Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON (AP) The U.S. government agreed to a police request to restrict more than 37 square miles of airspace surrounding Ferguson, Missouri, for 12 days in August for safety, but audio recordings show that local authorities privately acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests.

On Aug. 12, the morning after the Federal Aviation Administration imposed the first flight restriction, FAA air traffic managers struggled to redefine the flight ban to let commercial flights operate at nearby Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and police helicopters fly through the area but ban others.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out, said one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series of recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press. But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that could be going on.

At another point, a manager at the FAAs Kansas City center said police did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didnt want media in there.

FAA procedures for defining a no-fly area did not have an option that would accommodate that.

There is really ... no option for a TFR 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.

See the article here:
AP Exclusive: Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media

Breakthrough Social Media Success with Sabrina Gibson
http://rebekahradice.com Interview with social media superstar Sabrina Gibson. Sabrina Gibson has worked with thousands of business professionals across the globe helping them leverage and...

By: Rebekah Radice

View post:
Breakthrough Social Media Success with Sabrina Gibson - Video

Best Social Networking/Dating App- Galaxy
In this Video- I #39;am Review An Best Social Networking App. You Can Meet People All around The World by this App. Play Games within app Buy pets For your avatar etc Link ...

By: EliteTechnocrat

See the original post:
Best Social Networking/Dating App- Galaxy - Video

Fourth Amendment
Leave a like please.

By: Dfigster

More here:
Fourth Amendment - Video

Fourth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Read more here:
Fourth Amendment (United States Constitution ...