CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
At the very least they were negligent. Compound that with wrongful arrest and it is not a stretch of the imagination to view the officers as unnecessarily antagonistic. If they walk on all charges then our legal system is even more broken and illegitimate than it already seems to be.
I agree that I think they will have to be convicted of something. But it was interesting that the initial charges were all changed to much stiffer charges which also require much more burden of proof...maybe it was a ploy to get the officers off?
That could be the case and would not surprise me much, but it also seems plausible that additional evidence was processed or came to light that prompted the prosecution to escalate the charges being brought. It would be in the personal disinterest of the prosecution to deliberately throw a case, given that it effects perception regarding their efficacy in their profession. Which is another angle to consider - prosecution might be making a gamble on the risks of higher charges in the interest of the bigger payoff if they receive guilty verdicts.
That charges are being brought is in and of itself an accomplishment in a legal system that has historically protected law enforcement from repercussions for legal infractions small and large. I suspect that the more serious charges will not hold for at least some of the officers involved. What will be interesting is if any of the officers accepts a plea bargain to testify against the others officers. On the basis of the evidence, however, it would seriously undermine the legal system if these officers walked away without at least wrongful arrest and negligence; intent will be hard to establish, particularly if none plea out.
Being charged doesn't mean anything, the problem is will the grand jury find enough evidence to go to trial. Hopefully, there is. Government always protects itself, and the police is number one on the list. Government police power is far behind abusive, and this is the norm for monopolistic power.
They have been charged and will face trial. That is, a trial which, according to some of the drivel I've read here, is unnecessary as there are a number of low lives who have already tried and convicted the officers in question. The due process of law should be allowed to run it's course without prejudice, and in the same way it does for everyone else without violent attacks on police officers, rioting, looting and wanton destruction. The bleeding heart liberals have given ''The Bongo'' license to rent their primitive emotions in a totally lawless manner. Rioting is one sure fired way to wreck and divide a nation and the eye-watering stupidity of a few ''edigts'' on this site fail to see the long term damage that can be done by lawlessness which, from where I sit, Northern Ireland, is what is prevailing in the U.S. Recognise the road which these Negros are continuing along. Left unchecked all of the once great United States of America will end up like Detroit, a third world ''Bongo'' wasteland. If all you liberal dummies want to see your factories torched, 100s of 1000s of jobs destroyed, transport destroyed and an atmosphere of constant with 'tit for tat' murders, keep bellowing on the way you are now and your wish will come true.
Is it your intention to imply that is a bad thing? A good thing? A neutral or mixed bag? I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your observation.
That was directed at Cartman, but since you replied...
I support both peaceful and violent protest, but only when they are contextually appropriate and effective. Peaceful protest more commonly satisfies those standards, but sometimes violent protest can as well.
This assumes that violence is both categorically bad and inherently unjustifiable. I would suggest that violence is actually sometimes a necessity, particularly when other avenues have been tried to limited or no effect.
I don't think this will lead to good violence. Sorry, I am failing to articulate properly. I believe there is protesting that is directed properly, and riots which aren't properly directed. I think protests can be violent. I think that this riot working will only lead to bad violence since no one learned to direct the violence properly. I agree with what you are saying, but I hope you can also agree that a CVS being destroyed is not proper violence.
The previous, similar situation in charleston got resolved without a riot. And i think there is a simultaneous riot and protest, but the two are not one in the same. The protest group has been trying to keep the peace as rioters simply like to take advantage of the situation
I just feel like this announcement didn't do anything to prevent future riots. Did she really do anything to convince people not to take advantage of these situations in the future?
We can just look to the past when people like Gandhi or MLK led peaceful protests. Even when faced with violent opposition, they were still able to get their message across.
An overwhelming majority was nonviolent. There were violent parties during MLK/Gandhi periods as well. We tend to focus on the majority rather than the minority as the cause. This tendency may be incorrect.
Rioting is not peaceful protest. I am not inherently opposed to violent protest even, though it baffles me why people destroy their own communities instead of taking it to whomever they are opposing.
Yes it is… there is a difference in rioting and peaceful protest. A nonviolent riot would not be a riot, it would be a peaceful protest. Rioting implies violence.
I am reading what people say and I'm tired of being accused otherwise. I am pointing out the FACT that not all riots or protestsd are violent. This debate is about the charges against the police: What do you have to say about these charges? Not all riots are violent, and even if they were, people are justified to protect the Constitution. The government does not have the right to violate our rights. Give me liberty, or give me death!
You really need to improve your debating skills it is perfectly fine for debates to go off on a tangent.
And to answer since you'll no doubt just ban me and ignore this post otherwise. If I have my facts correct then the police should be charged with manslaughter and not murder since there was no intent to kill.
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
So definition it wasn't murder but manslaughter because the cops didn't kill him with intent.
Remember how people told you that you do not read the comments of others, and you claimed you did? This is why people say that. Because instead of responding to what I actually said, you simply repeated the exact same thing, giving no indication of having read or understood what was said to you.
So I will try again: Do you recognize that your definition of murder is not the same as either the dictionary definition or the legal definition of murder?
This debate is about the charges against the cops, what do you have to say about that? Just because I don't adress something doesn't mean I didn't read it. I addressed the important things. FACT!
What I was saying was ABOUT the charges against the cops!! We were discussing what possible types of charges could be made against the cops, and instead of actually responding to me, you just repeated yourself over and over!
I am not trying to be rude, but you are making it incredibly difficult to talk to you when you want hold an actual conversation. If you don't address something, and you give no indication that you read something, then how would people know if you read it? And if you do not address the entirety of another person's post, then why should someone talk to you at all? It feels incredibly frustrating, as many people have told you, when you simply do not address (or in other words, ignore) what people say to you.
I see no problem with a nation defending it's self. Self defense is a right. Are you really saying that if someone bombs America, we can't defend ourselves?
Let's say that I kill an innocent child because one has a gun to my head and will kill me if I did otherwise (not kill the child), would that then be self-defense and not murder- killing an innocent child to defend myself?
I am reading what people say and I'm tired of being accused otherwise.
People say that because you consistently respond in a way that indicates that you have not read the comment preceding yours. Additionally, the very definition of a riot includes violence, which means that it is not a "fact" that not all riots are violent. Additionally, nobody has a constitutional right to violence, even when seeking redress.
Fine. I have no way of knowing if you are reading what people say or not. What you are not doing, however, is responding to what people say.
You are clearly not talking about the topic, as most of your arguments on this debate are you restating the fact that you are in favor of peaceful protests, not violence.
And no, you did not point out the "fact" that not all riots or protests are violent. You stated that "Not all rioting is violent though." To which you got this response: "Rioting is literally defined as "a situation in which a large group of people behave in a violent and uncontrolled way." You then did not acknowledge that you had even seen this argument, and continued restating your point, even though you had been proven wrong.
WE ARE IN AGREEMENT. Not all protesting is violent. And I too am in favor of peaceful protest, but not rioting. In this case, what is going on is rioting, which is unfortunate.
But then what is the point of having a conversation with another person? The point of talking to another person is that it is not all about you, so you address what other people say, and they address what you say. If you only address what is important to me, which, 99 times out of a 100 is just what you have said before, then why are you on a debating website?
This goes back to the statement I messaged you. At this point you are actively discouraging people from talking to you, and I really don't understand why.
It's funny how those on the Left hated it when TRUE pro life people protested around clinics to try and stop the killing of innocent life. Those on the Left would prefer to protest for criminals while saying nothing for innocent Babies. Total phony extremists.
I wish I knew why this was downvoted so I could give a response to any objection someone had. Freddie Gray didn't commit a crime, so he isn't a criminal.
He was a criminal many times! For that reason he was treated like a criminal. I realize judgemental fools like to attack cops who put their lives on the the lines many times catching these career criminals. Put yourself in their shoes just once.
For drugs, whoop dee do. Are you now against the justice system? Is serving your jail sentence not enough punishment for you?
For that reason he was treated like a criminal.
Except, he wasn't. He was treated like a convicted serial killer and executed.
I realize judgemental fools like to attack cops who put their lives on the the lines many times catching these career criminals.
He is a career drug user, cops aren't putting their life on the line for this particular person.
Put yourself in their shoes just once.
Why should I? You clearly haven't. How the hell does putting myself in the cops' shoes make it ok to kill a detained prisoner by putting him in the transport vehicle improperly. Was making sure that he wasn't restrained in a safe manner a way for the cops to protect themselves? Self defense ends when you are safe and the prisoner is in custody. The constitution is supposed to protect us from the government, and the cops are part of the government. Siding with the cops every single time they do something wrong is a little strange.
You are doing what the Left does, convict them before the evidence. Use your brain and quit doing the same thing they did in Fergeson. WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!
You are doing what the Left does, convict them before the evidence.
I didn't convict them at all you moron. Why are you against the constitution? The constitution says that these cops need to be put on trial if they violated Freddie Grays constitution rights. His rights were clearly violated.
Use your brain and quit doing the same thing they did in Fergeson.
I am for these cops getting their day in court. You know who I would also like to have his day in court? Freddie Gray.
WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!
You are claiming they are innocent even after being proven guilty. "They deal with bad people, so let them go free even if they did something bad." You can't be proven guilty unless it goes to trial. Thinking a trial should happen is the only way to prove he is innocent before being proved guilty.
WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHY HIS SPINAL CORD WAS SEvERED! If it were an accident, he still could not go to trial.
I agree of course the cops should be tried in court. We are not talking about that. We are talking about fools pronouncing the cops guilty before the trial and justifying the riots or protests. The protests should not have happened until AFTER they found out the cops would not be indicted. Let the law play out before idiots protest.
You are doing the same things the race bating fools do on the Left.... jumping to conclusions before the facts, all for the purpose of politics.
WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHY HIS SPINAL CORD WAS SEvERED! If it were an accident, he still could not go to trial.
