Smoke screen?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

edinburgher wrote: »

So we counter this by actually killing them, just in case?

What a load of crap.

If a man tries to stab you in the street, do you want to use all available force to stop him? Or would you rather wait for him to actually kill you first......

The test for using deadly force in self defence, defence of others, or policing, and not being convicted of a crime, is pretty much the same all over the world.

"Would a reasonable person, be in reasonable fear of their life or grievous bodily harm, or the life or grievous bodily harm of others?"

I don't think there's any doubt that is the case here....

If a rioter is trying to set fire to a block of flats where families are sleeping, he should be shot. If a rioter is trying to hit a policeman over the head with a concrete block, he should be shot. If a rioter is threatening to kill a shopkeeper with a knife, he should be shot.

There is a time and place to use the maximum possible level of force to immediately stop acts which represent an imminent threat to the life of others.

If you're setting fire to buildings where people are sleeping, you've crossed that threshold IMO.

ILW

Shooting them could be used as a kind of culling process for the good of the greater society.

If an individual is masked up in the middle of a Currys that is being looted, it would be doing a favour to society if they were just put out of everybody elses misery.

edinburgher

If a man tries to stab you in the street, do you want to use all available force to stop him? Or would you rather wait for him to actually kill you first......

But I'd argue that a moron who sets a carpet store/whatever on fire not realising that there's residential properties above it isn't the same as someone who's about to stab you in the street. I'm not saying that all the individuals involved are simply seeking to damage buildings - some of them might be murderous thugs.

Anyway, I think we have an excellent police force who will strive hard to strike the right balance between striking hard with non lethal means where required, or moving people on when they're just 'sightseeing' idiots caught up in a crowd.

Think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, as you're not going to convince me that shooting people on sight is a good idea

tomterm8

I think the law is pretty good on this. You can take any reasonable force necessary to protect your property or family. Shooting people in the back when they are running away is wrong. Shooting them in the front when they are attacking you, to protect yourself, is right. Investigating the circumstances to make sure the force used is reasonable, is right.

Water cannons and rubber bullets on people rioting is OK, since these methods are predominantly nonlethal (they can kill or injure, but this isn't the intention)

The reality is, the police tactics are designed for a different type of rioting. The kind we saw today was much more similar to the 1930's than the riots in living memory. Small group of people distributed all over london, fading away when the police appear, and popping up somwhere else makes water cannons and rubber bullets much less effective. I mean, there just aren't enough people to be everywhere.

ffacoffipawb

edinburgher wrote: »

I never claimed to be all-knowing!

Nobody can ever accuse you of that.

chucknorris

My dog has come up with a solution, he said he would lick the innocent and bite the guilty, problem solved.

nickmason

edinburgher wrote: »

But we're not talking about homes, we're talking about high street shops with insurance.

Given what's going in the markets at the moment, I find the idea that insurance makes it less of a social problem rather odd.

If someone has insurance then that is for their purposes, to reduce risk; not to allow what's going on to be a victimless crime ultimately covered by somebody/nobody/everybody else. We will all pay for this, apart from those doing it.

Not to mention the fact that insurance does not cover everything - for instance the sense of violation and insecurity that persist long after the event.

edinburgher

Nobody can ever accuse you of that.

Ummm... ok?

Given what's going in the markets at the moment, I find the idea that insurance makes it less of a social problem rather odd.

I never said that - I said insurance means that it's not worth shooting people looting/attacking businesses. Very different things.

tomterm8

This is a riot, so insurance companies will not cover it. The state pays compensation. Which means, all taxpayers will have to pay for it. I can think of better things to spend my money on than this. Like schools, libraries or hospitals.

chucknorris

nickmason wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that insurance does not cover everything - for instance the sense of violation and insecurity that persist long after the event.

That is true, my first house was broken into twice when I was away studying for my degree. Every time I came home and put the key into the door I always thought I hope I haven't been burgled again.

Shortly afterwards one night I was woken up by a noise in the garden and thought wow they have come back. I got the putter from under my bed and sneaked into the garden, I heard the noise from behind the shed and leapt out ready to hit them, but it turned out to be a hedgehog! I was amazed that a hedgehog could have made enough noise to wake me up.