Slashdot Mirror


Ferguson No-Fly Zone Revealed As Anti-Media Tactic

The AP (here, carried by the San Francisco Chronicle) reports that recorded conversations reveal flight restrictions requested in August by the police force of Ferguson, MO, and agreed to by Federal aviation safety officials, were specifically intended to limit the access of journalists to the area, rather than purely in response to safety concerns. One FAA manager in Kansas City was recorded saying police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there." "There is really ... no option for a [Temporary Flight Restriction] that says, you know, 'OK, everybody but the media is OK,'" he said. The managers then worked out wording they felt would keep news helicopters out of the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic. The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department, which responded to demonstrations following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response. Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter. But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."

25 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. While I hate the media circus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is illegal.

    1. Re:While I hate the media circus... by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Freedom of the press as named in the freakin First Amendment of the Constitution, you sea lion.

    2. Re:While I hate the media circus... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Freedom of the press as named in the freakin First Amendment of the Constitution,

      Funny, I always assumed that that only applied to handset printing presses such as existed during the 18th Century, and reporters who travelled by sailing ship, horse, or foot to find and spread the story....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. whoever is responsible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And there are probably at least a dozen. They should all do at least 20 years. They are the worst evil garbage imaginable.

    1. Re:whoever is responsible... by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aiming guns at currently non-violent protesters was not enough to cause outrage (among a great many more blatant violations, but this is?!

      Face it, those in charge will get a slap on the wrist at best at this point. Power has corrupted, and it is too late to do anything meaningful. If you try expect to get on a secret list and have your life screwed with royally. Hunker down and hope you aren't alredy on a list to get "disappeared".

  3. What a surprise (not) by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somebody should go to jail over this.

    It won't happen, though.

    --
    a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    1. Re:What a surprise (not) by chromaexcursion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A boat load of federal crimes (maybe a helicopter load). A lot of people (police and local officials) deserve to go to jail.
      There are too many he said she said. Unconfirmable statements, only muddy it further. Unless an insider blows the whistle, the guilty will walk.
      A really nasty federal grand jury could put the screws on those who deserve to be punished. They might have to dig into their retirement fund to pay for legal advice. Some pain, less than what most of them deserve. The ones simply following orders don't need a lawyer. The truth, my boss told me to do this and I believed him/her, should protect them. They didn't commit a crime. Don't kill the messenger.
      Perhaps the idiot at the FAA that accepted this may pay. Probably not fired, but at least enough damage to make someone else think twice before accepting a sack of bull$#1t.

    2. Re:What a surprise (not) by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A really nasty federal grand jury could put the screws on those who deserve to be punished.

      Yeah, good luck finding a prosecutor who will go after the State for protecting its power by hiding its abuses from the press. That's a career-killer for any ladder-climbing prosecutor, and it appears all the other types have been driven from the vocation at this point.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Though unfortunate, I believe you are correct. There is a lot of abuses in Ferguson which should have already landed officials in jail, outside of the obvious. Police have repeated targeted journalists, even firing Tear Gas directly at an Al Jazeera TV crew, and after chasing them away turned off their cameras and turned down their lights. RT and Infowars also had crews attacked by police. Before you "but but those guys are *insert something silly* they provide information which no other agency is providing.

      People in power _WANT_ to take out media so that the only thing people see is what they script. They want the issue to be black vs. white, because if it looks that way instead of corruption people poke at each other instead of looking at officials. The agenda behind all of this is easy to see, because they do it all the time. Citizen and Blog media is blowing their cover, and they really hate it.

      Back on point, they have already said that the cop that shot Michael Brown would probably not face any charges, even what should be obviously excessive use of force. So the trend of Police brutality and corruption will continue, until of course people just start killing dirty cops. I don't advocate vigilantism, but at a certain point people will see there is no choice.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:What a surprise (not) by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So the guy commits a strong arm robbery on video, then attacks a cop who's investigating and gets shot while going for the cops gun at close range, and it's police brutality?

      I'm all for making police accountable, but this seems like a bad ticket to ride on.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    5. Re:What a surprise (not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if he had been shot to death while struggling for the cops gun I'd agree with you. But you don't get to shoot the guy when he is yards away with his hands up in the air. The fact the cop was able to empty the entire clip into him, including two shots to the head, strongly suggests that control of the officers weapon was not in question.

    6. Re:What a surprise (not) by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They found the deceased's blood *in* the cop car and on the cop's uniform and *on his gun*. Multiple witnesses said the scuffle and shootings happened inside the car (even the guy's buddy who tried to make it sound like the cop pulled the huge guy INTO the cop car while sitting in it, LOL).

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/...

      "FBI forensic tests showed the gun was fired twice in the car, with one bullet hitting Brown's arm while the second one missed, the newspaper said.

      In addition to Wilson's uniform and gun, forensic tests found the teen's blood on the interior door panel of his car, The Times said."

      Although I bet you'll claim CNN is some left wing news outfit making shit up and the FBI is in on it.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    7. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That might explain the shooting that occurred at the police car, but it doesn't justify the fatal shots. You just don't get to claim self-defense when your adversary is running away! (Or when the adversary has given up trying to run and has decided to surrender instead, for that matter.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have more logical fallacies in your post than you do sentences.

