I don't doubt that the leaders are dangerous. However, somebody simply being dangerous or a threat shouldn't be cause for the government to kill them without trial or warning. Were going to have to agree to disagree, because I will never support the right of my government to assassinate its own citizens with impunity, regardless of what they've done.
If citizens start behaving like enemy combatants they should be treated accordingly. In London's case I'm not (yet) in favor of lethal force. But the police need to get stuck in with their batons. Or better yet arm them with sjambok's, they work a treat in South Africa. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gatecrashers-flee-whipwielding-dad/2008/08/16/1218307309535.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gat ... 09535.html</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=55673" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=55673</a>
I'd be fucking terrified to live in a country where citizens can light parts of their country on fire without serious repercussions. That being said, lethal force is a bit too strong a point to make right off the hop. Rubber bullets, tear gas, etc. All of those have the potential to kill, yes, but the question remains. Who the fuck is forcing these assholes to go out and burn shit down and fuck up people's lives? No one. If they're out there when the shit starts going down then fuck 'em. They brought all that shit on themselves.
I'd be terrified to live in a country where its own citizens WERE enemy combatants. Explain to me how the leaders of this riot aren't terrorists? What if it were a few guys that were Muslim Extremists, and were blowing up cars in the street? How are they different?
If someone is robbing a bank, do you give him a trial while he's still going around shooting people? I do think that it's not a decision to be taken lightly. However, I think that killing a few people would set the tone and get the people to calm down. Most of the rioters are mindless thugs. Their brains are elsewhere. Hit the brain, and the rest of them go "Huh. What do we do now?" And they go home. It's either that or bring in the British version of the National Guard and fuck bitches up. I think I'd be more comfortable with doing the former. Of course, the British seem to be content to just let the rioters do as they please.
Lethal force might be a bit much, but I think that the ring of the truncheon thing would be fairly effective at stopping the riot, or at least helping to root out those who just want a chance to get some designer clothes at a steep discount from the determined rioters (Group A will tend to flee when confronted with violence, Group B might stick around and try something new). After the riots are done, an investigation into the causes of the riots and the popularity of the riots should be conducted.
Innocent people are being seriously fucked with. That is a woman jumping from a burning building. I'm kind of thinking that those people who are, you know, actually IN the riot, might have a little different take on this than those people "sitting comfortably behind their keyboards", as Beefy Phil so eloquently put it. Right now the government in the UK has failed it's people. It has failed to protect them, because of their "wait and see" approach. Normal, law-abiding people are being seriously fucked with through no fault of their own. That pisses me off. I have no idea if anyone has been killed as a result, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that there have been serious injuries. I guess I just refuse to play the victim. Or be passive in situations where bad people are doing bad things. My approach is somewhat similar to the way I try to moderate around here; if you cross the line and break the rules, expect fairly swift and severe repercussions. In a riot, if you're in the mob, and fucking with people, all bets are off, and you can expect the worst.
I would certainly love it if the police did more than just, you know, stand there. Anything they do now would be an improvement. What should have happened immediately when this turned violent (and remember, just because no one has died yet -- I think? -- doesn't mean that they couldn't have died), was to bust out the rubber bullets and water hoses. Peaceful protest is one thing, destructive and endangering protest is another. So take out the less-than-lethals and see if that doesn't deter them a bit. Unfortunately, in my opinion, these protests have gotten to the point that lethal force should be used. Case in point from another recent riot: the water polo kid trying to light that cop car on fire. If that cop car blew, as was his intent, it would undoubtedly have killed people. It would have been a bomb. So now take that image of someone trying to light a bomb/kill people, and put it in a different situation. Let's say a brown dude with a towel on his head was waiving a gun at a crowd, or he had hostages (same thing, he displayed the intent to kill). Lethal force then? A few snipers out on the roof, hunting the identified leaders. You have maybe a handful of guilty terrorists in the morgue, and a city that can begin rebuilding. That'd be worth dealing with a few complaints in the press. On an entirely different note, what does anyone think are the chances of this kind of large-scale riot happening in America (again)?
Sorry I can't quote directly, I'm on my phone. Rioters terrify me. People cease to think in those sorts of environments, and do some truly horrifying things. Part of me thinks the government should do whatever it can to end the ordeal as quickly as possible, and I imagine the business owners who are seeing their lives casually destroyed by an unthinking mass probably agree. But. That sort of helpless fear and anger fueled reaction is exactly what I want my civil liberties to temper. there's a reason police DON'T immediately shoot people who are robbing banks. Life is inherently precious, and the state can't give it back. If somebody opens fire on cops, or continually disregards clearly given orders, they've made their choice. But using snipers to pick off unwitting citizens, without so much as an order to stand down, that seems like the sort of overreaching power that's impossible to remove once granted.
Nett, even if they were wearing turbans and shouting "we are Muslim terrorists", I wouldn't want them assassinated.
Nothing saying that they can't be given proper warnings. "Disband or you will be shot." Clear, concise, and with the repercussions plainly spelled out. But I also tend to think that a line of cops in riot gear inherently says "go the fuck home", and means you're not really out on a friendly walk in the park. And it may come as a bit of a surprise to you that I don't consider all life to be equal, or necessarily "precious".
I don't know if I would call the rioters terrorists. Most of them are just fuckhead kids that are rebellious and have nothing else to do. That being said, a couple well placed sniper rounds would have sent a very strong message, and ended things much sooner. As far as hoping no one had died yet: http://www.news24.com/World/News/First-death-in-London-riots-20110809 And as far as the property damage done, insurers are already thinking this will end up costing over 100 million pounds (around $162 million US). http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-cost-taxpayer-100-million Its still much less than the LA riots (52 deaths, $1 billion), but it's definitely not a good situation. Since the riots have quieted down, one of the topics I've seen come up the most is the relevance they will have on London's ability to host the 2012 Olympics. I don't think any of kind of essential infrastructure has been damaged, but it certainly puts a damper on trying to show off the safety of London, as well as the abilities of the police force that will be providing security for the Games. Any thoughts on that?
Am I the only one who thinks that shooting the rioters isn't going to calm the situation down? I mean, it's been well established that they are thinking as an inflamed group and not as individuals. At this point, killing off a few of them isn't going to make cooler heads prevail.
I want to know why they haven't gotten lines of fire trucks and started blasting bitches out of the streets. Don't fuck with a fire truck. They always win. Plus, you can put red dye in the water and identify all the assholes who were in the crowd. Why the hell not?
I'm not condoning the lack of a an effective government response, and I'm not at all saying the circumstances are nearly the same, but does everyone remember Egypt, and the massive backfire that resulted from use of force to put it down? I doubt the result would be the same if/when the British police decide to get off their asses, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people in high places are having a bit of paranoia with Egypt in mind.
If a pack of bastards were trying to burn my house to the ground their lives wouldn’t be particularly precious to me. Nor should they be to the police. Nom, your attitude to this is at the core of the problem, if a stray dog attacks your kids, you don’t go wondering what bad life experiences caused it to act that way. You shoot the fucker in the head. I would love to see some doctors wives, pop stars and actors get their shit ruined by these riots. Because I’m just waiting for this wealthy without real work or responsibility demographic to start making excuses for the rioters after the fact.
Oh, come on... use your head. You're trying to compare these riots with people peacefully demonstrating in the hopes of overthrowing an oppressive regime against a bunch of thugs looting stores for shits and giggles. Is anyone here really on the side of the UK rioters? Anyone?
It's not so much that I disagree with the notion of giving a clear warning and then shooting primary agitators - it's just that I don't believe it will actually happen like that perfect world in execution. Recently, we've seen cops destroying people's smart phones after they witness police shootings, and there's the audio recording of the cops threatening to shoot a guy in the face, because he's legally carrying a fire arm, and then trying to have him charged with 'setting a trap' for the cops by acting in an entirely legal way that happened to upset a couple of cops who were too stupid to radio in and verify his explanation. Given that the riots were triggered by the fatal police shooting of someone who was allegedly a bad person, who the police indicated shot first, despite forensic investigation finding no evidence of such. Ignoring the 'lots of cops are scary assholes' thing and assuming they're all wonderful people with the best of intentions, do we really think the death penalty is appropriate for property damage? Really? Currently the only riot caused fatality that I've actually seen reported was one guy was shot in his car - and they found the body in the car in the area of the riots - there doesn't seem to be any confirmation that it was riot related and not a personal shooting as the cops are currently a little busy to look into it. The death penalty even for bombing an empty building? Without a trial? That seems kind of excessive. What intel do we consider sufficient to identify a candidate for the death penalty for property damage without a trial? Who do we hold accountable for bad intel if some snitch sets up his competitor for the local drug trade? Or do we really hold no-one accountable for using the police as an assassination tool? In the chaos of a riot situation - how long do you think it would take before there was collateral damage? How many excitable teenagers are we reasonably prepared to shoot as a fair price for shutting down the riots? and really, given that these riots were over one possible improper police shooting, do we really think that shooting a few more people would be the right answer? That said, I'd be entirely ok with tactical target acquisitions through non lethal means. Contain the rioters, scoop out the organizers and agitators with narrowly targeted overwhelming force (firehoses, tear gas, tasers and beanbag rounds) and there's a decent chance of shutting this thing down faster. But it's also a political decision - will that sort of move neuter the rioters, or just give them matyrs and build momentum. The IRA was enough of a pain in the ass- London based guerrillas with the commitment to carry the agenda forward would be a nightmare.