Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[40]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[40]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,9 +1,0 @@
1		-The 1AC's focus on the officer instead of the government overlooks the larger structural issues that allow police violence to add up in the squo- putting on a badge does not turn you into a monster.
2		-Holland 15 (Joshua Holland. Joshua Holland is a contributor to The Nation and a fellow with The Nation Institute. He's also the host of Politics and Reality Radio. “Are We Training Cops To Be Hyper-Aggressive ‘Warriors’?”. 11-10-2015. Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/are-we-training-cops-to-be-hyper-aggressive-warriors/) //TruLe
3		-What got less attention is that less than two weeks before the shooting, the officer who shot Crawford had been trained to respond to “active shooter situations” by shooting first and asking questions later.According to The Guardian, officer Sean Williams and his colleagues were “taught to keep in mind that ‘the suspect wants a body count’ and therefore officers should immediately engage a would-be gunman with ‘speed, surprise and aggressiveness.’” At that training, they were told to imagine that a crazed gunman was threatening their own relatives. Dispatchers led Williams and his partner to believe that an active-shooter situation was underway. Store surveillance videoshowed that Crawford was shot and killed just seconds after police made contact with him, and probably had no idea what was happening. They followed their training, acting with speed, surprise, and aggressiveness. Thanks in large part to pressure brought by Black Lives Matter activists, some police experts are calling for an complete overhaul in the way cops are trained, both as cadets and during the “in-service” training they receive over the course of their careers. There are no national standards for training police, and the amount and quality of their instruction varies from agency to agency. But a survey of 280 police departments conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a Washington, DC–based think tank, found that American cops are given extensive preparation for using violence, and very little guidance on how to avoid it. The median police recruit in the United States will receives 129 hours of instruction on defensive techniques and using his or her a gun, baton, OC-spray, and Taser. That cadet will receive another 24 hours of scenario-based training, drilling on things like when to shoot or hold fire. The median trainee also gets 48 hours of instruction on constitutional law and his or her department’s use-of-force policies. But that same future police officer will receive only eight hours of training in conflict de-escalation.
4		-Turn case- you move the blame on the wrong group. Lawsuits on police don't lead to any change and just prevent any real reform.
5		-Gilles 2K (Myriam Gilles. Myriam Gilles specializes in class actions and aggregate litigation, and has written extensively on class action waivers in arbitration clauses. She also writes on structural reform litigation and tort law. Her articles have appeared in top law reviews, including Chicago, Columbia, Michigan, and Penn. Professor Gilles teaches Torts, Products Liability, Class Actions and Aggregate Litigation. In 2004, she was a visiting professor at the University of Virginia Law School and in 2005-06, was a fellow in the Program of Law and Public Affairs at Princeton University. "In defense of making Government pay: the deterrent effect of constitutional tort remedies”. 2000. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/geolr35anddiv=30andid=andpage=) //TruLe
6		-In addition to serving an informational function, municipal liability claims serve a "fault-fixing" function, localizing culpability in the municipality itself, and forcing municipal policymakers to consider reformative measures. To understand how this fault-fixing function operates, it is important to distinguish between the liability a municipality incurs indirectly, through the indemnification of its officers, and the direct liability it may incur under Monell. Indirect liability does not trigger the fault-fixing function. The municipal indemnification of an individual officer for constitutional damage awards levied against him6" does not necessarily force policy-makers to acknowledge municipal fault and take remedial action, for two reasons. First, indemnification is an ex ante benefit given to individual officers as a form of insurance. The determination to indemnify is made at the front end, as the product of collective bargaining arrangements and political lobbying, and not in response to any constitutional claim.64 The act of indemnifying is largely a ministerial one, and indemnification expenses are easily justified as costs of doing business, along with salaries and other items of overhead.65 Second, where municipalities indemnify officers, they "generally write off the misconduct of an individual officer to the 'bad apple theory,' under which municipal governments or their agencies attribute misconduct to aberrant behavior by a single 'bad apple.'60 This "deflects attention from systemic and institutional factors contributing to recurring constitutional deprivations." 7 As I have argued elsewhere, "the bad apple theory' is essentially an institutionalized belief system ensuring that fault for unconstitutional conduct~-~-even when it results in large damage awards against individual officers or city-approved settlements-will never be localized in the culture of the municipal agency itseltf"' with the result that little or no remedial actions are taken.69 Direct liability, on the other hand, does serve a fault-fixing function. Under the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services," municipal liability cannot be based upon principles of vicarious liability; rather, municipal liability will attach only where an identifiable "policy or custom" of the municipality caused plaintiffs constitutional injury." A finding of Monell liability, therefore, fixes the fault of constitutional violations directly on the municipal.
7		-Don’t buy their “risk of solvency” arguments, that kind of hollow hope thinking is a mask for exploitation.
8		-Zizek 08. (Senior Researcher at the Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana, (Slavoj, Violence, p 20-24))
