Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ilikekicks

Help Me Understand Please..

Recommended Posts

Theres been some riots lately. I understand the ' need ' to protest or demonstrate, but I need an ' insight ' and im hoping someone here could explain the side of the situation I dont recognize ( at all ).

A ( supposed ) Law Enforcement person shoots someone in Ferguson. The people in that neighborhood loot and burn down the businesses in the area. Mind everyone, those business owners are ( more then likely ) from that area. They didnt shoot anyone or beat anyone up. But their businesses and those employed there ( IE: people from that neighborhood ) are now financially done. They had nothing to do with anything and now they have to rebuild their own lives because a group of people needed to be unlawful and harm others.

Now there are riots in Berkley California. A ' white liberal ' city. The college students there come from what most would call ' privileged ' families whom posses quite a bit of wealth. NOBODY was killed in their neighborhood nor on their campus , yet they are looting ( why? They can buy whatever they wish as their parents all have money! ), trashing the neighborhood and harming others.

Again, the businesses and the employees of those are now jeopardized.

Can someone give me just one explanation as to how this could be justified by any means?

I could see having a confrontation with the Law Enforcement agencies in NYC and Ferguson. I could see calling for the heads of those Officers and Officials whom supported them in these acts. I could even see a calling for bad-givings towards the jury members whom let the Law Enforcement people go. They were all part of the ' process ' that these people despised the acts and decisions of. I can see a relation there to go with.. But the neighborhoods themselves?

To me, it would seem, these rioters and anarchists ( they arent protestors by any means when they start throwing bricks and becoming violent ) are all on the wrong page and arent bright at all.

Thoughts?

-ILK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"PACK" mentality! To be honist that scares the whatsits out of me. Thugs out to make trouble with no care or thought of the future.

"oh lets do over the food store",  what happens if it never reopens afterwards?

A couple of years back a big "demo" in central London turned nasty and gave Prince Charles and Camilla in their unescorted car a very bad time.

A lot of bad press obviously but a big security panic after the event.

 

As to why other areas find an excuss to follow suit without reason? I have no clue, probably ask many of the crowd afterwards they would answer "don't know".

 

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communities follow suit because they want to appear tougher than the areas where the initial riots have occurred. Mostly it is white middle class youths who want to be thought of as "street". Most don't even know (or care) what the riot is actually about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no justification for looting. Considering the way certain media outlets lean I can see why people get upset, on both sides. MSNBC/CNN cover the story with one slant, which gets one side aggravated, and fox news covers it with another slant, annoying the other side. 

 

We are being played by the media for their profit. We no longer get news, we get commentary. No one seems to give out facts without a slant anymore.

 

This is one reason I liked XM radio's foreign news station before elections. I suspect the Polish news service cared who had the majority in Congress or Senate ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is with the ' blanket ' types. I see what happened in NYC and Ferguson as 2 different events. I actually believe ALL of these police shootings to be separate incidents and NOT a ' mass happening '.

The guy in NYC had a long list of times that he and the police had confrontations. They took him in before. They knew he had some medical problems. They knew him by name and knew what he was doing. With the ' known ' being present, how fast can a 300+pound lard-ass guy ( face it, the guy was a huge donut, far from what could be called an in-shape type ) get off the ground after being taken down. 4 policemen were present.. they guy wasnt armed..

Why did they have to choke him to death? I just dont understand it.

Im being told by ( now former ) associates in the city it was for a certain reason. The same reason Mike Brown was killed.

I see a HUGE difference. Brown knocked off a store with a friend ( whom also lied/perjured himself and should face charges IMO ), confronted a police officer with violence, and then was shot.

Its a totally different situation of events. The Guy in NYC didnt rob anybody. He didnt take a swing at anyone. I would go as far as to say he wasnt harming anyone and wasnt violent by any means at all. He just wanted to be left alone. Brown on the other hand had some problems and attitudes that cost him his life.

There was another event in Cleveland where police shot a 12 yr old kid whom was waving around a toy gun. The police werent on the scene 3 seconds before they fired. Seriously? Really? A 12 yr old kid?

Is there an over-agressive mentality with Law Enforcement? It depends on who you are and if they know you. In most incidents I will say the officers I dont know ( for the most part ) have this false ' alpha male ' mentality about them.

I dont feel whats being stated is the real problem with whats going on. Its multiple things. Between cops being too aggressive and these ' animals ' wrecking their own neighborhoods, theres no honest way to lame blame at one sides feet or the other.. yet some have chosen to do so.

Its very sad and its not going to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy in New York was reported to be selling boot leg cigarettes. New York has large tax on smokes so there is a big black market in cigs. The cops were trying to arest hem for that activity. The reason there were so many cops there is they had been called becuase there was a fight and this guy happened to be there, so they were trying to take him in. Now you can argue that the crime in pretty minor, but he could have simply let the cops cuff him and take him in, but nope, gotta resist. IMO the choke hold did not kill him. It was the four cops taking him down and sitting on him, plus that fact that he was in poor health. I am not going to argue that the cops used excessive force, cripes the guy must have weighed 400 pounds and wasmaybe 6'5 tall, a big sucker, and from the videos I have seen he was not going in easy.

 

To me it is pretty simple. The guy broke the law, the cops came to arest him, he resisted, and died. He would still be alive if he had just weent in easy.

 

As for all the riots, it is just plain stupid. Why would you loot and burn your own city? Blacks want to be treated fairly then they do stupid stuff like this. They do it to themslves. The reaction at Fergerson has not helped the blacks cause at all, and probably has set them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plain stupidity, that simple. You can't fix stupid, legally.

 

 

You beat me to it - -

 

I don't understand the mentality at all. I really don't think a conviction in the Ferguson case would really make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The three who died as a result of police action in Ferguson, NYC and Cleveland. All died because of their own stupidity.

 

Ferguson - If you charge a cop, you will be shot.

NYC - If you resist arrest and are not in the physical condition to do so, you might die trying to resist.

Cleveland - If you pull a gun on a cop, you will be shot.

 

Why these cases are even news is beyond me. (not really)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two kids who would still be alive today if the cops were unarmed like they are in the UK... ;)

Details please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for all the riots, it is just plain stupid. Why would you loot and burn your own city? Blacks want to be treated fairly then they do stupid stuff like this. They do it to themslves. The reaction at Fergerson has not helped the blacks cause at all, and probably has set them back.

Its not just ' Blacks '. All those rich white kids in Berkley University. SURELY they arent ' ghetto ' or ' underprivileged '. 50g's a year to go to a school that has all these ' higher standards '. I dont wish to say they are ' stupid ' but they sure do act it.

  

You beat me to it - -

 

I don't understand the mentality at all. I really don't think a conviction in the Ferguson case would really make a difference.

Neither do I. Thus, my asking for some kind of explanation. Its not color, gender, ethnic making or even ' social status ' as its everything from rich white kids to poor ghetto blacks doing it.

  

The three who died as a result of police action in Ferguson, NYC and Cleveland. All died because of their own stupidity.

 

Ferguson - If you charge a cop, you will be shot.

NYC - If you resist arrest and are not in the physical condition to do so, you might die trying to resist.

Cleveland - If you pull a gun on a cop, you will be shot.

 

Why these cases are even news is beyond me. (not really)

Cleveland is a bit different IMO :

http://news.yahoo.com/mom-boy-shot-police-wants-officer-convicted-170235340.html

"Tamir Rice was fatally shot Nov. 22 when officers responded to a 911 call about someone with a gun at a playground. Surveillance video shows the boy being shot within 2 seconds of a patrol car stopping near him.

Samaria Rice said at a news conference Monday that a friend had given her son the airsoft gun, which shot nonlethal plastic pellets."

I have problems with the way the media is presenting what happened in Cleveland.

For starters, anyone can go to youtube and look up airsoft searches and see that airsoft ' toy guns ' can kill small game. Woodchucks, turkeys, possums, racoons, birds/foul, chickens. I dont believe in the use of the term ' toy gun ' as even a ' toy ' can be used for training for a real firearm. Some of those ' toys ' look and function as the real thing. They are made of the same materials and even have a similar weight. From a few feet away, *I* couldnt tell the difference and I ALWAYS have a firearm on me when Im out on the farm. I'm not some ' average ' person, but someone whom is always in the vicinity of a firearm.

What bothers me isnt the fact that the kid had such an item. There are warnings and age suggestions in regards to having such a ' toy '. Why a parent would allow a 12 year old to have one is a definite sign of stupidity on their part. Then to allow their child to take it to a park where theres other children? Toy or not, our eyes and ears can easily be damaged by such a thing!

2 seconds after arrival the kid is dead. Shot twice from very close range.

Again, its tough to distinguish a ' toy ' like that from the real thing even just a few feet away. 2 seconds and they opened fire?

Why not stop 20-30 feet back, get behind the car for cover and tell the kid to lay down his ' gun ' before blasting him?

Cops with all their body armor and military grade equipment have to gun down a kid that quickly?

Details please?

The " Bobbies " ( cops ) in the U.K. arent armed. They have a night-stick, maybe a sap and not much else. They have ' special ' teams of officers that take care of the more violent situations whom are equipped with firearms and the other things our normal law enforcement has on average.

Their Officers dont have to deal with the concentrations of thuggary that our nation has. They dont have a Detroit ( known as the murder capitol of the world for many years ). They dont have a South Central L.A. They dont have a Bronx N.Y., Camden N.J. , South Philly or areas where just being the wrong ethnic making or looking at someone wrong will bring about a slaughter of somekind.

They have a lot of stabbings and blunt force trauma's from differing melee type encounters. Violence per capita isnt much different but as the U.K. is now saturating with Foreigners whom dont obey their laws, their crime rates are starting to gain momentum.

Sure, they have Liverpool, South Manchester and small areas in/near London that have higher rates of crime then the rest of their nation combined, but its NOTHING like the inner-city areas we have in the States. We also have 340million people to their 64ish million. Were 5 times the size with 10-20 more large cities where these things happen.

To put it into perspective, if we took the number of illegals in the U.S. , and added in those in the U.S. on welfare/social services, it would surpass ( or be very close to.. ) the U.K.'s total population.

If someone took the top 3 of this list--> http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/and added them up, that would be equal to all of the U.K.'s in comparison. Theres 97 others to go on that list still..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ILK makes a very fair point.  For all we speak the same language, there's no comparison.  We in Britain can feel blessed that we have an unarmed police force. That speaks volumes about our society.  It doesn't mean pace the good Doctor, that our way works for everyone.  But if you have a police force that can shoot you, you want them well trained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an effort to offer somewhat of an answer to the chosen topic, I kind of did a bit of random brainstorming. In general, we've seem to have lost our love and respect for our fellowman/neighbors. We have developed a social process that assisted us to form habits of having someone else take care of us. We tend to live beyond our means and wonder why we can't have it immediately when we decide we want it. The stresses we seem to self-inflict just to keep up with others is causing some to over-load. A lot of people live in a social-economic climate that is considered a state of poverty with financial demands to give more then they have. This makes it seem that a few financial savvy experts have taken from the poor to buy the pie in the sky and then look down on the less fortunate. Community pride has been replaced with welfare systems that lends itself to lying and cheating to obtain all the morsels possible without feeling the responsibility to replenish the system. It is perceived that most of our officials, leaders, and neighbors have received their status through conniving and unscrupulous means. Many of our laws were made to control rather than to lead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to ILK's last comments in response to Shafted's  'Details please?':

 

Yes, the British police do have armed response units who are highly trained but they have accidents too. Innocent people have been hurt or killed by the police in the UK, but it obviously doesn't attract the worldwide press. UK based members of this site should recognise the name Stephen Lawrence... Our police are also now issue with Tasers, the miss-use of which have been blamed for a number of deaths over the last few years.

 

My apologies for getting on my high horse & I sincerely do not intend to upset or offend anyone, but the following needs to be said. This is MY opinion only based on what I have seen, dealt with & observed. It may help ILK understand but it may not...

