a critical right to all of us: the right to know what is happening in our community.
Agression in the defense of Liberty is not a vice.
I'm placing $5 on nothing happening from all of this.
Submitted by Norm on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 7:37pm.Nothing of any importance anyway. We can hash this out all day long, but it makes no difference. A reporter was arrested, why? Because he took offense to something a detective shouted. Could the detective have handled it better? Absolutely, but when it all boils down, who cares? NOT THE RIGHT PEOPLE. Hands will be shaked, maybe an apology made, but the detective will keep on working, and the cops will all chuckle about how Mr. Overman is still not allowed behind the tape.
In the future what can be done to prevent this? Reporters should just do what they are told and suck it up. Why? Because the cop isn't going to lose. End of story.
Because the cop isn't going to lose. End of story.
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 8:44pm.I fought the law
Submitted by security_six on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 8:46pm.And I won. :-p Or at least reached a very cordial understanding on several subjects through the intervention of a good lawyer.
"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."The cops do not always "win" nor is there always a "winner" or "loser". Sometimes everyone shakes hands and walks away with certain issued clarified and better defined.
Six, you are absolutely
Submitted by wilson on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 9:00pm.And incredibly
Submitted by security_six on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 9:02pm.Good looking too, don't forget that. And humble, very very humble. :-p
"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."I think you're all ignoring the point of this story
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 11:06pm.Thanks, gug
Submitted by Mike on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 6:43am.There's debate concerning
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 7:45am.That, more than an entity protecting one of its own and preserving their image, is the reason for the differences of coverage.
No, that sounds more like a justification to me
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 9:04am.Where in the article did it
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:01am.Now, if Tony recrossed the line, he deserved to be arrested. Considering the urgency of the scene Miller wouldn't have been required to play nice and gentle. Also, if Tony, even accidentally, bumped the Officer while approaching it's understandable how that would escalate under the cirumstances.
All we know is that Tony turned around and approached the Officer: it's unknown from the article whether Miller was on the public side of the line, or if they met at the line, or if Tony recrossed the line.
All we know is that they approached each other nose to nose: it's unknown from the article whether Miller approached the approaching Overman, and it's unknown whether one or both made the decision to move in that close.
I doubt any of the Port arrests were misunderstandings. Despite the "Justification" from certain morons there were people blocking streets, impeding traffic, disrupting jobs and commerce - and refused to disburse after numerous warnings.
Go back and read what I wrote.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:29am.I've read more than that one article
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:47am.I'm not making anythng up. I'm just putting the pieces together based on Olympian articles, the NPPA piece, and police reports. Right now it looks like
Unless you are willing to entertain the possibilty of excessive force (whether a law is broken or not) then you're not really addressing the issue raised in this thread. You simply focus on wether or not Tony deserved to be arrested. That's not the issue. The issue is how much force is appropriate given the offense and why is the Olympian only interested in that now but not when people who were just sitting in the street were pepper sprayed?
Based on what you just said,
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:58am.Spraying a group of people who have refused to disburse from an illegal blockade after numerous warnings does not fall under Excessive Force - rather it falls under Restraint.
I think the jury is still out on the use of pepper spray
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 12:24pm.No worries, the Supreme
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 12:31pm.The reason I think it is
Submitted by wilson on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 11:15am.Could have happened in the back seat of my Chevy...
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 6:50pm.in 1969:
Charges Dropped Against Overman
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:38am.He was behind the tape.
Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:44am.Within the tape's the
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:46am.You can blow out a candle / But you can't blow out a fire / Once the flames begin to catch / The wind will blow it higher
Where Overman was standing, however,
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:58am.Perhaps, but usually when
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:59am.You can blow out a candle / But you can't blow out a fire / Once the flames begin to catch / The wind will blow it higher
Wink, wink...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 11:00am.I've been on the beneficial
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 11:05am.Don't worry Merwyn
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 11:10am.