Police officers must shoot to kill

Pro opens by observing that police officers are just "public servants doing a job that most people would not want but still want to be filled". First, I'm claiming that police officers should quit and work for the private sector. There are already about 50% more private security guards than public police [1] [2]. Second, pro talks about wasted training (as if this were really on everybody's mind when they're getting shot at), and again, this can be permutated into my "join the private security industry or play nice" counterplan. =========== Con Case =========== A) Police Attack Innocent People 1) Arresting someone means you physically subdue and restrain them. That's "attacking". Police attack and arrest anyone who violate government laws, which may or may not be just. My position is that the majority of these laws are unjust, such as drug laws. My opponent doesn't want to get dragged into the drug war discussion but too bad. Its probably the major reason why police get shot at in the first place, so it is highly topical. It also accounts for a large majority of the people in prison. So you have police trying to kidnap people who aren't hurting anyone. They have the right to self defense against the police officer, so they can kill him. The police officer has no right to be messing with them in the first place, so he has no right to self defense. Resolution negated. 2) Pro says this argument doesn't matter because hippies and teenagers aren't armed. They could be... but the point is that they have a RIGHT to shoot the police officer. Pro goes on to say that police officers have a right to apprehend drug users because "possession of illegal drugs is not permitted in the US". This is called an "Appeal to Authority". If the US government says that redheads are allowed to be raped, they STILL have the right to self defense that transcends whatever the f*cks in Washington decide. So non-violent drug users, like redheads, have a right to self defense no matter what US "law" says. Police officers upholding unjust laws have forfeited their rights. B) Police Protect Real Criminals 3) Pro doesn't rebut that police protect the country's largest and most violent criminal organization. In addition to the massive amount of taxes they take and give to large corporations, they've killed literally millions of people for no given reason... including the aftermath of the first Iraq War, deadly injections of "foreign aid"[3] and many terrorist campaigns in South America and Africa [4]. Pro's only defense of the police who protect these genocidal maniacs is that they protect US citizens as well. This is incredibly shortsighted, and even if police were giving me foot rubs every day, it would not be enough to make up for their support of government thugs. Furthermore, if police really WERE protecting my rights, there would be almost no private security industry. Except there is... and its much larger than the public security industry. See above citations. I guess public police just chase down druggies and really aren't all that essential to preventing muggings and home burglaries. Pro then goes on to say he doesn't want to debate anarchy vs statism. That's fine. I'll just assume the "minarchist" or minimal, nightwatchman state. In either case, the just role of police officers is restricted to protecting people's libertarian rights, not hunting down peaceful drug users. He claims that my "argument stems from an inherent hatred of the government", but I'd be really happy with a minarchist state. Pro then brings up the "if you don't like it, leave" argument... which is totally peripheral, especially since I just conceded minarchy. Regardless, Pro seems to think that the US government can do literally anything to me, and as long as I stay put, that means I "consent". Does this mean I can break into his house, start stealing his stuff, and he "consents" as long as I give him the option to move? I think not. C) Police Shouldn't be Invincible 4) Pro's rebuttal of this sub point is particularly weak. If you don't buy all the ra-ra anti government stuff, please just vote off this. Pro says that "Just Apprehenders do not have the right to make legal arrests in this country. If a LEO is to be arrested, for whatever reason, then the victim should call the proper authorities." He's imagining that just apprehenders are vigilantes. They don't have to be... but even if you buy that "the proper authorities" are the only people who can arrest police officers, they STILL have to threaten the rogue police officer with deadly force. He doesn't have a right to shoot back if, from hypothesis, he ought to go to jail. ================ Concluding Argument ================ Pro concludes that people who draw weapons on police officers are stupid and deserve to die. This G.I. Joe theory of public enforcement is completely devoid of substance or context. In reality, Police are out there to kidnap innocent drug users and protect the pigs in office. Even if you don't buy the drug war angle, you still have to believe that it CAN BE JUST for people to rise up against their governments... That there are contexts where shooting a police officer is the morally just and correct thing to do. Pro's blind third grade "police are the good guys" chant paints over a much more sinister and complicated reality. The long and short is that being a police officer doesn't give you extra moral rights over other human beings. The absolutism of the resolution is easily negated. [1]http://www.bls.gov... [2]http://www.bls.gov... [3]http://www.cato.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...