Police officers must shoot to kill

A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement. 1) My opponent brings up a reoccurring theme that private security is a "better" field of law enforcement, and that current LEOs should quit their public jobs and join up. The truth is, private security firms have far fewer regulations on who they hire, less discipline in their training, and less control over what the guards do. While public police is far from a perfect system, like any human invention, private security is a far cry from even that [3]. Given a choice on who I'd rather have protecting me, public police win every time. Just because there are more private security guards than police does not mean it is a better system. 2) Your tax dollars are spent on training for police, so rather than see them die and lose the investment, I'd rather them fight for their lives and kill whoever pulls a gun on them. 3) "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 opponent goes on to define attacking as arresting, then uses both as individual terms in the next sentence. He is using the term "attack" to summon feelings of anger when he refers to arrest. For the remainder of the debate we will use the official definitions for each term, arrest [1] and attack [2]. I am not saying people are not attacked when they are arrested, but not every arrest is an attack. 4) "My opponent doesn't want to get dragged into the drug war discussion but too bad." ---Oh well 5) "So you have police trying to kidnap people (drug users) 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." ---The police officer does in fact have the legal right to apprehend these people. And the drug users absolutely have the right to pull a gun on them, but my contention is does the officer have the right to kill them? If the drug users respond with the drawing of a weapon, then the officer has a right to self defense also. Perhaps if drug possession was legal and officers still arrested drug users regardless of the law your argument would float, but it does not at this current time. B) Police Protect You 1) In his second point, con goes on to say how criminals have a right to self defense and police officers do not. All of this is coming from the opinion of my opponent. Some people may or may not like the drug laws, but that is not the discussion of this debate. I understand con is trying to make a point that somehow unjust laws means police officers should die in a hail of gunfire. That is a fine argument and all, but the fact remains that the possession of drugs is illegal, and that LEOs do not MAKE the laws, they are paid to ENFORCE them. 2) "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." ---Public police cannot be everywhere all the time. Private guards catch muggings and burglaries because they are there to catch them, they don't have other duties to attend to and don't have to cover an entire precinct. I'm also going to make the assumption that you think only the rich are entitled to protection, since they are the only ones who can afford to have private security guards. 3) In addition, police officers are not out to kill. They don't wake up in the morning and ask themselves how many pot heads they are going to waste that day. They are there to arrest those who possess illegal drugs and bring them to a court system that will determine the consequences of their actions. The drug users who use deadly force against those arresting them are not justified in doing so as, ideally, the officers are acting in their best intentions (but they still retain their right to defend themselves against the cops, however counter productive that is). You may then argue that no one should be acting on anyone's behalf in a true libertarian society, but consider this: Can people really be trusted to do whats in their best interests? I realize freedom is very important, but the fact is some people do stupid and harmful things to themselves and while this may be justified by freedom, it is senseless and damaging to themselves and the whole of society. 4) Having someone break into your house and steal your goods is different than paying taxes to your government. No benefit comes to you from the man stealing from you, but at the very least you receive benefits from government, such as streets and highways, fire departments, hospitals, police departments, a power grid, military protection etc..., but I believe that taxing is now a moot point as it is necessary to pay for them in the minarchist state as well. 5) Con makes references to the evils America has done but gives a citation from Wikipedia as his first source, and a misread citation from the CATO Institute. What this source says is that America's intentions are well meaning, but the governments of those receiving the foreign aid are the real culprits. In reality, America has done more for the world than any other country to date according to my con's CATO Institute reference, regardless if it worked exactly as it should have, our intentions were in the right place. I do not see the greater conspiracy theory in providing food to starving third world nations. I concede though, America has some short comings, every state does, all the way from minarchist to communist, but to blindly throw all the evils it has committed without bringing evidence of its good is bad debating. I will then offer this as a moot point, before this debates devolves into a critique on American foreign policy. 6) If you want to live in the minarchist society you speak of, then realize that it comes at a great cost, far greater than the cost drug users pay in this society. Think for a moment about life without police officers. You may rebut with the fact that in a minarchist society the people are protected from aggression, breaches of contract, theft and other basic law protections. But realize that your going to need a body to form those laws, officers to enforce them, and judges to determine your innocence. There's still going to be taxes in a minarchist state and a military also. Just things to consider. D) Police are directed by the same laws as us 1) "He's imagining that just apprehenders are vigilantes." --- Anyone who takes lawful action into his own hands is a vigilante. I do not assign a good or bad connotation to the term, its just what it is. 2) "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." --- He has every right to shoot back, my contention is if we should tie the arresting officers hands by saying they are not allowed to kill the suspect if they are threatened. By all means, draw a weapon on a LEO, but remember they have better aim than you. =================================== In conclusion: 1) Private security is not better than Public, since there are less rules to its operation and its lack of coverage to all. 2) The moral shortcomings and successes of the US is moot. 3) You have every right to defend yourself against the police, just know that it is against better judgment but it is still an exercise of your freedom. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] ht