The Instigator
HailSagan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Craighawley215
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should police only possess non-lethal weaponry?

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...
Craighawley215
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,199 times Debate No: 62850
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

HailSagan

Pro

It seems that today the public is always being told of police brutality or unnecessary lethal action taken by police, what if police were only capable of bearing weapons that would stun or incapacitate their assailants. Would this solve the problem, or put police at higher risk of injury?
Craighawley215

Con

I accept the debate, and because of the 3 Round structure, I will proceed immediately with my initial argument.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
HailSagan

Pro

HailSagan forfeited this round.
Craighawley215

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
HailSagan

Pro

HailSagan forfeited this round.
Craighawley215

Con

In conclusion, Pro has not argued their position on this debate. Citizens have the right to protection from police brutality, but there is no coherent argument that restricting officers to non-lethal weaponry is the most effective option. Non-lethal weaponry will only increase the potency of lethal weaponry in the hands of criminals, creating a more dangerous situation for all.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
That would work when criminals only possess non-lethal weapons.olioce are not first responders anyway. The victim is.And we have the right to own and possess weapons that would defend ourselves and our homes from all enemies, foreign and domestic.That includes a tyrannical government.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
HailSaganCraighawley215Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture