The media is NOT being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson

A. Damaged Equipment - :The owner of the damaged equipment claimed no malicious intent. Pro does not provide any sources regarding who he is referring to, or where this is stated. As such, these claims cannot be verified. This new argument also completely refutes the argument Pro previously made. B. Pro continues to equate looters with peaceful protesters, which is a skewed perspective. Also, a Red Herring argument. :We have the same amount of destroyed property in this story by both protestors, and officers"the same" - this cannot be proven, and is an attempt to play both sides as equally culpable, when the police abuses have been much more severe. Protesters have not been firing gas rounds into residential backyards. (4) Neither have they been threatening to murder press members and civilians. Still, a Red Herring. C. :A member of the press that was assaulted by an officer - who was immediately suspended.These events are isolated...Only following international outrage and days of abuses. And the suspensions are isolated. Many abusing officers have not even been identified yet. (1)"These officers refused to provide their badge numbers or names or a reason for the order and grew angry when one of the men attempted to take a video."None of them have been suspended. Only a small number of officers have been suspended. One who pushed Don Lemon, and proceeded to brag on facebook about how many people he had killed over the years. (2) It was the rant, not his actions against journalists, which brought about his suspension. D. Confiscated Equipment: There are no reports of any photos, videos or documentation being taken from journalists.This is simply untrue. Pro only illustrates the single Al Jazeera crew example, and does not refute the other examples I have provided. Pro also offers a skewed perspective of the events. D.1 - The raw footage he provides does NOT show the officers returning the equipment as Pro claims. Pro does not provide a time for when the officers are supposed to have done this. The fact is, the equipment was not returned until well after the live shot was over. Effectively preventing and suppressing the spread of information. D.2 - Pro mistakenly believes the police informed the crew of where they were next going. But that is not the case. The discussion about where people are relocating takes place between two KSDK journalists. at (:50) D.3 - "At this point, the video shows still photographers gathered around the KSDK crew...one person is heard saying "We're OK here." Another voice says "We don't want you here. Somebody's going to get hurt. We don't want to see you guys get hurt." The KSDK crew says that is the voice of a police officer." (3) Clearly, Pro has not understood what is going on in the video. Or who is speaking with the officers. I will not say Pro has been deliberately dishonest, as I believe Pro is just mistaken. This does not change the fact that Pro is blatantly wrong. D.4 - Pro could not disprove the examples of journalists Bilgin Sasmaz, and Mustafa Hussein having their equipment damaged. (9) (10)D.5 - A police officer forcefully removed a Vice News Journalist's press badge and screamed that "this doesn't mean $hit!" (5)While this is a minor incident of damaged equipment, it still conveys the struggle journalists have had trying to bring people the truth. E. Suppression, even temporary, is suppression. E.1 - :"Temporary detainment, mistakes, and cases of isolated abuse..."Again, pro makes my argument for me. Pro admits detainments have occurred. The detainment of media is an unconstitutional violation of their first amendment rights, and causes suppression. The large number of abuses indicate they are not isolated, but stem from a systemic issue within the regional law enforcement. E.2 - The officer who threatened to shoot the journalist with the light has not been suspended or named, despite what Pro suggests by claiming the other officer provided his own name. No accountability was demanded of the threatening officer. E.3 - Pro uses the term "majority" to suggest that a majority is required for a systemic issue to exist. The vast number of first amendment violations suggests there is an overarching desire to suppress honest media coverage. E.4 -Pro also ended the quote from Ernst before it was over, a somewhat disingenuous argument tactic. "That kind of police impunity seems to be at the root of the anger and protests we witnessed."(pro's source) He openly states the law enforcement in Ferguson suffer a systemic problem. E.5 - "This has nothing to do with the media being suppressed and should be dismissed from consideration"Pro arbitrarily would like to dismiss this damning evidence which cannot be refuted.Pro would love to dismiss every single example I have presented as Isolated, yet these all happened within a number of days in the same town, by the same law enforcement bodies. They should all be considered as a part of the systemic problem. F. ARRESTED JOURNALISTSF.1 - :Twice CON has said "dozens"Dozens, including protesters. (6) F.2 - "Only 11 have been arrested according to:"Pro uses dated sources and opinion pieces which took data from dated sources: As of August 20, 17 media persons have been arrested, according to Press Freedom Foundation. (7) Again, I will not accuse Pro of being blatantly dishonest, only blatantly incorrect. Click the source for a list and links to articles on each arrest. F.3 :Please provide a source claiming that no documentation occurred for these arrests. I have already done this. Pro has clearly not read my provided sources. The articles linked in source (7) each state no paperwork was issued. Here are other sources as well. Links in comments (8) (9) (10)"He was told he'd be held 24 hours on a charge of unlawful assembly, but then he was inexplicably released without bail or any paperwork at 7 a.m" (11)The muckrock link further proves no records were taken, as arrest reports are made public immediately. By providing this source, Pro proves my argument. G. - Police Intentions:By suspending bad officers (7) apologizing for mistakes (9) and marching with protestors (10).One suspension, a single apology, and the same office who walked was also the one caught on a vine ordering the detention of two journalists. (12) The police force has a vested interest in message control. These are there efforts. This does not disprove the many examples of suppression.G.1 - Even on the 19th, the protests had not been violent for a number of days. G.2 - :I claim that a crackdown doesn't prevent FBI involvement chronologicallyRegardless, this is a Red Herring argument, and Pro cannot provide a source which supports these assumptions.G.3 - : 2 days.It was actually on the third day, but this is a Red Herring argument. G.4 - Pro claims the media is dishonest, but none of the reports can be refuted. G.5 - Pro makes a semantics argument focusing on my use of the word "several" another Red Herring.G.6 - The FBI investigation was due to outrage over media suppression G.7 - :Another CON contradictionAnother example of Pro using incomplete quotes to dishonestly represent my argument. The full quote: "Pro believes that the media scrutiny is unnecessary because the FBI is now investigating, however without the media coverage (and the outrage over unconstitutional media suppression) the FBI would not have become involved"The second quote illustrated that the focus of the investigation was on the shooting, not media suppression. That does not mean the suppression was not a motivation to instiage the investigation. G.8 - :CON attempts to make "law enforcement" appear singular and monolithic.Again Pro attempts to argue that universality is required for suppression to exist. The police force clearly has a systemic issue. Pro cannot refute that reality, and instead chooses to dishonestly represent my position as universally anti-law enforcement, when I am simply pro-first Amendment.