News Why Are Riots Escalating in London?

[ThomasT]

I've been through a few riots in my lifetime. Cincinnati in 1967 and 1968, and Miami in 1980. These were huge riots, fueled mostly by the random energy of young people, and involving mostly African Americans.
I think that it can be at least partly (maybe mostly?) attributed to youthful negative exuberance and opportunism.
It shouldn't be too surprising that communities of kids who grow up in a street culture of violence riot every now and then.
I don't think that there are any particular underlying political reasons for such outbursts.
But there's an extreme undercurrent of racial (coupled with economic?) tension in the US (maybe most everywhere that there are mixed ethnic/racial populations?).
Whether something akin to this is a primary reason for the UK riots is an open question afaik.
Certainly the problem is compounded by the ability to organize via social media, but that's not the root cause.

Just some thoughts on this regrettable recent turn of events from an old guy (me) who's experienced a good bit of this sort of thing first hand.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yeah, like how many hours between arrest

A speedy trial doesn't make it a sham.

and sentenced to 6 months in jail for a first offense of shoplifting.

I find it hard to judge. The normal rationale I see people give for being lenient towards crimes of opportunity really doesn't apply to the situation in London.

I think allowing him out on bail would have been appropriate.

Bail is for suspects that are being held in jail while awaiting trial, and has nothing to do with criminals that have been convicted and sentenced. Did you mean that you think he should have merely been fined rather than jailed?

 

[Evo]

A speedy trial doesn't make it a sham.

It does when emotions are high and there is pressure on to be tough, as it is right now according to the articles.

Bail is for suspects that are being held in jail while awaiting trial, and has nothing to do with criminals that have been convicted and sentenced. Did you mean that you think he should have merely been fined rather than jailed?

In the US, if you are arrested, you can be immediately released pending your court date. You can get bail *before* your trial and before sentencing (if convicted), it's your promise that you will appear at your appointed court date.

A person's first thought upon landing in jail is often how to get out -- and fast. The usual way to do this is to "post bail".

Bail is cash, a bond, or property that an arrested person gives to a court to ensure that he or she will appear in court when ordered to do so. If the defendant doesn't show up, the court keeps the bail and issues a warrant for the defendant's arrest.

How Bail Is Set

Judges are responsible for setting bail. Because many people want to get out of jail immediately (instead of waiting for a day or longer to see a judge), most jails have standard bail schedules that specify bail amounts for common crimes. An arrested person can often get out of jail quickly by paying the amount set forth in the stationhouse bail schedule.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/bail-getting-out-of-jail-30225.html

He was arrested and in his case bail should have been offered so that he would have time to prepare a defense. Just my opinion, if he really was a fine, upstanding student that made a stupid mistake. But I'm the kind of person that would never steal, ever. I wouldn't even take a gift if I knew it had been stolen.

I understand that they want to crush what happened, but I think this particular sentence was too harsh, the sentences being handed down aren't uniform.

Fears of rough justice as courts rush to process riot arrestsOf more than 1,600 people arrested in connection with the riots and looting, more than 500 have already appeared in court.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/riots-arrests-courts-prisons-justice

 

[Hurkyl]

You can get bail *before* your trial and before sentencing (if convicted), it's your promise that you will appear at your appointed court date.

That was my point -- it doesn't make sense to suggest letting someone out on bail *after* they have been tried and sentenced.

He was arrested and in his case bail should have been offered so that he would have time to prepare a defense.

But from your elaboration I see that's not what you meant. You meant that the trial should have been postponed

 

[Evo]

But from your elaboration I see that's not what you meant. You meant that the trial should have been postponed

That's exactly what I meant, he should have been offered bail and released, not immediately sentenced.

 

[Proton Soup]

Why is not completely surprising that even a 1/4 of those arrested in mob violence for looting and/or arson were employed or even well off? Maybe that watched Clockwork Orange to many times?

interesting thing about Clockwork Orange. when Burgess wrote it, it had 21 chapters. when it was published in the USA, the publisher required omission of the 21st chapter where our hero grows up, gets bored with violence, and turns over a new leaf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_orange#Omission_of_the_final_chapter

i do have to wonder the reason for feeling the need to ever write the book, unless these sorts of violence have long been a part of the culture.

 

[ThomasT]

As for the student who stole the case of water and was sentenced to 6 months in the nick. Well, he shouldn't have done that, and he knew that before he did it. So, he goes to jail. That's how laws are supposed to work.

Is he just a victim of a situation that he got caught up in? How many people who've done much more serious crimes during this riot are victims of situations that they just got caught up in and wouldn't have done what they did otherwise? The point is that the law doesn't and shouldn't differentiate in this regard. It's the responsibility of people to not knowingly engage in unlawful behavior.

Maybe this guy and lots of others are only really guilty of behaving stupidly. But that's enough to land you behind bars. Besides, it's only 6 months. It will be a good learning experience for him.

Hopefully, the people who are convicted of setting fires and hurting people during this riot will be spending significant portions of the rest of their lives in prison.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the student who stole the case of water and was sentenced to 6 months in the nick. Well, he shouldn't have done that, and he knew that before he did it. So, he goes to jail. That's how laws are supposed to work.

Is he just a victim of a situation that he got caught up in? How many people who've done much more serious crimes during this riot are victims of situations that they just got caught up in and wouldn't have done what they did otherwise? The point is that the law doesn't and shouldn't differentiate in this regard. It's the responsibility of people to not knowingly engage in unlawful behavior.

You don't think the law should differentiate between silly screwups and legitimate criminal behavior?

Maybe this guy and lots of others are only really guilty of behaving stupidly. But that's enough to land you behind bars. Besides, it's only 6 months. It will be a good learning experience for him.

Do you really believe that? Do you really think the way to improve someone's life is to send them to jail?

 

[Evo]

As for the student who stole the case of water and was sentenced to 6 months in the nick. Well, he shouldn't have done that, and he knew that before he did it. So, he goes to jail. That's how laws are supposed to work.

What? Any violation of the law is an immediate jail sentence?

Is he just a victim of a situation that he got caught up in? How many people who've done much more serious crimes during this riot are victims of situations that they just got caught up in and wouldn't have done what they did otherwise? The point is that the law doesn't and shouldn't differentiate in this regard.

Bolding mine. The law is supposed to differentiate. There is a difference in just picking something up and actually destroying property with homemade bombs, incendiary devices, and other implements meant to cause harm/destruction. Huge difference. Did you steal someone's wallet off of a table when they weren't looking or did you bash their head in with a baseball bat? What makes you think that the law should not differentiate between the level of crime?

I feel that I must've been sucked into an alternate dimension sometime today.

 

[Hurkyl]

The law is supposed to differentiate. There is a difference in just picking something up and actually destroying property with homemade bombs, incendiary devices, and other implements meant to cause harm/destruction. Huge difference.

I think he meant differentiate as in "shoplifting during normal conditions" versus "shoplifting during a riot".

He's claiming that you wouldn't let off light someone destroying property with a bomb just because it happened during a riot, and arguing that implies you shouldn't let a shoplifter off light just because he shoplifted during a riot.

 

[ThomasT]

You don't think the law should differentiate between silly screwups and legitimate criminal behavior?

If it could, then it should. But it can't.

Do you really think the way to improve someone's life is to send them to jail?

We don't send people to prison to improve their lives. It's a punative contingency wrt breaking the law.

But jail or prison time can be a positive experience. It just depends on how one approaches it and what one does while confined.

 

[ThomasT]

What? Any violation of the law is an immediate jail sentence?

Who's saying that. The kid got caught redhanded, he admitted his guilt, and he got sentenced by a judge within the bounds of the law. What's the problem?

The law is supposed to differentiate. There is a difference in just picking something up and actually destroying property with homemade bombs, incendiary devices, and other implements meant to cause harm/destruction. Huge difference. Did you steal someone's wallet off of a table when they weren't looking or did you bash their head in with a baseball bat? What makes you think that the law should not differentiate between the level of crime?

