CreateDebate


Debate Info

57
72
Yes No
Debate Score:129
Arguments:134
Total Votes:138
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (50)
 
 No (51)

Debate Creator

Amarel(5563) pic



DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?


Yes

Side Score: 57
VS.

No

Side Score: 72

It's a free-for-all. Anything goes! You should only piss people off over the internet where they can't shoot you ;)

Side: Yes
BurritoLunch(6607) Disputed Banned
1 point

It's a free-for-all. Anything goes! You should only piss people off over the internet where they can't shoot you

Nice. So you freely admit it is the gun and not the person that kills people?

Side: No

Not at all. I'm saying the guy wasn't paying attention that he was within firing range ;)

Side: No
Jace(5187) Clarified
1 point

or at least don't piss off agents of the state authorized to defend federal grounds and personnel with lethal force. lmao that anyone expected that little incursion not to end in fatality.

Side: Yes

Either that or make sure you are well out of range ;)

Side: Yes
1 point

Often when the police shoots someone, the law takes their side. So yeah, it is lawful in the United States for the police to gun down unarmed people.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5563) Clarified
1 point

Certainly not in all cases. A legal standard must be met to use lethal force.

Side: Yes
BurritoLunch(6607) Clarified Banned
2 points

Certainly not in all cases. A legal standard must be met to use lethal force.

But you aren't that legal standard. You're some sneering fascist douchebag who still thinks the Iraq War was legal. You're some delusional cretin who doesn't see a problem with assembling a makeshift jury on a backend internet site and asking them to make a ruling without hearing the facts of the case. That's who you are.

Side: Yes
Gypsee(347) Clarified
1 point

No of course. I am not a law expert, butFrom my understanding law enforcement can use deadly force when they believe that the person is lethal threat others. You can be an lethal threat to others when police believe you are be armed.

Even if you weren’t armed, the officer can judge the possibility as a threat.

I find that completely absurd being that the only real lethal threat is the officer holding a gun at your face.

But I assume we aren’t here to judge the morality of the shoot or the law in the debate. If we were I would be on the other side.

Where is the debate here?

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes! That’s like saying “ a man WILLINGLY walked into a lion den and started chaos, the lion attacked the man, the mad died. Was it the lions fault?” It wasn’t the lions just just like it wasn’t writing for the cop to shoot the man, he was trying to protect all the residents in the capitol. The rioters were looking for violence and chaos. So yes it’s fine that the guy got shot.

All I know is the same people saying it was unlawful better have had the same energy in defending George Floyd’s death because he didn’t do ANYTHING.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5563) Clarified
1 point

It's a bit off topic, but Floyd was being investigated for the counterfeit bill he apparently passed. He likely died due to the high levels of a highly dangerous opioid that he had consumed. The level to which his medical circumstances were exasperated by police will be hashed out in court.

If you look up Walter Scott, you will find a black man who was known to be unarmed and was shot in the back while running from police. This is all on camera. I am curious to know if you recognize the name.

Side: Yes
2 points

DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?

That you expect anybody to answer that question on the basis of the single ten word sentence of information you have given them is just simply beyond my ability to even fathom.

Mahatma Gandhi went on a walk. Did his legs get tired?

Side: No
Amarel(5563) Disputed
1 point

The shooting is at the 6:09 minute marker on the video that you posted in your own debate about how bad the riot was.

Side: Yes
BurritoLunch(6607) Disputed Banned
2 points

Oh, look at that. What a surprise. You're fucking lying again.

The rioter shot dead by police was female. You can also see in the video that the glass around her was intact, not smashed like it was in the incident at 6.09 in the other video:-

https://www.military.com/video/rioter-killed-capitol-police-was-former- dc-national-guard-member

And here is the other video, so others can check the 6.09 mark and see for themselves what a dishonest piece of shit you are:-

https://youtu.be/lhjRXO72v1s

You're a total fucking liar, Amarel. On top of being a sneering idiot, you're also a goddamned liar.

Side: No
BurritoLunch(6607) Disputed Banned
1 point

The shooting is at the 6:09 minute marker on the video that you posted in your own debate about how bad the riot was

How does that translate into me being a legal expert?

Fuck off Amarel. You're so stupid you're not even worth responding to.

Side: No
Jody(1792) Banned
2 points

The master of vagueness posts up a vague question ...............

Side: No
Amarel(5563) Disputed
1 point

Minute marker 6:09 on the video nom posted in his debate about how bad the riots were. You participated in that debate.

Side: Yes
2 points

based upon the footage, the person did not reasonably pose a clear and immediate danger to another person. unless the footage is seriously misleading or the law is different on capitol grounds or concerning federal officials (which it may well be), then the shoot does not appear lawful.

Side: No
Amarel(5563) Clarified
1 point

My understanding is that this was the last barrier between rioters calling for blood and representatives. Congressman were in the room behind the officers who fired.

Side: Yes
BurritoLunch(6607) Clarified Banned
2 points

My understanding is that this was the last barrier between rioters calling for blood and representatives. Congressman were in the room behind the officers who fired.

Stop it Amarel. You jumped to a conclusion and it was wrong again. Even if you'd been right it still doesn't excuse asking such a vague question, providing no accompanying context, and then acting like it's my responsibility to provide that context.

The rioter who died was shot because she was climbing through an open window.

Side: Yes
Jace(5187) Clarified
2 points

based upon the footage these particular protesters do not appear to have been making explicit threats against the well-being or lives of the congressional representatives. nor do they appear to be armed. there is an implicit threat of violence against the officers on the door by one individual asking them to step aside (which im not confident would have been audible though the doors), but that individual is not the one who was breaching the door. given my understanding of the usual legal parameters for justified use of lethal force, this seems like an unlawful shot to me.

that being said, ive already acknowledge that i don't know whether the law is different when the jurisdiction is the congressional grounds and where the defense of federal elected officials is concerned. the threshold for lethal force may well be lower than would otherwise be the case. my familiarity also concerns isolated individuals in confrontation with law enforcement, rather than groups of individuals in confrontation with law enforcement. so it's possible im missing something there as well.

regardless of the legality, i do not think the action was necessarily unreasonable. certainly, it was entirely predictable. idfk what they thought was going to happen. you attempt to infiltrate a secure facility by force amongst people calling for blood and it doesn't matter how white or female you are. bunch of fucking surprised pikachus.

Side: Yes
2 points

It couldn't have been a lawful shoot, She was white ....... and a Trump supporter! Shooting mentally deranged people is NEVER lawful! Not like 12 year-olds with toy guns, or when you shoot some angry guy in the back or some black woman in bed. They, somehow, deserve it!

But a healthy QAnon "patriot" attacking our capitol with intentions of killing the VP!? No! NO WAY :-(

The right is SO SICK!

Side: No
Amarel(5563) Clarified
2 points

That's quite a caricature you've painted. I've not seen anyone make that argument. You can stop making yourself sick from your own imagined opposition.

Side: Yes
AlofRI(3276) Clarified
2 points

I feel fine, better, now that I have that off my chest. Now, if the Trumps could somehow die of The Trump Virus ... I think I could live forever. :-)

Side: Yes