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 ...
And............the evidence against him presented in a court of law and the jury that decided he deserved the death penalty immediately??????????? Or does that not matter.
Was the dead guy in possession of a firearm?
Was the gun the dead guy’s or the cabbie’s?
And the law that authorizes harming them as opposed to arresting them?
There was a firearm in the car, in which there were the dead man and another person, the driver. That’s all we know for certain as yet.
No Cap I wouldn’t offer them a cup of coffee, in fact.
I could shoot someone threatening me with harm or I could wait for the po po to demonstrate their legendary courage and arrest the rioter. However, you know when you need the po po in a second, they are minutes away, and at any rate, they are more interested in making a report than in tackling a rioter, so don’t expect them until the event is overwith.
Yeah. True. the rioters are criminals. But where is the law that says you can harm them? You can arrest them adn take them to trial.
You are right; all I know is what was reported by our integrity filled journalistic corps. Same as you.
You would shoot them , but the police can’t?
So do I understand you correctly that you are advocating mass murder of rioters?
what if the rioter requires the consent of police surrender?
what do they do play simon says to the death?
If you allow the government to put down a riot by harming rioters, no one’s rights are safe including yours.
Act like feral, rabid animals and we will PUT YOU DOWN like feral, rabid animals.
Nope you are wrong
So, in your scenario, riots cannot be put down by any means that have teeth.
So the riots, in short, cannot be put down.
Which means total anarchy: Murder, robbery, rape, arson, looting.
And you are okay with all that.
what are you babbling about , first you say anarchy is not “allowable” then you say citizens can overthrow a government...your thoughts are all jumbled up
But I have two problems with it: 1) It's from The Guardian. 2) The article's so poorly written that I'm not sure who it is that's not making any sense: the reporter, the cops, the community organizers, or any/all of the above.
Yo are free to believe whatever you want, however the facts support what I said.
Stopping certain felonies-in-progress with deadly force has been legal for citizens and police since America was founded.
You are right; all I know is what was reported by our integrity filled journalistic corps. Same as you.1. Again, I hope you're being sarcastic, though I fear you're not (regarding integrity and journalism).
2. Wrong regarding "same as you".
I am not saying anything about how this started. You're the only one jumping to conclusions on that one.
What I AM saying is that it has to be stopped, REGARDLESS of how it started, and REGARDLESS of what it takes to stop it.
I'm not basing that statement on the murky account of something that happened days ago and is now beyond our ability to witness or analyze at this time. I'm basing that on what THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING right now. Which is: London is burning. London is under attack. The attackers are OBVIOUSLY thuggish criminals out to line their pockets with loot regardless of who they trample on and who they destroy.
Have you seen the pictures?
Have you seen the pictures?
Have you seen the pictures?
Thank Heavens you have been graced with good sense
Dude, I *went* to your article. The best you have is that there are some DOUBTS. No FACTS, but DOUBTS.
Correct me if I hae misundertood your suggested remedy ....to shoot them all?
I said I could shoot “a rioter” if threatened or I could wait for the po po. You are not smart trying to change my words....
Per reports: He was being tailed by the police. He spotted the police. He pointed a weapon at police. He got shot by the police. Happens all the time in the US, especially when the police have certainty that the person pointing a weapon at them is a gang banger.
If somebody looking like Duggan, with the dress and mannerisms of a gang-banger pointed a gun in my direction, I would have shot him without hesitation as well, and I'm a civilian.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic aobu tintegrity filled journalistic corps, should have said so, sorry.
Yeah I have seen the pics.
Yeah it needs to end, but how? Let it play out? Shoot them dead (which, I might add, is COMPLETELY ILLEGAL). Decisions decisions
not legal, I must say
Whether or not it was loaded or actually able to fire, being known to police as a gang-banger and then pointing what appears to be a pistol at them, is prime Darwin Award stupidity.
This comes from someone who believes in a nation of laws, not men.
It may be difficult, it may be expensisve, it may be a challenge, but government has to act legally or it loses all credibility. Killing rioters and looters is NOT LEGAL
Police get so antsy. They could have got him tomorrow.
Incorrect. When Martial Law is extant, such as in the declaration of a State of Emergency, it is 100% legal to shoot to kill looters.
But only at home, not on the street? If that's the case, color me confused.
In most parts of the US, deadly force is authorized for the purpose of stopping violent felonies, which specifically includes arson. The correct amount of force is the amount of force which is needed to stop the criminals. If things quiet down after 10% are shot, then fine.
wow. Are you advocating martial law?
Perhaps in England. By US standards, if that's what's needed to stop the aggression, no.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.