• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903,2680]

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Well that's just great ain't it...keep on going after cops, and before long there won't be anyone stupid enough to be one.

Nice. In order to have cops, we have to allow them to take down and kill people guilty of misdemeanors.

I disagree. I think we can have police protection from violent felons without living in a police state.


Hardly a strawman when we were talking about a case of five cops taking down someone who may have been guilty of a non violent misdemeanor at most and killing him in the process.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hardly a strawman when we were talking about a case of five cops taking down someone who may have been guilty of a non violent misdemeanor at most and killing him in the process.

It was the definition of a strawman argument...

The set up:

"...In order to have cops,..."

No one was saying that.

The take down...

"...I disagree. I think we can have police protection from violent felons without living in a police state."

Again, no one is disagreeing with that, and you effectively set up what you want to think I said, in order for you to set up the strawman, and then knock it down with your ending...Classic fail.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It was the definition of a strawman argument...

The set up:

"...In order to have cops,..."

No one was saying that.

The take down...

"...I disagree. I think we can have police protection from violent felons without living in a police state."

Again, no one is disagreeing with that, and you effectively set up what you want to think I said, in order for you to set up the strawman, and then knock it down with your ending...Classic fail.
Then what, exactly, does
keep on going after cops, and before long there won't be anyone stupid enough to be one.

mean, anyway?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Then what, exactly, does


mean, anyway?

It means exactly what it says...While I think that looking at things like this are best looked at on a case by case basis, and I do actually agree that excessive force in this case was used, although probably for different reasons, I did not say what you created out of thin air, then tried to say that you didn't.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It means exactly what it says...While I think that looking at things like this are best looked at on a case by case basis, and I do actually agree that excessive force in this case was used, although probably for different reasons, I did not say what you created out of thin air, then tried to say that you didn't.

I didn't actually create anything. You were the one who suggested that no one would be stupid enough to be a cop.

But anyway, I have more confidence in the police than that. I think they are able to take care of a non violent misdemeanor with jeopardizing anyone's life. Moreover, I think we should expect them to do so.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I didn't actually create anything. You were the one who suggested that no one would be stupid enough to be a cop.

But anyway, I have more confidence in the police than that. I think they are able to take care of a non violent misdemeanor with jeopardizing anyone's life. Moreover, I think we should expect them to do so.

Absolutely, but if a detainee resists arrest, then they are going to get taken down, and should be.
 
Back
Top Bottom