Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.
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.
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.
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 . 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.
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 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 . 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. . 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 . Given this evidence, I will give the rough answer of: one.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
|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||3|