No, there should be a trial even if it was an accident since the cops were in charge of making sure there are no accidents. And, you are wrong, the autopsy has been completed. They know how his final cord got severed. They didn't know before the riots started, but we know now.
I agree of course the cops should be tried in court.
Except in every case where they kill a black guy you are suddenly against trials.
We are not talking about that.
Yes, we aren't because you are talking about something else. My posts all indicate that charges should be filed since the debate topic is about charges being filed, not about punishing the cops.
We are talking about fools pronouncing the cops guilty before the trial and justifying the riots or protests.
But we aren't. People with a brain are able to discuss the topic of the police getting charged without pronouncing them guilty. You on the other hand are not able to.
The protests should not have happened until AFTER they found out the cops would not be indicted. Let the law play out before idiots protest.
A protest after the fact wouldn't be able to change anyones mind. Either way, riots shouldn't have happened, but still not a reason to say the cops shouldn't be charged.
You are doing the same things the race bating fools do on the Left.... jumping to conclusions before the facts, all for the purpose of politics.
Saying they should be charged after they get charged is jumping to conclusions? I don't think you know what jumping to conclusions means. You on the other hand are saying the cops are innocent even after they are found guilty because you don't like black people.
Whoop dee do? That is your mindless compassion for all the millions of lives destroyed by illegal drugs? Hard drugs destroy lives and it is a serious crime to sell these drugs to kids and adults!
Hard drugs destroy lives because people get thrown in jail for doing drugs or get executed by cops who put them in the transport van improperly. Drugs damage the person using them, they don't make the person more likely to hurt a cop. Your point was that the guy was a career criminal, now your complaint is the guy is a career life damager. A history of drug use doesn't mean the cop should hurt the kid extra which is what you were advocating.
Don't forget that he also determined someone was guilty of a crime before having a trial which he is against if the person in question is a government official.
I really, really wish I could find a way to get him to actually debate. Tried it for a bit with IAmSparticus, but then I made the mistake of referencing the law in a non-biased way and he figured me out.
I expect them to be charged but I expect the court case to be thrown out. There is no doubt that Rawlings-Blake and Mosby fanned the flames of this event and caused more problems than they should have. More troubling was the lack of time and discretion given before they released an unbelievable amount of charges; like they took a law book and randomly picked crimes to list on their sheet. Furthermore the personal connections, bias, and actions of both Rawlings-Blake and Mosby show they are not neutral parties and despite their tenacity to take on their case have perjured beyond reason. It'll be thrown out because of their actions rather than the actions of the police officers themselves: who I believe cannot and will not get a fair trial at this point. As for the officers themselves I'm not sure what to thing but I do know one thing...Freddy ran from the law and law won. Should we be propping up criminals to the status of Civil Rights leaders as we did with Michael Brown? The answer is no.
Maybe he already got justice. He was a career criminal. Who knows what he could be capable of? He might have wound up killing someone if he had lived. He died because of the life he lead. If he was not involved in criminal activity, he would still be alive.
Can you imagine the idiots on the Left who actully supported the riots to get their one dimensional justice.
There is no justice for late term Babies that the Left supports killing for any reason.
There is no justice for those who are forced by the Left to pay for abortions with medicaid and now Obamacre.
There is no justice for all the children abandoned by dead beat parents.
There is no justice for communities who simply want the freedom to have the people vote on a school prayer in their local schools.
There is no justice when our police departments are being forced to be run by politics. There are racists in every profession and they will be rooted out as our nation moves to one of being color blind, but if the Left keeps race bating we will never become color blind. If people are told that riots will bring justice then they are no better than ISIS and all other terrorists. Is this the America you want, one run by the loudest and most violent crowds?
Democrats, you are destroying America because those who support these things reside in the Democrat party.
Can you imagine the idiots on the Left who actully supported the riots to get their one dimensional justice.
There aren't many of them.
There is no justice for late term Babies that the Left supports killing for any reason.
They don't. Why are you so dishonest?
There is no justice for those who are forced by the Left to pay for abortions with medicaid and now Obamacre.
You still haven't provided evidence that happens.
There is no justice for all the children abandoned by dead beat parents.
That is true, but how is it relevant? One can fight for justice for both Freddie Grey, and orphans.
There is no justice for communities who simply want the freedom to have the people vote on a school prayer in their local schools.
There is no right to that, nor should there be. You are fighting the Constitution on this issue.
There is no justice when our police departments are being forced to be run by politics. There are racists in every profession and they will be rooted out as our nation moves to one of being color blind, but if the Left keeps race bating we will never become color blind. If people are told that riots will bring justice then they are no better than ISIS and all other terrorists. Is this the America you want, one run by the loudest and most violent crowds?
Both sides race bait, and both sides are part of the problem. The left does need to stop race baiting, but so does the right. When will you ever call out your own, and admit the right is part of the problem? Probably never.
Democrats, you are destroying America because those who support these things reside in the Democrat party.
No, they reside throughout this country, and you are helping "destroy America" (complete nonsense) by not admitting this, and turning everything into a political game.
