The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.

Hello, I am literally placing my entire argument for an old National Speech and Debate Association LD topic here. The high school debate season is over and I'm interested in continuing practice. I look forward to replies. Resolved: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". " Declaration of Independence, 1776 The United States of America was founded on these principles. They are the defining properties of this country. When these rights are violated people stand up and fight back. Chaos ensues when the individual liberties of Americans are under threat. Qualified immunity, referred to as QI for short, for police officers poses a direct threat to American principles. It holds police officers as a special class above the common man, allows for violence to be perpetrated against US citizens, especially of color, and makes individuals fearful of the very organization that is supposedly designed to protect them. My value is justice, or, "to give every man what he is due" according to Aristotle. My criteria for judging this are preservation of individual rights and preservation of American ideals. This is why I must affirm the resolution: The United States ought to limit QI for police officers. "Limit" shall be defined as "to curtail or reduce in quantity or extent" according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "QI" shall be defined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) as "QI is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."" Yet what QI truly does is create the opportunity for law enforcement officers to abuse their power under the guise of not believing they are doing so, which cannot be proven either way. They strip American citizens of their inalienable rights and create a world where our country's founding has become irrelevant to its laws. Contention 1: Under QI, police officers are not held to the same standard as other Americans. This is in direct conflict with American values and poses a threat to equality. Subpoint A. The Declaration of Independence, which is at the very core of American ideals, makes clear that all men are created equal. The exact words, as stated before, are "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." Subpoint B. If police officers are held to a different standard than the common American, they are in a way above the law. They are no longer equal. Equal, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to be "like for each member of a group, class, or society." Logically, if it is possible to sue anyone but those few protected by QI for their actions, there are two separate standards. One for police officers, and one for the common man. This cannot be just, as each man is not receiving what he is due on a basis of equality. Contention 2: American citizens have come to fear police officers as a result of QI. This prevents Americans from having the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Subpoint A. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are intrinsic parts of American society. The very Declaration of Independence, where this country became just that - a country - declares these truths to be self evident. Clearly then, the founding of this country is based upon these principles. The Bill of Rights was, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president of the United States, "what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Thomas Jefferson, being a founding father, is an excellent depiction of what American ideals are. Subpoint B. American citizens often fear police officers. According to Politico, more than half of American mayors are worried about the safety of their black citizens. Certainly, if the top elected officials who have access to copious amounts of information regarding their local populations are worried for their minority citizens" safety, there is a good reason for that. As evidenced by: Polling done by Reuters, an international news agency, found that approximately 47% of Americans either do not trust or are unsure if they can trust police officers to be fair and just. Additionally, an even more shocking 57% of Americans believe that police officers unfairly target minorities. This is clear evidence that a large portion of Americans do not believe that police officers are protectors of society. That incites fear. The Black Lives Matter protests demonstrate that black Americans in particular feel afraid of police. The movement"s backlash is against police being able to get away without prosecution after harming, or more importantly, killing young black men. Although police officers claim that this is part of the job, it is often the case where there is evidence that police officers have in fact done harm and are not punished. Statistics courtesy of the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health and the FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program and US Census Data say that black Americans are arrested at over twice the rate of white Americans for marijuana related charges, despite both races using the drug at about of same rate of 11% and 14% respectively. Such obvious targeting is sure to incite fear in minority communities. Subpoint C. Fear of police officers threatens the rights to Life, Liberty, and Happiness. If American citizens fear for their lives at the hand of police, they are not adequately receiving their right to life. Additionally, unfair imprisonment threatens the right of liberty. Lastly, fear and happiness are in direct contradiction to one another. Therefore, if people are fearful of police they are not able to pursue happiness. Subpoint D. Americans are especially fearful of police because they believe that they are above the law and are not prosecuted fairly, which I shall discuss in Contention III. Contention 3: QI often prevents Americans from having any legal recourse when harm is done to them or a family member unjustifiably. And therefore, police officers are signaled that poor conduct is okay. Subpoint A. The law does not always make the correct decision, and therefore civil litigation is necessary to hold police officers accountable. In the example of the Eric Garner case, where a black man was killed by the NYPD, only one officer of multiple involved was charged. As of today, none of the other officers involved in the death have been charged despite clear evidence that they were involved, according to NBC news. Other cases, like that of Michael Brown, where an unarmed man was shot by police, end with the officer not even being indicted, according to the New York Times. Because of cases like that of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, it is necessary for families to sue in order to receive some form of justice. If there is no criminal prosecution or civil prosecution of a perpetrator, the individual is not held accountable for their actions. Subpoint B. When an individual is not held accountable to their actions there is nothing preventing them from doing them again. Not only on an individual basis, but as a group, when police officers are not held accountable to their actions it allows for a cycle of misconduct that cannot be corrected. A lack of negative feedback to the actions of police officers will implicitly encourage such behavior. These are the reasons why I must affirm the resolution: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. Sources: Declaration of Independence http://www.politico.com... - Politico for statistics http://blogs.reuters.com... - Reuters for statistics Eric garner video http://www.nbcnewyork.com... - Eric Garner http://www.nytimes.com... - Michael Brown https://www.washingtonpost.com... - Marijuana