      The problem is that many things that are "obvious" to you are wrong. Did you inspect officer Wilson's injuries? The problem is that many things that are "obvious" to you are wrong. Did you inspect officer Wilson's injuries?

      TFA and my argument was regarding the establishment abusing power in order to control the narrative. Officer Wilson's alleged injuries are not relevant. Worse, the officer was not reported to be harmed at the scene, received no medical treatment on the scene, or even after he was removed from the location. So you start with a Strawman and cum hoc ergo propter hoc, then move to Argumentum ad verecundiam and appeal to assertion.

      Do you deny officer's the right to self defense? Or is it open season for police officers for you?

      Ahh, the ole ad hominem based on a argumentum ad misericordiam. Obviously if I'm against police brutality I must be supporting people randomly shooting cops, because there is no place between those two points.

      I guess we know now.

      Argumentum ad populum, or perhaps argumentum ad numerum. No you don't know, and no the populace does not agree with you.

      Will no one rid me of the troublesome priest?

      False dichotomy based on previous fallacy arguments. There are countless options in between promoting vigilante killing of dirty police and allowing police free reign to abuse the populace they are sworn to protect.

      Would you care to go another round shill? I do mean shill with all of it's interesting implications, since whether you are paid or not you have a history of arguing as a pro-establishment mouth piece.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  4. Political science by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is why we need to give power back to the states!

    Oh, wait, that didn't work.

    Give it to the feds!

    Honestly? They were pretty shit too.

    Hail the king!

    Ehh, he really made a mess of things last time.

    Power to the corporations!

    No, wait, that was a complete disaster.

    We could try giving it to the people again, but let's face it: they're as selfish and shortsighted as the rest.

    Okay, I'm open for suggestions at this point. Horses, maybe?

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Political science by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Informative

      One word: Kodos.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Political science by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, I'm open for suggestions at this point. Horses, maybe?

      Citizens selected by lot. It worked in Athens.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  5. Why did the FAA go along? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they knew the police were just trying to impede the media, why did they go along? Heads should roll at multiple levels.

  6. Legal requirements by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder what the legal requirements for filing these restrictions are, I know most similar documents require those filing them attest to the real reason for the request under penalty of perjury. If that's the case for these documents then someone effectively committed a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Also a quick browse of the relevant advisories in regards to Temporary Flight Restrictions does not suggest there is any allowance for "because we don't want the media to see", National security (specifically mentioning the DOD), High ranking politicians movements, Spacecraft launches, major sporting events, hijacking incidents & wildfires, but nothing about the press so I doubt that was the reason put down on the forms.

    http://www.faa.gov/documentLib...

    1. Re:Legal requirements by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keeping the press away is a matter of National Security. That's how it is in every police state.

  7. Re:News For Nerds Please by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What relevance does this story have with respect to nerd news? The answer: none. Where were your other Ferguson stories??

    Timothy, this is not your personal blog. Post this on your own soapbox.

    This is outrageous political trolling and you should be ashamed and fired.

    Nerds and geeks and general information-types are all about the free exchange of ideas. Censorship is anti-nerd.

  8. Re:News For Nerds Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, what they did was disingenuous and immoral but not illegal - they really didn't want the eyes of the world judging them if they had to pull out the beanbag rounds and teargas (i.e. Everything is legal if no-one catches you doing it).

    They're behaving like children when caught stealing candy or going out joyriding. They don't understand that what they're doing is wrong and they don't respond with remorse. They basically respond by trying to cover up what they're doing. Point at someone else. Choose a different time next time. Just do anything so as not to get caught. The one thing that was overlooked completely is that "maybe they shouldn't be doing that".

    It's basically an upscaled version of what Right To Be Forgotten is doing, or how companies threaten lawsuits if negative reviews and bad press aren't removed from public view. None of this addresses the problem, it just makes it harder to find the truth.

  9. Screw those hicks by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    flight restrictions requested in August by the police force of Ferguson, MO

    Since when is a suburb allowed to declare "no-fly" zones.

    Not only have we militarized local police, but it looks like we've now given them the power generally reserved for the State Department and Justice Department.

    If we had an Attorney General who was worth a damn, there would be a bunch of Ferguson officials and police facing charges and civil rights suits right now. Instead, we've had an AG who was only concerned with making sure that no Wall Street banking criminal got his hair mussed.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Screw those hicks by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not quite the army, but I feel a Posse Comitatus kinda thing goin' on.

      After seeing some photos from Fergeson and other police response scenes I am hard pressed to tell the difference between the police and the military. And this is coming from someone who served in the US Army for 6 years as a combat arms MOS (M1A2 crewman to be exact). The only difference seems to be that the military has a much more stringent rules of engagement.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
  10. Re:News For Nerds Please by sabri · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many cities already ban news flights over them and have done so for years

    I call total bullshit on this.

    First of all, cities are unable to ban anything, it is the FAA that sets up no-fly zones. Second, if there are no-fly zones, they would be documented as restricted areas on sectional charts. You show me any sectional FAA approved chart that specifically forbids news flights, and I shall eat the dust from underneath your shoes.

    Even NYC has most of its airspace as open (class B and C). As long as flights maintain the proper altitude (usually at least 1000ft AGL), everyone holding a private pilot's certificate can fly there.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.