• 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!

Detroit Police Shoot Fleeing Black Suspect In The Back

X Factor said:
So you only wanted to defund bad police?
Click to expand...

Stop twisting my words. It makes you look dumb. The system is flawed. Police should not have qualified immunity. The unions should not protect bad police. These things along with other bad policies that make it easier for bad policing to continue must be eliminated. You appear to think that we should allow bad police to carry on for the sake of the good ones. That is flawed thinking on your part
 
Citizen said:
Stop twisting my words. It makes you look dumb. The system is flawed. Police should not have qualified immunity. The unions should not protect bad police. These things along with other bad policies that make it easier for bad policing to continue must be eliminated. You appear to think that we should allow bad police to carry on for the sake of the good ones. That is flawed thinking on your part
Click to expand...

And you want to punish all police for the actions of a very few. Getting rid of qualified immunity would be a spectacularly bad idea. That would mean that the family of this guy that shot at police first could sue the officer directly. Why, on earth, would you support that? How much do you think this officer should have to pay the family?
 
X Factor said:
And you want to punish all police for the actions of a very few. Getting rid of qualified immunity would be a spectacularly bad idea. That would mean that the family of this guy that shot at police first could sue the officer directly. Why, on earth, would you support that? How much do you think this officer should have to pay the family?
Click to expand...

That is not what qualified immunity is. It means that the government will not be sued for what a bad cop does. Instead, the bad cop will be responsible for his own actions. It is about personal responsibility and not protecting bad cops.
 
Citizen said:
That is not what qualified immunity is. It means that the government will not be sued for what a bad cop does. Instead, the bad cop will be responsible for his own actions. It is about personal responsibility and not protecting bad cops.
Click to expand...

It opens up all police to lawsuits, good included. Frivolous lawsuits happen all the time and you want to enable that even against good cops. Why do you support lawsuits against good officers if you’re supposedly not anti cop?
 
X Factor said:
It opens up all police to lawsuits, good included. Frivolous lawsuits happen all the time and you want to enable that even against good cops. Why do you support lawsuits against good officers if you’re supposedly not anti cop?
Click to expand...

Most doctors are good doctors. They, however are responsible for their own practices. A good cop will never be liable for doing bad things. Qualified immunity shields police from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force. I think that if the police department as determined that the police used excessive or unwarranted force, then that officer should take personal responsibility for his actions, not the government. In the case in this OP, the police department determined that his actions was warranted. A law suit against him would not hold up in court
 
Citizen said:
Most doctors are good doctors. They, however are responsible for their own practices. A good cop will never be liable for doing bad things. Qualified immunity shields police from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force. I think that if the police department as determined that the police used excessive or unwarranted force, then that officer should take personal responsibility for his actions, not the government. In the case in this OP, the police department determined that his actions was warranted. A law suit against him would not hold up in court
Click to expand...

Y’know the reason there are so many frivolous lawsuits is because, sometimes, they pay out and the more that get filed the more chances that a good cop gets financially ruined. Sad you want to see that happen.
 
X Factor said:
Y’know the reason there are so many frivolous lawsuits is because, sometimes, they pay out and the more that get filed the more chances that a good cop gets financially ruined. Sad you want to see that happen.
Click to expand...

So if you want to continue to protect bad cops, so be it. I believe that if bad cops are responsible for their actions, then they would think twice before doing bad things and that would make it easier for the good ones and would change the perception of policing in general
 
Lutherf said:
Did I tell any lies? The kid DID put his hands up. You can see it in the video. The kid did run away and the kid was shot in the back.

Sure, the kid also pulled a gun out and shot at a cop's head before he got shot but if you want to post a propaganda story you need to avoid all that.

Such is the narrative that BLM is built on. They take one or two LEGITIMATE stories and then create a false narrative around a whole lot of ILLEGITIMATE stories for the sole purpose of furthering their cause. It's called "propaganda" and it's EXACTLY the crap that's leading to the destruction of this once fine nation.

For those of you that may have actually watched the video and listened to the Chief, he was hustling to get this video out because the FALSE narrative had already blown up on social media and there had already been protests and associated violence because of the social media narrative created and proliferated by PROPAGANDISTS. This idea that if someone says it on Twitter then it's got to be true needs to be combated. Just search "Hakeem Littleton" on Twitter and then scroll back 20+ hours in the timeline. See for yourself how this cancer of social media created propaganda spurs these "protests".

People just plain aren't living in the real world these days and that's because they find it so easy to adopt whatever narrative fits their mood and happens to come across their feed.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't realize that lying by omission is indeed lying.
 
Lutherf said:
OK...I'm not sure where you're going with that but I'm listening.
Click to expand...

You omitted the guy shooting at the cops first did you not? I'm guessing you intend to play this sarcastic OP game all the way though the thread... amiright?
 
Citizen said:
Most doctors are good doctors. They, however are responsible for their own practices. A good cop will never be liable for doing bad things. Qualified immunity shields police from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force. I think that if the police department as determined that the police used excessive or unwarranted force, then that officer should take personal responsibility for his actions, not the government. In the case in this OP, the police department determined that his actions was warranted. A law suit against him would not hold up in court
Click to expand...
Why not some type of compromise? I agree with X Factor to an extent that we should not be tying up police officers in lawsuits, taking time away from them being able to do their jobs, but I also agree with you that they should be held accountable if they commit crimes. Maybe instead of removing qualified immunity, it should be adapted (and the name changed) to do both. If an officer is found guilty through the lawsuit with the government, then that officer is tried for those crimes instead of being immune and having the government provide recompense.

I also think the bigger issue is that qualified immunity seems to provide a lot of blanket protections that hold up at a glance. It needs to be changed for more in depth investigations instead of just determining whether "their actions in question were within the scope of their jobs." That is painting the actions of officials with a very broad brush, which is why a lot of incidents slip through the cracks.

Qualified immunity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Xilnik said:
Why not some type of compromise? I agree with X Factor to an extent that we should not be tying up police officers in lawsuits, taking time away from them being able to do their jobs, but I also agree with you that they should be held accountable if they commit crimes. Maybe instead of removing qualified immunity, it should be adapted (and the name changed) to do both. If an officer is found guilty through the lawsuit with the government, then that officer is tried for those crimes instead of being immune and having the government provide recompense.

I also think the bigger issue is that qualified immunity seems to provide a lot of blanket protections that hold up at a glance. It needs to be changed for more in depth investigations instead of just determining whether "their actions in question were within the scope of their jobs." That is painting the actions of officials with a very broad brush, which is why a lot of incidents slip through the cracks.

Qualified immunity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...
I agree with you there, however, lots of these protections stimulate from the unions. They protect the police no matter what. It should not be up to the unions to determine the police’s guilt or innocence. I think that the public announcement that the police chief made in the OP was stop on. No one supports a criminal who shoots at police
 
poweRob said:
You omitted the guy shooting at the cops first did you not? I'm guessing you intend to play this sarcastic OP game all the way though the thread... amiright?
Click to expand...

Um...I noted that the kid shot at the cop in the EXACT post you quoted.
 
Lutherf said:
Um...I noted that the kid shot at the cop in the EXACT post you quoted.
Click to expand...

What I quoted wasn't the OP. You started this thread with lying by omission. So to answer your previous question, yes, you did lie when you started this thread.
 
If you shot someone in the back 150 years ago, you were hung.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom