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.
Yes , you're correct Antrim he does tend to get very upset and seems to think all blacks are peace loving , pacifists who do no wrong while whites are violent racist thugs , talk about being confused maybe he's on ' crack '
It's a national pastime throughout western societies for the loony left who are invariably incapable of formulating and presenting a rational argument to accuse their opponents of being Nazis, racists, fascists.
These juvenile rants are stimulated by the fear that they have been caught on and hope that they will be able to intimidate us from telling the truth elst we are branded as being one or more of the above.
Such ridiculous nonsense is an insult to the millions of Jews who were exterminated in Germany's concentration camps all the countless others who were enslaved and tortured in the occupied nations of Europe.
It comes across that you're trying to accuse white people as a whole of being in support of police brutality. This of course is an untrue and racist statement.
I have absolutely no idea what Slavedevice is saying in that debate so I didn't comment. If he is implying that all blacks are "against the flag" I would make a similar comment, yes. My best guess at what he's saying is that some black athletes protested the American flag which wouldn't be racist but I don't really understand what he's saying.
Immigrants of all colors built this "best country in the world". Today the foundation is crumbling largely because (many of) those that were the majority take credit for the whole thing. THEY are dividing the nation, and "A nation divided............" Well, most of you can fill in the blanks.
Exactly. As Johnathan Swift once said: "When true genius appears in this world you may know him by this sign, that all the dunces are all in confederacy against him." In like manner, Al Einstein said: " Great minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
The great healer had the dunces in violent opposition from day one. A shame far larger than a few kneeling for social justice!
Immigrants of all colors built this "best country in the world". Today the foundation is crumbling largely because (many of) those that were the majority take credit for the whole thing. THEY are dividing the nation, and "A nation divided............"
This has the potential to introduce a very interesting viewpoint, but I am not sure what you mean on the particulars.
-- -- I take the quotes around best country in the world to indicate irony/sarcasm. If so, what country(ies) do you favor, and why? (How does this indicate a solution for the possible crumbling?)
-- -- So what do you think is the foundation of this country?
-- -- What parts do you think are crumbling?
-- -- By majority that takes credit, do you mean White people (the race) or do you mean proponents of Western culture (e.g. classical logic, empiricism, humanism, the scientific method, British Common Law, Free Market Capitalism, constitutional republics and representative/ democratic government, etc.)?
-- -- Whom do you mean by the THEY who are dividing the nation?
Police officers are far more likely to be killed by a black person than vice versa. Over the past decade, black males comprised 40 percent of all cop killers, though they are 6 percent of the population. That means that an officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.
Violent crime is rising in cities with large black populations. Homicides in 2015 rose anywhere from 54 percent in Washington, D.C., to 90 percent in Cleveland. In the nation's 56 largest cities, homicides rose 17 percent in 2015, a nearly unprecedented one-year spike. In the first half of 2016, homicides in 51 large cities were up another 15 percent compared to the same period last year.
Police brutality is another one of your fictional views.
Police brutality is another one of your fictional views.
Police brutality/misconduct is not fiction, but it is nowhere near as prevalent as some people would propose, nor is it consciously focused solely or even primarily on any one race.
There are things in our legal/justice system that desperately need improvement:
-- -- Police training and screening of applicants for law enforcement jobs need a lot of improvement in much of the country.
-- -- Cops need to be paid by the same standard as other high risk professions that require specialized training and extremely high levels of extremely rare abilities.
The average Airplane pilot is paid almost double what the average cop is paid ($99k/yr $53k/yr) despite the fact that the cop has to master a larger set of more complex skills, use those skills in a more dangerous and stressful environment, and react to situations according to a much shorter timeline (often less than half a second reaction window.)
This problem that in most jurisdictions (most egregiously in small towns) police are so poorly paid, means the profession does not tend to attract society's best and brightest. This leads to lower standards for candidates' education, experience, interpersonal skillsets, and reliable reaction times.
I would be surprised if there are any Americans, cops included, who do not want every single police officer to be a bastion of restraint and good judgment.
That requires training and extraordinary people. Both are expensive.
Police training and screening of applicants for law enforcement jobs need a lot of improvement in much of the country.
I won't say I disagree, but I would like to know what makes you say this. What problems do police have that will be solved by screening and training? What kind of training is necessary?
