The Instigator
Dr.TurkeyBaster
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Reformist
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

the police shooting of Tamir Rice was justified

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 2 votes the winner is...
Reformist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2016 Category: People
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 452 times Debate No: 84654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Dr.TurkeyBaster

Pro

Tamir Rice was a 12 year old black child who was shot and killed by police after he tried to pull a realistic looking pellet gun on them. People have cried racism because the boy was black and the officers were white, but this is not at all the case. People fail to realize the rest of the story.
Reformist

Con

This will be fun
Debate Round No. 1
Dr.TurkeyBaster

Pro

Are you going to debate me and talk like in a civilized way? If so I'd be glad to debate you.
Reformist

Con

Im not sure what about my phrase "This will be fun" is uncivilized or offensive in any way possible

Tamir Rice was shot through the stomach after showing officers a plastic gun

The official case was deemed a homicide

2 independent investigators went through the case and deemed the shooting unjustified.

Tamir rice did not even point the fake gun at the officer.

Sources:
http://www.latimes.com...

http://www.nydailynews.com...

http://globalgrind.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Dr.TurkeyBaster

Pro

Regardless, the cops had no way of knowing the gun wasn't real, so they had every reason to believe the kid was trying to shoot them. Neither cop is being charged for anything, and rightfully so.
Reformist

Con

Yes but if you even read my arguments you would see it was unjustified

The kid didn't point the gun at the officers

The cops were either blatantly ignorant of the situation or they wanted to kill the kid either one needs punishment.

As I showed you the Tamir Rice did not point the gun at the officers and the situation could have been easily defused

Anyway I win the debate because you did not show any evidence that it was justified. So yeah XD
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by geho89 11 months ago
geho89
You do know that the police did a drive by shooting right? In the video, the police car rolled up to Tamir Rice and gunned him down on the spot. Even so, the police officers did not bother to confirm whether the boy had an actual gun, in a park by himself, where he was not a threat to anyone. There was even a call that said the gun might not be real and that the person might be a juvenile, but the dispatcher did not mention this, which was a "technical" mistake. Not only that, but there was no effort in applying any medical care to the boy.

Now, was Tamir Rice stupid for having a gun? I would say yes, but what do you expect from kids when adults talk about "common sense" and feel that it is justify to gun down any person that is a potential threat.
Posted by Reformist 11 months ago
Reformist
Your being so civil....

I need to take notes!
Posted by Dr.TurkeyBaster 11 months ago
Dr.TurkeyBaster
My opponent is a liberal idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sam7411 11 months ago
Sam7411
Dr.TurkeyBasterReformistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was flawed. Tamir Rice was brandishing his gun, (which the cops had reason to believe was a real gun) and waving it around the park earlier. Also, speculating that the cops wanted to kill the kid is unrealistic, even though I admit the cop may have pushed it too far. Con may have used liberal leaning-but reliable- sources, when Pro lacked any.
Vote Placed by Rosalie 11 months ago
Rosalie
Dr.TurkeyBasterReformistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a fairly short debate. Its clear who won this debate. Pro had no valid arguments. He made claims, but he didn't provide any sources to prove his claims, making them false. Con wins because he argued valid claims, and used sources that validated his claims. So, more convincing arguments go to Con. Reliable sources go to Con because he's the only one who used sources, they also supported his arguments.