• 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!

U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months

Unless you attack police officers with weapons, resist arrest, or the like stop being scared, your fear is irrational paranoia

All police killings are avoidable, by the suspect.

That doesn't mean that all police killings are justified.
 
“We have to get beyond what is legal and start focusing on what is preventable. Most are preventable,” said Ronald L. Davis, a former police chief who heads the Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Police “need to stop chasing down suspects, hopping fences and landing on top of someone with a gun,” Davis said. “When they do that, they have no choice but to shoot.”


Gotta love it. Cops...just stop doing your job. If they try to escape, let them.
 
No, I'm not saying that because, unlike you, I'm not foolish enough to make a definitive statement about cases I haven't read through.
But what you DID say is "I suppose we shouldn't even mention how a proven corrupt police department could be indirectly involved in civilian-on-civilian shootings." I believe that is the statement he was seeking clarification on.
 
So is this some new debate strategy to missuses words and defend it with non sequitur?

... Is this a new debate strategy? Trolling a strawman? You have no substantial point you've literally said nothing of substance.

In fact, you are responding to my insight by using non sequiturs by saying "you don't know what's the detention means" why don't you explain where my evaluation of statements lack, at least in your bubble of misconception, and reply with something of substance.
 
Did I make a claim?

When you jump into the middle of a conversation between two people you assume the responsibility to know the claims of both sides. Do you believe as Reinoe claimed that the 105 homicides in Baltimore include shootings committed by "government agents working in departments with long history of abuse and harrassment"?
 
... Is this a new debate strategy? Trolling a strawman? You have no substantial point you've literally said nothing of substance.

So add "straw man" and possibly "tolling" to the list of words you aren't using properly.

I am simply challenging your piss poor vocabulary and how it undermines the points you appear to be trying to make. "Neoconservative" has nothing to do with support of domestic policing. "Authoritarian" has nothing to do with establishing a state currency. A "straw man" has nothing to do with challenging that someone's argument is a non sequitur. I mean seriously, man, do you think a jump from "Neocon" to "Authoritarian" to National currency without even a hint of even trying to connect your disparate dots is something other than bizarre?

In fact, you are responding to my insight by using non sequiturs by saying "you don't know what's the detention means"

Can I assume you meant "definition" and that you weren't actually directly quoting me?

why don't you explain where my evaluation of statements lack, at least in your bubble of misconception, and reply with something of substance.

You haven't made an argument that needs addressing yet, just a series of bizarre claims with no rational argument attached to them.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider substantive in your argument?
 
Do the police ever evaluate whether any of those killings are avoidable? or preventable? And what can we do to change the situation? Because the situation is really horrible!

It depends on who you ask. Many people believe police are justified in all or at least most shootings. They believe lethal force is the only force police should use. I personally think that most police shooting deaths are avoidable as either force isn't needed, or at the very least, lethal force is not needed.
 
Resisting arrest is immediate grounds for execution? Interesting concept.
Fight me to the point my life or my ability to go home at the end of the shift is in jeopardy. I will end you DRT.
Its not a cops job to tote an asswhipping just because you feel the need to resist.
 
Compare that number with the number of blacks killing blacks this year, last year, next year and every year forward.
 
So add "straw man" and possibly "tolling" to the list of words you aren't using properly.

I am simply challenging your piss poor vocabulary and how it undermines the points you appear to be trying to make. "Neoconservative" has nothing to do with support of domestic policing. "Authoritarian" has nothing to do with establishing a state currency. A "straw man" has nothing to do with challenging that someone's argument is a non sequitur. I mean seriously, man, do you think a jump from "Neocon" to "Authoritarian" to National currency without even a hint of even trying to connect your disparate dots is something other than bizarre?



Can I assume you meant "definition" and that you weren't actually directly quoting me?



You haven't made an argument that needs addressing yet, just a series of bizarre claims with no rational argument attached to them.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider substantive in your argument?

Well first off I use an iPad for this forum so sometimes the autocorrect on my typing switches the vocabulary, so yes detention meant definition.

Second of all, when I say believing in a national currency, I am suggesting that the entire purpose of a national currency was the creation of the state to dictate the value of the currency as opposed to the consumers, in a sense, with the ability to devalue to national currency, the republicans, were successfully able to switch the entire philosophy of the Democratic Party, why? By inflating the currency the republicans were able to prop up the export sector of business, doing so led to the progressive movement of the Democratic Party. Historically speaking, however, the democrats were infiltrated shortly after by authoritarians as well. This does not negate the fact that the Republican Party was created by authoritarians who wanted to inflate the currency and the only way they could do so is with a national currency.

The very definition of an elastic currency is authoritarian, because it calls for monetary policy to allocate power to certain industries. I could get into the dynamics of how it does his, but I would suggest reading up on supporters of the national bank in order to really understand this concept

Second, the substance of my argument stems from the inherent fact that having a police force that kills innocent lives, regardless of your own morals on the subject, leads us to believe we have room to revise the actual system itself to give any attempt to remedy the situation. In short, the police force need a complete redesign because they are becoming more and more militarized, and my argument is that it's the ultimate outcome of any state controlled institution is to eventually evolve to a huge totalitarian system on the premises of complete control

Thirdly, in the equating it to the neocon is the fact that
A. Neocons support torture
B. Neocons support the federalization of police force by voting unanimously for additional power of the national spy grid
C. Neocons historically support the military industrial complex by spending more and more on proxy wars that have no end in sight

In short, neocons, support an authoritarian state, historically republicans support an authoritarian state; research why the Republican Party started public schools. As well as in a political sense, when the left; who I do not agree with at all as well, suggest the police need to be reformed the neocons attack them in a partisan battle which really holds no bearing or water.

So by challenging my vocabulary what you're actually doing is what Ludwig v. Mises said about socialists, the only time people can actually respond in a factual matter is when they will, when they can't create a substantial argument they will attack what is perceived as character flaws. This holds truth to your particular style of debate.
 
Last edited:
When you jump into the middle of a conversation between two people you assume the responsibility to know the claims of both sides.
No, that's not how it works, at least for me. If someone makes a definitive claim without proof, I'm going to question them and my decision to question them comes with zero responsibility to do anything. Go try that **** with someone else. Bye.
 
Yes, comparing soldier deaths in a combat zone to citizens deaths due to police action to enemy deaths has no real meaning. Its a appeal to moral relativity.

Do you have any actual way to prove that the majority of the people killed in their communities, I.e. Our combat zone, was actually an enemy combatant?

I think it means a whole lot when a criminalized government steals money illegally from my paycheck to kill innocent people halfway across the world just to stimulate a government propped up military defense sector, but then again I am a libertarian...
 
Fight me to the point my life or my ability to go home at the end of the shift is in jeopardy. I will end you DRT.
Its not a cops job to tote an asswhipping just because you feel the need to resist.

I didn't say it was. And I'm not saying that you, or any cop for that matter, shouldn't kill someone who really threatens your life. Problem is it seems lots of cops are stretching the idea of "threatens their life" means. And you and I both know that lots of cops also stretch the meaning of "resisting arrest"
 
Care to provide any evidence of all that crap you just said?

SPECIFICALLY, something to the effect that police departments are making law...

Google DOJ and investigatons
As to do not make Law, that was referring to street justice.
 
I didn't say it was. And I'm not saying that you, or any cop for that matter, shouldn't kill someone who really threatens your life. Problem is it seems lots of cops are stretching the idea of "threatens their life" means. And you and I both know that lots of cops also stretch the meaning of "resisting arrest"
I would call that human nature if that's the case.
 
Why have so many Police Depts been investigated by DOJ and found to be severely lacking with following the laws on the books? Officers flagrantly ignoring the law, until it instills a culture within the Dept itself.

How many investigations by DOJ does it take before Police Depts and their leadership to get the message, you follow the law, you enforce the law, you do not make Law.

The majority of the DOJ investigations are the result of political pressure in order to attempt to calm down the citizenry enough to stop them from rioting. If there were really serious issues found then those officers would be fired. What you hear about in the news is simply a measure to make people calm down. The DOJ would shut down a station if such rampant abuses were actually true.
 
The majority of the DOJ investigations are the result of political pressure in order to attempt to calm down the citizenry enough to stop them from rioting. If there were really serious issues found then those officers would be fired. What you hear about in the news is simply a measure to make people calm down. The DOJ would shut down a station if such rampant abuses were actually true.


The DOJ has found a number of Depts with massive violations.
It is not all politics.
You cannot shut down a Police Dept. unless it is a 2 officer town.
 
The DOJ has found a number of Depts with massive violations.
It is not all politics.
You cannot shut down a Police Dept. unless it is a 2 officer town.

You can shut down a Police Department, or at least the DOJ has that authority. Its probably never a good idea to do so though because the public outrage is the problem facing the DOJ not the actions of the police force. The majority of the recent riots over police "brutality" have turned out to be perfectly legal and appropriate reactions to the situation. The DOJ "investigates" the police force in question to restore civil order and placate those who are rioting.
 
If there were really serious issues found then those officers would be fired.
Oh you mean like that one officer in S.C. who shot at a man 8 times in the back and got cleared by their internal review. Then that unfortunate youtube video popped up...

It's one of a multitude of "internal investigations" that clear cops and then when some video gets shown in public, often the same videos that the internal affairs had access to, charges to the citizens get dropped and charges to the cops are made.?
 
Oh you mean like that one officer in S.C. who shot at a man 8 times in the back and got cleared by their internal review. Then that unfortunate youtube video popped up...

It's one of a multitude of "internal investigations" that clear cops and then when some video gets shown in public, often the same videos that the internal affairs had access to, charges to the citizens get dropped and charges to the cops are made.?

That's how "serious issues" tend to be found: Someone makes a video and shares it.

It seems to me that there is likely fewer unnecessary officer shootings now than there were before the invention of the digital video camera.
 
I'm sorry, where is the statistic that police have killed 60 million people?

Yeah, see I've already admitted that error on my part. However, one unnecessary death at the hands of the government is one too many.
 
Back
Top Bottom