Are Cops Held To A Lower Standard Than Civilians? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Are Cops Held To A Lower Standard Than Civilians?
in Politics

By UniversalismUniversalism 16 Pts
I expect there to be some disagreement over this question, and perhaps that is a good thing, as it will give those in disagreement with this question the opportunity to persuade me why this assertion is false, just as I intend to reinforce my question with a post filled with real life events and references to back my own statement.

First of all, let's get down to the main point of my question and put it down into context: What do I mean by a "lower" standard?

Here are some of the main arguments I plan to make in bullet form, which will then be later translated into a summary of their own:

I believe...

1) Cops are given more legal rights than civilians

2) Cops are allowed to do to civilians what would be seen as a crime if it were conducted by anybody else, even in the rare case a judge sides AGAINST the cop in question

3) Cops as an institution, and not just on an individual basis, are rotten; therefore rendering the argument of a "few bad apples" completely moot


So, let's get down to the first point that I made.

Cops have been known to commit egregious assaults against civilians, whether it be the elderly, disabled or even juvenile children, and they often do it WHILE on camera, which makes it easier for the observer to see for themselves what did or did not happen.

However, with very rare exceptions, if a judge or police department declares the cop to be at fault, then the cop is always granted the right to resign quietly and are then usually hired at a neighbouring department, instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb1E6Uu79ko

On the other hand, if a civilian were to assault another civilian, then the civilian would be in jail and charged.

A civilian has no rights to just "resign" and quietly slide away from the situation.

And even more telling, is that most jurisdictions actually consider hitting a cop to be an aggravated assault in its own right, which means that a simple punch in the face against a cop is far more likely to be declared a felony and result in much longer prison time, and a more damaging background record than if the same punch had been against a regular civilian.

As one can see, cops are able to get away with assaults -- including cases where people have died -- and the worst that might happen to them is that they get fired and are then usually rehired at a new department where their infamy may not be as noticeable.

The same situation applies to drug offending cops as well.

Cops have been caught on CAMERA planting drugs in cars of civilians just so that they can have the civilian arrested on drug charges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UANRvFNc0hw

Three things to keep in mind that the cops in question are doing here:

1) They are themselves in possession of drugs
2) They are committing perjury against another individual
3) They themselves almost certainly consume some of those drugs themselves during their free time

Out of all the hundreds of reported cases of this happening, only a few of them have ever been caught, and only because the cops in these situations were actually dumb enough to turn on their own body camera videos and film themselves planting the drugs in a vehicle; and even then, these cops are mostly found out because a whistle blower from the inside ends up ratting them out, and it is usually the whistle blower who gets bullied out of the workforce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcWXVDiEjzU

I also find it quite astounding how cops think they can draw their guns on everybody they come across as though they are running around in some sort of combat zone, yet if somebody even acts "suspicious" in the eyes of a cop, the cop can legally spray a person dozens of times on camera and a prosecutor -- who is themselves paid by the state -- is 99% guaranteed to dismiss all charges outright.

I will not bother naming the more obvious cases of police shootings, since they are old news, but I will talk about some of the other more one-sided police shooting videos that did NOT receive media attention, and you, the reader, can tell me for yourselves whether or not the police were justified in this case, and what would have happened had the situation been reversed.

Back in 2013, a man by the name of Ricardo Zeferino was out looking for his brother's stolen bike with two friends. Zeferino had called the police and asked if they could help him find the bicycle. Not surprisingly, the cops were unable to find it, yet Zeferino allegedly found it abandoned on a street corner, and he and his two friends were returning home with it when several cops jumped out of their vehicles with their handguns drawn out and flashlights pointed in their faces.

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2017/02/13/appeals-court-dismisses-gardenas-lawsuit-over-release-of-police-shooting-video/

The "interrogation" lasted for mere seconds when Zeferino, who was wearing a white baseball cap, decided to take it off.

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Zeferino is fatally shot eight times by multiple cops. One of those bullets even went through his body and it ended up shooting one of his friends who was standing behind him.

For two years, the video was hidden from the public, and when a judge finally ordered that the video be made public, the police department threatened to sue the state.

Despite how blatantly at fault the cops were, prosecutors once again declared the murder "justifiable" and declined to press charges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8rAX3up5Z8

In other cases, men such as Kelly Thomas and Robert Leone were beaten so badly by police on video that Kelly Thomas died (in a coma) while Robert Leone was left with long-term injuries and was even IMPRISONED for four years by the police who falsified their claims, even though the entire beating was caught on their dash cameras.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDpJ5FtG6Ac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5eOknaXgYU

Either juries are so incompetent when it comes to cop trials that they will take a cop's word over a dash cam video at face value, or they are paid to acquit all cops who go to trial for murder or aggravated assault.

There is no way around it.

Many who have read up until this point may think that my "generalisation" against cops is unfair, but I promise you all that I have only just begun scratching the surface, and that I am destined to end up omitting many more noteworthy cases that cannot be added for lack of time.

Believe me when I say this: I am a very fair person.

Even in the rare case when cops go to "prison" for a murder or assault, I can sympathise with them on a human level, something which I know to be lacking in most if not all cops, who are notorious for having selective personality disorder as well as sociopathic tendencies.

https://www.mic.com/articles/44423/10-professions-that-attract-the-most-sociopaths

However, I also know for a fact that cops will boast that everyone must be held "accountable" for their actions. And if their interpretation of accountability is to imprison somebody or even execute them in certain cases (things which I tend not to be a fan of, especially in the latter example) than I would be a hypocrite to grant immunity to the very group of people who enforce the laws that get others imprisoned.

A cop cannot excuse their violent physical assaults against family members, civilians or colleagues and excuse their behaviour as "working a difficult" job.

If a civilian cannot get out of being charged and arrested by a cop for hitting somebody under duress, then a cop definitely has no right to do the same; even though, of course, that is what happens in the real world.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/

Steve Wilkos is arguably the most well known cop in the world, and if anybody knows who he is, Steve Wilkos is one of those bald-headed cops who likes to preach about how one should be ethical and not act like a "moron" and that includes the drunk drivers that have been on his show.

A few years ago, Steve Wilkos was himself arrested because he caused a dangerous accident resulting in property damage and a vehicle being flipped. He then proceeded to run away on foot, and though he was arrested and charged for the DUI, Steve Wilkos himself -- who, like other cops, say you should always plead guilty and "accept" your sentence -- begged the judge to let him off and used his former service as a police officer as his main plea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGNo5I9W0Vk

It should also be pointed out that in the very rare case where a civilian wins a lawsuit for a violation inflicted on them by a police officer, the cop in question is unlikely to pay for the damages personally, as they are regarded as a "ward of the state" which means that all settlements will come from taxes, with their ego being the only thing left on the line for them.

While I myself tend to also be against suing for personal assets, I cannot overlook the simple fact that a civilian who commits a life threatening act against a civilian or a cop would not only be forced to pay for damages out of their own pocket, but would then be looking at a prison sentence which could stretch up to life imprisonment.

Even in the event that the civilian in question is released, they are probably going to have a criminal record that will make them ineligible for any meaningful employment outside of entrepreneurship, as the police will hound that individual for the rest of their lives with a piece of paper stating that so and so is not worthy to be employed at a job for any number of reasons.

https://johnhoward.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/facts-24-crime-and-unemployment-whats-the-link-march-2009.pdf

That last sentence brings me down to the third point, where the argument can be made that even if every cop in the world was a saintly human being that was pure of heart for all, it still would not change the fact that policing in itself is rotten, and not just the individuals who represent it.

Anytime I hear a cop claiming that they want to "protect and serve" I remind myself that the person is either a liar trying to make their job seem more noble and praiseworthy than it really is, or they are some deluded rookie who probably grew up watching too many cartoons and have yet to adapt to the real world.

First of all, how is it that a cop can actually be "serving" us when a cop is the one that can even keep you locked in prison for many years for the "crime" of resisting arrest?

If I don't approve of being arrested, and you arrest me anyway, then you are not my servant; just like an employer wouldn't be the one getting fired because his employee did not approve of his boss's work ethic.

The even bigger joke, of course, is when cops say that they are there to protect as well, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has stated multiple times that police are not legally obligated to protect anybody and that their only purpose is to enforce the law.

The 2005 ruling from the Supreme Court is also why when someone survives being stabbed half to death by an assailant on a train while the police lock themselves up in another room and wait for the killer to surrender themselves or flee, neither the police nor the state can be sued, since the state has immunity when it comes to acts of negligence that would have a civilian charged under the "Good Samaritan" law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

Police by nature are there to find any breakage of the law and do everything they can to help prosecutors convict the person and ruin their lives, whether it be for murder or something as trivial as trespassing on private property.

Cops by law will never benefit the average person, and there is a reason why lawyers encourage anyone being detained or arrested not to speak to the police, as the police are not there for your benefit, but for the benefit of the state.

Now, let me put this little scenario in your head, and you can tell me if what the police do here is "protecting and serving" the individual and the community in any way, shape or form:

Let's say you are somebody who is poor and wants to get out of living on the streets. As a result, you sneak by some cashiers and snatch a few bills here and there.

One day, you are caught and arrested. While being charged, the police put your name on a background record. You are then sent to a judge, who gives you one year in jail.

During that one year you spend in jail, you likely witness and experience many traumatic things that would be regarded as unfathomable in the outside.

When you do get out, you not only suffer from some sort of depression and possibly even PTSD as a result of your experience, but you also now have some record that will make finding a steady income all the much harder when compared to BEFORE you were arrested for reasons related to your unemployment.

And if you have children to look after... Well, statistics say that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to get themselves caught up in the same generational trap that their parents now find themselves in.

To make matters even more dire, is that often enough, the people who are now left in such a state begin to take their revenge out on society as a whole.

What started off as simply a person trying to find the means to get by could now easily evolve into somebody attempting to rob, beat up, vandalise or even kill others, as their minds are likely to feel the justification for the bad hand they feel they have been dealt with.

Billions of dollars is now wasted because of police conduct, and many families are forever destroyed, even in cases when none of our frivolous laws were even broken to begin with, as people are often times given records without ever going to trial. And aside from the harm that mass incarceration does to not only those who go there, but to their families and communities, is not something that benefits anybody except for the police who make their careers destroying the lives of others, usually those who are too poor or disadvantaged to defend themselves in a court rigged in favour of the state.

We need to stop treating police officers as though they are public servants of our communities and acknowledge that there is only one word which can describe a force that is set out to try and strip the rights of as many people as power while empowering themselves at the expense of not only the economy but our own liberties:

DEFICITS!

Prosecutors and judges are also equally as guilty of this cycle as cops, and politicians and legislators should definitely not count themselves out, as it is the very legal system they have created that has resulted in people doing things they likely would never have committed in the first place.

Quite interestingly, is that contrary to popular belief, one does not need to be indicted, charged, nor convicted of anything in order to receive a criminal record.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/05/17/i_had_no_idea.html

Getting a criminal record can be as easy as a cop claiming so and so committed an act, even if there were no grounds to it, other than the cop's word. Millions of people who have never been formally arrested by the cops or charged have a criminal record that will ruin their chances at employment and housing, though most who have such a record are oblivious that it exists until the day they apply to a job and find out that an over-zealous cop or one with a chip on his or her shoulders made an accusation against you and now it follows you around for life like a real life cancer seeking to destroy you.

https://medienportal.univie.ac.at/presse/aktuelle-pressemeldungen/detailansicht/artikel/not-convicted-but-presumed-guilty/

https://canadian-nurse.com/en/articles/issues/2014/june-2014/whats-in-your-police-record

No other profession in the world has a criminal record system like the police do.

It is not as though a chef, doctor or teacher is going to be able to create their own personal record against me that an employer is likely to see the way the police can, and even if someone from another profession were to write such a report against me, I would have much better grounds to counter their claims with slander. 

In contrast, who gets to investigate the police?

Most jurisdictions do not have a way to file a complaint against the police, as police by nature regard themselves as being above the law, meaning that there can't be a legal complaint made against them.

The few jurisdictions that do allow complaints against police are likely to result in a gang of police emerging from their desks and assaulting the person trying to make the complaint. One undercover news reporter who tried to make a complaint was instantly chased out by a belligerent cop who proceeded to tackle and arrest him. The reporter was only released when a news crew who had watched the interaction from their vehicle went and confronted the cop who made that arrest and forced him to release their crew member.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJ5f1JMKns

It is not hard to understand why cops have this high attitude of themselves.

For one, police officers are actually very wealthy, and the claim that they work for "pennies" is mere propaganda intended to gain sympathy and support for them.

Let's look at Canada, for instance, which happens to be the country I live in, and you can tell ME if the wages the police receive are considered to be "poverty" wages:

The average Canadian receives a salary of $51,000. However, it should also be noted that Canadian averages do not include retirees, the unemployed, minors or full-time students.

https://careers.workopolis.com/advice/how-much-money-are-we-earning-the-average-canadian-wages-right-now/

Meanwhile, the average salary for a ROOKIE constable, is over $53,000 on their first year, or more than what most Canadians will earn in a year during their entire career.

Within three years, their average salary rises to a whopping $86,000 a year.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/salary-and-benefits

A Provincial or RCMP cop, however, earns even more, with as many as one in three federal police in Canada earning in excess of $100,000 a year, or twice the amount of an average Canadian.

As many as one in ten RCMP cops earn over $120,000.

Aside from their salaries, cops receive full dental and medical insurance, and some jurisdictions even grant them mortgage payments to help the "rookies" afford a house right off the bat, even in an economy that sees the average Canadian unable to afford even a townhouse in a rural setting.

In addition, cops in Canada receive full pensions by the time they are 57, whereas an ordinary Canadian must now wait until they are 70 to receive their pensions, which are likely to be much smaller, as most Canadians cannot command a salary even half as high as the average cop, and they are most certainly not receiving mortgage benefits that makes it possible for a rookie cop to buy a full-sized house without even needing to save up or pay interest.

So next time you hear a cop telling you that they are not getting paid enough, just tell them that it is probably still three times more that YOU, the civilian who is paying for their salaries through taxes, are earning.

In the United States, over a million people are currently on a sex offender registry, and the only reason the number is not higher is for several reasons:

1) Many of those who were previously listed on it have died, either through natural causes, homicide or suicide
2) Some have never been caught
3) Others have yet to be convicted
4) Many have yet to be released from prison

Before I jump into the sex offender registry, let me clarify this by saying that I think that the sex offender registry, as well as the social ramifications that come with it -- including the reality that many on the registry die because they are prohibited from setting foot in a hospital or because they cannot be in a homeless shelter during the winter -- is inexcusable, even if the registrant in question was some stereotypical night stalker preying on the vulnerable at every possible opportunity.

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/federal-judge-allows-registered-sex-offenders-michigan-homeless-shelters

However, the reality is quite different, as the average person who gets registered was fourteen at the time, and they are often times registered for offences that would be seen as perfectly legal for an adult, who is presumably more "aware" of themselves than a juvenile.

Thousands of people get added to registries for taking pictures of themselves as minors or for having sexual intercourse with themselves with a minor who was approximately their age. Often times, a sixteen or seventeen year old person lies about their age and the eighteen or nineteen year old becomes registered, even if they thought their partner was their age. Some cases even involve the parents of juveniles being added because the parents would allow another minor who was in a relationship with their teenage daughter who became impregnated by them move in their house, and they would themselves be regarded as a "party to child molestation" and have their own livelihood destroyed as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Georgia_v._Allison

Just like the prison system, the sex offender registry system is big business for police and politicians alike, and I can assure those reading what I have written that there are not many people actually convicted of forceful rape who are currently on the registry, as the stiffening in American sentencing laws since the 1970s has made it so that rape either carries a mandatory life sentence without parole in many jurisdictions (Louisiana being one of the most well known examples), or a minimum sentence that would take several decades to complete (Arizona, New York, Georgia, South Dakota etc.).

Even in states where life sentences are discretionary, someone is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment for trivial reasons as simple as "inappropriate" interaction with a minor, even if no penetration was involved or intended.

For instance, Michelle Taylor was convicted of forcing a thirteen year old to touch her breasts while she was drunk at a party. Under Nevada law, even this act alone carried a mandatory life sentence, which she was sentenced to in 2010 when the judge in her trial told her there was no legal discretion permitted in this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-xEdbEubjs

Anybody who is actually free from prison and was convicted of rape either committed the rape decades ago when sentencing laws for violent felonies such as rape and murder were far more relaxed than they are now, or they were given a reduced charge as part of a plea bargain because the prosecutor was uncertain if they could prove a case of rape. 

While I tend to be progressive in this area and think that rape cases should rarely, if ever, warrant a life sentence, the point here is that the police will treat everyone on the registry as either a potential rapist, or a rapist who has already been convicted and released from prison.

Police officers in Florida have even gone so far as to put red stop signs in the front yard property of everyone who is fortunate enough to find a residence while living on the registry, as a way to bring attention to everyone else that a "rapist" lives in that house and for everyone to beware.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=wWg5XeHVO8bN_Aa24rbwCw&q=red+stop+sign+florida+sex+offence&oq=red+stop+sign+florida+sex+offence&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21l2j33i160.590.5666..5765...0.0..1.559.6526.1j11j7j1j5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0j0i131j0i67j0i131i67j0i10j33i22i29i30j0i8i13i30.SLaNCQjNDxE&ved=0ahUKEwihuuf108_jAhXGJt8KHTaxDb4Q4dUDCAc&uact=5

Such fear mongering, unsurprisingly, means that politicians can get the public to pass even more ludicrous laws, giving the police themselves more power to curb on the liberties of all civilians, even if one has gone their whole lives without a direct encounter with the police.

When it comes to murder cases, the police have definitely proven to be no better, and it is minorities or those with mental disabilities who have been the most vehemently targeted demographic of the police forces.

While people may think of Black people or Hispanics being made targets, one should remember that those suffering from autism or some other mental disorder are treated just as harshly if not more so than the more represented minority groups.

Back in the 1930s, a young man named Joe Arridy was executed at the age of twenty-three on the accusations of premeditating the rape of a woman resulting in her death. Joe was autistic and so oblivious to his situation that he was known to have played with his trains on death row, giving him the nickname "The Happiest Man on Death Row" and even when he was about to be gassed alive in a gas chamber, the warden was unable to explain to Joe that he needed to finish his ice cream now, because he was not going to be able to eat his final meal after he had been executed.

Of course, Joe was posthumously "exonerated" several decades after the fact, but it still does not change the fact that both the police and prosecutors alike targeted Arridy simply because he was a young man with a severe disability, and they knew it would be very easy to bully him into a "confession."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arridy

In an even more recent case, a person named Johnny Frank Garrett was executed at twenty-eight for reasons so stupid that if it were made into a horror movie (which it later was, quite ironically) people would find the entire case laughable to say the least.

At the time of the "murder" Garrett was a seventeen year old known to suffer from what is perceived to have been some form of retardation. Garrett lived in a small city called Amarillo, Texas, and on October 31, 1981, a seventy-six year old woman named Sister Benz was found to have been raped, robbed and murdered in the bedroom of the nunnery.

Garrett himself happened to live across the street from the nunnery, and those at the nunnery knew him quite well and said he used to enjoy visiting the place. Having been beaten, burned and raped in his early life, Garrett was said to have resorted to alcoholism at an early age, which became further "evidence" used against him at his murder capital trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Frank_Garrett

The police were so desperate to find someone to murder, that they hired a self-proclaimed psychic to tell them who the killer is (and I only wish I were making this up). This psychic, who called herself "Bubbles" told the police that Garrett was the killer, because she saw him murder the nun in a DREAM!

Without warning, dozens of cops went to Garrett's home with a news crew. Garrett had been reportedly watching football in the living room with his family at the time when the knock came at the door. Garrett was dragged out by several police officers who spent an hour "interrogating" him and forcing him to make a confession that he never signed, despite the evidence that the police had been attempting to physically intimidate him into doing so.

Quite interestingly, aside from the false confession and the "psychic" who claimed she saw Garrett commit the murder in a dream, the only other evidence they ever found against him were a few fingerprints in the building where the murder happened; fingerprints which could easily have been explained by the fact that Garrett was known to have visited the place quite often and had even helped some of the nuns move in the place just one week before the murder took place.

Despite the fact that this was literally a modern Salem Witch Trial taking place in 1980s Texas, with no evidence other than some trivial fantasy claims, the jury unanimously found Garrett guilty, and the judge immediately ordered that Garrett be sentenced to death. 

It should be pointed out that during this time, even the nuns and the priest who lived at the place where the murder took place did not believe Garrett was guilty, and that even if he had been, they would have opposed his execution on ethical and religious grounds. Even Pope John Paul II tried to intervene on Garrett's behalf, but Ann Richards refused to intervene, and the seventeen members of the Texas Pardon board all ordered that Garrett be executed on February 11, 1992.

At the time of his sentencing, the city of Amarillo cheered the verdict and legal outcome, and Garrett was reportedly spat and kicked by civilians and police officers alike. Witnesses to the trial even report that prosecutor Danny Hill as well as the Sheriff of Amarillo at the time made mocking imitations that Garrett was going to be fried (he was executed by lethal injection).

Fast forward twelve years later, and DNA surfaces which shows that the real killer was in fact a Cuban immigrant by the name of Leonidus Rueda, who had been deported by Castro for a previous murder committed in his home country. Aside from the murder of the nun, Rueda had also murdered another woman four months prior and was later convicted of attacking several more women, including his ex girlfriend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYymK3_l-jU

Despite the travesty of this case, none of the police, judges, prosecutors or politicians were ever held to account, and a Texas law actually ORDERED that all evidence posthumously exonerating Garrett be destroyed as a way to make it impossible for the state to be sued by the family members of the deceased.

Similar laws also exist in Virginia, Georgia and Florida, where police are routinely encouraged to destroy any evidence intended to exonerate those false imprisoned or executed as both a way to prevent the state from being sued, but also in order to give the appearance to the public that innocent people are never convicted. Note: I should also remind readers that if a civilian were to do the same thing in order to protect their own image, the civilian would be imprisoned for tampering with evidence after the fact. They might even get an accessory charge added to their record as well.

Now, even if someone were actually "guilty" of what they were accused with, does not justify what happens to somebody after the fact.

There was a time when some jurisdictions permitted death for hanging (even though such cases were far more rare than is commonly believed) and even if we could prove with 100% certainty that nobody convicted of theft would ever be executed does not mean that we should justify the death penalty for those who are convicted of theft.

The state is also not capable of delivering justice, as the state is there to protect itself, and just as government-run schools and hospitals tend to be inferior when operated by the state, so does the perceived sense of "justice" which tends to be more about power and retribution than it is about harmony.

A society bent on destroying others for breaking the law will fold on itself sooner or later, as all previous generations have shown.

The people who make up the police forces are themselves an issue, as background tests eliminate candidates perceived as being intelligent or educated because those who are intelligent and educated are less likely to become physically aggressive and are also more less likely to blindly follow orders perceived as unethical or unjust.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/

Robert Jordan was a candidate once known for taking a Wonderlic Test to try and become a cop. It turned out that his score was approximately 129, which placed him as beyond average, though definitely not a genius.

