Riots

[scooter_the_shooter]

I saw some footage of the LA riots recently and the first thing that came to my mind when I saw them looting was. "Why don’t the police kill them all" I heard some Korean shop owners killed looters but I don’t know if this is true.

Obviously the best way to stop a riot is to keep people happy so there isn’t one.

But that doesn’t always happen.




I am curious to see what many of people here think should happen to rioters.

With me I think


Peaceful protest...fine\


Protest out of hand. Tear-gas them send attack dogs etc.


Throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails at the police.... Shoot them until they all run away.


When do you members of the org think any force should start. And when should deadly force start.

[BDC]

Well it shouldn't ever end up with force, and if you end up facing rioters with guns then it's more an insurrection than riot...

But the whole point of police is that they can control this sort of thing without having to send in the army to kill everyone.

[scooter_the_shooter]

So when riots or looting starts the police should do nothing??? Just wait for it to calm down?

[Slyspy]

Most people here support the rule of law which prevents indiscrimate shootings by the police, hence the debate over the shooting in London. All those who don't are fools.

[scooter_the_shooter]

If people are throwing bricks and molotov cocktails at the police. Thats is a pretty good reason to shoot them.

[scooter_the_shooter]

What you wrote cube are my exact veiws.
.............

But I got a question. In all the footage I have seen of the LA riots there are no police?? where did they go.

does any one know??

[sharrukin]

My first reaction is that riots are what flamethrowers were made for!

Realistically however;

The first priority in a riot should be to prevent fatalities among the non-rioting civilian population.

The second priority should be to prevent fatalities among police.

The third priority should be to restore order with as few civilian and police casualities, and as little property damage as possible.

The fourth priority should be to avoid fatalities or casualties among the rioters themselves.

Any weapons used by rioters that have a reasonable possibility of causing fatalities either to police or civilian bystanders should be dealt with by the use of lethal force if required.

[Dâriûsh]

In my experience, police brutality is not a recipe for a healthy society.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I saw a show on riot control the other day and they found the best thing is a water cannon. However here in the US it brings up images of the 60s and the civil rights movement so we are loathe to use them.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Tear gas seems like a reasonable non-lethal solution, also.

[scooter_the_shooter]

In my experience, police brutality is not a recipe for a healthy society.

So what should the polcie do then , Nothing??

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Join the riot

[Dâriûsh]

So what should the polcie do then , Nothing??

I don’t know, but I was not implying that the police should do nothing. They’re not getting paid to do nothing, are they?

Unfortunately, your ‘kill them all’ attitude is characteristic for the police forces of many totalitarian nations.

[derF]

What was the riot over?

[scooter_the_shooter]

when the people are throwing bricks and molotov cocktails. Doesn't that warrant a
"kill them all".

[Dâriûsh]

when the people are throwing bricks and molotov cocktails. Doesn't that warrant a
"kill them all".

I can not say. I’m not qualified to determine when people are ‘allowed’ to be killed.

[Tribesman]

I am curious to see what many of people here think should happen to rioters.
Ask Samuel Adams
Or is that different

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Sam Adams etc. tipped a bunch of tea over board after the tea act had given the east India company trading rights that would have screwed many Boston merchants (and therefore their employees).

The L.A. riots broke out because of an incident of white police officers beating a black guy (who was acting like an asshole towards them) and a backdrop of racial aggrevation between blacks, hispanics and Koreans(the latter two groups having massively increased their population in traditionally black neighbourhoods of L.A.). The riots that broke out caused widespread arson and looting. Roughly 60 people died, about $1 billion of damage, Asian stores were major targets, black mobs attacked white drivers, people shot at emergency services and so on.

The Boston Tea Party was a very political act involving about 60 people which was generally peaceful whereas the L.A. riots were a venting of all sorts of crap involving massive amounts of random violence. The Boston Tea Party was not a wild out of control riot. The "rioters" swept the decks afterwards and had the ships' first mates declare that only the cargo of tea had been destroyed.

[Marcellus]

when the people are throwing bricks and molotov cocktails. Doesn't that warrant a
"kill them all".

No. Well, not necessarily. If the police can use non-lethal force to stop a riot, such as by using water cannon, tear gas, rubber bullets and riot police, then these should always be used over lethal force. Lethal force should only EVER be used when the police or other civilians have their lives at risk and they are left with no other non-lethal options. This circumstance rarely arises.

[Tribesman]

Aye Dai .Sam Adams etc. tipped a bunch of tea over board after the tea act had given the east India company trading rights that would have screwed many Boston merchants (and therefore their employees).

Did I mention the Tea Party ? Or is their another occurence that featured Samuel Adams concernining riotous conduct ?
Try Rex vs. Wemms

Oh those damn colonial terrorists

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Riot? Send in the M1 Abrams Main battle tanks.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Tribesman: just making assumptions there. I assumed you were accusing Samuel Adams of rioting rather than making reference to the "Boston Massacre".

[Tribesman]

Yes Taffy , a curious case is it not

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Tribesman, it is indeed .



Iechyd da

[Tribesman]

Iechyd da
yucky da Sorry about the pronunciation

[Ice]

Use non lethal force, but do not back down. Tear gas, bean bag guns, and rubber bullets all do the trick. The police should not allow themselves to be man handled, but on the other hand, the US should not turn into a fascist state where they kill every rioter.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

slanjy vah!

my spelling's up there with your pronunciation

[Lemur]

In all the footage I have seen of the LA riots there are no police?? where did they go.

does any one know??

I have several cops in my family, so I'll pass on what little I've learned. First of all, if you have enough cops on the scene, there won't be a riot. Period. Things like that happen in the absence of control, not the presence. By the time people are smashing windows and throwing molotovs, you're already trying to recover from the first phase of failure.

At the time of the L.A. riots (the ones in the '90s, not the ones in the '60s) it's widely believed that the L.A.P.D. was understaffed and poorly managed. The officers available were put in the wrong locations, and by the time anybody thought to shift forces to where they were needed, things were already out of control.

If you're really interested in how police work, and the moral/practical/civic values that need to be applied, I'd strongly suggest you read Police: Streetcorner Politicians. My uncle, who ran New York's counter-terrorism unit in the 1970s, swears by it.

[JAG]

I can't really understand the logic of those who would want to use a 'kill 'em all' attitude, in terms of riots. It doesn't solve any of the problems.

Not only will shooting people who are rioting make the rioting worse - maybe not in the short term, but the next hour, day, week, year... It will make that feeling of discontent worse - but it will also cause the police and government to loose all / any moral superiority they could have felt in opposing the riots.

There are so many other reasons not to go around shooting rioters as well, do you want a society where the only thought process by the police is a 'I shoot you dead', one? You want a society where public displays of discontent ends up with the deaths of the citizens of the nation? You really want a society which thinks twice before shouting out about bad government actions? If you invest so much power and force with the police, such as shooting everyone who breaks a law / riots, you only cause your country countless more problems.

[Roark]

Yeah, we recently had a riot of disaffected kids in an underprivileged suburb. They had bricks and molotovs, but lethal force would definitely not have been appropriate...