In an extremely belated and underwhelming response, police in London are warning that they are going to use plastic bullets against rioters. They should have been using real bullets on the first night to kill the firebomb throwers. People who attempt to set others on fire, or who set fire to occupied buildings are attempted murderers. Those observed in the act of such attempted murders should be shot on sight by police, or anyone else. Since the UK has largely disarmed its people, and stripped away the effective right of self-defense, it falls to the police to maintain order and protect the public from these rampaging gangs of human scum. From what I've seen in British news reports, so far they've done a miserable job.
While driving to work yesterday I heard an NPR report on the riots. Their reporter interviewed a woman whose apartment complex was set on fire. She told how while she and her family were fleeing for their lives, their home destroyed, looters were laughing and stealing rugs from a shop on the ground floor of the building. As I've written before about mob violence, these sorts of situations are one of the few times that excessive police force, which would normally be police brutality, is actually called for to restore order. People who act as part of a violent mob or gang, who commit acts of arson, and who think the chaos they've caused is an excuse to appropriate other peoples' property are predatory vermin that needed to be suppressed as quickly as possible with overwhelming force. When a government fails to do so in these situations, its lack of action encourages more vermin to crawl out of their holes and take part in the feeding frenzy.
we've received some complaints...
ReplyDeletewhat's the harm of atheism?
valentinesperformingpigs.com/images/piglets_red_spotted.jpg
ottawaskeptics.org/forum?func=view&catid=3&id=4321
They should have been using real bullets on the first night to kill the firebomb throwers.
ReplyDeleteStrange that it is that sort of spurious use of deadly force that started the whole mess.
"Strange that it is that sort of spurious use of deadly force that started the whole mess."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. What started it was a single individual being killed by police under questionable circumstances. There's nothing questionable about someone with a firebomb in his hand about to throw it at police, or at an occupied building. The two situations are completely different, as are the situations of police carrying out an arrest/investigation, vs. riot control.
"The two situations are completely different, as are the situations of police carrying out an arrest/investigation, vs. riot control"
ReplyDeleteSee, here's the thing. To us, sitting 3,000 miles away, they may seem to be the same thing, but if the police start shooting people, things will only get worse. Rioters who may have been sick of the violence may feel that the police are in fact out to get them. Adding more violence to the mob mentality will not help.
"if the police start shooting people, things will only get worse."
ReplyDeleteObviously I strongly disagree. Things would get much better quickly.
"Rioters who may have been sick of the violence may feel that the police are in fact out to get them. "
Rioters sick of violence? If they are sick of violence then they aren't rioting and are no longer a problem. Those that are rioting should feel that the police are out to get them. That's one of the prime jobs of the police, to get violent criminals.
"Adding more violence to the mob mentality will not help."
Police actions to eliminate life-threatening rioters have nothing to do with "mob mentality." Pretending that vigorous police action won't help shows an ignorance of history, and of reality. This isn't some sort of revolution. These are criminal scum taking advantage of chaos to carry out looting and random acts of violence because they think they can get away with it. If people are made aware that throwing firebombs at police or occupied building will get you shot -- and such criminals are actually shot -- there will be a massive decrease in people using firebombs.
So what's the difference between rioters in England vs. the various riots in the Middle East (especially Syria and Libya and Iran) other than the English authorities have been slow in using lethal force?
ReplyDeleteReally? You need me to explain the differences between people fighting against dictatorial government repression, and criminals looting and burning for fun and profit?
ReplyDelete"One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter"
ReplyDeleteWe had a protest here in Malaysia as well recently but it was legit and non-violent, although it ended up with water cannons and beatings.
The police here are crazy. the one that's in england it's the other way around, bring out everything they can possibly dish-out.
Taken the scenario that these extremely upset youths are upset about the government, I can say their probably blind in rage, greed and lust to have what they don't.
The government of course knew of the possible consequences and just in case it does happen, rubber bullets are in case. England would not want to tarnish it's beautiful name with blood-soaked hands in the eyes of millions across the globe.
when they find out they have been shooting... youths. imagine the blood-curling screams of their family
"We had a protest here in Malaysia as well recently but it was legit and non-violent, although it ended up with water cannons and beatings."
ReplyDeleteWell, that's a totally different situation. A non-violent protest isn't a riot.
"England would not want to tarnish it's beautiful name with blood-soaked hands in the eyes of millions across the globe."
They tarnish it much more losing control of their cities and letting criminal gangs loot and burn.