 

We in the UK may be lucky enough not at present have situations comparable with Detroit, South Central LA, Bronx NY, Camden NJ or a South Philly, but does anyone remember the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland, (& in particular Belfast), in the 1970's/80's? I believe it was named the 'troubles' as the UK government of the early 1970's would not dare admit to being at war in their own territory. I had the pleasure of serving in the British Army back then & did three tough tours of N Ireland in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In the process of trying to keep the peace we were shot at, bombed, mortared & stoned on a regular basis. We also had to try to police massive riots as each side goaded the other by trying to march through each other's area of the city. Women spat in our faces as we carried out foot patrols & children as young as five years old threw stones & bricks at us. A couple of my mates were injured by debris in 1977 when a chest freezer was hurled at their patrol from the top floor of a block of flats. I also lost several good friends out there, one of whom was raising money for disadvantaged catholic children by doing a 'fun run' when his minibus was blown to bits on the way home in Lisburn in 1988. All I could find of him in the burning wreckage was one of his legs still attached to his trainer - after the fun run we had raced each other to the minibus & he won. I got in the bus behind.

 

As far as we were concerned Belfast was a normal British city on a par with London, Glasgow, Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Southampton, Edinburgh or Sheffield, so please don't say that our police have never had to deal with situations like the current day problems in the USA. Having dealt with the emergency services on numerous occasions, I know for a fact that the RUC had 'observers' attached to them from mainland police forces, & that a lot of today's high ranking police officers have served on attachments in Northern Ireland.

 

During the 1970's-80's Sinn Fein/PIRA were financially backed by 'normal' American citizens, (allies of the UK I believe), who contributed heavily to the Sinn Fein/PIRA coffers. I know this happened for a fact, as I was on leave with three mates in a packed bar in San Francisco in 1979 when a guy came round shaking a collection box. He cheerfully rattled his tin & asked everyone: 'Dollar for a British soldier's life?' Nearly everyone in the bar donated lots of notes & all their loose change. When he eventually got to us he ended up unconscious with a broken nose, devoid of his collection box while the rest of the people in the bar stood by, looked away & did nothing.

 

It's only since 9/11 that the US government FINALLY decided that Sinn Fein/PIRA was a terrorist organisation & should be outlawed. Most ex-service personnel I know really welcomed this move as we firmly believed that had the Sinn Fein/PIRA cash from the USA dried up, the so called 'troubles' would probably have ended in the mid 1970's, saving countless innocent lives. Try explaining to a distraught father that his seventeen year old daughter has just been blown to bits by a car bomb a couple of weeks before Christmas. It was an ugly war...

 

I have had to face riots, shootings, bombings etc. in the name of the law while serving my country. The point I'm trying to make is that if lawlessness exists in our society, it's because the local population in a particular area believe they can get away with anything because the local law enforcement have lost all control. Therefore they have also lost all respect of the local community & until respect is restored people will behave like wild things. Unfortunately it's human nature to behave in this manner - Whenever law & order breaks down rioting & looting tends to take place. Histiletto  - you've hit the nail on the head.

 

I would like to end on a somewhat lighter note...

 

To this day my three friends & I owe a huge debt of thanks to the citizens of San Francisco & Sinn Fein/PIRA for their kind donation of close on $800.00. It was happily spent by four British soldiers on leave & involved, (among other things), copious amounts of beer. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to drive fortnightly past the bus top in Eltham where Stephen Lawrence died.  However, he wasn't killed by police action but murdered by racist thugs, so not really relevant to this discussion.

 

Neither, I feel, is Ulster.  Now, I don't intend to belittle your experience.  I've friends from both sides and been friends with men who served in the British Army there, so I have neither stone to cast nor axe to grind.  You're quite right that the British Government refused to admit it was at war.  By any definition it could be seen as a civil war.  You can't have it both ways - you're either at war against an enemy or you're combating terrorism.  (Actually, 'terrorism' is a terribly unhelpful word, that's why politicians use it.  The aim of Bomber Squadron in WW11 was to induce terror in the German population, so one should suppose they were terrorists.)

 

But I don't want to get into ancient history about Ulster.  ILK's initial question draws closer parallels with the riots in 2011.  The same question was asked in the British press at the time.  One can understand violent protest, or protest that turns violent.  Less easy to understand is destruction of your own community.  I'll offer a possible answer.  Self harm is an expression of power.  As a teacher I saw it time and again.  Children who have no other control over their lives do at least have control over themselves.  Interesting that most nervous habits are self-destructive - nail biting, smoking, drinking, drugs.  That might be something to do with it.  Equally, it may be that people saw the chance to get a new television.

 

I'd take issue with you that it's human nature to behave like wild things given the chance (I admit that I'm trying to read between your lines here.  You must forgive me if I read you wrong.)  All the evidence is that people normally behave well to each other and only lose it when driven to it by the misdemeanors of authority.

 

Well, there's my tuppence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Megan, my bad about using Stephen Lawrence as an example - you are absolutely correct of course. I was thinking of someone else to use as my example, but I can't for the life of me remember who it was.

 

That's a very interesting point you make about self harm as an expression of power - I've never looked at it from that perspective before & it's certainly made me think. Thank you for giving me an alternative viewpoint. Equally with your point about Bomber Command, although in that case it could be argued that the Nazis came to reap what they themselves first sowed several years earlier.

 

You kind of support my point about human nature with your statement about people getting a new television. People will do this because they simply can if there is no-one in authority to stop them. Humans can behave in an extremely selfish manner sometimes & I don't really believe that someone being killed by the police, (or local law enforcement authorities), is any kind of excuse for this type of behaviour, however wound up the 'local community' may be. I agree that people usually try to behave well towards each other, (I am always courteous & polite to everyone I meet), but I also believe that when we get down to basic animal survival it's every person for themselves or their 'tribe'. Maybe my past experiences have left me with a cynical, biased view but I feel that humans are basically pack animals. They do not tend to tolerate outsiders very If you go back in history it's all various tribes fighting against each other, & it goes back for centuries whichever group, religion or country you look at. Romans, Celts, cowboys, Red Indians, Nazis, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants etc. The list goes on & on.

 

It's a really sad, unfortunate thing to say, but I don't think the human race will ever be able to live in peace as long as someone owns something that another person covets, be it a new television in a store, a tasty car or even another country. All people seem to require these days is a minor excuse to start misbehaving, even if it happens to be some poor guy getting shot by the police . As has been proved so often during fights in the past - whoever has the biggest stick will win, be it the caveman in the next cave, the aircraft with the biggest bomb, or the policeman with the gun. If you go up against them then expect the worst...

 

There's my second tuppence, so that's now fourpence worth I've had on this thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were probably thinking of Brian Stanley who was "gunned down" by police outside a pub about 150 yards from my front door.

 

I was in the Alexandra when he was asked to leave because he was becoming a nuisance. As I testified at the hearing, I heard the threats to come back with a shotgun and blast us all because he was being denied another drink. I went home shortly after but apparently he came back with a chair leg wrapped in a carrier bag that he said was a gun. He was pushed out of the pub, the door locked and the police called. They challenged him three times to lay it down but when he raised it to firing position he was shot by two separate officers.

 

Had it been a real gun and a couple of officers had been shot, or worse, members of the general public then everyone would have been asking why they hadn't shot him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Megan, my bad about using Stephen Lawrence as an example - you are absolutely correct of course. I was thinking of someone else to use as my example, but I can't for the life of me remember who it was.

 

That's a very interesting point you make about self harm as an expression of power - I've never looked at it from that perspective before & it's certainly made me think. Thank you for giving me an alternative viewpoint. Equally with your point about Bomber Command, although in that case it could be argued that the Nazis came to reap what they themselves first sowed several years earlier.

 

You kind of support my point about human nature with your statement about people getting a new television. People will do this because they simply can if there is no-one in authority to stop them. Humans can behave in an extremely selfish manner sometimes & I don't really believe that someone being killed by the police, (or local law enforcement authorities), is any kind of excuse for this type of behaviour, however wound up the 'local community' may be. I agree that people usually try to behave well towards each other, (I am always courteous & polite to everyone I meet), but I also believe that when we get down to basic animal survival it's every person for themselves or their 'tribe'. Maybe my past experiences have left me with a cynical, biased view but I feel that humans are basically pack animals. They do not tend to tolerate outsiders very If you go back in history it's all various tribes fighting against each other, & it goes back for centuries whichever group, religion or country you look at. Romans, Celts, cowboys, Red Indians, Nazis, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants etc. The list goes on & on.

