• 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!

Man tries to run over Pa. police, shot dead

I'm beginning to think you're not yet a Junior in high school.

Someone in THE COMMISSION of a MURDER is not "accused". They are subject to ZERO constitutional rights when IN THE COMMISSION of a murder. I've cited the section code of federal law for you like 3 times. Either you start reading THE LAW, or learn it when you get to college.

There's a reason people can defend themselves with lethal force. There's a REASON Wilson is not EVEN indicted. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Constitutional rights are the foundation of legal rights. I don't find any support for how the two conflicting rights can exist based on the Constitution.
The criminal doesn't care if he kills you, shouldn't you care about protecting yoir life?
Yes. I encourage everyone to try and protect their lives. Killing other people is not the best means for protecting your own life. It's the best means for killing other people.
Actually, he is saying both should live, only he doesn't understand that when faced with the attack police can't run like he would. Is that the world he wants to live in? One where police run from criminals rather than one where police stop criminals?
Police have technology, numbers, strength, and experience on their side. I expect the police to be able to use these to supplement them when engaging potential criminals in place of simply shooting them.
 
I agree with much of the second half of your post, but I believe that we're currently far too biased towards property rights and law enforcement at the detriment to general protections of citizens. The castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are basically a permission slip for giving capital sentences to mid level criminals.

We need to dissuade lethal answers and increase prevention.

And, what is your detailed prevention plan...............
 
Constitutional rights are the foundation of legal rights. I don't find any support for how the two conflicting rights can exist based on the Constitution.

Yes. I encourage everyone to try and protect their lives. Killing other people is not the best means for protecting your own life. It's the best means for killing other people.

Police have technology, numbers, strength, and experience on their side. I expect the police to be able to use these to supplement them when engaging potential criminals in place of simply shooting them.

I cited law, you are just babbling and making up lies.

Thanks for showing your ignorance on the subject and I really do hope you get educated on it. Law is a very interesting topic especially when you know it. :)
 
Death should be avoided. Extreme threats should be prevented.

As an individual.... I cannot change the desire of another to murder me.

I CAN change my response to that.... and despite your ideals that Murderers deserve more rights than victims.... my response is still to defend myself with the use of lethal force (if necessary).
 
Constitutional rights are the foundation of legal rights. I don't find any support for how the two conflicting rights can exist based on the Constitution.

Yes. I encourage everyone to try and protect their lives. Killing other people is not the best means for protecting your own life. It's the best means for killing other people.

Police have technology, numbers, strength, and experience on their side. I expect the police to be able to use these to supplement them when engaging potential criminals in place of simply shooting them.

LOL! I just noticed this. You just said police have the "numbers"??? LOL! 12 MILLION offenders in 2013- that's not including multiple offenses! Only 780,000 total law enforcement (including park rangers and CT security). The FBI estimates 24 offenders to ONE police officer.

What a hilariously incorrect statement you made. You are just an anti-cop propaganda machine.
 
And, what is your detailed prevention plan...............
Increased social services, increased education, increased legal barriers to killing, more community outreach, greater staffing, greater training, etc.
 
I cited law, you are just babbling and making up lies.

Thanks for showing your ignorance on the subject and I really do hope you get educated on it. Law is a very interesting topic especially when you know it. :)
You're citing case law. I'm citing Constitutional rights. The two are in conflict. I'm siding with the document that's the foundation of the republic.
As an individual.... I cannot change the desire of another to murder me.

I CAN change my response to that.... and despite your ideals that Murderers deserve more rights than victims.... my response is still to defend myself with the use of lethal force (if necessary).
You're arguing a false dichotomy. Killing others is not the only method of preventing your own death.
 
LOL! I just noticed this. You just said police have the "numbers"??? LOL! 12 MILLION offenders in 2013- that's not including multiple offenses! Only 780,000 total law enforcement (including park rangers and CT security). The FBI estimates 24 offenders to ONE police officer.

What a hilariously incorrect statement you made. You are just an anti-cop propaganda machine.
The difference is that law enforcement is organized, the overwhelming majority of those offenders are not, and in addition those 12 million offenders are rarely attempting to murder people.
 
The difference is that law enforcement is organized, the overwhelming majority of those offenders are not, and in addition those 12 million offenders are rarely attempting to murder people.

They should be organized. With millions of people attacking them they should be prepared to shoot their way out if they need to, such as the savage Brown case.

People shoot at police all the time. Luckily, they are trained well enough (and getting better) at eliminating the threat so the general public is safe. People like Brown...who knows how many innocents he would have slaughtered in cold blood, just as he tried to against Wilson. 5? 10? 50?
 
The difference is that law enforcement is organized, the overwhelming majority of those offenders are not, and in addition those 12 million offenders are rarely attempting to murder people.

In the case we're discussing, they were attempting to murder people. They were attempting to murder the cops with a deadly weapon, their vehicle.
 
Increased social services,
What kind of social services..... Its a broad term

increased education
How would this prevent human emotion from creating the desire to kill? It won't. Even educated people kill.
increased legal barriers to killing
We already have the death penalty... and yet people kill in those states. Not all murders are committed with a gun. So there goes your Gun Control idea (because that is where you were going with this I know)
more community outreach,
And how would this prevent human emotion from creating the desire to kill another person?
greater staffing, greater training, etc.
WTF does that have to do with preventing people from wanting to murder others?

Or was I wrong this whole time...

Was it your desire to prevent people from stoping murderers by using lethal force, rather than from preventing murderers from having the desire to murder......
 
You're arguing a false dichotomy. Killing others is not the only method of preventing your own death.

While you are correct....

You are not correct 100% of the time.

My life is worth a higher percentage of success.
 
They should be organized. With millions of people attacking them they should be prepared to shoot their way out if they need to, such as the savage Brown case.

People shoot at police all the time. Luckily, they are trained well enough (and getting better) at eliminating the threat so the general public is safe. People like Brown...who knows how many innocents he would have slaughtered in cold blood, just as he tried to against Wilson. 5? 10? 50?
I'm concerned you may kill give, ten, maybe fifty people. Should we be proactively killing you to prevent that?
In the case we're discussing, they were attempting to murder people. They were attempting to murder the cops with a deadly weapon, their vehicle.
This is not indicative of the 12 million number provided. It's an outlier in terms of the daily encounters officers face.
While you are correct....

You are not correct 100% of the time.

My life is worth a higher percentage of success.
And what makes your subjective view on the value of life more significant than the subjective views of everyone else, including potential offenders?
 
I'm concerned you may kill give, ten, maybe fifty people. Should we be proactively killing you to prevent that?

This is not indicative of the 12 million number provided. It's an outlier in terms of the daily encounters officers face.

And what makes your subjective view on the value of life more significant than the subjective views of everyone else, including potential offenders?
True. Of the millions of encounters police have with civilians, ones in which lives are threatened make up only a small percentage. Good thing, huh?
 
True. Of the millions of encounters police have with civilians, ones in which lives are threatened make up only a small percentage. Good thing, huh?
Indeed. I'd still like to improve that, however.
 
I'm concerned you may kill give, ten, maybe fifty people. Should we be proactively killing you to prevent that?

This is not indicative of the 12 million number provided. It's an outlier in terms of the daily encounters officers face.

And what makes your subjective view on the value of life more significant than the subjective views of everyone else, including potential offenders?

Your concerns are not relevant until (hypothetically) I did act on them. The moment I act on them, as Brown did, I am subject to be killed. Very easy concept. I cited laws and regs, you have your crazy and hilarious theories. Best of luck in the future. Don't attack any cops. You know what will happen.
 
Indeed. I'd still like to improve that, however.

Wouldn't that be great? We would truly have a great society if no one ever threatened the lives of cops or anyone else.

Here in the real world, however, things aren't so peaceful.
 
Your concerns are not relevant until (hypothetically) I did act on them. The moment I act on them, as Brown did, I am subject to be killed. Very easy concept. I cited laws and regs, you have your crazy and hilarious theories. Best of luck in the future. Don't attack any cops. You know what will happen.
Just as your concerns about who Brown might've killed are rampant speculation and of no real value to the conversation.
Wouldn't that be great? We would truly have a great society if no one ever threatened the lives of cops or anyone else.

Here in the real world, however, things aren't so peaceful.
Status quo may be acceptable for some, but I expect more from my citizens and my government.
 
Just as your concerns about who Brown might've killed are rampant speculation and of no real value to the conversation.

Status quo may be acceptable for some, but I expect more from my citizens and my government.

My speculations about brown were irrelevant. His actions were not. He attempted to murder a cop, and died in the process. All of the right things happened in that scenario. Too bad we have people so stupid on this planet that they would try and murder a cop in cold blood, or anyone for that matter.

Crazy right?
 
What kind of social services..... Its a broad term

How would this prevent human emotion from creating the desire to kill? It won't. Even educated people kill.
We've failed our citizens by not giving them affordable, easily accessible, low stigma mental health.

You're right, intelligent people do murder, but increasing the education of society in terms of what to look for and how to prevent it gives them more ability to avoid escalation before it happens.
We already have the death penalty... and yet people kill in those states. Not all murders are committed with a gun. So there goes your Gun Control idea (because that is where you were going with this I know)
The death penalty isn't a solution, and yes, decreasing access to lethal weapons would contribute to decreased lethal acts.
And how would this prevent human emotion from creating the desire to kill another person?
Obviously you can't control every human emotion, but you can decrease imbalances that contribute to at least one motive for killing.
WTF does that have to do with preventing people from wanting to murder others?

Or was I wrong this whole time...

Was it your desire to prevent people from stoping murderers by using lethal force, rather than from preventing murderers from having the desire to murder......
I'm advocating what I perceive as a Constitutional right to fair trial, due process, ability to face an accuser, right to council, etc. This would be achieved by not permitting lethal force, even with the justification of stopping a crime in progress. Ideally, this would promote the secondary goal of decreased violence in general.
 
My speculations about brown were irrelevant. His actions were not. He attempted to murder a cop, and died in the process. All of the right things happened in that scenario. Too bad we have people so stupid on this planet that they would try and murder a cop in cold blood, or anyone for that matter.

Crazy right?
I don't advocate attempted murder. I also don't advocate killing. They've both bad for society.
 
At least we agree on something
We likely agree on a good many things. I'm a fan of order and justice. I see that as being a product of an organized, consistent, and objective system. Individual judgments and actions are frequently going to be disorganized, inconsistent, and subjective. I'm advocating removing those factors from the way we treat citizens.
 
We likely agree on a good many things. I'm a fan of order and justice. I see that as being a product of an organized, consistent, and objective system. Individual judgments and actions are frequently going to be disorganized, inconsistent, and subjective. I'm advocating removing those factors from the way we treat citizens.

Where we disagree is in the commission of the crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom