The police officers weren't justified in thier crowd control tactics at the rainbow gathering july 3

First, i am going to start by addressing the debate over evidence sources, My evidence is not all from the 'The Forest Service's Incident Command Team in Rock Springs', it is from TOM MORTON a writer for the Casper Star Tribune and one quote was from the Incident Command Team. Disregard his evidence still though because all of his, not just 1 quote, is from the Colorado Legal Eagles (CLE) and Eyewitnesses who are all rainbows, Tom Morton is the best source in this round since he is not a rainbow and is not on any police force. And he states he has 2 sources, because he has an eyewitness blog, but i addressed this too earlier, that blogs should not be counted because there is no way to get any credentials or credability from myspace blogs, i have no source just "he is an eyewitness on myspace", i gave links and sources, i have evidence, he has assertions, vote him down for not having credable, and non biased sources. Harlan also made a big mistake when he forgot to answer that in the mission statement of the CLE states that they are opposed to all of the gov't so they are the most biased. Now to the Line-By-Line First my opponent states that i should be voted down for a fallacy because not all 400 rioters were intent on injuring the officers, although this may be true, i also explained how even if not all 400 people were intent on bodily harm to the officers, the police were still justified. Because there was still a large majority of the rioters who wanted injury on the officers. Now Harlan starts bringing up the myspacer again. First, extend that he should be ignored in this round, and also now, i will explain on this more. From what Harlan himself gathered, he came to the conclusion that the myspacer is most likely a rainbower himself, this is bad for 2 reasons: 1. It is biased, because of course he would have a motive to lie about what happened, and that is to make the rainbowers sound less like a Drugged up group of people who attacked police and make it sound like they are more innocent, and reason 2 is, he is just as biased as any other of his sources in this round because all of his sources are from rainbowers or an anarchal group people who have biased support towards the rainbowers. This myspacer needs to be discounted He now trys to get out of rocks being thrown, dont take this now, he did not answer this like this before, and now is trying to get out of my arguments. First, earlier in the debate, he stated that there was only a "Small Group" of people throwing rocks, this is why the police were justified. now he says there werent people throwing rocks, but this is untrue, there were rocks, look to my Casper Star Tribune Evidence for this fact! now he says "We can't even be sure if there was any throwing of rocks, because so far, all wev got on the matter is the police's word vs. the rainbow's word PLUS video footage." - This is false, as i have pointed out before, I have evidence from a NEWSPAPER not police reports! ALL he has is evidence from Rainbowers and an anarchist group with video footage which was terrible! The video footage should be disregarded because it was never brought up in this debate and no link was given so i could see, so there is a good source in this round and it is mine! Then he states the rocks are hypothetical and would have been small. My partner has no evidence here and Cross apply my analysis above on how bad this myspace post is. It can be disregarded. There were rocks being thrown and regardless of how large they are, it is violence towards police, that justifies the measures used! Then he states that people got a fever from mace balls... this is wrong, Harlan has no clue how mace works, mace doesnt give you a fever, it makes your eyes and nose run, thats not a fever, dont let him just appeal to your emotions to win this debate. Now he tried to defend his 'police riot' term, but 1, he never answered my analysis on it being wrongful, unlawful, and illegitimate use of force by police part of the definition. This definition requires ALL parts of the definition not just 1 of them to be true, so at the point where he dropped my analysis on Wrongful, Unlawful and illegitimate, I win this definition because he has to meet all of those definitions for it to be considered a police riot. and Harlan still has not answered any of my riot terms, so pull those through, because when something is considered a riot, it justifies these measures, so since he conceded it was a riot, these measures were justified, vote me up now! He attacks my definition after it was conceded through round 2, so dont let him bring this up now, but also, in round 1 i gave more analysis than just "400 people surrounding the police is a riot" here is my analysis from round 1: Definitions of riot on the Web: 1. a public act of violence by an unruly mob 2. rioting: a state of disorder involving group violence The Rainbow Gathering incident matches both of these definitions Definition 1: The Rainbow Gathering event matches definition 1 of riot because simply put, the group of 400 people surrounding the officers was an "Unruly Mob" and they were participating in violence against the officers when they began throwing sticks and stones which could cause bodily injury Definition 2: This is straight forward, the Rainbow Gathering event matches this definition because it was violence from a large (400 person) group of people" he meets both definitions, and it went conceded in round 2, so this is 100% true! Now he brings back up the whole question of the small group V large group. If people had good motives, they would have stayed out of it and not try to get in on the action and even try to do something to stop the arrest. they would have gone back to their tents and just let the situation settle its self. This analysis went conceded so it is true. If the riot is brewing, and it was a riot because he conceded it, then all people surrounding the police were guilty of being rioters, so the riot control measures could be used on them. IT WAS A RIOT - HE DID NOT DO ENOUGH ANALYSIS ON THIS! now he says "IF this incident is considered a riot, then it was a riot started by the police. And that is not justified." - untrue, i disproved the 'police riot' definition and he conceded my riot definition and analysis, so it will always be considered a riot started by the rainbowers surrounding the police. now he starts answering my police riot definition with 1 sentance each to my multiple sentance definitions, well for wrongful, he says shooting innocent people is wrong but wrongful is: "wrong or unjust; unlawful or illegal" from a google "define:" search. Now, i have proven it was justified so it was not wrongful, and i will prove it is legal what the police did... now he answers the disproportionate claim, but 1: he states here also something that helps everywhere else: "It was a bunch of scared cops" the cops were scared for their lives so they were just to act. And for disproportionateality, remember from my rnd 2, there were 40 times the rainbows than cops, it was disproportionate towards the cops. the events were unlawful for the rainbows not police, if there is a riot, every rioter (all 400 rainbows) are guilty and measures will be used against them. it is lawful DO NOT ACCEPT HIS ARGUMENTS IN THE COMMENTS BOX, THIS IS AGAINST THE RULES, YOU GET LIMITED CHARACTERS JUST LIKE YOU GET LIMITED TIME IN ACTUAL DEBATE! THIS IS UNFAIR TO ME! but if you allow this, ethical behavior is best because we are questioning the behavior of the cops, and it was moral becasue the cops were attacked first so they could attack back. And now im running out of chars, but... Remember, he has no non-biased sources to believe, i have conceded riot defs and he conceded that riots justify action. so now you need to vote for me, because i have proven it was a riot and that riots justify the action -AJN0592