Instigator / Con
5
1516
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic

Police Should Use lethal force/torture

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Jadd
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
4
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Con
         “I don’t have a gun. Stop Shooting” … Michael Brown was an18-year-old when he had to utter those words. And those were his last words before he succumbed to the police’s lethality. We strongly oppose the police’s use of lethal force and torture.  In 2015, 40% of unarmed suspects who were arrested died in the process, because of police lethality. In 2017, the FBI reported that 10 million arrests were made. This means that 4 million people died from arrests alone. Allowing lethal force means allowing this number to rise even higher. Another issue is that police lethality is not even used for the purpose of justice. Lastly, police brutality will cause the public to fear the police causing widespread panic.


Pro
Police should be allowed to use violence in destructive riots and rallies. Riot, in criminal law, is a violent offense against public order involving three or more people. Like an unlawful assembly, a riot involves a gathering of persons for an illegal purpose. In contrast to an unlawful assembly, however, a riot involves violence. The concept is obviously broad and embraces a wide range of group conduct, from a bloody clash between picketers and strikebreakers to the behavior of a street-corner gang. The non-violent riots were way less than the violent riots.
Round 2
Con
In many cases these rallies were never violent to begin with. In fact, as we see all the time on the news these rallies stop being peaceful protests once the police act first. If police kept the protest in check with peaceful methods, the protest would never breakout into a death pit. And you yourself said this concept covers too broad of a topic. If police can not differentiate between peaceful protests and violent riots then what right do they have to take an innocent human’s life? And as for your last claim, I would like some proof. As research indicates that 51% of nonviolent protests were successful compared to the measly 27% violent ones. That is because violent protests scare away potential supporters, so peaceful protests garner more support and people to push for a certain change.
Pro
You stated that all police use violence against innocent people that are unarmed, so what you are trying to say is that they are not allowed to use violence or lethal force against people that are UNARMED? because in riots police must use violence because in CRIMINAL LAW riots are illegal. Let's take a look at the BLM riot it started off as a good cause but when it started to take a turn police should have acted at the moment but they didn't which resulted in a lot of city damages and we are talking around 700 million dollars of city damage cost. I want to raise a question if police must not use violence then who must the criminals fear?