Police officers must shoot to kill

Pro is playing it fast and loose with the tags. He's dropping a lot of arguments. I'm going to go through and address his Re first using his new tags, then go back to the con case. ===New Pro Arguments=== A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement. 1) Pro presents a straw man here. Private security is a more ETHICAL field of law enforcement IN THE STATUS QUO. My alternative to what we have now is "Just law enforcement". Whether that is achieved by markets or by a minimal state is irrelevant. The only reason I bring up this comparison is to show that police aren't forced to uphold bad laws. They choose to because there's the private security alternative. 2) Pro says that we have to be worried about tax dollars in training police. He's essentially trying to claim that because it costs a lot of money, we should use it. Well, nukes cost a lot of money. Lets bomb Canada! This is completely morally bankrupt. Yes, all other things equal, I'd rather not have police (or anyone) die. But when police are trying to hunt down innocent people, police have no right to defend themselves. The recurring theme here is that police do not have special rights. 3) Pro wants to quibble over semantics now. If you can somehow convince someone to walk into a jail cell without touching them, fine. You're "arresting" them. But you're still threatening them with violence if they don't comply. You can still harm innocent people by arresting them. Whatever. 4) This is not third grade. The policeman is not automatically your BFF. 5) Pro is very confusing here. First he says that drug users have a right to kill police, even though the law says otherwise... But if the drug users have a right to self defense, the policeman does not because he is INITIATING the conflict. It would be like me punching you in the face and then killing you when you defend yourself. B) Police Protect You 1) Pro says my theory of justice is "just my opinion". Well, Pro hasn't attacked libertarian justice at all. Since it's dropped, it becomes the standard for the round. Pro then tries to make the case that police shouldn't die because they don't make the laws. This is a very weak argument... if raping redheads were legal, police enforcing the law should die. Many times throughout history people have been screwed royally by their governments. You have a right to fight back. Again, police and the government don't have special rights. 2) Pro goes on to an apology that public police can't be everywhere at once. My point was that in the status quo, since there are more private security personnel than public police, they probably provide the majority of law enforcement in society. Particularly since police spend so much time hunting down drug users... Pro also attacks private security because he thinks only the very rich can afford it. That may be true of personal security guards, but most apartment complexes can easily afford them. Regardless, I'm not advocating full out anarchy. I'm leaving minarchy on the table. 3) Pro goes on a pseudo philosophical rant about police and drug users. He brings up the "what if people are stupid" argument against personal defense. Well, if they screw up they get punished don't they? If they don't screw up, no worries. 4) Pro says the government provides all these services for us, and robbers do not. Therefore, government is not committing robbery. But if I broke into your house and baked you a cake, it would still be robbery... 5) Pro makes the real weak argument that America has been trying its best to make the world a better place. He completely misunderstands the sources. If this is a voting issue, I suggest you open them yourself and give them a skim. The long and short is that the US has been destabilizing and sabotaging governments and economies around the world. Pro wants you to think this is accidental. That's kind of hard to believe.... Florida State University professor, Frederick H. Gareau, has written that the Contras "attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages and non-combatants." U.S. agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage facilities." In 1984 the U.S. Congress ordered this intervention to be stopped, however it was later shown that the CIA illegally continued (See Iran-Contra affair). Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.[112] 6) Pro then goes on to detail the horrors of minarchy because it won't have public police officers. I don't think he knows what minarchy is. He could have spent 10 seconds looking at the wiki article instead of looking politically illiterate [1]. D) Police are directed by the same laws as us ï¿½) Pro again (confusingly) admits that people have the right to shoot at police officers when they're doing something wrong. He then says that the LEO also has a right to shoot you. That can't be true, because from hypothesis, the LEO is in the wrong. His conculsion) 1) This debate is not about anarchy vs the SQ. I'll admit to minarchy to keep everyone happy. 2) The moral shortcomings of the US are highly topical because police protect this terrorist organization. 3) Pro says we have the right to defend ourselves against the police. He has just conceded the debate. ===Con Case=== A) Police attack innocent people 1) People who smoke pot are arrested, subdued, kidnapped, and even murdered by police officers. They are non-violent drug offenders. 2) People have a right to self defense no matter what government law says. The drug war is one example. My other (ignored) example is the right to defend against rape even if it was legal. B) Police Protect Real Criminals 3) Taxes are theft. STRIKE 1. Killed 500,000 children after first Iraq War. STRIKE 2. Propped up countless totalitarian regimes while destroying democracy in Africa and Latin America. STRIKE 10,000. C) Police shouldn't be invincible 4) Even if you don't buy anything in this rebuttal so far, you HAVE TO ADMIT that police should be able to go to jail. A rogue police officer does not have the right to shoot at warranted individuals trying to bring him to jail. In conclusion, police officers don't have special rights. Whether deadly force is justified depends solely on context and justice, not on a badge or funny hat. When police are doing something wrong, they forfeit their right to self defense, and the resolution is negated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...