• 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

You mean 20% of those who happened to be killed (Not of the total population...*doh*) who were not armed. As far as I know, the OP doesn't state what those 20% were doing at the time of their deaths, and what was or was not considered a "lethal object". For example.... If I am bat**** crazy and trying to drive you down in my pickup... one would say that the vehicle is not a lethal object.... but did the OP's article consider that?

I, for one, am willing to believe that there is a portion of that 20% who were otherwise a lethal threat to Officers. I am also willing to concede that there may be a portion of that 20% whose death at the hands of Officers is questionable.

And who the **** said anything about Democratic voters? Quit being a partisan tool.

I am okay with law enforcement killing hundreds of people who were armed with lethal weapons intent on doing law enforcement harm... yes.. I am completely okay with it.

I would rather 200 violent offenders be killed than 1 officer's life risked.

So don't people have Second Amendment rights? Nobody on your side wants to answer that.

As far as the "Democratic voters" if these were white bread Republicans, you'd be upset. I think that's why the right isn't bothered by this.
 
So don't people have Second Amendment rights? Nobody on your side wants to answer that.

As far as the "Democratic voters" if these were white bread Republicans, you'd be upset. I think that's why the right isn't bothered by this.

People most assuredly have second amendment rights but if you aim your legal firearm at the police officer he will legally shoot you. As for why the right isnt bothered by this it is because of the same division in thinking that always separates the right from the left. The right accepts that there are tradeoffs for any action. If you want law and order you have to accept that there will be occasional mistakes and abuses. The left does not believe in tradeoffs and instead thinks that you can have law and order and it can be perfect everywhere every time, and if its not then it needs to be fixed because someone is deliberately making it that way.

The right makes laws and decisions based on how the world works, the left makes laws and decisions based on how they wished the world worked.
 
So don't people have Second Amendment rights? Nobody on your side wants to answer that.

As far as the "Democratic voters" if these were white bread Republicans, you'd be upset. I think that's why the right isn't bothered by this.

Who said people don't have 2nd amendment rights?

Your 2nd amendment does not give you the right to commit to armed resistance against law enforcement.

And just what are you saying about all this "white bread republicans" bull****? Are you playing the race card? ****ing pathetic. GTFO with that childish bull**** and come back when you can debate without accusing someone of something just so you can make up a false position to attack.

Please, since I didn't read it anywhere in the OP. What race AND political affiliation were the entire 380+ people who were killed by law enforcement this year? Go ahead... provide these facts.... but only if you are done making up false positions and attributing them to others on the forum.

Until then, nobody wants to read you post in this thread again.
 
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...

As am I, and Im not defending wars in foreign countries. Im simply pointing out that the two stats are not comparable.
 
Who said people don't have 2nd amendment rights?

Your 2nd amendment does not give you the right to commit to armed resistance against law enforcement.

And just what are you saying about all this "white bread republicans" bull****? Are you playing the race card? ****ing pathetic. GTFO with that childish bull**** and come back when you can debate without accusing someone of something just so you can make up a false position to attack.

Please, since I didn't read it anywhere in the OP. What race AND political affiliation were the entire 380+ people who were killed by law enforcement this year? Go ahead... provide these facts.... but only if you are done making up false positions and attributing them to others on the forum.

Until then, nobody wants to read you post in this thread again.

So someone says the word white and you go right to race?

Tell you what. The context is that apparently 80% of those killed by police are armed. Maybe you can explain how that automatically makes them a threat.

Until then, nobody wants to hear from you either.
 
Who said people don't have 2nd amendment rights?

Your 2nd amendment does not give you the right to commit to armed resistance against law enforcement.

And just what are you saying about all this "white bread republicans" bull****? Are you playing the race card? ****ing pathetic. GTFO with that childish bull**** and come back when you can debate without accusing someone of something just so you can make up a false position to attack.

Please, since I didn't read it anywhere in the OP. What race AND political affiliation were the entire 380+ people who were killed by law enforcement this year? Go ahead... provide these facts.... but only if you are done making up false positions and attributing them to others on the forum.

Until then, nobody wants to read you post in this thread again.

He wont like the fact that over half of the 385 (170) were white.
 
So someone says the word white and you go right to race?

Tell you what. The context is that apparently 80% of those killed by police are armed. Maybe you can explain how that automatically makes them a threat.

Until then, nobody wants to hear from you either.
Did you read the Washington Post article (BTW...it wasnt 80%, it was a number listed as "greater than 80%")which cited the number of people in each category and the ways/means which they presented as a threat to arresting law enforcement officers?
 
In other words be a compliant little robot and we'll let you live. Is this the United States? Land of the free and home of the brave?

 
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.

Happens to the best of us.

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.

Wow, good luck with all of that. You seem to have a view of politics derived from Bond movies, comic books and the movie OFFICE SPACE.

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

No, it's not. You need to actually read up on what authoritarian actually means, for starters, and then maybe take an econ class or two.

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

No, you have a mix up of a bunch of disparate occurrences that you have forced into a twisted world view that doesn't actually exist in the real world. Accidents happen, and the police have about the same mix of bad apples as the population in general, you just choose not to see that. You will never make a perfect police force because we are human and incapable of perfection.

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

Nope, none of that has anything to do with neo-Conservatism. And as far as proxy wars go, the last two were minuscule compared to Vietnam and Korea, both wars that were started by liberals and Vietnam was ended by a neo-Conservatives.

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.

In short, you are full of crap. For you "NeoCon" is a catchall for your personal boogiemen. You have no clue what NeoConservatism actually is. YOu could as easily replace "NeoCon" in your screeds with "DogOwners" and be about as on the mark. :roll:

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.

Not at all, Ludwig von Mises would say you are full of **** too.
 
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.

Bye. I hardly knew ye. For that I am grateful.
 
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.

If one person dies at the hands of a gangster is that one too many too? Because the bull crap in Baltimore has paralyzed that police force and a small war has broken out in gang territory.
 
Happens to the best of us.



Wow, good luck with all of that. You seem to have a view of politics derived from Bond movies, comic books and the movie OFFICE SPACE.



No, it's not. You need to actually read up on what authoritarian actually means, for starters, and then maybe take an econ class or two.



No, you have a mix up of a bunch of disparate occurrences that you have forced into a twisted world view that doesn't actually exist in the real world. Accidents happen, and the police have about the same mix of bad apples as the population in general, you just choose not to see that. You will never make a perfect police force because we are human and incapable of perfection.



Nope, none of that has anything to do with neo-Conservatism. And as far as proxy wars go, the last two were minuscule compared to Vietnam and Korea, both wars that were started by liberals and Vietnam was ended by a neo-Conservatives.



In short, you are full of crap. For you "NeoCon" is a catchall for your personal boogiemen. You have no clue what NeoConservatism actually is. YOu could as easily replace "NeoCon" in your screeds with "DogOwners" and be about as on the mark. :roll:



Not at all, Ludwig von Mises would say you are full of **** too.

1. Or maybe actually reading the history of the industrial revolution and the creation of the Republican Party in short the entire creation was to compete with the catholic immigrant way of life... Please explain to me how I am wrong

2. authoritarian
ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective
1.
favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

If I expand the money supply to create an export subsidy and a roundabout import tariff to boost my production and sales while limiting supply, and in the meantime I'm causing prices in the aggregate to rise due to my expansionary policy would I be using force at the expense of your freedom inside the market to maintain lower prices through competition, yes or no

3. Accidents happen and I agree, but there are definitely instances where the abuse was not just an accident. This is by definition, when it occurs, state oppression. The fact that you, as a neocon, will be willing to turn a blind eye for the "better good' rather then admitting there's work to be done proves my assumption that neocons are in favor of being authoritarian, by the mere fact that you are willing to allow the state to oppress people in certain instances and not be so up in arms because, well, accidents happen. Meanwhile, i would be charged with major crimes.

4. Really?
A. Enhanced interrogation = torture neocon response " it's ok torture those terrorists they don't have rights"
B. Patriot act...neocon
C. Has every 'conservative" in office since Eisenhower expand the military spending?

6. No neocons are a product of what is wrong with this country, they aren't the boogie man. They favor immigration bands, they favor increasing war spending, they favor subsidizing big business in the name of the "free market" which literally makes no sense, they oppose Keynesianism through supply side economics which is literally just as bad. They are a product of the state plain and simple, and the worse of it all is is that a majority of them actually call themselves libertarians when they favor increasing military, police force, elastic currency, and the war on drugs! Neocons are a product of the corrupt state.

A little history lesson for you, in the 1890s when big business started buying up politicians like Sherman and McKinley, they implanted a corrupt crony named Brian into the grass roots Jeffersonian/Jacksonian democrats and turned them authoritarian. Now I'll give you modern democrats are worse, however, the literal history of the Republican Party is controlled by big business and using schemes as protectionist policy while they maintain a pseudo "free market" perspective.

7. Considering I've done exchange rate theory and monetary theory research papers on the writings of mises and his prodigies like Murray and Hayek, I'm pretty sure I understand the intellectual thinking of mises. In fact, considering you support an elastic currency, not only would he call you an authoritarian but he would say you're no better then a socialist
 
Last edited:
Killing 1% who were unarmed is a heinous crime by law enforcement.

And if such an incident WAS indeed a crime.... it was an INDIVIDUAL CRIME commited by an INDIVIDUAL Law Enforcement Officer......

Not ALL law enforcement officers.


Why is it we are consistently reminded of this when it comes to race and economic crime demographics, but when it comes to police, the whole lot of them are to blame for the actions of a few individuals making bad choices........
 
And if such an incident WAS indeed a crime.... it was an INDIVIDUAL CRIME commited by an INDIVIDUAL Law Enforcement Officer......

Not ALL law enforcement officers.


Why is it we are consistently reminded of this when it comes to race and economic crime demographics, but when it comes to police, the whole lot of them are to blame for the actions of a few individuals making bad choices........
Just one law enforcement officer is good enough to tarnish the image of the country.
 
Just one law enforcement officer is good enough to tarnish the image of the country.


that has to be the most asinine statement i have yet to read on this board

congrats sir

you win the interwebz

if "one" bad anything spoiled the whole bunch, every judge, every prosecutor, every sheriff, and every cop would have to walk off the job

there have been bad ones before, and will bad ones yet again

the whole justice system would just shut down

are there bad shootings? yep

are their cops on patrol that would be better bouncers at a local club? you bet

i have never heard anyone claim anything else
 
Part 1

1. Or maybe actually reading the history of the industrial revolution and the creation of the Republican Party in short the entire creation was to compete with the catholic immigrant way of life... Please explain to me how I am wrong

You do realize that you are all over the place in your arguments, yes? The Neoconservative movement began in the 1960s, over 100 years after the formation of the Republican party. The Republican party was founded in 1854 as an anti-Slavery party, and it's first cause was to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act which threatened to spread slavery to the American territories, not to compete with "catholic immigration life". Where do you get this endless supply of imaginary history?

But anyway, do you want to neo Neoconservatism for what it actually is or do you want to just use the word as a lazy shorthand for a general problem you have with Republicans?

2. authoritarian
ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective
1.
favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

If I expand the money supply to create an export subsidy and a roundabout import tariff to boost my production and sales while limiting supply, and in the meantime I'm causing prices in the aggregate to rise due to my expansionary policy would I be using force at the expense of your freedom inside the market to maintain lower prices through competition, yes or no

Well, first, explain how a boost in production is limiting supply, second explain to me how aggregate price increases "maintaining lower prices", third explain to me how competition is authoritarian.

Assuming you have a clearer explanation for your seemingly contradictory scenario above, explain what freedoms are being denied to the citizen.

3. Accidents happen and I agree, but there are definitely instances where the abuse was not just an accident. This is by definition, when it occurs, state oppression. The fact that you, as a neocon, will be willing to turn a blind eye for the "better good' rather then admitting there's work to be done proves my assumption that neocons are in favor of being authoritarian, by the mere fact that you are willing to allow the state to oppress people in certain instances and not be so up in arms because, well, accidents happen. Meanwhile, i would be charged with major crimes.

No, it's not "state oppression". For such abuse to be "state oppression" it would need to be codified in the law. If the actions of the police officer are against the law of the state then it is not state oppression, it is an individual criminal act. If the state is prosecuting the officer(s) then that should be your first clue that the abuse is not state sanctioned.

4. Really?
A. Enhanced interrogation = torture neocon response " it's ok torture those terrorists they don't have rights"
B. Patriot act...neocon
C. Has every 'conservative" in office since Eisenhower expand the military spending?

Again, you have NO CLUE what Neoconservatism actually is. Your rational, again, is like saying that Major League Baseball sanctions torture because many who sanction torture are baseball fans.

Learn what actual words mean rather than insisting on arguing from a point of blatant ignorance.

And no, I am not a neoconservative, I am a conservative. If you want I can explain the difference to you, but you don't seem open to reality so I won't waste my time unless you request it.

6. No neocons are a product of what is wrong with this country, they aren't the boogie man. They favor immigration bands, they favor increasing war spending, they favor subsidizing big business in the name of the "free market" which literally makes no sense, they oppose Keynesianism through supply side economics which is literally just as bad. They are a product of the state plain and simple, and the worse of it all is is that a majority of them actually call themselves libertarians when they favor increasing military, police force, elastic currency, and the war on drugs! Neocons are a product of the corrupt state.

None of which is platforms of Neoconservatism. You are just making a long winded category error.
 
A little history lesson for you, in the 1890s when big business started buying up politicians like Sherman and McKinley, they implanted a corrupt crony named Brian into the grass roots Jeffersonian/Jacksonian democrats and turned them authoritarian. Now I'll give you modern democrats are worse, however, the literal history of the Republican Party is controlled by big business and using schemes as protectionist policy while they maintain a pseudo "free market" perspective.

First off, Sherman only held office for a year and was a figured head as he was suffering from dementia at the time, secondly, do you mean William Jennings Bryan? Either way, please provide the citation tyhat shows the Democrats being infiltrated by a Republican plant that "turned them authoritarian". :roll:

7. Considering I've done exchange rate theory and monetary theory research papers on the writings of mises and his prodigies like Murray and Hayek, I'm pretty sure I understand the intellectual thinking of mises. In fact, considering you support an elastic currency, not only would he call you an authoritarian but he would say you're no better then a socialist

Hahahah!! Everyone on Debate Politics will be amused that you accuse me of being a Socialist! I really don't care what you did your research papers on, you still got it wrong.
 
that has to be the most asinine statement i have yet to read on this board

congrats sir

you win the interwebz

if "one" bad anything spoiled the whole bunch, every judge, every prosecutor, every sheriff, and every cop would have to walk off the job

there have been bad ones before, and will bad ones yet again

the whole justice system would just shut down

are there bad shootings? yep

are their cops on patrol that would be better bouncers at a local club? you bet

i have never heard anyone claim anything else

I probably read more about your justice system than you did.
 
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - U.S. police have shot and killed 385 people during the first five months of this year, a rate of more than two a day, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
The victims ranged in age from 16 to 83. More than 80 percent were armed with potentially lethal objects, mostly guns. Ninety-two victims were identified as mentally ill.
The Post's analysis also indicates the daily death toll for 2015 is close to 2.6 as of Friday. At that pace, police will have shot and killed nearly 1,000 people by the end of the year, the paper said.

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

I'm scared as hell. How did it get this bad? When have they turned into bad characters? And why?! 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!


Out of a nation of more than 300 million people, 385 shooting deaths really isn't that bad.

That's almost literally "one in a million." :shrug:
 
Part 1



You do realize that you are all over the place in your arguments, yes? The Neoconservative movement began in the 1960s, over 100 years after the formation of the Republican party. The Republican party was founded in 1854 as an anti-Slavery party, and it's first cause was to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act which threatened to spread slavery to the American territories, not to compete with "catholic immigration life". Where do you get this endless supply of imaginary history?

But anyway, do you want to neo Neoconservatism for what it actually is or do you want to just use the word as a lazy shorthand for a general problem you have with Republicans?



Well, first, explain how a boost in production is limiting supply, second explain to me how aggregate price increases "maintaining lower prices", third explain to me how competition is authoritarian.

Assuming you have a clearer explanation for your seemingly contradictory scenario above, explain what freedoms are being denied to the

And no, I am not a neoconservative, I am a conservative. If you want I can explain the difference to you, but you don't seem open to reality so I won't waste my time unless you request it.



None of which is platforms of Neoconservatism. You are just making a long winded category error.

1. Reading a brief history on the Republican Party according to Wikipedia does not suffice as an actual historical account. In fact Wikipedia is vastly vague and open to no actual academic criticism, so suggesting that the Republican Party started because they were anti-slavery is completely full of fallacies. The Whig party and it's principles, when it fell to the democrats, rebranded itself as an anti slave party to try to emerge the migrating german Lutheran population. This is according to the books money and banking, and a course the American economy by Murray rothbard.

In fact, the reason I replied to your ridiculous argument in the manner I did is because I said you're right the Republican Party has always been authoritarian and you suggested I didn't know my history or was just making things up. Neoconservativism is a response to the expansion of federal power by the progressive era and the fdr administration. Plain and simple, if the democrats want to expand political power we have no problem with that so we will support socialist concepts like monetarism and a federally controlled money supply. Barry Goldwater was the only one who really combated the movement

2. I'll answer your response in three parts
A. When I limit supply what I'm doing is raising prices, this is how a monopoly works, by attemptinto turn the demand curve from relatively elastic to relatively inelastic. This is easier to do with a fiat currency because you can boost sales to a foreign market meanwhile cut supply domestically. If you devalue your currency you can do this, if it is tied to a hard currency you can not
B. By using a fiat currency system you raise prices by devaluing currency, this is pretty obvious as to why so I won't go into detail h this destroys the consumer sovereignty of capitalism because the central authority now controls prices as opposed to consumers
C. It's authoritarian because the suppliers should be given the ability to compete by using lower prices and ways to price cut competition to increase profits, however the usage of an inflationary currency sets up huge obstacles to subsidize big business. Meaning, limiting the freedoms to enter or exit a market place. This is how it is authoritarian

3. In the eyes of his fellow "good cops" it might be the sense of an individual basis, but if it's the tax payer that is the victim then it's state oppression, due to the fact that a police officer is seen as authority or a representative of the state. There is no subjective response to change this mere fact, the victim will always look at it as state oppression, the state may prosecute officers but the leeway for a police officer to commit crimes is much more flexible then an average taxpayer. This is due to he mentality that they are above the law, meaning there is an authoritarian state.. Which is always the outcome of any government

4. Please explain the differences, but did the neocons talk **** about the cia terrorist report yes or no, did bush administration create patriot act yes or no, has every neocon administration expanded military spending yes or no

5. I'm not saying it's a platform in saying this way of thinking is a product of the state
 
First off, Sherman only held office for a year and was a figured head as he was suffering from dementia at the time, secondly, do you mean William Jennings Bryan? Either way, please provide the citation tyhat shows the Democrats being infiltrated by a Republican plant that "turned them authoritarian". :roll:



Hahahah!! Everyone on Debate Politics will be amused that you accuse me of being a Socialist! I really don't care what you did your research papers on, you still got it wrong.

Yes will Bryan, it was actually an interesting time in American history what it was was the battle between chase and Carnegie vs the Rockefeller empire. So the rockefellers bought politicians and the chases bought politicians. The easiest way to finds out who was working for who is if you look at politicians from Cleveland, they are rockefeller. Sherman, McKinley = rockefeller. Sherman started the anti-trust act, and I could go into huge detail about how that actually empowered big business, but I won't. Bryan and teddy roosevelt = chase. They weren't "republican plants" they were big business cartel plants.

Tell me the fundamental difference of having a centrally controlled currency and a central controlled economy, and then explain to me how you do not favor some of the assumptions of Marx
 
Out of a nation of more than 300 million people, 385 shooting deaths really isn't that bad.

That's almost literally "one in a million." :shrug:

Yeah, so who cares. Right? 9/11 cost 3000 lives over 13 years ago, that's less than 230 lives/year, less than one in a million. No need to worry about terrorism, yes?
 
Yeah, so who cares. Right? 9/11 cost 3000 lives over 13 years ago, that's less than 230 lives/year, less than one in a million. No need to worry about terrorism, yes?

Considering the fact that, according to the OP, most of these people were out of their minds and brandishing potentially lethal weapons in an overtly threatening manner, I really wouldn't see any reason to "worry" about it, no.

Don't get me wrong. I do think American law enforcement can have a tendency to be a bit trigger happy and overly aggressive. However, I hardly think this is the best stat to make that case.

Nothing here seems particularly unreasonable.
 
Back
Top Bottom