But... but... but... diversity oppression racism poverty child abuse democratic government police state wealth gap! I want a rioter to say those exact words, in that order, to CNN.
Yeah, this would definitely be the first time anyone ever did anything without realizing what motivated them to do it. Ever.
The issue of whether to kill or not is kind of a blanket statement, but the fact is that it is plenty possible to put an end to these riots with non-lethal force. Is anyone really arguing that lethal force should be preferred over non-lethal force? Yes these people are scumbags, but they are citizens and the rights of the country extend to scumbags just the same. I mean... come on. There is no question that non-lethal force would mitigate or outright put an end to the riots. SWAT has proven time and again the effectiveness of these tactics. (I won't even get into the notion that using non-lethal force is probably more effective than lethal force.) The thought that some of you would prefer to use lethal force over non-lethal when they are both effective options is shocking to me.
This might just be because I'm cranky this morning, but I hate everyone involved here. The rioters are terrible people who are endangering people because they are stupid, selfish cunts. They should be punished, harshly. However. Britain has an incredibly overt class system. If you tell people, for generations, that they are lower class, and they will always be lower class, and the upper class will always hold all the power... well, what sort of outcome are you expecting? That the lower class people will go "oh well, I guess we will just accept our birth right and be poor. I'm happy cleaning houses and pumping gas, and I'm sure my children will be too." Reap what you sow, and all that...
Did you not read the part I highlighted in the quote? I honestly don't see how you could have possibly gotten what you did from that post, but I am in no way condoning these idiots or saying that the demonstrations in Egypt were anything like the current riots. The comparison was only on the level of "responding with violence just increased the numbers of the force (whether peaceful protestors of mindless rioters) in Egypt, maybe that could happen here". It's possible, if barely so, that severely cracking down on the rioters could give like-minded idiots a rationale for joining the violence. It's just somewhat more plausible that this unlikelihood has occurred to someone in charge in England, who has taken it as a serious possibility and is thus playing it safe in choosing their method of dealing (or not dealing) with the rioters. Maybe I'm just reaching way too far outside the box here, but it was a thought.
Are you seriously comparing a small squad of men against a battalion or possibly a brigade? You people wonder why I carry a fucking gun. It's stupid idiots like this who endanger the lives of people.
Finally, I'm back on a computer. I don't know how people type on phones, it's the most annoying process in the world. I'm going to keep editing this post as I reply to things. If they were currently in an act that was going to lead to deaths, maybe. Simply destroying property would not be enough, and I'm still not really on board with lack of escalation. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to feel. However, I don't want a police force that sees criminals as nothing more than stray dogs. Because those criminals have families too, and they have rights, even if they're fuckheads. The most paramount of which is a right to life. Now, if they are in the process of killing your kids, and there's nothing else to be done, that's one thing. But the fact that they have committed a crime does not forfeit their ability to live. And nothing makes them a "dog." Honestly, if somebody were burning my house down, and it were empty, I'd rather see them arrested than killed, for a variety of reasons. I agree with this. No action is a terrible course, as well. I'm also all for any sort of recourse that makes it easier to identify looters/rioters in the future.
Are they clearing out these residential apartments ahead of these rioters? How no one has been burned to a crisp in these apartments is surprising. How can you say they are just setting fires to empty businesses? There are fucking homes above them. Seeing people arbitrarily trying to burn down blocks of buildings seems just as an immediate threat to human life as those two dudes that strapped up with machine guns and robbed that North Hollywood Bank. Sure they're intentions might just be to destroy businesses but the dangerous consequences of starting large fires seems pretty damn apparent to me.
Some aerial footage of the post-riot situation. I really didn't know it was this bad. Bunch of fucking assholes.
A good compilation of some videos coming out of the riots: http://www.news.com.au/world/best-of-the-london-riots-on-youtube/story-e6frfkz9-1226112344569 I particularly like the old lady trying to shame these fucking scum into decency (or at least coming together for a fucking cause rather than mindless violence and thievery). As to the whole lethal vs non-lethal argument im really of two minds about it, a part of me sides with Nett in that these people are fucking terrorists and should be treated as such. That video in the above link of the police line falling back in the face of a large amount of rioters charging them would have gone a lot differently had the first fucker to charge got a bullet between the eyes... his compadres might have given it a second thought with his brain matter all over them. But then there's another far more rational part of me that sees that kind of thing going horribly wrong, violence begets violence and all that. What if that first rioter to die inflames everyone else? It might drag more people into the conflict that would otherwise have avoided it and kept their heads down. What happens when the rioters start toting guns? Then your gonna need the Army to step in and London could end up looking like fucking Mogadishu by the end of it.
If you are a shop owner and stand behind the register with a revolver, ready to pop the first few morons who come in through the glass instead of the door, by all means fire away. If you are a professionally trained police officer, you do not lethally fire on unarmed civilians. Especially stupid, poor ones. Very especially over looting a pair of jeans. Aside from most other reasons cited, the main one to me is you will have to go right the hell back into the neighborhood and deal with your actions. You and all your friends. Until you retire or are transferred. Never mind the fact that you do not and cannot know who you are firing at, nor what the response will be. I think if this had happened after the Olympics, we'd be seeing a much different response. I also think that with all the tv's, photos, and attention few competent police officers will have trouble convicting the people responsible. I also like the store owners who organized their communities and protected their own. To hell with waiting for the police to come in and fix everything, take care of your own shit as much as you can. In short, put your faith in law and order (and insurance). My .02, for what it's worth.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I agree using a mass, non-lethal force (say, a fire hose) would be more effective in dissipating the mob than shooting one person in the head. On the other, fuck these criminals. How many have been arrested now? It's in the hundreds. It will take years and millions of dollars to try and convict these assholes. Lawyers will spin stories and the public will be made to feel sympathy for a bunch of ignorant thugs who got drunk on their own adrenaline and burnt down part of one of the world's biggest cities. No thanks. As for the "criminals have families too!" argument, I look at it like this: if my parents saw me on television, with stolen merchandise hanging out of my pockets, burning an occupied apartment block to the ground and I was subsequently shot for it, they would mourn my death but they would understand that I brought it on myself.
I agree with this. Looting is not a valid reason for police use of deadly force. Neither is arson or vandalism. Unless someone's life is in immediate danger (i.e. some idiot waving a gun around) the police should not be shooting people. That said, I have no fucking clue why they're not using tear gas, tasers, rubber bullets, etc.
Maybe? They are in the act that is going to lead to deaths, and in this situation the death of innocent people (people who have families, too, as you point out later), and maybe it's okay to use lethal force to stop them? Any choice that involves terminating a life is difficult, but not making the choice at all is something that I don't follow. The choice between ending a cowardly terrorist's life and allowing that coward to end the life of innocent people is a much easier choice than weighing the merits of the death penalty or combat or something. That statement is where I think Nett and some others (don't want to put words in their mouth) disagree with you so much. They actually don't have that right anymore. They have given up that right through their actions. And, the sniper idea wasn't suggested because they're fuckheads, it was suggested because they're criminals. And, not just criminals, but terrorists. Backing it up and suggesting that their fuckheadedness is what makes them deserve death rather than the threat to innocent life fails to acknowledge the weight with which Nett (or anybody else) considered the options of this particular incident.
Honestly if the retard cops would just start spraying their assault rifles into these terrorist criminals we would really speed up this whole riot business. Yup, mission accomplished.
Blackberry company RIM has volunteered to help the police take down rioters. In response, the riot organizers known as Team Poison (real tough guy name) have threatened to hack into RIM and give out every employee's home address to the rioters. Sorry, I meant terrorists. These are people with husbands, wives, children. That is an act of fucking terrorism if you ask me. Burn every one of the fuckers.
From all account I've heard, the riots no longer have anything to do with the shooting... it's now apparently all about pillaging. I heard an interview with an Australian journalist who is in South London (Croydon?) who had gone out on the streets to try and get some information. He reported that he'd heard various comments like, "I finally got those shoes I wanted." He also stated that on a number of occasions he tried to pull his phone out to video some of the action and people were immediately trying to grab it off him and warn others that he was trying to film them. That may account for the lack of footage. There's also rumours that anarchist groups have a large hand to play in all of this, and have been co-ordinating rioting groups and instigators. Personally, my opinion is fuck the looters. They're scum. And it's a sad indictment to sit back and debate how best not to tread on their civil liberties while they're trampling all over everyone else's. While the rioting continues there's a whole slew of negative stuff going on from potential death to property damage to economic collapse. People's lives and livelihoods are under serious threat, and in ways that may never be compensated or recovered from. England got hit pretty bad in the GFC, and I'm not up to date with their economic status but it can't be exactly chipper. The longer this goes on, the worse it will be. And many looters and rioters will just fade back into normalcy without being brought to account, potentially ready to go again in the right circumstances. In a perfect world, I'd have no qualms about shooting the ringleaders. The problem is, how do you conclusively tell? Plus you run the risk of inciting further violence unless you shoot them all and no government wants that on their hands, especially with a bunch of civil libertarians braying on their coattails forever. That doesn't mean do nothing. Taking a soft approach until they run out of steam is bullshit. Give property owners increased rights to defend their property, including the ability to use lethal force. Break out rubber bullets, nets, water cannons, tear gas, pepper spray and noise cannons en masse. Shoot the bastards with tranquiliser guns. Taser the lot of them and chuck them in the back of a dump truck, hogtied. Take enough people out of the mix and the riots fall apart. You can't be an anonymous dickhead in a crowd if your crowd gets taken away.