Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Detroit prosecutor calls for deaths of Baltimore protesters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Ironic, because we used to shoot protestors, rioters and looters. In fact, Patton, McAurthur and Eisenhower were in charge of the troops shooting veterans who were demonstrating in Washington, D.C.

    I guess law and order in America went out of style after WWI.
    Things were certainly better back then.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      Things were certainly better back then.
      Red Herring. The point is that violence deployed against rioters works. Once you start shooting rioters, one of two things will happen. Either the rioters will run and the area is pacified or the rioters stand, fight, and die and the area becomes pacified. The argument that force could lead to something worse is one I am skeptical of. First, most rioters aren't trained soldiers. That means that when the bodies start dropping they aren't going to have the discipline to hold a line of battle and fight back (as well as lacking any real weapons to fight back with). Fight or flight kicks in and flight will be the most likely setting. Second, they're already being violent. Are they going to be violenter? Third, "passions are high" does not turn off your survival instincts or make you blind to the obvious. Sudden shock resets your body's emotional momentum. If you don't believe me then the next time you've been on hold for fifteen minutes and are red hot angry, douse yourself in cold water and see what that does. When rioters see bodies hitting the floor, their reaction is not going to be "form ranks and engage the police"! It's going to be "oh , they're actually shooting at us"!
      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
        Seems like an appropriate way to deal with rioters and looters to me. Fire a few shots into the mob and you'd be amazed how fast people decide it might be worth it to stay home.
        I agree with you, rioters and looters should be met with force until they back down. Protesters have the right to protest. There is a big and clearly obvious difference between protesting and rioting.
        The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
          Red Herring. The point is that violence deployed against rioters works. Once you start shooting rioters, one of two things will happen. Either the rioters will run and the area is pacified or the rioters stand, fight, and die and the area becomes pacified. The argument that force could lead to something worse is one I am skeptical of. First, most rioters aren't trained soldiers. That means that when the bodies start dropping they aren't going to have the discipline to hold a line of battle and fight back (as well as lacking any real weapons to fight back with). Fight or flight kicks in and flight will be the most likely setting. Second, they're already being violent. Are they going to be violenter? Third, "passions are high" does not turn off your survival instincts or make you blind to the obvious. Sudden shock resets your body's emotional momentum. If you don't believe me then the next time you've been on hold for fifteen minutes and are red hot angry, douse yourself in cold water and see what that does. When rioters see bodies hitting the floor, their reaction is not going to be "form ranks and engage the police"! It's going to be "oh , they're actually shooting at us"!
          And so what happens on day 2? Week 3? Month 4? You've put down one riot - what are the long-term effects? The people who are already distrustful of the police aren't exactly lining up to thank the officers that just shot a few more of their neighbors - justified or not. Is this going to make a riot more or less likely in the future? What happens when the lawsuits roll in?

          Nobody ever suggested that somehow shots being fired was going to turn all the protesters into blood-thirsty berserkers (Blood for the Blood God, Sneakers for my Nephew!). There is a lot more to consider than just this one single riot. In cities where there is already a great deal of distrust between citizens and police, do you think gunning people looters and rock throwers is going to make future confrontation more or less likely?

          Stopping people from looting a store with lethal force works - they will be stopped from looting that store once they're dead. Nobody denies that. But like I said way back in the beginning, this is such a complex issue I hate to Monday Morning Quarterback the police response because there is so much more than just that once incident on the line.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            And so what happens on day 2?
            No riots.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Week 3?
            No riots.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Month 4?
            No riots.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            You've put down one riot - what are the long-term effects?
            Fewer riots. Here's the thing. Unless you are a rather proficient necromancer - which granted I wouldn't put past you - dead rioters stay dead and people who don't riot continue not to do so. Meanwhile people who think of rioting in the future remember how it ended in piles of dead rioters which prompts them to rethink their options.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            The people who are already distrustful of the police aren't exactly lining up to thank the officers that just shot a few more of their neighbors - justified or not.
            Says who? You've seen me shoot it out with AJR. You've seen me go from being a dyed in the wool supporter of all police action to an increasingly skeptical individual. And I guarantee you that if my neighbor was actively trying to set fire to my house and a police officer shot them, I would be grateful. Just because I take issue with their unnecessary force doesn't mean I question the necessary.

            Now, if police shot my neighbors for being peaceful protestors, that's one thing. But if they're trying to kill people and burn property, rock and roll with my blessing.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Is this going to make a riot more or less likely in the future?
            Less likely. You've killed off several malcontents and given a dire warning to the rest. And here's another thing to consider about rioters. Most of them are in it for selfish purposes. Think about it. If you're protesting police brutality, how does smashing your neighbor's convenience story prove anything? Especially since your neighbor might just be a fellow victim of said brutality? No, people riot because they want to engage in mayhem and steal stuff. Ideology doesn't enter into it. And as the great warrior philosopher Han Solo once said, "What good's a reward if you ain't around to use it?" People are willing to die for family, country, faith, and ideology. I've yet to meet one willing to die for a flat screen TV. Once they learn that the police aren't going to put up with that crap then they won't do it because TVs aren't worth dying for.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            What happens when the lawsuits roll in?
            People sue all the time.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Nobody ever suggested that somehow shots being fired was going to turn all the protesters into blood-thirsty berserkers (Blood for the Blood God, Sneakers for my Nephew!).
            People have in the past so I took it as an implication.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            There is a lot more to consider than just this one single riot. In cities where there is already a great deal of distrust between citizens and police, do you think gunning people looters and rock throwers is going to make future confrontation more or less likely?
            Less likely. People are generally averse to being shot.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Stopping people from looting a store with lethal force works - they will be stopped from looting that store once they're dead. Nobody denies that.
            Problem solved.

            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            But like I said way back in the beginning, this is such a complex issue I hate to Monday Morning Quarterback the police response because there is so much more than just that once incident on the line.
            I love MMQBing. And from my perspective it's more a matter of human psychology. A simple minded looter has neither the guts nor the reason to stand firm against gunfire. A dyed in the wool ideologist might consider martyring himself for a cause, but looters and brick throwers aren't ideologists nor are they brave. They're not even good criminals. If they had any real [email protected]!!s or talent they wouldn't be waiting for civic disruption before engaging in criminal activity. So yes, gunfire will drive them away. They lack the training and the guts to hold fast. And here's another thing, they have no public sympathy. If an unarmed black woman sitting in front of a courthouse was shot, yeah THAT would inflame matters because it was an injustice. But nobody gives a about rioters.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #21
              Saying someone should be shot and calling for someone to be shot are two different things. She expressed an opinion on Facebook. The reporter says she "called" for people to be shot.

              Yellow journalism.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by III Corps View Post
                Saying someone should be shot and calling for someone to be shot are two different things. She expressed an opinion on Facebook. The reporter says she "called" for people to be shot.

                Yellow journalism.
                ... what?

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X