Good, and good for that federal judge for taking charge of the situation. If the protesters are protesting peacefully, there’s no justification for using force or making arrests.

Man this is some bs, they want the cameras off so they can kill more black and browns folks! The whole system is rotten…

Police suppressing journalists is clear oppression on par with fascist regimes! if you’re not doing anything wrong, then why are you afraid of a little camera?

this is an educational thread! thanks @RJ "Deke" Dieken for the 411!

77, My guess is it's a tactic, also, heat of the moment is pretty police friendly rhetoric. you're not really under a bunch of pressure in a bullet proof vest, with a riot shield and full riot gear standing next to 50 more people who have your back, and if you are, you're in the wrong line of work. I trained a little riot suppression with the Minnesota National Guard, (Maybe only 4 days worth). Where you see officers "breaking the line" to move forward and arrest or beat someone, that's a very carefully planned maneuver, and it's only done where it is considered generally safe to do so. To claim that this well planned, practiced, and supervised maneuver creates a mental fog that justifies zero accountability is disingenuous. To be clear i'm not digging on you for using that language, they've been feeding it to you your whole life. Wa'il, As i understand it this restraining order is pre trial, it's only granted where the plaintiff (here the press) can demonstrate (among other things) that they are (1) Likley to win on the merits at trial, (2) will (if they are correct) suffer in irreparable harm before trail can commence, (3) that granting the RO is in society's best interest, and (4) that granting the injunction would not cause a disproportionate harm to the defendant or another party....i think.

It's basically the court saying "cut this crap out, until we can give you your constitutionally required due process and use our full authority to tell you to cut this crap out." I suspect if you read the order it is temporary until the handing down of an order at the end of a trail that the court expects to happen. What the court does AFTER the trial is the non temporary thing, that's the full authoritative "cut this crap out." The time you've heard restraining order used as a "long term" solution are in situations like spousal abuse, the terminology or rules seem to be a bit different in family court. The question is valid in asking "who would enforce this" normally it would be the cops, but someone let them off their chain, so i suspect budget considerations would be the enforcement mechanism.

Trying to figure out, are these officers instinctively suppressing the press in the heat of the moment?, or are they making this decision in advance as an organized effort. Either way this is f’ed up, I’m curious what happens now if they violate the judges order? Who enforces it?

The National Lawyers Guild also sends lawyers and law students to protests to document and observe police abuses and encourage responsible behavior on both sides. Law Enforcement is standardly arresting the NLG observers and the Media first, and then telling you a story about rioters out of control. Those are the facts, make your own conclusion.