The Instigator
TheGregzilla
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Police should be charged with murder if they kill anyone, including criminals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,115 times Debate No: 43789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

TheGregzilla

Pro

I will be supporting the fact that any Police officer should be held accountable for any loss of life caused in the line of duty.

There are many cases of Officers killing the elderly, young children and people who couldn't even begin to defend themselves and getting away with it because of claims that they felt threatened by the individual. Yet if an individual (Non officer) feels threatened by an Officer, they are not afforded the same privilege.

Police Officers are known to use excessive force. There is no reason in the world that an adult should ever have to slam, taze, or shoot somebody incapable of defending themselves. If the Officer can not subdue a child, the elderly, or somebody who is mentally Ill without causing extreme harm, They are not fit to be an officer of the law.

In the case of somebody actually posing a threat to the officer, I believe that Mace (Pepper Spray) should ALWAYS be used as a first resort before a firearm is ever drawn.

Police training should be to disable and disarm, not to kill. Police are trained to shoot to the chest and head, this is the absolute opposite of what they should be trained to do.

The ONLY time a Police Officer should EVER use a firearm is if it is in defense of somebody else also using a firearm. It should not be waved around as a tool of fear.

Tazers are dangerous and in some cases deadly to the individual they are used on. Police are wrongly taught that a Tazer is an acceptable nonlethal weapon to use on anybody regardless of age or health and this isnt true. There have been accounts of Police tazing people with health conditions and killing them, or people who were wet (causing the shock to intensify and cause burns)

If a Police Officer cannot do his duty as peacefully as possible he is not fit to secure our streets. I believe that if Officers were told upfront they would be charged for 'crimes committed during the act of preventing other crime' Police brutality would immediately drop.

It will be Con's case to justify Police not getting prison time for the death of criminals (or anyone.)
Debate Round No. 1
TheGregzilla

Pro

TheGregzilla forfeited this round.
Mikal

Con

before i make a hard contention i'm going to give my adversary a chance to lay out a solid round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheGregzilla

Pro

TheGregzilla forfeited this round.
Mikal

Con

I am going to keep this short and simple due to multiple FFS

The resolution is as follows

" Police should be charged with murder if they kill anyone, including criminals. "

This is essentially saying that anyone including police officers should be charged with murder even in the act of self defense. That is a horrible stance to take and one that should never be considered.

Even in criminology and law there is something that is called "the right to self defense".

"The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force." [1]

There is even something called Justifiable homicide

Justifiable Homicide - a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime. [2]

Even under most state statues we are allotted the stand your ground law.

Stand your ground law - (1)Q95;A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (extended in source) [3]

We are allotted these rights to be able to defend ourselves from people and government alike. A police officers primary duty is to protect and uphold the peace. Some civilians can not defend themselves and police are afforded to make use of excessive violence in dire situations. If a robber has someone hostage, or if someone is breaking and entering and they have no intent on going to jail and are not afraid to kill there has to be a scapegoat to help the people that are in harms way. Police should be afforded the right to kill in dire situations and are promised so by the right to self defense and certain state statues.

Therefore the resolution is false.

I would have went may more in depth but see no reason to , due to multiple FFS.

[1] http://www.princeton.edu...
[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.leg.state.fl.us...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by makeshift8 3 years ago
makeshift8
By your wording, you are saying that if this criminal is armed and dangerous, you are unable to stop him permanently. This is ridiculous. The police investigate whether or not a police officer should shoot a guy. You should not shoot somebody for petty thievery, but you should if a man is holding a woman and ready to kill her.

They are too dangerous to be kept alive, and when a man is motivated to kill, he will kill no matter what the consequences are. This makes him a dangerous person that needs to be shot and killed before he can do harm to others.
Posted by makeshift8 3 years ago
makeshift8
By your wording, you are saying that if this criminal is armed and dangerous, you are unable to stop him permanently. This is ridiculous. The police investigate whether or not a police officer should shoot a guy. You should not shoot somebody for petty thievery, but you should if a man is holding a woman and ready to kill her.

They are too dangerous to be kept alive, and when a man is motivated to kill, he will kill no matter what the consequences are. This makes him a dangerous person that needs to be shot and killed before he can do harm to others.
Posted by JPCLT 3 years ago
JPCLT
I would only join this debate if TheGregzilla convinced me that he/she performed in the line of duty. Otherwise these arguments would only be hear say and anecdotal evidence (as prove in the original post). I would expect to be shown facts and that the instigator had a complete understanding of the situation to institute a blanket policy like this.
Posted by michaelperry13 3 years ago
michaelperry13
Can you clarify this?
"The ONLY time a Police Officer should EVER use a firearm is if it is in defense of somebody else also using a firearm. It should not be waved around as a tool of fear."

What do you mean "if it is in defense of somebody else also using a firearm."?

I'll accept if you respond.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
TheGregzillaMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by the side of pro gives all seven points to con.