That's not the differentiating that I was referring to. The point is that if you do a crime and get caught and say that you just did this stupid thing because you got caught up in the action of the moment isn't an excuse for your action or a defence that can be used in court. Anybody who wants to be excused for their transgressions claims that they regret what they did and that they wouldn't under normal circumstances have done it. Doesn't matter. The kid did what he did. He knew what he was doing was wrong, that he was being part of the problem and not the solution, and he did it anyway. And now he's going to jail, which is what the law prescribes for his actions.

I feel that I must've been sucked into an alternate dimension sometime today.

The law can be adminstered and enforced so flexibly that it functions in a way that it wasn't intended to. Laws don't differentiate (in the sense that I meant it), judges and prosecutors and lawyers and police do, and because of this we have legal systems which are nothing more, in many cases, than tools of arbitrary force.

You might think that the kid's sentence was too harsh. Maybe I do too. But the point is that the consequences of his actions are entirely within the bounds of the law.

If he's smart, then he won't get some sort of attitude against the law, but will use this experience to improve his life.

 

[Evo]

But the point is that the consequences of his actions are entirely within the bounds of the law.

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure these convictions are going to come back and bite the UK. To say that a rash decision by a judge is above questioning and that a judge can't abuse their position and make mistakes is wrong.

 

[ThomasT]

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure these convictions are going to come back and bite the UK.

I doubt it, insofar as the convictions and the sentences are within the bounds of the law -- as they must be.

To say that a rash decision by a judge is above questioning and that a judge can't abuse their position and make mistakes is wrong.

On this I agree with you, because I've had the displeasure of knowing some particulary screwed up judges. But of course I didn't say anything remotely indicating that I advocate or think that judges can abuse their positions and make mistakes with impunity, so it's sort of curious that you would say that.

Do we know that the judge in this situation made a rash decision? If the sentence given to the young man was within the bounds of the law then it's pretty hard to argue that it was a mistake.

The thing is that nobody has any way of knowing who meant to do what. All that's known is what was done. The law is empirical. Ok, the kid did a stupid thing and he was unlucky enough to get caught, but maybe he's a nice kid. That's just too bad, and, honestly, I don't care. If he does go to jail for 6 months then he'll either make the best of it or he won't.

It's a more or less insignificant incident in a much larger and more serious situation.

 

[Evo]

I doubt it, insofar as the convictions and the sentences are within the bounds of the law -- as they must be.

That's not what I've read and I posted an article about it, sentencing seems to depend solely on the mood of the judge. Do you know UK law, can you post those laws here? Thanks!

 

[apeiron]

That's not what I've read and I posted an article about it, sentencing seems to depend solely on the mood of the judge. Do you know UK law, can you post those laws here? Thanks!

The guy pleaded guilty and was being dealt with by Magistrates Court, so next day sentencing not a big deal. Especially as special sessions were being held. Six months is max such courts can dish out for a single offence.

Of course the sentence seems over the top - sending a signal - and will probably be challenged and reduced.

On the other hand, the system can become very punitive when dealing with civil disorder.

Here in Christchurch, we had an austistic boy pinching a few light switches from a damaged building after the earthquakes. Light fittings are his obsession. But the police are still trying to push through a prosecution despite no public support at all.

 

[ThomasT]

That's not what I've read and I posted an article about it, sentencing seems to depend solely on the mood of the judge.

I'm doubtful that sentencing isn't limited by UK law. Where's the article that you posted?

Do you know UK law, can you post those laws here? Thanks!

No. I'm just assuming that they have limitations on sentences for various offences like we have in the US. And within the limitations any particular sentence might depend on the mood of a judge.

I don't think that judges should have any discretion wrt sentencing, but the status quo is that they do.

But if we take discretionary sentencing away from judges, then sentencing for particular crimes has to be written into the law. So what do you think should be the mandatory sentence for a first offence of simple stealing or larceny? How would you define it? Etc.

