The Instigator
DrStrangeLuv
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
Sieben
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Police officers must shoot to kill

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 12 votes the winner is...
Sieben
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,908 times Debate No: 13428
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (12)

 

DrStrangeLuv

Pro

This debate will involve the following question in its entirety: Police officers, when faced with no alternative to deadly force, must use that force to kill the targeted suspect. Shooting to wound or disarm the suspect is not acceptable.

For this debate we will assume:

1) The suspect is threatening the life of the officer or innocents around him.

2) The officer has probable cause that the suspect will try to cause bodily harm to the officer or others.

3) The suspect is armed with a weapon capable of deadly force

Definitions:

1) Deadly force: a physical force that is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury

===========================
OPENING
===========================

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate.

In centuries past, law officers were afforded more leeway in their application of deadly force [1]. Now that times have changed, law enforcement officers (from here on out will be referred to as LEOs) have more options to incapacitate dangerous suspects. But deadly force on the LEO's part remains an option on the table for situations that require it. Some, however, question the use of such force and ask why can't LEOs shoot to wound or disarm instead of killing the person? For all situations that require deadly force from a LEO I will contend that the suspect is armed, dangerous and has probable cause to inflict bodily harm on others. I will go through some key points now.

===================
CONTENTIONS
===================

1) Requiring the LEO to target a suspect in a manner to wound or disarm requires more reaction time and aim on the part of the LEO, thus allowing the potential for a mistake, a missed shot and a fast reaction on the suspects part.

2) Requiring the LEO to train to aim for limbs, non vital areas of the body and held weapons is a strain on the LEO's training.

3) Deadly force applied to the suspect will stop him. Anything else can cause him to become temporarily incapacitated and allow valuable time to strike back at a LEO.

===============

I await rebuttal
Sieben

Con

==Definitions==

I define Police Officers as a warranted employee of a public police force. This is distinct from private security guards and citizens acting in self defense.

==Analysis ==

Pro's case implicitly assumes the value of PRAGMATISM. Pragmatism is not an end in itself. We need another weighing standard.

Con chooses the value of Libertarian Justice, defined as the respect for self ownership and homesteading rights.

Self ownership is a prerequisite of morality, because morals must be chosen, not forced. The universal self ownership of libertarian justice allows for maximal individual flourishing.

Homesteading rights are merely an extension of self ownership. They have historically manifested themselves as "property rights", but the CON by no means endorses molecular or cardinal theories of ownership. Homesteading will be clarified further if necessary...

============
Pro Contentions
============

1) Fine

2) Fine

3) Fine

Pro simply says its pragmatic for the police officer to shoot2kill. Pragmatism is not an end in itself, particularly not the pragmatism of one individual. Even if it were, there is no reason to consider the resolution only from the point of one hypothetical police officer. So for many reasons, we need to broaden the analysis!

================================
Con Case – Most Police Officers Should Die
================================
Not the well meaning ones... but its a shame that they are public police. They should quit and do private work. I don't want to hear a bunch of crap about how someone's uncle is a dedicated public servant who's got three bullet wounds and lost his partner the day before retirement.

A) Police Attack Innocent People

Nearly � of federal prisoners are serving time for non-violent offenses[1]. Federal law may say these men are guilty, but possession of minor drugs is no justification for incarceration. People smoking weed are within their libertarian rights and should not be threatened or attacked in any way. Given that 42.0% of Americans have tried marijuana, a large minority are potential targets of the mass kidnapping otherwise known as the "Drug War" [2].

The police who fight this holy crusade against teenagers and hippies are tearing civilization apart. A LEO trying to arrest peaceful and harmless drug users has no business killing anybody. The innocent people who he is attacking have every right to defend themselves. He has no right to apprehend them in the first place, much less a right to murder them.

This logic can be extended beyond the drug war to any time police attack innocent people, whether it is in upholding barbaric "laws" against peaceful citizens, or a mistake, etc. The drug war is just an illustrative example.

B) Police Protect Real Criminals

The US government manages to confiscate more than 36% of national income [3]. M-W defines theft as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". I guess taxation is theft... Burglary and muggings were responsible for less than .04% of total theft in the United States [4]. Its clear that the real threat to our liberty comes from Washington.

Bla bla bla radical libertarian nonsense. Let's get some leftists on board with some more obvious topics. The US federal government is responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children who died in Iraq due to economic sanctions following "Gulf War I: Next Time, Its Personal" [5].

There is a very long list of illegal and immoral things the US government has done. Police protect this criminal organization. They are accessories to crime. As such, police defending the state forfeit any rights to self defense or use of deadly force.

C) Police Shouldn't be Invincible

Even the most na�ve advocate of the status quo admits that some police should go to jail. In order to force someone to go to jail, you have to threaten them with deadly force. A guilty police officer should not have the right to shoot at Just Apprehenders.

[1] http://www.sentencingproject.org...
[2] http://www.time.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] You have to do math... http://www.ncvc.org...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

My opponent contends that in response to deadly force the police officer should just die. I claim this is counter productive, due to the amount of training and money spent to develop and train the officers, and not to forget the fact that they are public servants doing a job that most people would not want but still want to be filled.

