I got this really weird debate topic, and I'm kind of having trouble with it 'cause it's so vague. The topic is this;
Should police be held accountable for shooting people down in 'defence' or because they pose as a threat?
Should investigations take place into these shootings? Etc etc blah blah.
See? Where do I start? I mean, it's not even a police force of a particular country we're talking about; it's police IN GENERAL, ALL OVER THE WORLD. I guess I should mention Police Brutality and accidental shootings and stuff. What do you guys think on the subject?
See, the worst thing is, I have ONE NIGHT to write it all. It has to be a five minute friggin' speech and I have one night and no idea where to start. The reason I have so little time is because the girl that WAS doing it dropped out at the last minute and, since she hadn't done any work for it, left me with all this. So if you guys have anything to add, any useful links or ideas, or anything to discuss, do so. I am tired and confused and I have a cold. And I'm hungry.
Do your own homework.
Um, they are. Police aren't just allowed to randomly shoot people, you know, they have to account for every shot they fire...
And of course they'll never be held accountable for police brutality if the brutalised person doesn't tell anyone about it.
It's not homework, I'm filling in for this girl that dropped out of a debate at the last minute.
And yeah, I know. The topic doesn't seem to make sense. And since the police work differently in every country, having it as a general thing makes no sense either. I hate this thing!
Well, for starters, are you debating from the point of view of someone who agrees or disagrees with the statement?
And for seconds, why did you agree to do this girl's work for her :P
Well, it is possible to discuss whether it's a good thing or not overall, without ties to any one particular police force, which I suppose is the point here. I really can't remember anyone sane arguing against it, though. It would be an interesting/fun topic for a debate competition with predetermined sides, but I really can't see anyone seriously taking a stand for the police's right to shoot indiscriminately and unaccountably.
QuoteWell, for starters, are you debating from the point of view of someone who agrees or disagrees with the statement?
And for seconds, why did you agree to do this girl's work for her
I'm disagreeing with it, apparently, saying that police should be held accountable blah blah blah.
Second, the girl was representing the school in a big competition. I'm not doing her work, I'm taking her place in a school competition at national fucking level. See why it sucks?
Police (the world over I should think) have a thankless and damn near impossible job.
I have a buddy on the job.Ã, He was called to the scene of a break-in a few months back.Ã, This guy (the perp) was breaking into a warehouse.Ã, The two police units cornered him and he made a break for it.Ã, Tony (my friend) cut him off and suprised him when he came over a fence.Ã, The idiot takes a swing at Tony, who sticks him and knocks him down before cuffing him.Ã, This jack-ass is trying to sew the department for a shattered knee-cap!!Ã, And the sad thing is it's actually going forward.Ã, To me this is disgusting.
Personally I think law enforcement isn't given enough freedom to do their job.
Should they drag you out of your car and cuff you for speeding or rolling through a stop sign?Ã, No, certainly not.
Should they be able to take down some dreg who is endangering innocents around him?Ã, Hell yes.
When Tony tells me about the lawsuits against his department it makes me want to become a vigilante and find these losers and put them out of their misery.
Now before I anger anybody, I KNOW there are times when cops go too far and some lawsuits aren't frivolous.Ã, But so many of them are because these losers figure it's an easy payday.Ã, Sometimes cops go over-the-edge, granted, but I must say that sometimes I don't blame them.
What they deal with day to day ... it's amazing it doesn't happen more often.Ã, They have to deal with punks, losers, druggies, pushers, pimps, the absolute dregs of society.Ã, Then the next day some dumb old lady doesn't pull over fast enough and the cop just loses it and really lets her have it.
I've seen videos of the police in Russia ... now these guys have it right.Ã, They don't tolerate jack from anybody.Ã, Don't do what they say after the first warning you're on the ground with their knee wrenching your neck and your arm twisted painfully behind your back.
If the police are forced, by public opinion, to be less forceful more of them are going to be killed/injured.Ã, When you have to take somebody down you don't do it half assed.Ã, You use full force and put the hurt on them.Ã, If they didn't do something to deserve it in the first place it wouldn't be happening anyway.
When people complain about police brutality I usually just say, "Yeah ... we'd be soooo much better off with no police at all."Ã, For what the good cops provide, I'll gladly deal with a few bad apples here and there.
I think the discussion is quite easy, you just gotta take a policeman and ask the rules about when raising a weapon, and in which situations you're allowed to shoot.
The threat you talk about must be easilly measurable, I guess the police can't shoot except when their lives are in danger. With this stalement you'd be able to win many of the debates about raising weapons, if you're smart, but be sure that the use of fire replies to a real threat for not incurring in abbuse of force. A policeman can't shoot if a man with a bat has started running in his direction. If he "halts" the man twice or three times and the man with a bat reaches hitting range nobody should complain about using the gun.
