Should cops have more leeway in shooting people than civilians do?
Yes
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
A cop's job is to protect civilians. Even though there are some cops who take advantage of power, most are good people. I think that if shooting a criminal to protect yourself or others is the reason, that is a good reason and that is a cop's job, so they should do it. Side: Yes
None of what you just said remotely justifies giving law enforcement more leeway. Presumably, if your logic holds at all, if anyone could protect themselves or others by shooting someone else they ought to do it. Why should they be more tightly restricted in their ability to protect themselves and others? Why should law enforcement receive less rigorous restriction and review? Side: Yes
|
No, in fact they should have more scrutiny. We trust tour lives, property, and freedoms into their hands, as we give them a weapon and a salary. So for them to go around shooting people, we should be watching them, and their reasons for doing it even more closely than we would a random civilian. Side: No
3
points
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that this isn't decreasing their authority and power at all, much less to a point lower than that of the general populace. Rather, this is an increase in their responsibility and accountability when exercising some of that increased power and authority. You want a better recipe for disaster? 1 part power, 1 part authority, hold the accountability and oversight. Side: No
Who said anything about less authority or power? I know I didn't. I said we should give them that power, since we gave them the responsibility of protecting our lives but we should also watch them. We need to watch them more closely than we would the average citizen, because we gave them so much responsibility. Side: No
1
point
With this type of sentiment I would expect people to demand that they not be armed at all. Other governments have largely disarmed their police forces, I would not be surprised at all if there were considerable (although maybe not quite majority) support for a similar move in the US. I think it would be a disaster given what the police are up against, but still. Side: Yes
I don't know. Personally I'd rather not send the most hated group of people in the U.S. out to deal with dangerous people, without some sort of protection. I don't think completely disarming the police would be good for anyone. It'd make them walking targets in dangerous areas, and would probably drastically increase the cop death toll. Some might be in favor of mace, or tazers, but I ask what's some pepper spray to a bullet? And the criminals definitely already have bullets. Side: Yes
2
points
They should have far less. They are trained extensively in how to handle hostile situations and are taught the situations in which discharging a weapon is accepable and how to go about doing it. This being said we should expect cops firing their weapons to be a last resort what with the many other forms of non lethal engagement tactics at their disposal. Wheras an untrained civilian might be given more leeway as they are untrained and far more likely to react emotionally or defensively to a given situation. Side: No
...in an act of a violent crime can have deadly force used on them. Not quite. Officers have something called a use of force continuum where they have levels of predesignated allowable actions that are supposedly appropriate responses to the act they are responding to. The use of force officers use are supposed to be less deadly than what they respond to, this puts officers at a disadvantage. In the US officers responding to a shooting officers shoot to stop, not shoot to kill. Officers are trained to shoot at large body mass, like hips or chest, for a other reasons than being less likely to be lethal than shooting other areas like to give better odds of hitting their target. Of course when discharging a firearm even within the use of force continuum there is a chance that that force is deadly but that is not the intent but a byproduct of the level of force used. Whether or not such a high level of force is warranted or not is often debatable. There is plenty of news stories lately when officers discharged their firearms when other tools like tazers were more warranted. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
We're all equal, and just because the police's can sometimes involve shooting civilians it doesn't mean the damage caused is any less than if it were the other way round. Therefore, I conclude that it would not be fair to give anyone more leeway when it comes to such a serious crime (dependent on circumstance as always.) Side: No
|
