Can we just shoot rioters already?
Seriously this is a 1st world country. Lawlessness in the streets shouldn't be tolerated.
Note - Peaceful protest is fine as long as it follows all normal ordinances. But riots shouldn't be tolerated. No business owner should have to worry that their workplace is going to be burned down.
Even if everything the protesters are saying about Wilson were true (its not but lets just pretend) what rational is there to burn and loot? Idiocy of the highest order.
First world countries don't "just shoot rioters" to maintain law and order. Or are you just trolling?
The irony is that most of the stores being torched and/or looted are minority-owned.
Hope is the denial of reality
At least not everyone involved there is an asshole.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5684042.html
The real "irony" is that the Governor activated the National Guard, but they weren't used to supplement local or state police, nor any of the civilian groups who were trying to protect those businesses.Originally Posted by Loki
This is primarily why we don't shoot rioters in the streets.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Past two nights have been kept up by police cars and helicopters moving around all night to stay on top of the protests. Sigh.
Lewkowski never met a problem he didn't think a bullet would solve.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
... until his first flat tire.
Carthāgō dēlenda est
I wonder if you folks agree that people doing crime in large numbers should face the same penalties as when it is done in small numbers. For example if one individual was attempting to light a fire in a place of business and a police officer saw this deadly attack would they be attempting to prevent it? And if the would be arsonist continued would he respond with escalating levels of force? If the answer is small numbers should be dealt with the same from a justice standpoint the only additional factor to consider is the amount of officers that should be deployed.
100 people trying to start a fire should be met with the same force as if one person was doing it. Agree or disagree?
See, the bolded section is why you are consistently incapable of saying anything sensible about law and order. You think the police using force on someone to stop them doing something is a 'penalty', i.e. a punishment for whatever it is they were doing.
You want the police to go in guns blazing because you think the people looting shops and setting fires and so on deserve to die for what they're doing. What people deserve for looting is for the courts to decide. The police's job is to enforce the law and keep the peace, not issue punishments. This isn't Judge friggin Dredd. Their job is to enforce the law and keep the peace, they're issued weapons to that end, not to fulfill your vicarious wannabe-tough guy fantasies and if they use them in these circumstances they're just going to make the situation 100 times worse.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Police officers wouldn't go out shooting people. They would give them a chance to voluntarily stop their actions and accept being arrested. If they resist THEN they get shot.
No, I do not agree. When people engage in a mass-crime, it is impractical and counterproductive to prosecute every person involved in almost every real-world expression of the activity. You grab some examples, preferably any ringleaders who you can tie to direct commission of the crime(s) and prosecute them, while letting the rest off with a warning. The aim should be for all first-time offenders to get off as they're the least likely to reoffend.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So where is the cut off.
If 5 guys rape one woman should you only charge the ring leader? What about 10? 15? Where do you draw the line where more people raping a person should start getting lesser sentences?
Again, going to make the situation worse. Contain the riot, minimize injury and property damage, make a note of whatever offenders you can then arrest them later when everything's calmed down.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I don't agree. Every single person who actively violates the law should be prosecuted here.
During the massive London riots of August 2011, the police set out to arrest every single offender in the aftermath, and the CPS set out to prosecute every one arrested. The intention was for very rapid justice. The CPS admitted later that it was the single biggest challenge in their history.
To deal with the huge caseload, prosecutors were brought in from across the country and Courts were opened throughout night and day.
Statistically, two months later by October 2011, there were 5,175 offences recorded by the police nationally, with over 4,000 of those offenders arrested. A remarkable figure.
By June 2012, nationally there were 3,051 people brought before the courts - 2,194 in London. Over 1,800 years of jail time in total handed out by the courts by this time.
These figures dwarf the little pockets of looting and vandalism happening in Ferguson and elsewhere. There is no reason why every single offence recorded should not be pursued for prosecution, particularly given the considerable resources of the American justice system.
~
Sources:
Parliamentary briefing on the August 2011 Riot
Evening Standard
BBC
Last edited by Timbuk2; 11-28-2014 at 05:22 AM.
We don't have CCTV.
Or a police state.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeh the ubiquity of CCTV over here did occur to me when I wrote that.
However, shouldn't detract from all being done to prosecute those thieves, vandals and arsonists who commit crime while others are protesting, peacefully or otherwise.
I find it undesirable that the state has this ability at all. I also find it hopelessly naive to think that the only legitimate way to demand change is through peaceful protest. The list of totalitarian regimes coming down as hard as they could on peaceful protests is as long as human history.Yeh the ubiquity of CCTV over here did occur to me when I wrote that.
However, shouldn't detract from all being done to prosecute those thieves, vandals and arsonists who commit crime while others are protesting, peacefully or otherwise.
Congratulations America
Hmmm.
I recall - inadvertently - getting caught in the middle of the violent poll tax riots in the UK in 1990. I had only arrived permanently in the UK the year before, and was something of a tourist in the heart of London on the worst day of the riots. People protesting against Thatcher's unjust and unfair poll tax. Mass disorder and violence against the police and government buildings.
The protests brought about change, and the poll tax was scrapped in favour of a fairer system of local government taxation. I take no issue here.
Such protests, riots if you will, are very different, in cause, purpose, and execution, to the London riots of the summer of 2011. Those riots were not a protest against a government or policy, they were nothing more than mindless looting, murder, mugging, arson, and vandalism, with no aim or purpose. Duggan's lawful shooting may have been the spark, but the resultant riots were not a 'protest' of any sort, organised or otherwise.
But that did mean that during the actual protests the police effort was focused on containing the riot, trying to minimize damages, etc., and trying to arrest/prosecute the culprits after. Lewk thinks police has arresting people (or shooting, I guess) as the first priority, while I think that the first priority should be to maintain public order/peace. Which may mean not arresting/shooting everybody right at that time, if it would escalate the situation, and then later trying to prosecute those responsible.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You do understand that a watertight system against the second type are just as useful against the first type? People should be very wary of their government being this effective in the control of unruly behaviour.
A broken shop window to me is a significantly lesser concern than swiping freedom to the side in a quest for security.
Congratulations America
Disagree. There is probably a point beyond which 2+2=100 and you risk starting a little war and a massacre. At that point you also abandon the rule of law and sacrifice society for the wilderness. That sort of ill-advised overreaction by some of society's dumbest most evil miscreants--cops
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...g-9895635.html
Something is very wrong in the USA
Congratulations America
In particular with the police, but apparently we're not yet at the point where we can admit that yet.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
15 years ago I already considered the police a major risk for my personal safety while being there. And I am as white as it gets.
Congratulations America
That's an extreme statement....
Yes, and it is caused by an utter lack of trust in your law enforcement. fyi I am usually on the side of law and order.
Congratulations America
************************/news/1842489-155/killings-by-utah-police-outpacing-gang
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
what the hell?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote