The Instigator
bluetree653
Con (against)
The Contender
tmarty
Pro (for)

Police: Should They (as a whole) Be Criticized So Harshly, or Even at All?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
bluetree653 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 241 times Debate No: 100681
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

bluetree653

Con

Police today are criticized too harshly. Many say that they are all bad "pigs" and should not be allowed to do the things that they do.

1. There are bad apples in every occupation, so a few bad times doesn't make every cop a jerk.

2. "Police are shooting people for no reason!" This quote by many anti-police supporters is very common. Police defend themselves with their guns. First, have you checked the whole story? I mean, have you checked with both sides of the argument: the victim and the cop to see who is really at fault? Police do not want to take the chance of being killed. They sure as fudge aren't shooting for no reason. Let's say a cop shoots a potential robber (and there is evidence to back up that he's a robber) and the robber dies. A civilian could do the same thing and "get away with it", or not get in trouble because they were defending themselves, which is contrary to this statement made by a guest from dailybanter.com: "No civilian could ever say 'but I was really scared' and get away with it. They"d get laughed out of court. But police get away with things like this all the time" (2015).

I am curious to say what the opposing side will say, so go ahead. I feel like I am much better at defending than opposing, so...

Sources:

http://thedailybanter.com...
tmarty

Pro

Can you clarify what "police are criticized too harshly" for, and what "the things that they do" are? Could you also define the term "bad apples"?
In the majority of U.S counties a prerequisite to becoming a police officer is being administered a psychological review, which would then be examined by a professional for determination of mental fitness. Under such rigorous tests and the expectations of becoming a police officer, a low tolerance for "bad apples" and a great amount of professionalism is expected.
Police officers are armed with a multitude of defense mechanisms including batons, taser guns, pepper spray, and physical ability and strength. A firearm is not their sole or primary weapon of defense. The situation you have described is a singular account which cannot describe every circumstance. The fifth amendment of the Constitution states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury". This would make it immoral for a police officer to assume one's guilt and harm or maim them.
In 2013 NPR published an article "For the First Time in Memory, Iceland Police Shoot & Kill". Although there is little lethal enforcement in Iceland, the violent crime and intentional homicide rating is low. In 2013 the FBI reported 467 justifiable homicides. This does not include all fatalities induced by police officers, just those deemed "justifiable" by the federal government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also reported an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes nationwide. In comparison to other countries, the police officers of the United States use firearms in excess and report more fatalities from police shootings and brutality incidents.
Debate Round No. 1
bluetree653

Con

Sure, here's what I mean:

"Police are criticized too harshly": I mean that many people think that all cops are bad and they criticize them for doing their job, which especially angers me when people don't even know how difficult cops have it.

"Bad apples": This is a pretty common term when talking about any occupation or group of people; specifically in this situation, I'm talking about the few cops who are bad, yet anti-police supporters don't realize that there are "bad apples" and assume all cops are bad. For more information on this word, visit http://www.dictionary.com....

Okay, now into the argument....

I'm kind of confused on what your point is or what you're trying to get at for your first piece of evidence: "In the majority of U.S counties a prerequisite to becoming a police officer is being administered a psychological review, which would then be examined by a professional for determination of mental fitness. Under such rigorous tests and the expectations of becoming a police officer, a low tolerance for "bad apples" and a great amount of professionalism is expected". Can you explain this? I already know that this is expected of them, so what is your point? If you're trying to say that police are hired assuming that they will be professional and not a bad person: Police are professional, for one. I don't know where you think that they aren't professional. If anyone is not professional, it's citizens who encounter the police. My dad is a cop, and he worked in the ghetto of my city. Every single day, almost every traffic stop, he would get spit at or called bad names, for simply pulling them over. Police can't do anything about this; they have to sit there and take it, otherwise they will get in trouble. This is very frustrating for police everywhere, especially since the hatred against police is rising exponentially. Police have to be calm and keep repeating "please stop" or "Listen". They can't swear back or fight back. http://insider.foxnews.com.... Take a look at this video. In this video, the cops have not done anything wrong, yet people are throwing rocks at them. The police aren't shooting back, however. Notice that. Can you explain this? Didn't think so.

When you say that, are you saying that no one can defend themselves? Because what you're saying is that since the Fifth Amendment, which doesn't even apply to police killing someone, (it's about someone not having to give an answer to the court) tells people that they can't assume anyone for committing a crime. First, you have to realize that police don't shoot people for the heck of it, or because they "assume they did something bad". No, that's completely wrong. Police shoot in self-defense. Like if a guy was pulled over and keeps reaching in his pocket, looking for something, the police is allowed to pull out his gun, and if, when the police tells him to stop (or asks him what it is), and he doesn't, the police can shoot in fear of the guy getting out his gun and trying to shoot the cop. In addition, if you're saying that cops can't shoot people in self-defense, then NO ONE else can. No civilian can have self defense. If a citizen sees a suspicious looking robber guy at the gas station, they can't bring out their concealed carry until the guy has actually robbed them, is what you're saying. So....? Okay? Weird, but all right. (Hopefully you don't get elected into Congress)

And finally, your last paragraph, I am unaware of what your point is again. Please explain. But I do have one question: When you say that the FBI reported 1,163,146 violent crimes, are you talking about police crimes or just regular crimes? Because I honestly don't think that police have shot that many people. So, if these are just regular crimes, what is your point?

(I think it would be clearer for me if you gave analysis, not just random evidence)

That's it for this round.

Don't forget: ANALYSIS!!!
tmarty

Pro

The point of the first paragraph is that there shouldn't be any bad apples. Police are responsible for enforcing and protecting the law, not abusing it. Police get treated unfairly by some citizens, but so do the citizens they are "protecting". Your example of people spitting in your father"s face is a personal anecdote that can easily be refuted by personal experiences of my own - making each anecdote an equally weak form of evidence. In this video (https://m.youtube.com...) the woman is threatened to be "lit up" by the police officer if she doesn't exit her vehicle. Upon asking for reasons for her arrest she was denied, shouted at and taken to jail, without her rights being read to her prior. This is an abuse of authority. The officer did not hold his tongue as she expressed her anger, but proceeded to threaten her and call her a "pu**y". Although this officer did receive punishment later on, it was not for his initial, crude interactions with the woman.

I am not saying that they cannot defend themselves, but that they cannot kill people before they are given the chance for a court deliberation. The fifth amendment states "no one shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime". In this sentence "answer" is being used as an intransitive verb, meaning: "to be or make oneself responsible or accountable" (Merriam Webster). Being killed for a crime is a form of answering for it, in that sense. The fifth amendment guarantees due process of law and the right to avoid answering incriminating questions. Police have many other tools to defend themselves. There's no need to simplify my stance and assume "people shouldn't defend themselves". There are more efficient and productive methods of self defense than guns.

To clarify, the violent crimes are not police shootings. My point of the last paragraph is that the police force, not all individual officers, should be criticized for the excessive use of firearms. The violent crime rate in the United States is high compared to other developed countries and so is our police firearm usage, which shows how ineffective it is. Countries like Sweden are able to keep a low crime rate with less violent methods of defense
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.