And keep in mind that we're getting somewhat off-topic with this stuff. It really isn't important, or thematic wrt this thread, what happens to this kid. I think he'll be fine even if he has to do the full 6 months in jail -- unless he's an idiot, and I don't think we should have any sympathy for idiots. Do you?

But apparently this kid isn't an idiot. He just screwed up, got caught, and got sentenced accordingly. Forget it. It's not important.

 

[JesseC]

For those of you wondering how such relatively large sentences can be handed out for committing rather small crimes, they are simply being made an example of to deter others. (as is the conservative way)

I wouldn't claim that the courts/police/government are all in complete cahoots, but whenever it comes to acts of public disorder, those they catch get put down hard even for relatively minor crimes. For more examples you only have to look back a few months to our recent student protests where Charlie Gilmour was sentence to jail for 16 months for "throwing a bin at a convoy of cars containing Prince Charles, sitting on a protection officer's car and smashing a window".

I wonder... had the convoy not contained Prince Charles would he have gotten the same sentence?

Other scary stories I've heard are that in some cases when the police couldn't catch the real rioters, they would bundle up some innocent bystanders (normally young black guys) and cart them off.

This doesn't surprise me at all, for example on the TUC march a few months ago two distinctly separate events occurred: 1) UKUncut protestors occupied a shop, peacefully causing practically no damage. 2) Black bloc anarchists when around breaking windows and throwing paint.

The police, unable to catch the real trouble makers rounded up all the peaceful ukuncut protestors and sentenced them, when they had promised not to! All charges against these guys have now been dropped thankfully... but it just goes to show that in public disorder situations the Police really aren't interested in catching the criminals, just putting on a show for the public.

 

[Ken Natton]

Some of what is being said and suggested here is at the limits of credulity. Here’s some rationality. Yes, UK law sets limits to sentencing for specific offences. Judges have sentencing discretion within those limits to consider any mitigating circumstances. All serious offenders have something called a ‘pre-sentencing report’ prepared which judges use in setting sentences. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are considered. Central to sentencing decisions are something called ‘tariffs’ for certain offences, set by politicians, not by the judiciary. The far more usual complaint issued against British judges is for lenient rather than draconian sentencing. One of the significant pressures on judges is the reality of the limited available spaces in British jails, but there also has been growing recognition of the simple truth that sometimes the most effective response to certain crimes is not custodial sentences.

These are for the more usual shall I say ‘routine’ criminal justice operations. Clearly, the riots of the last few days are not, by any stretch, usual. I know that one of the big concerns was the build up of a large backlog of cases. There have been a large number of arrests in the last few days and it was reported a couple of nights ago that London police cells were full. There is, undoubtedly also a notion about sending a clear message to deter further riots in the coming nights. Whatever the case may be about that, magistrate courts sitting through the night is equally clearly, not usual. I am to some degree relieved that there does seem to be some degree of consensus across the political spectrum about some of the issues relating to these riots, central to which is the acceptance that these riots were not in any way genuine protests, they were, in truth, just mass, opportunistic criminality. The fact that such occurred is itself a comment on British society that needs to be considered at more length. But the immediate problem is the restoration of order and the protection of honest, hardworking citizens and small business men and women. That may call for measures that even those of us with a more liberal view might need to deal with however it might make us wince. Meantime, inflammatory and ill-informed comments are not helpful. As ever, choice of language is a clear indicator of what constitutes thoughtful analysis and what does not.

 

[cristo]

That's not what I've read and I posted an article about it, sentencing seems to depend solely on the mood of the judge. Do you know UK law, can you post those laws here? Thanks!

Just to clarify, these courts that you refer to as 'kangaroo courts' are magistrate courts. These are the lowest courts which deal with summary offences with a maximum sentence of 6 months. The magistrates court is made up of a panel of 3 justices of the peace (or magistrates, who are volunteers, and not judges). An accused will appear before the court and be asked to enter a plea. If the plea is not guilty, then a trial date will be arranged and the defendant either remanded in custody or offered bail. If the plea is guilty, then the defendant will be sentenced.

