Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

London riots / UK riots: verified areas

maps.google.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#81

Post by diogenescynic »

temphn wrote: post #67
Jach wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because using force to restore order has worked so well for Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria? Or are you implying that London citizens are pussies and will stand down where the other countries' citizens didn't/aren't? I highly doubt escalating will solve anything, but who knows. Ed: Wrote this too quickly without thinking enough on it. I don't think violent response is the answer, but given the nature of the situatio…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#The_riot... "The riots, beginning in the evening after the verdicts, peaked in intensity over the next two days, but ultimately continued for several days. A curfew and deployment of the National Guard began to control the situation; eventually U.S. Army soldiers and United States Marines were ordered to the city to quell disorder as well."

I agree that you're right in your example, however I think this was only accepted and allowed to occur because it was in largely black neighborhoods where they deployed the military. They were already an 'other' of sorts so the general population saw them as a foreign threat that they didn't identify with and thus used military force against a criminal threat. It's the same as Katrina/New Orleans.

And to repeat my other comment: Military is supposed to protect a country from outside (military) attackers, police are supposed to protect from domestic (criminal) threats. When you make the military the police you make citizens the enemy the state of their own country.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#82

Post by barrkel »

reader5000 wrote: post #31
Fargren wrote: post #28

I'm almost embarrassed to ask, but why is this happening? I read that this started saturday as a protest against a policeman who shot someone, but that doesn't seem to be what the protests is about now. The sources I checked don't reach any kind of consensus.

It's not native Britons rioting, largely it is young members of immigrant communities. However, given the apparent youth of the rioters I doubt racial politics is a significant issue here. It appears to indeed be rioting for the sake of rioting.

I've seen plenty of perfectly white skin in the crowds, though not necessarily on their faces, of course.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#83

Post by jamesbritt »

ottbot wrote: post #51
SandB0x wrote: post #14

I'm in my flat in NW2 and I can hear police cars going down the Edgware Road. Fucking terrifying. The police can't keep up, according to the news they're showing up hours late to everything and they don't have any water cannons. Bad times. Edit: #riotcleanup tomorrow morning all over town: http://twitter.com/#!/search/riotcleanup

It's very frustrating knowing the police can do little to contain or manage the situation, and we're completely at the mercy of rioters as to what will happen next or when it will stop. A group of 30-40 of them went up my street, smashing cars, and started congregating out front, all holding glass bottles -- this just when reports of homes being broken into started coming out. Absolutely horrifying, luckily something…

Isn't anybody there armed? Is it illegal to use a weapon to defend your home?

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#84

Post by diogenescynic »

Mz wrote: post #80
diogenescynic wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military is also supposed to protect a country from outside (military) attackers, police are supposed to protect from domestic (criminal) threats. When you make the military the police you make citizens the enemy the state of their own country.

The military has more functions than that and is very effectively mobilized to assist in disasters, such as fires and floods. My ex participated in such things. Still, the point you make (about it making your own citizens "enemies of the state") is a chilling one and I can't really rebut it per se.

I agree with everything you're saying about helping out in disasters, but when you mix military and police, it's just unhealthy. They have different goals/functions and can't/shouldn't be used interchangeably. Military and criminal threats should not be responded to in the same way. Rioters are criminals, let the police handle it. And if the police incapable of doing so, that is a separate problem in and of itself.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#85

Post by hartror »

Mz wrote: post #63
temphn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…

Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."

This reminds me of the 1998 movie The Siege. Terrorists are bombing New York and the politicians are discussing bringing in the army to hunt them down. Bruce Willis is a hard ass general and this is what he has to say on the subject:

"Make no mistake, Senator. We will hunt down the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy. And no card-carrying member of the ACLU is more dead set against it than I am. Which is why I urge you - I implore you. Do not consider this as an option."

"There is historically nothing more corrosive to the morale of a population than policing its own citizens."

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#86

Post by Mz »

diogenescynic wrote: post #81
temphn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#The_riot... "The riots, beginning in the evening after the verdicts, peaked in intensity over the next two days, but ultimately continued for several days. A curfew and deployment of the National Guard began to control the situation; eventually U.S. Army soldiers and United States Marines were ordered to the city to quell disorder as well."

I agree that you're right in your example, however I think this was only accepted and allowed to occur because it was in largely black neighborhoods where they deployed the military. They were already an 'other' of sorts so the general population saw them as a foreign threat that they didn't identify with and thus used military force against a criminal threat. It's the same as Katrina/New Orleans. And to repeat my ot…

I suspect the real reason it was acceptable to call in the military is because fairly high numbers of people had already died (and thousands were injured and the property damage was very high). Killing a few more to actually stop it becomes more palatable in the face of something like that.

Excerpt from the wikipedia article:

Fifty-three people died during the riots[24] with as many as 2,000 people injured. Estimates of the material losses vary between about $800 million and $1 billion. Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings, with fire calls coming once every minute at some points. Widespread looting also occurred. Stores owned by Korean and other Asian immigrants were widely targeted,[25] although stores owned by Caucasians and African Americans were targeted by rioters as well.

And it indicates Hispanics likely played a larger role than blacks:

Half of all riot arrestees and more than a third of those killed during the violence were Hispanic.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#87

Post by hashbo »

Mz wrote: post #75
willyt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and we've been there before, quite recently actually. See Bloody Sunday on wikipedia. Paratroopers killed 13 people at peaceful demo when they mistakenly thought they had come under fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Though I wouldn't call the 1970's "quite recently", similarly, the US had four deaths of protesters in 1970, known as The Kent State Shootings or Kent State Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Depends how old you are mate :-)

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#88

Post by willyt »

bokonist wrote: post #79
techiferous wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. I find that really hard to relate to, although I do see this in some people. I wonder if these people have ever had the thrill of creation--birthing something beautiful and unique into the world? That's quite a rush, too. Are riots ultimately a symptom of a failure to educate, to guide, to nurture?

I think the thrill of the riot is pretty widespread. I myself am a pretty staid, law abiding, non-violent fellow. But I definitely feel the urge - whether its wanting to destroy my tennis racket after losing a game or wanting to participate in post-victory riots that I've witnessed first hand. But the thing that holds me back are a) fear of getting in trouble and b) my conscience. My mom brought me up with a very str…

Also, more than likely you would lose your job and professional standing if you got busted for looting. This is a pretty big disincentive for you. But for the looters it's kudos.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#89

Post by tvon »

hartror wrote: post #85
Mz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."

This reminds me of the 1998 movie The Siege. Terrorists are bombing New York and the politicians are discussing bringing in the army to hunt them down. Bruce Willis is a hard ass general and this is what he has to say on the subject: "Make no mistake, Senator. We will hunt down the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy. And no card-carrying member of the ACLU is more dead set against it than I am.…

Another line that is spot on, IMO, from Battlestar Galactica:

> "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

So, I guess the screenwriters guild gets it...

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#90

Post by hashbo »

jamesbritt wrote: post #83
ottbot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very frustrating knowing the police can do little to contain or manage the situation, and we're completely at the mercy of rioters as to what will happen next or when it will stop. A group of 30-40 of them went up my street, smashing cars, and started congregating out front, all holding glass bottles -- this just when reports of homes being broken into started coming out. Absolutely horrifying, luckily something…

Isn't anybody there armed? Is it illegal to use a weapon to defend your home?

Hey James, no they aren’t thank God!

Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed. It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them. I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-(

And the illegal to use a weapon to defend yourself is a legal situation in transition in the UK. So if you take away the ‘armed’ part as you did, James, then the answer is no, not yet.

Post reply on HN