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

131–140 of 144 posts

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#131

Post by semanticist »

Blarat wrote: post #129
atomicdog wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering this whole situation was sparked off by armed police firing on a man who (apparently) hadn't fired on them, things could get real ugly if more armed police are added to the equation.

the reports I read said there was a gunfight, so I guess the police got shot at too. But that story might have changed?

The most recent reports I've seen said that two shots had been fired: one was lodged in a police radio in a police car, the other killed the suspect.

The bullet recovered from the radio matched ammunition issued to the Met., and was likely fired by them, not the suspect.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#132

Post by pbhjpbhj »

polshaw wrote: post #32
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears a known criminal (gangs, drug-dealing) with a loaded handgun was shot by police while resisting arrest; he may or may not have shot a police officer [first] at the time of his arrest ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/a-dead-man-a-cruc... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8687403... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/mark-duggan-profile...

relevant to note that subsequent rioting has had little to do with this. (more general) anger towards the police, along with opportunistic looting.

>(more general) anger towards the police

So if it's not gangs trying to violent show their power then what is the motivation in your opinion? Why sudden anger towards the police _from the general populus_?

FWIW the buzz appears to be "send in the troops" rather than this being in any way justified demonstration (like maybe G8 demonstrations).

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#133

Post by baguasquirrel »

waitwhat wrote: post #126
baguasquirrel wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever dude. Just ask anyone who grew up in anything resembling a ghetto. There's lots of us who begin to think that shooting rioters on sight is not a bad idea. Where do you think Boondock Saints came from? Honestly, at some point, you just get sick of the shit and you want it to stop, and solutions like the military become appealing. And therein lies the problem. We know it's inhumane. We know it degrades us furt…

Where do you think Boondock Saints came from? Hollywood. Where do you think they're from? Please leave cinematic fantasies where they belong: on the other side of the silver screen.

I was pointing out why people think the way they do. No need to get condescending or shoot the messenger here. More than that, you are merely being pedantic.

It makes little difference that Hollywood made it when it was people who made a cult out of it.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#134

Post by baguasquirrel »

Jach wrote: post #68
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."

Good point, we can both find cases where violent response "works" or "doesn't work".

I don't think the military shot anyone. There is a paradox here and it's that the military response would put the republic in danger if it indeed turned violent. But the mere presence of the military put the riots down. As others have pointed out in this thread, the rioters are largely opportunists. They won't stand up to the army, but it is regrettable to society at large that the army had to be deployed to begin with.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#135

Post by waitwhat »

baguasquirrel wrote: post #133
waitwhat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you think Boondock Saints came from? Hollywood. Where do you think they're from? Please leave cinematic fantasies where they belong: on the other side of the silver screen.

I was pointing out why people think the way they do. No need to get condescending or shoot the messenger here. More than that, you are merely being pedantic. It makes little difference that Hollywood made it when it was people who made a cult out of it.

Pointing out that your (literal) fantasy is not reality is hardly being pedantic. In fact it worries me that this even seems to be necessary.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#136

Post by rickmb »

temphn wrote: post #114
rickmb wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good thing that in the real world, we have people in charge with some restraint. Which is why most riots in the West end without bloodshed, shots fired or the military being abused to fight it's own citizens. Order is rarely restored through some short-sighted power-fantasy that disregards the value of human lives. But lots of dictatorships started that way though. And often with the best of intentions.

Ok. So youths are burning a building across the street from your apartment. And it's a dictatorship if you want men with guns to stop them from doing this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14446548 Here's a video of British police without guns running from rioters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pcbiO4flY And take a look at what the rioters are doing on Youtube. Some would submit that the people with the "power fantasy…

May I respectfully inquire as to how old you are? At the risk of sounding like an arrogant old fart, you act like you've never seen riots before.

These things have happened many times in the past, they usually burn themselves out after a few days and very, very rarely cost lives. This "anarchy" is very temporary. The odds of this evolving into a permanent state or a broad revolution are about zero.

Your idea of "plausible immediate threat" does not match decades of history.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#137

Post by jamesbritt »

adimitrov wrote: post #127
jamesbritt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is difficult for me to stay objective when it comes to gun possession, because I'm strongly anti-guns, and I can't seem to even begin to understand Americans' attitudes on the subject, but I'll give it my best shot: Remember what was the "cause"[1] for these riots? A person got shot. The situation is already out of control, but if half the rioters and half the citizens and all of the police were carrying guns, I h…

These are people fighting people. Any guns would be evenly distributed among the defenders and the attackers, and thus not serve to end or cool the conflict, but further exacerbate the situation.

This may be apples to oranges, but during the Los Angles riots that came about after the Rodney King verdict, while some rioters had guns they were way overwhelmed by the fire-power of people defending their property (mostly Koreans protecting their stores).

For whatever reasons some people view gun control they way others view drug control; that is, if something is available then oh-my-god everyone will have/use it. But it just doesn't play out like that.

For example, here in Arizona it is easy to get a gun. Many people have them, but I'd be surprised if they make up the majority, and we don't have routine daily gun fights here.

My anecdotal observations aren't going to explain any complex social dynamics, but some conjectures put forth in this discussion do not seem to be based in data or experience.

One thing that - to me, at least - has always been obvious is a direct proportional relation between guns and violence. Less guns, less violence; more guns more violence. Weapons are a catalyst for violence.

Switzerland.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#138

Post by Daniel_Newby »

hashbo wrote: post #90
jamesbritt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them.

The trouble is that anyone with basic machine tools can make some pretty fancy weapons, and the career criminals by definition will make them with impunity. Hence the saying that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#139

Post by Daniel_Newby »

Jach wrote: post #66
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…

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…

Because using force to restore order has worked so well for Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria?

A lot of that unrest is because of rent-a-mobs hired by military juntas. "Force" does not work because it is not supposed to.

IIRC, one of the accomplishments of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution was to intercept busloads of rent-a-mobs and pour immense amounts of free booze into them before the opposition figured out what was going on.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#140

Post by temphn »

waitwhat wrote: post #107
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…

If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. You do realise what "shot on sight" means, right? Dead. Forever. No takebacks. If you really think that summary execution is a reasonable response to throwing a brick through a window, shouting at people in a scary way, or nicking a couple of packets of cigarettes then you are officially an Internet Crazy Person.

They're setting fire to buildings and cars and throwing bricks at people's faces. Arson has historically been considered one of the most serious of crimes because of the frequency with which fires spiral out of control, especially in a densely populated metropolis like London.

Look at the pictures. Still want to contend that the severity of what is going is equivalent to nicking a pack of cigarettes?

Post reply on HN