This problem that in most jurisdictions (most egregiously in small towns) police are so poorly paid, means the profession does not tend to attract society's best and brightest.
Who does it attract? Does this problem make a small towns police department worse (in terms of education, experience, interpersonal skillsets, and reliable reaction times) than say, the Chicago PD?
What problems do police have that will be solved by screening and training? What kind of training is necessary?
My brother is a cop in the Pacific Northwest. I worked with cops in the DFW Metroplex, so I have gotten a little bit of insight into what police really have to be able to do.
I cannot accent enough how much more complex being a cop is than being a pilot, an engineer, a teacher, or a lawyer.
THAT IS NOT AN EXAGERATION.
Once you think about what a cop's job entails, the screening and training become apparent.
-- --Police have to interact with strangers (every possible type of person) in many variations of many types of stressful situations.
In none of these situations does the cop have enough information upon arrival at the scene to know who the players are, what the conflict or problem is, or how dangerous the situation is for anyone involved.
In virtually every one of these situations the cop has to deal with people who for various reasons are unhappy the cop is there, and in some UNKNOWN NUMBER of these situations a person is willing to do extreme violence in order to leave the situation independently of the police.
-- --Often cops have to deal with large numbers of these strangers all at once.
-- --Police have to be effective at communicating with people who are angry, high, drunk, worried, terrified, panicked, crazy, stupid (low IQ), belligerent, suicidal and homicidal.
-- --They have to have skills in diplomacy, conflict resolution, de-escalation, observation and remembering details, interviewing, and investigation.
-- --They need to know the law (criminal AND civil) and its applications.
-- --This is on top of the purely physical abilities and practical skills they must master. They have to be able to run fast, fight well, lift adults, shoot accurately, administer CPR and first aid.
-- --Cops routinely are in situations wherein they only have a window of half a second to recognize, interpret, and analyze critical elements of the situation, select a course of action, and begin to act.
-- --On top of it all, the job is to never run away from dangerous people.
The cop's job description is to be in control of EVERY potentially dangerous situation, regardless of how outnumbered he/she is, so that others involved are safe.
-- -- In many of these situations they have to marshal the effects of adrenaline. Remember that adrenaline increases blood flow to the heart and the extremities while reducing blood flow to the frontal lobe, which is where all those extremely important information processing, planning, and decision making skills reside.
Needless to say, they need extreme self-control, in the midst of all that stress and danger, and in the midst of dealing with extraordinarily horrible people who have done extraordinarily horrible things. While on an adrenaline rush and in a state of extreme emotional and physical stress, cops need to refrain from doing to people what they deserve.
That requirement alone disqualifies 90-95% of decent people right off the bat.
That is why the screening is so important.
-
I live in a small town in South Carolina, but I lived most of my life on the West Coast and in Texas.
In every (or almost every) jurisdiction on the West Coast, police academy candidates are required to have degrees, and go through extensive psychological screening prior to graduation from the academy. Generally they go through periodic training throughout their careers to refresh and improve skills and techniques for dealing with various job requirements.
That is not the case for most of the country.
Here in South Carolina, which is made up primarily of small towns, small town cops often make barely more than Assistant Managers at Starbucks.
They usually have high school diplomas, minimal training at the Police Academy, little or no specialized training, and usually do not have to meet any physical fitness requirements. Even in many of the larger jurisdictions like North Charleston, the training is barely basic, and the physical requirements are lax.
Whereas a highly trained cop's primary tool/weapon is the brain, these cops have to rely on their guns.
My brother is a cop in the Pacific Northwest. I worked with cops in the DFW Metroplex, so I have gotten a little bit of insight into what police really have to be able to do.
I cannot accent enough how much more complex being a cop is than being a pilot, an engineer, a teacher, or a lawyer.
I must take issue with this response as it does not answer the question. You stated that police training and screening needs a lot of improvement. I asked what problems will be solved by training and screening and what kind of training would you recommend. While I appreciate that you are familiar with police skill sets (though you left out the ability to safely drive dangerously), you haven’t really answered the question.
cops need to refrain from doing to people what they deserve.
That requirement alone disqualifies 90-95% of decent people right off the bat
While the necessity for extreme restraint may disqualify 95% of the decent population, I don’t think even 5% apply for a cop job, so that’s not really an issue.
