PDA

View Full Version : Rioting - is the U.S. next?


aceplace57
08-09-2011, 09:28 PM
I've been watching news coverage of the riots in London. Horrible and frightening images.

You have to wonder are we next? There's a lot of people hurting in this economy. A tremendous amount of anger at government impotence and gridlock.

The scary thing about riots is you never know what will set one off. Social networking has made it even more dangerous. They say the London rioters are organizing this way.

I still remember South Central LA burning after Rodney King. The Watts riots were when I was a very young kid.

I hope things settle down. That kind of raw insanity can build and build. It scares the crap out of me. I live in a fairly large city with a lot of poverty. There's this attitude many people have of taking what they want. We've had stolen cars used to bust into Sears a few years ago. Went right through the doors. Not a riot. Just three burglars.

Qin Shi Huangdi
08-09-2011, 09:30 PM
No, the US has avoided any riots for the last twenty years since Rodney King. The US is socially stable despite its economic woes.

Not to mention the US will act far more decisively to suppress rioting.

Der Trihs
08-09-2011, 09:41 PM
Americans are typically submissive and passive, they can be abused and exploited without resistance to a far greater extent than the citizens of most other countries. Usually, they blame themselves rather than whoever is victimizing them.

Koxinga
08-09-2011, 09:44 PM
What about the Wisconsin state fair? Sounds to me like it's already begun.

mnemosyne
08-09-2011, 09:59 PM
I think it's naive to think that it couldn't happen in the US, or Canada, or anywhere else, really. It pretty much means that no one will look for any signs, and so if it happens, they'd be caught flat-footed. I'm not a sociologist by any means, but I imagine that looking back, all kinds of things might begin to explain some part of what is happening in the UK, some part of what happened at the Wisconsin State Fair, etc. It would be irresponsible to not reflect and consider what our own social policies, our own economic state and our own handling of cultural differences is doing to our societies and whether it's hurting or marginalizing individuals.

Riots have happened before, and they can happen again.

elfkin477
08-09-2011, 10:12 PM
Americans are typically submissive and passive, they can be abused and exploited without resistance to a far greater extent than the citizens of most other countries. Usually, they blame themselves rather than whoever is victimizing them. I don't usually see eye to eye with you, but I agree here. We put up with a lot (especially employment-wise, like lack of time off/maternity leave) that people elsewhere wouldn't. It seems to me that with the exception of the 1992 Los Angeles riots most of the few US riots during my lifetime have been born of spontaneously chaotic situations, not mere frustration over political issues.

gonzomax
08-09-2011, 10:16 PM
Sure it will happen here. It also will be a lot nastier due to our love of guns.

Shmendrik
08-09-2011, 10:29 PM
Sure it will happen here. It also will be a lot nastier due to our love of guns.

If by nastier you mean people will be able to defend their property from looters, I agree.

El_Kabong
08-09-2011, 11:01 PM
I don't pretend to know all the nuances, but I'm pretty sure the UK riots, like the very similar spasm of violence in France a few years ago, have a root cause in long-term and persistent unemployment at much higher rates than have historically been the case for the USA.

There is certainly a potential for something similar in the US, but hell, there have been frequent riots here after major sporting events. What's missing right now, aside from perhaps quite the sense of 'no future' among the younger tower-block dwellers of Europe, is a triggering event: the spark that set off both the UK and French rioting were percieved injustices done to youths by the police. There have been incidents in the USA in the recent past that could have served as such triggering events but have not done so. So, empirically, I guess, as some have said, it would take a bit more to really get a real city-burning spree going here.

Der Trihs
08-09-2011, 11:08 PM
If by nastier you mean people will be able to defend their property from looters, I agree.
Why do you presume that the looters won't have guns too?

guizot
08-09-2011, 11:11 PM
The US is socially stable despite its economic woes.A lot of people were saying the same thing that hot afternoon in L.A. on April 29, 1992.

Czarcasm
08-09-2011, 11:13 PM
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

aceplace57
08-09-2011, 11:18 PM
A great debate??? I didn't realize there was any debate. Riots are breaking out in one country. They could easily do the same elsewhere.
Anyway, on with the thread...

It's a lot worse than I realized. This is from a news report description on C4 news. Telecast today, Aug 9th.
They pulled police from other areas into London. Now those area have rioting & looting. The maps they put up are pretty frightening.

Over the next hour we'll plot how the looting and destruction has spread, already tonight there are reports of trouble in Wolverhampton, West Bromwich, Salford and Manchester. In London many high streets closed early but anywhere it seems is a potential target and that's what the police are up against. They are promising more robust action and thousands more officers but say the violence against them is unperecedented with 111 injuries so far. As ordinary people joined the cleanup the victims of the destruction have been left furious and devastated.

Argent Towers
08-09-2011, 11:18 PM
Why do you presume that the looters won't have guns too?

Maybe some of them will. But the type of people who riot are usually shitty shots. A properly-aimed .30-06 soft point and the sight of a rioter's head exploding like a water balloon will probably be enough to scare off plenty of morons with cheap and improperly cared-for handguns held sideways.

Chen019
08-09-2011, 11:21 PM
What about the Wisconsin state fair? Sounds to me like it's already begun.

Yes, that seems to have been the biggest of several flash mob attacks (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/orwellian_media_response_to_flash_mob_racial_violence.html)over the summer period.

Der Trihs
08-09-2011, 11:27 PM
Maybe some of them will. But the type of people who riot are usually shitty shots. A properly-aimed .30-06 soft point and the sight of a rioter's head exploding like a water balloon will probably be enough to scare off plenty of morons with cheap and improperly cared-for handguns held sideways.Or the guy playing Rambo will get killed by return fire from a hundred or so people.

Argent Towers
08-09-2011, 11:33 PM
It's really interesting that, to you, someone defending himself from a rioting mob is "playing Rambo."

In any case, I think it's highly unlikely that hundreds of rioters are going to have firearms.

aceplace57
08-09-2011, 11:33 PM
Forgot the link. Much better info than what they are reporting in the US.
http://www.channel4.com/news/riots-spread-to-manchester-midlands

Der Trihs
08-09-2011, 11:36 PM
It's really interesting that, to you, someone defending himself from a rioting mob is "playing Rambo." Trying to pretend life is like a first person shooter game and fight 50 to 1 odds is indeed "playing Rambo".

In any case, I think it's highly unlikely that hundreds of rioters are going to have firearms.
In America? I'd expect most of them to have at least one gun. So thousands, not hundreds.

humanafterall
08-09-2011, 11:44 PM
I live in SW Ohio, and the nearest secure facility I can go is to a nearby Masonic temple, The building is solid stone and concrete with 1-inch thick steel rebar spaced 4 inches apart. It would take some heavy firepower to break through that. The front doors are large and of heavy oak, and the back doors are of solid steel, the only way in is with an ID card, and there are cameras all over the building. And if I cant hide there, then I'll head to WPAFB, that's a real secure facility.

Argent Towers
08-09-2011, 11:49 PM
As a Mason myself I am not even going to try to make a joke about that one...I'll leave it to others. Although I have never heard of a lodge that you needed an ID card just to physically get into. A dues card to enter the lodge room, maybe, but not the building.

Der Trihs, you are not living in the real world if you really think that rioters would have hundreds or thousands of personal firearms. Yes, there are many guns in this country. But the demographic that is heaviest with the gun ownership does not overlap with the demographic of urban rioters.

The Tooth
08-09-2011, 11:54 PM
First place I'd head in a riot would be a gun shop.

ChrisMatthews'ThrillUpHisLeg
08-10-2011, 12:03 AM
We don't have riots. We have "Youth" mobs. Of course the are not racial either.

punch line loser
08-10-2011, 01:00 AM
Oh, there could easily be riots here. You should have seen Boston after we won the Stanley Cup.

Seriously though, "Americans are passive" my ass. I don't see them reaching across the whole country, but it wouldn't surprise me (though it would grieve me) so see the areas most heavily affected by our economy fucking itself say "to hell with it" and rise up.

ChrisMatthews'ThrillUpHisLeg
08-10-2011, 01:27 AM
I think you know where the riots will be...wherever gun laws restrict people from protecting themselves....and wherever those that suck at the govt. teet live.


It's just a fact.

Der Trihs
08-10-2011, 01:35 AM
I think you know where the riots will be...wherever gun laws restrict people from protecting themselves....and wherever those that suck at the govt. teet live.


It's just a fact.:rolleyes: Please. Since when has gun ownership prevented violence? If guns were such a magic wand of protection then the cops would have no trouble at all suppressing riots, and they do. And of course you just had to throw in a slam at (a caricatured version of) poor people.

toofs
08-10-2011, 01:39 AM
As a Mason myself I am not even going to try to make a joke about that one...I'll leave it to others. Although I have never heard of a lodge that you needed an ID card just to physically get into. A dues card to enter the lodge room, maybe, but not the building.

Der Trihs, you are not living in the real world if you really think that rioters would have hundreds or thousands of personal firearms. Yes, there are many guns in this country. But the demographic that is heaviest with the gun ownership does not overlap with the demographic of urban rioters.

I am with you on this one, Argent. If a riot ever got to the point were the mob violence got to levels seen in Ivory Coast recently, there would be a lot of deer rifles, varmint rifles, AR-15s, M1 Garands, M1As and other potent arms brought out to defend homes and neighborhoods. Middle class suburbia is deep in weapons.

The Koreans in the LA riots had the right idea.

As for the US being next, I don't see it anytime soon.

Declan
08-10-2011, 01:43 AM
Why do you presume that the looters won't have guns too?

It might mean the difference between a few hours in a cell, and a lengthy jail sentence for armed robbery if you get snagged by the cops and as you can tell by the British coverage, lots of video for identification.

Declan

Kobal2
08-10-2011, 01:48 AM
First place I'd head in a riot would be a gun shop.

