The Instigator
papayarocx5
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
sidewinder
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The authorities have the right, and they should, shoot if it is necessary as a mean of self defense.

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...
papayarocx5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 381 times Debate No: 66737
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

papayarocx5

Pro

If you accept this debate, you will be arguing that the police should NOT be allowed to shoot people to kill, even as a mean of self defense.

The first round will be of acceptance only. You may simply re-state the topic you will be arguing, and confirm that you are willing to debate the topic.

The second round will be your introduction, and your first valid argument. No rebuttal because there is nothing to rebuttal.

The third and final round will be your rebuttal and the closing statement. Please do not make another argument.

If you have any interests in participating then please comment.

Here are the over-all rules of the debate:
1) You may only say that the opponents scenarios are invalid if you have valid proof and citation to back it up.
2) Since this is a topic concerning race, only valid and non-stereotypical arguments may be made in regards to race.
3) Religion is not to be used as one of the points.

Thanks, and I hope I can have a very smooth yet powerful debate with someone on this ver serious topic.
sidewinder

Con

I accept this debate so long as you are saying they have the right to kill not the debate on whether it is okay for them to fire their wepons
Debate Round No. 1
papayarocx5

Pro

papayarocx5 forfeited this round.
sidewinder

Con

My opponent claims that the will be on later to continue this debate so hopefully he will how up for the next round of debating.
Debate Round No. 2
papayarocx5

Pro

Once again I apologize for not posting the previous round, for I have finals and am very busy with my school work.

Now to continue, since there was a minor set back, this round will be a statement, and my opponent will have the chance to rebuttal this, and conclude. If my opponent wishes to restart this debate, then please say so in the comments. I am more than willing to do so.

My argument:

As displayed many times, authorities have been in numerous situation that required them to shoot at a person or persons as a mean of self defense. This is completely acceptable, because it is not to be cruel, or mean. It is because they are trying to preserve themselves from any further harm.

In the Ferguson case, the evidence that was provided shows that the person who was shot had physically threatened the officer. The officer was simply defending himself.

Given the following situation with two possible outcomes:
Situation:
Authorities are driving to an accident on the highway. Someone stops them, and begins to dance wildly in front of the car, blocking their access to the accident, and causing a public disturbance. The first officer politely asks the man to move aside so that they may progress further down the highway. The man however doesn't move away. Instead he moves closer to the car. The second officer gets out of the car, and demands that the man move. He continues to come towards the car. Both officers get back into the car, and roll down their windows, demanding that the man go back to his car and leave. Now the man is on top of the car, and he is coming around to the drivers side. The man reaches in and grabs the officer. The second officer tries to pull his companion away, but the other man pulls harder bashing the officers head into the window.

Outcome 1: The officers don't shoot, but instead sit there with the inability to leave, as the man physically harms them, until someone else comes to help.
Outcome 2: One of the officers shoots the man to get away and to prevent any more physical harm to the officers.

Although the man gets harmed in the second outcome, both the officers are able to get out of the situation and continue further to aid with the accident after calling an ambulance to handle the other accident with the man. The two officers would not be guilty because they were using self defense by shooting the man and leaving.

So it is evident that the authorities have the right, and most certainly should shoot if it is necessary for them as a mean of self defense. Not only are they saving the authorities, but they are also helping to keep the world a safer, calmer place.

Thank you.
sidewinder

Con

I'm going to take your statements and offer rebuttals on them

1.As displayed many times, authorities have been in numerous situation that required them to shoot at a person or persons as a mean of SELF DEFENSE. This is completely acceptable, because it is not to be cruel, or mean. It is because they are trying to preserve themselves from any further harm.

You are correct however their are also instances of police brutality, repeated discharge of firearms, disproportionate number of arrests for racial minorities, and just plan incompetence on part of the police officers involved. I'm not implying that every case goes down this way but the standard that police need to defend themselves comes both ways.

2.In the Ferguson case, the evidence that was provided shows that the person who was shot had physically threatened the officer. The officer was simply defending himself

Yes however the officer discharged his weapon six times to bring down one subjected who had to advance over 10 yards. Are you implying that the police officer could not use any number of nonlethal weaponry such as a taser.

3.iven the following situation with two possible outcomes:
Situation:
Authorities are driving to an accident on the highway. Someone stops them, and begins to dance wildly in front of the car, blocking their access to the accident, and causing a public disturbance. The first officer politely asks the man to move aside so that they may progress further down the highway. The man however doesn't move away. Instead he moves closer to the car. The second officer gets out of the car, and demands that the man move. He continues to come towards the car. Both officers get back into the car, and roll down their windows, demanding that the man go back to his car and leave. Now the man is on top of the car, and he is coming around to the drivers side. The man reaches in and grabs the officer. The second officer tries to pull his companion away, but the other man pulls harder bashing the officers head into the WINDOW.

This does not explain why the officers did not use any of the nonlethal weaponry available to them or quickly subdue the subject physically because the officers outnumber the subject. You act as if the only way to resolve the issue is with implementation of lethal force. However due to the advancement of technology the police force has access to non lethal solutions. So the black and white canvas you paint in this scenario is incorrect because their are multiple solutions to the problem that you describe.

The point that I'm trying to push is that police officers should be held to a higher standard and be able to use non lethal tools to resolve situations. Thus in my opinion no one has a right to shoot some one even in self defense and must be criminal investigated as anyone else should. If you disagree than you are infringing upon the criminals natural rights in America and set the stage for police officers that have a license to kill a license that no one should have.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
RFD
Conduct: The FF was warned about before hand and doesn't warrant a loss of conduct. Con didn't hold Pro's FF against him or use it to him advantage. This warrants conduct.

Spelling: Not Important.

Arguments: It's important to hold the debate to the Resolution. The resolution was about using guns in Self Defense. Pro showed instances where this was the right move. Con's response was that they use guns in cases of brutality. This argument doesn't hold as it only implies that misuse of a gun should be illegal, but does not account for self-defense when brutality is not used. Con had to prove that, whether misused or not, self-defense didn't warrant gun use ever.

Sources: There were none.
Posted by papayarocx5 2 years ago
papayarocx5
Once again if my opponent wishes to start this debate over I am willing to do so. Please just notify me. I apologize for not posting once again.
Posted by papayarocx5 2 years ago
papayarocx5
I am so sorry for forfeiting the second round. I have finals and have not been on. Thanks, and sorry.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
papayarocx5sidewinderTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.