========
COUNTER
========

1) My opponent makes the contention that "Police Attack Innocent People". He provides no evidence of this except for the percentage of prisoners being held for drug use, which is irrelevant. He then tries to persuade us that drug use is innocent, which is debatable, but is irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps my opponent would like to reword his contention "Police Arrest Innocent People" instead of the former.

2) "The police who fight this holy crusade against teenagers and hippies are tearing civilization apart. A LEO trying to arrest peaceful and harmless drug users has no business killing anybody. The innocent people who he is attacking have every right to defend themselves. He has no right to apprehend them in the first place, much less a right to murder them."
---This is irrelevant to the argument because the "hippies and teenagers" mentioned in this scenario are not armed.
Also, since the possession of illegal drugs is not permitted in the US, the officers have every right to apprehend these "drug users".

3) In my opponents contention that "Police Protect Real Criminals" he mentions that police protect the rights of government, which is true, but fails to mention that the police also protect the rights ad liberties of the citizens and people living in the US. My opponent is suggesting a removal of taxes which would return us to an anarchist state. Though debatable, it has no place in this debate. Most of my opponents argument stems from an inherent hatred of the government.

May I remind my opponent that while nobody wants to pay taxes, one could say they are a necessary evil. The government is able to provide and protect us through this money we pay them. No one is forcing you to live in this country and play by its rules, so you are allowing yourself to be victimized by the government.

4)"Even the most na�ve advocate of the status quo admits that some police should go to jail. In order to force someone to go to jail, you have to threaten them with deadly force. A guilty police officer should not have the right to shoot at Just Apprehenders."
--- Just Apprehenders do not have the right to make legal arrests in this country. If a LEO is to be arrested, for whatever reason, then the victim should call the proper authorities.

=========
ARGUMENT
=========

I stand by my previous contentions and would also like to state that the best form of pragmatism is at work when a police officer uses his weapon to defend himself or bring an order to reality. If someone is foolish enough to challenge a police officer by drawing a weapon upon him, then that person not only draws his weapon at the officer, but at the whole of society. To challenge authority like that so directly, and especially on a public servant who has sworn to do his best to defend the public, makes me see nothing wrong with his use of force on the suspect.
Sieben

Con

Pro opens by observing that police officers are just "public servants doing a job that most people would not want but still want to be filled". First, I'm claiming that police officers should quit and work for the private sector. There are already about 50% more private security guards than public police [1] [2].

Second, pro talks about wasted training (as if this were really on everybody's mind when they're getting shot at), and again, this can be permutated into my "join the private security industry or play nice" counterplan.

===========
Con Case
===========

A) Police Attack Innocent People

1) Arresting someone means you physically subdue and restrain them. That's "attacking". Police attack and arrest anyone who violate government laws, which may or may not be just. My position is that the majority of these laws are unjust, such as drug laws.

My opponent doesn't want to get dragged into the drug war discussion but too bad. Its probably the major reason why police get shot at in the first place, so it is highly topical. It also accounts for a large majority of the people in prison.

So you have police trying to kidnap people who aren't hurting anyone. They have the right to self defense against the police officer, so they can kill him. The police officer has no right to be messing with them in the first place, so he has no right to self defense. Resolution negated.

2) Pro says this argument doesn't matter because hippies and teenagers aren't armed. They could be... but the point is that they have a RIGHT to shoot the police officer.

Pro goes on to say that police officers have a right to apprehend drug users because "possession of illegal drugs is not permitted in the US". This is called an "Appeal to Authority". If the US government says that redheads are allowed to be raped, they STILL have the right to self defense that transcends whatever the f*cks in Washington decide.

So non-violent drug users, like redheads, have a right to self defense no matter what US "law" says. Police officers upholding unjust laws have forfeited their rights.

B) Police Protect Real Criminals

3) Pro doesn't rebut that police protect the country's largest and most violent criminal organization. In addition to the massive amount of taxes they take and give to large corporations, they've killed literally millions of people for no given reason... including the aftermath of the first Iraq War, deadly injections of "foreign aid"[3] and many terrorist campaigns in South America and Africa [4].

Pro's only defense of the police who protect these genocidal maniacs is that they protect US citizens as well. This is incredibly shortsighted, and even if police were giving me foot rubs every day, it would not be enough to make up for their support of government thugs.

Furthermore, if police really WERE protecting my rights, there would be almost no private security industry. Except there is... and its much larger than the public security industry. See above citations. I guess public police just chase down druggies and really aren't all that essential to preventing muggings and home burglaries.

Pro then goes on to say he doesn't want to debate anarchy vs statism. That's fine. I'll just assume the "minarchist" or minimal, nightwatchman state. In either case, the just role of police officers is restricted to protecting people's libertarian rights, not hunting down peaceful drug users. He claims that my "argument stems from an inherent hatred of the government", but I'd be really happy with a minarchist state.

Pro then brings up the "if you don't like it, leave" argument... which is totally peripheral, especially since I just conceded minarchy. Regardless, Pro seems to think that the US government can do literally anything to me, and as long as I stay put, that means I "consent". Does this mean I can break into his house, start stealing his stuff, and he "consents" as long as I give him the option to move? I think not.

C) Police Shouldn't be Invincible

4) Pro's rebuttal of this sub point is particularly weak. If you don't buy all the ra-ra anti government stuff, please just vote off this.

Pro says that "Just Apprehenders do not have the right to make legal arrests in this country. If a LEO is to be arrested, for whatever reason, then the victim should call the proper authorities."

He's imagining that just apprehenders are vigilantes. They don't have to be... but even if you buy that "the proper authorities" are the only people who can arrest police officers, they STILL have to threaten the rogue police officer with deadly force. He doesn't have a right to shoot back if, from hypothesis, he ought to go to jail.

================
Concluding Argument
================

Pro concludes that people who draw weapons on police officers are stupid and deserve to die. This G.I. Joe theory of public enforcement is completely devoid of substance or context. In reality, Police are out there to kidnap innocent drug users and protect the pigs in office.

Even if you don't buy the drug war angle, you still have to believe that it CAN BE JUST for people to rise up against their governments... That there are contexts where shooting a police officer is the morally just and correct thing to do.

Pro's blind third grade "police are the good guys" chant paints over a much more sinister and complicated reality. The long and short is that being a police officer doesn't give you extra moral rights over other human beings. The absolutism of the resolution is easily negated.

[1]http://www.bls.gov...
[2]http://www.bls.gov...
[3]http://www.cato.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement.

1) My opponent brings up a reoccurring theme that private security is a "better" field of law enforcement, and that current LEOs should quit their public jobs and join up. The truth is, private security firms have far fewer regulations on who they hire, less discipline in their training, and less control over what the guards do. While public police is far from a perfect system, like any human invention, private security is a far cry from even that [3]. Given a choice on who I'd rather have protecting me, public police win every time. Just because there are more private security guards than police does not mean it is a better system.

2) Your tax dollars are spent on training for police, so rather than see them die and lose the investment, I'd rather them fight for their lives and kill whoever pulls a gun on them.

3) "Arresting someone means you physically subdue and restrain them. That's "attacking". Police attack and arrest anyone who violate government laws, which may or may not be just."
---My opponent goes on to define attacking as arresting, then uses both as individual terms in the next sentence. He is using the term "attack" to summon feelings of anger when he refers to arrest. For the remainder of the debate we will use the official definitions for each term, arrest [1] and attack [2]. I am not saying people are not attacked when they are arrested, but not every arrest is an attack.

4) "My opponent doesn't want to get dragged into the drug war discussion but too bad."
---Oh well

5) "So you have police trying to kidnap people (drug users) who aren't hurting anyone. They have the right to self defense against the police officer, so they can kill him. The police officer has no right to be messing with them in the first place, so he has no right to self defense. Resolution negated."
---The police officer does in fact have the legal right to apprehend these people. And the drug users absolutely have the right to pull a gun on them, but my contention is does the officer have the right to kill them? If the drug users respond with the drawing of a weapon, then the officer has a right to self defense also. Perhaps if drug possession was legal and officers still arrested drug users regardless of the law your argument would float, but it does not at this current time.

B) Police Protect You

1) In his second point, con goes on to say how criminals have a right to self defense and police officers do not. All of this is coming from the opinion of my opponent. Some people may or may not like the drug laws, but that is not the discussion of this debate. I understand con is trying to make a point that somehow unjust laws means police officers should die in a hail of gunfire. That is a fine argument and all, but the fact remains that the possession of drugs is illegal, and that LEOs do not MAKE the laws, they are paid to ENFORCE them.

2) "Furthermore, if police really WERE protecting my rights, there would be almost no private security industry. Except there is... and its much larger than the public security industry. See above citations. I guess public police just chase down druggies and really aren't all that essential to preventing muggings and home burglaries."
---Public police cannot be everywhere all the time. Private guards catch muggings and burglaries because they are there to catch them, they don't have other duties to attend to and don't have to cover an entire precinct. I'm also going to make the assumption that you think only the rich are entitled to protection, since they are the only ones who can afford to have private security guards.

3) In addition, police officers are not out to kill. They don't wake up in the morning and ask themselves how many pot heads they are going to waste that day. They are there to arrest those who possess illegal drugs and bring them to a court system that will determine the consequences of their actions. The drug users who use deadly force against those arresting them are not justified in doing so as, ideally, the officers are acting in their best intentions (but they still retain their right to defend themselves against the cops, however counter productive that is). You may then argue that no one should be acting on anyone's behalf in a true libertarian society, but consider this: Can people really be trusted to do whats in their best interests? I realize freedom is very important, but the fact is some people do stupid and harmful things to themselves and while this may be justified by freedom, it is senseless and damaging to themselves and the whole of society.