Jordan was rejected on the grounds that he was too intelligent for the job, as the ideal police candidate has an IQ of 100, which is what the median population has, give or take a couple of points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqvijdxnHxI

One wonders how much safer we would be if police officers were themselves smarter and more educated than the ones currently serving in the ranks, and if this is yet another example of why it is time that we consider replacing the police forces as an outdated concept, just as the police of the Victorian era replaced the military as an outdated policing concept.

I must also say that I find it particularly interesting that a lot of police officers self-proclaim themselves to be many tinfoil hats in one ranging from mechanic, social worker, nurse and even DOCTOR of all things.

They'll claim that their ability to repair a broken vehicle makes them a mechanic; that their ability to apply first aid makes them a nurse; that their "socialisation" with suspects and witnesses makes them social workers, and that their "saving lives" makes them a doctor (Dana Scully, anyone?)

Of course, these claims are all nonsense, and you are unlikely to find cops who are doctors in the real world, as police departments tend to pick candidates who are smart enough to drive a car, file a police report and know how to beat/kill the occasional suspect during an arrest, but not necessarily smart enough to become skeptical of the law, which educated people are historically known for being.

While I understand that this last part may seem to be drifting away from the original argument, I assure readers that what I say here makes perfect sense, as people who are less intelligent and less educated are more likely to see everything in black and white.

That is why the typical police officer will undoubtedly see themselves and the state they represent as agents of good, alongside their supporters, while everyone else is an enemy to be persecuted and possibly even exterminated at all costs, much as if one were fighting in a war, which may explain why it is that police have become so trigger happy that they now even kill people with a Wii remote because they thought it was a shotgun.

Cops are most certainly NOT nurses, as cops are not known to actually apply aid to the injured that they shoot, even when such shootings were clearly the fault of the police. Someone who has been shot dozens of times is more likely to have cops yelling at a corpse to put their hands up before one of them sits their leg upon the back of the victim and handcuffs them, leaving them to a most undignified fate. Sometimes a cop may apply basic aid to a fellow cop who has been injured, but that is hardly the qualifications needed to be a respectable nurse, both in skill and ethics.

Cops are most certainly NOT social workers, as knowing how to manipulate and intimidate people into making confessions -- even those that may never have happened -- is not what self-respecting social workers do. And on top of that, if you go to jail or prison where other police officers and prison guards are likely to be present, the most that a cop is going to do is ransack your cell, inspect your movements during the daytime, or possibly place you in the "hole" for a period of time, even if you were the one being attacked in the first place. Could anybody please explain to me what social work has to do with being a cop or prison guard?

Cops are most certainly NOT mechanics, as mechanics do far more than just pumping air into a flat tire or plugging a wire to get a car battery started again. Making such false claims as being a "mechanic" because a cop knows how to change a tire is an insult to real mechanics out there.

I can hardly believe I have to explain this, but cops are NOT doctors. The Wonderlic Test itself (which is so easy, by the way, that I can hardly imagine how it is possible someone can possibly get a 100 on it) places doctors way above the IQ range that would be regarded as appropriate for a police candidate. Even prison guards are likely to be too smart to be a cop, as Robert Jordan, who was rejected from the police for being too smart was actually hired to work at a prison, since those with higher intelligence are considered more suitable for prison, as opposed to street work.

Take the Wonderlic Test, folks; it really is an easy test, which makes me wonder what kind of people are actually doing so poorly that they are capable of getting a 21/50 (the ideal score for a cop).

https://samplewonderlictest.com/

Taking some photographs at a crime scene and sending them to a forensic scientist who is themselves not a police officer does not make the cop who took the sample some sort of medical expert, regardless of what cops on the internet like to boast.

My rant here regarding intelligence has nothing to do with me believing that someone's worth is based on intelligence, though it is relevant when speaking in the context of what types of people are likely to get hired to work in the police forces.

If policing is merely about arresting and convicting as many people as possible for the benefit of the state, then I suppose it makes sense to hire less intelligent people, as such people are exactly the type of candidates known for being physically aggressive on a regular basis and who are known to do very mundane tasks without boredom.

On the other hand, if we want to end the hypocrisy of police double-standards and also abolish the police, then perhaps we need to look at the possibility that its future equivalent should instead be filled with people who are both intelligent and educated. 

As previously stated, I do find it quite interesting that so many tinfoil cops refer to themselves as social workers and nurses while doing everything an ideal social worker or nurse would not do, as I actually find that such people would do a much better job protecting and serving our communities than the brutes who make up our forces today.

Unlike the police, who are also known to make every interaction a matter of public record, healthcare workers are typically bound to HIPAA, which means that interactions they have with their patients are going to be kept confidential from the public. 

The attitude of social workers and nurses are likely to be much different, as they tend to be more focused on developing a positive outcome with those deemed as "ill" whereas the police have the perception of instilling their own sense of fear and justice, and as such, tend to have a very opposite approach when compared to a professional healthcare worker.

Abolishing the criminal code as well means abolishing prosecutors and sentencing judges.

Breaking a law -- which is merely a document and not a living organism -- can no longer be sufficient reason to arrest and possibly even imprison someone.

One has to prove themselves a danger to themselves or others within the eye of a well-reasoned healthcare worker to justify any sort of detainment, and even then, the idea of charging and imprisoning somebody should be made a relic of the past and not the future.

Since all "crimes" involving murder or other types of felonies are a form of stress response and thus a medical issue, it is best that the state distance itself from the field of criminology and instead permit the medical field to have more influence, as medical professionals are going to be far better trained to deal with abnormalities such as those who become serial killers or terrorists versus a twenty-one year old cop who likely has not even memorised the Miranda Rights off the top of their head.

Having a specialised medical community bound by HIPAA is also advantageous, as it means that those who find themselves in a system similar to a prison but run by medical specialists will be less likely to become recidivists, and they are also less likely to be rendered unemployable because some record continues following them to every job interview, even into old age.

Those sent to do what may be the equivalent of a cop today would be effectively social workers and nurses who are physically fit enough to go out on the streets while being specialised at dealing with situations when they first happen, as opposed to regular social workers and nurses who are better at dealing with events already in the past.

Such social workers and nurses would be limited in what they can do, outside of making reports or possible detainment in the event of endangerment:

They cannot issue fines

They cannot carry a firearm

They are also prohibited from using a taser or engaging in any physical force, except as a last resort

Cops would tell themselves that guns are necessary, but I call bluff on such claims, as cops in New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom do not typically carry firearms, and yet I bet those countries are much safer to be living in compared to the United States.

Often times, the only reason a cop gets shot is because they are about to make an arrest on someone convicted of theft or drug possession, which could mean that the individual would spend the rest of their lives in prison and have a tarnished record even if they do get out at a later date.

Such events are far less likely to happen in a system that deals with correcting certain actions as opposed to lighting the torch on an individual.

And that is why before we can force the state away from the field of criminology, one must force the police as a whole away from the presence of our society.

In conclusion, I would like to add that while some cops do get convicted in very rare cases, they tend to happen either because the victim was themselves a cop or a relative of a cop, or because politicians decided on their own that at least one cop needed to be a "fall out" person in order to save the reputation of their police forces.

For instance, Timothy Runnels was given a four year prison sentence because he tasered a teenager named Bryce Masters for a good twenty seconds and then intentionally dropped the teen on his face on asphalt concrete, breaking out his teeth and rendering him into a coma. The only reason he was ever charged was because it turned out that Bryce's father was himself a cop in the same department that Runnels worked at, otherwise the video -- which took a year to be shown in court -- would likely never have seen the light of day. Despite the four year sentence, Runnels was sent to a "prison camp" at a federal penitentiary with other imprisoned cops and politicians; a privilege given only to those not regarded as being part of the civilian population.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VYPNfpfqXc

Not too long ago, an eighteen year old autistic teenager was shot twice by an off-duty cop who randomly pulled over and called out to the teenager. As soon as the teenager turned over in his direction, the cop opened fire, causing critical injuries to the teen.

To further aggravate matters, Khalil Muhammad -- the cop who pulled the trigger -- claimed that the teenager was ATTACKING him, despite a porch video showing otherwise. When a civilian personnel who happened to be working at the station saw the video, he refused to claim that the cop was the victim, as requested by both the cop and his commissioner, who had wanted the teen tried for aggravated assault in order to cover up the incident in favour of the department. When the civilian personnel refused to do so, he was fired, and the courts upheld the decision, saying that the department has the right to terminate those who do not follow orders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g4VIrwTR4k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOeWGX-l6nE

Perhaps when the day comes when we stop criminalising civilians and holding them up to standards which politicians and the police themselves are unable to live up to, is the day I will stop judging and condemning the likes of Timothy Runnels, Brian Encinia, Roy Oliver, Michael Slager, and all the other hundreds of cops out there who caused the unlawful death of a civilian but were never caught or acquitted by a bribed jury.

I am sure that these cops mentioned above are surely in want to escape from the very system they once enforced, and while I think they deserve to be where they are -- not because I agree with it on an ethical basis, but because it would be a double-standard not to support it -- I am progressive and merciful enough to move away from the toxic "justice" system that our cops and politicians have created and to move towards a system that will grant all citizens the rights, liberties and justice that the police never granted to anyone but themselves.

CYDdharta



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited July 25
    @Universalism

    If any offender, or a criminal, didn't go out of their way, now, yesterday, a week, months, or years ago, to commit their various crimes, then a police officer, or officer's, wouldn't have had, or would need to address the criminal, or offenders crime to begin with now would they? 

    And those citizens, who have been killed, assaulted, sexually assaulted, robbed, mugged, shot, stabbed, and so one, if a criminal, or an offender hadn't committed their various crimes, against their innocent victims, then again, a police officer, or police officers, wouldn't have had or would need to address, the criminal, or offenders crime to begin with now would they? 

    But because the criminals, and offenders, murder, sexually assault, shoot people of the same race, and or different races, maybe because of gang related situations?

    There are nearly 400 million guns in the United States, along with roughly 325 million citizens, where roughly there are 900,000 police officers?

    And how many of those 400 million guns, are being sold by street gun dealers, and are lacking a serial number, on the gun itself, and being sold to the said criminals, and offenders?

    It sounds like the Second Amendment is being used and abused by those very criminals, and offenders? 

    And those same criminals, and offenders, are in violation of their victims Bill of Rights as well? 

    The criminals, and offenders live a double standard lifestyle.

    Acting like outstanding citizens, to those who have no idea, who they are talking to, and are outstanding to their own families, a moment, or minutes before? 

    That's a double standard.

    "that will grant all citizens the rights, liberties and justice that the police never granted to anyone but themselves."

    What about the rights, liberties, and justices, of those victims, being taken away by the criminal, or offenders, as they are committing their crimes, against their victims? 

    Because the criminals and offenders, have their own code, don't they? 

    Another double standard.

    The criminals, and offenders, are holding themselves to their own standards, and because of those standards, innocent people get killed each day.

    Why can't the criminals, or offenders, maybe hold themselves, to a higher standard, and refrain from committing crimes all together?

    Because there are more criminals, or offenders, who have committed more crime, than a police officer, who maybe isn't doing their job, according to their own departments standards, has?

    If a police officer breaks the law, they get held to the same standard, that those criminals, and offenders get held to, don't they?

  • UniversalismUniversalism 16 Pts
    edited July 25
    @TKDB

    The commentator seems to be asking me far more questions than he is debating, but nonetheless, I will respond to each question accordingly with my own rebuttal.

    TKDB said:
    @Universalism

    If any offender, or a criminal, didn't go out of their way, now, yesterday, a week, months, or years ago, to commit their various crimes, then a police officer, or officer's, wouldn't have had, or would need to address the criminal, or offenders crime to begin with now would they? 

    The commentator seems to be implying that breaking the law ethically justifies police intervention, when in fact, people are often times arrested for reasons as trivial as having an expired driver's license or for setting up a lemonade stand. It was not that long ago that an Illinois man named Michael Allison was nearly imprisoned for seventy-five years because he filmed five police officers during an encounter, and as a result was charged by the police for "espionage" each act totalling fifteen years in prison each to be served consecutively.

    And even if we are to focus solely on the more glaring "crimes" out there, such as rape and murder, I fail to see what the argument above has to do with justifying policing philosophies intended to institutionalise a large part of the population, wasting billions of dollars in resources annually, in addition to the harm it causes to both the individual as well as the community that may be left vulnerable to a hardened parolee in the event they ever do walk out free.

    And those citizens, who have been killed, assaulted, sexually assaulted, robbed, mugged, shot, stabbed, and so one, if a criminal, or an offender hadn't committed their various crimes, against their innocent victims, then again, a police officer, or police officers, wouldn't have had or would need to address, the criminal, or offenders crime to begin with now would they? 

    Read my answer above, as this is effectively a repeat of the previous paragraph.

    But because the criminals, and offenders, murder, sexually assault, shoot people of the same race, and or different races, maybe because of gang related situations?

    I am not sure how gangs are intended to argue in favour of police, but I do know for a fact that people often times end up joining gangs because even the flimsiest of records will render one unemployable in the legal force for life. As a result, drug trafficking, quite ironically, becomes even more profitable in the world of policing than if the police did not exist to begin with.

    Street gangs of today are very similar to pirates of the "Golden Age" in that both groups had similar backgrounds and motives.

    Unlike the stereotype of pirates being glorified sea warriors, the historical pirate was usually a runaway slave, former sailor who deserted, or an escaped convict forced to live on the run. Pirates also did not typically hunt for gold as depicted in film and television, but instead they scavenged for other necessities needed to survive, such as food, medicine, weapons and even shipping materials to repair their vessels.

    Very few pirates made any worthwhile living being a pirate, and yet they became pirates and effectively outcasts of their society because to surrender to "authorities" would mean either being hanged in extreme cases, or likely being sent to galleys or prison and then being rendered homeless on the impoverished streets of London once your "punishment" was carried out.

    When we live in a system that encourages putting large chunks of the population in perpetual poverty in the form of incarceration and criminal records, then the gang violence which you speak so ill of is going to remain a more common sight.

    Rather than blaming gangs and gang members as the default option, perhaps it is time we instead start to blame the root cause of gang members.

    There are nearly 400 million guns in the United States, along with roughly 325 million citizens, where roughly there are 900,000 police officers?

    I am not sure what the number of guns has to do with police double-standards?

    Your second amendment permits one to "bear arms" which modern Americans seem to believe includes handguns, rifles and machine guns.

    Are you saying that you favour repealing this amendment and criminalising those in favour of it?

    Since you brought up gun statistics in your answer, I also want to point out that I find it quite interesting that cops and their supporters consistently walk around with a gun as though it were a sacred right, because they say they "fear" they will be killed without one.

    And yet, on the other hand, police will routinely arrest anybody who does not have a license to carry a fire arm, with many jurisdictions carry ten, fifteen or even twenty year minimum sentences for unlawful possession of a fire arm.

    Does this imply that this "sacred" right only applies to police, politicians and their close supporters?

    Do those who choose to protect themselves with a firearm the same way the police do deserve to be imprisoned and criminalised for decades by the very people who themselves wouldn't be caught dead walking around without an arsenal of weapons in their possession at all times to make even Rambo himself blush?

    And how many of those 400 million guns, are being sold by street gun dealers, and are lacking a serial number, on the gun itself, and being sold to the said criminals, and offenders?

    Read my point above. Further, I would be very careful about throwing the word "criminal" around as though we were living in a fantasy world where everything is black and white.