I don't see how this is any different to the US (with the exception of the use of magistrates). If you plead guilty, there will be no trial, and so no reason to release you on bail. In the US you aren't automatically granted bail if you plead not guilty, so if the judge thinks it likely that you'll commit another crime, or disappear, you will be remanded in custody. The only real difference I can see is that the courts are running overnight to attempt to clear the backlog since all the Met's holding cells were full -- I think this is a good thing!

Of course, the young man mentioned in this article will likely appeal his sentence (which he is perfectly entitled to do; we're not a barbaric country), but having pleaded guilty he will have to do some jail time. The fact that he ran from police and resisted arrest will not do him any favours!

 

[rhody]

FYI. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fgw-london-arrests-20110813,0,1899326.story"

Courts are flooded with a huge variety of suspects -- from hooded youths with previous convictions to middle-class students, young professionals, adult working people and teenagers and children, some as young as 11 and 12. Often they are brought in by family members.

Most defendants are denied bail, or let go with a fine, but sentences are swift and mostly tough -- one boy caught with a case of bottled water looted from a supermarket was given a six-month jail sentence.

Many of those allowed out on bail left courts surrounded by TV cameras, covering their heads. Others were openly defiant and hurled abuse at the press crowds.

Politicians are busy looking for social remedies to the violence, with Prime Minister David Cameron reported to be looking to former Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton for advice on gang culture as he told Parliament in his Thursday address.

An aside, I stumbled across Britsh PM David Cameron, having a lively roundtable discussion on CSPAN yesterday in an emergency session of parliment, got an earful from the left, middle and the right. They are looking at addressing this short term and at the deeper underlying issues with eyes wide open. Each side was listening (for a change) to the other, for the most part. This is my opinion only. Compared to what I have seen in our two chamber's of government on CSPAN it was refreshing.

Rhody...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

An aside, I stumbled across Britsh PM David Cameron, having a lively roundtable discussion on CSPAN yesterday in an emergency session of parliment, got an earful from the left, middle and the right. They are looking at addressing this short term and at the deeper underlying issues with eyes wide open. Each side was listening (for a change) to the other, for the most part. This is my opinion only. Compared to what I have seen in our two chamber's of government on CSPAN it was refreshing.

Rhody...

There was an interesting session of Question Time last night where the panel were discussing the riots. Something I was heartened to see is there was minimal political bickering compared to normal (though it did flare up at times) and that by the end of it they all agreed that even if the original protest in Tottenham was peaceful that was not what spurred the rest of the riots, those occurred because normal criminals saw on their TVs and social networks that the police were overwhelmed and so took their chance (which leads to a snowball effect). In addition the panel agreed that the solution to this is two pronged; firstly in the short term extra police need to be out, provisions made to supply them with effective equipment and tactics and those who have been caught should be sent to court. Secondly in the long term broader issues of gang culture, poverty and crime should be tackled even more than they have been in a myriad of ways in order to minimise the situations that give rise to the people who do this.

Thats the hard part, coming up with the idea. Now they just have to complete the easy bit of making it work...[/sarcasm]

 

[rhody]

Now they just have to complete the easy bit of making it work...

ryan,

They know what they are up against, but dealing with the long term, deeply embedded issues is going to be an extremely difficult task. I hope my last post did not imply in any way that it would be easy.

Rhody...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

ryan,

They know what they are up against, but dealing with the long term, deeply embedded issues is going to be an extremely difficult task. I hope my last post did not imply in any way that it would be easy.

Rhody...

I was being sarcastic, may have to edit my post to include a few 's

 

[vici10]

Let us also remember that just several days before the riots England experienced the biggest wave of strikes since 1980s. The strikes and riots show deep dissatisfaction that people have.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-wave-of-strikes-since-the-1980s-2298105.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13967580

 

[DevilsAvocado]

When the cat's away the mice will play...

Britain's most senior police officer, the head of London's Metropolitan Police, Paul Stephenson has resigned following claims relating to the phone hacking scandal:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olpm5mdBJMw

Don’t know the significance of this, some say it matters, some say it doesn’t...

 

[mheslep]

Let us also remember that just several days before the riots England experienced the biggest wave of strikes since 1980s. The strikes and riots show deep dissatisfaction that people have.
...

Or it shows the sense of dependence on the state (the strikes were all public sector) and depravity (in the case of the riots) some people have.

 

[vici10]

Or it shows the sense of dependence on the state

And who is independent of the state?

 

[DaveC426913]

And who is independent of the state?

Perhaps he means 'dependence on government employment as opposed to private sector'?

 

[mheslep]

And who is independent of the state?

I'm guessing that was a hook for the false dilemma fallacy: if one is against the leviathan state then one must be for anarchy. But if I guessed wrong about your question, then I meant the people that went on strike were dependent on the state for their jobs and their guaranteed pensions, a guarantee largely not available in the private sector. In that context, employment, everyone who does not work for the state is independent of it.

 

[arildno]

Personally, I think Pat Condell has the best take on this criminal, pampered scum who has absolutely nothing to complain about, but solely should be ashamed of themselves of choosing to be disgusting, unemployable models of subhumanity, rather than aspiring to what they, as everyone else, are fully capable of:
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a/u/0/9pAC0YSmK0g

 

[vici10]

In that context, employment, everyone who does not work for the state is independent of it.

I would add that not only those who are employed dependent on these jobs. Every student who goes to public school, every student who goes to publicly funded University, patients in the public hospitals, companies that use results of government funded research and many many others are depended on the jobs of public workers.

 

[mheslep]

Everyone connected with this riot, anyone convicted of taking part in this riot would automatically lose entitlement to state benefit for life and they would have their house demolished. Now that would be justice. And if it violated their human rights, so much the better.

Good start.

 

[JesseC]

Personally, I think Pat Condell has the best take on this criminal, pampered scum who has absolutely nothing to complain about, but solely should be ashamed of themselves of choosing to be disgusting, unemployable models of subhumanity, rather than aspiring to what they, as everyone else, are fully capable of:
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a/u/0/9pAC0YSmK0g

So what is your solution to the problem?

 

[JesseC]

Good start.

So what would homeless penniless and convicted people do with themselves? Hmmm... let's see... they really would be unemployable then so they'd have to beg, steal or die.

Chances are, if they're willing to loot and riot, then they'd go for the stealing.

Suddenly the idea of cutting all their benefits and housing seems utterly stupid! Unleash the new wave of criminals who really do have nothing to lose.

 

[arildno]

So what is your solution to the problem?

Fire all cultural Marxists who have, over the decades, poisoned the social services with their pestilential sympathies to "the poor" that these really "deserve" a larger share of the societal pie.
Instate persons to such services who are willing to CONDEMN "the poor", in their face, of their whining, self-pity and ugly envy, rather than encouraging such vile personality traits.
"The poor" should act in a GRATEFUL, HUMBLE manner to the society which gives them money to live of, free of charge.
And it is precisely the front line, the social workers, who should force these individuals to develop that morally appropriate attitude.

 

[arildno]

Unleash the new wave of criminals who really do have nothing to lose.

That is what guns are made for to handle.

 

[JesseC]

That is what guns are made for to handle.

So basically you're idea is that rioters should be murdered.

 

[arildno]

So basically you're idea is that rioters should be murdered.

That is, indeed, the proper meaning of "riot control", once warnings to that effect have been issued.
Noone forces them to be thugs; it is their own choice to be despicable scum.

 

[mheslep]

So what would homeless penniless and convicted people do with themselves? Hmmm... let's see... they really would be unemployable then so they'd have to beg, steal or die.

Chances are, if they're willing to loot and riot, then they'd go for the stealing.

Suddenly the idea of cutting all their benefits and housing seems utterly stupid! Unleash the new wave of criminals who really do have nothing to lose.