It may be possible of the other side to use the "accidents" as a counter strike. Incidents where a kid has been killed for raising a toy with the shape of a gun (Die Hard I? Ã, :)) are lamentable, but the police might not incurr into faults if he has made everything right, including sneaking into the house of the kid if he had good reasons (suspect of a crime, I guess...)
The "what is and what is not" a threat is going to be the core of the discussion. If the debate changes into military actions (and it probably will as the result of the latest developements), you must think if its a threat or not when Ã, its been a common terrorist tactic to simulate being wounded for commit suicidal strikes against soldiers. Is it right to kill him, specially if the terrorist has detected that the soldiers have entered in the room and he has made nothing to show he was unarmed and harmless? Or should you avoid that discussion staling it's not related to police? I think it should be wise to preppair something about that because the moderator would ask your opinion.
My view is that if you hold the police too accountable, we will have the problems Darth talks about.
If we take it too far the other way we have a dictatorship.
The best thing is to find a middle ground, have a constant debate about where the borders of that middle ground go and just realize that no matter how you do your job someone will always disagree with it.
Remember police are people too.
If it's not done to the letter of the law and it's not in self defence - they should be held accountable - the same as eceryone else.
No - one is above the law - not even the police.
Make it interesting. Personally, I'd try to argue that criminals have the right to shoot cops in self defence. That'd make for a lively debate at least.
You might try to look at it from the angle that we've become very much a 'sue everybody' society. I mean how many advertisements do you see about making claims? A lot more than there used to be, methinks. I think it might make an interesting sideline to Darth's comment about a criminal suing the police officer. I mean, a few decades ago, it wouldn't even occurred to someone, never mind have the possibility of winning. Why bother committing conventional crimes when you can just sue everybody, eh? ::)
Psst, Pelican, don't tell anybody but criminals have rights too. I know nothing about the case Darth is talking about, so I won't use that as an example, but if, to make up an extreme example that should demonstrate what I mean, you're caught shoplifting candy, run away from a policeman who happens to be nearby, and are life-threateningly injured - a bullet to the lung, say - then you or are very much in the right if you sue (or should be, I don't know about the legal situation everywhere in the world), even if this was necessary to stop you from getting away.
To clarify, if needed: Police are obviously entitled to the use of an appropriate level of force. It is appropriate to shoot somebody if it's the only way to keep them from shooting you, cutting the throats of four people at once, triggering the orbital death ray that will destroy Tokyo, or saying something mean to a kitten. It is not appropriate when they're rolling their eyes at you or grumbling while you fine them for speeding.
First of all, there are plenty of cases of police brutality and extreme use of force that you should look into for evidence to support your case. For example, check out the Amadou Diallo and Rodney King cases. I just googled NYC police shootings and this page came up:
http://www.saxakali.com/CommunityLinkups/NYC%20Police%20Killings%201999.htm
I can't vouch for all the facts on this particular page, but bottom line is there's lots of info out there to plead your case. Also, I would recommend discussing the recent killing of an Emerson student in Boston via the use of a "non-lethal" weapon. It's a really under-reported case, and a real tragedy, and a perfect example of police using excessive force.
I'm sure there are plenty of cops who mean well, but when human beings are put in positions of authority over other human beings, people can really go nuts. Look at Stanley Milgram's research experiment in obedience (people administered electro shocks, or thought they did, to healthy individuals because they were told to). Particularly, people who wore uniforms were more likely to administer the shocks.
Having been on the receiving end of police extremism, I firmly believe that police forces should be held accountable for their actions. If there are no checks, then what's to stop overzealous officers from doing as they want? So long as there aren't cameras on them, nothing.
This is an interesting topic, and one situation comes to mind. Fairly recently (I forget when, but in the last 1-2 years) in Australia, there was this guy with a knife. He was surrounded by police and was threatening them. I don't know the full details of it, but one of the officers shot the guy and killed him. Going from what I have heard, that was a bad thing to do. Surly there is another way to disarm a man with a knife then to soot him.
Quote
I've seen videos of the police in Russia ... now these guys have it right.Ã, They don't tolerate jack from anybody.Ã, Don't do what they say after the first warning you're on the ground with their knee wrenching your neck and your arm twisted painfully behind your back.
That is true.
Ten years ago, during Soviet Union, Russian police methods were in my homeland too, (as we was part of USSR).
Fact is, people were
afraid of police (then it was called militia) and all kinds of punks just tried to avoid any trouble with militia at any cost, because militia first kicked, then asked questions, not vice versa.
It just... worked, just as "cop shooter never makes it to the court alive"-untold rule that exists in many - if not most places in world today.
Shooting?
A bullet doesn't have to mean instant death. To stop a thug with a bat or knife it's enough to shoot into feet of shoulder. Shooting can be justified easily, but killing a human being needs always very good cause.
There's nothing that should be done with police and it's rights - both rights and life balances itself very well. But wages of police should be definetly higher to make police more feel that he's well rewarded for doing things right and risking his own life every day. Then there will be less bribes and "bad" cops too.
I can't speak from a police perspective (but I really agree with Darth on those points).
One other thing you have to consider is what would -you- do in such a situation? Some guy is standing near you with knife poised. You dont know what he's going to do, I mean... you REALLY don't. If you make the wrong decision, you could be stabbed and killed. All I know is that if anyone ever puts me in a situation like that, I won't be thinking one iota about the criminal's civil rights, or whether I could go to jail. If someone puts me in a situation that COULD be life threatening, I'll do whatever I can to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE they can't do it. If that means shooting them (and not in the leg, because I'd miss, and it might not do the job anyway), or scratching their eyes out, or breaking their neck, I'll do it.
Sometimes, I think it's fine to take an action you -know- will work (or at least has a 99% chance of working) rather than trying something clever, classic american hero style that will disarm them but save their life.
Quote from: Kinoko on Tue 30/11/2004 03:37:57
Sometimes, I think it's fine to take an action you -know- will work (or at least has a 99% chance of working) rather than trying something clever, classic american hero style that will disarm them but save their life.
But hey! We're adventure game creators!
After re-reading my post (and the subsequent posts since) I realized I never really answered the question posed ...
Yes, I believe police
should be help accountable for their actions.
So should the average citizen.
If you've decided that you're going to break the law then you must take responsibility for your actions.Ã, Does 'stealing a candy bar' mean you should be shot and killed?Ã, Certainly not.
I just don't think some drug dealing scumbag's family should be able to file a lawsuite because the police caught him stabbing somebody with 10 kilos of crack in his back pocket as he was taking pot-shots at the cops.Ã, These lawsuits should never be allowed to happen.
It makes me want to be a judge so I can say, "Let me see if I have this right ... your son, who was in posession of 10 viles of cocaine and had seven warrents out for his arrest, was caught stabbing somebody and then proceeded to shoot it out with the police and you want to sew the police force for shooting back?Ã, Here's the 'dumb moron idiotic dip-shit' award just for you."
Rodney King is a good example of police going too far, yes ... but the part they always seem to leave out of the story is how he was fucked up on PCP and was running from the police and then, when they caught him, he wouldn't stop fighting them no matter how they beat on him.Ã, Did they go overboard after he was subdued?Ã, Yes they did.Ã, But Rodney King was no innocent victem.Ã, He was a drug addict loser ... not some social hero.
Quote from: Anarcho on Tue 30/11/2004 01:34:57I'm sure there are plenty of cops who mean well, but when human beings are put in positions of authority over other human beings, people can really go nuts.
This is true, but is the alternative better?Ã, Is having no police force even conceivably better?Ã, We, as a society, put a certain ammount of faith/trust in our police forces.Ã, We expect certain things from them.Ã, The problem is, the nightly news doesn't report that Officer Jones saved the life of John Q. Public today ... no ... we hear about Officer Smith who was caught stealing from the evidence locker.
We only hear about the bad cops because, apparently, that's the good news stories.
That's just sad to me.
Interesting topic, which I had more time to ponder and contribute. Regardless, one interesting case happened a month or so ago involving a policeman who was off-duty but had an obnoxious, violent and offensive man (who he was trying to calm down) try to throw a chair at him. The off-duty cop shot the guy twice and dropped him. The heavy metal chair could've endangered the cop's life or at least permanent well-being. That one I could argue either side quite easily. (Try googling a few of the key words for a news story)
Just show the beginning of the movie "Con-Air" at the debate...
In a country like America, where every man and his dog has a gun, you would think that means the police would be in danger more often but then the chance of the other person being a legitimate gun owner defending themselves is much higher, so they need more caution.
In the UK where handguns are banned and other guns rare, if you see someone carrying a handgun, they are pretty much defined as a criminal and a threat...
However, all of these things are dependent on the exact circumstances of the situation. Obviously some accountability is required or the police can shoot who they like, but then if there is too much caution the police officer and other members of the public can be at risk. I would argue that it should be decided case by case.
Quote from: Fuzzpilz on Tue 30/11/2004 01:16:00
Psst, Pelican, don't tell anybody but criminals have rights too.
