I've just looked back through the posts on this thread and net daddy was the only one who (maybe) implied lethal force. The other posters supporting a more confrontational response have talked about rubber bullets, tear gas, and other non-lethal supression methods. I really don't think anyone here is honestly advocating the rioters should be killed. Edit: Ok, I guess I need to take back my last sentence....
You're right. And if I were on scene, that would also be my opinion. And if someone said, "here, you do it", and handed me a rifle, I would.
Here is an interview that is being presented by people on the internet as the justification or reasoning for the rioting. I'm not trying to make a statement on whether the rioting is justified or how it should be stopped, but I am curious about the culture of England. Here is my question: is his description of racism/discrimination accurate?
I think there is quite a line crossed when you start heaving molotov cocktails and starting major fires. I could see justifying lethal force on those people. Looters and rioters less so. Though if I owned one of those businesses and I was inside when roving gangs of shitbag teens tried to force their way in to steal my shit. I'd probably sing a different tune.
Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the arbitrary taking of lives by spraying the crowds with bullets or something, I'm talking about precision strikes against those that are actively leading the riots. And there ARE people who are leading those crowds. There are a few key individuals who are leading the groups into doing things that the group would not normally do. If you remove them, the group's energy will die down. Hell, it's coming out that they're using BlackBerries to coordinate the looting. There is organization, as rudimentary as it is. Watch any kind of civil protest in a reasonably large city, and you'll find counter-terrorist specialists analyzing that crowd and picking out those leaders. You'd also be surprised at how many situations don't erupt precisely because of the fact that they identified and removed those leaders from the situation. In this situation, the crowds are a weapon. Make no doubt about it. They are endangering the lives and property of tens of thousands of people. If someone was coming at you with a weapon, would you not take them out?
Nett is currently watching holofilms of various riot scenes with a 10-year-old boy, trying to teach him how to identify the leaders from how they move and act. Later, the boy will play a very advanced video game where the object is to sneak through and eliminate the leaders in a surgical strike. /obscure?
"If you want, I'll pretend you won this argument. Then tomorrow you can tell me you changed your mind."
I seem to remember that book ending rather poorly for Ender. Something about the unwarranted destruction of a large group of living creatures because of the actions of an aggressive few. Maybe I just learned a different lesson.
Yeah, though the few used children who thought they were playing games to do the deed. Just read the book. It is my #1 favorite.
The police standing idly by while being taunted by these pieces of shit bugs the hell out of me. If there is a riot going on the fact that an asshole thinks he can get away with walking up to a police line without getting 3 shades of shit beaten out of him is telling. And in my opinion a big cause of the problem. Every time the police use any force (in the UK & AUS) they are placed under the microscope, this has lead to consolatory policing rather than confrontational. This only works with thinking members of the community, or those with a stake in it. It is seen as weakness by those who most need policing. Armoured police with shields and batons should be able to wade through the rioters like a hot knife through butter, leaving a trail of broken and unconscious behind them. Instead they stand impotent, their claws and teeth removed by a system terrified of civil action by scumbags who do not contribute to the society they inhabit. An interesting takes on things: <a class="postlink" href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100099830/these-riots-were-about-race-why-ignore-the-fact/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katha ... -the-fact/</a>
This is timely. Sounds like a bunch of bored assholes. From the article above: That's just spoiled stupidity. The majority of the people in this world would kill to be in that kind of "poverty." They live in a modern country with a high standard of living. Solid infrastructure. Doctors. Hospitals. Public transportation. Food. And they're complaining? Someone didn't raise them to appreciate what they have.
I wish the Brits took advantage of social media the way the non-idiots in Vancouver did. It was orgasmic to read that site dedicated to "outing" rioters, leading to Mr. Spoiled Rotten Brat Water Polo Star to spill his crocodile tears all over national television for trying to blow up a fully-fueled cop car and kill dozens of people. People say it wasn't right "violate the personal rights" of the rioters. LIE IN THE BED YOU MAKE. When you burn girl's cars, loot stores, beat up peacemakers, punch firemen, smash windows, you are NOT....NOT sending your message of rebellion. You're just monumentally stupid and a fucking criminal, and you should be PUT DOWN.
You live your life by comparison to people in third-world countries? I sincerely fucking doubt that. News reports classify the neighborhoods where riots are taking place as low-income areas with high unemployment and low high school graduation rates. On a hunch, I used this fancy thing called Google to look up similar areas that have experienced civil unrest in the last 50 years. Here are a few: Watts, Los Angeles, California South Central, Los Angeles, California Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York Now, the funny thing about New York and L.A. is that they possess all those amenities you ascribe to London. And yet riots still occurred there. Actually, now that I think about it, riots seem to occur more often in metropolitan areas where disparities in wealth and opportunity are clearly visible. How fucking wacky is that? I'm not justifying the violence being done here, but one would think after 50-60 years of seeing this kind of thing occur over and over again, the Bored Ingrate Theory would have gone out the window. Poor people don't like being poor. They especially don't like being reminded they're poor while surrounded by people who aren't, day in and day out. Again, not justifying the methods here, but it shocks me that this shocks anyone. My understanding is that a few of them are heavily Afro-Caribbean. Londoners can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read that there have been problems between residents and cops in those areas for years. By the second day, however, news reports were stating that rioter ethnicity had diversified beyond the Afro-Caribbean community. Apparently, all the colors of the rainbow can now be found in those crowds.
Hell yes. Like how Toronto police are taking non-stop heat since the G8 summit because of bad behaviour? Yeah, the police fucked some people up. Here's what people don't consider: it was the cop's city too. They hadto sit there while those outsider Black Block coward faggots and other nincompoops ruined innocent people's property and generally, their home. I've done security for summits before. In Ottawa a black block member hit me in the chest with a chunk of concrete, bruising my ribs and knocking me out. Was I doing anything? No. I was talking with a friend I worked with, we were only walking to our post at the time. These fucks just like destroying and stealing everything they see, then they go home to their parent's house and steal money out of their mom's purse while they're sleeping. Could you blame the cops for losing their shit here and there? Collateral fucking damage if you ask me.
I'm a little surprised at how ready some of you are to use lethal force. I'd be fucking terrified to live in a country that was willing to treat its own citizens like enemy combatents. I'm all for prosecuting under the fullest extent of the law, but killing them sets a precedent in I'm not at all comfortable with.
Like Nettdata said, it's not the rank-and-file that they should be concerned with. Most of them have a herd mentality; it's pointless to kill them. The leaders, the ones who are organizing the mobs, riling them up, and directing their activities, those ARE enemy combatants. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing them or black-bagging them or whatever. They need to be stopped.