The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,185 times Debate No: 76170
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




Police are under attack in this Country. Heavily. While I will agree you'd have to be a fool not to admit there is SOME Police abuse, the media is what makes these situations worse. More importantly, the public perception of Police procedure combat situations is non existent. There are a million topics that can be touched on this. I will begin with a common public/media complaint: why do Police have to shoot someone with a knife? In Police academy training, Police officers are out through a specific scenario and drills involving this exact scenario. The training is partly based on a very important principle of combat physics: Action beats reaction. It applies to firearms as well. Recruits are put a out 30 to 40 yards away from a "offender" (instructor). The recruit will be told to draw his weapon when he feels threatened. The instructor will charge the recruit with a knife. About %95 of recruits did not draw their weapon on time and we're still "cut". NOTE: a knife is a deadly weapon. Just reinforcing that. What has the testing shown? An officer the majority of the time will not even be able to clear the weapon out of their holster. Action beats reaction. The formula for use of force with these types of weapons is Capability+distance. e.g. a man in a wheel chair with a knife 30 yards away, probably not as life threatening. Ok, so why not use a taser the ? Why does the person have to be killed? Again, a knife is a DEADLY WEAPON. A taser, is a intermediate defense tool. With a HIGH failure rate. Assuming the person is not on PCP, this is how a taser works: when fired BOTH prongs have to enter the skin, or it will have no effect. Something as simple as a shirt, the prong missing it's target, can keep the prongs from entering the skin. So the Officer has effectively placed his life in serious jeopardy but drawing an intermediate weapon against a deadly weapon, and a criminal who more than likely had the action advantage. Tasers also have limited range. So now you ask yourself, well they have partners, why can't one of them use a taser while others have real weapons drawn as contingency? 1- that actually is a very common Police practice. And I agree, should be attempted IF possible. The issue with that is, most Police officers in this country are alone when they have a violent encounter. The court system in the United States has to acknowledge something for police officers who use force or make judgment calls. It's called the three prongs. 1 Rapidly Evolving 2 tense. 3 uncertain. This is what an officer is experiencing when being attacked, or answering any call. I should also mention, it is VERY common, for an assailant to be shot multiple times and still attack officers. Statistics for you: the average gunfight/assault of an Officers happens at 3 to 6 ft from the assailant. The average gunfight lasts 1.25 to 4 seconds. It takes the average officer 1.75 seconds to draw a weapon. To conclude, Police will , can, and should shoot an assailant in most cases with a deadly weapon.


I would like to thank CON for instigating this debate. This is a topic which interests me, and one I know only a little bit about. I hope this debate proves to be enjoyable and enlightening.

First of all, I want to make it clear that CON has made two claims in his resolution. He has claimed that “Law Enforcement is under attack,” and that “[law enforcement] procedures are not understood by the public.” CON bears the full burden to demonstrate both of these resolutions. As CON has not set up any procedural rules, I will begin presently.

In Round 1, CON has done an excellent job outlining a handful of situations in which law enforcement officers should be allowed to use force, as well as describing some basic law enforcement training exercises. He concludes the round by writing that “Police will, can, and should shoot an assailant in most cases with a deadly weapon.” To address this conclusion directly, I will simply point out that CON has not demonstrated it. He has shown that there exist situations where law enforcement should be allowed to use force, but he has not demonstrated that this is the case in “most cases with a deadly weapon.”

To conclude my comments, I would like to point out that even if I granted the above conclusion, CON has still not demonstrated either of his resolutions. The assertion that police should use force does not demonstrate that law enforcement is under attack or that the public does not understand their procedures. CON has not yet met either of his burdens.

Debate Round No. 1


ok well I will put it like this: you said I didn't demonstrate Police being under attack. There have been death threats all across the Country. When the Police brutality debacle started, two new Tork Officers were executed by an extremist. Not to mention massive riots in several major cities.

As far as the publics knowledge goes, police work is like anything else. If you do not do it, or even know anyone who does it, you are not going to have a full understanding of it.

I'll pose a question to you. It's important that you answer the best you can for the sake of me demonstrating knowledge.

How many guns on average are involved in a Police/Citizen encounter?


I would like to thank CON for his comments this round. I will address them presently.

Under Attack?

CON has asserted that there have been death threats “all across the country,” and that some law enforcement officers have been executed. He also cites “massive riots” as evidence that law enforcement is “under attack.” Unfortunately, none of these unsupported claims made by CON support his resolution.

Law enforcement, as the term is used in the resolution, refers to the institution by which a society enforces its statutes, including courts, prisons, local, county and state police, as well as various federal agencies [1][2]. The resolution being debated here is that law enforcement is under attack, not that individual officers, or even specific agencies are under attack; as such, CON has yet to meet his burden.

Public Knowledge

CON’s other assertion is that the public does not understand the procedures used by the law enforcement system. Unfortunately, CON has not provided any evidence in support of this assertion; instead he simply asserts that no one who does not work in the field can know it. This is a claim which requires evidence.

CON’s Question

Con posed the following question: “How many guns on average are involved in a Police/Citizen encounter?” My answer is one. My reasoning follows:

Nearly half of the police encounters in the United States (44%) are traffic stops, most of which are for speeding [3]. With the possible rare exception, the only gun in play here is the one carried by the officer. Similarly, about 15% of police encounters involve the public reporting and crimes, or simply asking for directions or general assistence. [4]. In these situations, the gun/citizen ratio is the same. While I am sure there are relatively isolated incidences where there are many armed perpetrators engaging with law enforcement officers, there are also numerous examples of encounters with a lower gun/citizen ratio, such as situations where multiple citizens participate in police lead programs [5][6]. Given this evidence, I will give the rough answer of: one.

Wrapping Up

So far, CON has failed to support his initial claims. Also, while I found his question regarding police encounters to be interesting, I fail to see how it relates to his resolutions. No doubt CON will clear this up in the coming rounds. I look forward to the future discussion.



Debate Round No. 2


Correct. There is always one firearm in play. And a great deal of officers are killed with their own weapon. You statistics I believe price MY POINT. to be more specific, those who ask questions such as "why do Police have to shoot unarmed persons" are the type of questions I'm addressing. Persons who ask these questions, would not in fact ask them if they were educated on the matter. I believe what you are stating is an over generalization and not disproving or going against what I am stating.

If you can prove to me, that Police brutality/unlawful shootings outweigh the justifiable shootings or use of force, I will lose this debate. I can tell you will absolute certainty this can not be proven. Because police brutality are isolated incidents, and highly publicized when they occur, giving the illusion to the public that it is a common occurrence.


Thank you for your comments this round. I am enjoying the discourse so far. On to the debate!!!

What Point?

CON has claimed that the answer I gave to his question prove his point. However, I would like to ask what point it is allegedly proving. The two assertions at the center of this debate are that law enforcement is under attack, and that the general public is unaware of law enforcement procedures. I fail to see how the fact that there is an average of one firearm in play in most citizen/police encounters supports either of those assertions.

Red Fish

CON has made the following statement: “If you can prove to me, that Police brutality/unlawful shootings outweigh the justifiable shootings or use of force, I will lose this debate.” This whole line of discussion is a red herring. We are not talking about police brutality or about unjustified shootings; we are talking about are the two resolutions I referenced in the above paragraph. CON has a burden to prove them; I have made no claims and do not have a burden to prove anything.

Closing Thoughts

CON has still not demonstrated either of his resolutions. I would still like to see evidence that the institution of law enforcement is under attack and that the public is ignorant of the procedures of law enforcement. I look forward to CON’s comments in the next round.

Debate Round No. 3


Thank you. This debate is absolutely about the use of force. And I am stating facts, to provide supplemental information to paint a picture for the sake of this debate. The discourse in the Country right now in regards to Police procedure, is a direct result of use of force practices WHICH the public does not seem to fully understand( not an over generalization. Only those who are stating Police practices use too much force). All of these factors are most definitely apart of this debate. To put this very plainly: those who believe Police are using too much force as a whole is in fact an over generalization. Abuse is a rare occasion. Does it happen? Yes. # black lives matter will have you believe that they are victims when in fact, the vast majority of police shootings are justified. Even with blacks. It astonishes me the black community does not address blacks killing blacks, which dwarfs the amount killed by Police. So again, I say those blaming Police practices and claiming there needs to be reform, need to understand the statistics, and procedures.


CON has once again failed to provide any evidence in support of his assertions. It is clear that he is passionate and knowledgeable about his subject, but he has made assertions which require support. While the use of force may well be tied to core subjects of this debate, they are not themselves the resolutions being discussed. CON suggests that the additional assertions he has made provide “supplemental information” in order to make his case, but so far, he has not demonstrated how they relate to his actual claims.

CON’s sidebars about police brutality, use of force, and the average number of firearms, while interesting and no doubt an important part of the overall discussion, do nothing to meet his burden. I look forward to CON tying all the disparate pieces together in the final round.

Debate Round No. 4


Isaiah68 forfeited this round.


I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate; unfortunately we never really got into the meat of the subject. CON failed to provide a single shred of evidence in support of his evidence. We discussed numerous specific aspects related to the subject of police brutality, and how many firearms PRO felt were involved in police encounters, but we never actually got to the discussion about CON's alleged "attack" on law enforcement, nor did we get to evidence for the alleged lack of understanding of the public. CON has utterly failed to meet his burden of proof, while I had no burden to demonstrate.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
Reported Vote: TommyB12

Moderator action: Not removed

Reasoning: Forfeit is a valid reason to award conduct. Awarding sources for quantity is fine in this case because Pro provided zero sources.
Posted by Isaiah68 2 years ago
Luck isn't a factor of logic.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
haha, ok. Good luck on your debate...
Posted by Isaiah68 2 years ago
Ok again: Riots in MULTIPLE MAJOR CITIES I've Police practices. (cannot be disputed). That by itself is enough evidence given the media coverage and magnitude of the incidents. And jumping to being offensive towards me tells me it is you who is actually inexperienced. And I'm ALWAYS skeptical of someone who constantly wants someone to qualify trivial things to avoid the real matter.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
I wasn't debating you, I was clarify what your position entails... for all you know I agree with you. It still leaves you with a large burden of proof.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
Huh, you must not have much debate experience. If you make a claim, you have the burden of proof.
Posted by Isaiah68 2 years ago
You said police are responsible for them being under attack by the people and media etc. which is not true, because this all truly began in Dergeson under false pretenses.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Where did I say individual officers involved in those shootings are responsible? I used the more genarailized term "the police"
Posted by Isaiah68 2 years ago
Your asking me to prove something that is one of the biggest hot button talks in the Nation. You could live under a rock. Irrational? Not necessarily. But you are not truly debating. Your dancing around what I'm saying.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
Are you saying I am irrational?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TommyB12 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round. Con used external sources while pro did not. Con attempted a reasoned academic approach while pro seed to rely on inductive reasoning a personal experience