Police officers must shoot to kill

As you will see, Con drops part of his case, and shows a very venomous attitude towards the US, a bias which should make most of his arguments invalid. ===Con Counter=== A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement. 1) Con claims private security is more ethical, despite it having a history just as bad or worse than the public sector [1]. The definition of ethics [2], clearly shows that previous contention for private security shows that I am correct. It is a system that is just as susceptible to abuse as public security, and even more so due its overall lack of discipline, regulations and control. It is not superior to public law enforcement in any way. My opponent is very vague in his counter, but I believe the proper rebuttal to him is this: People will use private guards for unethical purposes, much worse than upholding a drug law. 2) Nukes act as a deterrent, that is their goal. And yes, I am proposing that the things we invest in should be used and protected, such as police. Part of being a LEO is that you have power of arrest, so yes that is a special right. Police only hunt down those who have broken the law. 3) Con drops this topic 4) "This is not third grade. The policeman is not automatically your BFF." ---I do not understand how this relates specifically to my 4th point. And it is juvenile. 5) Con is now using the current laws to defend his arguments while he is dismissing others. Bad debating. If you attack someone first, and he responds with deadly force, that is a gross misuse of that force and you are entitled to defend yourself, not sit there and die like Con contends. B) Police Protect You 1) My opponent is comparing drug use and rape, a victimless crime and a very vile crime, to get his ideas across. People absolutely have the right to fight government physically, its a way of preventing tyranny. Police and government have special rights because we allow them to, and for the most part they work for our benefit. 2) Con misunderstands sarcasm for an apology. Con misunderstands private security, since they cannot enforce laws, they are not law enforcement. Con misunderstands the fact that private security is controlled by private companies and bought by private consumers, a minority. They provide no assistance to the public at large unless they purchase their services, a feat which is not possible for most of the country. Size of the private security has nothing to do with this. a) Con contends that groups of people should band together and buy security if they are too poor. I ask what is the difference between this and the public security we have now? Sounds a lot like being taxed and funding public police departments. 3) Apparently they wouldn't be controlled (as much) in minarchist state, so how does your argument apply here, Con? 4) It would not be robbery, it would be delicious. It would only be robbery if you used the goods in my kitchen to bake it. a) "Therefore, government is not committing robbery." ---Con concedes my point 5) By all means the voters should read the source. Con may be taking his quote out of context, so I insist on a voter reading. It is bordering on conspiracy theory to believe that the US intentionally destroys third world nations. I ask Con to provide reasons for the US doing so, since this is his contention. a) Con also completely avoids my contention that the US has done much good in the world, and is committed to a smearing contest against the US. This is bad debating. 6) I specifically said: "...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..." I do not see how this represents a misunderstanding of a minarchist state. I admit my thoughts were confusing at this point, as I was both asking Con to consider hypothetical situations, but I do indeed know what a minarchist state is. D) Police are directed by the same laws as us 1) Responding to arrest with deadly force permits the use of deadly force on the LEOs behalf. Like stated before, if I push you and you pull out a gun and try to shoot me, you grossly misused force to protect yourself, and I have a right to shoot you back since now it is a matter of self defense. a) Nothing is stopping criminals from pulling out guns except the consequences of their actions. ===Counter to Con Case=== A) Police attack innocent people 1) 2) Agreed, but see my earlier arguments for fuller explanation. B) Police Protect Real Criminals 1) Con displays inability to count. Going from strike 1 to strike 10,000, and calling the number of totalitarian regimes "countless" shows a very obvious bias against the US. I cede that it ha its short comings, but it also does good, like any other state does, including the minarchist. Con refuses to accept this fact. C) Police shouldn't be invincible 1) Con claims drug users have right to shoot at apprehenders, but rogue officers do not. This is contradictory. Rogue officers do indeed go to jail, I do not understand why this is a major contention of my opponent. ===Conclusion=== I'd like to thank my opponent for the thought provoking debate. I sure wasn't expecting this when I posted my topic. I still stand by my original contention that if an officer is threatened with deadly force he has a right to respond back with the same force, and not have his hands tied by state or federal regulations. Regardless of the style of government you have, some people will find some laws unjust, when they may in fact be very warranted. I do not have an opinion on drug legalization because I do not know enough about the topic, and what will happen if legalized. Maybe it will be good, maybe it will be bad, I cannot say at this time. Every state has done horrible and wonderful things in their existence, of this I am sure. As they are human inventions, they both benefit and suffer from the same characteristics humans have. Minarchy to Dictatorship, all governments will have pros and cons to them, and assuming that none of the abuses we see in modern society will not exist in our ideal form of government is a foolish assertion. In regards to victimless crime, such as drug use, and the involvement of police, it is the attitude of the drug user that determines the outcome of the arrest. If Con thinks the law is unjust, he should be attacking lawmakers (verbally hopefully), and not the police. Police do indeed have the right to arrest you, and they are paid to follow the law. Attacking the police will not bring about the change you so desire. Most of my opponents arguments are based off a hypothetical system of government, that cannot be judged without a bias or acceptance of the unknown. He uses hate tactics to incite anger towards the US and police officers, without admitting a good side to them. He has flip flopped between minarchy and the status quo to suit his argument, and makes references to supposedly better law enforcement systems (such as private security) that do not do the things he is trying to describe. I hope the voters will see these inconsistencies and that logic has not succumbed to personal opinion. Vote Pro [1] http://www.ehow.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...