Why not put them down hard?

[Lewkowski]

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-expe...081844148.html

"Emergency officials were constantly thwarted as they tried to restore calm. Firefighters trying to put out a blaze at a CVS store were hindered by someone who sliced holes in a hose connected to a fire hydrant, spraying water all over the street and nearby buildings."

Really? Even if you could somehow defend doing violence against police what the hell is up with this? Yeah lets get the police... by burning down a CVS and putting firefighters lives in danger.

"Too many people have spent generations building up this city for it to be destroyed by thugs, who in a very senseless way, are trying to tear down what so many have fought for, tearing down businesses, tearing down and destroying property, things that we know will impact our community for years," said Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a lifelong resident of the city."

Here's an idea... shut them down. Police have far more firepower than the rioters. Use it.

""They don't want this movement nationally to be marred by violence," he said. "It makes no sense.""

Exactly... it doesn't make sense except thugs like chaos and they like the opportunity to steal. That's why it is happening, the death Mr. Gray is just an excuse.

"Later in the day, people began looting clothing and other items from stores at the mall, which became unprotected as police moved away from the area. About three dozen officers returned, trying to arrest looters but driving many away by firing pellet guns and rubber bullets."

Rubber bullets only stop people temporarily. And here is why the riots are going on. The desire of scum to get free stuff.

This isn't some third world cesspool. People should never have to fear riots in a first world country. This is pathetic honestly. Those that riot and loot probably have rap sheets a mile long anyway - respond with force, put them down hard and send an example. Have a grievance? Take it to the ballot box. Want to protest? Go ahead but it better be non-violent and not impede the flow of traffic and business.

[LittleFuzzy]

Shooting to kill prolongs riots. If you want to stop them with firepower, you have to use it in sufficient concentration to create a shock-effect, which municipal police forces aren't really capable of, and that route causes more damage and costs more money than the "softer" methods you whine about, particularly when you can't muster up enough of a shock.

This isn't about stopping riots, Lewk. You quite plainly don't give a rat's ass if the riot stops or how much damage is inflicted over the course of the riot, or you wouldn't be so dismissive of ending things efficiently. You're just drunk on the idea of bloodletting.

[Lewkowski]

I'm drunk on the idea of criminals being put in their place. And it doesn't take much to stop a riot. You could just enforce the curfew of course. Whats that a mob of 200 getting out of hand. It's after curfew so no one not intent on breaking the law is out. But I'm a nice guy so give them one last chance. Ignore it? Oh look a chopper shines a search beam down and SWAT snipers from a quarter mile away get some target practice. Riots going to break up real fast after that.

EDIT: And crime levels will drop for years afterwards since the scum who was rioting won't be around to commit more crime! Honestly its a win/win for everyone except criminals and those who make excuses for them.

I'm also in favor of *announcing* this policy giving people more than enough time to avoid death. If they are still retarded enough to push then they are clearly a danger for their sheer stupidity.

[Loki]

Or you enrage the entire community and instead of 200 people aimlessly pillaging, you'll have 20,000 expressly out to get the police.

[Lewkowski]

Or you enrage the entire community and instead of 200 people aimlessly pillaging, you'll have 20,000 expressly out to get the police.

Doubt it. Just because lethal electric fences exist doesn't mean people are lemmings and march off to their deaths. If the deaths were random, arbitrary or came without warning then yes there may be some increased rioting. (Maybe - fear after all is one of the most powerful motivating forces). But since my idea is fully transparent and everyone can avoid death quite easily there would be little reason to be enraged at it.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fear is powerful. Rage and hate is more powerful. Fear only stands a chance when something else shocks the other two into abeyance, that's why just dropping bodies routinely fails to stop mobs. But you just blindly refuse to acknowledge any and all of the historical examples that go against what you fancifully think passes for logic in your thoughts. No doubt because history is from academe and you have the most ridiculously obscurantist objection to inquiry and knowledge.

And Lewk? People dropping because of a couple of snipers a quarter-mile away is practically the definition of random, arbitrary, and without warning in a mob-context.

[Timbuk2]

If the police start opening fire along the lines you're describing here Lewk, it's not criminals who will be rioting, but everybody. Me included.

[RandBlade]

I'm drunk on the idea of criminals being put in their place.

A criminals place is a court and prison, not the morgue.

Following the London Riots a few years ago the Police used CCTV and other evidence to catch those who'd been breaking the law and the opening hours of the courts were extended. The courts were also somewhat tougher than normal as a riot is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, not a mitigating factor.

The criminals were sent to prison and the riots *touch wood* so far have never happened again. Job done.

As for bullshit of a curfew, what kind of backwards nonsense is that. As someone who has used to work till past midnight for a decade, I find the idea that people being about their business late at night should be shot utterly horrific. Young children have curfews (set by parents) not adults. If I'm out and about in the evening that's my business, not a snipers.

[Steely Glint]

How many times is Lewk going to post this exact same thread?

LEWKOWSKI: Why don't we just solve this [COMPLEX SOCIAL ISSUE] with [COMICALLY OVER THE TOP VIOLENT SOLUTION]
EVERYONE ELSE: Because that would be hugely counterproductive and lead to [UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES]. Obviously.
LEWKOWSKI: No it wouldn't! People act in [INCREDIBLY STRAIGHT FORWARD, EASILY PREDICTABLE WAYS] when threatened with violence, unless they're people I like. Also blah blah liberals liberals blah blah.
EVERYONE ELSE: No, they don't people are more complicated than that. You have no idea what you're talking about.
LEWKOWSKI: *silence*

Then, several weeks later, the exact same thing.

I mean, we get it - you like people being shot and lack even a beginners level understanding of psychology, social policy, law enforcement and, indeed, any other subject - but do we really need 25 different threads rehashing the same conversation and demonstrating the astonishing breadth of your ignorance?

[earthJoker]

How many times is Lewk going to post this exact same thread?

LEWKOWSKI: Why don't we just solve this [COMPLEX SOCIAL ISSUE] with [COMICALLY OVER THE TOP VIOLENT SOLUTION]
EVERYONE ELSE: Because that would be hugely counterproductive and lead to [UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES]. Obviously.
LEWKOWSKI: No it wouldn't! People act in [INCREDIBLY STRAIGHT FORWARD, EASILY PREDICTABLE WAYS] when threatened with violence, unless they're people I like. Also blah blah liberals liberals blah blah.
EVERYONE ELSE: No, they don't people are more complicated than that. You have no idea what you're talking about.
LEWKOWSKI: *silence*

Then, several weeks later, the exact same thing.

I mean, we get it - you like people being shot and lack even a beginners level understanding of psychology, social policy, law enforcement and, indeed, any other subject - but do we really need 25 different threads rehashing the same conversation and demonstrating the astonishing breadth of your ignorance?

I really was at the point to reply to this thread. And then I gave up having the exact same thoughts as you had. It's always the fucking same thing.

[Enoch the Red]

How many times is Lewk going to post this exact same thread?

LEWKOWSKI: Why don't we just solve this [COMPLEX SOCIAL ISSUE] with [COMICALLY OVER THE TOP VIOLENT SOLUTION]
EVERYONE ELSE: Because that would be hugely counterproductive and lead to [UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES]. Obviously.
LEWKOWSKI: No it wouldn't! People act in [INCREDIBLY STRAIGHT FORWARD, EASILY PREDICTABLE WAYS] when threatened with violence, unless they're people I like. Also blah blah liberals liberals blah blah.
EVERYONE ELSE: No, they don't people are more complicated than that. You have no idea what you're talking about.
LEWKOWSKI: *silence*

Then, several weeks later, the exact same thing.

I mean, we get it - you like people being shot and lack even a beginners level understanding of psychology, social policy, law enforcement and, indeed, any other subject - but do we really need 25 different threads rehashing the same conversation and demonstrating the astonishing breadth of your ignorance?

I am genuinely curious what Lewk's approach would be had in lived in this country during the American Revolution. Rioting in the streets and throwing rocks at lobsterbacks? Fry em. Destroying private property and trespassing in Boston harbor? Make a bloody example of them. Continental Army stealing supplies and weapons from the British? Private property is sacrosanct - kill them all.

I have a hard time believing he would be on what he now considers the side of liberty were he alive then.

[Aimless]

In another universe he might have been the President of the United Shambles of Afghanistan

[RandBlade]

You're exactly right. I don't think there's any doubt what 18th century Lewk would have thought. Liberty is a liberal idea and Washington was a traitor.

Also first century Lewk would have hated Jesus. Subversive speech and actions? Crucify em! Destroying private property and overturning the money tables? Make a bloody example! Turn the other cheek speech? No good hippy. Talking against the rich, no good lefty. Jesus was a subversive, criminal rebel who should be crucified.

[Lewkowski]

I am genuinely curious what Lewk's approach would be had in lived in this country during the American Revolution. Rioting in the streets and throwing rocks at lobsterbacks? Fry em. Destroying private property and trespassing in Boston harbor? Make a bloody example of them. Continental Army stealing supplies and weapons from the British? Private property is sacrosanct - kill them all.

I have a hard time believing he would be on what he now considers the side of liberty were he alive then.

Actually the only time violence against the government is justified is if you are trying to bring the government down due to its tyranny. IE complete overthrow (American Revolution). Anything less than that is just uncivilized butchery and thuggery.

[Lewkowski]

If the police start opening fire along the lines you're describing here Lewk, it's not criminals who will be rioting, but everybody. Me included.

So if one person is acting violent and runs into a store breaking things, setting things on fire and then hurls something dangerous at a police officer do you think the officer should just stand there and let it happen?

The problem with riots is that people think that because 'there is a lot of them' that each person shouldn't be gone after. The simple fact is that every single one of them should be arrested. Attempt peaceful arrest first. If they refuse use force. If they reply with deadly force (incendiaries, hurled objects that if struck can cause death) you reply with deadly force weather its one or 10,000. At no point should people EVER think they can defy the police simply because they have numbers on their side. That just invites anarchy and future riots.

[Lewkowski]

A criminals place is a court and prison, not the morgue.

Following the London Riots a few years ago the Police used CCTV and other evidence to catch those who'd been breaking the law and the opening hours of the courts were extended. The courts were also somewhat tougher than normal as a riot is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, not a mitigating factor.

The criminals were sent to prison and the riots *touch wood* so far have never happened again. Job done.

As for bullshit of a curfew, what kind of backwards nonsense is that. As someone who has used to work till past midnight for a decade, I find the idea that people being about their business late at night should be shot utterly horrific. Young children have curfews (set by parents) not adults. If I'm out and about in the evening that's my business, not a snipers.

Not sure how many times I have to say this. The police *should* give the rioters a chance to surrender. Its only if they don't that escalating force should be used. Keep in mind one innocnet taxpayer, one police officer is fundamentally worth more than any number of violet thugs.

Also while CCTV may work in place that has it - that's not the case in America. Furthermore masks are pretty cheap and easy to put on...

Curfews were a necessary evil due to the rioting. Frankly I support getting rid of them once the rioters have been swiftly and harshly dealt with.

[RandBlade]

Actually the only time violence against the government is justified is if you are trying to bring the government down due to its tyranny. IE complete overthrow (American Revolution). Anything less than that is just uncivilized butchery and thuggery.

Except that we don't live in a binary world where you switch from peaceful, law abiding obedience to outright revolution overnight. These things start as protests and escalate from there and it's abuses like yours proposed that lead inevitably to government tyranny or revolution.

There was no war or revolution ongoing when the Boston Tea Party occurred, that was years before the revolution and thus invalid according to your just stated logic.

The Boston Tea Party was a protest, a riot if you will, where instigators protesting against government policies destroyed legitimately owned private property causing damage and loss of property of over a million dollars in today's money. It was according to you uncivilised butchery and thuggery.

I suppose Samuel Adams should have been executed.

[Lewkowski]

If the Boston Tea Party was ongoing when authorities arrived than absolutely they should have done what was necessary to end the unrest. After the fact - up to a court to decide really assuming Adams went quietly.

[EyeKhan]

This isn't some third world cesspool. People should never have to fear riots in a first world country. This is pathetic honestly. Those that riot and loot probably have rap sheets a mile long anyway - respond with force, put them down hard and send an example. Have a grievance? Take it to the ballot box. Want to protest? Go ahead but it better be non-violent and not impede the flow of traffic and business.

People in a first world country should never have to fear being murdered by police during a simple traffic stop or beaten to death in police custody either. And you should understand that massacring rioters is third world government behavior, not first world. You are advocating our government behave like a brutal dictatorship because it is not a brutal dictatorship.

[Enoch the Red]

If the Boston Tea Party was ongoing when authorities arrived than absolutely they should have done what was necessary to end the unrest. After the fact - up to a court to decide really assuming Adams went quietly.

The ships that were boarded were surrounded by British military vessels. Your ideal outcome would have had the members of the Boston Tea Party killed for rioting, destruction of property, false imprisonment, and trespassing. Any one of which I believe you've previously indicated as being a capital offense in your mind. In fact, not only should they have been killed, but the story spread far and wide as an example to the rabble.

[Lewkowski]

The ships that were boarded were surrounded by British military vessels. Your ideal outcome would have had the members of the Boston Tea Party killed for rioting, destruction of property, false imprisonment, and trespassing. Any one of which I believe you've previously indicated as being a capital offense in your mind. In fact, not only should they have been killed, but the story spread far and wide as an example to the rabble.

If the US military was escorting a civilian craft and a bunch of pirates attempted to storm the vessel I would support lethal force. I don't see any problem with the British doing the same in the case of the Boston Tea Party. A sovereign nation has every right to police its own people and lawless should be condemned.

I'm curious as to why people think that simply because I'm patriotic I would automatically support every action done by the Revolutionary Forces hundreds of years ago. You dot he crime - you get put down. If the government is so oppressive that revolution is the answer it would be silly to expect the oppressive government not to respond with force either.

The fact of the matter is that the government exists primarily to keep people from safe from crime and foreign invasion. Government is the necessary evil that keeps anarchy at bay. Putting down riots and ending anarchy in the streets is one of the essential purposes of the government. How safe would I be if I used my right to free speech to walk around with a giant sign that read, "Freddie Gray was a violent criminal that got what he deserved" in the streets of Baltimore? If I work at CVS I shouldn't have to worry about it being burned down. I shouldn't have to worry about looting in a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY! Seriously the fact that people don't feel the government should immediately restore order is scary. That's their fundamental purpose!

[Lewkowski]

People in a first world country should never have to fear being murdered by police during a simple traffic stop or beaten to death in police custody either. And you should understand that massacring rioters is third world government behavior, not first world. You are advocating our government behave like a brutal dictatorship because it is not a brutal dictatorship.

Don't riot = don't die. Seems pretty straightforward. Unlike several other laws (drug use, gambling, ect) where there is rational debate on weather it should or shouldn't be illegal there is no one with any credibility suggesting that rioting is OK to do. Essentially everyone is in agreement rioting is inappropriate. So what's the problem?

In regards to police actions - you're absolutely right people shouldn't have to worry about it. However there will ALWAYS be bad apples in any profession - weather it be teachers, police, military, clergy or anything really. While some situations have shown criminal negligence from officers (or downright delibrate abusive behavior) - other situations have been shown to be hyped up by the medial. Micheal Brown case for example had the officer completely exonerated not only by the Grand Jury but by the DOJ report.

And in many cases the 'victims' of 'police brutality' have often brought it on themselves by fleeing and/or resisting arrest. The use of force doesn't have clinical precision, you run/fight back you're far more likely to get yourself hurt. That's why I'm in favor of mandatory penalties that must always be served consecutively for those who flee from the police. (Regardless of the outcome of the original charge).

[Lewkowski]

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2015/0...-space-to.html

Of course it doesn't help when the Mayor is an incompetent liberal.

[ImAnOgre]

Or you enrage the entire community and instead of 200 people aimlessly pillaging, you'll have 20,000 expressly out to get the police.

Funny, because I saw a ton of pictures of the rest of the community standing in front of the police helping to disperse the crowds.

I guess we thank the media that those pictures are just coming out now

[Ominous Gamer]

Maybe I'm missing something, but thats kind of the point. The police gave everyone space, granted some people got a little to much space. But this forced the community to step up a little more than usual (the gangs even mobilized to protect store fronts at times). If the police had cracked down hard on everyone because of only a hand full of looters, I could easily see Loki's comment coming into play. But the way this has played out, with the cops claiming the gangs have all teamed up against them, the level of coverage the injuries have gotten... its forced a lot of residents to 2nd guess how they wanted to be perceived. Nothing like a momma beating her rioting son on national TV to bring a community together and stand up against those taking things to far.

The local coverage was heavily biased against the police and peace keepers too. This reddit thread is a bitch to get through but breaks down how one lady trying to calm a crowd was almost robbed and later turned into a villain by a local reporter: http://np.reddit.com/r/baltimore/com..._something_up/

There was one very public activist who was arrested on live TV last night for being out past curfew (hands up, peaceful ordeal) and you wouldn't believe how many people were calling it a police kidnapping.

Everyone is on edge, and yes it sucks that some people crossed a line, but the police and community over all are doing an amazing job in handling everything.

[Lewkowski]

Maybe I'm missing something, but thats kind of the point. The police gave everyone space, granted some people got a little to much space. But this forced the community to step up a little more than usual (the gangs even mobilized to protect store fronts at times). If the police had cracked down hard on everyone because of only a hand full of looters, I could easily see Loki's comment coming into play. But the way this has played out, with the cops claiming the gangs have all teamed up against them, the level of coverage the injuries have gotten... its forced a lot of residents to 2nd guess how they wanted to be perceived. Nothing like a momma beating her rioting son on national TV to bring a community together and stand up against those taking things to far.

The local coverage was heavily biased against the police and peace keepers too. This reddit thread is a bitch to get through but breaks down how one lady trying to calm a crowd was almost robbed and later turned into a villain by a local reporter: http://np.reddit.com/r/baltimore/com..._something_up/

Their was one very public activist who was arrested on live TV last night for being out past curfew (hands up, peaceful ordeal) and you wouldn't believe how many people were calling it a police kidnapping.

Everyone is on edge, and yes it sucks that some people crossed a line, but the police and community over all are doing an amazing job in handling everything.

Police are following their orders and doing the best job they have been allowed to do. However 'giving people space to destroy shit' is idiotic. Allowing individuals to interfere with emergency personal is obscene.

Interesting Reddit link - just further presses the case of never trusting a journalist until facts have been fully validated.

[Ominous Gamer]

However 'giving people space to destroy shit' is idiotic. Allowing individuals to interfere with emergency personal is obscene.

I doubt anyone saw this coming together and decided the best idea was to mad max part of the city. But I can see the police drawing a line in the street to limit the scope of the protesting, then having trouble getting to the far side of that area when a hand full of people become a tad to opportunistic. Thats got nothing to do with who has more immediate fire power or man power, its about not escalating an issue and turning people who want to be treated like people against you.

[Loki]

Funny, because I saw a ton of pictures of the rest of the community standing in front of the police helping to disperse the crowds.

I guess we thank the media that those pictures are just coming out now

That's the point. The police didn't grossly overreact, so the community was unsympathetic to the looters. Had the police started shooting, you can be sure that the rest of the community would not be helping with crowd control.

[Lewkowski]

I doubt anyone saw this coming together and decided the best idea was to mad max part of the city. But I can see the police drawing a line in the street to limit the scope of the protesting, then having trouble getting to the far side of that area when a hand full of people become a tad to opportunistic. Thats got nothing to do with who has more immediate fire power or man power, its about not escalating an issue and turning people who want to be treated like people against you.

If you want to be treated like people and not mindless thugs you need to stop looting and burning. Right now riots spread and continue to occur because people are not TERRIFIED of the consequences. People have two sets of restraint, or limiters to doing evil things like rioting and looting. 1. Morality. 2. Fear. It is obvious to all in involved that the people rioting have no moral compass, appealing to their conscious will NEVER work. So the only thing left to do is to ensure the consequences create enough fear to prevent the action from taking out. (Fear is a prime motivator - why don't you rush past stop signs on your way to work when you are late? You fear getting into an accident or getting a ticket).

And do you know what the best part of this? Those that continue to commit degenerate acts of violent thuggery despite the very real chance of death will die. Those people, had they lived would have lived criminal lives. We know they have no moral code holding them back from crime. By acting in the face of certain death we then realize that the consequences of an action are not a deterrent to that tiny sliver of the criminal element. Meaning taking them out of society for good is huge net benefit for everyone.

However this only works if government grows a pair and clearly outlines their strategy.

1. We will not tolerate rioting.
2. Our objective will be to arrest looters and rioters. Due to the potential danger to the heroes of our city (police officers attempting to restore order) we will not jeopardize their lives needlessly. The use of lethal force will be accepted if immediate compliance to surrender doesn't occur.
3. Carry it out. Use SWAT resources such as snipers/marksmen.

Deterrents work however they are weakened when consequences are delayed and/or unlikely to occur. In a crowd of hundreds it is unlikely all of the rioters will be arrested. That's simply a fact. Fear isn't quite as powerful of a deterrent anymore. Also if they get arrested they likely will not be in prison long anyway unless their actions led to someone dying. By creating a clear danger to riots, an immediate feedback loop of 'wow I riot, I die' you'll get people off the streets fast.

Consequences? Short term death toll rises. Law and order are restored quickly. Other idiots will not dare to riot/loot again. Everyone is safer leading to long term reduction in crime and probable minor increase in life expectancy in cities where riots would likely occur.

[Ominous Gamer]

If you want to be treated like people and not mindless thugs you need to stop looting and burning.

This kind of thinking, that the protestors and rioters are the same people and there for the same reasons is simply lazy. Its why everyone in this thread has come out against you, why youre so easy to call a dumbass and why no one takes you seriously.