someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed)

i have answered chronologically without quotes. i can go back and put in your quotes if this makes it too hard for you, but i think scrolling my rebuttal in a browser window next to your first response should be sufficient. if i need to provide proof that there are too many killing of unarmed, unthreatening civilians by law enforcement, i worry for this debate. it's such a simple, basic fact that there are tons of videos online of cops shooting these people, but no videos of the cops explaining their actions or apologizing. let me establish that i am not interested in winning a debate - i think it's silly to debate to win points. i find learning and truth much more appealing. nothing i said is "implying that there are innocent people being shot by police all over the globe." the fact that i said i would cover this issue with a cheap road trip implies that i would focus on cops that are not scattered across the globe, and the time i had to waste to explain this obvious fact makes me again worry for the direction of this debate, which i can see being overwhelmed by silly inferences and tedium. maybe this is partly my fault for having a good idea and asking others to find problems with it on a site where people are trying to make debate into a game rather than a method of truth seeking. i don't understand how you don't understand my sentence or can ask "What if the police avoid the camera interview?" - when the answer is at the end of my sentence that you quoted - i.e. they will "be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview" when they hide their face on the way to their home, etc. we obviously means whoever is interested in joining me. i don't need to establish how big the campaign will be as that is not part of what I am arguing -rather i am arguing simply the need for it. the amount needed would be determined by what equipment and skills others could contribute freely or cheaply, and does not need to be specified as 500 or 5000 or even 50,000$ as all are equally worth spending on such an important film. if this debate is going to proceed, you need to explain to me how i have not specified an aim. if i said we need to end polio, does that mean i need to draw up a 10 page essay on how exactly to do it just so i can debate someone who disagrees with my simple premise? the fact that con needs more information to go on tells me that he does not disagree with the basis of my argument. i was hoping to find a real police apologist or someone who could tell me about similar documentaries that are already being done, rather than someone to find problems where there are none. and yes i obviously need a camera, food, etc. for the documentary - i said 'we just need a big guy holding the boom mic' in reference to needing protection from unruly police officers with a history of unprovoked violence/murder. the aim of this trip, which should be clear, is to bring light to the issue which i described. if con would permit pro a minute to sigh and rub his temples for a minute ................................................................................................................... thank you. for you to say that i don't realize this would need research (aka looking at the court cases and finding addresses) is rather condescending, and to say that i need 15,000$ based on a silly inference is a waste of time arguing against. I didn't specify where when how and who for a crowdfunding campaign? Ok - online, before the documentary, with crowdfunding by whoever cares about the issue. This would be clear to most people who know what crowdfunding is. the aim is for them to answer publicly for their crimes - you know like Frost and Nixon? because it's important for people who do heinous things to not be able to just sink into obscurity after a slap on the wrist - especially when it's an institutional problem that leads to many deaths a year. what a crazy assumption, that i am trying to take them to court - i have said nothing that would lead anyone to believe that. i said they need to "answer publicly" for their actions. con's understanding is either poorly attempted or greatly obscured by the need to find an argument where there is none. again - i am not here to argue about stuff for the sake of argument and points. i think that is silly when there are lots of purposeful debates to be had. and holy cow @ if they shoot innocent people they are probably in prison. this isn't Oz, mate - maybe i should have made that clear. i live in the prison state called America where a single shooting by the police routinely empties more rounds in one person's direction than other large countries (like Germany) shoot in years. http://rt.com... https://www.youtube.com... - this should help con get up to speed. so we should only document the main killer of innocent people? this is like saying we should go after Protestant priests instead of Catholic because protestant priests molest more kids. the fact that they molest more kids is meaningless - it's the fact that the Church has a standard training and rules that lead to the abuse and systematically hides the abuse - just like with police department. most of the cops are locked up in Oz maybe, but again - welcome to america. in closing, please, con, don't debate for points or the sake of debate. try to really understand what i am getting at rather than just looking for holes in my wording or debate style, so that you might have useful insights and this debate has some practical purpose. thanks for engaging