I used to think that Guido's were pretty bad, but it looks like the Chav's are putting them to shame.
It's not that I'm against the use of lethal force, it's that I'm not sure how I feel about that particular administration. Obviously, you can always create counter-scenarios, but there are generally a bunch of steps cops have to go through before they shoot somebody, and that's a good thing. If they can be stopped without lethal force, that's obviously preferable. Has anybody on this board gotten a DUI (yes). That person is a criminal. A criminal who was endangering innocent lives, to boot. Hell, we've had somebody on this board discuss his deep-abiding passion for drunk driving, an activity which causes more deaths every hour than have died in this entire riot. Is everybody who knocks back a few tumblers of Glenlivet then points his car onto the freeway worthy of a sniper bullet in the head? If lethal force is to be used, I want the threat to human life to be clear and immediate. I want lethal force to be the only reasonable option for stopping the action. Ideally, I'd like the person to have a chance to cease the activity. Sniping "riot leaders" effectively accomplishes none of these.
Here's a blog post from a friend of an e-friend: <a class="postlink" href="http://kaptinslog.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/hello-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://kaptinslog.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/hello-world/</a> It's quite good. Has the UK always been Clockwork Orange? He makes it sound like this has been an endemic problem.
I think this: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.thelocal.de/national/20101006-30295.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thelocal.de/national/20101006-30295.html</a> shows why they don't break out the water cannons for every civil disturbance, especially with reports going arounds of children in the crowds, as I beleive someone mentioned before. from here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8690199/London-riots-police-lose-battle-as-lawlessness-erupts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rupts.html</a>
As for the people saying, "they are enemy combatants and they should be treated as such!", I disagree, entirely. Enemy combatant isn't just a term used for people who are causing death and destruction in your country. It's a hugely loaded term. Until Britain deems that the rioters are their own state, and then declares war on that state, they are not enemy combatants and you can't just shoot them in the head. I'm ok with that, because nothing I've seen suggests that the rioters are an organized state officially (or even unofficially) declaring war on the UK. Also, I think the crowds can only be considered terrorists in the vaguest sense of the word, and not in a sense that I think should hold any legal capacity. My reasoning: Lack of communicated central ideology. They don't appear to intend to cause death or harm to non-combatants It's unclear, if anything, they want the government to do While I've heard about "leaders" there's no identifiable chain of command While these may seem like semantic designations to you, I want it to be extremely hard to be classified as a terrorist or an enemy combatant. That's my main point here. Obviously, we can disagree on something like that. As an aside, I think if a disagreement over the inherent value of life is a chasm that's not going to be settled with information. It's purely ideological, I think.
They are torching stores, above which are apartments. I don't know whether the term to describe them is thugs, hoodlums, criminals, terrorists, rioters, anarchists, or punks. I don't care. Setting fire to an occupied residential building should not be explained away merely as youth expressing their anger. If cops shot every Molotov/Molotov thrower involved, I'd be quite fine with that. Fire does not contain itself, fire does not target a single entity. Innocent people should not suffocate or burn to death because they happened to live above a shop that no longer had anything worth stealing.
Saw this linked on fark. They were targeting a damn hospital. WTF http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-attack-fear-prevents-parents-dying-baby.html A couple double taps to a few of their heads is entirely justified in my opinion. This is disgusting.
I wanna see those fuckers get rained on by rubber buckshot and bean bags. How can you look at photograph after photograph of buildings entirely gutted out by fire and question if lives are at risk? Not to mention the ridiculous amount of property damage that is absolutely needless. If they've got a cause, where is the actual activism? <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424</a> Because the rich people, eh? That's cute.
I've thought about what's been going on, seen the pictures of a London that looks more like it did as a bombed out WWII city, and watched as innocent people are hurt and put at risk for no reason other than what seems like blatant thievery. I've thought about what I would do if my livelihood or my family was put at risk, and I came to the conclusion that I'd shoot any idiot dumb enough to fuck with me. Their government should do the same. Whether you agree with me or not, in times of such great disorder, sometimes order needs to be brought back with a harsh hand. If that means some dickhead throwing molotov cocktails into a hospital or residential building is shot and killed, then so be it. If they didn't have the sense to realize that lives were at stake when they hurled that flaming bottle, then their life is worthless. If that means an 11 year old stealing sneakers and jewelry gets rubber buckshot in his face--oh well. You learned a valuable lesson really early in life, buddy--don't fucking riot. No wet t-shirt parties with fire hoses, no minor electrocution with a taser. First you get the gas. If that's not enough--first round is rubber, next round is steel. London authorties need to establish themselves as the authority and get their city back.
I am not sure about shooting in the head. What about sniper shots through shoulders and knees? Seems like it could slow the crowd down some. These riots are absurd, and quite destructive and dangerous. I understand the resistance to killing them, but seriously wounding them provides an oppurtunity to punish them more at a later time.
Dude please fucking explain how drunk driving is the same thing as throwing molotov cocktails (petrol bombs) and burning down blocks of residential buildings? Honestly your logic is boggling my mind in this instance. I am not advocating lethal force in these riots but I could see the reasoning behind it if they wanted to. They might not fit the legal terms of enemy combatants but I am pretty sure what they are doing in this situation could clearly be labeled as terrorism. These people throwing molotov cocktails and setting random fires are terrorist.
I'm not saying it's the same. It's obviously quite different. However, "they are doing potentially dangerous or lethal things" should not be a justification for sniping, because that sort of logic reaches far beyond these riots. I've never argued that it wouldn't be effective or cathartic, I'm saying that legally and ethically, it's a murky area that I don't want to wade into. You're going to have to come up with a stronger set of parameters than that, otherwise other situations will fall into that scenario. Dangerous precedent. As for terrorism, I gave you the list of things these people are lacking. Being destructive is not terrorism. Killing people is not terrorism. Destroying people's lives is not terrorism. While terrorists often DO all of those things, they're not sufficient grounds to label somebody a terrorist. If you're using it in a vague theoretical sense, maybe, but then you can't very well treat them legally as terrorists. And shooting somebody in the head is doing just that. Your definition of terrorist simply doesn't line up with the one that governments should or do use.
No, they can't be classified as terrorists either. The generally accepted layman's definition of terrorism (as defined by a former FBI special agent and CIA analyst who taught a couple of my classes) is "someone who uses violence or the fear of violence to achieve political ends." The more official-sounding version of that from the FBI's website: These riots are certainly spreading fear, but they have no political agenda. Not terrorism. I'm making this distinction because you are using this argument to defend your position that lethal force should be used. If you think lethal force should be used, you better have a proper legal basis for it. Otherwise it's just murder.
I understand the emotional desire to kill the rioters but as a practical and realistic means of supression lethal force just isn't an option unless you don't care about collateral casualties at all. Say you station snipers to take out looters. How can you really be sure that guy you just took out that was standing in a wrecked storefront putting merchandise into a plastic bag was a looter and not the store owner or an employee trying to move their merchandise to the locked storeroom in the back? It was also mentioned that only the ringleaders and organizers should be killed - how do you identify them? Do you really have the time to gather the necessary intellegence to make sure the people you identify are the targets you're looking for? And please, we're all smart enough to recognize that there's a difference between responding to an immediate threat to your (or your family's) personal safety and shooting an unaware target from across the street.
Seriously, everyone should listen to the video on that link. Those two girls in Croydon (a really white trash area of London) sum it all up (if you can understand the guttural noises they call speaking). Listen to them just repeating what they have heard everyone else say. "The rich people" "The conservatives". They probably can't properly explain the difference between labour party and the torys, aside from "the labour party keeps my parents on the dole", or name the 7 houses of parliament. This isn't about oppression, about some lowlife who got shot. It is about making havoc because there is no sense of shame. Oh, we go't som rosaay wine dinn we? Yeah, that 12 year old is fighting the power with his Yellowtail Chardonnay. Fight the power with that Smirnoff vodka and package of biscuits.
Ive been watching this thing unfold for the past few days and heres some facts (some of which have already been mentioned): -A 26-year-old man died following a shooting in Croydon, South London. -In Winson Green, Birmingham, three men aged between 21 and 31 were killed in a hit-and-run incident while attempting to protect their neighbourhood from rioters and looters. -In London, between Monday afternoon and the early hours of Tuesday, 14 people were injured by rioters. They included a 67-year-old man with a life-threatening injury after he was attacked while dealing with a litter-bin fire, and a 75-year-old woman who suffered a broken hip in Hackney. -In Ealing, West London, a man described as white and middle-aged was beaten by rioters and taken to hospital with life-threatening injuries. -In Barking, North-East London, a 20-year-old Malaysian student was beaten and then robbed twice by looters. He suffered a broken jaw, requiring surgery. -A total of 111 police officers and five police dogs were injured. Over what? A guy getting popped by the cops who had an illegal handgun with a round chambered? This isnt civil disobedience or a peaceful protest, this is anarchic bullshit and the hammer needs to be dropped hard. Watching more innocent people get injured and their livelihoods destroyed is unacceptable and the government should absolutely declare Marshal Law. The people that are saying that lethal force shouldnt be used can do all the armchair quarterbacking they want, but when people are breaking down doors and hurting, killing, and robbing the innocent, the government has the obligation to protect them.
Snipers are damn good at shooting, but I think you've been exposed to too much of the Hollywood version of a sniper. They can't plink a raisin off of a running squirrel's head at 1000 yards like some people think. They are trained to kill, not to wound. Trying to hit a moving persons knee or shoulder is ridiculously impossible to do with any consistency.