Skip to comments.We don't do water cannon, we rely on consent ( Theresa May, Home Secretary UK)
Posted on 08/09/2011 5:14:02 AM PDT by expat1000
Vigilantes were forced onto the streets last night to protect their homes and businesses after police failed to materialise at many of the scenes of looting and violence which swept across London.
As officers lost control of the streets locals were forced to take the law into their own hands, arming themselves with sticks and chasing looters away from their properties.
In Dalston and Hackney, north-east London, Turkish shopkeepers and their families fought back against looting youths, before spending the night standing shoulder-to-shoulder in an attempt to deter further attacks. One man said: 'This is Turkish Kurdish area. They come to our shops and we fight them with sticks.' Despite increasing calls for the police to get tough with the rioters, Home Secretary Theresa May today sparked anger as she appeared to dismiss the notions that water cannons and even the Army could be used to ensure violent scenes are not repeated tonight.
As police were slammed for appearing to let looters run riot under their noses, Mrs May instead advocated a more softly-softly approach.
She said: 'The way we police in Britain is not through use of water cannon. The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Guess what, confused.
Yeah, you have more right to protect yourself at home than out prowling in the public arena.
However, even in the public arena, you have a right to self defense.
I thought the guardian was a leftwing rag.
I'd say that's a clear example that your statement is utterly false.
Well, they could start with WATER CANON. Which is the subject of this thread, and which the NUMBSKULL who is quoted in the text of the posted article of this thread doesn’t want to use.
Now, I’m not saying you’re going to do a LOT with water canon, but it would show at least an ounce of resolve, which is about a billion times heavier than what’s been shown so far.
As far as what’s legal and what’s not legal:
a) I’m not taking your word for that since you’ve shown yourself totally unreliable on such judgments when you jumped to the conclusion that the cops “shot someone in the back”
b) What’s legal or not legal is not what you and I have been “discussing” here, is it? You’ve been promoting the thesis that this is somehow the fault of the police. I have been attacking that thesis. Neither one of us has yet offered any solution. All I’ve done is express outrage at 1) what the rioters are doing, 2) what the response of the top levels of the British government is, and 3) [not so important, I admit] your bizarre statements regarding all this.
In LONDON, where these riots are insane and getting crazier?
Then anyone who kills an assailant while being attacked won’t be prosecuted?
Thanks for posting #143. That is excellent.
I take back what I just posted. Water canon is BULL SH*T.
Shoot all looters.
Shoot to kill.
(I only mentioned water canon because the powers that be won’t even go THAT far.)
Hmmm. Cricket bats not the sporting good of choice. Go figger.
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basisusually only temporarywhen the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain orderMartial law is appropriate when things have gotten beyond the ability of regular police and courts to control.
They could get pictures of the perps.
Society exists with mutually agreed upon norms of acceptable behavior. Burning homes, shops ,cars looting pillaging & plundering are NOT the accepted norms of behavior.
Refusing to force those engaged in those behaviors to cease & desist with all possible speed endangers society’s well being, force will be needed to stop the anti social behavior & the longer it takes to bring that force to bear the harder it will be to succeed. Also more force will be needed to restore order .
You do not treat cancer with gum drops you use chemo & radiation & sometimes even surgery for the purposes of amputation. The anti social behavior is metastasizing to other cities besides London because the Home Secretary refused to allow the police to do the needed work in the needed way.
In mob violence the folks doing the rioting have decided that for a while they don’t want to be civilized & that means as far as they are concerned the law of the jungle is in effect.
The longer that idea is allowed to run amok in the streets the greater the harm to the rest of civil society. Wishful thinking about reasoning with a violent mob is just that wishful thinking ! Trials/investigating committees/etc require that order in the streets be restored otherwise they don’t happen period.
The law is when you want to use violence to overwhelm society, violence will be used against you to stop you!
The law of self-defense.
Pardon me sam
I never ever indicated someone was shot “in the back” hello. I said the coppers shot someone they were trying to arrest and they should have waited for another day to arrest him...
You didn’t SAY he was shot on the back but you certainly IMPLIED it. Read your own words again. Post#53 in this thread.
On yldstrk's homepage he says he's a lawyer. I'm going to guess criminal defense lawyer?
That option went out the window the moment the guy saw the cops were tailing him. If they didn't arrest him right there, he would have fled and gone to a safe-house. It especially went out the window when the cops saw he had a weapon. If they had permitted him to escape, and he later used the weapon to kill somebody, you would probably argue that the cops were negligent for letting him go.