 

It's a really sad, unfortunate thing to say, but I don't think the human race will ever be able to live in peace as long as someone owns something that another person covets, be it a new television in a store, a tasty car or even another country. All people seem to require these days is a minor excuse to start misbehaving, even if it happens to be some poor guy getting shot by the police . As has been proved so often during fights in the past - whoever has the biggest stick will win, be it the caveman in the next cave, the aircraft with the biggest bomb, or the policeman with the gun. If you go up against them then expect the worst...

 

There's my second tuppence, so that's now fourpence worth I've had on this thread!

You're allowed at least a shilling.  Thank you for your gentlemanly reply.

 

Oh undoubtedly the nazis had done it first, bombed to induce terror.  They'd practised it in Spain..  That doesn't alter the fact that that was what Bomber Command were doing.  The question is, were they waging war or conducting terrorism?  Intent is all important, and being the second one to do it doesn't make you less a terrorist.  Actually, it was the aim of both sides, and it was completely ineffective.  Kingsley Amis said that the British were never better and probably never again will be better than during the war.  In some senses, I daresay you'd find the same about the Germans.  Of course here I'm discounting the obvious.  They didn't scream and fall apart as they would in a Hollywood film.  They had a cup of tea and went to work.  Terrorism fails because it's based on hubris.

 

Apparently there's archeological evidence that the human race once got down to as few as 1000 individuals.  I don't begin to understand how they know, but if it's true, those 1000 didn't stay alive by competing with each other, so human nature is probably to get one.  Still, if you read Exodus, it's the story of an energetic people searching for lebensraum in a crowded part of the world.  Heard that before?  Anyway, I'm going to disagree with you about basic animal survival.  When the going gets tough you need everyone  you can get.

 

Understanding doesn't mean that I excuse, but one should remember the position of the police. Robert Peel's police force wore top hats as a symbol of authority and tail coats as a symbol of servitude.  The classic British police uniform grew out of that  https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=classic+british+bobby+image&tbm=isch&imgil=KPYFKH1Mm2zK_M%253A%253B2XIE5OUCGYkgHM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Flonicera53.blogspot.com%25252F2010%25252F05%25252Fthats-it-for-another-fifty-years.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=KPYFKH1Mm2zK_M%253A%252C2XIE5OUCGYkgHM%252C_&usg=__5o7NJKmp8DmAzl0RvHPgYt9bJv4%3D&biw=1245&bih=594&ved=0CD4Qyjc&ei=q_qMVO-PM4K6aa6WgJgE#facrc=_&imgdii=K9pYL4Leu5JLuM%3A%3BIZBaUB5qiuHuSM%3BK9pYL4Leu5JLuM%3A&imgrc=K9pYL4Leu5JLuM%253A%3BiLz3UJFVAoztNM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wordsworks.co.uk%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2011%252F05%252Fdixon203.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wordsworks.co.uk%252Fblog%252Fpage%252F13%252F%3B203%3B203

The servant who can tell you what to do.  Do you shoot your employer?  The problem comes when the police believe they work for the government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were probably thinking of Brian Stanley who was "gunned down" by police outside a pub about 150 yards from my front door.

 

I was in the Alexandra when he was asked to leave because he was becoming a nuisance. As I testified at the hearing, I heard the threats to come back with a shotgun and blast us all because he was being denied another drink. I went home shortly after but apparently he came back with a chair leg wrapped in a carrier bag that he said was a gun. He was pushed out of the pub, the door locked and the police called. They challenged him three times to lay it down but when he raised it to firing position he was shot by two separate officers.

 

Had it been a real gun and a couple of officers had been shot, or worse, members of the general public then everyone would have been asking why they hadn't shot him.

