Top

blog

Stories

 

Occupy LA: LAPD Investigates Caught-on-Video Arrest of Journalist Calvin Milam

Categories: Occupy L.A.

milam lapd occupy youtube.JPG
YouTube
Milam's about to charge.
Updated at the bottom: The LAPD has opened an investigation into this case, but a commander disputes Mark Geragos' take on what happened to his client that night.

The arrest of a journalist for alleged failure to disperse at Occupy L.A. last month was caught on tape, and video seems to contradict what police said about the situation.

Misreading a media blog follow-up about the arrest, we erroneously stated the reporter for City News Service is female. The arrestee in question is Calvin Milam, a respected reporter and sometime editor for the service.

When we broke the story of the arrest, cops told us the suspect appeared to be possibly drunk and belligerent and did not identify himself as a member of the press. Video posted to The Occupied Venice Journal and echoed at The City Maven seems to contradict that:

You can see Milam's arrest at the 3:22 mark.

Milam appears to clearly show officers his press credentials as he argues with officers. It appears he's trying to ... disperse. He finally blows through a skirmish line and is quickly tackled and arrested.

The City Maven reports that Milam has been offered its Alternative Prosecution Program, which would allow him to take a class in exchange for a withholding of prosecution.

However, the blog notes that he has retained famed attorney Mark Geragos, who says, "We're certainly not going to take this lying down:"

" ... The video is completely at odds with the accounts I've been told orally (by the LAPD and City Attorney's Office) ...

Police told the Weekly Milam, 50, appeared to be part of the occupation, did not appear to be on-duty as a reporter, and did not identify himself as a journalist. Arrest records claim he "refused" to give his occupation.

We checked both county jail and arrest records and could not find Milam's name (his first name ended up being listed differently), leading to our own confusion about which CNS reporter was arrested. CNS' top editor did not return a call seeking comment.

City News Service is a fee-based subscription operation that provides Associated Press-style content to other news outlets in Southern California, including this one. This reporter worked there briefly about 10 years ago.

Remarkably, Milam's byline is found on coverage of the Occupy raid well into the morning of Nov. 30, with his last bylined piece on the raid appearing at 10:19 a.m. that day.

We made calls to Geragos and LAPD Commander Andrew Smith seeking comment.

[Added]: Geragos got back to us. He said police told him the same story they told the Weekly and that ...

They patently lied about the whole thing. It's clear to me. I was told the exact same thing. It's fortunate there's a video which shows what really happened.

Asked if Milam was trying to disperse, Geragos said there had been "no unlawful assembly declared" yet when he was arrested. "You don't even have to get to that point.
The code is predicated on unlawful assembly being declared."

He said that, as a working journalist, Milam did have a special right to be in the area and observe the police.

He said allegations that Milam was possibly drunk and belligerent were untrue:

They have now told you two things that are demonstrably false. One, that he didn't show his press credential. And two, that he was drunk. This guy hasn't touched a drink in 20 years.

Were cops concocting a story in an overreaching move at ass-covering, as they've been known to do?

That I can't even begin to fathom. I don't understand why a reporter form the one news service embedded in the LAPD (City News mans the LAPD press room 24 hours a day and has for decades) would be treated this outrageously.

(Indeed, an LAPD rep asked us if someone working for CNS would even be considered a full-on journalist.)

"This one is completely over the top," Geragos said.

[Update at 4:08 p.m.]: LAPD Commander Andrew Smith tells us Milam's case was added today to an internal investigation of complaints against officers who had contact with protesters during the raid.

"We've initiated a personnel complaint, and that will be conducted by internal affairs," he said.

Smith argues that even if Milam showed his press credentials to the officers that he allegedly disobeyed their orders by moving through the skirmish line.

"That guy chose to charge through a police line after having been told not to," Smith said. " ... He would be subject ot arrest just like anybody else."

The commander disputed Geragos claim that an unlawful assembly had yet to be declared when the arrest happened. In fact, Smith said, "it may have occured after everybody there was technically under arrest. We gave people 10 minutes to leave."

And he said that being a member of the press did not give Milam any additional rights to be behind the skirmish line, although other reporters, particularly pool journalists, were allowed behind officers as they took action in other areas of the park that night.

"Even members of the media are subject to arrest," Smith said.

He said the arrest happened on Spring Street when Milam headed west through the skirmish line, and after people were told to leave via other directions (namely north and south). "He was free to leave any other way," Smith said.

The case would be investigated alongside about 16 total complaints of officer misconduct that morning, Smith said.

[Added]: Milam was one of about three journalists, including Yasha Levine and photog Tyson Heder, arrested during the Nov. 30 raid.

Other notable arrestees include Arthur S. Rodriguez, grandson of Cesar Chavez, and Patrick Meighan, a writer for the hit animated comedy show Family Guy.

[@dennisjromero / djromero@laweekly.com / @LAWeeklyNews]


My Voice Nation Help
16 comments
Arnaldo
Arnaldo

So, exactly when our President plans on giving his opinion about the movement ? What about the GOP candidates ...?Or maybe with their silence they already have.

Mcnaryjohn
Mcnaryjohn

Amazing. You've updated your story to give the cops the unchallenged last word. 

Did you bother to ask Smith (a decent an honest guy) under what authority his department used to rewrite the state law ?

Did you ask Smith why the LAPD violated the legal pledges it made in the federal consent decree after the 2007 May Day police riot fiasco?

Did you challenge Smith when he said "Milam was free to leave" in other directions? Who should any journalist, with the law on his side, allow the LAPD to dictate how and where a reporter should do his constitutionally-protected work?

You allow Smith to unchallengingly say "being a member of the press did not give Milam any additional rights to be behind the skirmish line.

YES, state law specifically gives journalists the right to be behind the skirmish line."

Again, the LA Weekly takes the police department side against a fellow journalist. Amazing.

Dennis Romero
Dennis Romero

McNary:

The reason the original story had one source is because no one else would talk. It happens. Check the Los Angeles Times LA Now blog and look up a crime story. Any day.

The piece was breaking and I went with it. That happens in blog land. It's a new paradign and it takes some getting used to for geezers, but what I tell people is this: When responses and different angles come in, we'll blog about it and update. Even the LA Times does that now.

I think you misread my tone. There was not glee at all. In fact I kind of wanted this to go away for the reporters' sake, and I was loathe to ID him/her anyway. But Milam chose to fight this with a very public defender, so to speak, and he seems to have some good arguments.

For the record a Calvin Milam was in fact not in the jail or police records. I checked. That day.

I worked with Milam, by the way, and I personally think he's one of the coolest people at CNS.

You need to rethink your venom here.

-Dennis

Dennis Romero
Dennis Romero

And BTW there's nothing to retract. If the cops got the story wrong they got the story wrong, not me. You seem to know enough about journalism to know not to blame the messenger. 

McN
McN

Ooo, calling a reader an angry geezer. Great journalism, Romero. 

You certainly measure up to the very low bar you have set for yourself: "we;ll get is mostly-right, eventually."

Dennis Romero
Dennis Romero

McNary:

You've proceeded to call me names and disparage my work for breaking news on this and trying to get the other side. And then you have a problem with me using the term "geezer." Wow.

Like I said, I think your anger is misplaced here, and I think your assumptions about my motives and skills are frankly, as about as ignorant as it gets.

There are many examples of the Times breaking news and then seeing the story change as more facts and sources weigh in. And, as for CNS making mistakes, ask the Times why it never, ever runs CNS copy. I worked there, so knew that it was the nature of the breaking-news beast, and stories change. Now you're seeing it before your very eyes with the online revolution. If you're not an angry geezer you sure sound like one.

I'm checking out. 

McN
McN

"You're reading into it if you think we're siding with the cops. We're just trying to be fair."You took unsubstantiated rumor from the cop you quoted, material that the cop himself said was an assumption and a surmisal, and reported it as fact. 

"If you saw our earlier coverage you'd know that a) we thought the "pool" reporting program rolled out a day before the raid was b.s. (and Milam might have an argument if pool reporters were allowed to behind skirmish lines, which they were). and b) we strongly believe that it's not up to the LAPD to decide who's a journalist and who's not (could you imagine if the Pentagon were responsible for deciding who covers the White House?)."

So what? That has nothing to do with the shitty sourcing you did on the Millam arrest."Also, for the record, we reached out not only to CNS top editor but to other potential sources before publishing the first account. Either no one would talk or no one had info."

So you went with it ... even though your own source said (and was quoted by you) as saying it was based on assumptions and surmisals. "My biggest mistake was in changing the cops' description of the reporter from male to what I thought was female, and I acknowledge it here."

No Dennis. You are in water so deep over you head you can't see all the mistakes you made. 

Your first mistake was taking the cops' word as fact, when those words themselves should have screamed to you that there was more to the story. 

Your next mistake was changing your original screed three times, each time screwing up the facts more.

Your next mistake was insulting the readers who pointed out your errors by not saying "we're checking into it" and iunstead lecturing about Journalism 101.

Your next mistake was waiting a full week before correcting the record.

Your next mistake was correcting only the most-obvous error, and then saying the videotape that showed you to be an imbecile only "appears" to bear out the facts that you got wrong.

No, Dennis, your biggest mistake was insulting readers by singling one out as a  "geezer" because he insists on accuracy. What's next, Dennis? Koreans can't drive? The N-word?

McN
McN

And BTW, I find your using the term geezer to be highly offensive. 

Is it Village Voice's policy for its employees to insult people using racial, sexist, or other discriminatory terms? 

Just what exactly are you saying about your new paradigm here, Dennis?  Or yourself?

Mcnary
Mcnary

I know enough about journalism to know a shitty reporter when I see one, Dennis, and you have gone off the Richter scale on all of your posts.

This is a "blog" operated by a "newspaper." Are you claiming that different standards exist somehow because you are able to write before you know what the facts are? Pathetic.

Being called a "geezer" from some defensive halfwit -- because as a reader I demand that you get the story right the first time? That's the best you've got?

Does your new paradigm mean swalllowing LAPD pablum verbatim, unquestioningly, and then barfing it back? That's your new paradigm? Really? 

The LATimes NOW blog and would never, ever make the same type of mistakes and multiple corrections that you have on this matter. And TV and radio have been around for 100 years, and seem to have mastered how to report somewhat accurately on breaking news. CNS and the AP have a deadline very minute, and they don't fuck up as bad as you did on this. Ever.

"Don't blame the messenger" you plead? Give me a fucking break. I do not take issue here with what the LAPD said. I rake you over the coals for swallowing one sided obvious crap unquestioningly, sticking with your story for a full week, and then issuing a halfassed correction when confronted with your lazy work and errors.

In your original story, you quoted the LAPD brass as saying he "assumed" and "surmised" what happened. You did not press him for details. You did not do a follow-up for a week until this blew up in your amateur face.

Just like during the Lara Logan fiasco, the LA Weekly has attacked a journalist as part of its "pay attention to us or we'll shoot the dog" snarkivity.

You blew it. Badly. And you are still defensive about it. Pathetic.

Dennis Romero
Dennis Romero

And a couple more things: You're reading into it if you think we're siding with the cops. We're just trying to be fair. If you saw our earlier coverage you'd know that a) we thought the "pool" reporting program rolled out a day before the raid was b.s. (and Milam might have an argument if pool reporters were allowed to behind skirmish lines, which they were). and b) we strongly believe that it's not up to the LAPD to decide who's a journalist and who's not (could you imagine if the Pentagon were responsible for deciding who covers the White House?).

Also, for the record, we reached out not only to CNS top editor but to other potential sources before publishing the first account. Either no one would talk or no one had info.

My biggest mistake was in changing the cops' description of the reporter from male to what I thought was female, and I acknowledge it here. Otherwise, it's a straight-up, unfolding debate between Milam and the LAPD, and if more comes out I'll continue to give either side a voice.

Mcnaryjohn
Mcnaryjohn

Your editor and publisher owe the reporter an apology and and a retraction.

Your original reporting on this was wrong in substance, wrong in facts, and egregiously wrong in its gleeful tone.

Your original blog was corrected twice, each time making further blundering error, and never correcting the original errors.

Your single-source reporting -- quoting unquestioningly an LAPD PR officer who was making "guesses" and "surmisals" -- was slipshod, and bad journalism.

Your errors were pointed out by me and other bloggers, and you told us WE were wrong, without further checking the facts.

You continue to cover your ass. The arrest records clearly listed a "Robert Calvin Millam" was arrested there, and you failed to match this to the "By CALVIN MILLAM" bylines (FOUR OF THEM) on the CNS wire in the LA Weekly's own computer.

Your blogmasters then allowed an anonymous person to post dozens of rambling posts to the original post, making it appear to the reader that "RCalvinMillam" was an unstable, drunk or drugged idiot.

Worst of all, Dennis Romero mischaracterized his relationship with CNS in the original article. He failed to disclose that he had a very short tenure there, and left after disagreements with editors. He may have been right, he may have been a probationary flunkout. I don't know or care. But the gleeful reporting of a "drunk, belligerent, offduty" CNS reporter must be viewed in the context of his washout at CNS.

Two words: actual malice. You not only have actual malice, you failed to exercise common good practice of journalism. You have committed textbook Times v. Sullivan defamation here. This could be a fact pattern for the bar exam. If you don't get sued and have to pay damages over this, count yourself lucky.

I'm sure CNS values LA Weekly's subscription and its editors won't make these points. I'll bet that's why they have refrained from returning your calls ... times are tough and the j industry is barely hanging on.

Your mea culpa is almost as big a turd as the original wrong posting was. The cops have only one law that allows them to close an areas during a distrubance: CPC 409.5 . That law specifically prohibits police form prohibiting journalists from entering an area closed under 409.5 . 

It looks like Calvin Millam knew that law, and apparently decided he was not going to allow the cops to violate it. Instead of getting cheers, instead of getting accurate reporting from LA's alternative weekly, he as slimed by an anonymous arresting officer, a slime perpetuated and amplified by a blogger acting with malice and shoddy journalistic practices.

Shame on you.

The Lara Logan hit job was similar in so many ways, and different in others (note to readers: the LA Weekly snarkily cheered the news that the CBS reporter (and blonde woman) was viciously sexually assaulted in Cairo during the revolution).

The LAWeekly, from the top down, reports on other journalists with a snark and attitude that is odious. You got caught -- again -- with shit all over your shows.

Mcnaryjohn
Mcnaryjohn

Milam has one L, and the LA Weekly has shit on its shoes (not shows). 

That's my first correction, and it is accurate, as opposed to the five erroneous corrections on this blog, not one of which is accurate.

Mcnaryjohn
Mcnaryjohn

California Penal Code section 409.5 (a): Whenever a menace to the public health or safety is created by a calamity including a flood, storm, fire, earthquake, explosion, accident, or other disaster, officers of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, police departments, (etc.) may close the area where the menace exists for the duration thereof (d) Nothing in this section shall prevent a duly authorizedrepresentative of any news service, newspaper, or radio or televisionstation or network from entering the areas closed pursuant to thissection.

Jrbcali
Jrbcali

This is disgusting to me. How our country would rather arrest the working class that put the dollars into the system baffles me. Hey top one percent. What would happen if we decided not to purchase anything for just one day? Would you like to see where your money comes from? If you truly believe that you and your friends can support the whole country on your own. I'd love to see it!! As the American dollar is built on faith. We could destroy your wealth as you have destroyed so many others.

ZongVoo
ZongVoo

that actually sounds like ap retty good idea dude. Wow.www.Total-Privacy [dot] US

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

©2013 LA Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places Los Angeles

    Voice Places

    Find everything you're looking for in your city

  • Happy Hour App

    Happy Hour App

    Find the best happy hour deals in your city

  • Daily Deals

    Daily Deals

    Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city