Its really about the government piggy bank drying up and entitlements evaporating. So who do they turn to when they no longer get their free shit? The rich. Theyre the ones holding all the money and should be yielding it to everyone else so they can get their free shit again. And the best part? This line of thinking is going to trend to the US and Canada eventually. It happened in Greece, Spain, and now England. Its a matter of time before it drifts over here. The "tax the rich and give to the poor" ideology is pure insanity.
The people against lethal force are no more armchair quarterbacking than those that are saying, "shoot them, they're criminals." Unless I'm mistaken and we have people posting with one hand and wielding a riot shield with the other. Whether or not they're right has no bearing on whether lethal force should be used. Some of the class shit on this board is off-putting.
Fair enough. I retract that one. I never said it did, I made two separate points; one on the action of the rioting and the other on the philosophy behind the unrest. Out of curiosity (and Im not patronizing you) at what point would you consider lethal force appropriate? Because before you said only if people are getting injured and killed, not property destroyed. Well, the former has been happening now.
The reason for the original, PEACEFUL protest was because after the guy got shot, the cops totally ignored the dead guy's family. They went to the station to find out what happened, and nobody would talk to them. Nobody. They were shunned. Then crowds started to appear, and quietly, peacefully protest the lack of communication from the cops. The cops response was something along the lines of "they should know that we can't talk to them about an ongoing investigation so we ignored them." Instead of a single cop going out, inviting them inside, sitting down and talking to them, explaining to them that they can't talk about it, and treating them like human beings that just lost a family member (regardless of the circumstances), they were completely inhuman pricks about it. The crowds kept growing. The silence from the cops continued, but they had cops now stationed between the sit-ins and the cop station. From what I understand, a black girl threw a note at the cops that were watching, that said "just talk to the family", and then she got beaten. Bad. Apparently there is a video of it (go figure), but I haven't seen it or find it. Not sure I really care to, actually. That is what, at least as I understand it, caused the violence to kick off. After that, the riot demographic changed, and it became an opportunity for a bunch of fuckwads to "get what should be theirs". It's just a bunch of thugs and assholes causing havoc under the guise of race issues. So yeah, 1,100 arrested, 59 wounded, and 4 dead. And now they're talking about bringing out the water cannons. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.metro.co.uk/news/871966-uk-riots-water-cannons-can-be-used-on-offenders-says-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.metro.co.uk/news/871966-uk-r ... ys-cameron</a>
Disregarding the philosophy and the age of the rioters, deal with them solely according to the severity of their actions. People have already died, and more people will die if nothing is done. I would prefer that a rioters' life is ended swiftly by a professional, rather than a innocent bystander die trying to protect himself from the bloodthirsty rabble.
Didn't mean to imply that you did, realize that's how it came out. As for when lethal force is appropriate: --Lives are directly being threatened. I don't consider setting a fire that could potentially kill people a direct threat. --Other options are likely to fail and/or are unavailable. Lethal force should be a last resort. --Ideally, the victim should be given a choice. This is not always possible, but I think in this riotous case it probably is.
You mean the guy who's about to be caught in a building that's set on fire by the rioters? You honestly consider the rioters to be "victims"?
I consider anybody who is shot in the head a "shooting victim", regardless of how guilty they are in other facets of their life. I was making a statement about lethal force in general, not talking about these rioters in specific. Use whatever word you like there -- "shootee", "target", "criminal".
So who's rights do you put a higher value on? Those that are doing the rioting, or those that are the victims of the riot? I look at any action taken to protect the rights and safety of those that are being rioted against as being justified. That trumps the rights of the people actually doing the crime. And how about the police that have been hurt trying to stop this? Do they count?
I don't think we should cede the government unilateral power to do whatever they want to people because they're part of a riot. I place value on everybody's rights, and everybody's life. Stealing from a store should not be a capital crime. Setting a fire should not be a capital crime. Being destructive should not be a capital crime, no matter how many people are doing it at the same time as you. North Korea has some of the cleanest streets in the world. There's virtually no theft, and more serious crimes are practically unheard of. The price of that "safety", however, is so astronomical that most countries condemn North Korea. It's possible to eliminate crime and rioting, but that sort of overarching government power doesn't just pop up and then recede gently into the night. It would require a wholesale change on the way we view crime and punishment. Doing "anything" to stop crime sounds great on paper -- it has an empowered, cowboyish ring to it doesn't it? -- but is at odds with the entire ethical basis for this sort of society. It's really easy to support ethical codes when it comes to the just, and sad, and wrongfully accused. It's much harder when it comes to scum. Where do you draw the line on who gets to be shot in the head without trial or warning? Is it anybody who might cause the death of somebody else? That's not rhetorical, I'm interested in what the legal defense should be of the government assassinating rioters should be.
Since I sided with the "snipers and an effective form of riot control for this type of situation" argument, I just want to clarify that I was not advocating shooting them because they're criminals. (Again, not to put words in others' mouths, but I didn't read anybody saying that either.) It's that I was advocating shooting them because they were criminals performing actions where I do. I guess that's another place we disagree. As I mentioned, based on the information I had seen, since the riots were continuing, the other options had already failed. But, I don't think "last resort" is the best way to put that, simply because at that point, an innocent person may already be dead. Using lethal force can be used to prevent the taking of an innocent life, instead of responding to it. Victim? You mean the criminal rioter endangering others? He already had his choice - he chose to set a building on fire and stir up others to do the same.
You are right, I just got a text from a friend of mine who is a gun nut explaining why it would not be a realistic solution. Fine. Shoot em in the head. You are not poor or rich when you are dead. Problem solved.
Victim? You mean the drunk driver endangering others? He already had his choice - he chose to get drink and then get in the car. Is that a completely different scenario? You bet. Does the same logic hold? Considering the vast number of people killed by drunk driving, especially as related to people killed in the rioting, you tell me how much more of a threat to life these riots are. I want the government to be extremely sure it's directly saving lives before it begins assassinating its own citizens.
One is negligence, and one is proactive destruction. Also, I'd make the argument that shooting a person who is presently driving would probably cause more harm than good...
Snipe 'em as they stumble to their cars. They're choosing to get in the car, nobody is holding a gun to their head. Well, nobody that they're aware of. If we began enabling police to headshot people who were about to drive drunk, or if we made drunk driving a capital offense, you'd see a huge decrease in the number of people who were willing to drive drunk. You'd save thousands of lives every year. Drunk drivers make their choice. I'm more concerned with the rights of the victims of drunk driving.
This has nothing to do with drunk driving, so I don't see why you keep going to that. Sure, we get it... you don't want people who are leading a riot intentionally killed in order to potentially save innocent lives and stop the destruction of a city... much better to let the innocents die at the hands of or due to the actions of rioters in order to ensure that we've properly prosecuted the rioters later. I liken it to a battlefield. If you're there, then you're a potential target. I don't care if you're a conscientious observer, the fact that you're there is enough. You made the choice to be out there, so you can live (or die) with the consequences. If you participate in a riot, then you give up your rights. Plain and simple. At least that's my opinion. Look, you're not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to change my mind. We might as well discuss abortion.
But people have been killed and their were lives threatened. No one here is advocating the cops take up arms and start firing blindly into a crowd, Kent-style. And I dont like going on slippery-slope scenarios. But sometimes divisive action needs to be taken to protect the innocent. And if that means Marshall Law, so be it. If anything good comes from this, maybe Great Britain will start properly arming their police force.
I keep bringing up the drunk driving thing because I think that it's an example of a situation where saving the greatest number of innocent lives is not and should not be the intention of the government. It is also an obvious example of how risky behavior that endangers the lives of others is not the same thing as a direct threat, and thus should not a be a capital punishment.
You're forgetting intent somewhere in there. That's why there is a difference under the law between manslaughter and murder.
But you're drastically discounting the scale and inflammatory nature of a riot. A drunk driver is a somewhat contained and isolated situation, and really, you don't want to know what I think about drunk drivers. A riot has the potential to grow, and cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. They are not at all the same thing... it's all about context.