The media is NOT being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson

DAMAGED EQUIPMENT The owner of the damaged equipment claimed no malicious intent. In the source CON posted he mentions that the crowd scattering damaged his second camera. We have the same amount of destroyed property in this story by both protestors, and officers, yet one is assumed malicious and not the other. A member of the press that was assaulted by an officer - who was immediately suspended.These events are isolated, and individuals, not agencies, are being hostile towards civilians or media. CONFISCATED EQUIPMENT "Several cameras were confiscated and videos deleted. The Al Jazeera crew's equipment was confiscated for several days" There are no reports of any photos, videos or documentation being taken from journalists. This is the video of the event occurring, which can be seen here (4) and described below: 1:30 the officers can clearly be seen gently setting two lights on the ground 1:40 two officers carefully point the camera down 1:50 an officer bumps another light pole and holds it while pausing to make sure it wasn't going to fall. They can then be seen climbing back into their vehicle and moments later approach the crew that just recorded the event. The officers inform the crew they are going to a new location, and don't seem at all agitated and even have their backs to them. I'd like to point out to everyone reading that the claim my opponent just made was highly dishonest. "Pro argues that a temporary suppression doesn't count as suppression. The constitution disagrees." Misleading. Temporary detainment, mistakes, and cases of isolated abuse don't count as the entire body of law enforcement acting to suppress the media writ large. SPECIFIC INCIDENTS "Get the F*** out of here, Turn off that light, how dare you, if you turn on that light, you're getting shot with this" The actual quote "Turn off that light, get down, get the f*** out of here, you keep that light off, or you're getting shot with this, get the f*** outta here, you're in our way!" (5) Seconds after, another officer is summoned, who makes no attempts to move the crew. Assurances are made that the officer threatening would be brought up to Cpt. Johnson, the man in charge, and the officer speaking with the journalist offers his own name as a reference to the situation. "I'll bust your a$$" To continue quoting Ernst, the man who was unreasonably harassed "The vast majority of the officers I met around St. Louis were doing the best they could in a difficult and dangerous situation. But the kind of officer who we encountered - one who uses his authority to bully the public and press simply because he is protected by the law and a gun - gives others a bad name." (6) He openly states the majority of officers AREN'T attempting to bully the press. "'I'll kill you' a police pointing a rifle at civilians says to the civilians." Immediately relieved of duty and suspended indefinitely. This has nothing to do with the media being suppressed and should be dismissed from consideration. (7) ARRESTED JOURNALISTS "dozens have been arrested unconstitutionally. Their ability to report was suppressed during the hours they were detained." Twice CON has said "dozens" and twice CON has said "over a dozen". Only 11 have been arrested according to: http://www.cnn.com... http://www.poynter.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://therealnews.com... Ryan Reilly, Wesley Lowery, Kerry Picket, Scott Olson, Ansgar Graw, Frank Herrmann, a third unnamed, Lukas Hermsmeier and Ryan Devereaux, Alderman, and Bilgin Sasmaz. "No paperwork on the arrests have been issued." Please provide a source claiming that no documentation occurred for these arrests. I submit this for consideration: https://www.muckrock.com... POLICE INTENTIONS "police have a vested interest in controlling the perception of their officer and their police force in the eyes of the public." By suspending bad officers (7) apologizing for mistakes (9) and marching with protestors (10). "They have a vested interest in assassinating the character of the deceased" The robbery video? Media forced the release by "bombing them" with FOIA requests the same day the officers name was forcibly released. (11) "vested interest in labeling the protesters as looters, so their concerns and complaints will be dismissed." "This is my neighborhood. You are my family, you are my friends. And I am you. I will stand to protect you. I will protect your right to protest." Cpt. Johnson of the state police. (10) PROTEST TIMELINE "The protests have not been happening every day. The past 3 nights have been peaceful in Ferguson" I said "almost every day" and I would still be right if I hadn't, I wrote that statement on the 19th, 3 days ago. Protests and riots shouldn't be lumped together. Much like CON is not distinguishing between good and bad cops, the violent and non-violent protestors aren't the same. "Pro believes that the media scrutiny is unnecessary because the FBI is now investigating" Incorrect and dubious. I claim that a crackdown doesn't prevent FBI involvement chronologically, as the FBI was involved already. "as it took several days before that decision was made." 2 days. "desire to see their fellow officer protected, and they know an accurate and honest accounting of events is not likely to produce that result." Baseless accusation. prejudice is cried if the same statement was applied in reverse. "(The FBI investigation) was in response to the outrage over police suppression of the media" Baseless and faulty. The FBI is investigating the shooting and department. Also contradictory to CONs previous statement, is it several days or 2? "FBI investigation has nothing to do with whether or not the media was actively suppressed by the authorities in Ferguson" Unless it's supporting evidence I used in a timeline, for example "X couldn't have been to prevent the FBI since they were already there". Another CON contradiction: "FBI investigation was in response to outrage of media suppression" "FBI investigation has nothing to do with whether or not the media was suppressed." "None of those entities are media. None of this has any bearing on the argument." By trying to disregard the fact that multiple agencies are involved, CON attempts to make "law enforcement" appear singular and monolithic. CON committed this fallacy several times to avoid the complications that arise when including thousands of extra people in a conspiracy. I hope you, dear reader, are having a blast reading long lines of text from strangers. And I give the floor back to CON, good night, and good luck! 4.http://www.ksdk.com... 5.http://www.vox.com... 6.http://america.aljazeera.com... 7.http://www.cnn.com... 8.http://www.cnn.com... 9.http://www.breitbart.com... 10.http://www.washingtonpost.com... 11.http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 12.http://www.slate.com...