Worked on Bastille Day.

blindboyard
08-10-2011, 01:51 AM
Maybe some of them will. But the type of people who riot are usually shitty shots. A properly-aimed .30-06 soft point and the sight of a rioter's head exploding like a water balloon will probably be enough to scare off plenty of morons with cheap and improperly cared-for handguns held sideways.

On the other hand the UK riots have yet to cause a death. How does peoples heads exploding due to soft-point ammo cause less mess?

drachillix
08-10-2011, 02:04 AM
I am with you on this one, Argent. If a riot ever got to the point were the mob violence got to levels seen in Ivory Coast recently, there would be a lot of deer rifles, varmint rifles, AR-15s, M1 Garands, M1As and other potent arms brought out to defend homes and neighborhoods. Middle class suburbia is deep in weapons.

Agree, but this is for residential areas. We would probbly see average joe lunchbucket american bunkered down at home, a few supportive neighbors with some ammo can do ALOT to discourage a mob approaching from down the block. Looters don't exactly have the morale of a ranger company, when a few go down, they will back off and seek softer targets. Commercial areas are tougher to defend as the "folks willing to dig in and fight to defend a walmart" are gonna be few and far between.

drachillix
08-10-2011, 02:06 AM
On the other hand the UK riots have yet to cause a death. How does peoples heads exploding due to soft-point ammo cause less mess?

One determined looter, especially via fire, can cause hundreds of thousands thousands if not millions of dollars of damage in short order. As a riot ramps up, firefighting resources will become overtaxed, allowing new fires to run unchecked.

SecretaryofEvil
08-10-2011, 02:27 AM
Here's a link to a list of people killed during the LA Riots.
http://www.laweekly.com/2002-05-02/news/the-l-a-53/

I counted three looters shot dead by private citizens. Of course, that doesn't count how many people were wounded or scared off by armed citizens.

Also relevant, armed citizens acting as security guards accidentally shot and killed two other armed citizens acting as security guards.

One armed rioter was killed by off duty police officers. Do off duty police officers typically carry guns in Europe? They almost always do in the US.

Many of the deaths appeared to be targeted killings. Murderers taking advantage of the chaos to kill people they were already inclined to harm.

Race riots don't tend to work out very well for the race doing the rioting, seeing as those killed were overwhelming black or Hispanic.

Of course, not all riots are race related or triggered by politics. All you really need is a crowd of people. You don't even have to piss the people off. People seem just as inclined to riot when their team wins as when they lose.

Here's a list of riots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots#21st_century

Some of them were politically motivated and some of them involved a disenfranchised minority group. A lot of them didn't. And plenty of them happened in the United States. Honestly, this idea that "Americans don't riot because they are passive," is just bizarre. Firstly, Americans do riot, although I'm not necessarily sure that's something to be proud of. Secondly, I thought Americans were stereotyped as hyper aggressive, think before you act, violence lovers. Now we're too passive and peaceable? Make up your minds with the childish anti-American rhetoric, will you?

Der Trihs
08-10-2011, 02:44 AM
Secondly, I thought Americans were stereotyped as hyper aggressive, think before you act, violence lovers.Only against foreigners whom we've convinced ourselves can't or won't fight back. Machinegunning a bunch of unarmed brown guys from an attack helicopter is more our style.

Koxinga
08-10-2011, 02:57 AM
*yawn* Yadda, yadda, yadda.

SecretaryofEvil
08-10-2011, 03:03 AM
Only against foreigners whom we've convinced ourselves can't or won't fight back. Machinegunning a bunch of unarmed brown guys from an attack helicopter is more our style.

Except that Americans commit quite a bit of violence against other Americans, including riots. So your comments about Americans being too passive to riot was completely baseless. It was just some generic anti-Americanism designed to piss people off, that really had nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

SecretaryofEvil
08-10-2011, 03:15 AM
Only against foreigners whom we've convinced ourselves can't or won't fight back. Machinegunning a bunch of unarmed brown guys from an attack helicopter is more our style.

Also, if this was true, wouldn't it mean that you're completely wrong with your views about private gun ownership? If this was true, then presumably armed Americans would scare their passive countrymen into not rioting or committing other crimes.

pkbites
08-10-2011, 04:32 AM
First place I'd head in a riot would be a gun shop.

That's where a lot of people headed during the L.A. riots.



And they learned a lesson about waiting periods and such.


Going to a gun shop after a riot has started is like going to the store to buy a fire extinguisher after your house is already on fire.

NineToTheSky
08-10-2011, 05:24 AM
On the other hand the UK riots have yet to cause a death. How does peoples heads exploding due to soft-point ammo cause less mess?

As of today, not correct. Three men have been deliberately mown down by a car. The fact that no-one has died in the fires is a miracle.

But what no-one here in the UK has an explanation for is why the riots are happening. There a lot of talk about disenfranchisement, poor race relations, lack of communication by the police and politicians with ethnic and socially deprived groups. Clearly, the purpose of the riots are destroy property and to loot. There have been films and pictures of looters queuing up outside shops, and trying on shoes. They seem to see it as a fun night out. They cover all colours and many of them are very young; the youngest arrested person was a ten year old. Virtually none of them have explained their actions by atributing them to socio-economic causes.

So why do they do it? So many people, in different locations. In those areas, for the first three nights, anarchy reigned. There was no police response, apart from containment. The rioters were free to do what they wanted with impugnity. They must have reasons - even if it's that they think it is 'fun' to beat up people, set buildings and cars on fire, and to steal.

Martin Hyde
08-10-2011, 06:27 AM
Worked on Bastille Day.

The rioters on Bastille Day were going all the way, though. Rioters in the modern era are mostly not interested in trying to actually fight the King (or in this case the Prime Minister / President etc), the thing about something like storming the Bastille is you need a strong nucleus of people willing to die to do it in order for it to work. Enough people can storm anything, but there has to be enough people willing to die.

If a band of rioters came upon a gun shop and the owner was there defending it, the rioters would need a core of people willing to trade their lives to get those guns, because some of them would certainly die if they wanted inside that store.

It's sort of like that scene from the movie Tombstone where Wyatt Earp has a shotgun and there is an angry group of men surrounding him who want him to release his prisoner. One of the men just says to "bum rush him" but Wyatt points his shotgun at that man and said "either way you die." It's Hollywood, but I think it's a good reflection on human nature, 10 guys can rush and kill 1 guy with a double barreled shot gun, but only if those 10 guys are each individually willing to live with 1/5 chance of being shot and potentially killed. People with nothing to lose or people wanting to essentially fight in some revolution will be willing to do this. The LA Rioters were in it for TVs and to cause property damage, so by and large they would not have been willing to charge a shotgun wielding individual.

Speaking of the French, Napoleon had the right idea on how to handle rioters. While working for the Directorate he used grapeshot on riots in Paris, and very quickly dispersed the mob. When the people riot the only proper response is to use loudspeakers to enact a curfew until further notice, and to inform the populace that helicopters with miniguns will mow down anyone seen on the streets during the curfew. The riots would end very quickly.

Martin Hyde
08-10-2011, 06:32 AM
Only against foreigners whom we've convinced ourselves can't or won't fight back. Machinegunning a bunch of unarmed brown guys from an attack helicopter is more our style.

That's called being smart. No reason to fight animals on the ground when we have perfectly capable attack helicopters that are piloted by one man and can kill hundreds in seconds.

Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party
08-10-2011, 07:29 AM
Complete and utter bungling from the Metropolitan Police allowed what should have been a minor scuffle in a borough of London to escalate into near anarchy the length and breadth of England, as it became clear that the Police were wholly unequipped to deal with a bunch of fifteen year old children smashing shit up :rolleyes:.

Greater Manchester saw massive rioting, arson and mob violence last night due to large numbers of Mancunian police being diverted to London to put down a mob that should have been dealt with decisively on the first night of the violence. Water cannon, rubber bullets, attack dogs and baton charges all should have been used immediately. Now the genie's completely out of the bottle and nobody's sure how to put it back in, other than diverting every riot police officer in the country to the scene of the violence.

Special mention to our moron Home Secretary. "Policing by consensus". What the fuck does that even mean? Talk about fiddling whilst Rome burns, and they're still pushing ahead with the cuts to the police. Unbelievable.

So, if the US doesn't do anything stupid like allowing the riot to get out of hand for days before attempting to seriously put it down, then no, you probably won't be seeing the same scenes in the US any time soon.

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 07:34 AM
No, the US has avoided any riots for the last twenty years since Rodney King. The US is socially stable despite its economic woes.
For now. That can change.

It was just as accurate to say that the US was "socially stable" and had avoided riots for 20 years before the Rodney King LA riots, but - oops, there goes LA. Except your assertion that there were no riots "for 20 years" is wrong. 1981 and 1983 are the only years since 1960 that didn't have a riot in Wikipedia's list, and given how spotty Wiki is, you can't be sure 81 and 83 were all that peaceful.

Not to mention the US will act far more decisively to suppress rioting.
Not to mention US rioters are more likely to be heavily armed than UK rioters, and past experience shows at least some of them will return fire rather than run.

Wikipeida's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States) history is far from comprehensive, but at least bother to look up something on the major riots of the 20th Century, Curtis, before you start blathering on about things you obviously know little to nothing about. Actually, just the 1960's forward would be informative for you.

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 07:44 AM
Yes, that seems to have been the biggest of several flash mob attacks (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/orwellian_media_response_to_flash_mob_racial_violence.html)over the summer period.
There have actually been quite a few (http://violentflashmobs.com/) mob attacks in the US this year, some of them resulting in dead victims.

The problems are much bigger than are being reported by the news. Large gatherings of disaffected people who aren't being violent are being completely ignored by the media and politicians. Even smaller outbreaks of violence are not getting much play - each local area is noticing their problem(s), but not hearing about the ones elsewhere.

