I feared for my life so I killed an unarmed person
Debate Rounds (3)
Okay... Its a shame that at least once a week you see a video o hear of a police officer killing someone. With the same played out excuse of I feared for my life as to justify a murder. I feel like us as citizens should be worried by this because they are trained to deal with situations like this. Knowing policeman have atleast 3 other options instead lethal force, why cant they explain their actions instead of pulling the "I feared for my life.
I've also never heard the quote, "I feared for my life." If you could pull up an article of an officer saying that, that would be great.
Officers are trained to protect those who are innocent. If you don't commit a crime, there's no need to worry. It's sad that you don't hear about the stories of an officer helping a black man, or when there was a clear reason for the cop to use deadly force. That doesn't play into what the media's beliefs are so they just happen not to report those stories.
http://m.nydailynews.com... just because you used him. I do agree the media won't report stories of good police compared to questionable police.
One more thing just s theory I've been think about. Say you sit in your car or doing what ever. You are a licenced ccw holder. An unidentified person/persons approaches you aggressively gun drawn in you shoot them. The unidentified person was a cop do we as citizens have the right to claim we felt threatened or feared for our life. Its well documented of the use of the phrase.
In Freddie Gray's case, I don't think that pertains to your argument. That was just one instance of police abusing their authority.
And that's an interesting question. Police have dashcams now, and the, by law, show their badge to prove they're not an impostor. If a man or woman not in uniform pulled a gun on me, and did not show their badge, I as a citizen protecting myself can shoot to kill. The court would be able to prove that if all the evidence fits that description.
The last link is is the most recent I've read about. I feel it will be unjust. Based off the specifics.
I have one more link for you pertaining to the last question I asked you
We just want some accountability for the police. I personally think we need to repair this relationship. We can't do it by ourselves. I appreciate this debate.
In accordance to the "gawker" article, the evidence of that case showed that it was an airsoft gun, but the child took off the orange tip to prove it was fake. This was an extremely sad case, but airsoft guns are scarily realistic in the sense that they're modeled after real guns and made of metal as well. The child pointed the gun at the officer and that's when he got shot. It's really a tragic case, but children aren't innocent from horrific crimes either.
This is why "shoot to kill" is acceptable. However, I feel as if you're straying from your initial argument which was police officers using the excuse, "I feared for my life." The one story that had that was the Michael Brown case, and yes he didn't use nonlethal force. But you have to realize that non lethal force doesn't always work and if a man with clear, violent intents, is charging at you, you must protect yourself. Wilson wasn't "so quick" to shoot. He tried to chase after Brown, but when Brown turned around, Wilson shot. And he shot multiple times. In the YouTube video, the man recording said that Wilson was shooting, but he thought Wilson was missing because Brown kept charging. So if Brown didn't react to bullet wounds, do you think he would react more to a taser?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bosoxfaninla 12 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to be off topic at times, the question was regarding whether self defense against someone who may be unarmed is justifiable when said person is fearing for their life. Both sides presented interesting points although I could have seen this debate go either way. Pro had better grammar and Con made a number of grammatical errors. Quick note to con, I suggest in the future to not use change.org as a source.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.