In every (or almost every) jurisdiction on the West Coast, police academy candidates are required to have degrees, and go through extensive psychological screening prior to graduation from the academy. Generally they go through periodic training throughout their careers to refresh and improve skills and techniques for dealing with various job requirements.
That is not the case for most of the country.
Given that every state has different requirements and that every district within every state may have further variations, I’m not sure you can say this with any real authority, regardless of your familiarity with the occupation. If you mean to say that police around the country would be better if they adhered to California’s standards, I would simply point to the LAPD. Though they are a highly professional organization, they have been plagued with issues throughout their history, and have similar accusations today as other Law Enforcement agencies do.
Here in South Carolina, which is made up primarily of small towns, small town cops often make barely more than Assistant Managers at Starbucks.
They usually have high school diplomas, minimal training at the Police Academy, little or no specialized training, and usually do not have to meet any physical fitness requirements. Even in many of the larger jurisdictions like North Charleston, the training is barely basic, and the physical requirements are lax.
Whereas a highly trained cop's primary tool/weapon is the brain, these cops have to rely on their guns
Of the 737 people shot by police this year, 11 were in South Carolina. That’s similar to Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Kentucky, and Nevada. California had 128. While California is the most populous state in the US, Texas is the second most populous state and only had 53 shootings. My point is that your state may not have as many issues as it seems and if you want to model after a state, California may not be the best model.
You said the difference between a California cop and a South Carolina cop is apparent. The stats don’t indicate that the difference is greater use of deadly force, so what is the difference? Unfortunately I have to ask again, what problems will be solved by training/screening and what kind of training would you recommend? What exactly are the problems in US Law Enforcement?
EDIT: I just noticed that you said "Pacific Northwest" which is not California. Washington had 28 shootings this year and Oregon had 9. Even so, South Carolina doesn't seem significantly worse off than other states, so I stand by my challenge to your post.
I am sorry my response got so long and so muddled.
While the necessity for extreme restraint may disqualify 95% of the decent population, I don’t think even 5% apply for a cop job, so that’s not really an issue.
Actually it is incredibly relevant to the requirement for the screening, and some of what the screening needs to identify. It also points out how small the pool is for potential cops.
I asked what problems will be solved by training and screening and what kind of training would you recommend.
By going through the extremities of job tasks and requirements, I meant to indicate what we need to be screening for and training cops for.
There are needs for initial and periodic training programs and refreshers in community policing, investigative & interview methods, various local cultural values and assumptions, law, conflict deescalation, verbal judo, non-lethal techniques for subduing subjects, methods in calming oneself (like meditation/breathing techniques, yoga, etc.)
Cops need to be cycling in and out of training and work. Moreover they need to be screened periodically to ensure as they get "rest time" from the most stressful aspects of the job in order to head off stress buildup and overreaction, and this is a good opportunity for training & practice, or to do school engagement programs, etc. Sometimes this rest time need to be for days or weeks, and some times just for a few hours after a stressful call.
Of the 737 people shot by police this year, 11 were in South Carolina. That’s similar to Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Kentucky, and Nevada. California had 128. While California is the most populous state in the US, Texas is the second most populous state and only had 53 shootings. My point is that your state may not have as many issues as it seems and if you want to model after a state, California may not be the best model.
You bring up a good point. It is true that California has less than ten times the population of South Carolina, and more than 12 times the shootings by police.
California also has much larger concentrations of high crime inner city populations. While the cop to citizen ratio is the same for each state (2.5/1000), in California 95% live in urban areas, vice 67% in South Carolina. This makes California cops much more likely to be in contact with citizens at any given moment, and increases the time South Carolina cops are to be travelling between calls, giving them fewer opportunities to shoot someone.
Your statistic definitely shows how comparatively rare it is for cops to shoot people. I was rather surprised the number is so low, especially given the generally high rates of both crime and gun ownership in the US.
The stats don’t indicate that the difference is greater use of deadly force, so what is the difference?
Professionalism, communication skills, attitude, and manners. (More Southerners are unfriendly, inarticulate, and atrociously rude than anywhere I have ever lived.)
Imagine the difference between dealing with the professional demeanor and communication skills of a teacher or lawyer, and those of a garbage collector. The exception to this are South Carolina State Troopers. My experience has been that they are similar to San Diego, Seattle, and San Francisco cops in their levels of professional behavior.
What exactly are the problems in US Law Enforcement?
Overall and generally speaking,
-Inadequate funding and pay to attract and train our best and brightest.
-Inadequate screening for overall temperament under stress, and inadequate screening for daily/periodic stress.
-Inadequate standards for ability and training.
-Inadequate on-the-spot support to individual officers.
-Inadequate community support and appreciation of cops.
-We need to abolish plea bargaining and the drive to elicit confessions instead of impartially gathering evidence.
Actually it is incredibly relevant to the requirement for the screening, and some of what the screening needs to identify. It also points out how small the pool is for potential cops.
Yes, but the pool of actual cops is incredibly small as is. I understand that cops need restraint, but how do you expect to screen for that?
By going through the extremities of job tasks and requirements, I meant to indicate what we need to be screening for and training cops for.
There are needs for initial and periodic training programs and refreshers in community policing, investigative & interview methods, various local cultural values and assumptions, law, conflict deescalation, verbal judo, non-lethal techniques for subduing subjects, methods in calming oneself (like meditation/breathing techniques, yoga, etc.)
By looking over your own list you can find skill sets that may be impossible to screen for. Given the requirements of the job vary greatly by geography and the professional requirements of departments are so unique, I don't believe you can say with any authority that what you suggest is needed is actually lacking.
More Southerners are unfriendly, inarticulate, and atrociously rude than anywhere I have ever lived
Being impolite and inarticulate often correlates with poverty, which the south has more of than the rest of the country. Given cops are hired most often from local populations, and they are locally funded, how do you suggest they go about hiring higher quality applicants and paying them better?
Inadequate funding and pay to attract and train our best and brightest
How would you propose local municipalities, the ones who fund their own PD's, go about raising enough to budget for cops paid what they are worth?
Inadequate screening for overall temperament under stress
What does adequate screening look like?
inadequate screening for daily/periodic stress
This sounds like another headache to add to the headaches. What about a well known option for self-reporting?
Inadequate standards for ability and training
What are the standards in your town? How do they compare to the standards your brother met?
Inadequate on-the-spot support to individual officers
What kind of support?
Inadequate community support and appreciation of cops
How can police affect this?
We need to abolish plea bargaining and the drive to elicit confessions instead of impartially gathering evidence
Interesting. I understand plea bargains as a functional necessity due to overcrowding in jails and prisons.
Why do you say "instead" of impartial evidence collection? I see no need for a trade off here.
As you point out, there are no cheap or easy solutions, and very often what we actually have to do is make trade-offs.
For the last half century, a lot of the trade-offs have amounted to trading away reduced possibilities of people being shot by cops in order to save money on personnel, training, & other programs.
I also want to make sure that in general, most of our nation's cops do a fantastic job. Considering the nature of their tasking, and who they deal with on a regular basis, it is amazing how few people are shot by cops for any reason.
Regarding paying for the needed improvements, municipalities, counties, and states need to radically reduce optional spending and spending on things that serve subgroups, and focus instead on physical and social infrastructure (roads, schools, emergency services, cops) that serve the entire community.
Allow individuals and private organizations (churches, etc.) to take responsibility for things like parks and the top end of the welfare rolls.
Raise taxes as required.
None of this is ideal. Like I said, it is all about trade-offs.
Regarding screening for daily/periodic stress, you wrote This sounds like another headache to add to the headaches. What about a well known option for self-reporting?
Absolutely true, and a good partial solution, but they also should have partners who can refer for a "cool down" period after an impactful encounter or incident. There should also be tripwires for automatic cool downs.
What does adequate screening look like?
Synthetic encounters during training.
Better use of data they already have. Review of dash/body camera recordings, not for disciplinary action, but for better job placement. The Somali immigrant who was involved in a recent shooting was known to be a possible potential problem, but was kept as a beat cop because of his link to the Somali community, and ability to speak the language. They could have kept those skills by making him a special liaison who supported other officers already on the scene, but kept him out of situations he was known to have difficulties with.
One of the implications of the mismatch between how broad most cops' skillsets are, and how broad the job requirements are is that very few people can meet all needs. We should make more policing positions targeted, so that we don't get stuck having to hire Swiss army knife cops.
What are the standards in your town?
High school diploma, no criminal record, no physical fitness standard, only the basic academy training, none of the more advanced secondary level that is required other SC cops, (basically, half the standard training,), valid SC driver's license.
Regarding, inadequate on-the-spot support to individual officers, they need to work in pairs. Most cops don't have partners like they did 30-40 years ago.
Regarding, inadequate community support and appreciation of cops. I don't think police officers can affect this very much, although departments can a little.
A lot of this has to grow from organizations outside police departments, e.g., schools and media outlets. Most local and national news outlets really do not report the positive things cops do on a daily basis, but rather focus on when bad things happen. If cops were treated like firefighters in the media, it would help.
Why do you say "instead" of impartial evidence collection? I see no need for a trade off here. There is. Most interviews of suspects are based on a "theory of the crime" and the primary suspect is interviewed by a method that steers away from searching for exculpatory evidence, and instead aims to elicit a confession, (These two are obviously mutually exclusive) or convince the suspects that the evidence is so stacked against them that a plea bargain is safer than a trial (which also elicits a confession.) This is how we end up with many of the bad convictions & overturned death row cases.
I can appreciate the amount of skill and diversity it would take to be a cop. I think solving the issues facing cops and the policed public is not so straight forward. I don't entirely agree with all of your diagnoses or prescriptions, but I am on board with your approach. To go into this subject much further would require a time commitment I don't really want. Good discussion though.
America is amazing,but it would not have survived long enough to thrive without the contribution of blacks. Unfortunately, at the beginning of the U.S., a lot of that contribution came in the form of slavery. It is sad that we had slaves but without the labor we would never have won the revolutionary war. Not to mention that many slaves fought for the U.S. in battle. Slaves helped win the battles of Ticonderoga, Breed's hill, Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Saratoga, Savanah, Charleston, Cowpens, Yorktown, and countless others. True, the U.S. was led by a majority of whites, but gained victory only on the backs of slaves. Black people have also made huge contributions to society. Garret Morgan created most of the laws of traffic and had the idea of the traffic light. Daniel Williams was the first to complete open heart surgery successfully. Lewis Latimer perfected the light-bulb. There is so much black people have done in contribution, they do not deserve to be abused.
There is so much black people have done in contribution, they do not deserve to be abused.
Drop the racist silliness of putting everybody into categories by race, and then acting like they are all the same, and pronouncing that because of that they deserve the same thing as each other.
You also seem to be saying that somehow the contributions of Garret Morgan, Daniel Williams, and Lewis Latimer reflect some credit for their accomplishments onto other Black people, the vast majority of whom did not assist these men, or even know them.
Consider how ridiculous it is to say that Hitler did not deserve to be abused because of all the great things Galileo and Isaac Newton did for humanity.
Let's face it. There are some individuals in every race category who are horrible people, and actually DO deserve to be abused.
What you are doing is conflating category with group.
A category is merely a mental construct, an abstraction based on a set of common criteria. By contrast a group is a collection of concrete and defined individual things or people.
Your racist statement is based on the A group exists in the real world, whereas a category does not exist outside of the mind.
Being thought of as belonging in the same category implies only similarities, and not differences have been used to determine
I feel like this is coming from some place else, but I don't know from who.
Truth be told Blacks built this country, from buildings to agriculture, America got it's start off the death of the previous peoples living here and the backs of black slaves. America also a melting pot of immigrants, most of which are still helping to build this country still so I'm not sure who this "we" is that's going to keep killing them.
Blacks built America did they and you are implying by your response that blacks are the only immigrants to America. Thinking this through and viewing what you typed then there must have been more than black slaves in America. Whom might it be as immigrants were also slaves. Nationality of them could possibly help your misguided cause.
you are implying by your response that blacks are the only immigrants to America.
I didn't say Blacks where the only immigrants so I apologize if that's how it sounded. America is a melting pot of difficult cultures and beliefs, but a vast majority of what built this great country were Slaves.
*Edit oh I see it's because I said Blacks built this country, so let me clarify, I do believe most of this country was built off the backs of black slaves but I can't say what percentage with certainty so I will amend it to the vast majority.
