Edit: #riotcleanup tomorrow morning all over town: http://twitter.com/#!/search/riotcleanup
A group of 30-40 of them went up my street, smashing cars, and started congregating out front, all holding glass bottles -- this just when reports of homes being broken into started coming out. Absolutely horrifying, luckily something spooked them and they moved up the street.
'As the law currently stands, a person in possession can use no more force than they reasonably believe necessary to remove a trespasser from the premises'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property
People have been convicted of using force against intruders in their home. However, a group of angry rioters is somewhat different.
Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed. It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them. I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-(
And the illegal to use a weapon to defend yourself is a legal situation in transition in the UK. So if you take away the ‘armed’ part as you did, James, then the answer is no, not yet.
Aren't they? At least some of them? And those that aren't carrying guns, might it be that they're mostly opportunistic looters who generally wouldn't be carrying anyway?
"It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them.
Well, but that's true of any weapon.
"I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-("
Well, it shows that different cultures have different problems that are not easily equatable. Not to dismiss the obvious issues with gun violence in the USA, but are you sure that the right set of gun control laws allowing private ownership would lead to the same results in the UK as in the USA? Gun deaths per capita is not a universal ratio.
The trouble is that anyone with basic machine tools can make some pretty fancy weapons, and the career criminals by definition will make them with impunity. Hence the saying that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Remember what was the "cause"[1] for these riots? A person got shot. The situation is already out of control, but if half the rioters and half the citizens and all of the police were carrying guns, I honestly think London would be a war zone right now.
One thing that - to me, at least - has always been obvious is a direct proportional relation between guns and violence. Less guns, less violence; more guns more violence. Weapons are a catalyst for violence.
These are people fighting people. Any guns would be evenly distributed among the defenders and the attackers, and thus not serve to end or cool the conflict, but further exacerbate the situation.
Any mob is better than an armed mob. Arming the citizens would be arming the mob, since the mob actually consists of citizens. I do not think guns would help anybody.
I don't even think that guns would help the police. I'm glad the police are not using arms against the mob.
And yes, if I had to choose between somebody breaking into my house and stealing/breaking everything, and having a gunfight with said person, I'd choose the former, without even blinking. Call me meek, but I'd rather lose my livelihood than my life. Where I come from, health is always valued more than possessions.
----
[1] I know "cause" is not the right word. The shot drug dealer wasn't any more a cause for the riots than Helena's rapture by Paris was a cause for the Trojan siege. Doesn't mean that the Trojans would have been wise to counteract the Greeks by abducting more women. The mob is taking it as a primary reason to run amok, and more people getting killed would add more anger.
This may be apples to oranges, but during the Los Angles riots that came about after the Rodney King verdict, while some rioters had guns they were way overwhelmed by the fire-power of people defending their property (mostly Koreans protecting their stores).
For whatever reasons some people view gun control they way others view drug control; that is, if something is available then oh-my-god everyone will have/use it. But it just doesn't play out like that.
For example, here in Arizona it is easy to get a gun. Many people have them, but I'd be surprised if they make up the majority, and we don't have routine daily gun fights here.
My anecdotal observations aren't going to explain any complex social dynamics, but some conjectures put forth in this discussion do not seem to be based in data or experience.
One thing that - to me, at least - has always been obvious is a direct proportional relation between guns and violence. Less guns, less violence; more guns more violence. Weapons are a catalyst for violence.
Switzerland.
The bullet recovered from the radio matched ammunition issued to the Met., and was likely fired by them, not the suspect.
As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality".
Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms.
EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this. Just proves the point that those who would actually use force to restore order will be called out as "committing police brutality."
[1] http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/02/10/deindividuation/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindividuation
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29
(The reason I, for one, downvoted you is because I strongly believe what you wrote is naive and misinformed, to the point of being dangerous.)
PS: For a constructive position, I believe water cannons are the right answer.
And therein lies the problem. We know it's inhumane. We know it degrades us further to succumb to that shoot-the-fuckers mentality. It is understood then, that for riots like this to happen at all, we've already lost. That there are scarcely any viable solutions merely brings to surface the existing societal decay.
The point then, is not that you are right and he is wrong or vice versa. The point is that ultimately, the military is brought in for riots of LA-scale intensity because the people want them to be brought in, because in a lose-lose situation, you'd prefer the choice that affords peace.
p.s. It is interesting then, that folks like Jefferson were against standing armies because they were only necessary for oppressing the populace.
p.p.s. Looks like people can't handle the notion that society can slide into nihilism. =P
Hollywood. Where do you think they're from?
Please leave cinematic fantasies where they belong: on the other side of the silver screen.
It makes little difference that Hollywood made it when it was people who made a cult out of it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8692110/London-...
In one incident, a man suffered life-threatening injuries when he was attacked by rioters after he tried to extinguish a fire they had started in a bin.
Other residents told how they barricaded themselves into their block of flats as more than 200 masked rioters bent on burgling houses tried to smash down the doors.
Classical composer and musician Leni White told how she escaped her blazing flat in Ealing with nothing but her violin after it was torched by thugs.
Shopkeepers were also robbed and one was left with stitches after looters beat him up and demanded his money.
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2862467
The military quelled the LA Riots, which is the direct comparable. Northern Ireland was a decades long political/military issue, not about lads looting TVs. Not a good comparison.
Order is rarely restored through some short-sighted power-fantasy that disregards the value of human lives. But lots of dictatorships started that way though. And often with the best of intentions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14446548
Here's a video of British police without guns running from rioters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pcbiO4flY
And take a look at what the rioters are doing on Youtube. Some would submit that the people with the "power fantasy" are the rioters who are burning buildings, beating random passerby bloody, and looting businesses.
We also have different premises on what is the more plausible immediate threat: fascist dictatorship or arson and anarchy. It's doubtful that we'll resolve those differences in this comment box, so let's just agree to disagree.
These things have happened many times in the past, they usually burn themselves out after a few days and very, very rarely cost lives. This "anarchy" is very temporary. The odds of this evolving into a permanent state or a broad revolution are about zero.
Your idea of "plausible immediate threat" does not match decades of history.
You do realise what "shot on sight" means, right? Dead. Forever. No takebacks.
If you really think that summary execution is a reasonable response to throwing a brick through a window, shouting at people in a scary way, or nicking a couple of packets of cigarettes then you are officially an Internet Crazy Person.
Look at the pictures. Still want to contend that the severity of what is going is equivalent to nicking a pack of cigarettes?
I think the riots were triggered by a man shot by police. So you want now to shot more people, and consequently trigger more riots. If there are people rioting then there is a reason. Go and talk to them. Understand what they want. If they are badly educated, that's probably your fault (your are the government).
My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."
"Make no mistake, Senator. We will hunt down the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy. And no card-carrying member of the ACLU is more dead set against it than I am. Which is why I urge you - I implore you. Do not consider this as an option."
"There is historically nothing more corrosive to the morale of a population than policing its own citizens."
> "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
So, I guess the screenwriters guild gets it...
Peace.
"In America 100 years is a long time, in Europe 100 miles a long distance"
Your perceptions are shaped by your culture, and particularly in the US people rarely look at history before the revolutionary era (if they even know about that) so 100 years would be almost half of history. Whereas an older empire might trace some of it's roots as far back as the dark ages.
Ed: Wrote this too quickly without thinking enough on it. I don't think violent response is the answer, but given the nature of the situation I'll shift my position to thinking it'd probably work in this case.
I'm not going to respond directly to this.
Rather, I'll point out that force is used because it is often effective.
There are innumerable instances of riots where the subsequent police/military crackdown actually suppressed the population.
The real question here is what makes London like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, or Syria today rather than like all those countries in the past where rebellions were quelled?
"The riots, beginning in the evening after the verdicts, peaked in intensity over the next two days, but ultimately continued for several days. A curfew and deployment of the National Guard began to control the situation; eventually U.S. Army soldiers and United States Marines were ordered to the city to quell disorder as well."
And to repeat my other comment: Military is supposed to protect a country from outside (military) attackers, police are supposed to protect from domestic (criminal) threats. When you make the military the police you make citizens the enemy the state of their own country.
Excerpt from the wikipedia article:
Fifty-three people died during the riots[24] with as many as 2,000 people injured. Estimates of the material losses vary between about $800 million and $1 billion. Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings, with fire calls coming once every minute at some points. Widespread looting also occurred. Stores owned by Korean and other Asian immigrants were widely targeted,[25] although stores owned by Caucasians and African Americans were targeted by rioters as well.
And it indicates Hispanics likely played a larger role than blacks:
Half of all riot arrestees and more than a third of those killed during the violence were Hispanic.
Now imagine any other ethnic riot in another city where this would be acceptable--it doesn't exist unless they are brown in a predominantly white city. The military would never be used against a majority of whites or even asians, but if you're brown or black it's accepted-- because they're constantly other-ed all the time and scapegoated.
Not entirely on topic, since the soldiers don't decide where they go, but while we are on the topic(s) of racism and the military: The US military tends to be more multi-racial/multi-cultural than most civilian social climes and there tends to be less racism in it. The joke in the military is that they are the "green" race -- ie the color of their uniform makes them all one "race", separate from the civilians who are typically not very welcoming of the military members stationed in their community yet still want to milk them for money. The loyalty to a cause larger than themselves and willingness to bleed and die for it seems to overcome differences that are often insurmountable in the minds of other people. That whole "I am willing to die defending you and you are willing to die defending me" paradigm is a commitment and a bond deeper than many families or lovers have. It makes things like skin color seem rather superficial and insignificant in comparison.
My ex was wonderfully non-racist and I became uncomfortably aware of just how much my mind had been poisoned from growing up in the Deep South when I finally met his best friend at a new duty station after months of hearing glowing things about the guy. The guy was black. My ex had never once mentioned that and the surprise showed on my face, which made for a very awkward meeting. It has been food for thought ever since about the topic of racism and I think I have grown as a person because of it.
A lot of that unrest is because of rent-a-mobs hired by military juntas. "Force" does not work because it is not supposed to.
IIRC, one of the accomplishments of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution was to intercept busloads of rent-a-mobs and pour immense amounts of free booze into them before the opposition figured out what was going on.
In Europe we prefer to find the problem and solve it, discuss and communicate with each other, instead of shooting at people and hope they'll be too scared to continue rioting.
It's against all countries' constitution I know of to use the army in internal affairs that include use of force.
And I doubt the riots are killing anyone. You probably lost more money for corrupt government office holders than to any riot-smashing-your-precious-things you will face in your life time. so focus your desire to raise arms more effectively, please.