• 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!

Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

  • Yes for violent and or lethal force if the non-violent suspect is not cooperating.

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • Yes for violent force if the non-violent suspect is not cooperating.

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • No regardless if the non-violent suspect is or isn't cooperating.

    Votes: 27 69.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • Maybe/I do not know.

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Total voters
    39
WCH said:
I've practiced the fine art of not pissing off cops or game wardens for much of my life. It keeps one out of lots of unnecessary trouble.
Click to expand...

I am going to have to ask..(I'm a woman!)..

Why game wardens..do you hunt?
 
What if...? said:
A LOT of this starts when the cop first opens his mouth nowadays. The bullyboy demeanor. Especially if the "suspect" in question didn't do anything or anything serious. Because that demeanor is taught is some forces. They are trained to dominate at all times. And most people don't like to be treated that way.

It you atent allowed to not like the way cops treat you. Its "yes sir" or you're in trouble. Even if the cop is treating you like a child molester for some minor offense. Talking to you in a way THEY wouldn't tolerate.

And its natural to "resist" when some cop starts grabbing you to handcuff you for a traffic stop or some other infraction. Pulling away. Jail is serious. Frightening. Overwhelming. They know this, or should. Bit they don't or don't care.

I blame all this on the drug war. It caused this escalation. Made cops jobs more dangerous and the current cop culture was born out of this.

It needs to be addressed. It sucks to have to teach male kids I know that cops are a threat to their lives. That normal adolescent defiance can lead to getting shot. But that's how it is now.
Click to expand...

This is not how most cops are though. You have no evidence that "they are trained to dominate at all times" in the manor you are describing. That simply isn't true. It is what you believe.

Cops are only a major threat realistically speaking if the person is doing something wrong. Statistically, there are many more people, including your doctor, who are a bigger threat to you than police officers. Reckless driving, speeding, those such things are a much bigger threat to those young men than being shot by a cop, especially shot by a cop for doing absolutely nothing wrong or even just a minor incident.

How many people do you think have been killed by police when the "kid", guy, person was doing absolutely nothing wrong? I guarantee that number is very low, even if you look at those killed that didn't do something involving a major crime perpetrated by the person.

Random gun violence is far more likely to get a man killed than interactions with the police. Road rage is more likely to get a person killed than being killed due to a police officer simply not liking something you do.
 
WCH said:
And fish....GW are one of the most powerful law enforcement. I play by the rules.
Click to expand...

We have to buy a license if we are fishing for Salmon or trout..the rest is called ''coarse fishing''..pike..perch..dace..

It's a sport..I wouldn't want to eat them..
 
F
twixie1 said:
We have to buy a license if we are fishing for Salmon or trout..the rest is called ''coarse fishing''..pike..perch..dace..

It's a sport..I wouldn't want to eat them..
Click to expand...

We eat some but, only occasionally. I do eat every animal I hunt.
 
roguenuke said:
Overwhelming evidence against which cop? The one in the Garner case? There was easily both questionable actions from the cop but also some resistance by Garner, which was what led to the confrontation. Had Garner been cooperating fully with the police, and still been taken down that way, there would have been no question about the cops being wrong. However, Garner wasn't cooperating and even said he wasn't going to in the video. That is resistance. It is exactly what I am talking about. You fight back in court, not with the cops, even if it is just passive resistance or attempts at it.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that except for one thing... choke holds. They should be illegal in every case except if a police officer is fighting for their life.
 
Goshin said:
Now, as to an overenthusiastic cop just up and beating the crap out of you "for no reason".... well that would be rare but I'm not going to say Never.
Click to expand...

It should be so rare it comes to us as a shock. but alas it's not, and while anecdotal, there shouldn't be new videos almost every day showing an officer crossing the line, but there is.


Like I tell my son.... if the cops are in the wrong, don't fight it on the side of the road, fight it in COURT. Be smart. Don't give them an excuse to beat your ass or kill you.
Click to expand...


100% right,
 
Well, nobody is violent... until they are. You can't punish someone for something they might do. But by then, it might be too late. :shrug:

Tough call.
 
Cop shows are hardly the best evidence, but American cops seem to be very keen to throw someone to the floor, handcuff and kneel on them before starting a conversation! That's an exaggeration, but in comparison, British cops will take all sorts of BS, evasions and insults before they (I almost said "are provoked") are forced into physical restraint. Don't get me wrong, when tye do, they go in hard and effectively, but everyone knows the line. Come at them swinging, and you're decked forthwith. They will also handcuff to the front, and might even allow a prisoner a smoke before the van arrives to take them to the cop shop. There just seems to be more latitude for angry, upset, whatever people to vent their spleen before or during their arrest. Maybe it's down to the "Policing by Consent" concept.

Peelian Principles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
On can always postulate a circumstance where the choice of an absolute answer is wrong. On a case by case basis has meaning here.
 
joko104 said:
Rare? YouTube is packed with such videos - and for ever video there are at least 100 times no video was running.

And what are you talking about curling you and covering your head? The police are shouting - if they know a video is running - "give me your arm! give me your arm! Stop resisting! Stop resisting! Stop trying to take my gun! You're resisting!!" while having you pinned to the ground slugging, clubbing and tasering you in the face and genitals as fast as they can.

Curling up and covering your face would be considered "resisting" by at least nearly half the members of the forum, for which the police then have no choice but to put at least 500 pounds on your chest, taser you at least 50 times - mostly in the face - and hit you with fists or a club at least 50 times in the face too. Trying to prevent being beaten to death is "resisting" - and resisting is illegal. Usually, this is fat, shaved head police doing this.

Don't you read the messages people are posting? Never look at the videos?
Click to expand...



Surfing YouTube for police brutality vids is not one of my hobbies, no. I'd point out you don't know how those vids may have been edited, either.

In a nation of 300 million people and a couple million cops, **** is going to happen sometimes... and it should be dealt with when it does.


But fighting the po-po with you fists just isn't going to turn out well, pretty much ever.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Cop shows are hardly the best evidence, but American cops seem to be very keen to throw someone to the floor, handcuff and kneel on them before starting a conversation! That's an exaggeration, but in comparison, British cops will take all sorts of BS, evasions and insults before they (I almost said "are provoked") are forced into physical restraint. Don't get me wrong, when tye do, they go in hard and effectively, but everyone knows the line. Come at them swinging, and you're decked forthwith. They will also handcuff to the front, and might even allow a prisoner a smoke before the van arrives to take them to the cop shop. There just seems to be more latitude for angry, upset, whatever people to vent their spleen before or during their arrest. Maybe it's down to the "Policing by Consent" concept.

Peelian Principles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



For the most part, I like Peel's list.

1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Click to expand...



Go ahead and mark this down on your calendar, because it is a rare event.... I'm thinking we could use a bit of Peel's principles here in the New World.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom