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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is It Ok
So Say you found yourself in the middle of a group of teenage girls and you were being attacked. do you think that it is ok to defend yourself however you can? P.S there is no one else around and you dont have a cell phone, you are a grown man and ther is no way out
Although this scenario is extremely vague, it doesn't matter who is attacking you. You defend yourself regardless of who is attacking you. The idea that women are too fragile to be attacked but not so much that they themselves can attack others is demeaning and sexist to men and women.
I am inclined to agree, but do you think that holds true regardless of the physical capabilities of the defender and attacker, as well as what tools are at the respectively groups disposal?
I am, of course, alluding to police brutality, particularly against adolescents.
It shouldn't be considered police brutality if the adolescent was able to sneak up on a cop and start punching him and the cop responded by beating him with his stick. Also, we should consider what the adolescent has done and not what he is going to do. I think introducing the capability aspect allows the cops to abuse their power.
It shouldn't be considered police brutality if the adolescent was able to sneak up on a cop and start punching him and the cop responded by beating him with his stick
But there are so many variables. If the cot hit the kid with the stick and then subdued him, sure. What if the cop hits the kid repeatedly with the stick, hard enough to cause serious damage? What if the cop only hit the kid once, but with far more force than was necessary? What if the kid was quite small or scrawny and thus clearly did not require as much force?
Also, we should consider what the adolescent has done and not what he is going to do. I think introducing the capability aspect allows the cops to abuse their power.
I agree that should also be considered, but how can one not consider what a person is going to do when determine how to act next?
I mean why would a cop put handcuffs on someone and put them in a car wit outer locking doors if not to anticipate them potentially trying to escape? :P
What if the cop hits the kid repeatedly with the stick, hard enough to cause serious damage?
Did the kid do something to deserve it? If we consider the ability of the criminal the cop shouldn't stop beating the kid if he was big and strong.
What if the cop only hit the kid once, but with far more force than was necessary?
If the kid deserved to be hit and the cop showed enough restraint to only hit him once, I am inclined to say it is ok.
What if the kid was quite small or scrawny and thus clearly did not require as much force?
If the scrawny kid is crazy enough to think he can beat up a cop, then he needs to be beaten.
I agree that should also be considered, but how can one not consider what a person is going to do when determine how to act next?
Sorry. I meant "going to do". I only meant the scenario where the kid gets beaten because he was going to shoot the cop ... even though he was unarmed. If he starts pulling out a gun, that is something he really is doing.
I mean why would a cop put handcuffs on someone and put them in a car wit outer locking doors if not to anticipate them potentially trying to escape? :P
Good point. I really only thought about the actions that cops should take while defending themselves. Once we get to the point where criminals have to be detained and transported we shouldn't be using self defense criteria.
Did the kid do something to deserve it? If we consider the ability of the criminal the cop shouldn't stop beating the kid if he was big and strong.
That isn't true, it would just determine what amount of force could be considered "reasonable" when subduing them.
If the kid deserved to be hit and the cop showed enough restraint to only hit him once, I am inclined to say it is ok.
While I am inclined to say it is okay as well, that still leaves so many variables. Many cops who are guilty of brutality believed that the victim of said brutality "deserved" it. Is their judgement truly what we should be holding to?
If the scrawny kid is crazy enough to think he can beat up a cop, then he needs to be beaten.
Or perhaps the kid was mentally unstable, and thus beating him serves only as an example of how this country reacts horribly to nuanced situations. After all, you insinuated that he was "crazy".
Sorry. I meant "going to do". I only meant the scenario where the kid gets beaten because he was going to shoot the cop ... even though he was unarmed. If he starts pulling out a gun, that is something he really is doing.
See, I don't disagree about the need to subdue an individual in contexts like these. I think I might not have convey that sufficiently. I am not even certain at what point I find force unreasonable. I simply find the standards by why we determine what is or is not unreasonable force (as well as brutality) a little ridiculous. If the kid starts pulling out a gun, he should be subdued, obviously. If that same kid is on the ground in handcuffs, should he then be physically beaten, something that has indeed happened many times?
Is their judgement truly what we should be holding to?
No, I am trying to eliminate cop judgement as much as possible. That's why I don't want the cop to consider too many variables.
Or perhaps the kid was mentally unstable, and thus beating him serves only as an example of how this country reacts horribly to nuanced situations. After all, you insinuated that he was "crazy".
If his family members didn't care enough to get him help, the cop shouldn't be the one held responsible for getting the kid help.
If that same kid is on the ground in handcuffs, should he then be physically beaten, something that has indeed happened many times?
I don't see a scenario where the criteria I proposed would allow for a cop to beat up a subdued criminal because of self defense. So, yes, reduce the beatings.
No, I am trying to eliminate cop judgement as much as possible. That's why I don't want the cop to consider too many variables.
But the variables you seem to want cops to consider are many of the primary ones that lead them to believe such overwhelming force is justified.
If his family members didn't care enough to get him help, the cop shouldn't be the one held responsible for getting the kid help.
Why not? What is the purpose of the Police, if not the government at large, if not to help citizens?
I don't see a scenario where the criteria I proposed would allow for a cop to beat up a subdued criminal because of self defense. So, yes, reduce the beatings.
