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

I will respond to each of my opponents statements chronologically: "all of my opponents evidence is from the ‘Colorado Legal Eagles'." This is untrue. I also got evidence from an eyewitness's blog. "There are many problems with this source, first of all, it is a group of rainbows, of course they would be biased towards the rainbowers and also, it says that they oppose all federal regulations." Most of the evidence in this report, is confirmed by the link YOU provided to a page on freerepublic (see round 1). If there are ANY inconsistancies please point them out. I would also I would also like to call attention to my opponents hypocrisy in criticizing me for using a source from someone on the rainbow's side: he got much of his information from the "The Forest Service's Incident Command Team in Rock Springs" (see his round 1). Since his information is from the forest service, it would be equally biased. My opponent is being hypocritical with his usage of sources. So if my opponent asserts the reader should ignore my evidence, he is also implying you should ignore his. "My response to this is that the officers were surrounded by 400 Rainbow Gatherers, all of which were angry at them and could have easily caused bodily injury and harm to the officers." The notion that every last individual, as you claim, were angry enough to cause harm to them, is a fallacy. You repeatedly make this false claim that all 400 gatherers who were following the police had the intention of hurting them. A quick glance at video footage can show that many people were trying to keep the situation peacefull, saying things like "do you want something to eat?", and "we don't want to hurt you". So this point of my opponents must be ignored due to the factual error. "Off of my Opponents second argument, he states that a witnesses myspace page states that there was no throwing of stones by a large number of people" Yet again: untrue. If you will read the quote, it makes no claim that there were no throwing of stones. It merely states that this bystander did not witness such act. My opponent attempts to twist my words to his favor. "Also, this person is most likely a Rainbow Gatherer himself since he was a part of that mob. This is one reason to disregard this persons claim, because he is just as biased as the Colorado Legal Eagles." Yes, he is a rainbow gatherer, from what I could make out. The colorado legal eagles, or you're "Forest Service's Incident Command Team" may be doubted because they could be biased on legal or political terms, but an innocent bystander would have no motivation to lie or make up stories. It is a fallacy to suggest that a random witness would have reason to make up stories and lie for no apparent reason. "Also, even if you do credit this "evidence" in the debate, My opponent still says that there would have only been a small group of people of throwing rocks" If there were any at all. "The police were highly justified to use the non lethal force they did when a group of gatherers were throwing rocks which could kill or maim any of the officers" 1.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. 2.In the hypothetical that rocks WERE being thrown, there is obviously very few, and if they were rocks large enough to hurt the officers, they would probably be noticed by the earlier mentioned witness. For all we know, a few gatherers could have been throwing small rocks, if they were throwing rocks at all. In the end result, the police were fine, but individual gatherers who were trying to calm the situation, got terrible fevers from being shot at with several mace balls. In the event that rocks were being thrown, the officers should have singled them out in the crowd, and not randomly shot into the crowd. That is unproffesional and dangerous. If most of the people that were shot were not throwing rocks, than it is dispraportionate. "this is unreasonable to say that she was just thrown to the ground and arrested for nothing, the woman would have been told to back away from the officers before she was thrown to the ground if this was the case" Since you will not trust the legal eagles, I have done the liberty of doing research elsewhere… In the casper star tribune, which my opponent has used as a source in his round one, it says: "A woman in the village told the officers to take their guns out of the Kid Village. An officer threw that woman to the ground and pulled her head back by her hair while she was being handcuffed, one Rainbow named Rick told Stevens." It also says this on the page you gave a link too I your round 1. "surrounded by 400 participants in the rainbow gathering, which constitutes as a mob/riot which justifies police riot/crowd control methods." The definition of riot that my opponent gave is this: "1. a public act of violence by an unruly mob 2. rioting: a state of disorder involving group violence" This does not describe 400 people "surrounding". 400 people standing around you does not constitute a riot, so that is a factual error on my opponent's side…verified by his own definition. You also called it a mob. I will agree that the scenario of 400 people surroundig someone fits SOME definitions of mob. But there is no such thing as the term "mob control". And having people surround you is not an excuse to randomly shoot innocent people. "but instead, the participants decided to throw rocks and sticks at the officers for no reason at all" Once more, my opponent makes the assertion that rocks were being thrown, when there is no conclusive evidence to verify that. However, in the purely hypothetical scenario that rocks were being thrown by gatherers it would only be a small amound. The officers obviously did not only shoot this hypothetical small amount, bt shot everybody. My opponent in the above quote lumps the whole crowd into the term "participants". To him, if one person throws a rock, then it is the action of the whole crowd, and that it is ok to shoot the whole crowd. This, however, is not true…It was not one entity, but a collection of individuals all with different motives. It was not justified to shoot those who had good motives, which the police did. "At this point he has Conceded that the events at the rainbow gathering could be considered a Riot and he conceded my analysis that a riot justifies this type of response. You need to Vote CON Now for this reason alone!" IF this incident is considered a riot, then it was a riot started by the police. And that is not justified. "first, it says that it is 'wrongful' use of power…" Shooting innocent people with mace balls is wrong. "Second, his definition states that it is a Disproportionate use of power" You describe it as a battle. If it were a battle, then the police won by a longshot, ruining your claim of dispraportianateness in favor of the rainbows. It wasn't a battle, however. It was a bunch of scared cops overreacting. Responding to a bunch of people standing around you by randomly shooting them is certainly dispraportianate. "Third, his definition states that a police riot is unlawful" This ones all how you define the laws. But that's what lawyers are for. To shoot innocent bystanders of an arrest could be considered unlawful, in a court of law. Due to a limited number of characters, I have posted the rest of my argument in the comments section. I am sorry for the inconvenience.