Police may shoot rioters claim

[Swampster]

Didn't we bomb the bejezuz out of Libya becasue the state was shooting it's own people? Aren't we waving fingers at Syria for doing the same?

 

What's the difference between a rebel protestor wanting to overthrow the government and a rioter?

[Harleyman]

Wow ! I dont see the British bobbies ever shooting anyone. Tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets should be adequate to deal with the worst situations

[Lab-rat]

Wow ! I dont see the British bobbies ever shooting anyone. Tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets should be adequate to deal with the worst situations

 

To be honest I'm with you on this.....can't see it happening.

[VideoPro]

Is this the John Wayne/Armchair Vigilante fan club thread?

[Vague_Boy]

 

I'm at a loss for anyone sticking up for someone raising some ones business or home to the ground because they haven't got the latest LED tv?

There's a world of difference between sticking up for someone and not wanting to give police the right to go around shooting them.

 

The bankers and large corporations steal more than those rioters ever could. Let me know when the police start shooting them, I've a couple of old hats that might as well be eaten.

 

The road to a police state is a slow, drip-drip accumulation. It's not a case of going to bed one night and suddenly next morning it's a police state.

 

The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually.

[Vague_Boy]

These people are armed so you defend with arms.

Links? Evidence? What were the rioters armed with?

 

Mark Duggan, whose death sparked the riots, was unarmed.

 

Mark Duggan 'Unarmed' When Shot By Police

 

An investigation has found that there is no forensic evidence that Mark Duggan was armed when he was shot by police, the Guardian newspaper has claimed.

 

Mr Duggan's death on August 4 sparked riots in Tottenham, north London which spread to other parts of England.

 

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating whether he was in the possession of a firearm when he was fatally shot.

 

The Guardian said the investigation has discovered that a gun owned by Mr Duggan was found some 10-14 feet away behind a low fence from where he was killed.

 

In response, the Metropolitan Police has said the newspaper's headline - 'Mark Duggan was not armed when shot by police' - was "inaccurate and misleading based on what is known at this time".

 

Police said: "The article, and especially its headline, states as fact issues that are subject to an ongoing investigation by the IPCC, and we would reiterate that it is premature to draw any conclusions about its findings."

 

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the IPCC said Mr Duggan, 29, had fired a weapon at police causing a bullet to lodge in a radio worn by a police officer.

 

This was later retracted with police admitting it was more likely to have been a bullet fired by an officer which had ricocheted.

 

The Guardian claimed several new findings have emerged from the IPPC's invesitgation.

 

It said Mr Duggan did obtain a weapon on the day he was killed - a shoe box containing the firearm was found in a people carrier Mr Duggan had rented the same day.

 

However, there is no evidence the gun had been fired, and that while Mr Duggan's fingerprints were found on the shoe box it is not clear if he had handled the weapon itself.

LINK

 

Given that the police were quite willing to lie about an exchange of fire and the bullet in the radio (it was in fact a police issue hollow-point bullet that had passed through Duggan's body).

 

On 13 August, the Independent Police Complaints Commission admitted that Duggan did not open fire, stating, "It seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to [wrongly] believe that shots were exchanged".

LINK

 

Whoops! Ah well, we all make mistakes.

 

And these are the people you want to give these sweeping powers to?

[Harleyman]

British police have always had a good relationship with the public. They are also the envy of many foreign police forces.

I can just imagine how quickly things would turn really bad if innocent people were killed in a riot. Over a century of trust and good relationships destroyed and very quickly also.

 

This kind of stuff is normal in Iran, Syria and China but has no place in the UK

[HotPhil]

I reckon more trust was eroded when the police weren't able to adequately protect the well-being and property of many innocent people due to rioting scum.

I'm all for water cannon or rubber bullets, with strict rules of deployment, taking into account risk to life and property.

If people want to protest, fine, I'm all for that too. There'd be no need to fire at a protest. But there's a big difference between killing peaceful protesters in Iran, Syria et al and incapacitating some hoodie as he attempts to set fire to a block of flats with people sleeping inside.

The risk of injury/death to innocent bystanders does increase. But really, I know what I'd be doing if I found myself in the middle of a riot - move away.

[Crayfish]

Do you know what they're planning to do?

 

They're planning to shoot guys in the dick.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076552/UK-riots-review-Arsonists-SHOT-police.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

That is not cool, police.

[Lab-rat]

There's a world of difference between sticking up for someone and not wanting to give police the right to go around shooting them.

 

The bankers and large corporations steal more than those rioters ever could. Let me know when the police start shooting them, I've a couple of old hats that might as well be eaten.

 

The road to a police state is a slow, drip-drip accumulation. It's not a case of going to bed one night and suddenly next morning it's a police state.

 

I appreciate what you are saying very well with the bankers but that is not what we are discussing at the moment so I will repeat the question to you as well...

 

When someone has a petrol bomb in their hand & they risk causing death, loss of life, destruction of property, or just going around mugging people or mowing down people with cars they have stolen (all instances I can back up with links if you require)...... we are past the point of negotations & politics......HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH IT at that very point?

 

I'm after constructive cryticism from either you or Halibut on what the alternatives are for stopping the petrol bomb weilding mobs? It's all very well saying the police can't go around using guns....but if you don't offer any credible alternative then your arguement is unresolved as having no further options!