![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo, rampaging mobs in London have been forced to turn and run when confronted by chaps waving hockey sticks and cricket stumps. Even Millwall residents who were completely unarmed were sufficient to deter some looters who turned up on their patch - one wonders how well the citizens of London would be able to keep law and order given the proper training and some decent kit.
But, the Brits have also got a petition in the air about repealing the ban on capital punishment. So, should we judicially execute people? A writer on the Times letter page, claiming to work for an organisation called Amicus, says that in the USA, the States that have the death penalty have a higher murder rate per capita than the states that have banned executions. True or false, guys? Tell us if you know.
But, if rioting in the UK continues to be a feature of daily life, then it may be that cops and even civilians may have to resort to lethal force to stop rampaging looters. So, I want to ponder the rights and wrongs of ordering troops to open fire. Of taking out an aggressor with a lethal blow from a baseball bat or similar.
It may even be necessary to declare a State of Emergency in a future crisis. If looters and rioters do not disperse, I am happy for a Home Secretary to issue orders for rioters to be shot at with live ammo, or for looters to be shot on sight. I just wonder if this may be counter productive, or what other effective means there are of preventing looting.
Guns are not on sale to the public (yet) but if they became available, would I use one? Permit their use by police or troops if I were in office? Whereas executions have little value as a deterrent, the use of hot lead or cold steel may well be effective in clearing a street of rioters. If it were absolutely needed to prevent mobs from setting fire to buildings, I would be happy to give the order, or to open fire myself, if need be.
Certainly, as recent experience has shown, the use of Wooden Hand Weapons (WHWs) is very effective against rampaging mobs. These people are mainly opportunists and have a reputation of fleeing rather than standing their ground when confronted by the righteous anger of the local people. I am therefore more in favour of allowing the people in the community the right to carry WHWs or any other Effective Weapons to deter rioters, muggers and other ne'er do wells, rather than arming the police or calling upon the Troops.
So long as we accept that we are only prepared to kill as a last resort, and that any citizens out on patrol on the streets are competently led by someone in authority with the necessary training, and that they have the means to capture and hand over any suspects to the Civil Powers, I don't see any problems in allowing citizens to police their own areas. Nor should we deter people from stepping up to defend their property or fellow citizens when confronted with Anti Social Elements. Britain has got too many criminals already. Perhaps a few going home in body bags is something that we should accept as the price of having a safe space to live and work.
Volunteers should be encouraged to come forward and receive training in first aid, traffic control, assisting with the aftermath of natural disasters, as well as riot control and civil defence. A bounty could be paid to them and Civil Guard created that would ease the workload on the police. certain features, like volunteers and First Aid Training already exist in the UK. What I propose it simply to widen its scope. The bounty paid would ease the welfare budget, and give people a more useful role in society than just drawing a welfare cheque. Volunteers should be suitably kitted out with proper batons, helmets and riot shields, of course, as well as proper uniforms and anything else needed to protect and serve the community.
Obviously, America and other countries have more experience of this sort of thing already. I just wonder how this works out in practice.
But, the Brits have also got a petition in the air about repealing the ban on capital punishment. So, should we judicially execute people? A writer on the Times letter page, claiming to work for an organisation called Amicus, says that in the USA, the States that have the death penalty have a higher murder rate per capita than the states that have banned executions. True or false, guys? Tell us if you know.
But, if rioting in the UK continues to be a feature of daily life, then it may be that cops and even civilians may have to resort to lethal force to stop rampaging looters. So, I want to ponder the rights and wrongs of ordering troops to open fire. Of taking out an aggressor with a lethal blow from a baseball bat or similar.
It may even be necessary to declare a State of Emergency in a future crisis. If looters and rioters do not disperse, I am happy for a Home Secretary to issue orders for rioters to be shot at with live ammo, or for looters to be shot on sight. I just wonder if this may be counter productive, or what other effective means there are of preventing looting.
Guns are not on sale to the public (yet) but if they became available, would I use one? Permit their use by police or troops if I were in office? Whereas executions have little value as a deterrent, the use of hot lead or cold steel may well be effective in clearing a street of rioters. If it were absolutely needed to prevent mobs from setting fire to buildings, I would be happy to give the order, or to open fire myself, if need be.
Certainly, as recent experience has shown, the use of Wooden Hand Weapons (WHWs) is very effective against rampaging mobs. These people are mainly opportunists and have a reputation of fleeing rather than standing their ground when confronted by the righteous anger of the local people. I am therefore more in favour of allowing the people in the community the right to carry WHWs or any other Effective Weapons to deter rioters, muggers and other ne'er do wells, rather than arming the police or calling upon the Troops.
So long as we accept that we are only prepared to kill as a last resort, and that any citizens out on patrol on the streets are competently led by someone in authority with the necessary training, and that they have the means to capture and hand over any suspects to the Civil Powers, I don't see any problems in allowing citizens to police their own areas. Nor should we deter people from stepping up to defend their property or fellow citizens when confronted with Anti Social Elements. Britain has got too many criminals already. Perhaps a few going home in body bags is something that we should accept as the price of having a safe space to live and work.
Volunteers should be encouraged to come forward and receive training in first aid, traffic control, assisting with the aftermath of natural disasters, as well as riot control and civil defence. A bounty could be paid to them and Civil Guard created that would ease the workload on the police. certain features, like volunteers and First Aid Training already exist in the UK. What I propose it simply to widen its scope. The bounty paid would ease the welfare budget, and give people a more useful role in society than just drawing a welfare cheque. Volunteers should be suitably kitted out with proper batons, helmets and riot shields, of course, as well as proper uniforms and anything else needed to protect and serve the community.
Obviously, America and other countries have more experience of this sort of thing already. I just wonder how this works out in practice.
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/11 11:05 (UTC)However, a group of guys waving shot guns at rioters does pose questions about the safety of the bystanders and people indoors on the other side of the street.
I don't want to damage my neighbour's car, or get anyone caught up in cross fire. I would not want a buck ball going past a rioter and smashing a window up the street.
For these reasons , I prefer the idea of groups of people having recourse to proper riot kit like shields and helmets as well as training. this all available from the Local Civil Defence depot, or whatever we call it.
Citizen volunteers would of course be allowed to sign out and take home their kit, but only after probation. Citizens could also co ordinate with transport and fire services by radio and other means. Riot control would be a mere part of the training - it would cover first aid, legal training , traffic control and thus only those who were already qualified in other areas would be entrusted to riot control.
it would not be about letting yobs join up and get tuition in combat training for free.