Should police only possess non-lethal weaponry?
Debate Rounds (3)
Although it seems that we are constantly hearing of case after case of police brutality, I would like to argue that this is more because of fundamentally flawed logic and improper police work than it is because of the lethality of weapons. Police officers are trained and encouraged to respond to situations delicately, and with nonlethal force whenever possible. If we intend to blame police brutality on the weapons, then we should also blame violent crime, such as murder, on the weapons utilized as well.
If the desired response is for the police to exclusively carry nonlethal weapons, such as stun-guns, clubs, and pepper spray, then this admittedly will hinder lethal consequences in police situations. However, I do not think that this will effectively stop police from committing heinous acts of brutality, it only means that police will be incapable of shooting suspects. This may result in a lower amount of direct civilian casualties at the hands of the police, but this would unfortunately lead to a greater amount of casualties as a whole. Criminals with lethal weapons would be unstoppable against the opposing force of nonlethal police officers. Consequently, this would lead to a drastic increase in casualties among innocent civilians, and crime would grow exponentially with no significant force to prevent it. In addition, the current corps of police officers would be at an unrivaled risk of injury, and death. Situations that are already tense would instantly degenerate into a shooting gallery where police would be nothing but targets to criminals with firearms. Police forces would lose officers by the dozens, and the high mortality rate would drive away any potential new recruits from service. Crime would continue to spread unopposed, and this could eventually result in an unconventional and dangerous breed of anarchy.
It is understandable that the public hopes for less police brutality. I would be ashamed if police brutality and lethality wasn't considered appalling. However, taking lethal weapons out of the hands of officers only elevates the power of lethal weapons in the hands of criminals. Alternatively, the response should be for the public and the government to hold the police officer solely accountable for any violations that result in unnecessary civilian injury or casualty.
Whether the offending party is a police officer or a civilian, in every case where brutality occurs, that person should be held fully responsible for the event, and punished for any offenses.
HailSagan forfeited this round.
HailSagan forfeited this round.
Because of Pro's forfeiture in rounds 2 and 3, I suggest that Pro has forfeited the conduct, spelling/grammar, and arguments points in this debate.
Please vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.