• 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!

Shoot Looters

Should police shoot looters?

  • Total voters
    90
gunner said:
You really need to consider the meaning of straw man. But hey, who am I to question a free thinking individual :roll:
Click to expand...

For you...

Straw Man Fallacy
Explanation
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.


The ME and its laws have nothing to do with USA laws...
 
Anyone who shoots people who are no threat to anyone will have a legal problem.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone who shoots people who are no threat to anyone will have a legal problem.
Click to expand...

That should depend on the circumstances. Don't you think?
 
Nickyjo said:
Fallible but final.
Click to expand...

That can be a real problem and require revisting a decision again later, when the damage becomes apparent.
 
shrubnose said:
I said what I wanted to say and that's the end of it for me.
Click to expand...

That is one main reason we stumble after conflicts in restoring peace. We refuse to accept that laws need to be adapted to circumstances and that to ignore this means one fails.
 
joG said:
That is one main reason we stumble after conflicts in restoring peace. We refuse to accept that laws need to be adapted to circumstances and that to ignore this means one fails.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Believe whatever you want to believe.Your ideas will have no effect on reality.
 
joG said:
That should depend on the circumstances. Don't you think?
Click to expand...

So in what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to shoot someone who is posing no threat to anyone?
 
AYSM said:
I wouldn't know
Click to expand...

I know... I just told you why.

Not that this hasn't been great but unless you are able to actually present a valid argument and defend it it looks like we are done here.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Looters should be shot on sight... shouldn't they?

I think this would be a great deterrent to lawlessness and the destruction of communities...
Click to expand...

Unless the looters are a physical threat, no they should not. It would also set a very bad precedent for the future.
 
Black Dog said:
Unless the looters are a physical threat, no they should not. It would also set a very bad precedent for the future.
Click to expand...
In the end I don't think shooting them is really that great an idea...
 
I was under the impression that theft was not punishable by death.
 
yankintx said:
Its 2017, not the 1800's.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter... they are both in the United States during the time of the Constitution and Bill of Rights...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Doesn't matter... they are both in the United States during the time of the Constitution and Bill of Rights...
Click to expand...

Of course it matters, your comparing apples and oranges. Is horse thieving still punishable by death like in the 18oo's ? Nope, again apples and oranges.
 
yankintx said:
Of course it matters, your comparing apples and oranges. Is horse thieving still punishable by death like in the 18oo's ? Nope, again apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

That is the point. Under the same US Constitution it was legal. I am comparing apples to apples. The US Constitution to the US Constitution.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is the point. Under the same US Constitution it was legal. I am comparing apples to apples. The US Constitution to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

How the document is interpreted now, compared to 1800 ? ya right
 
yankintx said:
How the document is interpreted now, compared to 1800 ? ya right
Click to expand...

I made a point. My point is valid. Other than that I don't really care enough to debate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom