The media is NOT being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson

DAMAGED EQUIPMENT "Pro does not provide any sources regarding who he is referring to, or where this is stated." Stated last round: http://www.gofundme.com... "continues to equate looters with peaceful protesters... a Red Herring." Why would we assume maliciousness from one side and not the other? Neither side should be ASSUMED malicious without evidence. By remaining neutral, CON suggests I have taken sides. "The same (amount of destroyed equipment) - this cannot be proven" Speaking about the incident of the two damaged cameras, one of which was damaged by an officer, the other by the crowd. "Protesters have not been firing gas rounds into residential backyards... A red herring" This has nothing to do with media suppression, the story being discussed, and wasn't brought up until the final round. SUSPENSIONS "(Suspensions began) only following international outrage and days of abuses." http://www.aa.com.tr... Nothing about the media putting pressure on the department for a suspension. The department representative confirmed the officer's suspension had already been carried out. "Only a small number of officers have been suspended." Only a small number have committed acts that require suspension. CONFISCATED EQUIPMENT "Pro only illustrates the single Al Jazeera crew example, and does not refute the other examples I have provided." Quote from CON: "Several cameras were confiscated and videos deleted." CON posts 3 sources: http://www.ksdk.com... http://www.dailykos.com... http://www.slate.com... 3 sources - same story. "The raw footage he provides does NOT show the officers returning the equipment" Because nothing was seen on video being TAKEN in the first place, no recording journalists mentioned anything being taken, and officers make no effort to obtain the secondary video evidence that would damn them if they had. "At this point, the video shows 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." CON provided a transcript directly supporting my point that the officers made no attempt to harass, threaten, or steal from the journalists to prevent exposure of their supposed crimes, only to get them down the street to their vehicle. ARRESTS "A police officer forcefully removed a Vice News Journalist's press badge and screamed that "this doesn't mean $hit!"" There's no new evidence allowed, but: Just like the 4 that have been suspended, his actions were unreasonable and should be brought up the ranks. "The detainment of media is an unconstitutional violation of their first amendment rights, and causes suppression." You misunderstand the constitution if you think temporary detainment is a violation of it, and journalists are given no special distinction based on the 1st amendment. "The large number of abuses indicate they are not isolated" In summary of our covered "abuses" they are few and far between considering the sheer number of interactions between officers and citizens. "Pro arbitrarily would like to dismiss this damning evidence (threat to protestor) which cannot be refuted." This topic was clearly defined to discuss the media being suppressed by law enforcement. A civilian being threatened by an officer (immediately relieved of duty) has no bearing on this. "Dozens (of journalists), including protesters." CON attempts to inflate the number of supporting cases by suggesting that anyone on the streets of Ferguson should be considered "media" "The articles linked in each (story) state no paperwork was issued. (And) the muckrock link further proves no records were taken, as arrest reports are made public immediately." Arrest reports are NOT made public immediately, and in a town that doesn't even have cameras in their patrol vehicles it's probably an even slower process. This source is an open request for documents, and a response explaining when to expect said paperwork from the county. CON has already concluded without evidence that these documents will not be provided in the future. "(Cpt. Johnson) caught on a vine ordering the detention of two journalists." The media is not exempt from following lawful orders, and a brief detainment isn't unlawful. They were detained for less than 10 minutes and offered an apology. http://talkingpointsmemo.com... FBI "...a red herring, Pro cannot provide a source which supports these assumptions (that the FBI was NOT involved because of "outrage" FBI spokeswoman: "Mimura noted that the FBI would be investigating such a shooting regardless of the public attention." http://stlouis.cbslocal.com... (Already provided, #4 of my Round 2 argument) "It was actually on the third day, but this is a Red Herring argument." Brown shot on the 9th, FBI involvement on the 11th: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com... The FBI was getting involved either way, so the law enforcement element had no reason to suppress the media, at least in an attempt to prevent FBI involvement. The one counterargument by CON was that: "The FBI investigation was due to outrage over media suppression" A claim of which is overtly false. "Pro claims the media is dishonest" I've made no claims of the media being dishonest. "Pro makes a semantics argument focusing on my use of the word "several" another Red Herring." I pointed it out for the continued inconsistency in CON's statements. The claim "the media is being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson" is a statement that implies that the whole, or the majority, or even a large enough portion of various departments are actively seeking to control the media. CON was unable to explain why this was happening, as the media isn't revealing any revelations about Ferguson the police were hiding, and the police force doesn't seem concerned with changing viewer's minds in any sense of "propaganda". CON uses isolated incidents and plays on words to suggest that all citizens are media, and any slight infringement upon a citizen, regardless of lawfulness, is an intentional violation of the 1st amendment to prevent the "truth" from spreading. CON gives erroneous accounts of property being stolen by police, when they can be clearly seen intact on video. CON let many of my points stand by dismissing them as fallacy. And the fallacy of the day was "red herring" I appreciate this debate; it was much more enjoyable than the guy who kept calling me "retard boy" over and over. Thanks for reading, and happy voting!