    Even your own Founding Fathers would have been arrested and then either imprisoned for a long period of time or even possibly hung had they and their French and Spanish allies failed to win the American Revolutionary Wars just as Samuel Bacon's followers were when they failed to overthrow the British Government exactly one century prior to the more well known revolutionary wars were fought.

    It sounds like the Second Amendment is being used and abused by those very criminals, and offenders?

    I think that the thousands of people who have been shot to death by the police for holding a Wii remote, as well as the many thousands more who have been threatened with being shot for merely being seen out in public when a convoy of police cars drove by them would all disagree with that remark. 

    And those same criminals, and offenders, are in violation of their victims Bill of Rights as well? 

    Rights are a dime a dozen in the legal world.

    If you are imprisoned for decades on end, the state will NOT compensate you, even in the rare instance where the state acknowledges wrongdoing, and even then, it tends to happen only after years of public pressure and outrage forces them to do so.

    In fact, a condition many prisoners have to sign before they are exonerated and released, is that they agree to not sue the state for any wrongdoing, thus making the so-called "Bill of Rights" to sue the state for compensation completely moot.

    Out of the many thousands of people falsely imprisoned or executed -- and this does not count the many more who were doubtlessly convicted and never set free -- I have only seen a handful of cases where any monetary compensation was offered, and even then, it only happens after a mass public campaign forces the state to give some monetary compensation.

    The amount, however, is likely to be paltry, as one man who was imprisoned for forty years was offered only a million dollars, and that amount did not include paying the large legal fees the man certainly had to pay in order to get what he got.

    Other prisoners in similar situations got nothing.

    People who are beaten to death on live camera were definitely not in violation of their so-called "Bill of Rights," and if they were, it brings to question what exactly the Bill of Rights are for, if not to preserve the rights of the INDIVIDUAL and not the state!

    The criminals, and offenders live a double standard lifestyle.

    Well, even if that were the case (which is questionable, as "criminals" come from a variety of backgrounds and personalities), I presume you hold so-called criminals to a much lower standard of ethics when compared to the state and police; or at least, you should be.

    Therefore, it would be a very low bar to be setting, as you are more or less acknowledging that you don't hold the police and state, which you seem to be an ardent defender and supporter of, to a high level, if your response is to compare the actions of a stereotypical criminal to the stereotypical do-good cop.

    Acting like outstanding citizens, to those who have no idea, who they are talking to, and are outstanding to their own families, a moment, or minutes before? 

    I am not sure what you are asking here.

    That's a double standard.

    Read above statement.

    "that will grant all citizens the rights, liberties and justice that the police never granted to anyone but themselves."

    What about the rights, liberties, and justices, of those victims, being taken away by the criminal, or offenders, as they are committing their crimes, against their victims? 

    Most so-called crimes would never have occurred if police and politicians actually cared enough to fix their own communities by abolishing policing and mass incarceration to begin with.

    When police are more busy fining homeless people for being humans and sleeping on the street, or spending thousands of dollars annually to ruin a person's life because they peed in a park when they could not find a urinal, the police should expect a negative reaction that is likely to escalate, and they ought to stop blaming the people who end up committing these act.

    Because the criminals and offenders, have their own code, don't they? 

    Last time I checked, I don't pay the salaries of these "criminals" you keep speaking of, and I also don't seem to recall a "criminal" threatening to arrest me because they accused me of being "rude" to them or because they saw me jaywalking when there were no incoming vehicles in sight.

    I also don't recall a "criminal" filing a baseless report against me or others and having the report stalk me to every job interview I ever go to the way a police report would.

    In fact, I also don't seem to recall there being a time when a "criminal" had the power to taser or even shoot me for resisting arrest. (Fortunately, the last example has never yet happened to me personally, but I know it happens often enough to bring it up, especially as prosecutors and judges will routinely defend the right of cops to kill anyone in opposition to them.)

    Another double standard.

    For cops? I agree.

    The criminals, and offenders, are holding themselves to their own standards, and because of those standards, innocent people get killed each day.

    And yet I fail to see you blaming the cops for much of what happens.

    You seem to act as though you feel all "sorry" for the people who get killed, and yet did you know that millions of people are stuck living in these places you speak of because they have a record that makes them unemployable?

    And since I don't believe you are that well accustomed to this subject, I should also point out that a record is not even close to a conviction, as a record merely states a report or a "suspicion" of an illegal act, which is usually the equivalent of a criminal record when applying for housing and job interviews, and such records are far more common than most people think.

    Even if someone were actually convicted of a charge such as armed robbery or another felony, it still would not change the fact that such people are typically in a desperate situation to begin with and will do the natural thing by doing what they can to survive.

    If a man who is being consistently fined and harassed by the police for being homeless and that person resorts to shoplifting and robbery as a means of survival, who are you going to blame for this: the wolf, or the one who denies the wolf his safety and comfort?

    Why can't the criminals, or offenders, maybe hold themselves, to a higher standard, and refrain from committing crimes all together?

    Did you know there are people who have records for reasons as trivial as being the friend of someone who did drugs, even if they themselves never engaged in it?

    Are you also aware that in Canada, the USA and many other countries, it is actually against the law to possess or sell a comic book depicting an illegal act, even if such acts are fictional?

    I know that in regards to the latter case, there was an incident in the early 1990s when a comic book was seized from many stores, because it was the story of a female prostitute. Since prostitution is illegal in Canada and the United States, the managers, as well as all the employees working at the stores at the time selling the comic, were charged.

    Even though the charges were later dropped, the incident remained on their records, and at least one of the employees, who was reportedly twenty-seven and working at a comic store in Toronto at the time of this "raid" tried to go into nursing school, only to find out at the end of his two year programme that the law would forbid someone with even a record like the one mentioned above from getting him employed in any job involving work with the public.

    Not only did he effectively waste two years of his working life pursuing a diploma he could never use, in addition to the tuition, he and his family had to foreclose their homes, as he had no more money left to fall back on.

    Such examples are not unique, and yes, the police are indeed 100% to blame for such incidents as this, and anybody who says otherwise is either a cop or blind cop supporter, or they need to start entering the real world where policing is not the noble and righteous "service" that the state has made it out to be.

    Because there are more criminals, or offenders, who have committed more crime, than a police officer, who maybe isn't doing their job, according to their own departments standards, has?

    I don't know what you are claiming here, but I have a feeling you are trying to create a strawman argument.

    If a police officer breaks the law, they get held to the same standard, that those criminals, and offenders get held to, don't they?

    I also take it that you did not read my original answer, because if you did, you would have known that the majority of my previous answer deals with showing how cops are NOT held to the same standard as a civilian.

    There has never been a documented case where a cop has been held to the same standard as a civilian, which I find quite ironic, as cops will erroneously claim that the law holds them to an even HIGHER standard than a civilian.

    When they can show me evidence that police are held to the same standard as everyone else, maybe you will have a case with this last point.

    It still would not justify everything else you said, but it would be a start.

    That's all for now.


    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited July 25
    @Universalism 18th

    The below individuals, should be holding themselves to a higher standard, out of respect for themselves, and for the others around them, regardless of law enforcement in general.

    Why can't the rapist, the drug dealer, the  murderer, the shooter, the gang member, the domestic violence, and abuse offender, the pedophile, the marijuana addict, the illegal drug addict, the prescription drug abuser, the drunk driver, the drugged driver, the kidnapper, and so on, hold themselves to a higher standard, than how they apparently want to go about judging law enforcement, before the commit their crimes?

    The same standards, that are taught, by law abiding parents, who go out of their ways, to raise their kids, to higher standards, that they maybe didn't have prior, to having kids?

    Because some want their kids to ne better, than they are standards, ethics, and morality wise? 

    Teaching standards, and learning standards, means that an individual wants better for themselves, and for their kids.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB

    It should be reminded to all that opinions are not debates, as anyone can have an opinion, but not everyone can make a claim or argument backed by statistics and facts, which debates rely on; therefore, to claim that one should be "ethical" when we are talking about whether or not cops are held to a lower standard than an average citizen should bear no weight in this argument, and is as such not deserving of a direct response.

    More or less, everything else you have stated was already answered in the previous answer, and I have absolutely no intention of repeating myself again.

    However, I do find it interesting that you brought in pedophilia into this argument, as I noticed that it a legal topic that most of the uneducated and ignorant masses of society use as some sort of red herring to try and divert a topic. Fortunately for me, I happen to be intelligent enough to see through it because I have probably researched this topic more than most people have, including the so-called experts on law enforcement A.K.A. the police.

    First of all, pedophilia in itself is not a crime in the same way that being a homosexual is no longer a crime, even though homosexuality once carried the penalty of imprisonment and even castration until as recently as the 1960s, and it was considered a medical illness by doctors until 1973.

    Pedophilia also requires that an adult be sexually attracted to a minor who has yet to go into puberty, which typically happens around the age of nine or ten for females and eleven or twelve for males.

    Most sexual interactions involving minors with adults occur after this period, meaning that those who are adults being sexually attracted to teenagers are going to be classified as ephebophilia and hebophiles, as opposed to pedophiles.

    Statistics also show that most cases of forceful rape of a minor were not committed by a "pedophile" but by an adult who regarded a child as an easier target to go after, regardless of whether or not they felt sexual attraction to their target.

    In the United States, most states allow sexual intercourse between the ages of sixteen or eighteen.

    However, did you know that in South Korea, one must wait until the age of twenty in order to be able to "consent" to sexual intercourse?

    This means, quite ironically, that adults who go around screwing an eighteen or nineteen year old American teen would themselves be criminally charged and added to South Korea's own sex offender registry if they were to repeat the same act over in their country.

    Of course, in reverse, some countries, such as the Philippines, allow consent at twelve. Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands permit it at fifteen, while Canada and the United Kingdom usually allow it at sixteen, though Canada sometimes allows sexual intercourse as early as age twelve, provided that their partner is also at least twelve years of age and within a year apart from them.

    In other words, there is no universal consensus on when somebody is "old" enough to engage in sexual acts. And I do find it quite hypocritical that the United States has one of the strictest laws in the world regarding sexual interactions with minors, because the United States is one of the few countries known to charge minors for taking photographs of themselves or having sexual intercourse with another minor and having them imprisoned and registered, usually for life.

    Outside the "sex offender" realm of American law, minors as young as ten have been imprisoned for periods ranging up to life for reasons including the act of burglary.

    Very few countries outside the United States actually try juveniles as adults, and when they do, it is usually for something like mass murder, and homicide laws in those countries are also going to be more lenient than the United States, which has been reputed to have the harshest legal system in the industrial world, as well as one of the harshest in the world for juveniles and adults alike.

    There is a case that is ongoing right now involving a man who is facing thirty years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry, because when he was twenty years old, he had sexual intercourse with his seventeen year old girlfriend and took a picture of her naked.

    What is even more hypocritical, however, is that the picture was taken nearly a decade ago, shortly after the United States had executed one of its last juveniles.

    The United States is the only country in the Western hemisphere that still exercises the death penalty, and it is also one of only a handful of countries on the planet with an active death penalty system. Most of the dwindling number of countries that still have it also don't apply the death penalty to juveniles, yet the United States, until 2004, did just that, executing dozens of juveniles between the 1980s and 2003 alone.

    That number is also dwarfed by the thousands of juveniles given life sentences during this period, often times for non-homicide offences. 

    So your government and police can preach to the choir all they want about "protecting the children" but it was the state and police that were mass incarcerating juveniles and sometimes executing them until very recently in American history (the former, of course, still being actively applied) and your argument against "pedophilia" falls flat on its face when one is confronted with the fact that the average person being registered was aged fourteen at the time they were registered, and that the most common reasons for being registered were for "inappropriate" touching, taking nude photos of themselves, or for engaging in sexual acts with another minor.

    Readers may find that my last response was more focused on the sex offender registry and the hypocrisy of the legal system, particularly in North America.

    However, since the person responding to me has failed twice now to address my main argument and has gone on a tangent about "robbers, pedophiles and murderers" I feel as though my choice to not entertain his questioning to be well deserved.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    @Universalism

    You have your way of viewing your stances, from your own standards of thought, good for you.

    "However, I do find it interesting that you brought in pedophilia into this argument, as I noticed that it a legal topic that most of the uneducated and ignorant masses of society use as some sort of red herring to try and divert a topic. Fortunately for me, I happen to be intelligent enough to see through it because I have probably researched this topic more than most people have, including the so-called experts on law enforcement A.K.A. the police.

    First of all, pedophilia in itself is not a crime in the same way that being a homosexual is no longer a crime, even though homosexuality once carried the penalty of imprisonment and even castration until as recently as the 1960s, and it was considered a medical illness by doctors until 1973.

    Pedophilia also requires that an adult be sexually attracted to a minor who has yet to go into puberty, which typically happens around the age of nine or ten for females and eleven or twelve for males.

    Most sexual interactions involving minors with adults occur after this period, meaning that those who are adults being sexually attracted to teenagers are going to be classified as ephebophilia and hebophiles, as opposed to pedophiles.

    Statistics also show that most cases of forceful rape of a minor were not committed by a "pedophile" but by an adult who regarded a child as an easier target to go after, regardless of whether or not they felt sexual attraction to their target.

    In the United States, most states allow sexual intercourse between the ages of sixteen or eighteen."

    @Universalism

    This is the United States of America, so your non arguments below are irrelevant to American laws.

    Some odd rhetoric I guess, to educate the U.S. with, from whatever country you're from, that apparently isn't the United States?

    "However, did you know that in South Korea, one must wait until the age of twenty in order to be able to "consent" to sexual intercourse?

    This means, quite ironically, that adults who go around screwing an eighteen or nineteen year old American teen would themselves be criminally charged and added to South Korea's own sex offender registry if they were to repeat the same act over in their country.

    Of course, in reverse, some countries, such as the Philippines, allow consent at twelve. Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands permit it at fifteen, while Canada and the United Kingdom usually allow it at sixteen, though Canada sometimes allows sexual intercourse as early as age twelve, provided that their partner is also at least twelve years of age and within a year apart from them."

    "In other words, there is no universal consensus on when somebody is "old" enough to engage in sexual acts. And I do find it quite hypocritical that the United States has one of the strictest laws in the world regarding sexual interactions with minors, because the United States is one of the few countries known to charge minors for taking photographs of themselves or having sexual intercourse with another minor and having them imprisoned and registered, usually for life."

    "Outside the "sex offender" realm of American law, minors as young as ten have been imprisoned for periods ranging up to life for reasons including the act of burglary."

    "Very few countries outside the United States actually try juveniles as adults, and when they do, it is usually for something like mass murder, and homicide laws in those countries are also going to be more lenient than the United States, which has been reputed to have the harshest legal system in the industrial world, as well as one of the harshest in the world for juveniles and adults alike."

    "There is a case that is ongoing right now involving a man who is facing thirty years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry, because when he was twenty years old, he had sexual intercourse with his seventeen year old girlfriend and took a picture of her naked.,

    "What is even more hypocritical, however, is that the picture was taken nearly a decade ago, shortly after the United States had executed one of its last juveniles."

    "The United States is the only country in the Western hemisphere that still exercises the death penalty, and it is also one of only a handful of countries on the planet with an active death penalty system. Most of the dwindling number of countries that still have it also don't apply the death penalty to juveniles, yet the United States, until 2004, did just that, executing dozens of juveniles between the 1980s and 2003 alone."