 

Thank you very much for that information Dr Shoe. It makes me wonder how much the media does actually bend the truth about incidents such as this, as I had no idea of the basic facts. One positive thing I guess - he didn't manage to hurt anyone in the pub, but having said that, I know what I'd do if I was in the position the police officers were in on that day. If it's a 'him or me' situation & we're both armed, (or I believed him to be armed), it's a case of do unto others before they do unto you - in those circumstances I'd have shot him too.

 

I guess the only way to know the full facts about anything is to not rely on media reporting but to actually be there when it happens.

 

 

 

You're allowed at least a shilling.  Thank you for your gentlemanly reply.

 

Oh undoubtedly the nazis had done it first, bombed to induce terror.  They'd practised it in Spain..  That doesn't alter the fact that that was what Bomber Command were doing.  The question is, were they waging war or conducting terrorism?  Intent is all important, and being the second one to do it doesn't make you less a terrorist.  Actually, it was the aim of both sides, and it was completely ineffective.  Kingsley Amis said that the British were never better and probably never again will be better than during the war.  In some senses, I daresay you'd find the same about the Germans.  Of course here I'm discounting the obvious.  They didn't scream and fall apart as they would in a Hollywood film.  They had a cup of tea and went to work.  Terrorism fails because it's based on hubris.

 

Apparently there's archeological evidence that the human race once got down to as few as 1000 individuals.  I don't begin to understand how they know, but if it's true, those 1000 didn't stay alive by competing with each other, so human nature is probably to get one.  Still, if you read Exodus, it's the story of an energetic people searching for lebensraum in a crowded part of the world.  Heard that before?  Anyway, I'm going to disagree with you about basic animal survival.  When the going gets tough you need everyone  you can get.

 

Understanding doesn't mean that I excuse, but one should remember the position of the police. Robert Peel's police force wore top hats as a symbol of authority and tail coats as a symbol of servitude.  The classic British police uniform grew out of that  https://www.google.co.uk/search

The servant who can tell you what to do.  Do you shoot your employer?  The problem comes when the police believe they work for the government

 

 

Ooooh! Megan, thank you for the extra eightpence - I promise not to spend it all at once on sweets!

 

 I know the majority of Germans were the same as us in the war & just wanted it to end - I lived in West Germany for six years in the 1970's/80's

& got to know quite a few civilians & was introduced to a number of their fathers who had served in various theatres of operations from Russia to a U-Boat crewman. Most of them didn't want the war to continue as, like the Allies, they'd had enough of all the killing. But, if you serve in any government organisation orders are orders & unfortunately that's the be all & end of it. Having said that, I'm very aware that a lot of unforgivable things have happened in the past, all blamed on orders from 'higher up'.

 

If I remember correctly the definition of terrorism is something along the lines of 'unauthorised or unlawful use of violence to achieve political aims'. Bearing that in mind, total war must therefore somehow be authorised by both sides I guess. Not quite sure how they go about that though - I now have a Monty python type image in my mind with a couple of officers from each side entering a room saying, 'Is this the right room to sign up for for a thermonuclear war?' It does seem a bit of a mess, as somewhere in all these definitions something, (but I have no idea what), must be included on how to deal with looting & rioting, (which was the original pursuit of this thread). I know what we were supposed to do & what we did in the army in Northern Ireland, but I'm not sure if that's relevant, as it was getting on for forty years ago.

 

I'm not a Christian, but do however have an open mind about the religious views of others. I take your very valid point about Exodus & 'lebensraum' from the bible, although I do find the bible can be very contradictory in places.

 

That's also a very interesting point about the human population getting down to as low as 1000, but I'd be willing to put money on the fact that it wasn't all love & roses. I bet there were a few cases of fisticuffs over male/female relations before some of them broke away & formed their own tribe. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on human nature.

 

I don't think I'll ever fully understand what makes humans do what they do or why they do it, (with or without weapons)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and carry guns as a matter of routine.

.. and the firearms arent the problem. Its the idiots whom have the badges and believe in ' thuggary in representing the law '.

Thank you very much for that information Dr Shoe. It makes me wonder how much the media does actually bend the truth about incidents such as this, as I had no idea of the basic facts.

In the instance in Ferguson :

- Ballistics report show the first 2 shots were fired from inside the car. DNA and blood samples were taken from inside the car. Mike Browns ' friend ' stated the first shots were fired at Brown while he was running away and at a distance.. that brown was shot in the back. The Media ran with this.

- ' Hands up, dont shoot ', shown all over the news : Brown never put his hands up. The supposed ' witnesses ' stated brown was struck while running away, then he turned and put his hands up only to be shot several more times. Forensic and ballistic evidence absolutely disproved both of the above statements.

- Al Sharpton, the instigator he is, has pumped quite a bit of effort into hyping up false information even AFTER having a ( supposed ) medical examiner of his own look at the autopsy and other evidence.

The media promoted so much false information and put gasoline on an already raging forest fire and will claim no responsibility at all.

More deaths will happen. More ' protests ' ( Riots! ) with injuries and properties damaged will also occur. How is a cop responsible at all for the blame when they arent the ones fanning the flames and irritating people to the point they feel a need or a point of conscious to go out and do those things ( riot )?

They will say it is all ' racism ' which clearly, it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure if I was financially poor and I had a television receiver programming me every day to buy all those things I never knew I needed. 

I would use any old excuse to riot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the definition of terrorism would be 'inducing fear in a civilian population to force the hand of the governors.'

 

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/e_eye  You need only read the first paragraph or two (though the teacher in me would urge you to read the whole thing).

 

Thank you for a very thought provoking & interesting read Megan. The pupil in me read the whole lot - not only that, I've saved it to my hard drive to peruse at my leisure when I feel like it. Mr Orwell certainly was very perceptive & definitely had his head screwed on, no doubt about that.

 

 

Ilikekicks, your first & then last three paragraphs have probably explained the problems we face today regarding rioting & disorderly behaviour. (I haven't yet sussed out how to isolate part of a post & highlight it, sorry).

 

The media do seem to get it so wrong, so regularly, that it makes me wonder how deliberate it is & whether or not they are primed by government to 'sow the seeds of discontent' to suit the governments own means. For example, if something nasty re: Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay looks like causing the government embarrassment, lets 'organise' a bit of civil unrest to camouflage it. In the government's eyes, it won't take too much to start something like the Ferguson riots & then blame it on racism, the poor etc. as the people it affects are so wound up they will behave exactly as the government predicts.

 

The problem with this type of situation is that if you try to gag the media they all start screaming 'cover up' & then fan the flames even more, which as ilikekicks has already said, will probably cause an already tense situation to explode into something much worse.

 

My previous views on human nature have just been backed up by Miss Amanda, although I do accept her obvious dig at TV advertising - it doesn't help at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TV advertising , news and general programming is all geared to control the mass populace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainstream media is now nothing more than propaganda. It is a force for controlling the masses, not necessarily in a good way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at how the press hounded Christopher Jefferies after the disappearance of Joanna Yates in 2010. In the end he sued the press for defamation following the arrest and subsequent conviction of Vincent Tabak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TV advertising , news and general programming is all geared to control the mass populace.

 

 

Mainstream media is now nothing more than propaganda. It is a force for controlling the masses, not necessarily in a good way.

 

Both statements above, I would absolutely endorse!

 

Look at how the press hounded Christopher Jefferies after the disappearance of Joanna Yates in 2010. In the end he sued the press for defamation following the arrest and subsequent conviction of Vincent Tabak.

You point out a VERY clear picture of whats going on. The FULL story and ALL aspects of something arent being considered in all too many events. Its no longer ' journalism ', its ' opinion pieces ' and not much else in 90% of the media thats out there. Theres no honesty, integrity nor civility in any of it.

Why didnt the ' journalists look at the witnesses and see the primary one ( Browns friend whom helped him strong arm a local store for a box of cigars ) had a conviction sheet a mile long. Of those convictions, he was caught lying to Law Enforcement in the past! The ' media ' still ran with his story and never looked into the credibility of it nor its source.

Knowing such, Its amazing how easily certain areas and types of individuals can be duped into rioting and causing harm to others. People arent smart enough to put the blame where it really needs to be. They dont know how to put proper accountability in events that have happened.

Cheers!

-ILK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the lack of real journalism in such an age of instant global communication has created a vacuum which is fast filling with conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×