Perhaps I have missed much of the criteria due to the nature of it being presented over the course of multiple responses. Could you elaborate on your criteria specifically, all at once?
But the variables you seem to want cops to consider are many of the primary ones that lead them to believe such overwhelming force is justified.
I also want the conclusions to be updated. The cops are using poor judgement.
Why not? What is the purpose of the Police, if not the government at large, if not to help citizens?
Anyone mentally unstable enough to attack a cop is going to be unstable enough to hurt regular citizens. The cops are helping citizens.
Perhaps I have missed much of the criteria due to the nature of it being presented over the course of multiple responses. Could you elaborate on your criteria specifically, all at once?
Well, we were talking about self defense. If the person is hurting the cop the cop is allowed to hurt them back. Once the criminal is subdued, he isn't hurting the cop any more.
Anyone mentally unstable enough to attack a cop is going to be unstable enough to hurt regular citizens. The cops are helping citizens.
By beating them? That doesn't help citizens in any way. This recent idea that cops must rely upon overwhelming force to subdue everyone is ridiculous.
Well, we were talking about self defense. If the person is hurting the cop the cop is allowed to hurt them back. Once the criminal is subdued, he isn't hurting the cop any more.
But what about the threat of harm? As you said, a cop should be able to take down a person who is pulling (but has not yet fired) a gun, correct? So where does the threat of harm end within your criteria, seeing as how that is one of the main factors that cops claim to use in these situations.
By beating them? That doesn't help citizens in any way.
Have you ever seen a mentally unstable person hurt someone else while being beaten by a cop?
This recent idea that cops must rely upon overwhelming force to subdue everyone is ridiculous.
I only think that cops need to subdue with overwhelming force when the cop has been attacked with overwhelming force.
But what about the threat of harm? As you said, a cop should be able to take down a person who is pulling (but has not yet fired) a gun, correct? So where does the threat of harm end within your criteria, seeing as how that is one of the main factors that cops claim to use in these situations.
Sorry man, I don't know. It is really hard when we discuss people who actually have guns.
In the case where they have already started beating up a cop it becomes much easier to stop them.
Let me rephrase: Say someone is mentally handicapped, clearly unwell, and attacks a police officer. They don't have a weapon, and could be easily (or at least safely) be subdued by a cop. What need is there to beat them, when other methods of subduing them are possible that don't involve, you know, beating someone who is handicapped?
If the person has stopped and the cop hits them again.
And that is the only means you use to determine overwhelming force and police brutality? Guy runs up and kicks an officer in the shin, cop shoots the guy in the head, the guy clearly isn't hitting him any more. Not overwhelming force? :P
What part of what I said made it sound like I wouldn't think shooting a guy who stopped kicking the police officer as excessive? Is it because I only mentioned hitting?
I figured you would find it excessive, I was just trying to find by what criteria you would.
When I asked you for your criteria, you said: If the person has stopped and the cop hits them again.
Now my example wasn't clear, at least in the way I intended it. Mainly because I, for whatever reason, said something that I utterly did not intend. I see that now; not sure why I didn't previously
So, say the man comes up and kicks the officer in the shin, and has not yet hit him again, but clearly means to. The first strike did not harm or endanger the officer, however, as the individual in question was not strong enough to. In that situation, would the officer shooting the individual in question be excessive force by your criteria?
In order to use your gun you have to be presented with a life or death situation. The perp has to show signs of a weapon, or cause enough physical damage that it may be possible to establish the perp has the ability to kill the officer. If the officer is hit by a perp he can hit the perp back with his stick.
If the person has stopped and the cop hits them again.
That's how they are taught. But officers have been drawing their sidearm in situations that are not life and death more and more often, so that standard doesn't seem to be working.
I disagree. There are different forms of learning. We aren't always taught by what is told to us. Plus, I think they are taught to keep hitting the suspect until he is in handcuffs. I think they are told to protect themselves.
um i don't get beat up by teen girls. However i did see a story in the news that i wanted to hypothesis. a man was at the park when he say his kid getting beat up by other teens. now if someone were beating on my kid (if i had one) i would do what the father did witch was attack the teens with full force. seeing as that was his own flesh and blood. so i Ask you all this wouldn't any halfway decent father protect his kid with his life???????!!!!!!!!
Well, most certainly, any father would instinctively protect his children from whatever the threat was with the full force of his physical ability. Also, if surrounded by a bunch of thuggish girls who were either attacking me, or seemed preparing to do so, then once again, in common with most men, I would start swinging punches with the intention of causing as much damage and injury as I could. Then, if able to do so, I would get into my fast, Al Capone ''getaway''car and watch the smoke from the burning rubber of my tyres in the rear view mirror. A gang of feral females can be almost as tough a gang of male thugs. Regardless of how tough the average male thinks he is, he wouldn't stand much of a chance if there were more than two of them and they were experienced, street fighting hooligans.
I believe in the question - as screwed up as it is, life can be made up of all kinds of perverse situations.
Instead of saying either yes or no, what I would posit is that a person need not feel restricted to either or. Say a group of teenage girls are around you; speak intelligently.
Recollect intelligent things which you know, and then just speak them - as many of them as possible. We're all the Universe, and therefore there should never be any time that what the Universe is can't be spoken.
