The Instigator
briangle
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
InfraFred
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 717 times Debate No: 55064
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

briangle

Pro

..and weren't punished for it. it happens way too much - it would only take 300-400$ in gas for a little road trip. they need to be summoned to answer publicly for what's on the video or be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview.
we should start a crowd funding campaign to do this, i can ask them the tough questions. we just need a big guy holding the boom mic to back me up.
let's do it
InfraFred

Con

I accept this debate.

First of all, may I just point out that pro has not provided a usable model whatsoever. For a legitimate model, pro needs to give examples, and an exact method of how this scheme will work from all aspects. To show what I mean, I'll just refute parts of the model.


it happens way too much

For this argument to be valid, pro needs to provide proof that this is a reoccurring incident. How much is 'too much'? This is opinionated. What is 'to much' in pro's view may not be to much in another's view.


it would only take 300-400$ in gas for a little road trip.

Again, pro has not given sufficient detail. His first statement was "this happens way too much", implying that there are innocent people being shot by police all over the globe. He then says interviewing all these policemen would take 'a little road trip' which costs only '$300-400'. These two arguments clearly contradict. If there really are as many deaths around the globe as pro is suggesting (without legitimate proof), the cost of fuel would be AT LEAST AUD$15 000. When pro gives detail about the actual distance of the trip, then we can make an approxiamation of the correct pricing of the journey using sources 1 and 2.

For this point I ask pro to provide a scope and the information I have asked.


... they need to be summoned to answer publicly for what's on the video or be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview.

I do not understand this sentence fully. I believe what con is trying to say is "police need to participate in the interview". Under what consequences? What if the police avoid the camera interview?

Again, sufficient detail is necessary.



we should start a crowd funding campaign to do this

Again, detail is needed. Who is 'we'? And what kind of funding campaign? How big will the campaign be, and targeting who? Even if there is a fundraiser, it is undoubtful that it will raise the required price of the journey. Gaining sufficient funding will require a long amount of time and effort. It raises the question: is the cause really worth it?



i can ask them the tough questions

What questions- Who let the dogs out? Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar? For this debate to properly proceed, we need an understandable model to base arguments on. Is there going to be a fundraiser which raises over $10000 so you can ask police "tough questions" followed by a big guy holding a boom mike? This plan is lengthy, costworthy and has no aim specified by pro.



we just need a big guy holding the boom mic to back me up.

... And a video camera. And the adresses of various policemen. And transport. And money for fuel, stop-offs, food. And proof of the police-man's actions. And perhaps a lawyer. And so on.

There is much more you need for an expedition like this.


One last detail I request from pro is: what is the aim of this trip?


Now, my points.



1. Economical issues

As I specified before, a trip like this will require $15 000 MINIMUM. That is excluding food and accommodation, along with other necessities. What pro does not realise here, is that an expensive journey like this would require extensive research and funding. This lengthy process is not worth the cause.

Pro has specified that the money will be raised through a campaign. What he has not specified is details about this campaign, including: where, when, how, who....


2. What is the aim?

So far, pro has only talked about questioning police. He has not sprcified what questions and what is the aim of his questioning. Is he attempting to sue/frame police? Is he trying to bring them to justice? We do not know.


3. Small chance of working

Not only has pro hardly specified or given details about his model, he has not explained how this will work. I as con am assuming that he is trying to take them to court. If so, this has a small chance of working.

First of all, if the policemen did shoot innocent people, they are most likely in prison. It is against the law to shoot an innocent person, no matter the job.

Secondly, after pro has interviewed these police-men, he then has to take them to court. He would need extensive research and evidence to back up his claim, and the police may not admit to being guilty in their interview, showing a waste of money.


4. Why just policemen?

Why is pro limiting this debate to just policemen, when policemen are not the main cause of innocent murders? Police cause a minority of deaths among people, and most of these police men are locked up already. If pro really had the public's interest in concern, he would spend the money made through fundraising on more important issues, such as using the funds to help police on current issues involving murders.



In conclusion, these are my points and rebuttals so far. The points are very brief since I am lacking in knowledge of what the aim of this scheme is. Thank you pro for opening this debate, and see you in round two.


1. http://www.aip.com.au...
2. http://www.racq.com.au...



Debate Round No. 1
briangle

Pro

i have answered chronologically without quotes. i can go back and put in your quotes if this makes it too hard for you, but i think scrolling my rebuttal in a browser window next to your first response should be sufficient.
if i need to provide proof that there are too many killing of unarmed, unthreatening civilians by law enforcement, i worry for this debate. it's such a simple, basic fact that there are tons of videos online of cops shooting these people, but no videos of the cops explaining their actions or apologizing.
let me establish that i am not interested in winning a debate - i think it's silly to debate to win points. i find learning and truth much more appealing.
nothing i said is "implying that there are innocent people being shot by police all over the globe." the fact that i said i would cover this issue with a cheap road trip implies that i would focus on cops that are not scattered across the globe, and the time i had to waste to explain this obvious fact makes me again worry for the direction of this debate, which i can see being overwhelmed by silly inferences and tedium. maybe this is partly my fault for having a good idea and asking others to find problems with it on a site where people are trying to make debate into a game rather than a method of truth seeking.
i don't understand how you don't understand my sentence or can ask "What if the police avoid the camera interview?" - when the answer is at the end of my sentence that you quoted - i.e. they will "be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview" when they hide their face on the way to their home, etc.
we obviously means whoever is interested in joining me. i don't need to establish how big the campaign will be as that is not part of what I am arguing -rather i am arguing simply the need for it. the amount needed would be determined by what equipment and skills others could contribute freely or cheaply, and does not need to be specified as 500 or 5000 or even 50,000$ as all are equally worth spending on such an important film.
if this debate is going to proceed, you need to explain to me how i have not specified an aim. if i said we need to end polio, does that mean i need to draw up a 10 page essay on how exactly to do it just so i can debate someone who disagrees with my simple premise?
the fact that con needs more information to go on tells me that he does not disagree with the basis of my argument. i was hoping to find a real police apologist or someone who could tell me about similar documentaries that are already being done, rather than someone to find problems where there are none.
and yes i obviously need a camera, food, etc. for the documentary - i said 'we just need a big guy holding the boom mic' in reference to needing protection from unruly police officers with a history of unprovoked violence/murder.
the aim of this trip, which should be clear, is to bring light to the issue which i described.
if con would permit pro a minute to sigh and rub his temples for a minute ...................................................................................................................
thank you.

for you to say that i don't realize this would need research (aka looking at the court cases and finding addresses) is rather condescending, and to say that i need 15,000$ based on a silly inference is a waste of time arguing against.
I didn't specify where when how and who for a crowdfunding campaign? Ok - online, before the documentary, with crowdfunding by whoever cares about the issue. This would be clear to most people who know what crowdfunding is.
the aim is for them to answer publicly for their crimes - you know like Frost and Nixon? because it's important for people who do heinous things to not be able to just sink into obscurity after a slap on the wrist - especially when it's an institutional problem that leads to many deaths a year.
what a crazy assumption, that i am trying to take them to court - i have said nothing that would lead anyone to believe that. i said they need to "answer publicly" for their actions.
con's understanding is either poorly attempted or greatly obscured by the need to find an argument where there is none. again - i am not here to argue about stuff for the sake of argument and points. i think that is silly when there are lots of purposeful debates to be had.
and holy cow @ if they shoot innocent people they are probably in prison. this isn't Oz, mate - maybe i should have made that clear. i live in the prison state called America where a single shooting by the police routinely empties more rounds in one person's direction than other large countries (like Germany) shoot in years. http://rt.com...
https://www.youtube.com... - this should help con get up to speed.

so we should only document the main killer of innocent people? this is like saying we should go after Protestant priests instead of Catholic because protestant priests molest more kids. the fact that they molest more kids is meaningless - it's the fact that the Church has a standard training and rules that lead to the abuse and systematically hides the abuse - just like with police department. most of the cops are locked up in Oz maybe, but again - welcome to america.

in closing, please, con, don't debate for points or the sake of debate. try to really understand what i am getting at rather than just looking for holes in my wording or debate style, so that you might have useful insights and this debate has some practical purpose.

thanks for engaging
InfraFred

Con

Hello again. I'll jump straight into my rebuttal.



if i need to provide proof that there are too many killing of unarmed, unthreatening civilians by law enforcement, i worry for this debate. it's such a simple, basic fact that there are tons of videos online of cops shooting these people, but no videos of the cops explaining their actions or apologizing.

It doesn't matter whether pro "worries for this debate". As part of your job of proving your case, you must provide proof of your arguments. I do not see any proof of "too many" murders by police. Therefore you have not backed up your argument. Also, you say "tons of videos online of cops shooting these people", but where is the proof of this? Pro, in this incident, hasn't even provided links to such videos. So again, pro has not backed up his argument. And on a side-note, it would make it a lot easier to debate this if pro used numerical terms instead of hyperbole such as "tons" or "too many".



let me establish that i am not interested in winning a debate - i think it's silly to debate to win points. i find learning and truth much more appealing.

Then may I ask, why are you on a site where people vote for winners of debates?



nothing i said is "implying that there are innocent people being shot by police all over the globe."

Again, I am faced with a contradiction. Pro keeps mentioning the "tons of innocents getting shot" and "it happens way to much", and then he fails to not only set a scope for this debate, but claims he will only take a small road trip. If he does claim that, then what is the point? Making a small road trip may not even encounter one of these policemen, when there are "tons" (as pro keeps suggesting without proof). He is talking up a big problem, and then only making a half-hearted effort to fix it.

If pro is to set up a model like this, "a small road trip", it raises some questions. How small is small? What country/place are we looking at for the setting of this road trip? And why only limit the road trip to a small one when there are supposedly "tons" of policemen out there needing to be brought to justice (as pro keeps stressing)? These details are vital to pro's model.

This is a half-hearted way to attempt to fix a problem that isn't there, as I will come back to later on.



maybe this is partly my fault for having a good idea and asking others to find problems with it on a site where people are trying to make debate into a game rather than a method of truth seeking.

Don't put this on DDO. If you really want me to just accept your arguments and not find faults in them, don't put them on a debating website. Full stop.



i don't understand how you don't understand my sentence or can ask "What if the police avoid the camera interview?" - when the answer is at the end of my sentence that you quoted - i.e. they will "be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview" when they hide their face on the way to their home, etc.

I don't understand this statement either. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think you're trying to say that there will be a "compilation of cops hiding their faces" video? If this is the case, cops hiding their faces do not count as evidence in a court. If you present that video before a judge, he will not just casually say "well, Fred here is hiding his face, so he must have murdered Freda!" No. It does not work like this. Pro has a strange image of the way evidence works.



...does not need to be specified as 500 or 5000 or even 50,000$ as all are equally worth spending on such an important film.

Where do you draw the line? $50 000 is an unnecessarily HUGE amount of money for a tape of perhaps one police man "hiding his face". The chances are minute that pro will succeed in getting an apology or confession out of these police that pro is targeting. And again, there is a contradiction. Pro, at the start of the debate, metions it will cost $300-$400 on this road trip. Now he is suggesting $50 000. I ask that pro gets his model organised before he proceeds.



if this debate is going to proceed, you need to explain to me how i have not specified an aim.

In pro's first argument, he did not mention once the aim of his scheme. He just suggested the idea of filming guilty police without specifying why he would be doing such a thing. He did not say anything about bringing them to justice. Therefore, all I could do was ask for an aim to be specified.



the fact that con needs more information to go on tells me that he does not disagree with the basis of my argument.

???

I needed more information so I could have a substantial case to disagree with in the first place.



i was hoping to find a real police apologist or someone who could tell me about similar documentaries that are already being done, rather than someone to find problems where there are none.

I was hoping for an opponent who didn't tell me what to argue.

Also, there is such a documentary. It is the news.


the aim of this trip, which should be clear, is to bring light to the issue which i described.

"Bringing light to the issue" is a sad aim for such a complicated process. Interviewing these policemen about their past on a "road trip" that costs $50 000 is a rocky process for such a small aim. So, just to clarify, the aim of this whole scheme and fund-raising is to make people aware of this issue?



15,000$ based on a silly inference is a waste of time arguing against.

Yes, you are right. You said you needed $50 000 earlier. $15 000 is far too low.



the aim is for them to answer publicly for their crimes

Again, another contradiction. Pro has stated before that the aim was to "shed light on the issue". Now it has changed again to as stated above.



what a crazy assumption, that i am trying to take them to court - i have said nothing that would lead anyone to believe that. i said they need to "answer publicly" for their actions.

Then it is a crazy idea. It would be like making a serial killer confess under a camera, then not use that evidence to bring the killer to justice.



most of the cops are locked up in Oz maybe, but again - welcome to america.

We [Australians] do not routinely send people out with cameras filming police. We have these policemen in prison. Doesn't that tell you that filming policement is not the way to go about this?





Now, my points (expansion):


1. Economical issues

First of all, this process pro is suggesting is either unnecessarily expensive, or pointless. To clarify what I mean: to make this trip thorough, pro is suggesting the costs come to $50 000. This money can be used in better ways. It can be donated to the police or criminal investigation unit to help catch and bring to justice more criminals. The investgation unit would be a lot more thorough in catching criminals through their investigations then pro would be with a camera trying to film policemen hiding their faces.

Then he suggests $400. This would make the trip drastically cheaper, but would only get him approximately 500km, since much of the money would have to be spent on food and accommodation. 500km would only encounter perhaps not even one policeman, and even if this policeman is found, the chances are minute that he will even suggest admitting to his past.



2. Small chance of working

As I stated before, the chances of a police officer confessing to his actions are minute. And, as I said before, he needs extensive evidence to back his claims. He cannot turn up at one of their doors and expect them to let him in, let alone a confession. The chances of this working are so small it is not even worth executing the plan.



3. Poor idea to fix an unproven problem

If pro was really in need of fixing this problem, filming policemen is a weak way of attacking the issue. With $50000, pro could donate it to investigational forces who will focus on current criminals.

Also, pro has not even proven that there are criminal policemen in the first place. He has not provided research to prove there are videos of such incidents.



I am out of characters. Thanks pro.
Debate Round No. 2
briangle

Pro

i give up. the level of incomprehension is too high.
i didn't even read half of your response.
sorry - i give up.
InfraFred

Con

My opponent has given up.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NotAfraid 3 years ago
NotAfraid
This doesn't happen on a large enough scale to be considered an issue.
No votes have been placed for this debate.