My point with the felt threatened thing is the term "assault".

Whether or not he was struck, or shot is up to them to share. If they told protestors one story (I have no doubt they did) and told their editor another, it is up to them to decide which account is true, not you, not a protestor, not the editor, and not Larry.

Wasn't the piece an editorial anyway? If it was then whomever wrote it can leave whatever opinion they desire, ok or otherwise.

Anytime you have a crowd of unruly folks cops will do what they feel is necessary (them, not me) to maintain law and order. If someone is hanging out within said crowd then there is a good chance they may meet harms way. If someone is robbing a bank, and you as the cameraman jump in front of the bank robber just as the cops are showing up, do you think you won't get caught in the crossfire? I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned, but it's a fairly obvious equation. The same holds true for: protest + police = pepper spray. If you are down there, and not protesting, you will probably still get some pepper spray your way.

A few days after I was banned, The Olympian ran the Kimball story.  I had already sent a letter to the editor that month supporting Proposition 1, so, I couldn't do that.  Thus I sent an email to Vickie Kilgore.

I have not looked over my shoulder since the day I accepted the offer from my agency.  Three times during the three years prior, I had interviewed and considered jobs with newspapers.  One I turned down, one turned me down and another couldn't make a decision, but along came BBBS and I know I'm happier doing what I do now.

As a kid at the Tacoma News Tribune, I had the honor of knowing many fantastic journalists that knew the game.  They were confident in their skills and their job security (unions, in those days), that they could tell the truth, regardless of company line.  Those days are gone.

A classic story from those days was a reporter for the Trib was a know alcoholic, that somehow, got his job done.  The paper ran a Sunday feature on alcoholism in the workplace, telling employers to identify and help these people and ...WHAMMO....fired their employee about two weeks later.  The Guild stepped in a grieved.  End result - he got his job back, got sober and went back to being the productive employee he had always been.

It's a game of management by fear now.  I have many friends that have left the business in the past couple of years because of the management techniques.  One of these friends was heavily recruited out of retirement, only to throw in the towel after less than two years.  This guy is only 58.  Another speciality media picked him up.

everybody's definition of small varies.  So does the definition of large.  I don't think there's any official number of how many people destroyed property or acted aggressively but the photos and video I saw, because it's all I have to go on since I wasn't there, showed a large number of people helping to destroy property and acting aggressively.  I define large as more than 10 people where as you might define it as 20+.  It's all a matter of interpretation.

I'm not including the number of people arrested because I know not all of them were destroying property or acting aggressively. 

I think there's a large scope of what one would define as acting aggressively too.  Some might think yelling "F You Pigs" as every day language, I think it's a call of aggression and would feel like somebody was acting aggressively towards me if they shouted that at me as well.