Police officers must shoot to kill

My opponent contends that in response to deadly force the police officer should just die. I claim this is counter productive, due to the amount of training and money spent to develop and train the officers, and not to forget the fact that they are public servants doing a job that most people would not want but still want to be filled. ======== COUNTER ======== 1) My opponent makes the contention that "Police Attack Innocent People". He provides no evidence of this except for the percentage of prisoners being held for drug use, which is irrelevant. He then tries to persuade us that drug use is innocent, which is debatable, but is irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps my opponent would like to reword his contention "Police Arrest Innocent People" instead of the former. 2) "The police who fight this holy crusade against teenagers and hippies are tearing civilization apart. A LEO trying to arrest peaceful and harmless drug users has no business killing anybody. The innocent people who he is attacking have every right to defend themselves. He has no right to apprehend them in the first place, much less a right to murder them." ---This is irrelevant to the argument because the "hippies and teenagers" mentioned in this scenario are not armed. Also, since the possession of illegal drugs is not permitted in the US, the officers have every right to apprehend these "drug users". 3) In my opponents contention that "Police Protect Real Criminals" he mentions that police protect the rights of government, which is true, but fails to mention that the police also protect the rights ad liberties of the citizens and people living in the US. My opponent is suggesting a removal of taxes which would return us to an anarchist state. Though debatable, it has no place in this debate. Most of my opponents argument stems from an inherent hatred of the government. May I remind my opponent that while nobody wants to pay taxes, one could say they are a necessary evil. The government is able to provide and protect us through this money we pay them. No one is forcing you to live in this country and play by its rules, so you are allowing yourself to be victimized by the government. 4)"Even the most naï¿½ve advocate of the status quo admits that some police should go to jail. In order to force someone to go to jail, you have to threaten them with deadly force. A guilty police officer should not have the right to shoot at Just Apprehenders." --- 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. ========= ARGUMENT ========= I stand by my previous contentions and would also like to state that the best form of pragmatism is at work when a police officer uses his weapon to defend himself or bring an order to reality. If someone is foolish enough to challenge a police officer by drawing a weapon upon him, then that person not only draws his weapon at the officer, but at the whole of society. To challenge authority like that so directly, and especially on a public servant who has sworn to do his best to defend the public, makes me see nothing wrong with his use of force on the suspect.