4) Having someone break into your house and steal your goods is different than paying taxes to your government. No benefit comes to you from the man stealing from you, but at the very least you receive benefits from government, such as streets and highways, fire departments, hospitals, police departments, a power grid, military protection etc..., but I believe that taxing is now a moot point as it is necessary to pay for them in the minarchist state as well.

5) Con makes references to the evils America has done but gives a citation from Wikipedia as his first source, and a misread citation from the CATO Institute. What this source says is that America's intentions are well meaning, but the governments of those receiving the foreign aid are the real culprits. In reality, America has done more for the world than any other country to date according to my con's CATO Institute reference, regardless if it worked exactly as it should have, our intentions were in the right place. I do not see the greater conspiracy theory in providing food to starving third world nations. I concede though, America has some short comings, every state does, all the way from minarchist to communist, but to blindly throw all the evils it has committed without bringing evidence of its good is bad debating. I will then offer this as a moot point, before this debates devolves into a critique on American foreign policy.

6) If you want to live in the minarchist society you speak of, then realize that it comes at a great cost, far greater than the cost drug users pay in this society. Think for a moment about life without police officers. You may rebut with the fact that in a minarchist society the people are protected from aggression, breaches of contract, theft and other basic law protections. But realize that your going to need a body to form those laws, officers to enforce them, and judges to determine your innocence. There's still going to be taxes in a minarchist state and a military also. Just things to consider.

D) Police are directed by the same laws as us

1) "He's imagining that just apprehenders are vigilantes."
--- Anyone who takes lawful action into his own hands is a vigilante. I do not assign a good or bad connotation to the term, its just what it is.

2) "but even if you buy that "the proper authorities" are the only people who can arrest police officers, they STILL have to threaten the rogue police officer with deadly force. He doesn't have a right to shoot back if, from hypothesis, he ought to go to jail."
--- He has every right to shoot back, my contention is if we should tie the arresting officers hands by saying they are not allowed to kill the suspect if they are threatened. By all means, draw a weapon on a LEO, but remember they have better aim than you.
===================================

In conclusion:
1) Private security is not better than Public, since there are less rules to its operation and its lack of coverage to all.
2) The moral shortcomings and successes of the US is moot.
3) You have every right to defend yourself against the police, just know that it is against better judgment but it is still an exercise of your freedom.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] ht
Sieben

Con

Pro is playing it fast and loose with the tags. He's dropping a lot of arguments. I'm going to go through and address his Re first using his new tags, then go back to the con case.

===New Pro Arguments===

A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement.

1) Pro presents a straw man here. Private security is a more ETHICAL field of law enforcement IN THE STATUS QUO. My alternative to what we have now is "Just law enforcement". Whether that is achieved by markets or by a minimal state is irrelevant.

The only reason I bring up this comparison is to show that police aren't forced to uphold bad laws. They choose to because there's the private security alternative.

2) Pro says that we have to be worried about tax dollars in training police. He's essentially trying to claim that because it costs a lot of money, we should use it. Well, nukes cost a lot of money. Lets bomb Canada!

This is completely morally bankrupt. Yes, all other things equal, I'd rather not have police (or anyone) die. But when police are trying to hunt down innocent people, police have no right to defend themselves. The recurring theme here is that police do not have special rights.

3) Pro wants to quibble over semantics now. If you can somehow convince someone to walk into a jail cell without touching them, fine. You're "arresting" them. But you're still threatening them with violence if they don't comply. You can still harm innocent people by arresting them. Whatever.

4) This is not third grade. The policeman is not automatically your BFF.

5) Pro is very confusing here. First he says that drug users have a right to kill police, even though the law says otherwise... But if the drug users have a right to self defense, the policeman does not because he is INITIATING the conflict. It would be like me punching you in the face and then killing you when you defend yourself.

B) Police Protect You

1) Pro says my theory of justice is "just my opinion". Well, Pro hasn't attacked libertarian justice at all. Since it's dropped, it becomes the standard for the round.

Pro then tries to make the case that police shouldn't die because they don't make the laws. This is a very weak argument... if raping redheads were legal, police enforcing the law should die. Many times throughout history people have been screwed royally by their governments. You have a right to fight back. Again, police and the government don't have special rights.

2) Pro goes on to an apology that public police can't be everywhere at once. My point was that in the status quo, since there are more private security personnel than public police, they probably provide the majority of law enforcement in society. Particularly since police spend so much time hunting down drug users...

Pro also attacks private security because he thinks only the very rich can afford it. That may be true of personal security guards, but most apartment complexes can easily afford them. Regardless, I'm not advocating full out anarchy. I'm leaving minarchy on the table.

3) Pro goes on a pseudo philosophical rant about police and drug users. He brings up the "what if people are stupid" argument against personal defense. Well, if they screw up they get punished don't they? If they don't screw up, no worries.

4) Pro says the government provides all these services for us, and robbers do not. Therefore, government is not committing robbery. But if I broke into your house and baked you a cake, it would still be robbery...

5) Pro makes the real weak argument that America has been trying its best to make the world a better place. He completely misunderstands the sources. If this is a voting issue, I suggest you open them yourself and give them a skim. The long and short is that the US has been destabilizing and sabotaging governments and economies around the world. Pro wants you to think this is accidental. That's kind of hard to believe....

Florida State University professor, Frederick H. Gareau, has written that the Contras "attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages and non-combatants." U.S. agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage facilities." In 1984 the U.S. Congress ordered this intervention to be stopped, however it was later shown that the CIA illegally continued (See Iran-Contra affair). Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.[112]

6) Pro then goes on to detail the horrors of minarchy because it won't have public police officers. I don't think he knows what minarchy is. He could have spent 10 seconds looking at the wiki article instead of looking politically illiterate [1].

D) Police are directed by the same laws as us

�) Pro again (confusingly) admits that people have the right to shoot at police officers when they're doing something wrong. He then says that the LEO also has a right to shoot you. That can't be true, because from hypothesis, the LEO is in the wrong.

His conculsion)

1) This debate is not about anarchy vs the SQ. I'll admit to minarchy to keep everyone happy.
2) The moral shortcomings of the US are highly topical because police protect this terrorist organization.
3) Pro says we have the right to defend ourselves against the police. He has just conceded the debate.

===Con Case===

A) Police attack innocent people

1) People who smoke pot are arrested, subdued, kidnapped, and even murdered by police officers. They are non-violent drug offenders.

2) People have a right to self defense no matter what government law says. The drug war is one example. My other (ignored) example is the right to defend against rape even if it was legal.

B) Police Protect Real Criminals

3) Taxes are theft. STRIKE 1. Killed 500,000 children after first Iraq War. STRIKE 2. Propped up countless totalitarian regimes while destroying democracy in Africa and Latin America. STRIKE 10,000.

C) Police shouldn't be invincible

4) Even if you don't buy anything in this rebuttal so far, you HAVE TO ADMIT that police should be able to go to jail. A rogue police officer does not have the right to shoot at warranted individuals trying to bring him to jail.

In conclusion, police officers don't have special rights. Whether deadly force is justified depends solely on context and justice, not on a badge or funny hat. When police are doing something wrong, they forfeit their right to self defense, and the resolution is negated.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

As you will see, Con drops part of his case, and shows a very venomous attitude towards the US, a bias which should make most of his arguments invalid.

===Con Counter===

A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement.

1) Con claims private security is more ethical, despite it having a history just as bad or worse than the public sector [1]. The definition of ethics [2], clearly shows that previous contention for private security shows that I am correct. It is a system that is just as susceptible to abuse as public security, and even more so due its overall lack of discipline, regulations and control. It is not superior to public law enforcement in any way. My opponent is very vague in his counter, but I believe the proper rebuttal to him is this: People will use private guards for unethical purposes, much worse than upholding a drug law.

2) Nukes act as a deterrent, that is their goal. And yes, I am proposing that the things we invest in should be used and protected, such as police. Part of being a LEO is that you have power of arrest, so yes that is a special right. Police only hunt down those who have broken the law.

3) Con drops this topic

4) "This is not third grade. The policeman is not automatically your BFF."
---I do not understand how this relates specifically to my 4th point. And it is juvenile.

5) Con is now using the current laws to defend his arguments while he is dismissing others. Bad debating. If you attack someone first, and he responds with deadly force, that is a gross misuse of that force and you are entitled to defend yourself, not sit there and die like Con contends.

B) Police Protect You

1) My opponent is comparing drug use and rape, a victimless crime and a very vile crime, to get his ideas across. People absolutely have the right to fight government physically, its a way of preventing tyranny. Police and government have special rights because we allow them to, and for the most part they work for our benefit.

2) Con misunderstands sarcasm for an apology. Con misunderstands private security, since they cannot enforce laws, they are not law enforcement. Con misunderstands the fact that private security is controlled by private companies and bought by private consumers, a minority. They provide no assistance to the public at large unless they purchase their services, a feat which is not possible for most of the country. Size of the private security has nothing to do with this.
a) Con contends that groups of people should band together and buy security if they are too poor. I ask what is the difference between this and the public security we have now? Sounds a lot like being taxed and funding public police departments.

3) Apparently they wouldn't be controlled (as much) in minarchist state, so how does your argument apply here, Con?

4) It would not be robbery, it would be delicious. It would only be robbery if you used the goods in my kitchen to bake it.
a) "Therefore, government is not committing robbery."
---Con concedes my point

5) By all means the voters should read the source. Con may be taking his quote out of context, so I insist on a voter reading. It is bordering on conspiracy theory to believe that the US intentionally destroys third world nations. I ask Con to provide reasons for the US doing so, since this is his contention.
a) Con also completely avoids my contention that the US has done much good in the world, and is committed to a smearing contest against the US. This is bad debating.

6) I specifically said: "...in a minarchist society the people are protected from aggression, breaches of contract, theft and other basic law protections. But realize that your going to need a body to form those laws, officers to enforce them, and judges to determine your innocence. There's still going to be taxes in a minarchist state and a military also..." I do not see how this represents a misunderstanding of a minarchist state. I admit my thoughts were confusing at this point, as I was both asking Con to consider hypothetical situations, but I do indeed know what a minarchist state is.

D) Police are directed by the same laws as us

1) Responding to arrest with deadly force permits the use of deadly force on the LEOs behalf. Like stated before, if I push you and you pull out a gun and try to shoot me, you grossly misused force to protect yourself, and I have a right to shoot you back since now it is a matter of self defense.
a) Nothing is stopping criminals from pulling out guns except the consequences of their actions.

===Counter to Con Case===

A) Police attack innocent people

1)

2) Agreed, but see my earlier arguments for fuller explanation.

B) Police Protect Real Criminals

1) Con displays inability to count. Going from strike 1 to strike 10,000, and calling the number of totalitarian regimes "countless" shows a very obvious bias against the US. I cede that it ha its short comings, but it also does good, like any other state does, including the minarchist. Con refuses to accept this fact.

C) Police shouldn't be invincible

1) Con claims drug users have right to shoot at apprehenders, but rogue officers do not. This is contradictory. Rogue officers do indeed go to jail, I do not understand why this is a major contention of my opponent.

===Conclusion===

I'd like to thank my opponent for the thought provoking debate. I sure wasn't expecting this when I posted my topic.

I still stand by my original contention that if an officer is threatened with deadly force he has a right to respond back with the same force, and not have his hands tied by state or federal regulations. Regardless of the style of government you have, some people will find some laws unjust, when they may in fact be very warranted. I do not have an opinion on drug legalization because I do not know enough about the topic, and what will happen if legalized. Maybe it will be good, maybe it will be bad, I cannot say at this time.

Every state has done horrible and wonderful things in their existence, of this I am sure. As they are human inventions, they both benefit and suffer from the same characteristics humans have. Minarchy to Dictatorship, all governments will have pros and cons to them, and assuming that none of the abuses we see in modern society will not exist in our ideal form of government is a foolish assertion.

In regards to victimless crime, such as drug use, and the involvement of police, it is the attitude of the drug user that determines the outcome of the arrest. If Con thinks the law is unjust, he should be attacking lawmakers (verbally hopefully), and not the police. Police do indeed have the right to arrest you, and they are paid to follow the law. Attacking the police will not bring about the change you so desire.

Most of my opponents arguments are based off a hypothetical system of government, that cannot be judged without a bias or acceptance of the unknown. He uses hate tactics to incite anger towards the US and police officers, without admitting a good side to them. He has flip flopped between minarchy and the status quo to suit his argument, and makes references to supposedly better law enforcement systems (such as private security) that do not do the things he is trying to describe. I hope the voters will see these inconsistencies and that logic has not succumbed to personal opinion.

Vote Pro

[1] http://www.ehow.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Sieben

Con

Tags get progressively more crazy with each Pro response... I'll do my best

===Con Counter===

A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement

1) Con presents a ridiculous straw man here. He thinks Blackwater and the corporate shills working for the government are examples of "private security". But they are clearly working for the government, under its intimate protection, and being paid with tax dollars. That's not private.

Regardless, this is not explicitly a debate about private vs public security. As I said before, I'll be fine with minarchy. The point is that police in the status quo have a superior alternative to kidnapping druggies.

2) Pro concedes that if you spent money on something, you should use it. Presumably this means that every bullet should be fired, grenade detonated, and waterboard used to its fullest extent. This is totally morally bankrupt. Our actions should be guided by concern for our fellow man, not trying to recover sunk costs at the expense of every social value.

3) Pro says I drop this. Well, if you look back, I don't. And this isn't a "topic", its just a couple of ad hoc definitions from Pro.

4) For all of Pro's case, he's been under the assumption that police are automatically always the good guys. Even if police were good in practice, it would not mean they are imbued with magical rights that elevate them above the rest of society.

5) So Pro and I will have to agree to disagree. I think that if a police officer attacks an innocent person, the person has a right to defend themselves with deadly force (if necessary), and the police officer has forfeited all rights BECAUSE he is initiating violence.

More clearly, if I rape you, and you try to kill me, I DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF.

Pro disagrees, presumably because police have superhuman rights. He has no theory of justice, only an incoherent pseudo-pragmatic idea that people get rights no matter what they're doing.

B)

1) Pro thinks that drug use is a victimless crime. Well, its not a victimless crime when police officers kidnap drug users. Rape is perfectly analogous to kidnapping in that it is a violation of rights, and we can ALL agree that rape victims have a right to defend themselves, while their assailants do not>

Pro goes on to say that police have special rights because we allow them to. This is ridiculous. First, you can't confer rights onto someone that you yourself do not possess. For example, I don't have the right to murder, so I can't give government the right to murder.

Second, pro thinks that we "allow" police to have special rights, which is nonsense. People do not allow themselves to be imprisoned or shot at. From hypothesis, we are fighting the abuse of power.

Pro even concedes that people have a right to fight government and police if it will prevent tyranny. That's as clear a concession as you're going to get...

2)

Pro thinks private security can't enforce laws for some reason. If that's the case, I'm not sure what they're doing or why anyone would pay for their services.

A) He also thinks that only the very rich can afford private security guards. Anyone who's ever gone to a liquor store at night, or lives in an apartment complex will know that security guards are regularly hired in poor areas.

Pro doesn't even know the difference between public security (being forced to pay police officers that the state chooses) and private security (choosing among competing firms with your own money). Its not relevant to this debate, but its still disheartening.

3) Actually a minarchist state would have to control police a lot more than the status quo. For one, there is no drug war in minarchy. Police are restricted to defending individual rights.

4) So this is not even relevant to the debate, skip on if you're uninterested.

A) Pro's position is that government isn't stealing from you because they provide services with what they take. But the definition of stealing has nothing to do with how the loot is used. If I stole your wallet and bought you a mcdonalds, it would still be theft, even if you liked mcdonalds.

5) Pro thinks I am taking that quote out of context... that's kind of hard to believe because wikipedia had chosen to quote an author, and I took the whole quote. But yes, if this is a voting issue, read or skim the links. Pro is simply getting cognitive dissonance when he reads them.

A) Pro never proved the US has done good in the world. Its irrelevant anyway. A mass murderer is still a murderer even if he's kind to kittens and birds.

6) Pro says he knows what a minarchist state is. If that is the case, he shouldn't be questioning whether there will be police around to protect basic rights.

D) Police are directed by the same laws as us

1) So he thinks LEOs are allowed to use deadly force if I defend myself with deadly force. He proves this by assuming that LEOs are just kind of shoving the victim. But at SOME POINT, you have to defend yourself with with deadly force to get someone to back off. Defense is always about upping the ante.

The long and short is that Pro doesn't have a theory of self defense or justice. Presumably, if someone was being raped and pulled a gun on their assailant, the rapist would be like "whoah whoah, no need to use deadly force. I could die! Pro says that is a misuse of force. I'm going to pull out my knife and kill you now".

Obviously what rights people have depend entirely on context and justice. A badge or funny hat does not elevate you above other men.

===Con Case===

A) Police attack innocent people

1) Pro drops this point. So he concedes that police are acting way beyond any theory of justice, that they are capable of gross criminal acts, etc.

2) Pro agrees that the right to self defense transcends government law, which means he agrees that police forfeit their rights when committing crimes against justice.

B) Pro's only response to the horrible mass genocide and economic armageddon of the USA is that maybe we do some good too. Fine. Where's the source? Nowhere. Okay.

C) Police shouldn't be invincible

Pro concedes that rogue officers do need to go to jail, which means that they don't have a right to defend themselves. Again, an awkward concession of the resolution.

=== ProClusion === (this is a pun)

Pro tries to weasel out of government crime by reneging on his previous concession that we have a right to fight back against government when it is tyrannical.

He says every state has done horrible things in its existence, but doesn't say what we should do about it. Apparently, police have a right to shoot us no matter how immoral laws are.

===ConClusion=== (also a pun)

The three most powerful reasons to vote con:

1) PRO INCOHERENCE – Pro concedes that people have a right to defend themselves against cops. He also holds the contradictory view that cops have a right to attack people who are defending themselves. So he's supporting two contradictory rights. He never provides a resolution to the contradiction.

In the pro world, there can be no justice or law because right-violaters get rights if innocent people defend themselves. There are a lot of theories of justice and law, but I've never heard that one before. Probably because it's just pro's ad hoc attempt to synthesize his morally bankrupt case with a couple slivers of common sense.

2) JUSTICE - Police do not have special rights. Justice transcends occupation. Self defense is justified entirely on individual merits, not a badge or funny hat. Police don't have a right to defend themselves if they are attacking innocent people.

3) UTILITY – Police shouldn't be invincible. Citizens should be able to overthrow tyrannical governments. Even the most conservative viewer must admit that bad police need to be reigned in by good police.
Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bipolarmoment 6 years ago
Bipolarmoment
Clarification: in a) I mean that the party is guilty, not that the law is unjust.
Posted by Bipolarmoment 6 years ago
Bipolarmoment
@DrStrangeLuv

Please don't take these as accusations only as observations to your most recent comment. It appears:

a) you are assuming the arrest is just
a.1) if it is not the officer still has the right to shoot in the face of resistance rather than surrendering or retreating
b) you are assuming the "suspect" knows this person is an officer
b.1) to the "suspect" this could appear simply as a trespasser if it was on the suspect's property--e.g. what if they were blind/deaf etc.
c) I do not think Sieben ever stated "you" have no right to self defense
d) I do not think that he never used an analogy such as yours where the "illegal" activity constitutes aggressing against the officer regardless of the severity (i.e. slap)
d.1) this analogy does not meet your criteria presented in your opening argument

Feel free to correct me, thanks for participating in the debate with Sieben.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Nice one Sieben. I didn't even vote!
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
@Walrasian_Equilibrium

I agree that the debate evolved into the rights of police to defend themselves, but I feel I made a point that both Con and I couldn't seem to agree on.

I stated that if police come to arrest you, they are doing just that, they do not intend to murder. If however, you respond to being arrested (a non lethal action) by drawing a weapon and trying to use it (intent and use of deadly force), the police, regardless of the law they were enforcing was unjust, can now respond legally with an application of deadly force.

If you slap me, and in response I draw a gun on you to shoot you, by Con's contention you have to die because you have no right to defend yourself. In addition, in Con's world, no legal action would be taken against me, because you hit me first. Does this sound right to you? Would this be a sound argument to defend yourself in court if this took place in the US?

I don't want to continue this debate in the comments section, but I just wanted to highlight this fact if any of the readers missed it. To me this sounds like a pretty stable idea, so if its missing anything I'd be happy to know.
Posted by Walrasian_Equilibrium 6 years ago
Walrasian_Equilibrium
Yeah...here's how I see the debate:

Pro: Given that cops are in the right, they must be allowed to shoot to kill.

Con: Cops are rarely if ever in the right, so no.

Your argument revolves around whether the police are the good guys or the bad guys. It seems to takes Pro a while to figure that out, and since it's so different from what he was obviously expecting, and since you only state it once, it's not surprising that he (and the judges) would miss it, which explains why he would call a point about the war on drugs irrelevant.

I'm not sure how oppressive the word limits are, but if you could have explicitly stated something like "this is why cops are bad guys" in every point, I think that Pro's counters would have been much stronger, and if your arguments were still better every reasonable judge would have easily voted for you.

It's not really a criticism so much as a complaint, I suppose. Still, something to think about if you want the judges to follow you.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
TAA :

Right. Vote against me. Or don't vote at all. Doesn't bug me too much. Its people's REASONING that pisses me off. (But sure, I have a little bit of an aneurysm when some 15 year old who thinks MJ should be legal votebombs against me with no rfd...:P)

Walras:

"You state your fundamental challenge to Pro's position plainly in your first post, so I gave you the win. But it never really comes up again, and since it's clearly not what Pro wanted to debate, you should have explicitly incorporated it into your supporting arguments. Ultimately it's Pro's fault for not reading carefully enough, but if you wanted a good debate, you should've been clearer"

To be sure, my fundamental challenge is that we should prefer justice over crass pragmatism? I'll try to link better to it next time then... at least include it in the tags somehow. The "police officers should not be invincible" argument is more utilitarian, so it doesn't really fit. Hmmm
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
Sieben:

I haven't given you the loss. As I said, I still have to read the entire debate. I just decided to leave a comment after reading your first post.
Posted by Walrasian_Equilibrium 6 years ago
Walrasian_Equilibrium
You state your fundamental challenge to Pro's position plainly in your first post, so I gave you the win. But it never really comes up again, and since it's clearly not what Pro wanted to debate, you should have explicitly incorporated it into your supporting arguments. Ultimately it's Pro's fault for not reading carefully enough, but if you wanted a good debate, you should've been clearer (it's pretty obvious he wasn't following you, and it's hard to blame him--you blindsided him, and you should have noticed. It also would have helped you with the judges, who seem to have made Pro's mistake--if helping Pro out doesn't interest you, then that should).

And yes, the tags were a complete mess. That certainly did not add to coherence. Argh.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
"I haven't read the entire debate yet, so I'm not aware of how the latter rounds played out. However, you do seem to be throwing a serious tantrum over this. Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's not everyone else on this website that's biased, but instead just you?"

If its just me, people should be able to prove it. The people I'm arguing with have no defense for their actions. The closest was Chrysippus, who justified his voting paradigm with an argumentum ad populum.

Like I said - I don't really care if I win or lose. I just want the people who are wrong to know they are.

"The funny thing is that I actually side with Con for this resolution. Surely your standards of justice may differ from Pro's, but arguing whether police should even be allowed to arrest individuals is for another debate. This resolution is that police officers should shoot to kill -- not police officers should arrest drug-users."

Like I've been saying, if you think its non-topical, fine. But if Pro doesn't prove that its non-topical and/or I rebut his topicality argument, you shouldn't vote on it. Otherwise you're giving me the loss for something I couldn't have done, which is to argue against something Pro never presented.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Walras, thanks for intelligent RFD.

Why do you think my arguments were hard to understand? What can I do to be more coherent?

The tags got messed up... not my fault though. I'd also be interested to see what you think about a debate I'm a little more proud of (though I'm not asking you to vote, just your opinion). http://www.debate.org...
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Austriananarchist 6 years ago
Austriananarchist
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Bipolarmoment 6 years ago
Bipolarmoment
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Vote Placed by nfactor13 6 years ago
nfactor13
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by WhoDaFoo4 6 years ago
WhoDaFoo4
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Blank 6 years ago
Blank
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by sllewuy 6 years ago
sllewuy
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wsu4ever 6 years ago
wsu4ever
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
DrStrangeLuvSiebenTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40