Police should use lethal force/torture

Background
__________

As I am accustomed, members of society tasked with carrying out law enforcement duties are considered civilians, and they are prepared but not permitted to use lethal force. In rare instances they may do so out of defense of themselves or others as a reasonable person might decide in their position, and the justice system is supposed to respect them not because they are police, but because they are human beings. There is some leeway in the context of resisting arrest to implement a superior amount of force to that of the accused, but the intent in such cases is normally not to abuse them. If the community were to perceive an excessive amount of force, it could bring about a controversy.

No points will be awarded for attempting to justify defense of one's self, their family, or their community.

In light of that experience and because torture clearly indicates an act of offense, I'm taking "lethal force/torture" to align Pro with police that are not considered as members of the civilian populous as I am accustomed. The primary intent is not necessarily peace and justice, but rather to inflict harm on a credible threat. They may plan, coordinate, and carry out attacks upon enemy targets in a militant fashion, and so on.

The representative of government is generally expected to justify their intervention.

__________

RFD

Round 1

Pro's main argument coming out of round one is that if the police lose a fight to criminals, then some criminals might begin to take advantage of the general situation and crime will run rampant. I'm not entirely satisfied that this justifies ambushing people with guns blazing, or torturing the survivors.

I doubt that the majority of criminals resist arrest where I live, so that was an interesting observation to see from someone else's perspective. There's also an example in the case of a shootout, that naturally police may be inclined to defend themselves and members of the surrounding community.

Con introduced a case demonstrating an instance in which lethal force would be excessive, where a man was handcuffed and on the ground in the midst of being detained by police officers. I didn't find this all that compelling in and of itself.

Round 2 - Pro hasn't truly bolstered their side of the case up till now.

Pro spent much of round 2 rebutting Con's points in round 1. At the end pro states "So in my opinion, just because few policemen show a great sign of racism, that doesn't mean that they shouldn’t use force against danger they face while doing their jobs." I needed something more for this to be relatable, and round 2 did not do much to bolster the case.

Con: "I agree with Mohammed Gamal when he said that policemen should use lethal weapons when they have to or when they defend citizens". So, in that context, I think when Con says they disagree with "the only way to ensure a successful arrest and the safety of the officers is to permit police officers to use force’" they're obviously not referring to force in general. They actually meant to refer to an excessive use of force during the course of arrest as expressed in round 1, to the point that it poses imminent danger to someone who's reacting to the disrespect of being cuffed against their will.

Because Pro did not provide a compelling case for lethal force outside the scope of defense in civilian life, overall argument goes to Con.

__________
I did not consider the statistical statements of Con from round 2.

I think this debate could have gone more in-depth. Too much is left up to interpretation.

PRO's opening argument is that in high stress/high stakes situations, police officers being permitted to use lethal force when they feel necessary allows them to better protect themselves and their communities. For ex: "if there is a shooting that breaks out on the streets. The police should be allowed to use lethal force due to the need for survival."

CON counters with the stock racism argument: that entrusting police with the authority to kill allows certain officers to make these decisions discriminately, exacerbating systemic racism and killing black people disproportionally.

PRO argues that this only represents a small portion of the officers that can be weeded out through reform, regulation, and training; PRO also outweighs on the basis that many more lives will be saved in a PRO world than taken.

CON throws a bunch of stats at us in his last round that could have swung the pendulum his way, but they aren't sourced and they're all new arguments that PRO didn't have the opportunity to respond to.

PRO ultimately takes this one, albeit this debate warrants a lot more detail than what was given by either side.