Then we get something like what's going on in London and act all surprised. You know what? The writing IS on the wall, but we walk by with blinders on, refusing to see it.

Martin Hyde
08-10-2011, 07:44 AM
Exchange of fire between rioters and riot police is still exceptionally rare in the United States, almost so rare as to be statistically irrelevant. Even during the Rodney King riots, look at the total number of rioters (obviously only vague estimates will exist), the total number of police deployed, and the total number of shooting incidents. Those shooting incidents are so exceptionally rare it's a bit unrealistic to characterize the rioters in most American riots as being "better armed" as though that is statistically significant. By and large America has not had huge armed riots in which people go to war with the police, our rioters tend to throw things, break things, and use fists and other such things, not shoot people.

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 07:50 AM
....and wherever those that suck at the govt. teet live.
It's spelled "teat". And hey, nice caricature of the poor. What do you do for an encore?

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 07:53 AM
On the other hand the UK riots have yet to cause a death. How does peoples heads exploding due to soft-point ammo cause less mess?
Untrue - there was a man shot in a car in Croydon a few days ago who has died, and last night three young men apparently part of a neighborhood defense group were run over by a car. Those are just the ones I, an American with nothing more than crappy TV and internet coverage, are aware of, there might be more. This riot has caused deaths along with numerous injuries.

The Tooth
08-10-2011, 07:59 AM
That's where a lot of people headed during the L.A. riots.



And they learned a lesson about waiting periods and such.


Going to a gun shop after a riot has started is like going to the store to buy a fire extinguisher after your house is already on fire.

Good point. Rather, I would stock up on weapons upon moving to the United States in the first place. I would be a fool to share air with the likes of Argent Towers without arming myself preemptively.

Lemur866
08-10-2011, 08:03 AM
Lotta internet tough guys in this thread.

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 08:04 AM
But what no-one here in the UK has an explanation for is why the riots are happening. There a lot of talk about disenfranchisement, poor race relations, lack of communication by the police and politicians with ethnic and socially deprived groups. Clearly, the purpose of the riots are destroy property and to loot. There have been films and pictures of looters queuing up outside shops, and trying on shoes. They seem to see it as a fun night out. They cover all colours and many of them are very young; the youngest arrested person was a ten year old. Virtually none of them have explained their actions by atributing them to socio-economic causes.

So why do they do it? So many people, in different locations. In those areas, for the first three nights, anarchy reigned. There was no police response, apart from containment. The rioters were free to do what they wanted with impugnity. They must have reasons - even if it's that they think it is 'fun' to beat up people, set buildings and cars on fire, and to steal.
The socio-economic conditions set the scene. Squeezing the poor increases the tension. Then something sparks the initial unrest and when enough people get involved the police are overwhelmed and law and order break down - at which point it stops being about whatever started the riot and becomes a matter of taking advantage of the opportunity to loot and destroy. Half the people involved in any riot aren't thinking beyond FREE STUFF! EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT!

The causes aren't mysterious, it's just that usually the spark to set things in motion doesn't happen. Fixing the causes first requires that the ones benefiting from the current system acknowledge that it really does hurt the ones on the bottom, and then they would have to make changes in their comfortable lives in order to make the ones on the bottom less inclined to riot. One thing that will make it worse is to see this as an excuse to punish the ones on the bottom, squeezing them further, but societies have a distressing tendency to do that.

It doesn't matter that the poor of London have a place to live and sufficient food and clothing, unlike many other poor people in history who have been worse off - they live side-by-side with wealthier people who have all kinds of stuff they poor of London will never be able to obtain by honest means, they are surrounded by advertising urging them to acquire all sorts of stuff they will never be able to get by honest means.... and when the police are occupied two streets over with brick-throwing angry mobs why is it surprising that they'll smash a store window and take?

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 08:14 AM
Complete and utter bungling from the Metropolitan Police allowed what should have been a minor scuffle in a borough of London to escalate into near anarchy the length and breadth of England, as it became clear that the Police were wholly unequipped to deal with a bunch of fifteen year old children smashing shit up :rolleyes:.
Please. Characterizing this as the work of "15 year olds" is as much a simplification as calling all the rioters "sociopaths". It conveniently makes the rioters "Them" or "Others", not "Us", and therefore drops empathy and lets people avoid really addressing the problem and pressures that leads to this. While there are certainly a lot of teens involved, looking at the video released shows plenty of full adults involved as well.

Greater Manchester saw massive rioting, arson and mob violence last night due to large numbers of Mancunian police being diverted to London to put down a mob that should have been dealt with decisively on the first night of the violence. Water cannon, rubber bullets, attack dogs and baton charges all should have been used immediately. Now the genie's completely out of the bottle and nobody's sure how to put it back in, other than diverting every riot police officer in the country to the scene of the violence.
From what I've heard, the idea was to avoid killing people. That's a laudable idea, really. Unfortunately, in this particular case that might not have been the best course.

Sure, they can up the force used. Is the British public willing to see a 15 year old kid lying in a pool of blood in the street as a result? Even with "non-lethal" force like water cannon, rubber bullets, dogs, and batons deaths can occur. Are you willing to accept more deaths as the price for using more force?

It's up to the British people to make that choice.

Special mention to our moron Home Secretary. "Policing by consensus". What the fuck does that even mean? Talk about fiddling whilst Rome burns, and they're still pushing ahead with the cuts to the police. Unbelievable.
Now THAT is stupid... but all too typical of politicians and so-called "leaders" these days. Which is why we'll see more of this in the near future, and not just in London.

So, if the US doesn't do anything stupid like allowing the riot to get out of hand for days before attempting to seriously put it down, then no, you probably won't be seeing the same scenes in the US any time soon.
In 1967 in Detroit the US sent in the National Guard and the Army to put down a riot, along with tanks and machine guns. The fighting continued for two days after that. What do you suggest? Bombing?

Granted, that was 40+ years ago, but I don't think people have changed that much in the intervening decades.

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 08:18 AM
By and large America has not had huge armed riots in which people go to war with the police, our rioters tend to throw things, break things, and use fists and other such things, not shoot people.
That's because most people really aren't interested in killing, or even hurting, random strangers. They're much more interested in acquiring stuff.

There have been instances where riots were targeting people rather than material objects. They are less common. But they are also much uglier.

El_Kabong
08-10-2011, 08:18 AM
Exchange of fire between rioters and riot police is still exceptionally rare in the United States, almost so rare as to be statistically irrelevant. Even during the Rodney King riots, look at the total number of rioters (obviously only vague estimates will exist), the total number of police deployed, and the total number of shooting incidents. Those shooting incidents are so exceptionally rare it's a bit unrealistic to characterize the rioters in most American riots as being "better armed" as though that is statistically significant. By and large America has not had huge armed riots in which people go to war with the police, our rioters tend to throw things, break things, and use fists and other such things, not shoot people.

All of which makes your idea of mowing rioters down from minigun-equipped helicopters a bit over the top, don't you think?

ExTank
08-10-2011, 08:22 AM
All of which makes your idea of mowing rioters down from minigun-equipped helicopters a bit over the top, don't you think?

Especially since I don't know of any major police force eqipped in such a way; that's hard-core military hardware, and the military won't be involved in riot suppression without martial law being declared.

That would be one fuggly scenario.

Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party
08-10-2011, 08:25 AM
Please. Characterizing this as the work of "15 year olds" is as much a simplification as calling all the rioters "sociopaths". It conveniently makes the rioters "Them" or "Others", not "Us", and therefore drops empathy and lets people avoid really addressing the problem and pressures that leads to this. While there are certainly a lot of teens involved, looking at the video released shows plenty of full adults involved as well.


The overwhelming majority of those involved have been teenagers. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from on these riots, but for those who actually live near where they're happening, it's pretty clear who the main instigators of this mess have been.

Yes, you can point to adults being arrested. This doesn't change the fact that the riots are mostly a teenage (and younger!) phenomenon.


From what I've heard, the idea was to avoid killing people. That's a laudable idea, really. Unfortunately, in this particular case that might not have been the best course.

Sure, they can up the force used. Is the British public willing to see a 15 year old kid lying in a pool of blood in the street as a result? Even with "non-lethal" force like water cannon, rubber bullets, dogs, and batons deaths can occur. Are you willing to accept more deaths as the price for using more force?


Is this satire? Yes, of course I'm willing to accept the potential deaths of rioters to maintain the Queen's Peace. Why on Earth would I not be? As we've seen, the softly-softly stand off approach taken in London has been a disaster, allowing a riot to spread throughout the whole of the capital, sucking police officers into the capital from elsewhere, and leaving other British cities exposed.

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 08:34 AM
No, it's not satire, that was a serious question. If you're willing to pay the price for using more force as far as I'm concerned that's your opinion and stance. Now, what about everyone else in Britain? Are they accepting of that? If so, then go to it. Just be aware of the consequences of your proposed course of action.

Martin Hyde
08-10-2011, 09:07 AM
Especially since I don't know of any major police force eqipped in such a way; that's hard-core military hardware, and the military won't be involved in riot suppression without martial law being declared.

That would be one fuggly scenario.

Under the Insurrection Act of 1807 in response to a State of Insurrection the President may use Federal troops to quell it. This happened in 1967 when Michigan Gov. Romney (father of modern day Presidential candidate) declared such a state and Lyndon Johnson sent Federal troops to clear the streets of Detroit.

gonzomax
08-10-2011, 09:10 AM
If by nastier you mean people will be able to defend their property from looters, I agree.
Sure, they are the only ones with guns. So they can shoot unarmed people at will.

Martin Hyde
08-10-2011, 09:12 AM
All of which makes your idea of mowing rioters down from minigun-equipped helicopters a bit over the top, don't you think?

No, not at all. The two most important responsibilities of any government are to protect its people from outside violent threat and to maintain civil order within its borders. These are the ancient reasons that governments were instituted; without civil order no other rights can meaningfully exist, and in response to violent insurrections and riots the rioters can no longer be viewed as part of society but instead as an active infection threatening all of society. Government must respond with immediate force in these situations.

When an infection starts in the body the immune system tries to stop it right away, sometimes the infection spreads and can do great damage before the immune system successfully kills off the infection. In the early stages of civil disorder more reserved methods such as riot police, tear gas, water cannons, mass arrests and things of that nature can be used and can be successfully used. However after a certain point, the government must act decisively to protect society as a whole.

Marley23
08-10-2011, 09:14 AM
I would be a fool to share air with the likes of Argent Towers without arming myself preemptively.
You're out of line here. Knock it off.

Kobal2
08-10-2011, 09:18 AM
The rioters on Bastille Day were going all the way, though. Rioters in the modern era are mostly not interested in trying to actually fight the King (or in this case the Prime Minister / President etc), the thing about something like storming the Bastille is you need a strong nucleus of people willing to die to do it in order for it to work. Enough people can storm anything, but there has to be enough people willing to die.

Hence the quip, "Is it a revolt ?" "No sire, it's a revolution".

But actually, I'm not convinced the Bastille-takers were interested in fighting the King either.
Fact is, I don't think the people who were doing the rioting on that first day knew what the fuck they were doing or where it all was heading. They were just a bunch of pissed off Parisians (who, as you know, aren't all that sunny on the best of days ;)) venting off because they were hungry and the bread delivery got held up again, with maybe only a handful of people who knew what they were doing steering the stampede. Maybe even taking advantage of the mob for their own aims, who knows. I mean, I know how it's written up in (French) history books, but thems as wrote those books weren't there, now were they ?

In my mind's eye it's only later, when the mob got everybody on the run and wondering where to go next that some dapper looking motherfuckers (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Robespierre.jpg) stepped up with a proposition for them, if they'd please put down the guns nice and slow. In my experience, that's how revolutions go: mobs are good at tearing things down, not so good at getting things back up. That requires organization, forethought and - though I loathe the word - order.

And as an historical aside, the Parisians weren't even pissed at the King himself, or even the monarchy - they liked both well enough. They were only pissed by the economic downturns, recent new taxes ordered by the (foreign) minister of finances to remedy them, and the (again, foreign) mercenaries hired to quell the unrest. And, of course, the bread thing, which sparked the powder keg.
Inconsequential trifles by all accounts, which is why today we'd all rather remember that they seized an ignominious, unjust prison (mostly to get at the powder stored there - there were barely a dozen actual inmates), toppled a despot, lopped of his head, then democracy happened sort of. Hallelujah for the brave patriots.
The real ones ? Tea Party material, really :D

If a band of rioters came upon a gun shop and the owner was there defending it, the rioters would need a core of people willing to trade their lives to get those guns, because some of them would certainly die if they wanted inside that store.

Meh, don't think so.
I mean, hunting shops and gun stores are reinforced so that a stick-up crew has a hard time, but what can you do against a pissed off crowd ? Can't shoot all of them, and if you shoot some of them you better believe the rest is going to hang you by your nuts and skin you alive. Nerves shot on both sides, both sides scared as hell, tempers running hot... a mosquito farts and you've got Peterloo, or Kent State.
And those were professionals (sort of), so a gun store guy, no matter how Rambo he tells himself he is in the mirror ? Please. He's not staring down a crowd by his own self.

Then again (and this was something I wanted to write up after my Bastille quip, but couldn't word right) these days the mob isn't just up against tricorns and muskets. The police, the King, and even the gun shop owner : they've got machine guns now. One man with the power to clear up a street with one clip. And that's only if the midden really hits the windmill - law enforcement's been polishing up on their crowd control skills since that hot July day. Tear gas, water cannon, flashball, tasers, helicopters... plenty of ways to make a mob not want to be a mob anymore in a hurry.
And while I reckon 17th century peasants might have thought the same thing about running against muskets and sabers with butcher cleavers, it's on a whole 'nother level now. Same thing about Minutemen, guerillas, militias (well ordered or not) and so forth - they can fight the power all they want, but they can't win. What they can do is turn the whole country to shit forever, as seen in Afghanistan, Columbia, Iraq...

No man, my honest opinion is that the days of the righteous fury of the people are long gone. Egypt notwithstanding.

Speaking of the French, Napoleon had the right idea on how to handle rioters. While working for the Directorate he used grapeshot on riots in Paris, and very quickly dispersed the mob. When the people riot the only proper response is to use loudspeakers to enact a curfew until further notice, and to inform the populace that helicopters with miniguns will mow down anyone seen on the streets during the curfew. The riots would end very quickly.

Yup. But is it the country you wanna live in ?
I know I wouldn't have wanted to live under Nappy. Why, bowing to a Corsican, the very idea ! :D

Martin Hyde
08-10-2011, 09:55 AM
Hence the quip, "Is it a revolt ?" "No sire, it's a revolution".

But actually, I'm not convinced the Bastille-takers were interested in fighting the King either.

I think they were actually, and that was a very common thing. If you read the history of any European country, you will see many, many, many riots where the rioters essentially wanted to fuck things up and get the King's attention. It was exceptionally rare for most of European history for these riots to have designs on removing a person from the throne. Instead they were a means of the lower classes to attack a system with enough vigor to get the attention of the powerful elites that ran things. There is a difference between wanting to act against the King in order to get his attention versus trying to actually remove him from the throne. For whatever reason many disaffected peasants up until the 19th century tended to believe their Kings were intrinsically good, and that bad policies were typically the result of bad ministers and that if they rioted hard enough the King would see the poor quality of the ministers who had messed things up and replace them.

When you have no real political power, only through violence can you express dissatisfaction, and I think that was what the Parisians were doing. It wasn't until fairly late in the game that people decided they really wanted the King gone for real. Until the King tried to flee the country I think there was still a better than not chance that Louis XVI could have remained as a constitutional monarch if he had wanted. Instead he refused to legitimately support any compromise, begrudgingly going along with what he felt he had to and then essentially committing treason against the country the moment he got a chance (of course under the law he probably was incapable of committing treason since he was the King.)

Meh, don't think so.

I mean, hunting shops and gun stores are reinforced so that a stick-up crew has a hard time, but what can you do against a pissed off crowd ? Can't shoot all of them, and if you shoot some of them you better believe the rest is going to hang you by your nuts and skin you alive. Nerves shot on both sides, both sides scared as hell, tempers running hot... a mosquito farts and you've got Peterloo, or Kent State.

In the hypothetical we are positing a store owner who has barricaded himself inside his store to defend against a riot. For someone to do such a thing means they more or less must be willing to eventually have their store stormed and themselves killed going out in a blaze of glory, otherwise why would they even be there at all? It isn't like most shopkeepers live in their store, if they were especially concerned about their safety they wouldn't be there in the first place.

The rioters on the other hand are going to be opportunist looters. You don't loot a store with an armed gunman inside of it when there are dozens of other stores in walking distance with no one inside of them at all to stop you.

If anything is outlandish it is perhaps the hypothetical gun store owner being there in the first place, and while that has happened, it has been rare precisely because I think most store owners will trade their merchandise for their lives and aren't willing to lose their lives to defend their property.

However during the Rodney King riots and various other major riots we've definitely had shopkeepers defend their stores successfully by brandishing guns or even shooting looters. I don't know of any instances in America in which an armed shopkeeper defending against looters was ripped apart by an unarmed crowd angered that he had fired upon them. Instead it seems like the looters do exactly what I said when faced with such a prospect: they go elsewhere, because unless several of them are willing to die they aren't going to get in that store, and collectively there is no way to say for sure you won't be the one to get shot.

I have noticed that immigrant entrepreneurs tend to be the ones who defend their stores the most vehemently. I think this is often because they operate on razor thin margins, probably have inadequate insurance coverage, have no safety net, and are essentially fighting for their families to not be put out on the streets when they defend their business.

Tom Tildrum
08-10-2011, 10:01 AM
I live in SW Ohio, and the nearest secure facility I can go is to a nearby Masonic temple, The building is solid stone and concrete with 1-inch thick steel rebar spaced 4 inches apart. It would take some heavy firepower to break through that. The front doors are large and of heavy oak, and the back doors are of solid steel....

Why limit yourself? If you've got the armament to get in there, it seems like you could go wherever the hell you wanted.

El_Kabong
08-10-2011, 10:04 AM
No, not at all. The two most important responsibilities of any government are to protect its people from outside violent threat and to maintain civil order within its borders. These are the ancient reasons that governments were instituted; without civil order no other rights can meaningfully exist, and in response to violent insurrections and riots the rioters can no longer be viewed as part of society but instead as an active infection threatening all of society. Government must respond with immediate force in these situations.

'Infection'. Nice.

Er, no it doesn't, not necessarily. In any event, I have been under the perhaps mistaken impression that wholesale extrajudicial killing over loss of property is generally frowned upon in this society. I'm pretty sure that's the case in the UK as well.

Koxinga
08-10-2011, 10:07 AM
However during the Rodney King riots and various other major riots we've definitely had shopkeepers defend their stores successfully by brandishing guns or even shooting looters. I don't know of any instances in America in which an armed shopkeeper defending against looters was ripped apart by an unarmed crowd angered that he had fired upon them. Instead it seems like the looters do exactly what I said when faced with such a prospect: they go elsewhere, because unless several of them are willing to die they aren't going to get in that store, and collectively there is no way to say for sure you won't be the one to get shot.

I have noticed that immigrant entrepreneurs tend to be the ones who defend their stores the most vehemently. I think this is often because they operate on razor thin margins, probably have inadequate insurance coverage, have no safety net, and are essentially fighting for their families to not be put out on the streets when they defend their business.

Specifically Korean shop owners: I knew there was some conflict centering around their community at that time (the 1992 riots) but until today I had no idea to what extent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Riots_and_the_Korean-American_community):

During the riots, many Koreans from throughout the area rushed to Koreatown, heeding a call put out on Korean-language radio stations for volunteer security guards. There was a lot of activity to protect the Korean businesses, especially in Koreatown. Many Koreans had weapons, including but not limited to: shotguns, AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-47-style rifles, and semi-automatic Uzis. . . .

One of the most iconic and controversial television images of the violence was a scene of two Korean merchants firing pistols repeatedly at roving looters. The New York Times said, "that the image seemed to speak of race war, and of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

Qin Shi Huangdi
08-10-2011, 10:15 AM
A lot of people were saying the same thing that hot afternoon in L.A. on April 29, 1992.

Back then crime was at an all-time high, there was far more lack of understanding on all sides, and so on and so on.

Americans are typically submissive and passive, they can be abused and exploited without resistance to a far greater extent than the citizens of most other countries. Usually, they blame themselves rather than whoever is victimizing them.

In other words they're more law-abiding and unlikely to riot and loot just because some benefits got cut or the other person won the election (as in France in 2007)
For now. That can change.

It was just as accurate to say that the US was "socially stable" and had avoided riots for 20 years before the Rodney King LA riots, but - oops, there goes LA. Except your assertion that there were no riots "for 20 years" is wrong. 1981 and 1983 are the only years since 1960 that didn't have a riot in Wikipedia's list, and given how spotty Wiki is, you can't be sure 81 and 83 were all that peaceful.


Most of these riots really were no more damaging or violent than bar fights like say the rather violent protests in Oakland last year. It barely gets covered and most people outside of the city where it occurred forget about it.

Not to mention US rioters are more likely to be heavily armed than UK rioters, and past experience shows at least some of them will return fire rather than run.

Perhaps but in the end the police will enjoy the advantages of professionalism and especially if the SWAT team or the National Guard is called in overwhelming firepower.

Specifically Korean shop owners: I knew there was some conflict centering around their community at that time (the 1992 riots) but until today I had no idea to what extent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Riots_and_the_Korean-American_community):

:cool::cool::cool:

Koxinga
08-10-2011, 10:25 AM
:cool::cool::cool:

You make me sick sometimes Curtis. Here's the reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latasha_Harlins) the Korean American community feared they'd come under attack: a 51 year old Korean shopkeeper lady had shot an innocent black teenage girl in the back of the head just two weeks before the Rodney King incident. Korean shopkeeper lady was given five years probation for that.

I mean shit, guy, what's wrong with you?

Qin Shi Huangdi
08-10-2011, 10:27 AM
You make me sick sometimes Curtis. Here's the reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latasha_Harlins) the Korean American community feared they'd come under attack: a 51 year old Korean shopkeeper lady had shot an innocent black teenage girl in the back of the head just two weeks before the Rodney King incident.

I mean shit, guy, what's wrong with you?

I don't approve of that certainly. I just approve of the idea of shopowners defending their property and livelihoods.

Koxinga
08-10-2011, 10:31 AM
I don't approve of that certainly. I just approve of the idea of shopowners defending their property and livelihoods.

Which is exactly what the 51 year old Korean shopkeeper thought she was doing.

guizot
08-10-2011, 10:40 AM
Back then crime was at an all-time high, there was far more lack of understanding on all sides, and so on and so on.The rise in crime at that time was almost entirely gang related. However, the violence of the rioting itself was not exclusively gang-linked. As for "understanding," I can assure you that it's still not where it should be. The Black-Korean Alliance disbanded only six months after the riots. And the Koreans were more symbolic, than anything, because they owned so many markets. A lot of those have been sold to--yes, you guessed it--Middle-Eastern families. ("Yeah, you know, like those Persians who destroyed the World Trade Centers.")

Still, I'm also inclined to say the same thing: The situation--in L.A., at least--is not as tense as it was at that time. There are a few more supermarkets and banks in the areas where the riots ignited. But I'd never rule it out.

Marley23
08-10-2011, 10:45 AM
You make me sick sometimes Curtis. Here's the reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latasha_Harlins) the Korean American community feared they'd come under attack: a 51 year old Korean shopkeeper lady had shot an innocent black teenage girl in the back of the head just two weeks before the Rodney King incident. Korean shopkeeper lady was given five years probation for that.

I mean shit, guy, what's wrong with you?
This isn't appropriate for GD, Koxinga. The rule here is "attack the argument, not the poster." Keep this kind of thing in the Pit in the future.

Koxinga
08-10-2011, 10:55 AM
All right, sorry about that.

Kobal2
08-10-2011, 11:09 AM
I think they were actually, and that was a very common thing. If you read the history of any European country, you will see many, many, many riots where the rioters essentially wanted to fuck things up and get the King's attention. It was exceptionally rare for most of European history for these riots to have designs on removing a person from the throne. Instead they were a means of the lower classes to attack a system with enough vigor to get the attention of the powerful elites that ran things. There is a difference between wanting to act against the King in order to get his attention versus trying to actually remove him from the throne. For whatever reason many disaffected peasants up until the 19th century tended to believe their Kings were intrinsically good, and that bad policies were typically the result of bad ministers and that if they rioted hard enough the King would see the poor quality of the ministers who had messed things up and replace them.

When you have no real political power, only through violence can you express dissatisfaction, and I think that was what the Parisians were doing. It wasn't until fairly late in the game that people decided they really wanted the King gone for real. Until the King tried to flee the country I think there was still a better than not chance that Louis XVI could have remained as a constitutional monarch if he had wanted. Instead he refused to legitimately support any compromise, begrudgingly going along with what he felt he had to and then essentially committing treason against the country the moment he got a chance (of course under the law he probably was incapable of committing treason since he was the King.)

Yes, I said that (or I tried to, though my point might have been lost in my usual meanderings). The blokes who took the Bastille weren't true believers ready to die for a cause, and they weren't in it to change the regime. They just wanted to scream loud enough to be heard from up the ivory tower. And it's only later, when the smoke cleared that they were hit by the collective realization that went something like:
- WOOOOO !
- woooooo ?
- um.. maybe we took things a little too far, man
- Oh crap. We're going to get in real trouble over this, aren't we ?
- unless...
- Fuck it. In for a penny, in for a pound.

that they turned from revolting to revolutionizing. Different line of work altogether, even though the latter is always nested in the former.

To get back to the original discussion, I have no idea what's going on in London right now, whether it's just a bunch of chavs tearing things up, a Greek-style political protest, just general chaos sparking from a tiny local beef and spreading on its own momentum or any other kind of riot. But any of those has the potential to turn into an Historical Event, if it goes on long and far enough.
Few of them do, but each one of them could have.

In the hypothetical we are positing a store owner who has barricaded himself inside his store to defend against a riot. For someone to do such a thing means they more or less must be willing to eventually have their store stormed and themselves killed going out in a blaze of glory, otherwise why would they even be there at all? It isn't like most shopkeepers live in their store, if they were especially concerned about their safety they wouldn't be there in the first place.

The rioters on the other hand are going to be opportunist looters. You don't loot a store with an armed gunman inside of it when there are dozens of other stores in walking distance with no one inside of them at all to stop you.

Well, not if we're positing a Bastille Day hypothetical, where the crowd went for the national guard armouries specifically to get themselves strapped in preparation for the next event.

Of course, in Americafuckyeah, I presume looters and rioters would already come with their own handguns. But if the crowd suddenly decided to go from revolting to revolutionizing, then they would need ways to fight the State for real. Which means they'd want more, bigger, better guns all around. Ammo too. And that would mean either raiding one gun store after the other, or the local National Guard/Army/Air Force base.

Which option seems easier to you ? The at-best-one-guy-per-store civilian one, or the whole base full of trained killers one ?

If anything is outlandish it is perhaps the hypothetical gun store owner being there in the first place, and while that has happened, it has been rare precisely because I think most store owners will trade their merchandise for their lives and aren't willing to lose their lives to defend their property.

Bingo.

Back then crime was at an all-time high, there was far more lack of understanding on all sides, and so on and so on.

You might argue that the socio/ethno/economical classes understand each other better these days, what with the miracle of the Internet, TV and such. Nobody gives much more of a shit now that they did back then though. Fiends are still fiending, pushers are still slinging, cops are still busting heads, ghetto's still the ghetto, people still can't get out of it and City Hall is still looking the other way and pretending it's happening on another planet if it happens at all.
And everybody who's not in the ghetto is OK with that because frankly my dear, who gives a damn ?

Omar Little
08-10-2011, 11:17 AM
Machinegunning a bunch of unarmed brown guys from an attack helicopter is more our style.

This isn't the first time I have heard the assassination of Osama Bin Laden described in this manner.

Bisected8
08-10-2011, 11:27 AM
Untrue - there was a man shot in a car in Croydon a few days ago who has died, and last night three young men apparently part of a neighborhood defense group were run over by a car. Those are just the ones I, an American with nothing more than crappy TV and internet coverage, are aware of, there might be more. This riot has caused deaths along with numerous injuries.

Actually those have been the only fatalities so far. I think the fact that only 4 people have died (one of which was shot by someone who had to be a criminal by definition, the other 3 of which were part of a small crowd that was attacked by a lunatic in a car who may have already been arrested) over 4 days of unrest speaks for itself.

Qin Shi Huangdi
08-10-2011, 11:43 AM
Which is exactly what the 51 year old Korean shopkeeper thought she was doing.

Well I think its pretty obvious if there is a mob outside your store smashing windows and taking any merchandise they see.

Skald the Rhymer
08-10-2011, 11:48 AM
No, the US has avoided any riots for the last twenty years since Rodney King. The US is socially stable despite its economic woes.

Not to mention the US will act far more decisively to suppress rioting.

That's sweet.

Americans are typically submissive and passive, they can be abused and exploited without resistance to a far greater extent than the citizens of most other countries. Usually, they blame themselves rather than whoever is victimizing them.

That is also sweet.

Martin Hyde
08-10-2011, 11:50 AM
You make me sick sometimes Curtis. Here's the reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latasha_Harlins) the Korean American community feared they'd come under attack: a 51 year old Korean shopkeeper lady had shot an innocent black teenage girl in the back of the head just two weeks before the Rodney King incident. Korean shopkeeper lady was given five years probation for that.

I mean shit, guy, what's wrong with you?

I'm not sure I'm following you very well here. Are you saying the Korean-American shop owners were essentially in the wrong during the Rodney King riots? Or am I just not reading you right?

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 11:58 AM
Of course, in Americafuckyeah, I presume looters and rioters would already come with their own handguns. But if the crowd suddenly decided to go from revolting to revolutionizing, then they would need ways to fight the State for real. Which means they'd want more, bigger, better guns all around. Ammo too. And that would mean either raiding one gun store after the other, or the local National Guard/Army/Air Force base.
Historically, even with the availability of fire arms in the US, riots have typically stuck mostly with rocks, sticks, bottles, and other such weapons of opportunity. It's not that guns never appear, they're just not that common.

However, the are exceptions. There have been mob attacks on military armories in the past. During the 1967 Detroit Riot over 2500 guns were looted from shops in the city, and 40 Federal troops spent most of a day pinned down by amateur civilian snipers. Sure, the Feds and the National Guard won in the end, but it really was a brutal couple of days of gunfighting there.

I do find it ironic that the West cheered the "Arab Spring" and the oppressed and poor rising up in the Middle East, but pitch a fit when their own downtrodden hold a riot. After all, Western democracies couldn't possibly have flaws that might lead to rights, given the right spark...

Time for everyone to wake up and smell the coffee. Time are hard, the ones on the bottom are getting squeezed, and some of them now feel the need to push back. We can either get in a mutual shoving match, with escalating violence on both sides (which I expect will be the outcome) or actually try to solve the current problems.

Naturally, we have to get the current situation under control first, but what will be really telling is what happens after the last hooligan is arrested, the last fire put out, and the last broken window boarded up. What happens then determines if there is an aberration or if we get to do it all over again in the near future.

Koxinga
08-10-2011, 12:03 PM
I'm not sure I'm following you very well here. Are you saying the Korean-American shop owners were essentially in the wrong during the Rodney King riots? Or am I just not reading you right?

I mean it was a sad situation all around, that was initially touched off by an innocent girl's death. I'm not saying the shop owners* were wrong necessarily, but multiple :cool::cool::cool: at the situation is kind of galling. Violence begetting violence and all that. There might be some incidents of justified self defense in, say, Ulster, but in view of the overall situation I wouldn't go high-fiving about any of it.

*in the later riot, not the initial incident.

Bisected8
08-10-2011, 12:11 PM
I do find it ironic that the West cheered the "Arab Spring" and the oppressed and poor rising up in the Middle East, but pitch a fit when their own downtrodden hold a riot. After all, Western democracies couldn't possibly have flaws that might lead to rights, given the right spark...

These aren't the downtrodden. Those that have been caught and convicted for looting are of every race, economic group and profession imaginable (just this morning they were showing a 31 year old who works at a primary school leaving court with his face hidden by a broadsheet in shame).

tullsterx
08-10-2011, 12:12 PM
Yes. There has been rioting in the US in the past and there will be more rioting in the future.

And the whole notion that American's are too passive to riot, you're cofusing self-reliance with passivity. I guess you forgot that the US is one of the most warring and violent nations in history, and our past is just filled with riots. My question is, what took them so long?

I think we might see our next riots. . . when/if Obama loses in 2012. . . or when Medicare or other social programs crash. So, probably pretty soon.

Kobal2
08-10-2011, 12:20 PM
I do find it ironic that the West cheered the "Arab Spring" and the oppressed and poor rising up in the Middle East, but pitch a fit when their own downtrodden hold a riot. After all, Western democracies couldn't possibly have flaws that might lead to rights, given the right spark...

Well, that's because those are oppressed albeit noble victims throwing off their corrupt shackles, while these young'uns are uppity, nihilistic punks trying to rock the gravy boat. It's completely different !

Naturally, we have to get the current situation under control first, but what will be really telling is what happens after the last hooligan is arrested, the last fire put out, and the last broken window boarded up. What happens then determines if there is an aberration or if we get to do it all over again in the near future.

*snerk*. Call me cynical, but I wouldn't hold my breath on anything changing. There'll be speeches, there will be call to arms, there might be hasty laws and reforms, hell there might even be a budget in the works for them if the angels are looking down.
6 months, hell, 6 weeks later ? Geez, that old thing again ? Who remembers ? Who even cares any more ? They're not breaking any more windows are they ? Problem solved.
Hey, it worked for the last 6000 years. And when it didn't work, well, it got turned on its head. Then it worked again !

The Tooth
08-10-2011, 02:05 PM
You're out of line here. Knock it off.

I don't see it, but you'se the boss.

ExTank
08-10-2011, 02:49 PM
Under the Insurrection Act of 1807 in response to a State of Insurrection the President may use Federal troops to quell it. This happened in 1967 when Michigan Gov. Romney (father of modern day Presidential candidate) declared such a state and Lyndon Johnson sent Federal troops to clear the streets of Detroit.

Right. But my point is that even in the worst crime-ridden city, no police helicopter has a minigun, or rocket launchers, or anti-vehicle missiles. I'm not even sure if there's a SWAT 'copter anywhere in the U.S. with a machinegun.

marshmallow
08-10-2011, 03:29 PM
Fat people make poor rioters.

ExTank
08-10-2011, 03:29 PM
Good point. Rather, I would stock up on weapons upon moving to the United States in the first place. I would be a fool to share air with the likes of Argent Towers without arming myself preemptively.

Not Jr. Modding here, but why would you feel the need to be armed when "sharing air" with Argent Towers? Are you afraid he'd "go nuts" and shoot you?

Within the context of the thread's general discussion, it's not people like Argent looting shops, burning homes, or attacking people. "Rioting," in other words.

If you, personally, think that you need to be armed around other armed people, that's your personal quirk, and nothing necessarily wrong with that. But yeah, it was kind of an insulting fling at Argent, since you called him out by name. I had thought to respond earlier in this vein, but dropped it without posting.

Like I said, not trying to Jr. Mod. Just trying to help you see how your comment may be construed as insulting.

Omar Little
08-10-2011, 03:46 PM
Fat people make poor rioters.

Watch it...The Tooth got called out for making random comments about other posters here.

Odesio
08-10-2011, 03:56 PM
Watch it...The Tooth got called out for making random comments about other posters here.

No, it's true. I was outraged by what Omar Little said. However, when I tried to vent my rage by throwing a garbage can through a window I got winded and couldn't complete it. Instead, I just went inside and drowned my anger with a gallon of Coca-Cola and some pizza.

I don't think the rioting in London is going to encourage people in the U.S. to riot. I'm sure we'll have a large scale riot at some point in the future though.

Argent Towers
08-10-2011, 04:56 PM
I'm basically saying that people are within their rights to use firearms to protect themselves from rioters. That's it. To some people, apparently that makes me a bad guy.

Here (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TsFXJA9YHlE/TTeIfFOIuVI/AAAAAAAAAQI/VqNzxdhlp5s/s1600/58852252.jpg) is the famous photo of the armed Koreans on the roof during the LA riots.

SecretaryofEvil
08-10-2011, 06:37 PM
Fat people make poor rioters.

Hmmm.... blacks do have a much higher obesity rate than whites in America. Perhaps this is part of some evil conspiracy by The Man to make African Americans too fat to riot?

Qin Shi Huangdi
08-10-2011, 08:15 PM
I do find it ironic that the West cheered the "Arab Spring" and the oppressed and poor rising up in the Middle East, but pitch a fit when their own downtrodden hold a riot. After all, Western democracies couldn't possibly have flaws that might lead to rights, given the right spark...

They can have their grievances addressed in legitimate manner via voting, petititon, peaceful assembly, and so on. This sort of rioting simply encourages an equal and opposite reaction.

Time for everyone to wake up and smell the coffee. Time are hard, the ones on the bottom are getting squeezed, and some of them now feel the need to push back. We can either get in a mutual shoving match, with escalating violence on both sides (which I expect will be the outcome) or actually try to solve the current problems.


Whoever starts the violence is guilty of its effects unless the other side massively overreacts.


Yes. There has been rioting in the US in the past and there will be more rioting in the future.

Why? The US has been socially stable for the last twenty years.

And the whole notion that American's are too passive to riot, you're cofusing self-reliance with passivity. I guess you forgot that the US is one of the most warring and violent nations in history, and our past is just filled with riots. My question is, what took them so long?


Most of our wars have been directed against external enemies.

I think we might see our next riots. . . when/if Obama loses in 2012. . . or when Medicare or other social programs crash. So, probably pretty soon.

You mean just like when there were riots after McCain lost or Gore lost? :rolleyes:

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 08:21 PM
They can have their grievances addressed in legitimate manner via voting, petititon, peaceful assembly, and so on. This sort of rioting simply encourages an equal and opposite reaction.
You do realize that voting, petition, and peaceful assembly do not always work, correct?

Why? The US has been socially stable for the last twenty years.
And I've been alive for nearly 50 now, so I am aware, through my own life experience, that all of American history is not the same as those last 20 years.

In actual fact, while US society has been relatively peaceful for those 20 years no, it is has not, in fact, been "stable". The middle class has been shrinking, for example. There is the whole gay marriage thing, which wasn't even on the table 20 years ago. American society has been undergoing some significant changes.

American society was pretty quiet during the 50's, too - then look at what happened in the 1960's. Of course there can be upheavals again.

In other words, Curtis, go learn some actual history. As has been suggested to you numerous times

Qin Shi Huangdi
08-10-2011, 08:27 PM
You do realize that voting, petition, and peaceful assembly do not always work, correct?


That is true of any democratic or constitutional society: you cannot always have your way.

And I've been alive for nearly 50 now, so I am aware, through my own life experience, that all of American history is not the same as those last 20 years.

In actual fact, while US society has been relatively peaceful for those 20 years no, it is has not, in fact, been "stable". The middle class has been shrinking, for example. There is the whole gay marriage thing, which wasn't even on the table 20 years ago. American society has been undergoing some significant changes.

American society was pretty quiet during the 50's, too - then look at what happened in the 1960's. Of course there can be upheavals again.

In other words, Curtis, go learn some actual history. As has been suggested to you numerous times

I'm not saying its impossible conditions will change, I just don't see it in the forseeable future.

For example with homosexual marriage, neither side is trying to supress the other from expressing their opinion and as a result there are no riots, mass campaigns of civil disobedience, and so on but rather both sides use legal means such as elections and the courts.

Kozmik
08-10-2011, 08:30 PM
I've been watching news coverage of the riots in London. Horrible and frightening images.

You have to wonder are we next? There's a lot of people hurting in this economy. A tremendous amount of anger at government impotence and gridlock.

The scary thing about riots is you never know what will set one off. Social networking has made it even more dangerous. They say the London rioters are organizing this way.

I still remember South Central LA burning after Rodney King. The Watts riots were when I was a very young kid.Bill O'Reilly today compared the LA riots to the UK riots, and he even asked the same quetion you are asking.

A better parallel would be the 1999 WTO protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity).

John Mace
08-10-2011, 08:36 PM
You do realize that voting, petition, and peaceful assembly do not always work, correct?


And I've been alive for nearly 50 now, so I am aware, through my own life experience, that all of American history is not the same as those last 20 years.

In actual fact, while US society has been relatively peaceful for those 20 years no, it is has not, in fact, been "stable". The middle class has been shrinking, for example. There is the whole gay marriage thing, which wasn't even on the table 20 years ago. American society has been undergoing some significant changes.

American society was pretty quiet during the 50's, too - then look at what happened in the 1960's. Of course there can be upheavals again.

In other words, Curtis, go learn some actual history. As has been suggested to you numerous times
You might want to check your history, too. ;)

The 50s saw a lot of civil rights unrest in the US. The Brown decision was in the mid 1950s.

Broomstick
08-10-2011, 09:00 PM
I'm not saying its impossible conditions will change, I just don't see it in the forseeable future.
I do.

And when it happens folks will act surprised and claim it came out of nowhere when, in fact, we've had all these little mob attacks already this year - all it takes it just one blowing up to a larger scale.

For example with homosexual marriage, neither side is trying to supress the other from expressing their opinion and as a result there are no riots, mass campaigns of civil disobedience, and so on but rather both sides use legal means such as elections and the courts.
The hell there isn't attempted suppression - there are campaigns to forbid even the mention of homosexuality, see recent crap in Tennessee that led to this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRkIWB3HIEs). And we only got this far because of such things as the Stonewall riot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots)

You might want to check your history, too. ;)

The 50s saw a lot of civil rights unrest in the US. The Brown decision was in the mid 1950s.
Yes, but not nearly on the scale of the 1960's. The Little Rock Nine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Integration_Crisis) didn't occur until 1957, and even that wasn't a riot but a threatened riot prevented by the presence of the 101st Airborne Division of the US Army. There was was a lot of violence threatened after Brown v Board of Education but it didn't actually erupt until years later.

The roots of the unrest of the 1960's were visible in the 1950's in retrospect, but at the time a lot of folks thought everything was just fine and dandy.

Belowjob2.0
08-10-2011, 11:17 PM
No, the US has avoided any riots for the last twenty years since Rodney King. The US is socially stable despite its economic woes.

Not to mention the US will act far more decisively to suppress rioting.

Not true at all.

http://www.timwise.org/2002/02/riots-of-our-own-the-invisible-whiteness-of-majority-mayhem/

Also, I was in Madison when the (all white) kids rioted at the Mifflin Street Block Party a decade or so ago. These kids were setting massive fires in the street, breaking stuff, and most importantly, attacking the public safety personnel who tried to put the fires out and restore order. The firefighters were just doing their jobs by putting the fires out, but the mobs of drunken white kids attacked them with rocks.

It's readily apparent that it's disappeared down the memory hole with the numerous other instances of sports riots and beer riots and just plain old drunk white kid riots that break out here in the US on a regular basis.

blindboyard
08-11-2011, 02:53 AM
No, not at all. The two most important responsibilities of any government are to protect its people from outside violent threat and to maintain civil order within its borders.

The first duty of government is to restrain it's own actions. They can't stop crimes taking place, but they can stop themselves going around massacring people, and so they should.

Special mention to our moron Home Secretary. "Policing by consensus". What the fuck does that even mean? Talk about fiddling whilst Rome burns, and they're still pushing ahead with the cuts to the police. Unbelievable.

Policing by consensus means that people should want the police to be around, rather than the police taking the role of an oppressive force whose only legitimacy comes from their superior force. Not that they're doing that.

Thatcher pissed people off, too. But she gave the police a raise so she'd have the loyalty of the thugs who could put down any riots or other acts of disobedience to her tyranny. The current government have decided to piss off the police too by laying them off and cutting their hours.

Speaking of the French, Napoleon had the right idea on how to handle rioters. While working for the Directorate he used grapeshot on riots in Paris, and very quickly dispersed the mob. When the people riot the only proper response is to use loudspeakers to enact a curfew until further notice, and to inform the populace that helicopters with miniguns will mow down anyone seen on the streets during the curfew. The riots would end very quickly.

We've learned some things from these here riots. The rioters have had catre blanche for days and how many deaths? Someone shot maybe, a small group run over "defending" their car wash in Birmingham. If some of the people on this thread had their way the streets would be running with blood. The government are talking about new repressive laws. The opposition want people put in prison for being outside after sundown. I'm getting more and more convinced that these rioters are the nicest guys in the country.

Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party
08-11-2011, 04:03 AM
You do realize that voting, petition, and peaceful assembly do not always work, correct?


They do work when they're actually used. Young people in the UK vote less than older people. The young have no right to complain about being disenfranchised.

Revenant Threshold
08-11-2011, 06:36 AM
They do work when they're actually used. Young people in the UK vote less than older people. The young have no right to complain about being disenfranchised. Less does not mean not at all. On those grounds alone, i'm pretty sure either the UK or the U.S. has a higher overall voter turnout; clearly the lower country has no right to complain about being disenfranchised.

Broomstick
08-11-2011, 06:37 AM
Young people just about everywhere vote less than their elders, but it's London that's burning this week, not some other major city. Why is that?

The UK has a problem, that much is obvious. You can either try to hide it under the carpet, or actually take a good hard look at your country and ask why this happened. Not to excuse it, but to figure out the actual source of this problem. Of course, that means facing up to the fact your society is flawed (just like every other society that has ever existed) and maybe making some uncomfortable changes in your own bubble of existence. It might mean admitting that, even if there is a chance a poor youth could climb out of the ghetto that playing field isn't level and there really is a disadvantage to being born in the class on the bottom of society and some of the changes in the UK over the past 20-30 years have impacted some groups more than others, and in negative ways.

If you were playing cards and found out the deck was stacked against you, you'd be angry, wouldn't you? So why are you surprised that there are angry young people when they find out life is stacked against them?

Marley23
08-11-2011, 10:14 AM
I think we might see our next riots. . . when/if Obama loses in 2012. . . or when Medicare or other social programs crash. So, probably pretty soon.

You mean just like when there were riots after McCain lost or Gore lost? :rolleyes:

That's different. You see, Obama has more support from people who are, um, urban, and we know how those people are when they don't get what they want. Right?

This kind of nonsense has been floating around since mid-2008, if not earlier. If I never have to read it again, it'll be too soon.

marshmallow
08-11-2011, 10:17 AM
I think you know where the riots will be ... wherever those that suck at the govt. teet live.

So the south?

Koxinga
08-11-2011, 10:20 AM
Seems to me we have rioting all the time, not on political issues but instead on stupid shit like their team losing a championship, their team winning a championship, or Wal-mart opening a few hours early the day after Thanksgiving.

AndyLee
08-11-2011, 06:48 PM
If you look at Wikipedia's list of riots, you need to make distinction between, types of riots. I don't consider a riot at a football game or college sports event to be on par with the Harlem Race riots or the Rodney King verdict riot. I would also excluse prison riots as they are localized.

ChrisMatthews'ThrillUpHisLeg
08-11-2011, 07:58 PM
So the south?

Definitely in places like Atlanta and New Orleans.

They'll hit the hipster urban areas where unarmed enablers live first.

blindboyard
08-12-2011, 05:45 AM
So the south?

London's in the south. And it's kept afloat by the government being based there, along with the big banks with their massive robbery of the tax payer.

Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party
08-12-2011, 06:12 AM
Less does not mean not at all. On those grounds alone, i'm pretty sure either the UK or the U.S. has a higher overall voter turnout; clearly the lower country has no right to complain about being disenfranchised.

What? Which country is complaining about being disenfranchised, and what does it even mean for a country to be disenfranchised in the first place?


It might mean admitting that, even if there is a chance a poor youth could climb out of the ghetto that playing field isn't level and there really is a disadvantage to being born in the class on the bottom of society and some of the changes in the UK over the past 20-30 years have impacted some groups more than others, and in negative ways.


Why do you keep trying to blame it on poverty and social deprivation without actually establishing that the majority of looters were actually amongst the poorest in the country?

You're aware that there's not a single borough in London that is in the most deprived areas in the UK, right? Eight of the ten most deprived areas in the UK are in the North West of England, which saw limited rioting compared to London, and only on the third day when it was clear that the Police in the capital had lost the plot and given tacit approval for people to go ballistic. Even where the rioting occurred in the North West it wasn't actually in the most deprived areas. We didn't see rioting in the West of Bury or outskirts of Blackpool where the most profound deprivation is found.

Further, only in the UK could we see a riot that was largely organized via Facebook, Twitter and instant messaging services on 300 smart phones be labelled as the result of social deprivation. Anybody with access to Facebook, Twitter or these smartphones doesn't know the meaning of the word social deprivation or poverty. It makes a mockery of the words for them to be used in this fashion.

Finally, we're seeing professionals, students, and so on, appear before the courts. How the hell does this fit your narrative? It seems you've latched on to a pet explanation and no amount of contrary evidence is going to shake you from your conviction that this is about social deprivation.

Broomstick
08-12-2011, 06:45 AM
Why do you keep trying to blame it on poverty and social deprivation without actually establishing that the majority of looters were actually amongst the poorest in the country?
Because until yesterday morning I simply did not have the information on who is being brought before the courts. I am now changing my mind based on new information but apparently you'd rather keep dredging up my statements (and those of others) from earlier in the week when no one could know what we know now. I don't think there's ever been a riot before where so many of the participants were positively identified and brought before the court, and certainly not so swiftly. That is to the credit of the UK police, as well as the abundance of CCTV and cellphone cameras.

You're aware that there's not a single borough in London that is in the most deprived areas in the UK, right? Eight of the ten most deprived areas in the UK are in the North West of England, which saw limited rioting compared to London, and only on the third day when it was clear that the Police in the capital had lost the plot and given tacit approval for people to go ballistic.
Based upon past history of riots, while it is common for it to be in the most blighted areas that not always the case - some of the worst rioting in the US in the 1960's occurred not in the worst slums but elsewhere. However, again, you're criticizing people on a message board where most of the participants have likely never been to Britain, much less London, and thus do not have your intimate knowledge of the place. I suppose you can rail at them if it makes you happy - or you can try to educate them. Entirely your choice.

Anybody with access to Facebook, Twitter or these smartphones doesn't know the meaning of the word social deprivation or poverty. It makes a mockery of the words for them to be used in this fashion.
I made all of $12,000 last year - around 7,414 pounds - to support two people and unlike the British poor we receive no housing aid or cash from our government. Yet here I sit on the internet, and my spouse has a Facebook account, and we could easily be on Twitter if we chose, and I have a cellphone that could be on the internet although I turned that option off (and I had to choose to do it, because the default is "on").

So, contrary to what you choose to believe, yes, it is entirely possible for the poor to be on the social networks. Facebook and Twitter are free once you can get on the internet. Admittedly the PC I use for the internet isn't terribly portable, not do I have the latest iPhone, but I'm hardly cut off. Where do we poor slobs get these things? Well, I got my PC back when I was employed and had money. Lots of people donate their old cellphones to various charities when they upgrade, at least over here, and quite a few of them wind up in the hands of the poor. I don't know about the UK, but not only are the prices of the lower end electronics coming down - which all could handle social network sites - but there is also a brisk trade in used gear which is, of course, much cheaper than cutting edge.

It's as if someone sees a poor person driving a car and goes "OMG! How can that poor person afford a CAR? My god, do you know how much a new BMW costs?" when, in fact, said poor person is driving a 15 year old Toyota. I keep seeing this over and over (and it's not directed solely at you) even as others point out this is not 1998 anymore and the technology is now accessible to almost anyone to one degree or another.

Finally, we're seeing professionals, students, and so on, appear before the courts. How the hell does this fit your narrative?
This wasn't seen until Thursday over here - so presumably it was Wednesday over in the UK when this was first seen. Are you looking at the dates on the posts you're objecting to? If they were made Monday or Tuesday those people didn't know then what we know now. If they were after the information was broadcast, well, feel free to keep swinging away I suppose.

SecondJudith
08-12-2011, 06:49 AM
Further, only in the UK could we see a riot that was largely organized via Facebook, Twitter and instant messaging services on 300 smart phones be labelled as the result of social deprivation. Anybody with access to Facebook, Twitter or these smartphones doesn't know the meaning of the word social deprivation or poverty.

What is with this meme that using social networking is a sign of being well-off? I agree that it seems a lot of looters have been from middle-class backgrounds, and are likely opportunists. "Access to Facebook and Twitter" was still free last time I checked. The internet doesn't charge, and neither of those services have fees. This isn't the 1990s, when having a computer or mobile phone was expensive or said something about class. Everyone has potential access to the internet and nearly everyone has a mobile phone.

I don't think there's ever been a riot before where so many of the participants were positively identified and brought before the court, and certainly not so swiftly. That is to the credit of the UK police, as well as the abundance of CCTV and cellphone cameras.

Absolutely.

BrainGlutton
08-12-2011, 11:37 AM
Do rioters ever accomplish anything, anyway, beyond damaging their own neighborhoods? What's the point?

lisacurl
08-12-2011, 11:44 AM
It's way too hot in most of the country to riot right now.

Damuri Ajashi
08-15-2011, 02:19 PM
Trying to pretend life is like a first person shooter game and fight 50 to 1 odds is indeed "playing Rambo".


In America? I'd expect most of them to have at least one gun. So thousands, not hundreds.

We don't have to guess. During teh LA riots, folks had guns, rioters and shokeepers alike and generally speaking, the rioters didn't rush into crossfire waving their guns, there were plenty of soft targets that weren't protected by snipers on top of minimalls.

Riots are a symptom of something seriously fucked up in society, it is not the righteous expression of the people's will and outrage.

Damuri Ajashi
08-15-2011, 02:36 PM
When you have no real political power, only through violence can you express dissatisfaction, and I think that was what the Parisians were doing.

and do you think its possible taht this is at least in part what is going on in the UK?

I have noticed that immigrant entrepreneurs tend to be the ones who defend their stores the most vehemently. I think this is often because they operate on razor thin margins, probably have inadequate insurance coverage, have no safety net, and are essentially fighting for their families to not be put out on the streets when they defend their business.

I was there during the LA riots and a large part of what made the Koreans self police was when they saw all the cop cars driving through their burning neighborhoods to go protect places like beverly hills. It quickly became obvious that they were on their own and a call went out to the korean community (many of whom served in the military here or in Korea) to come to come to Koreatown and to bring your guns. Koreatown doesn't operate on razorthin margins, their customers are largely the korean commnuity and a cup of coffee can cost you $10 in koreatown. Koreatown is not uninsurable. They just didn't want the cultural epicenter of their community torched.

Agent Foxtrot
08-15-2011, 02:55 PM
Rioting - is the U.S. next?

God, I hope so.

Damuri Ajashi
08-15-2011, 03:06 PM
You make me sick sometimes Curtis. Here's the reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latasha_Harlins) the Korean American community feared they'd come under attack: a 51 year old Korean shopkeeper lady had shot an innocent black teenage girl in the back of the head just two weeks before the Rodney King incident. Korean shopkeeper lady was given five years probation for that.

I mean shit, guy, what's wrong with you?

Bad blood had been brewing between the black and korean community in LA for a while.

The Latasha Harlin decision was a fucking travesty but the tension had been there for for a long time. Part of it was resentment by a poor perpetual underclass watching yet another immigrant community run past them chasing the American dream. Part of it was the perception among the black community that saw Korean liquor store owners selling alcohol to blacks and giving nothing back to the community other than more alcoholics. Part of it was the perception among koreans who were basically dealing with drunks and junkies all day that this was somehow representative of the black community's population.

Half the koreans wanted to reach out to other ethnic commmunities after the LA riots and the other half wanted to start a race war, both camps bought guns.

Plumbkrazy
08-15-2011, 03:15 PM
Do rioters ever accomplish anything, anyway, beyond damaging their own neighborhoods? What's the point?

In most cases, not much...just like a child throwing a tantrum and breaking one of his own toys in the process.

SecretaryofEvil
08-18-2011, 04:03 PM
Since reasons why people riot was being discussed, I can't resist linking to this cracked.com article.

"The 5 most embarrassing things angry mobs have rioted over."

http://www.cracked.com/article_19348_the-5-most-embarrassing-things-angry-mobs-have-rioted-over.html

gonzomax
08-18-2011, 05:18 PM
Do rioters ever accomplish anything, anyway, beyond damaging their own neighborhoods? What's the point?

Rapid redistribution of wealth.

medstar
08-18-2011, 09:15 PM
The first duty of government is to restrain it's own actions. They can't stop crimes taking place, but they can stop themselves going around massacring people, and so they should.



Policing by consensus means that people should want the police to be around, rather than the police taking the role of an oppressive force whose only legitimacy comes from their superior force. Not that they're doing that.

Thatcher pissed people off, too. But she gave the police a raise so she'd have the loyalty of the thugs who could put down any riots or other acts of disobedience to her tyranny. The current government have decided to piss off the police too by laying them off and cutting their hours.



We've learned some things from these here riots. The rioters have had catre blanche for days and how many deaths? Someone shot maybe, a small group run over "defending" their car wash in Birmingham. If some of the people on this thread had their way the streets would be running with blood. The government are talking about new repressive laws. The opposition want people put in prison for being outside after sundown. I'm getting more and more convinced that these rioters are the nicest guys in the country.

I've been reading accounts of unbelievable acts of violence in these riots--one story said that rioters forced some "posh" people to strip naked in the streets, and then stole their clothes and accessories. I didn't get any other details. Has anyone else seen this story and have further information to share?