The Shotgun Blog
« Continuing coverage of attack ads: This time, Obama rips into McCain | Main | Is anyone surprised by North Korea anymore? »
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
ABC News reporter, Asa Eslocker, arrested in Denver
From ABC News:
"Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera
crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of
Democratic senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the
Brown Palace Hotel."
...
"A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel."
Watch video of the arrest here.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on August 27, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5547fa0808833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ABC News reporter, Asa Eslocker, arrested in Denver:
Comments
Nothing fascist or "police state" going on here. Nawww, couldn't be, not in Amerika.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1
Fact is there are so many back door deals going on in government anymore that the system has become about as rotten as it could be.
And now the politicos are using the police departments, that taxpayers maintain as their personal security force, to keep the taxpayers away from secret(?) meetings. Great, just f*ckin Great!
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-27 10:24:29 PM
Paranoid much JC?
You and your ilks constant shrieking about your perceived "police state" in countries where you are still allowed any freedom within reason really grows tiresome.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-08-27 10:50:09 PM
The news report doesn't give us much to go on. Where was he trespassing, in the hotel? What was the nature of the interference and what was the lawful order that he refused to obey? We do know that the lobbyists are pouring a lot of money into both of the parties. How much influence are they buying? The American voter has a right to have this exposed. If the police are being used for political purposes then JC's complaint is justified.
Posted by: DML | 2008-08-27 11:33:40 PM
Paranoid much JC?
Posted by: deepblue | 27-Aug-08 10:50:09 PM
Your obvious failure to be in any way observant or informed does not qualify me as paranoid.
The facts are obvious and your comment an indication of willful ignorance. Which is why America is going down the tubes...fast! Ignorance.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-28 6:18:47 AM
How much influence are they buying?
Posted by: DML | 27-Aug-08 11:33:40 PM
DML, It is my understanding that the pharmacuetical industry alone has 4 lobbyists per congressman. And that would be just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-28 6:46:02 AM
The problem, JC, is the reputation reporters have with themselves. They consider themselves the foot soldiers of democracy and have been known to act like the law does not, or should not apply to them. They get right in the faces of grieving relatives and traumatized bystanders, sometimes children, shoving microphones in their faces as though they were lollipops.
Let's face it, in most cases their motives are not nearly as altruistic as they play it. They're not so much interested in preserving democracy as they are in getting the next big scoop. And then the fact that they rarely provide a balanced portrayal of what happened, instead spinning and teasing the story for maximum sensationalist effect.
Officers don't typically swear at or otherwise abuse people who are polite to them and follow their instructions. If the reporter was on private property, he had no right to be there unasked, period. His reporter's badge is no excuse.
Watch the video and you'll see that he squirmed out of the officer's hand like a disobedient toddler without even taking his mug out of his cellular phone, as though the officer had the plague or something. He continued to lip off as the officer walked him across the street, subjecting himself to the same "oncoming traffic." In the next shot, Eslocker can be seen resisting arrest to the point that it took three officers to subdue him, still squirming around like a petulant adolescent.
Eslocker has dishonoured and discredited himself and his profession. Even if the arrest were unjustified, he could hardly have comported himself with less dignity. He acted like a common hoodlum. Sorry, but if that's the eyes and ears of the Great Republic, then it's a sad day for journalism everywhere.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 7:53:55 AM
P.S. I beg your pardon. It took FOUR officers to arrest him.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 7:58:33 AM
Eslocker was arrested on a sidewalk, not on private property, and he was not shoving a camera in the face of a "grieving relative" or "traumatized bystander." Pointing a camera at politicians while they enter and exit a building is not a crime, and the fact that someone wanted Eslocker arrested for being there suggests that they were doing something they weren't proud of and didn't want publicized.
There is no "dishonour" in shining light on the private influance bieng exerted on public representatives. As for being a "footsoldier of democracy," shouldn't the public be informed about what their elected officials are doing in the public's name?
Posted by: Matt S. | 2008-08-28 8:30:01 AM
Matt, are you being intentionally thick? I never said Eslocker shoved a camera in the face of a grieving relative, at least not in this instance. I offered this as an example of the attitude frequently displayed by journalists that their self-described indispensability makes them immune to certain laws and rules and gives them greater access to various venues than the public enjoys. It doesn't.
Furthermore, just because the sidewalk is normally public property (IF that section of sidewalk normally is), doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to be there at a given time. If part of the road is cordoned off to the public as a security measure, that means reporters, too, regardless of any "mission" they may feel themselves on to "shine the light."
Stop talking like a conspiracy nut. The threshold of harassment for reporters is no higher than it is for anyone else; rules and laws apply to everyone. You have already taken it as a given that the politicians were up to something dirty, without a shred of evidence other than the fact that a particularly combative gadfly was rousted from his perch. You're also assuming that the Eslocker would have been, well, altogether honest about what he saw and filmed. Did you notice, for instance, that we can't see anything that happened just prior to his being escorted across the street?
And yes, Eslocker has brought dishonour to his profession today. Because acting like a spoiled brat and an obnoxious twerp brings dishonour to anyone, and to their colleagues by association. Or do the rules of politeness and professionalism apply only to those who serve the public, as opposed to those who serve private editors and advertisers? The ABC is a PRIVATE corporation, Matt. As is most of the American press.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 8:51:35 AM
ABC News Reporter Arrested ion Denver
SEE THE MUG SHOT here:
http://www.ersnews.com/PicODay/Eslocker_LG.jpg
Posted by: ERSNews.com | 2008-08-28 11:38:41 AM
Was that really a man? He looks more like an elf.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 12:02:49 PM
Quite a straw man argument there, Shane. And name calling too. Classy.
If this particular reporter wasn't doing any of the shady, harrassing things you're railing on about, and if the sidewalk wasn't cordoned off, which it does not appear to have been, then your tirade about the profession is totally irrelevant in this instance. Nobody's saying that overly invasive reporters with a sense of entitlement aren't abnoxious. They are. What about Mr. Eslocker's conduct here makes you think he was being overly invasive, that he thinks himself "indispensible" or "immune to certain laws," that he is a "spoiled brat" and a "particularly combative gadfly?"
What's shown in the video is a dude getting arrested for standing on the sidwalk shooting some film. If you want to assume he was doing anything more than that just because you don't like reporters in general, who am I to deny you your prejudices?
Posted by: Matt S. | 2008-08-28 3:11:45 PM
I saw the clip and I don't know what grounds the cops were using to move him along and arrest him.
He was on a public sidewalk doing his job as a reporter.
I think this is a case of privilege. The big shots who are behind the idiot boy Barrack don't what to be seen doing what they are doing. This was influence at work.
The reporter will be vindicated and the charges dropped. Meanwhile the elites do as they please unfettered by a pesky (and formerly) free press.
Posted by: John V | 2008-08-28 3:42:15 PM
Matt,
1. Rein in the mock outrage; it's an unconvincing show. That was a throwaway gag and not intended to be taken seriously. The fact that you did so suggests you're just looking for nits to pick.
2. You ARE being intentionally thick. You were the one who trucked forth outrage that a foot soldier of democracy was being prevented from "shining the light." The insinuation is that he has the right to access places that the average citizen does not, and the right to harass persons of interest for the good of the nation, whereas a normal person would be sued or put in jail. Neither is true.
3. You have seen ONLY the video the media saw fit to post. You don't know anything that went on before the video started, and that video contains a very obvious edit even though the camera was ostensibly rolling the whole time. So until we know more, your outrage is misplaced. I saw petulant and childish behaviour and commented on that.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 4:03:01 PM
The big shots who are behind the idiot boy Barrack don't what to be seen doing what they are doing
Posted by: John V | 28-Aug-08 3:42:15 PM
If that's the case why didn't they arrest the cameraman? Just wondering
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-28 4:13:59 PM
**sigh** Shane, you see outrage in me for the same reason you see inappropriate behavior in Mr. Eslocker. There's no evidence of either. Put your tinfoil helmet back on, grab your rifle, and go back to patroling the woods around your cabin for commies and liberals.
Stig, I agree, if someone was concerned about keeping themselves off film they probably would have grabbed the camera. Probably just some over zealous police work in response to the hotel's complaint about a blocked sidewalk.
Posted by: Matt S. | 2008-08-28 4:33:04 PM
Matt wrote: "Shane, you see outrage in me for the same reason you see inappropriate behavior in Mr. Eslocker. There's no evidence of either."
"No evidence" of inappropriate behaviour in Mr. Eslocker? what do you call resisting an officer? Lipping off to an officer? Making a scene? Or blocking a sidewalk, as you yourself admit below? You have nothing--absolutely nothing--to gain by antagonizing a cop, even if he's wrong. Except, perhaps, publicity. For all we know, Eslocker deliberately provoked the whole thing for sensational effect.
Matt wrote: "Put your tinfoil helmet back on, grab your rifle, and go back to patroling the woods around your cabin for commies and liberals."
A petulant barb like that, and no outrage? Right.
