The Instigator
hawkeye8810
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheDevilsAdvocate
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Law Enforcement should be treated no different from criminals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
TheDevilsAdvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,031 times Debate No: 28884
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

hawkeye8810

Con

I think that our Law Enforcement has gone to far. They get away with breaking laws that we as citizens can't. Now i feel its time for all that to stop for example: If a cop is speeding down the road without any real reason they should be pulled over and pay a fine like we do. If they are using their cell phones while driving again they should be pulled over and pay a fine just like us citizens. If they harass a citizen for no reason they should be punished to the fullest extant of the law. the fact that cops get away with breaking laws that we as citizens cant makes me sick to my stomach. Also if a cop beats up an unarmed man or woman they should be charged for assault. anyone who agrees let me know.
TheDevilsAdvocate

Pro

I accept this challenge, and I will play Devil's Advocate, hence my name. Your the Con in this case, but your arguing that Law Encorcement should be treated like criminals. So let us just assume you are Pro and that you made a mistake, correct me if I'm wrong.

"They get away with breaking laws that we as citizens can't."

In order for us to best argue in this situation, we should take real life, specific examples. You provided some vague examples that are anecdotal, but we can continue. One of the challenges here is specifying which country's law enforcment and laws we are talking about. Even in the United States, different states have different laws. The police in Russia for example, can do most of these things and get away with it, legal or not.

Okay, you say Police should be treated no different than criminals. By definition, a criminal is someone who has committed a crime already, whereas the police have not. Certain officers of the Police may have broken laws, in which case they are treated the same as criminals. because at that point, they are criminals.

"If a cop is speeding down the road without any real reason they should be pulled over and pay a fine like we do."

In most states, traffic laws exempt the emergency vehicles from regulations.
In the case for the NYPD, the law states:

New York Vehicle and Traffic. LAW § 1104 : NY Code - Section 1104:
(b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:
1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of this title;
2. Proceed past a steady red signal, a flashing red signal or a stop
sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe
operation;
3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger
life or property;
4. Disregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.

Thus, any emergency vehicle can disregard Traffic regulations so long as he does not endanger life or property
written in the law.

In fact, Police cars are considered "Authorized Emergency Vehicles" and can speed or make otherwise illegal turns
without audible lights and sounds, other emegency vehicles cannot do this. [1]
 

"If they are using their cell phones while driving again they should be pulled over and pay a fine just like us citizens."

This law is not in place everywhere. Please be more specific. Let us use California law since it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving there. We know this because in the California Vehicle Code § 23123 (A)

A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

So, it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving except for emergency purposes (CVC:§23123[C]) and when an emergency services professional is using it within their own scope of duties (CVC:§23123[D])

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties. [2]




"If they harass a citizen for no reason they should be punished to the fullest extant of the law."

By Police harassment, do you mean police misconduct in general? In that case, it is illegal in almost all cases and is a sign of corruption and a police officer can be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Not sure what you are arguing here, I assume it's that a law enforcment officer can get away with police misconduct? This happens, but ordinary citizens also get away with crime. It is against the law for an officer to harass a citizen for "no reason" and without even any suspicion.

This is why there are internal affairs agencies that can be sent a complaint, their main purpose is to "police" the police and will conduct an investigation. If evidence shows there is police misconduct, an officer will be reprimended. The judifical system will punish the officer as a citizen to the fullest extent of the law, and the Law Enforcment Agency will deal with his/her actions on a seperate basis.

"the fact that cops get away with breaking laws that we as citizens cant makes me sick to my stomach."

This is not true, at least, not in every case. There are some laws, like the traffic laws I mentioned before, that exempt emergency vehicles. This is technically not breaking the law, as it is ordained within the law itself that law enforcment officers are exempt. As I mentioned before, both cops and citizens can and do break the law and sometimes get away with it. There are internal affairs agencies and places you can go to complain about a specific Law Enforcment officer for misconduct. There are civilian commissions and several other ways that are specific to the subset of laws to the region that keep a check on police conduct. [3]



"Also if a cop beats up an unarmed man or woman they should be charged for assault."

Again, Law enforcement officers are not exempt from the law and they are citizens as well, and so are bound to the law. Police officers can defend themselves, and use force to so, to subdue from someone who threatens, or uses violence. There is no universal use of force continuum, but there are general guidelines. [4]

Officers have also been charged with assault on numerous occasions, so when you say "they should be charged" you are entailing that they normally aren't charged for certain crimes (ie, assault) but that they ought to. As a matter of fact, this is a matter of "is" and not "ought" because they can be charged, and have been.

Final Notes
I have used various laws and agencies from varying regions, but my opponent does not specifiy which agency, laws, region that he is specifically referring to, so my argument is general in nature with specific examples from many different places.

Police officers are often hated upon by many citizens, but they are not inheritely corrupt. Thus I disagree with my opponent that Law Enforcement should be treated the same as Law breakers. My opinion is that all Law breaking citizens, including those who enforce the law, should be reprhinded to the full extent of the law before a court and with due process; innocent until proven guilty with overwhelming evidence. I will never endorse treating anyone as a criminal, before they have been proven as such.



Sources:
[1] http://codes.lp.findlaw.com...;
[2] http://www.dmv.ca.gov...
[3] As an example, this is the Commission for the NYPD that can be contacted
for complaint submission about police corruption and/or misconduct:
http://www.nyc.gov...
[4] https://www.ncjrs.gov...
[5] http://www.thestar.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
hawkeye8810

Con

My opponent is in a very strong case of deniable facts. Law officers are corrupted and crooked i'm not saying this about all officers there are a few good ones out there but only a few cops. But a good many of them get away with more crimes then an ordinary citizen. what my opponent is saying makes no absolute sense. There are a lot of people that can back me up and support my debate that cops should be punished according to state law when they break them. I Apologize if my opponent dose not understand what is going on in this debate vote for me and lets put a stop to crimes being broken by our own law enforcement.
TheDevilsAdvocate

Pro

Hello again hawkeye,

Prelude

First I would like to point out that you have not actually rebutted my arguments, so those ones still stand for the judges to see. Before I officially begin this argument, I want to point an anecdotal experience of mine. A few years back, I was a juvenile delinquent and frequently got in trouble with the police. I saw first hand, the corrupt nature of several police officers, and I was even a victim of police brutality.

I once stolen something which wasn't mine and the police caught me and my friends. One of my friends ran for it, the rest of us stayed. The cop that chased my friend and caught him was very pissed off, so he demanded to know where I got this stolen item from. I refused to tell him and asked for my lawyer, which was my right; at which point he beat me in the police car while I was in handcuffs and when I still refused, he tasered me. I agreed to show him where I got it from, then got charged. I wanted to take it to trial, but they dropped the charges.

The point is, you say I don't understand, and I do. All my peers hated cops and so did I. I have also met good people who were cops. Point is, who are you to say most are bad and only few are good? I have personal experience with police brutality and corrupt cops but reason tells me that this is not an inherently evil or crooked profession.

Anyways, on to the actual argument. We are talking with reason here, and not comparing anecdotes.




"My opponent is in a very strong case of deniable facts."

My opponent has not said why my facts are deniable. I presented the facts and responded to your initial argument with examples from the law and other sources. The facts can be deniable in that they vary from country to country and even from state to state; but because you were not specific in which legal system or incident you are referring to, I assumed it was a generalized opinion on law enforcement. My facts were fair. Notice how my opponent has no sources to back up his many claims, which I will point out as we go along.




"Law officers are corrupted and crooked i'm not saying this about all officers there are a few good ones out there but only a few cops."

The same can be said about lawyers, bankers, politicians or any other profession that the general public seem to have a negative outlook on. Because there are no hard facts or even statistics my opponent is using, these remain as claims with no evidence. In this case the burden of proof is on you because you have made the positive assertion that "most officers are corrupt and/or crooked, but some are 'good.'" Not much else is needed to be said about this.




"But a good many of them get away with more crimes then an ordinary citizen."

I will use the same argument from above. Argument here is a positive assertion yet there is no evidence at all to back it up.




"what my opponent is saying makes no absolute sense."

Con is trying to discredit my entire argument without actually rebutting anything.





"There are a lot of people that can back me up and support my debate that cops should be punished according to state law when they break them."


This is a trick statement. Let me explain:

A) The logical reasoning behind it is fallacious because it is argumentum ad populum; just because many people can back you up, does not prove it is true or even add any credibility, or act as evidence to the previous positive assertions; of which my opponent has the burden of proof.

B) The point he is making here is different from his original argument. He says cops should be punished according to state law when they break them, which actually assumes two things:

  1. In these present state of affairs, law enforcement officers do not get punished according to state law when aforementioned law is broken.
  2. Law enforcement officers ought to get punished according to state law when aforementioned law is broken.

This is of course false and no where does it say that police officers do not get punished by state and/or federal law when any aforementioned law is broken. All police officers are treated as normal citizens before the court of law; innocent until proven guilty and will not be punished without due process. The burden of proof is on my opponent, yet I will still add that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States supports my assertion here. [1]




"I Apologize if my opponent dose not understand what is going on in this debate vote for me and lets put a stop to crimes being broken by our own law enforcement."


This is close to being an ad hominem argument because my opponent asserts that I do not understand and attempts to discredit my entire argument based on that assertion, without actually offering any rebuttals or arguments with any evidence.


Conclusion

My opponent has not offered any rebuttals to my previous arguments in round 1 and so they still stand. Most of my opponent's argument is based on faulty reasoning and are arguably emotionally charged, yet superficial. My opponent has also failed on providing any evidence, so even if his logical reasoning was sound and valid, it would still fail because the burden of proof is on him. I explained why this is so, because he is making the positive assertion that Law Enforcement officers are no different than criminals and ought to be treated as such; which is true to the extent that when individual Law Enforcement officers break the law. However my opponent's argument is filled with assumptions and nothing to back these assumptions with.

I think you should vote for me because my case is strongly supported with facts and the law itself. Furthermore I also want to put a stop to crimes done by our Law Enforcement, but I also want to put a stop to crimes done by any person under the law. However we must use reason, evidence and rigourous investigation to do so. Hatred makes for a bad Judge in the court of Law, and I prefer Justice over emotionally-fueled hate.

I will thank my opponent for an interesting discussion.


Source
[1] http://www.archives.gov...;

Debate Round No. 2
hawkeye8810

Con

My opponent needs to understand that i to was a victim by police. But i have also taken witness to police that have abused their power by beating up certain people who have done nothing wrong period. I have also witnessed police officers harassing and disrespecting people that have been offended by police. In the past and even now people place a lawsuit against our law enforcement because they either break their own laws or they are abusing their police powers. so don't take what my opponent is saying lightly cause i am living proof that police are crooked and dishonest.
TheDevilsAdvocate

Pro

My anecdotal story in my previous argument was just that; an anecdote, it does not prove that law enforcement officers are all criminals or that most of them are criminals. My opponent (note: my opponent is Con, but this is contradictory to his position and so I advise all judges to disregard the positions of Pro and Con in this debate)

My opponent has also failed in providing any evidence to his positive assertions again in this round. I will dissect his argument regardless and point out the fallacies in the argument.




"My opponent needs to understand that i to was a victim by police. But i have also taken witness to police that have abused their power by beating up certain people who have done nothing wrong period."

This ia an anecdote and doesn't prove that the police are criminals. I agree with my opponent in that some police officers are corrupt by committing crimes and disrespecting their duties or abusing their powers. However, my opponent's claim is that the police is inheritely corrupt everywhere and resorts to using anecdotes to support his claim such as this one. It does not prove anything.



"I have also witnessed police officers harassing and disrespecting people that have been offended by police."

This is yet another anecdote and doesn't prove anything in this debate; though it can make for an interesting story with friends over beers.




"In the past and even now people place a lawsuit against our law enforcement because they either break their own laws or they are abusing their police powers."

My opponent does two things with this statement:
  1. He has destroyed his own argument because he admits that law enforcement officers who have broken laws have been taken to court and/or sued. This actually supports my argument that police officers are not exempt from the law and when they break it, they can be punished to the full extent before the judicial system.
  2. Much of my opponent's arguments, including this statement, are stereotype fallacy and he is playing on the stereotype that all law enforcement officers are corrupt.




"so don't take what my opponent is saying lightly cause i am living proof that police are crooked and dishonest."

My opponent's anecdotal experiences are not sufficient to support his assertions. If my opponent continues to use anecdotes and no form of real evidence, citations or sources to backup his assertion, then it will be obvious that those assertions are false; or atleast, unsound in their logic.

My opponent's entire argument, as I said before, is a stereotype fallacy. It is the exact same faulty logic that defines many aspects of racism such as "All Asians are smart because my friend is Asian in my class and she's very smart!" or "All Blacks are criminals because I myself have been a victim of a crime committed by a black person. I am living proof that all blacks are dangerous criminals!".

The entire logical fallacy of my opponent's argument can be summed up as:

All X's have the characterization C
Z is an X
Therefor, Z has the characterization C

In this case my opponent's argument is: All 'Law Enforcement Officers' have the characterization 'Criminality'. yet there is no factual basis for this characterization.

All my previous argument stand and have yet to be rebutted.

Debate Round No. 3
hawkeye8810

Con

hawkeye8810 forfeited this round.
TheDevilsAdvocate

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this round. All my previous arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 4
hawkeye8810

Con

hawkeye8810 forfeited this round.
TheDevilsAdvocate

Pro

Another forfeit from my opponent. All withstanding arguments extend, and they have not even been rebutted.

A note to judges: My opponent chose "Con" but probably meant "Pro" judging from his arguments. Who is "Con" and who is "Pro" in this debate does not matter, so please judge from the arguments themselves and not on this particular stance when voting.

I was hoping for my opponent to finish the debate at the very least, but I guess not. Any ways, vote for me!

Regards
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheDevilsAdvocate 4 years ago
TheDevilsAdvocate
A notice to any judges/voters/anyone viewing this debate. Hawkeye8810 seems to have picked the side of "Con", which contradicts his position. So I urge you all to disregard who is Pro or Con in this debate since I assume it's a mistake on my opponent's part. If not, he will correct it. Until then it should be assumed that the positions of "Con" and "Pro" are irrelevant in this debate.
Posted by TheDevilsAdvocate 4 years ago
TheDevilsAdvocate
Ugh, made several formatting and slight grammar errors. Only after I posted did I notice it, like the middle text being much smaller because I copied it from the legal website. Any way to edit or not? Otherwise, it's alright, hope y'all don't mind those minor errors and get my overall message in my argument.
Posted by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
Uhh you do realize your arguing for the opposite side right?
Posted by threenorns 4 years ago
threenorns
to an extent, i do agree with you - but only to an extent. i can see situations and instances where i would totally disagree. would you accept my challenge (assuming i get past this "age/rank criteria" warning i keep getting *sigh*)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
hawkeye8810TheDevilsAdvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: We got ourselves a forfeit up in this mug.