I'm not asking for forensics. You made a very strong claim - you claimed that the police are
only using tear gas on protesters that aren't peaceful. All you need to disprove that is one experience of that not being the case. If you're going to make a claim, you have to back it up if it isn't obvious - you're making a claim that many people here would disagree with, even if we water it down to "most of the time tear gas is used on non-peaceful protesters". The stories coming out of Ferguson are saying that this isn't the case, that tear gas and rubber bullets are being used against
children, press, and peaceful crowds. Therefore, you have to either back up or back down; either you have a reason to think this, or you're making assumptions that support the police officers despite not having any concrete reason to do so. Which makes sense since your next point is "yeah he's threatening to
literally kill peaceful protesters but I wonder what they did to provoke him?"
This is why people are comparing the stories coming out of Ferguson and the justifications by their supporters to domestic violence. If you didn't talk so harshly, protesters, I wouldn't have to hurt you! You know I'm a good guy, I wouldn't be this violent without provocation, so you must have provoked me.
For the record, my friend's evidence of being tear gassed was...being tear gassed.