This site appears extremely more credible, due to more reliable sources, than the one with a 1000 upvotes here yesterday. Looking at this site’s about page they appear to source their information from industry related organizations where the one from yesterday sourced its data from one person aggregating data off Twitter.
Are the numbers really that different? This site only shows incidents up through Saturday. The more recent coverage in the github thing yesterday just isn't there yet. But I'm happy you think this one is trustworthy and hope you stick around to watch them add incidents.
For sure, also any of the news crews that were shot in the camera with rubber bullets were dangerously close to being seriously injured or death.
The below study would also assume not all the shots were head shots, aiming at a camera is the same as aiming at the head.
"The injuries in 90 patients caused by rubber bullets are described. There was 1 death and 17 people in the series had permanent disabilities or deformities. In 41 patients the injuries necessitated admission to hospital. One fatality outside this series is known. Injuries to the head and neck were frequent and severe."
You're supposed to bounce them off the street so they lose most of their velocity. More than a few of the police force apparently forgot that part of their training.
Note that this only applies to the 35mm/40mm rubber bullets, not the less-than-lethal beanbag/rubber pellet munitions.
It seems like it's only a matter of time before someone dies from a rubber bullet, given how casually they are being used. I've seen enough footage on twitter to get the feeling that the press is speficially being targeted [0]
in other parts of the world the news crews stay behind the police lines. Mostly in more repressive regimes, the news are not considered either free or friendly and are targeted during a riot.
The second item under "journalists attacked" is a cameraman who said he was attacked (and then rescued) by protesters. Is the goal here to count both attacks by authorities and civilians?
"Journalists who face physical violence, either as the result of a targeted attack by a public or private individual or in the course of their work. If a journalist is hit by rubber bullets or bean bag rounds, it will be counted in this category.
Damage to equipment is counted in a separate "Equipment Damage" category, but may be also listed in this Physical Attack category if the damage occurs with an attack.
Journalists affected by tear gas, pepper spray, or other mass riot control agents will be counted if the individual suffers serious injury or appears to have been specifically targeted. Incidents that fall outside these parameters and in which multiple journalists were affected by riot control agents may be counted in the “Other” category."
Also not OP, but in that one article the violence was indiscriminate, not targeting journalists.
James Taranto in his Best of the Web column had a running gag poking fun at articles where lots of people were affected by a problem, but the author dwells on one particular group, under a heading of "World Ends, X hardest hit." Yes, journalists are being affected by recent violence, but so are a lot of other people.
I just think it would be productive to focus on reducing any violence. I suspect focus on particular groups exists to qualify some artificial us versus them dichotomy.
I, personal opinion, trust the traditional media outlets of broadcast and print (despite some disagreement from some politicians) because there is an ethical standard they challenge each other to uphold. What I don’t trust as a news source is social media where there is no such standard. News from social media just feels like bad gossip.
Yes. It's important that the press be able to fully, accurately, and safely report on big events in a country. If they can't, that's a press freedom problem, regardless of whose fault it is that they're not safe.
This video is cut short (full video at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newyork/video-2183600/Vide... ) but unmarked police car parks without lights or sirens facing the wrong way on a one way street. Police officer dressed fully in black proceeds to exit the vehicle on the passenger side and walk directly into traffic with no right of way. I know memes are discouraged here but shocked pikachu face.
It is not like they walked out into the path of an on-coming car. The car was on the other side of the street behind another car. The car deliberately veered and accelerated into them.
Most (if not all) of these are in defense of property. It's sad to give up your life for property. Remember, property can be replaced, lives cannot.
Personally, I think that protesting and destroying property is a true valid form of protest. For instance: the Civil Rights Act of 1968 wasn't passed until after the riots.
You raise an excellent point. You should torch your own home in protest and give away anything valuable that you have to the peaceful protesters. It's only stuff, but destroying racism is forever. Just think of how awesome a person that would make you, helping to destroy racism by sacrificing your own home and all your easily replaceable stuff.
Property can't always be replaced, especially when it's peoples livelihoods. Unfortunately while Target may have full insurance policies, locally owned businesses (especially those owned by minorities and people of color) probably are either very underinsured or not insured at all.
When you try to burn down someones business or especially their home, they're going to respond with violence. They're also going to suddenly go from being sympathetic to your cause to extremely antagonistic. There are two ways to achieve peace, and everyone putting down their weapons and agreeing to talk it out is the more recent of the two. We must always seek civility.
Because bad things unreported are even worse than bad things reported. Its all about building trust for society. What do you think?