Matt wrote: "Stig, I agree, if someone was concerned about keeping themselves off film they probably would have grabbed the camera. Probably just some over zealous police work in response to the hotel's complaint about a blocked sidewalk."
Possibly. Too bad you weren't willing to listen to reason until now. Probably because you were too busy choking on your...
(wait for it)
Outrage.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 5:21:53 PM
"No evidence" of inappropriate behaviour in Mr. Eslocker? what do you call resisting an officer? Lipping off to an officer?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 28-Aug-08 5:21:53 PM
Come on Shane, this cop was way out of line.
And a "citizen with rights" should absolutely resist this sort of thing. A slave however should just what he's told.
Just a thought
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-28 6:20:05 PM
Those cops should be re-issued new shirts, might I suggest brown ones? First the chubby smoking cop shoves him into traffic and then one has him by the throat and he broke the law? Yep those Dem supporters sure like freedom of the press as long as said press doesn't report the truth about Saint Obama and his financial supporters. Cough Obama and his loyal support of Bill Ayers isn't a real news story-no-Sir-Ree-Bob. What's one domestic terrorist friend, it's a free country and all.
Note to reporters check with the aviation sector to see how many "Private Planes" landed lately from the ME and Africaaaaaaaaaaa.
What's not to love about Obama, every single Islamic Torrorist organization GLOBALLY gave him their endorsement that's gotta be good enough for the terror appeasing/supporting lefties.
Posted by: Rose | 2008-08-28 6:25:28 PM
How do you know he was out of line, JC? You have no idea what happened before the beginning of the clip. And what kind of idiot has so little regard for a cop that he shrugs him off and keeps talking on the phone?
Resisting an officer is seldom a good idea, JC, especially when he asks only that you move. He's armed and you're not. Unless his misconduct actually places you in danger, it's a losing game. If you have an issue, that's what the complaints department and, if the misconduct is serious enough, the courts are for.
This guy's a newsman and could easily have publicized the whole thing without turning it into a tussle. He chose to go down hard. It's almost as if he provoked the incident just to give himself some national airtime.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 7:48:33 PM
Rose, people like you are the reason for the Rodney King riots. It turned out at the trials of those four officers that the news aired only a small fraction of the total video and that King's belligerent resistance was also caught on tape but never aired, because then his brutal subjugation doesn't seem so outrageous. But the news, hungry for copy, printed only the sensationalistic part, and as a result LA sustained millions of dollars in damage.
Like the LA rioters, you saw only a portion of what happened, and yet before an investigation can even be opened, much less completed, you've worked yourself into a righteous lather. "Pushed him into traffic?" There WAS no traffic; the street was blocked off to all except buses, and the cop walked out right after him, thereby subjecting himself to the same "danger." As for the "throat-grabbing," the officer exerted only a modicum of pressure and since there's a cutscene just before we have no idea what it was done in response to.
Jeez. See a glimpse of a picture and you're ready to trot out accusations of state-sanctioned terrorism. No, you're not too knee-jerk at all. Funny, that's the same thing liberals have long complained about in George Bush...
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 7:54:56 PM
Why doesn't this kind of thing happen to CBC crews? If I was Harper, I'd have them dragged out, beaten to a bloody pulp, then prosecuted for theft - because the CBC steals valuable tax dollars.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-28 8:04:40 PM
You have no idea what happened before the beginning of the clip.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 28-Aug-08 7:48:33 PM
Do you?
Resisting an officer is seldom a good idea, JC, especially when he asks only that you move. He's armed and you're not.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 28-Aug-08 7:48:33 PM
The guy that asked him to move and then pushed him across the street was a security guard not a police officer.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-28 8:38:52 PM
Why doesn't this kind of thing happen to CBC crews? If I was Harper, I'd have them dragged out, beaten to a bloody pulp, then prosecuted for theft - because the CBC steals valuable tax dollars.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 28-Aug-08 8:04:40 PM
Tax dollars which could be much better used treating your various mental illnesses.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-28 8:42:42 PM
Do I know what happened before the beginning of the clip, Stig? Of course not, and neither does anyone else, which is precisely my point. People are jumping to conclusions with insufficient data. This is how lynch mobs form.
Police officer, security guard, in the US they amount to the same thing--an armed man in uniform. To resist one without a stronger cause than so-called journalistic privilege is asking for trouble, regardless of the legalities of the situation.
In any case, Eslocker handled the situation very badly, thus greatly aggravating the situation, which was my original point.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-29 12:42:07 AM
Stig wrote: "Tax dollars which could be much better used treating your various mental illnesses."
Or teaching you some manners.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-29 12:42:55 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.