Police officers must shoot to kill

Tags get progressively more crazy with each Pro response... I'll do my best ===Con Counter=== A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement 1) Con presents a ridiculous straw man here. He thinks Blackwater and the corporate shills working for the government are examples of "private security". But they are clearly working for the government, under its intimate protection, and being paid with tax dollars. That's not private. Regardless, this is not explicitly a debate about private vs public security. As I said before, I'll be fine with minarchy. The point is that police in the status quo have a superior alternative to kidnapping druggies. 2) Pro concedes that if you spent money on something, you should use it. Presumably this means that every bullet should be fired, grenade detonated, and waterboard used to its fullest extent. This is totally morally bankrupt. Our actions should be guided by concern for our fellow man, not trying to recover sunk costs at the expense of every social value. 3) Pro says I drop this. Well, if you look back, I don't. And this isn't a "topic", its just a couple of ad hoc definitions from Pro. 4) For all of Pro's case, he's been under the assumption that police are automatically always the good guys. Even if police were good in practice, it would not mean they are imbued with magical rights that elevate them above the rest of society. 5) So Pro and I will have to agree to disagree. I think that if a police officer attacks an innocent person, the person has a right to defend themselves with deadly force (if necessary), and the police officer has forfeited all rights BECAUSE he is initiating violence. More clearly, if I rape you, and you try to kill me, I DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF. Pro disagrees, presumably because police have superhuman rights. He has no theory of justice, only an incoherent pseudo-pragmatic idea that people get rights no matter what they're doing. B) 1) Pro thinks that drug use is a victimless crime. Well, its not a victimless crime when police officers kidnap drug users. Rape is perfectly analogous to kidnapping in that it is a violation of rights, and we can ALL agree that rape victims have a right to defend themselves, while their assailants do not> Pro goes on to say that police have special rights because we allow them to. This is ridiculous. First, you can't confer rights onto someone that you yourself do not possess. For example, I don't have the right to murder, so I can't give government the right to murder. Second, pro thinks that we "allow" police to have special rights, which is nonsense. People do not allow themselves to be imprisoned or shot at. From hypothesis, we are fighting the abuse of power. Pro even concedes that people have a right to fight government and police if it will prevent tyranny. That's as clear a concession as you're going to get... 2) Pro thinks private security can't enforce laws for some reason. If that's the case, I'm not sure what they're doing or why anyone would pay for their services. A) He also thinks that only the very rich can afford private security guards. Anyone who's ever gone to a liquor store at night, or lives in an apartment complex will know that security guards are regularly hired in poor areas. Pro doesn't even know the difference between public security (being forced to pay police officers that the state chooses) and private security (choosing among competing firms with your own money). Its not relevant to this debate, but its still disheartening. 3) Actually a minarchist state would have to control police a lot more than the status quo. For one, there is no drug war in minarchy. Police are restricted to defending individual rights. 4) So this is not even relevant to the debate, skip on if you're uninterested. A) Pro's position is that government isn't stealing from you because they provide services with what they take. But the definition of stealing has nothing to do with how the loot is used. If I stole your wallet and bought you a mcdonalds, it would still be theft, even if you liked mcdonalds. 5) Pro thinks I am taking that quote out of context... that's kind of hard to believe because wikipedia had chosen to quote an author, and I took the whole quote. But yes, if this is a voting issue, read or skim the links. Pro is simply getting cognitive dissonance when he reads them. A) Pro never proved the US has done good in the world. Its irrelevant anyway. A mass murderer is still a murderer even if he's kind to kittens and birds. 6) Pro says he knows what a minarchist state is. If that is the case, he shouldn't be questioning whether there will be police around to protect basic rights. D) Police are directed by the same laws as us 1) So he thinks LEOs are allowed to use deadly force if I defend myself with deadly force. He proves this by assuming that LEOs are just kind of shoving the victim. But at SOME POINT, you have to defend yourself with with deadly force to get someone to back off. Defense is always about upping the ante. The long and short is that Pro doesn't have a theory of self defense or justice. Presumably, if someone was being raped and pulled a gun on their assailant, the rapist would be like "whoah whoah, no need to use deadly force. I could die! Pro says that is a misuse of force. I'm going to pull out my knife and kill you now". Obviously what rights people have depend entirely on context and justice. A badge or funny hat does not elevate you above other men. ===Con Case=== A) Police attack innocent people 1) Pro drops this point. So he concedes that police are acting way beyond any theory of justice, that they are capable of gross criminal acts, etc. 2) Pro agrees that the right to self defense transcends government law, which means he agrees that police forfeit their rights when committing crimes against justice. B) Pro's only response to the horrible mass genocide and economic armageddon of the USA is that maybe we do some good too. Fine. Where's the source? Nowhere. Okay. C) Police shouldn't be invincible Pro concedes that rogue officers do need to go to jail, which means that they don't have a right to defend themselves. Again, an awkward concession of the resolution. === ProClusion === (this is a pun) Pro tries to weasel out of government crime by reneging on his previous concession that we have a right to fight back against government when it is tyrannical. He says every state has done horrible things in its existence, but doesn't say what we should do about it. Apparently, police have a right to shoot us no matter how immoral laws are. ===ConClusion=== (also a pun) The three most powerful reasons to vote con: 1) PRO INCOHERENCE – Pro concedes that people have a right to defend themselves against cops. He also holds the contradictory view that cops have a right to attack people who are defending themselves. So he's supporting two contradictory rights. He never provides a resolution to the contradiction. In the pro world, there can be no justice or law because right-violaters get rights if innocent people defend themselves. There are a lot of theories of justice and law, but I've never heard that one before. Probably because it's just pro's ad hoc attempt to synthesize his morally bankrupt case with a couple slivers of common sense. 2) JUSTICE - Police do not have special rights. Justice transcends occupation. Self defense is justified entirely on individual merits, not a badge or funny hat. Police don't have a right to defend themselves if they are attacking innocent people. 3) UTILITY – Police shouldn't be invincible. Citizens should be able to overthrow tyrannical governments. Even the most conservative viewer must admit that bad police need to be reigned in by good police.