9		-Above all, liberal communists are true citizens of the world. They are good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalists and irresponsible, greedy capitalist corporations. They liberals see the "deeper causes" of today's problems: it is mass poverty and hopelessness which breed fundamentalist terror. So and theyir goal is not to earn money, but try to change the world, though if this makes them more money as a by-product, who's to complain! Bill Gates is already the single greatest benefactor in the history of humanity, displaying his love for neighbours with hundreds of millions freely given to education, and the battles against hunger and malaria. The catch, of course, is that in order to give, first you have to take-or, as some would put it, create. The justification of liberal communists is that in order to really help people, you must have the means to do it, and as experience of the dismal failure of all centralised statist and collectivist approaches teaches, private initiative is the efficient way. So if the state wants to regulate their business, to tax them excessively, is it aware that in this way it is effectively undermining the stated goal of its activity-that is, to make life better for the large majority, to really help those in need? Liberal communists do not want to be just machines for generating profits. They want their lives to have a deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religion, but for spirituality, for non-confessional meditation. Everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadows the brain sciences, that the power of meditation can be measured scientifically! Their preferred motto is social responsibility and gratitude: they are the first to admit that society was incredibly good to them by allowing them to deploy their talents and amass wealth, so it is their duty to give something back to society and help people. After all, what is the point of their success, if not to help people? It is only this caring that makes business success worthwhile ... We need to ask ourselves whether there really is something new here. Is it not merely that an attitude which, in the wild old capitalist days of the U.S. industrial barons, was something of an exception (although not as much as it may appear) has now gained universal currency? Good old Andrew Carnegie employed a private army brutally to suppressed organised labour in his steelworks and then distributed large parts of his wealth to educational, artistic, and humanitarian causes. A man of steel, he proved he had a heart of gold. In the same way, today's liberal communists They give away with one hand what they first took with the other. This brings to mind a chocolate laxative available in the U.S. It is publicised with the paradoxical injunction: "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!" In other words, eat the very thing that causes constipation in order to be cured of it. The same structure-the thing itself is the remedy against the threat it poses-is widely visible in today's ideological landscape. Take the figure of the financier and philanthropist George Soros, for instance. Soros stands for the most ruthless financial speculative exploitation combined with its counter-agent, humanitarian concern about the catastrophic social consequences of an unbridled market economy. Even his daily routine is marked by a self-eliminating counterpoint: half of his working time is devoted to financial speculation and the other half to humanitarian activities-such as providing finance for cultural and democratic activities in post-communist countries, writing essays and books-which ultimately fight the effects of his own speculation. The two faces of Bill Gates parallel the two faces of Soros. The cruel businessman destroys or buys out his competitors, aims at virtual monopoly, and employs all the tricks of the trade to achieve and his goals. Meanwhile, the greatest philanthropist in the history of mankind quaintly asks: "What does it serve to have computers, if people do not have enough to eat and are dying of dysentery?" In liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity. Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation. In a superego blackmail of gigantic proportions, the developed countries "help" the undeveloped with aid, credits, and so on, and thereby avoiding the key issue, namely their complicity in and co responsibility for the miserable situation of the undeveloped. Referring to Georges Bataille's notion of the "general economy" of sovereign expenditure, which he opposes to the "restrained economy" of capitalism's endless profiteering, the German post-humanist philosopher Peter Sioterdijk provides the outlines of capitalism's split from itself, its immanent self-overcoming: capitalism culminates when it "creates out of itself its own most radical-and the only fruitful-opposite, totally different from what the classic Left, caught in its miserabiIism, was able to dream about."9 His positive mention of Andrew Carnegie shows the way; the sovereign self-negating gesture of the endless accumulation of wealth is to spend this wealth for things beyond price, and outside market circulation: public good, arts and sciences, health, etc. This concluding "sovereign" gesture enables the capitalist to break out of the vicious cycle of endless expanded reproduction, of gaining money in order to earn more money. When he donates his endless accumulated wealth to public good, the capitalist self-negates himself as the mere personification of capital and its reproductive circulation: his life acquires meaning. It is no longer just expanded reproduction as self-goal. Furthermore, the capitalist thus accomplishes the shift from eros to thymos, from the perverted "erotic" logic of accumulation to public recognition and reputation. What this amounts to is nothing less than elevating figures like Soros or Gates to personifications of the inherent self-negation of the capitalist process itself: their work of charity-their immense donations to public welfare-is not just a personal idiosyncrasy. Whether sincere or hypocritical, it is the logical concluding point of capitalist circulation, necessary from the strictly economic standpoint, since because it allows the capitalism t system to postpone its crisis. It re-establishes balance-a kind of redistribution of wealth to the truly needy-without falling into a fateful is a trap: the destructive logic of resentment and enforced statist redistribution of wealth which can only end in generalised misery. It also avoids, one might add, the other mode of re-establishing a kind of balance and asserting thymos through sovereign expenditure, namely wars. - Today’s capitalism cannot reproduce itself on its own. It needs extra-economic charity to sustain the cycle of social reproduction.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-11-19 21:11:46.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Paul Gravley

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Golda Meir JSi

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-40

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Westwood Shhah Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-ND - DA - Scapegoating

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Glenbrooks