That implies the "there's no choice, no opportunity" fallacy. For appropriate ridicule of that notion see the Condel video again, and again.

Furthermore if from the events in Britain there are those for whose plight I should be concerned, it will first be those that were assaulted, had their homes or businesses burned, or were terrorized off the streets, not rioters and arsonists.

 

[JesseC]

arildno & mheslep

*sigh* I'm thankful neither of you are from the UK... you're entitled to your views but please keep them in your respective countries. :P

 

[mheslep]

arildno & mheslep

*sigh* I'm thankful neither of you are from the UK... you're entitled to your views but please keep them in your respective countries. :P

Back at ya.

 

[FeDeX_LaTeX]

Apparently 33% of the people in a survey said that they should use live ammunition to stop the riots, with slightly more saying that tasers and plastic bullets should be used.

I am being stopped and searched practically everywhere I go now.

 

[DaveC426913]

Noone forces them to be thugs; it is their own choice to be despicable scum.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. If they have denied a livelihood (jobs, infrastructure) to acquire for themselves the basic necessities of life - food, shelter - then, not only are they forced to turn to violence, they are - at least in principle - right to do so since, for them, society has effectively disintegrated.I would not have expected anyone over the age of 20 would suggest shooting them as an institutionalized solution.

 

[mheslep]

Apparently 33% of the people in a survey said that they should use live ammunition to stop the riots, with slightly more saying that tasers and plastic bullets should be used...

I think that sentiment is a natural consequence of the failure by the cops to use the normal, forceful but non-lethal riot control methods such as water cannons and rubber bullets. Take away the sense by society that there are consequences for running riot, that there is a system in place, and vigilantism comes next.

 

[arildno]

I wouldn't be too sure of that. If they have denied a livelihood (jobs, infrastructure) to acquire for themselves the basic necessities of life - food, shelter - then, not only are they forced to turn to violence, they are - at least in principle - right to do so since, for them, society has effectively disintegrated.


I would not have expected anyone over the age of 20 would suggest shooting them as an institutionalized solution.

1. They DO have money. It is called social benefits.
2. They have not "been denied" jobs, they have chosen to be unemployable, and it began back in their school days, where they showed utter contempt for learning etc.
3. As a last resort in riot control, using sharp weapons is indeed, the correct solution.
Defensible measures to prevent ONGOING crimes are wholly other than punishments dealt out by court for PAST crimes.
That is why, for example, a shop owner is allowed to kill an armed robber, rather than handing over to him his goods.
That is why you as an outsider has the right to prevent a man from committing a rape, even if the situation means it entails killing him.

 

[mheslep]

I'll go further and ask where in the developed Western world is anyone forced to go without survival food and/or housing through no fault of their own?

 

[arildno]

I'll go further and ask where in the developed Western world is anyone forced to go without survival food and/or housing through no fault of their own?

However, what we DO have to struggle with are deeply immoral people actively encouraging "poor" people in their ideas that these are somehow "equally entitled" to the life of a millionaire..

This group of riot-inducing rabble equates quite nicely with..LEFTISTS.

 

[DaveC426913]

2. They have not "been denied" jobs, they have chosen to be unemployable, and it began back in their school days, where they showed utter contempt for learning etc.

Contempt?

Or hopelessness?

Is it your contention then that the country's problems only exist for those who have not completed basic education? That those who did complete it have a significantly good chance of finding work to support them and their families?

If I understand the current mood correctly, there is little hope to be had.

 

[arildno]

Contempt?

Or hopelessness?

Is it your contention then that the country's problems only exist for those who have not completed basic education? That those who did complete it have a significantly good chance of finding work to support them and their families?

If I understand the current mood correctly, there is little hope to be had.

They have social benefits and have nothing whatsoever to complain about.
They are not "entitled" to anything more than means for physical survival, because life IS a human right, that others are obliged to help them with.
Neither happiness or prosperity are qualities of life others are obliged to help them with.