I'm not saying that criminals don't have rights. I'm just saying that some of the situations occurring are rather ridiculous. For instance a criminal attacks a police officer, and is injured while being subdued. Then tries to sue for the injuries occurred. Thats just daft. It really depends on the situation - if the criminal is a real threat (and how can you know if they're really going to use that weapon?), and how much force is necessary to subdue them with the minimum of casualties all round. Anyway I think Darth's made most of my points for me.
Quote from: Pelican on Tue 30/11/2004 23:12:45
I'm not saying that criminals don't have rights. I'm just saying that some of the situations occurring are rather ridiculous. For instance a criminal attacks a police officer, and is injured while being subdued. Then tries to sue for the injuries occurred. Thats just daft.
Attempting to sue isn't the same thing as winning a lawsuit. I could try to sue you for posting that message--I just wouldn't win.
Besides, never trust one-sentence summaries of the background for lawsuits. Remember that woman who won a $3 mill. lawsuit against MacDonald's for burning herself on their hot coffee? Well, she had a point (http://www.newsaic.com/casecivil.html#mcdonaldscoffee).
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 01/12/2004 03:12:38Remember that woman who won a $3 mill. lawsuit against MacDonald's for burning herself on their hot coffee? Well, she had a point (http://www.newsaic.com/casecivil.html#mcdonaldscoffee).
If she wasn't sittin' in her car with the coffee cup between her legs trying to open it with one hand it wouldn't have happened.
What are they [McDonald's] supposed to do?Ã, Maybe put zippers around the lid which require both hands to open.Ã, Maybe they should put accelerometers on the cups to make sure it's not in motion while being sipped.
Of course ... this doesn't have anything to do with Police accountability ... but I couldn't resist (as usual) chiming in here :)
Quote from: SSH on Tue 30/11/2004 16:28:27In a country like America, where every man and his dog has a gun ...
I resent that statement ... my dog doesn't have a gun.Ã, He carries grenades instead.
Well, as far as the McDonald's coffee case goes, I still believe the lady was a bit of an idiot. Even after judgement was passed against McDonalds, I believe the grandmother should've received enough to cover her hospital expenses, legal fees and 5-10% for time.
Thank you for the link, though, as I now recognize that it was more a minor case of criminal negligence than improperly marked cups. McDonald's showed coldness towards their customers but that should hurt their reputation, not their pocketbook. On the other hand, they were serving coffee at extremely hot temperatures, not taking into account that they're a family (i.e. little children are involved) restaurant that has a drive-through. After all, we'd surely all blame McDonald's if they were distributing razor-edged plastic knives that were causing injury. Sure, it's the person's fault if they cut themselves but the company had turned a minor hurt or inconvenience into something permanently damaging.
Got off track.. I think this case applies to the policeman thing at least as a good reminder to read the facts rather than just basing your arguments and opinions on word-of-mouth.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 01/12/2004 05:41:43
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 01/12/2004 03:12:38Remember that woman who won a $3 mill. lawsuit against MacDonald's for burning herself on their hot coffee? Well, she had a point (http://www.newsaic.com/casecivil.html#mcdonaldscoffee).
If she wasn't sittin' in her car with the coffee cup between her legs trying to open it with one hand it wouldn't have happened.
What are they [McDonald's] supposed to do?Ã, Maybe put zippers around the lid which require both hands to open.Ã, Maybe they should put accelerometers on the cups to make sure it's not in motion while being sipped.
They could, you know,
not serve the coffee scalding hot! Sure, trying to open a cup of coffee with one hand while sitting in a car may not be the smartest thing ever, but I bet most people wouldn't be aware that spilling the drink might mean third degree burns and several days in hospital. MacDonald's were aware, and they should have done something about it.
The point isn't whether the verdict was correct or not. The point is that even though it sounds like a frivolous lawsuit, it had a good deal of merit.
Actually, the website articulates everything I have to say on the issue:
"
Anyone can file a lawsuit for
any reason. Winning is much more difficult, and the vast majority of lawsuits get thrown out long before victory. The media thus often overemphasizes the filing of a lawsuit - especially those that are apparently frivolous - and it gives far too little attention when the lawsuit fails, gets dismissed, or simply dies out."
"Reasonable people can disagree about whether McDonald's should have been forced to pay for the severe burns that Stella Liebeck suffered in 1992, but the legal system has been unfairly damned by people based on anecdotes and assumptions about this case without understanding a bit more about what actually happened and why."
Hi! I found your question interesting, as I have pondered this type of thing alot.
The answer is found in what people believe in, I think. The answer might actually be somewhat mysterious, I think. What do you believe in? Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ(I believe they are accountable, because I believe in Christ)?
Do you believe that it is ok to defend oneself, and if so, then when? Christ esteemed others more highly than himself. So, the question is: How highly do you esteem yourself, in regards to other people? Are they more important than you, or less important than you, or are you equals?
It is in there thinking, is where the shooting starts in the first place.
If someone crosses over the line they have in their thinking, then they will shoot them.
There are all kinds of different ways of looking at it.
In the end, the answer(I think), is in the Holy Bible, and to answer the question: Here it is:
The dead will be resurrected, and then the judgement, but what form is that judgement to take(I am not really sure).
I can honestly say that if you don't hurt anyone, then you will not have to worry about being judged on hurting other people. As John the Baptist said to some men(I think they were centurions or something like that) who asked him how they might be saved: John replied "Harm no one!"
John said not to hurt anyone.
Raises alot of questions in regards to righteousness, and I don't have the definitive answer. The lawyers might think that a person has a "right" to defend themselves, depending on circumstances(but what circumstances?)(When?). It's a bit of a tough question to answer.
The question of "how do we cope with persecution?" comes up too.
Who's gonna persecute who?
Is it righteous to harm another person, and if so, then when?
Mysterious, I guess. Quite a contentious topic, and it might be regarded as a part of the spiritual warfare that is going on in the world.
Those guys in Iraq that hung and burned those guys on the bridge thought they were being righteous. Do the American soldiers think they are being righteous? Similar type of thing. America felt threatened, and defended itself. Same with cops who feel threatened.
Sometimes there is perversion of this type of justice, as well, so a corrupt cop or a corrupt political leader might do harm to people who hadn't done anything to them
(And, guess what? Once those professional people have corrupted justice, they don't like to admit it, and I swear, they will fight like crazy to deny that they did anything wrong)
(pretty tough, eh, if you end up on the recieving end of perversion of justice, and
GOOD LUCK trying to correct the injustice, with the people (the cops and the political leaders) who think they are the
righteous ones. I swear that they would rather see a man rot in a jail cell, or just die, rather than admit that they had ever corrupted justice(they might lose their jobs, eh?)
(awwwwww!)
Lots of different people have predefined thinking processes in regards to how they will respond when threatened, and if a person crosses over that line, booom, your dead.
Different people have different thinking ideas. One person might kill another person over leaving the toothpast cap off(obviously insignifcant, right? Maybe not, because small things can become bigger things). Another person might kill ya over trying to take their job. Many men will kill other men if they think that the other man is seeking to cause harm to them physically.
I believe that Jesus Christ exposed that it is those things that come out of the heart of man that defile the man, such as the murderous thoughts, and the false witnessing, and the adulteries, etc...(the laws of God).
I don't know the answer. complex stuff. I think a lot of the people who believe that it is ok to harm or kill in self-defence may not have thought very deeply about it. Be at peace with all men, if at all possible.
It may be that sometimes there are situations that it is not possible, unless you esteem other people more highly than yourself(like Christ), and therefore refrain from causing them any harm at all, and if you are willing to die before you will harm another person
(this might be the perfect, and holy way to handle the situation, but I am not really sure, because there is much violence in the Holy Bible)?
It seems that no matter how I try to take a stance on this question, I could find areas of fault, and areas where people would sinfully abuse that particular stance.
That was an elaborate and well though-out post but it merely skims over the issue at hand. How accountable must we make policemen for their actions? Yes, you mentioned them but only in the context of the everyday man. Of course, (as was specifically mentioned earlier, I believe) policemen are people behind the badge.
However, remember the extra responsibility they have. If a man is wildly waving a knife in a crowded area, the cop tells him to drop it and the man not only fails to comply but charges the cop - if the cop were feeling particularly holy that day, he might let the man kill him. There are a few problems with this: 1) I know I'm not paying policemen to simply yell at people and hope they comply without the potential threat of deadly force 2) This wouldn't do anything for the bystanders (which was one issue in the Starbucks case I mentioned) and 3) The previously armed-with-a-knife man would now have access to handcuffs, radio (for monitoring patrol activity) and a gun, perhaps a policecar. Imagine how much damage and/or subversion could've been prevented if the cop had ended the man's life.
Keep in mind that in non-combat (no shoot-to-kill order) situations both military and police personnel are expected to attempt a disabling but non-lethal shot whenever possible. Using the weapon does not automatically equal death. (By the way, I think it's a bit off to paint Jesus as a Zen-Bhuddist, he became violent on occasion (e.g. the moneychangers in the temple) demonstrating that sometimes righteousness demands action).