    "That number is also dwarfed by the thousands of juveniles given life sentences during this period, often times for non-homicide offences."

    "So your government and police can preach to the choir all they want about "protecting the children" but it was the state and police that were mass incarcerating juveniles and sometimes executing them until very recently in American history (the former, of course, still being actively applied) and your argument against "pedophilia" falls flat on its face when one is confronted with the fact that the average person being registered was aged fourteen at the time they were registered, and that the most common reasons for being registered were for "inappropriate" touching, taking nude photos of themselves, or for engaging in sexual acts with another minor."

    "Readers may find that my last response was more focused on the sex offender registry and the hypocrisy of the legal system, particularly in North America."

    "However, since the person responding to me has failed twice now to address my main argument and has gone on a tangent about "robbers, pedophiles and murderers" I feel as though my choice to not entertain his questioning to be well deserved."

    Thank you for your education, being individually expressed rhetoric, from the standards of your argument making platform? 
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited July 25
    @Universalism

    Is your below question, being based on how you apparently, are viewing, some U.S. based laws, in contrast to the country, where you are from?

    "Are Cops Held To A Lower Standard Than Civilians?"


    If, that might be the case, then I'm sure, that others besides myself, can get a more, clearer understanding from where your individual views are coming from?

    Police Officers take an Oath to protect and serve the public, or community.

    The problem with some of the US citizens, is that the 
    rapist, the drug dealer, the murderer, the shooter, the gang member, the domestic violence, and abuse offender, the pedophile, the marijuana addict, the illegal drug addict, the prescription drug abuser, the drunk driver, the drugged driver, the kidnapper, and so on, are apparently holding themselves, to their own criminal or offender standards, thus placing their victims, inhumanely below them? 
  • @Universalism

    Welcome to Debate Island! 

    There is much truth in what you wrote, police forces in many countries are apparently held to different standards, not as individuals but by virtue of representing the state... It tends to be more present in communities composed of dogmatic populations (certainly fits the US), it may be an unconscious adaptation of the old maxim Rex non potest peccare, or the King can do no wrong (here the State) or it can be viewed as an extension of the doctrine of State immunity where it can take one of 2 forms: 
    • Absolute immunity: pursuant to which a government actor may not be sued for the allegedly wrongful act, even if that person acted maliciously or in bad faith;
      which applies to acts that, if subject to challenge, would significantly affect the operation of government, and...
    • Qualified immunity: pursuant to which a government actor is shielded from liability only if specific conditions are met, as specified in statute or case law.
    I think both are too often considered or wrongly interpreted as the same...

    It must be remembered though that by necessity, police officers are granted powers and authority that no other citizen get (the power to deprive someone of their freedom and privileges, among other things). The problem is when there is no accountability... And we sadly see less and less of that, from street officers to judges to elected officials...

    I see you've met TK, it's his usual MO to answer with questions rather than arguments, and always go on irrelevant tangents, argumentative structures are always deficient... There are a few disingenuous individuals on here, as always on debate sites, you'll recognize them soon enough, but there are really good debaters too!  
    CYDdharta
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited July 25
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Police Officers take an Oath to protect and serve the public, or community.

    The problem with some of the US citizens, is that the rapist, the drug dealer, the  murderer, the shooter, the gang member, the domestic violence, and abuse offender, the pedophile, the marijuana addict, the illegal drug addict, the prescription drug abuser, the drunk driver, the drugged driver, the kidnapper, and so on, are apparently holding themselves, to their own criminal or offender standards, thus placing their victims, inhumanely below them?  

    Here's a fair, and equal idea:

    Create a law, that every US citizen, takes an Oath, just like the Police Officers do, to protect, and serve the public, and see how many of the above crimes, see a reduction, in their occurrences?

    Or might those same US citizen, criminals, or offenders, balk at the fair and equal idea, of taking an Oath, to treat their fellow citizens, more humanely, by not victimizing their victims, through the very acts of the committed crimes?

    This way everyone is being held to the same "Standards?"

    You have your standards, on how you manage your debate arguments, and I have mine.

    I'm about being fair, and equal, and I believe in equality. 

    "I see you've met TK, it's his usual MO to answer with questions rather than arguments, and always go on irrelevant tangents, argumentative structures are always deficient... There are a few disingenuous individuals on here, as always on debate sites, you'll recognize them soon enough, but there are really good debaters too!"

  • Yea... Ummm... I clearly won this debate and have no intention in continuing with this childish charade above me.

    I also don't care about the algorithm claiming the debate is a "tie" as the algorithm obviously goes by the number of responses one gives, as opposed to the quality of such answers.

    If the algorithm were anything useful, I would be "winning" this with a slam dunk success.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    Hey, I just noticed your reply to me.

    I need to be going shortly so I don't have the time to give a meaningful answers right now, but I will get back to you as soon as possible.

    Bye!
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited July 25
    @Universalism

    Sure you didn't.

    "Yea... Ummm... I clearly won this debate and have no intention in continuing with this childish charade above me.

    I also don't care about the algorithm claiming the debate is a "tie" as the algorithm obviously goes by the number of responses one gives, as opposed to the quality of such answers.

    If the algorithm were anything useful, I would be "winning" this with a slam dunk success."

    @Universalism

    @Plaffelvohfen

    Are you frightened of standards outside of your own?

    Let me ask you a real world question, are you maybe pro criminal, and offender oriented?

    And the police, and the citizens of even your own country, who deal with the illegal offenses committed against the innocent citizens of your country?

    Are you even pro criminal, or offender oriented, when it comes to those same offenders committing crimes, against your own countrymen?

    And some of the police, are maybe viewed by you as having lower standards, then the criminals, and offenders, of your own country? 

    The above is an international question, in regards to how you maybe you view the criminals, and offenders, verses how you view law enforcement? 


    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    To the pro criminal, and offender supporters, who are maybe anti law, via the same mindset? 

    "Are Cops Held To A Lower Standard Than Civilians?"


    If, that might be the case, then I'm sure, that others besides myself, can get a more, clearer understanding from where your individual views are coming from?

    Police Officers take an Oath to protect and serve the public, or community.

    The problem with some of the US citizens, is that the 
    rapist, the drug dealer, the murderer, the shooter, the gang member, the domestic violence, and abuse offender, the pedophile, the marijuana addict, the illegal drug addict, the prescription drug abuser, the drunk driver, the drugged driver, the kidnapper, and so on, are apparently holding themselves, to their own criminal or offender standards, thus placing their victims, inhumanely below them?  

    Police Officers take an Oath to protect and serve the public, or community.

    The problem with some of the US citizens, is that the rapist, the drug dealer, the  murderer, the shooter, the gang member, the domestic violence, and abuse offender, the pedophile, the marijuana addict, the illegal drug addict, the prescription drug abuser, the drunk driver, the drugged driver, the kidnapper, and so on, are apparently holding themselves, to their own criminal or offender standards, thus placing their victims, inhumanely below them?  

    Here's a fair, and equal idea:

    Create a law, that every US citizen, takes an Oath, just like the Police Officers do, to protect, and serve the public, and see how many of the above crimes, see a reduction, in their occurrences?

    Or might those same US citizen, criminals, or offenders, balk at the fair and equal idea, of taking an Oath, to treat their fellow citizens, more humanely, by not victimizing their victims, through the very acts of the committed crimes?

    This way everyone is being held to the same "Standards?"

    I'm about being fair, and equal, and I believe in equality.  

    Apparently some in the United States, and abroad internationally, keep law enforcement, at one level of standards, according to their individual views ?

    And apparently, some in the United States, and abroad internationally, keep the various crime committing criminals, and offenders, at another level of standards, according to their individual views?

    I wonder what Interpol, the FBI, the CIA, MI6, and the other International Agency's, might think of such individual standards, in regards to the criminals, offenders, and the law enforcement agencies, around the globe? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch