Jump to content
Sam

England Riots

Recommended Posts

YqsJx.jpg

 


"Let your anger be as a monkey in a piñata... hiding amongst the candy... hoping the kids don't break through with the stick." - Master Tang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting rioters is just going to make things MUCH worse. That's probably the dumbest thing they could do right now.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubber bullets. Though, I guess those can kill too.

 

Well, tear gas, spray them with water. Standing around with plastic shields and running away form the rioters wont control the rioters.


"Let your anger be as a monkey in a piñata... hiding amongst the candy... hoping the kids don't break through with the stick." - Master Tang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arm the riot cops, let them shoot whoever tries to defy them.

No, I'm pretty sure the reason they're rioting is because the police shot some guy in Tottenham. Police shoot more people = more rioting, more violence.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting rioters is just going to make things MUCH worse. That's probably the dumbest thing they could do right now.

 

Not when you're dealing with people having no greater purpose. The majority of these people are just out to cause trouble and loot knowing there is no real consequence.

 

If looters were shot on sight, these riots would have been over days ago.

 

I realize it isn't a realistic solution, but it would be an effective one.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standing still hoping this would stop will not bring any good either, maybe real bullets is too much, but hell, rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannons, show some resistence to this, otherwise it just won't stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting rioters is just going to make things MUCH worse. That's probably the dumbest thing they could do right now.

 

Not when you're dealing with people having no greater purpose. The majority of these people are just out to cause trouble and loot knowing there is no real consequence.

 

If looters were shot on sight, these riots would have been over days ago.

 

I realize it isn't a realistic solution, but it would be an effective one.

If you have any morality at all you know that shooting rioters in the streets in the 21st century is both completely ineffective and unethical.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My force has sent a group of riot officers (though only 24 so 3 vans approximately). They're putting most officers on standby currently as it seems to be spreading throughout the country.

 

Also wanting this to be the wakeup call to our government to issue officers with watercannons, rubber bullets, ability to use force without being scrutinised all the flippin time.


( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

RIP Michaelangelopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have any morality at all you know that shooting rioters in the streets in the 21st century is both completely ineffective and unethical.

What does morality have to do with effectiveness?

 

Obviously it's unethical and I would never condone it. I'm just saying it would be extremely effective.

 

Like I said in my first post, this is the problem with living in a civilized democracy. We put limits on ourselves that give people willing to break those limits clear advantages.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting rioters is just going to make things MUCH worse. That's probably the dumbest thing they could do right now.

 

Not when you're dealing with people having no greater purpose. The majority of these people are just out to cause trouble and loot knowing there is no real consequence.

 

If looters were shot on sight, these riots would have been over days ago.

 

I realize it isn't a realistic solution, but it would be an effective one.

I'm not too sure it would work. While it would quell most of the violence, it seems barbaric which would be, in my opinion, stooping to the looters' level. As long as these rioters aren't using guns of their own, I don't see the need for riot police to use their own guns on them. Over the long-term it would create more dissent among the populace than using other methods of riot control.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too sure it would work. While it would quell most of the violence, it seems barbaric which would be, in my opinion, stooping to the looters' level. As long as these rioters aren't using guns of their own, I don't see the need for riot police to use their own guns on them. Over the long-term it would create more dissent among the populace than using other methods of riot control.

Hold on a minute here - you're proving something other than what I was saying.

 

I'm not condoning shooting looters nor calling it ethical. I'm saying it would be effective in ending the riots.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have any morality at all you know that shooting rioters in the streets in the 21st century is both completely ineffective and unethical.

What does morality have to do with effectiveness?

 

Obviously it's unethical and I would never condone it. I'm just saying it would be extremely effective.

 

Like I said in my first post, this is the problem with living in a civilized democracy. We put limits on ourselves that give people willing to break those limits clear advantages.

It would be the opposite of effective. More riots would come out of it. If you shoot those rioters, you threaten to turn the entire country into chaos. People don't just sit down when their brothers and sisters are killed in cold blood.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be the opposite of effective. More riots would come out of it. If you shoot those rioters, you threaten to turn the entire country into chaos. People don't just sit down when their brothers and sisters are killed in cold blood.

And here is where I disagree.

 

It's one thing if you're rioting with some greater purpose. These rioters, by and large, are not. The majority of them are stupid kids looking to cause trouble - and I'm sorry, but no one is stupid enough to risk their life over a bag of rice.

 

Would there be outcry? Absolutely. But if it were to be well broadcast beforehand that this would occur, no one has the right to complain.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my London sources tells me, "The real story is how police budgets have been smashed to nothing and surprise, surprise they dont have staff or resources to deal with anything."

 

Irony: Theresa May: We can cut police budget without risking violent unrest (September 2010)

Can all but hope she'll relook at this after cutting the police by 25%.


( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

RIP Michaelangelopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be the opposite of effective. More riots would come out of it. If you shoot those rioters, you threaten to turn the entire country into chaos. People don't just sit down when their brothers and sisters are killed in cold blood.

And here is where I disagree.

 

It's one thing if you're rioting with some greater purpose. These rioters, by and large, are not. The majority of them are stupid kids looking to cause trouble - and I'm sorry, but no one is stupid enough to risk their life over a bag of rice.

 

Would there be outcry? Absolutely. But if it were to be well broadcast beforehand that this would occur, no one has the right to complain.

If you start shooting teenagers in the streets, you'll give them a real reason to riot. No one is willing to risk their lives over a bag of rice, but once you start shooting people it'll be about more than looting, it'll be about chucking molotovs at cops.

 

Last time I checked, petty thieves and arsonists aren't usually publicly executed by firing squad...


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well these riots can't simply be about some guys dieing in Tottenham, can it? I mean that's the tip of the iceberg but there have to have been some serious underlying causes for this to happen. Again, just the measures imposed by the gouvernment i don't think could have caused this. Something different must have sparked the initial riot.


Final1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too sure it would work. While it would quell most of the violence, it seems barbaric which would be, in my opinion, stooping to the looters' level. As long as these rioters aren't using guns of their own, I don't see the need for riot police to use their own guns on them. Over the long-term it would create more dissent among the populace than using other methods of riot control.

Hold on a minute here - you're proving something other than what I was saying.

 

I'm not condoning shooting looters nor calling it ethical. I'm saying it would be effective in ending the riots.

No, I'm saying that if these riots are stopped with extreme violence on the part of the police, the riots will not end. They might stop for a day or two, but not for good. Which is why I said it would create long-term dissent among the populace.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most frustrating things for me is the constant stream of footage and information the media is pumping out on a twenty four hour scale. It is probably one of the key reasons there have been copycat riots in other parts of the UK other than London and I find it very hypocritical of institutions like the BBC berating politicians for not doing enough and having caused the problem by the cuts they've made when in reality the media has probably done the most to aggravate the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most frustrating things for me is the constant stream of footage and information the media is pumping out on a twenty four hour scale. It is probably one of the key reasons there have been copycat riots in other parts of the UK other than London and I find it very hypocritical of institutions like the BBC berating politicians for not doing enough and having caused the problem by the cuts they've made when in reality the media has probably done the most to aggravate the situation.

 

So people went out and started rioting just because they saw others do it on tv? That would be just...stupid...


Final1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting at masses of people because some of them are looting would be a great way to shoot innocent people trying to make their way home or to work or school, or watching/photographing the tumult, or protesting legally & peacefully, or whatever.

 

I suspect that's the reason civilized countries are often hesitant to start shooting at looters. It seems likely to me that a policy of simply shooting looters in crowded urban areas would lead to a lot of injuries and deaths of people who were not looting.

 

I am also skeptical that it would calm the riots down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you start shooting teenagers in the streets, you'll give them a real reason to riot. No one is willing to risk their lives over a bag of rice, but once you start shooting people it'll be about more than looting, it'll be about chucking molotovs at cops.

 

Last time I checked, petty thieves and arsonists aren't usually publicly executed by firing squad...

 

Why aren't they violently reacting to people being arrested then? Or at least moreso then they already were?

 

 

No, I'm saying that if these riots are stopped with extreme violence on the part of the police, the riots will not end. They might stop for a day or two, but not for good. Which is why I said it would create long-term dissent among the populace.

 

I disagree.

 

If people are made well aware that actions have consequences, there is nothing they can do BUT stop.

 

That's like saying because they put people in jail for looting the riots will continue and breed long term dissent.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you start shooting teenagers in the streets, you'll give them a real reason to riot. No one is willing to risk their lives over a bag of rice, but once you start shooting people it'll be about more than looting, it'll be about chucking molotovs at cops.

 

Last time I checked, petty thieves and arsonists aren't usually publicly executed by firing squad...

 

Why aren't they violently reacting to people being arrested then? Or at least moreso then they already were?

 

Because being violently murdered is different than being arrested for stealing?


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me clarify my position. (for everyone discussing with me)

 

I realize it's unethical.

 

I realize it's impractical.

 

I realize it won't and shouldn't ever happen.

 

But I also realize it would be a hell of a lot more effective than running away holding a plastic shield in front of your face.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most frustrating things for me is the constant stream of footage and information the media is pumping out on a twenty four hour scale. It is probably one of the key reasons there have been copycat riots in other parts of the UK other than London and I find it very hypocritical of institutions like the BBC berating politicians for not doing enough and having caused the problem by the cuts they've made when in reality the media has probably done the most to aggravate the situation.

 

So people went out and started rioting just because they saw others do it on tv? That would be just...stupid...

 

Surely you aren't suggesting there is a sound logic behind the rioting? Of course people saw it and reciprocated in Birmingham, Nottingham and elsewhere. The media was branding the police as useless, and like someone said before, rioting is about the power it gives people and if they can see that there is little being done to stop it then it gives them a reason to go out and do it themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.