|
Ok. Some time has passed and I've given the Fealk situation some thought. First, Fealk has been awfully quiet. A google news and google blog engine search reveals that Fealk is out of jail but that he's only commenting on mortgages. This is probably as it should be. A good lawyer would advise him to keep his trap shut - and maybe if he thinks about the mistakes he made in the process of testing the police, he'll understand why this one is not one he'll maneuver into some kind of PR victory. And the arrest is not something the right should be happy about or gloat over. Having watched it personally, and from other experiences, arrests are not a pleasant thing to watch. There comes a few obvious questions. Was the arrest justified? I believe so. Here's the situation - Fealk shows up at a Troy-Clawson Republican Club event with tripod and camera. Glenn Clark is a well-known member of the club. Guess who Fealk had just attempted to libel with irrelevant personal allegations just a week earlier right here on OP? Obviously, there would be little reason to trust Fealk and whether he would try to do something unethical with whatever tape he developed. The event was in a public building, but the room was rented and paid for through the lawfully created process of the building management. Hence, the Club owned the space for the time they rented it. The Club leader asked everyone - myself included - prior to event, to not video-record. I complied with this request. There are quiet simply more times when not recording something is the socially right thing to do rather than recording it (indeed, you'll recall a run in I had with the Troy Democratic Club in September in the same building, and I complied with their request not to record - more on that below). Indeed, I've complied with other Republican requests not to record certain events or individuals who are not public figures. It's simple courtesy. So Bruce ignored the request of the Club leader. The Club leader informed building management. The building manager came to the room and informed Fealk it was privately rented and to cease recording. Fealk refused this request. At this point, the police were called. After a wait - perhaps 15 minutes - police arrived. They told Fealk to remove the camera and Fealk demanded to see the policy. He continued to refuse to turn the camera off, and at some point the officers secured his arm behind his back. While I hesitate to use the word resistance as it has a legal implication, and I could not hear the exact exchange of words, it was clear that Fealk was not cooperative and that he tensed up. Officers at this point removed Fealk from the room forcibly, and handcuffed him in the hallway. There was considerable yelling and complaining by Fealk, and after a while he was escorted away along with his equipment. Where Fealk went wrong was not in cooperating with the requests of the officers immediately, which are presumed lawful until otherwise proven. If Fealk wanted to investigate the building policy, the time for that was after complying with the officers requests and by politely inquiring with the building managers. Is it possible that their is a question as to whether the building policy is appropriate or Constitutional. Sure. But resisting (no legal conclusion intended) was the huge misstep by Fealk. A second question - one I've personally wrestled with over the last the few days. Am I being consistent? You'll recall I complained when the Troy Democrats refused to allow me to videotape a Troy City Council debate in the very same building. I also taped just a week before the Fealk arrest a Troy Democrat Club presentation of an anti-Right-to-Work presentation by AFL-CIO leader Mark Gaffney - but for editorial reasons I didn't publish it because it wasn't sufficiently newsworthy. Indeed, it is that discretion, and some reasonableness even in my complaints, that may explain why the TDC has allowed me to tape since the first event and is another difference between Fealk and I. And finally, I recently taped this Peters-Skinner debate (see the google video inset) in the Oakland County Commissioners auditorum, hosted by the Troy Dems, and attended and taped also by Fealk (indeed, Fealk referred to this I believe in telling some of the Republican Club members he should be allowed to tape). I believe I am being consistent. Here's why. First, the people speaking this week were not running for public office. Second, the Troy Democrats allowed another news outlet to tape, and misrepresented a "contract" they claimed the studio had which granted it an exclusive. And finally, and most important, I acknowledged the nuances of trespass law, and whether the Troy Dem Club (TDC) had rented the room for the City Council candidate debate or not. Here's what I wrote on that theme:
A second male explained to me that this was their decision and that it was based on the fact that Community Media Network (CMN) was present and tapes would be available to the public later. I noted that I was there in my capacity as media and strongly objected to the disparate treatment, and that the Troy Community Center was a public building operated under public rules and this was advertised as a public forum, although I admitted that as a matter of legality it was uncertain whether the Club as lessees of the room had the right to restrict public access or media coverage and that I wouldn't resist their decision.
In that acknowledgement, I also didn't challenge the TDC request - for both social reasons and because I wasn't 100% on the legality or morality (if rented, the ownership question becomes philosophically important, although I'm not sure that weighs against public access when actual candidates for office are involved). The bottom line is Fealk both brazenly challenged the police without knowing the law first, and the social custom of following your hosts requests, within reason. A better course of action would have simply been for Fealk to leave and report it on his blog. When you push the limits to get a story or make news, as Fealk has constantly done, sometimes you cross the line and have to pay the price. It is unclear whether Fealk will or should be prosecuted, or will try to counter-prosecute on some civil liberties claim, but the whole scenario should, in reality, be a lesson. Hopefully Fealk learns from it.
|
