8 ms·

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 showin

by SandB0x 15y ago

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 http://twitter.com/#!/search/riotcleanup

ottbot 15y ago
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 spooked them and they moved up the street.
- nkassis 15y ago
  I don't know how tight the community but could the residents organize to protect the areas? A little like what the Egyptians were doing? Blocking roads and letting only residents pass?
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  Isn't anybody there armed? Is it illegal to use a weapon to defend your home?
  - hashbo 15y ago
    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.
    - jamesbritt 15y ago
      Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed." Aren't they? At least some of them? And those that aren't carrying guns, might it be that they're mostly opportunistic looters who generally wouldn't be carrying anyway? "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. Well, but that's true of any weapon. "I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-(" Well, it shows that different cultures have different problems that are not easily equatable. Not to dismiss the obvious issues with gun violence in the USA, but are you sure that the right set of gun control laws allowing private ownership would lead to the same results in the UK as in the USA? Gun deaths per capita is not a universal ratio.
    - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
      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.
  - geboyr 15y ago
    Apparently most of the police do not carry guns as well. I saw that it was questioned earlier if some of the forces being used to maintain order are now carrying guns, but I don't think there was a definitive answer. The Metropolitan police might(?)
    - estel 15y ago
      Firearms are only carried by limited numbers of specially trained units, and will likely only be deployed if there is reason to suspect that they're going against other armed individuals. Tasers have recently been more widely issued across most forces.
    - atomicdog 15y ago
      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.
      - Blarat 15y ago
        the reports I read said there was a gunfight, so I guess the police got shot at too. But that story might have changed?
        semanticist 15y ago
        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.
  - thegyppo 15y ago
    Unfortunately English law around intruders in the home is quite vague and very different from the Castle Doctrine laws in the USA 'As the law currently stands, a person in possession can use no more force than they reasonably believe necessary to remove a trespasser from the premises' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property People have been convicted of using force against intruders in their home. However, a group of angry rioters is somewhat different.
  - adimitrov 15y ago
    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 honestly think London would be a war zone right now. 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. 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. Any mob is better than an armed mob. Arming the citizens would be arming the mob, since the mob actually consists of citizens. I do not think guns would help anybody. I don't even think that guns would help the police. I'm glad the police are not using arms against the mob. And yes, if I had to choose between somebody breaking into my house and stealing/breaking everything, and having a gunfight with said person, I'd choose the former, without even blinking. Call me meek, but I'd rather lose my livelihood than my life. Where I come from, health is always valued more than possessions. ---- [1] I know "cause" is not the right word. The shot drug dealer wasn't any more a cause for the riots than Helena's rapture by Paris was a cause for the Trojan siege. Doesn't mean that the Trojans would have been wise to counteract the Greeks by abducting more women. The mob is taking it as a primary reason to run amok, and more people getting killed would add more anger.
    - jamesbritt 15y ago
      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.
temphn 15y ago
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. Just proves the point that those who would actually use force to restore order will be called out as "committing police brutality."
- Mz 15y ago
  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."
  - willyt 15y ago
    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) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
    - Mz 15y ago
      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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
      - willyt 15y ago
        I suppose I meant 'quite recently' in that I would never have imagined that something like Bloody Sunday could happen in a modern 1st world democracy, until we studied it in Modern History at school. To put it in context, the next most recent military action against UK civilians was the Peterloo massacre in 1819. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

by SandB0x 15y ago

ottbot 15y ago

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 spooked them and they moved up the street.

nkassis 15y ago
I don't know how tight the community but could the residents organize to protect the areas? A little like what the Egyptians were doing? Blocking roads and letting only residents pass?
jamesbritt 15y ago
Isn't anybody there armed? Is it illegal to use a weapon to defend your home?
- hashbo 15y ago
  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.
  - jamesbritt 15y ago
    Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed." Aren't they? At least some of them? And those that aren't carrying guns, might it be that they're mostly opportunistic looters who generally wouldn't be carrying anyway? "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. Well, but that's true of any weapon. "I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-(" Well, it shows that different cultures have different problems that are not easily equatable. Not to dismiss the obvious issues with gun violence in the USA, but are you sure that the right set of gun control laws allowing private ownership would lead to the same results in the UK as in the USA? Gun deaths per capita is not a universal ratio.
  - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
    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.
- geboyr 15y ago
  Apparently most of the police do not carry guns as well. I saw that it was questioned earlier if some of the forces being used to maintain order are now carrying guns, but I don't think there was a definitive answer. The Metropolitan police might(?)
  - estel 15y ago
    Firearms are only carried by limited numbers of specially trained units, and will likely only be deployed if there is reason to suspect that they're going against other armed individuals. Tasers have recently been more widely issued across most forces.
  - atomicdog 15y ago
    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.
    - Blarat 15y ago
      the reports I read said there was a gunfight, so I guess the police got shot at too. But that story might have changed?
      - semanticist 15y ago
        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.
- thegyppo 15y ago
  Unfortunately English law around intruders in the home is quite vague and very different from the Castle Doctrine laws in the USA 'As the law currently stands, a person in possession can use no more force than they reasonably believe necessary to remove a trespasser from the premises' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property People have been convicted of using force against intruders in their home. However, a group of angry rioters is somewhat different.
- adimitrov 15y ago
  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 honestly think London would be a war zone right now. 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. 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. Any mob is better than an armed mob. Arming the citizens would be arming the mob, since the mob actually consists of citizens. I do not think guns would help anybody. I don't even think that guns would help the police. I'm glad the police are not using arms against the mob. And yes, if I had to choose between somebody breaking into my house and stealing/breaking everything, and having a gunfight with said person, I'd choose the former, without even blinking. Call me meek, but I'd rather lose my livelihood than my life. Where I come from, health is always valued more than possessions. ---- [1] I know "cause" is not the right word. The shot drug dealer wasn't any more a cause for the riots than Helena's rapture by Paris was a cause for the Trojan siege. Doesn't mean that the Trojans would have been wise to counteract the Greeks by abducting more women. The mob is taking it as a primary reason to run amok, and more people getting killed would add more anger.
  - jamesbritt 15y ago
    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.

temphn 15y ago

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. Just proves the point that those who would actually use force to restore order will be called out as "committing police brutality."

Mz 15y ago
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."
- willyt 15y ago
  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) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
  - Mz 15y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
    - willyt 15y ago
      I suppose I meant 'quite recently' in that I would never have imagined that something like Bloody Sunday could happen in a modern 1st world democracy, until we studied it in Modern History at school. To put it in context, the next most recent military action against UK civilians was the Peterloo massacre in 1819. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre