Slashdot Mirror
UK Police Arrest 12 Over Facebook Use Inciting Riots
An anonymous reader writes "Scotland Yard vowed to track down and arrest protesters who posted 'really inflammatory, inaccurate' messages on Facebook, but it didn't stop at just two people. While two teenagers were arrested earlier this week in connection with messages posted on Facebook allegedly encouraging people to start rioting, 10 more have now joined them."
If you're going to bust everyone who posts THOSE on Facebook, you're going to need a helluva lot more cops.
But, then, I never realized that posting inaccurate information was a jailable offense in the UK. But then, I guess if you piss off the powerful people in any given country, just about anything is a jailable offense, isn't it?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Inciting violence is a crime in almost every country.
If there is one thing we have learned from history, the rich and powerful never give up any of what they have without a fight, usually involving a lot of bloodshed and regular folk being locked up.
Yeah, how dare anyone try and punish people for rioting and incitement to riot? Clearly this is RACISM!
Idiot.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
If you're going to bust everyone who posts THOSE on Facebook, you're going to need a helluva lot more cops.
But, then, I never realized that posting inaccurate information was a jailable offense in the UK. But then, I guess if you piss off the powerful people in any given country, just about anything is a jailable offense, isn't it?
As we all know, giving someone a criminal record that will haunt them for the rest of their lives, because of a nonviolent youthful indescretion that didn't materially harm anyone or anything, is the very best way to reach out to young people in order to reform and rehabilitate them into productive members of society.
I mean, if you post something on facebook that is true, and people get pissed off about it, that's the fault of the people you're telling the truth about, not the people who are telling the truth.
If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, it's not really a bad thing to do if the theater is actually on fire.
Of course, the government is saying that they were lies, but if anyone is the boy who cried wolf, it's the government.
They shot and killed an innocent man. They caused the riots, not the people complaining about it. This asshole needs to be beaten with a clue-stick.
No there were regular protests then other people decided to come in and use it as an excuse to loot. Thus inciting.
Inciting a riot is a crime on the level of shouting fire in a crowded theatre
*sound of being arrested for riot-inducing comment on slashdot*
They shot and killed an armed drug dealer. It may not have been justified, but he was not "innocent".
The riots weren't about protesting that even. They were just an excuse to destroy and steal.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
All this is going to do is jail some armchair revolutionaries. The police should be out on the street beating and arresting the scum who are torching houses and looting businesses, of course that might be dangerous so they'd better not. Pathetic.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Well, there must be a limit on the number of mindless drones even the hooligans can drench out of their sewers...
Not too long ago I remember some other governments going after protesters that organized on facebook. How is this any different?
Nobody ever says why "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a crime, yet it's often presented as one that is somehow obvious.
Do you have any idea what the content of those messages was? Do you know if they were perhaps a direct incitement to undertake criminal activity?
From the first article:
Two teenagers appeared in court today in connection with messages posted on Facebook allegedly encouraging people to start rioting.
From the second article:
Two are from St Leonards-on-Sea. 27-year-old N----- S-----, who is alleged to have posted Facebook messages encouraging criminal damage and burglary, has been remanded in custody. Arrested on Wednesday, he appeared before Hastings Magistrates’ Court this morning. An 18-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of making threats to kill.
We do like our free speech on the Interwebs but it can have repercussions IRL just like exercising free speech IRL can have consequences. If you call for riots and riots occur then you may well deserve some blame for the riots. That's true in real life and on the Internet. The guys in the second article, same thing. They're calling for lawless behavior. And if they're doing it while other lawless behavior is already underway that exacerbates the seriousness of the offense.
Exhorting calm people to do something illegal probably isn't going to get many to go along. Exhorting highly agitated people looking for an excuse to riot, or exhorting those already rioting to do something illegal is an entirely different matter.
Three of the arrested alluded to in original post were in Guernsey which is not part if the United Kingdom.
At the moment, it isn't the rich and powerful, it's middle class shopkeepers who have seen their livelihoods go up in flames as gangs of hooligans loot, pillage and destroy. If the police can gain of evidence of incitement from their Facebook pages, all the power to them. Freedom, online or off, does not mean you get to organize riots and I hope they throw the book at these vile anti-social bastards.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
Youthful indescretion? What fucking planet are you on? They were trying to incite a riot for fucks sake. Everyone prosecuted for ANY involvement should have a permanent blot on their record. You break the law you live with the consequences.
Agreed. But what exactly did they post, unfortunately TFA doesn't tell that. I'd like to see that kind of speech one should not engage in if he wants to remain free. Did they post instructions for "proper" rioting and how to cause as much damage as possible, maybe organizing and assembling people? Or was it more along the lines of "fuck the pigs, they deserve it, go nuts!"?
Personally, I see a big difference between the two.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Methinks you're romanticizing the "rebels" here. The riots aren't about ideology or protests. "Everyone else is getting free stuff and having a good time burning stuff! Want!" is not a movement inspired by martyrs, unless you do it in a really heavy handed way. If they broadcast a webcam of these people being beaten to death by police, maybe.
Taking down people for organizing some store-burning though, no. Many of the rioters seem to be cowards who were only smashing and stealing because they assumed they could get away with it, or they were going with the crowd. I suspect a few arrests will send most of the rioters to cover.
If they forcibly break up peaceful marches and demonstrations, then sure. There are of course real issues and legitimate anger there, and the government would be wise to avoid taking a hard line with protesters who know they are doing nothing wrong. Taking a hard line against people just looking to steal TVs though will be effective. If there are similar riots here in the US with similar people involved in it, part of me hopes the police bring out the rubber bullets.
Before reading the articles (sorry), I thought that meant the police didn't know the actual location of the Facebook users, and they just posted "You are under arrest. You have the right to refrain from posting any more nonsense on your wall. Anything you say on teh internets can and will be used against you in meatspace. --Met Police"
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
V for Vendetta had a point - and that point wasn't mindless looting and rioting, which is what is going on at the moment.
There is nothing politically orientated about the UK riots, its literally just idiots doing whatever they think they can get away with. So yeah, take these ten, and the ten after that, and the next ten - until they get the message that this kind of behaviour in the UK is not acceptable. We are already a democracy, we already have a say in our governance - think rioting is going to improve anything...?
They are not arresting people complaining about the shooting.
They are arresting people who tell others to commit crimes.
I don't know what they posted, but inciting a riot is a crime in the US too. Whether that's an infraction on Freedom of Speech or not is another debate. This is different because instead of doing it in person, they're doing it "over the Internet" and because there could be doubt over whether they actually intended to incite a riot or whether they actually had any influence over the riot starting (doubtful). Although if encouraging violence over the Internet is going to be punished, then a lot of people are in big trouble - And please go set fire to anyone who disagrees with that statement.
Of course... It's not hard to find people in the US that have been jailed for encouraging violence on-line, but it's typically very specific violence toward a very specific target, with confidence that it will be carried out.
Yes it seems like they're overstepping here, but complete freedom to say whatever you want isn't something we're in danger of losing - It's something that we've already given up.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Social media sites are just plain wrong. But if you feel you have a need to tell the world that your pet cat fluffy is missing more power to you.
When the government comes knocking on your door with a search warrant you as a company (facebook) will most likely cave in to the big bad pressure and by the time you fight your right to privacy in court they will have created multiple copies and no apology.
Whatever you place on the net.
Whatever data you wish to turn over to any company
Can and will be used against you in a court of law and you will most likely lose.
Keep trusting other companies to keep your secrets. They are Oh so willing to fight for your right to privacy. NOT
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
it isn't a protest for a cause - this is thugs destroying and looting
I would bet money that greater than 50% of those rioting don't even know that a man was shot and killed. They don't care either. /from Crorydon
I'm glad I never post inflammatory inaccurate comments on Facebook; I've got Slashdot for that.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
It is unclear at this moment whether the man was innocent or not, but even if he was, that doesn't really give anyone license to smash shop windows and steal LCD TVs or to use a car to mow down three young men trying to protect their property. This is pure lawlessness.
What they need to do is bring back the Riot Act, and have a police officer with a bull horn announcing:
"Our Sovereign Lady the Queen chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the Queen!"
Anyone still rioting an hour after that is read, well, they get what the deserve.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"nonviolent"?
Fecking troll.
No, but probably useless.
I mean, think about it. You have no outlook in life, you have no hope for progress, no hope to better your lot, and the "threat" you're facing is jail time? Compared to having what you else never will have?
You think that's a deterrent? Think again. Punishment as a deterrent works only if people care about it. For me, even waggling a finger or the threat of being possibly, maybe jailed is enough to keep me from rioting. Why? Because I need a flawless record for my job, and my job's paying quite well, so I simply work to get what they're looting for. Legally. It's also less hassle for me. For them, facing jail time is probably not really a big issue compared to the possible gain.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If there is one thing we have learned from history, the rich and powerful never give up any of what they have without a fight, usually involving a lot of bloodshed and regular folk being locked up.
Conversely, they wouldn't be rich and powerful if we would learn to live without them. Stop buying their products and learn to be less of a consumer. Consumerism was a mistake, it was their idea for you, not your idea for them. Stop asking them to solve your problems for you and learn to be more self-reliant, learn to embrace smaller more local solutions instead of these national and international one-size-fits-all programs. Stop being scared of every little "crisis" that was carefully engineered (yes this happens routinely, your reluctance to admit this is beneath you, get over it).
They matter so much because you participate in their system and play by their rules. You want to level the playing field? Go primitive and learn to live off the land for say, six months. Not you personally but everyone in a nation. Yeah you will suffer some discomfort. After the six months, the "rich and powerful" will be on their knees begging for you to participate once again in their system. Their money means nothing if no one will exchange goods and labor for it. Remind them that they wouldn't enjoy a position at the top of the pyramid without a ton of people holding up the lower layers.
You could get a similar result if the vast majority of adult people in a nation refused to show up to work for say, six weeks. They take taxes right out of your paycheck so this would mean no taxes get paid for over a month. No producers to pad the coffers of the giant corporations. What are they going to do, put 90% of the adult population in jail?
A tiny minority controls a large majority. This system depends on one thing: that those who step out of line only do it individually, that there are always enough others who stay in line who can be sent after them to punish their non-complaince. Tip those scales and viola, you have non-violently upset the balance of power. Non-violently is the key. Otherwise you are at least as savage as anything you claim to be against.
The power really does come from the "common" people. Only the people have forgotten this. Thus they get trampled and refuse to assert their power.
UK Prime Minister is under tremendous pressure to do something about the riots. The government is getting desperate. They want to show the world that they are taking some action, so what do they do? Arrest people who posted some BS on Facebook. Great!
I'm kind of tired of hearing these riots being compared to Vendetta. The shit going on in England has about as much to do with Vendetta as the War on Iraq had to do with WMDs. In this case we have gangs targeting shops for personal gain, probably because they are being incited to do so by organized crime or worse, clandestine government officials from other countries. Bottom line, if you're a kid and you think it's smart to post your riot exploits on Facebook, or encourage others to riot -- you are stupid and therefore the rules of evolution do tend to take over the situation.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Exactly what I was thinking of when I read this article. That said, the UK does not have 'Free Speech' (neither do we in Canada) so even that example isn't necessary to press criminal charges in cases like this.
As someone above pointed out though, posting "inflammatory, inaccurate messages" is a pretty weak basis for arresting anyone. Presumably said messages need to lead to some kind of crime. I imagine it will require proving the link between the post & the crime, and then proving intent. If that's a constraint, that might prove difficult in this case, but overall I could see an upside to that kind of potential for charges. I know I've read of cases where people do this kind of thing to horrible consequence without repercussions to themselves. I seem to recall there was some woman in the news recently who badgered some teenage girl with false messages purporting to be from schoolmates, eventually driving the the poor kid to suicide. Everyone knew the woman had done it, but there was no crime with which to charge her. I suppose in the UK that wouldn't have been a problem.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
Regardless of what "they" did (and "they" have been very open in the media about what happened - yes, they thought they were being shot at, yes they returned fire, yes they got it wrong. No, he shouldn't have been killed, but yes he was the right suspect and yes they were still going to arrest him), rioting and looting isn't the right behaviour and cannot be justified in any way.
Nobody ever says why "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a crime, yet it's often presented as one that is somehow obvious.
Well, that is because most people are smart enough to understand the danger. For those in need of a clue: when fire is shouted in a theatre people may panic and run for the doors. The doors are choke points that restrict the flow of people. People have been trampled to death under such circumstances.
Methinks you're romanticizing the "rebels" here.
Well, yeah. This is Slashdot. Duh.
It's a crime under the concept that your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Shouting fire in a crowded theater and inciting violent riots put other people at serious risk of injury or death, and thus it is a natural and rational point at which to state a limit on free speech.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"nonviolent"?
Fecking troll.
He was talking about "posting inaccurate information". See, it's right there in the post that was quoted before it was replied to.
Last I checked, posting inaccurate information is not an act of violence. How did two ACs in a row manage to miss this? Reading comprehension just isn't this hard.
To clarify what is apparently a point of great confusion, those actually rioting and smashing things and hurting people, they are doing violence. People who write about it on Facebook and say inappropriate things are not committing violence. I'm not sure why I bother with people who get so caught up with their emotions about an event that they need to have such a difference explained to them, but there you go.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
On top of that, I'm concerned that delegating responsibility solely to the inciters lets the people who did the actual violent acts off the hook.
People have to know that lots of others spout shit, but they should be responsible for their own acts and not just the next scapegoat.
sorry running over 3 Asian's Lad's and killing them , or shooting a person in a car, beating a 70 year old man into a near coma, burning shops with apartments over them, robbing newsagent's, these people are un-employable anyway, having a criminal record will make no difference. Don't think of these as robin hood , scally wag's, they evil little shit's who are burning down hard working people's lives.
You don't see why deliberately shouting a false warning that creates fear and panic that can easily result in serious injury or death through trampling is a crime? Wow. Truly, a genius among ACs. Also, shouting false warnings lowers the impact of real warnings, thus could lead to even more deaths if permitted.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
At first I thought that the police had placed these people under arrest by posting on their walls.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
N*****S******, sorry you must mean Nathan Sinden 27, from St Leonard's on Sea
It comes from a US Supreme Court case that held (seriously) that it was a crime to publish pamphlets that opposed the military draft in World War I and argued that the draft was unconstitutional. You'd think that would be enough to discredit anything the judges came up with in the course of the case but apparently not. If that wasn't enough then you'd think that the entirely ludicrous claim that publishing that opinion was comparable to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre would be enough, but apparently not.
Of course, the whole thing rests on the assumption that (falsely) shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is inherently dangerous which confusing given that these days periodic fire tests (i.e. falsely raising the alarm...) are generally considered a good thing and presumably not dangerous but to be fair I suppose that's partly because it's probably illegal to let public places get as crowded without adequate means of escape as may have been allowed back then.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
> Everyone prosecuted for ANY involvement should have a permanent blot on their record.
Not even everyone convicted, but everyone prosecuted ? Wow, you have a lot of faith in the authorities.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I'm not rich and powerful, but if you try to take or destroy my stuff there will be blood.
It comes from a US Supreme Court case that held (seriously) that it was a crime to publish pamphlets that opposed the military draft in World War I and argued that the draft was unconstitutional.
Er, I mean that the pamphlets also argued that the draft was unconstitutional, not that the case also argued that the draft was unconstitutional. Obviously.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
That's the "divide and conquer" strategy that the "rich and powerful" use.
Pit one economically disadvantaged group against another. It's being done here in the States and in many European countries. It's something that the political elite in Africa and parts of Asia have done for centuries. It's not new at all.
How do you think the Tea Party started? How many Tea Partiers do you think know what the TARP program or the debt ceiling really mean? All they know that they believe the blacks and mexicans are getting something that they're not getting. One of the most "conservative" states is Texas, that has a $27 billion budget deficit and takes more Federal taxpayer money than almost any other state, yet they're mad at "big government's wasteful ways". They're a welfare state that hates the Welfare State.
You better believe that the people who own private prison corporations are praying that we get London-style riots over here. Every time they see an arrest they're thinking "ka-ching!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
Youthful indescretion? What fucking planet are you on? They were trying to incite a riot for fucks sake. Everyone prosecuted for ANY involvement should have a permanent blot on their record. You break the law you live with the consequences.
I don't know about you, but I live in the planet where inciting a riot is a non-violent activity, as opposed to participating in a riot.
I can post, "EVERYONE GO RIOT NOW" all day long without hurting a soul. If you look at those words and you decide to be an idiot about it, that's YOU being an idiot about it.
You should totally go kill your parents.
It will be fucking awesome I'm 100% serious!
Even the Guardian has given up defending these criminals. You won't lose your left-wing credentials if you admit "looting is bad".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That is who slashdot chooses to defend? Probably not if it was Taco's stuff they were stealing but okay if it was someone else's.
Of course, what has prevented the damage from being greater is those same shopkeepers and other citizens waving whatever improvised weapons they could still (semi) legally own and telling the rioters to go home. A few more cops on the beat in London telling rioters to go home would be more useful than detectives in Glasgow arresting Facebook posters.
Such actions don't stroke any egos or put money into the coffers of the rich and powerful, so it was left to the individual citizens while the police "investigate" and prosecute people who talk about rioting (making them even more angry and bitter so they'll be sure to riot in the future).
A fair number of the rioters appear to be middle class youths. This idea that it's a class war is a bunch of bullshit.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Armchair revolutionary? What you mean is... a ned who was trying to start the looting and torching in Glasgow too so that he got get himself some free stuff.
I can post, "EVERYONE GO RIOT NOW" all day long without hurting a soul.
Absolutely, and I can shout "get him Rover, kill kill!" without causing any damage at all or I can spend all day saying "I will give you $100,000 if you kill my wife" without any consequence but if I do either of those things as a way of actually getting someone killed as opposed to, for example, rehearsing my lines in a play then I should be locked up. Get it?
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
It thought we settled this six years ago, it's "finding" if you're white. sheesh.
I think you best look up incitement. The context is important. If you go into a volatile situation like, say, an angry crowd, and shout "Let's kill those fuckers!", that's incitement and yes, in just about every jurisdiction on the planet you have just committed a crime.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That said, the UK does not have 'Free Speech' (neither do we in Canada) so even that example isn't necessary to press criminal charges in cases like this.
Neither does the US, nor any other country I can think of.
Common sense says that if the shooting was unjustified, then the victim was innocent as far as the shooting goes. And that's all it takes for the police to have shot an innocent man.
FRA: STFU GTFO
And speaking of employment, judging by your mis-use of the apostrophe I'd say a long, fulfilling career in the greengrocery industry awaits you.
it's middle class shopkeepers who have seen their livelihoods go up in flames
Are you sure it wasn't their insurance companies?
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16046775
The victim of a police shooting may not have fired at officers before he was killed, according to a report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
An IPCC ballistics report said there was "no evidence" that a handgun found near where Mark Duggan was shot by armed officers had been used.
The 29-year-old died after a gunshot to the chest on Thursday. The death sparked the first night of rioting in London in Tottenham.
His family issued a statement saying: "We feel completely gutted. Someone must be made accountable for this. We can't believe that they can do this.
pieces of shit ...
Read radical news here
Because any reasonable person should expect injuries and fatalities as a result of the ensuing panic. Note that it's NOT a crime if there really is a fire.
In the case at hand, reasonable considerations would include just how much influence these facebook postings could be expected to have. Do we actually believe all would be quiet had they not posted? Do we really believe any of the posters actually expected to have a significant individual effect on the magnitude of the riots?
Should be noted that often these types of (politically) pointless vandalisms occur as a by-product of genuine civic unrest (peaceful or otherwise)
Should also be noted that vandalisms give police an excuse to use force on the entire group (peaceful protesters plus vandals). Such was the case in the Toronto G20, for example. If I were an unethical power hungry cop who just wanted to bash some skulls in, I'd be considering inciting vandalism myself.
And what exactly makes you feel that they will stop short of getting the actual rioters?
The have been about 9 shootings by police of people in the last 10 years, all have been white people aside from this recent death, so your allusions to rascism more reflect your own ideas rather than the UK governments.
Oh well, that makes it okay then.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Don't 'Friend' Scotland Yard on Facebook if you don't want to get arrested.
Taking a hard line against people just looking to steal TVs though will be effective. If there are similar riots here in the US with similar people involved in it, part of me hopes the police bring out the rubber bullets.
Even the smallest occasion is an opportunity to brutally assert "authority". Collateral damage is of no concern.
I mean, think about it. You have no outlook in life, you have no hope for progress, no hope to better your lot, and the "threat" you're facing is jail time?
From what I've seen, most of these 'revolutionaries' look to be just thieving chavs who've been given tons of free stuff on welfare all their lives and are basically unemployable due to their attitude and Britain's hopeless school system.
Yes, this is Slashdot. Fact: all rebels look like Princess Leia, except for those who look like Princess Amidala. Do you have a problem with that?
Without actually knowing anything about the event in question...
Just because he didn't fire it doesn't mean he didn't pull it on the police; generally if you're up against firearms officers in the UK it's because they've got serious reason to believe you're armed and dangerous in the first place, so if you point a gun at them there's a good chance they'll shoot you.
at arresting the corrupt police officers who sold information to Murdoch's men.
Absolutely, and I can shout "get him Rover, kill kill!" without causing any damage at all
And if dogs were capable of the same reasoning a human being is, instead of being tools just like a firearm that can be trained to perform the work you require of it, then I'd concede the point.
I can spend all day saying "I will give you $100,000 if you kill my wife" without any consequence
I am fully in favor of prosecuting only the hired killer, and not the guy who hired him. I know that's not how it works, but I believe it should be. If you couldn't find someone to do the crime, your wife wouldn't be harmed. Unless you did the deed yourself, in which case you're performing the harmful action.
I think you best look up incitement. The context is important. If you go into a volatile situation like, say, an angry crowd, and shout "Let's kill those fuckers!", that's incitement and yes, in just about every jurisdiction on the planet you have just committed a crime.
I'm aware they're breaking the law. There's a difference between the law and what is morally right. A good example of the balance between that are the hate speech laws that exist in Europe, but not it the US, where ever hate speech is protected.
And yes, I'm aware that inciting violence is a crime in the US as well. I believe it shouldn't be. I sure as hell am not going to commit violence because someone else is telling me to go do it, and if I can behave responsibly despite the incitement of others I don't think they can be held responsible for my actions.
Within an hour of that being read, the "rioters" be playing their new video games on their brand new 42" hi-def TV's, wearing their new designer hoodies, drinking their new liquour, and laughing about how the police stood there like idiots belting out some proper bare shite, innit? These "riots" often didn't go on for an hour: the looters converged swiftly on pre-arranged targets, took what they wanted, and left in a hurry, sometimes leaving behind the dumber yobs to chuck rocks at the police as a distraction to the getaway.
Riot laws aren't effective against looters. Riots arise from social and political dissatisfaction, so the police give warning and only disperse protestors with force after employing warnings and less-violent measures, because the police are smart enough to know that looking like overly zealous oppressors and faceless instruments of unjust and unjustified state violence will provoke more and larger riots the next day. Looting, even when it's organized and uses small-scale rioting as a cover, is a different beast: it has to be tackled quickly and forcefully, so the looters don't feel they can continue sacking with impunity, and there's little cause to worry about public sympathy attaching to looters who wind up hurt when being arrested for hauling off televisions and video games. In short, the Riot Act isn't useful here. What Britain needs is a Sacking Act, by which the police are fully authorized to use all available force without warning to stop groups of masked people from stealing shit and burning the goddamned city.
One of the things that you may have observed about fire drills is that they are widely advertized in advance, specifically to prevent the panic response which will cause injuries.
Testing one two three.
We have never had complete freedom to say whatever we want. Threatening someone with bodily harm is still against the law. Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is still against the law.
I don't think this is being questioned because no one could understand the result. I think the result itself and why it is so certain is what is legitimately questionable.
Let's say I am in a theater. Someone beside me yells "FIRE!". My sense of smell is not impaired and I don't smell smoke. My vision is not impaired and I don't see flames. My hearing is not impaired and I don't hear the crackle of flames. Why should I assume he must be correct? If he is correct, why would I wait for him to point that out instead of acting on what I can perceive for myself?
The fact is, we as a society have decided that passing laws restricting certain types of speech is easier than teaching average people not to be such thoughtless, panicky herd animals. That's a shame, for it would be a most worthy goal. Of course those who could make this happen on a large scale would be deprived of a great deal of their political power if more people could think for themselves independently and were not easily frightened.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
They still have a middle class over there?
How quaint.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Regular insurance does not cover damage from civil unrest.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Should be noted that often these types of (politically) pointless vandalisms occur as a by-product of genuine civic unrest (peaceful or otherwise)
Should also be noted that vandalisms give police an excuse to use force on the entire group (peaceful protesters plus vandals). Such was the case in the Toronto G20, for example. If I were an unethical power hungry cop who just wanted to bash some skulls in, I'd be considering inciting vandalism myself.
That may be true up to the point where people start burning random cars and stealing big-screen TVs. Then the rioters aren't "revolutionaries' or "protesters". At that point they're human-shaped garbage.
There may or may not have been a few genuine protesters. But if you're a looter, you're meat. Even here in California, looters during riots can legally be shot and killed by citizens defending their businesses. This is because multiple assailants, even unarmed, is considered 'deadly force' and thus you are entitled to respond with deadly force, and if a mob is breaking down your door there is no way to tell whether they are intent on theft or violence.
I would certainly shoot to kill as many attackers as possible if it were my business being trashed and looted.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Are you sure it wasn't their insurance companies?
The taxpayer foots the bill for riots in the UK.
The fact is, if anything anyone can say online can cause someone to kill themselves, that person had serious problems to begin with.
I blame the parents and the school system for not noticing that this girl had serious emotional and psychological problems much more than I blame a random Internet asshat for being true to her nature. How many young people kill themselves without such an easily-demonized antagonist to blame? Aren't their deaths just as tragic and senseless?
I keep saying it in so many different ways... we as a society really, truly have a passionate, burning hatred for getting at the root causes of things. We'd rather preoccupy ourselves with effects. So we mourn that an asshat's cruel words precipitated a suicide rather than lamenting a society that so thoroughly fails to equip our young people to deal with the fact that the world is filled with asshats.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The goal isn't to arrest people. The goal is to cow the masses with a demonstration of force. Such are the mechanics of oppression.
On top of that, I'm concerned that delegating responsibility solely to the inciters lets the people who did the actual violent acts off the hook.
1600+ rioters arrested, 12 for Facebook postings.
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence. I can't see how you would defend it. This is apart from the reality of how mobs, stewing in emotion and adrenaline, can be triggered by hostile inciting speeches. It's been demonstrated enough times over the history of our species to indicate that there's a sound reason for making incitement unlawful.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
People continue to riot and police continue to get out of their way.
Except if you read that article, it does say there was fallout from it. And I'm not sure what your point is. I should be 100% opposed to police using force to stop crimes because accidents will always happen?
Inciting a riot is a crime on the level of shouting fire in a crowded theatre
Which should not be a crime.
Let's say you're on the other side of the theater....
You see, your example is bullshit. Not only that, but it pretty much ignores the reality that people who believe themselves in imminent mortal danger are not fucking Vulcans who sit their sniffing the air and calculating the probability that the person shouting fire is mistaken or being mischievous.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A recent radio phone in had people saying "I own my own house, and run my own business, but I am working class like my dad!"
Working class used to be a euphamism for illiterate. Upper class used to mean you had an income without actually working. Even the Queen works about 300 days a year in the UK.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
You are incorrect. The first rule about being a fire warden is that your greatest enemy isn't panic, but complacency. Nine times out of ten people will just sit there when they hear the alarm go off, even in the event of a real evacuation.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
I'll second that from Hackney.
I am fully in favor of prosecuting only the hired killer, and not the guy who hired him.
And I am really, really glad that we don't live in a world where you have any power. At least, I hope we don't.
If you couldn't find someone to do the crime, your wife wouldn't be harmed.
And if you don't hire a killer then she won't either.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
That said, the UK does not have 'Free Speech' (neither do we in Canada)
Canadians enjoy a freedom of expression, as explained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence.
I think it is, yes. The problem is that I don't believe in universal morals. Some people think that some of what happens in people's bedrooms is immoral. You and I may have an opinion about that, but neither of us should be allowed to do anything about it until it physically involves us. Some dude saying that I should be lynched may scare the crap out of me, but it's not until somebody actually attacks me that they crossed the line into breaking my rights. Sticks and stones and all that...
I can't see how you would defend it.
I don't defend the content of the speech, I defend the right of people to say whatever they want. I'm not anywhere near Aryan, I hate racists, and I will debate against neo-nazis all day while simultaneously defending their right to a public demonstration, for as long as it remains peaceful (as in, not physical).
This is apart from the reality of how mobs, stewing in emotion and adrenaline, can be triggered by hostile inciting speeches. It's been demonstrated enough times over the history of our species to indicate that there's a sound reason for making incitement unlawful.
I support harshly prosecuting those who actually engage in violent activity after being incited. Yes, you may prevent violence by quieting speech. You may also catch criminals a lot easier if you kept everyone's DNA in a database, collected at birth. I'm not willing to trade what I perceive to be human rights in order to increase safety.
Inciting violence in a situation where it is likely to be carried out is exactly like pulling the trigger on a gun. You set events in motion with the intent of causing harm, with the reasonable expectation of causing harm, and those events do cause harm, and so you have committed evil. It really is that simple.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence.
That's just your opinion. There are people who disagree. But, unless you can prove that the magical moral fairy whose opinions override everyone else's (for some reason) told you that it is factually morally wrong, you're not going to convince me that that is true.
This is apart from the reality of how mobs, stewing in emotion and adrenaline, can be triggered by hostile inciting speeches.
Then I guess it's a shame that they're so easily influenced. Too bad.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
That's not what I said and that's not something I implied.
Inciting violence in a situation where it is likely to be carried out is exactly like pulling the trigger on a gun. You set events in motion with the intent of causing harm, with the reasonable expectation of causing harm, and those events do cause harm, and so you have committed evil. It really is that simple.
There's one fundamental difference. A gun isn't sentient. It can't reason and make a decision as to whether or not to fire after I incite it by pulling the trigger. People listening to my speech have an option to either act or not, so the responsibility lies solely with them.
One of the things that you may have observed about fire drills is that they are widely advertized in advance, specifically to prevent the panic response which will cause injuries.
No, quite the opposite. I have observed that they are not advertised in advance. This may be a difference between the countries we live in, or just of individual experience. The approach I'm familiar with is that in neither the practice nor a real fire should people have a panic response because when the alarm goes it is something they're used to through regular unannounced practices in a variety of venues and they simply follow the established routine - I imagine that's oversimplified and in a real fire people will tend to notice the smoke and flames and their reactions will change accordingly :) but still, fire practices in my experience are not announced in advance.
From a quick web search:
Have at least one unannounced fire drill in the house every three to six months
There will also be unannounced practice fire drills periodically throughout the year
Emergency evacuation drills may be pre-announced to building staff or occupants, or that may be unannounced.
But I have no basis for saying those are especially representative and I haven't tried to find fire practice policy for theatres in particular, but it does not look to me as though unannounced fire practices are unusual.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
If they torch my house with me in it, it's lawful for me to use ball ammo to stop them.
Arson on an occupied structure is basically attempted murder.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Unless you own a bank and you loot a nation.
You are welcome on my lawn.
these days periodic fire tests (i.e. falsely raising the alarm...) are generally considered a good thing and presumably not dangerous but to be fair I suppose that's partly because it's probably illegal to let public places get as crowded without adequate means of escape as may have been allowed back then.
Also fire drills and false alarms are pretty routine so everyone just files out quietly and doesn't panic.
Though i'd expect shouting fire to have a rather more panic inducing effect than a mere fire alarm.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
"They (government, society in general) need to blame all of this on the poor, underpriveleged blacks, chavs, or whatever they want to call them, you see." I'm not up on the UK lingo, but I thought chavs WERE middle class whites with little education but a fair amount of disposable income?
Arrested for "encouraging disorder" sounds pretty weak? Anyone know what the actual content posted was?
Ahhh, so see? The rich did get hurt after all!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Check the footage on the news websites, the social media websites on youtube.. The looters are multi-racial.
No white people being hunted by the police at all, sure:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8690951/London-riots-CCTV-pictures-of-suspects-are-released-by-the-Metropolitan-Police.html
Keep your racist bullshit off here please.
I think the point is that it's considered brutal and authoritarian for the police to stop rioters from burning down stores over which people live and from killing citizens (at least four died in the UK riots) not because accidents will always happen but because someone will always be on the spot fashionably to denounce any democratic, first-world society (it doesn't matter which one, because all forms of social organization can interchangeably be called brutal and authoritarian when you're willing to stretch language and truth far enough) and the functions of commonwealth as brutal and authoritarian, and the same people will always sympathize with the looters and arsonists and murderers and thugs, and they won't see the inherent contradictions in their own totalizing discourse of the glorification of the "rebel" who isn't.
No, the riot act had no consequences at all, such as indemnity to anybody that injures or kills a rioter that failed to disperse.
Ironic indeed that people were rioting and looting the very street that next week will remember the anniversary of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
A fair number of the rioters appear to be working class youths. This idea that it's a class war is a bunch of bullshit.
FTFY. No such animal as the middle class right now. There's working class that don't, and those that do, and then the rich. Nothing in the middle.
The UK has freedom of expression via the European Convention on Human Rights.
Encouraging people to commit crimes is an offense in the UK. It is not necessary that the crime being encouraged is ever successfully carried out (it is an 'inchoate' offense) so there is no need for the prosecution to make a link between the posting and a particular act of vandalism or robbery. See the relevant legislation for details.
The problem is, following De Menezes, following Tomlinson, following uncensured non-lethal police brutality attached to every protest of the past decade, people instinctively don't believe police reports.
The police do lie, do protect their own and don't apply the law equally to themselves. The IPCC's going to have to produce some pretty serious evidence that the police acted correctly in shooting Mark Duggan if they want to defuse those tensions.
I really dislike this sort of opinion. Do you really believe all available police officers are scouring facebook and twitter rather than say a few officers who for various reasons are unfit to participate in riot control but are helping to prevent them spreading. Yes I want police on the streets cracking skulls but that doesn't mean that they stop dealing with all the normal day to day problems either. This is the same as saying you have a bomb when on a plane or in an airport. It's a crime regardless of how stupid the person saying it is or how they say it.
There's one fundamental difference. A gun isn't sentient.
Indeed. I see all this blaming of people for inciting a riot as ultimately absolving the rioters from their actions. What I find ironic is that it appears the sort of person who is willing to put blame on people for inciting a riot is not so willing to put blame on the politicians who were in part responsible for creating such a volatile environment to begin with.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Well, the police shot and killed a person the police say was an armed drug dealer. Whether true or not, public reaction will have a lot to do with the reputation of the police among the public.
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence.
so.... no wars, then? no one should voluntarily be part of a military?
the government is the one who controls the military; so by logic, the government, when it goes to war, is encouraging (at the very least, lol) people to do violence.
do you now realize that your statement is just too broad to be of any use?
and would you agree that this nation (US) was founded using violence?
how about ANY nation? any one who is free has probably/likely fought to get it or keep it. fight == violence
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
No, the people out on the street rioting are the richer middle class whites. The "haves" are always ready to take just a little more.
Really ? Because from the footage I've seen they look like chavs to me.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Christ, you're really banging the moral relativism drum today aren't you? :P
I will argue that looting is bad regardless of one's morals, since condemnation is built into the meaning of the word. Someone who wanted to describe the activity, but who thought it was acceptable, would use a different word, like 'confiscate', 'take', 'retrieve', 'gain', 'earn', 'win' etc.
That's not what I said and that's not something I implied.
So what was the point of the original post then?
He was charged with encouraging others to riot in the city
I dont know what speech protections are like in the UK, but generally countries tend to have restrictions about things like this.
For instance, getting on facebook and setting a time and place for a store looting would probably not be protected in most countries.
I think this is a case of de minimis and police are only going after this low hanging fruit to be seen to be doing something. If they were the criminal masterminds behind organized attacks maybe it'd be justified but these appear to be just contrarian teenagers and obnoxious a-holes (aka. a cross-section of regular internet users.) To waste resources on what boils down to a PR exercise during a crisis is just stupid.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
So you think that to burn down a city full of innocent people, steal from innocent people, terrify innocent people, killing innocent people is in some way shape or form justified because you "suspect" an innocent man was killed?
I hate to break it to you but there is no justification for arson, robbery and murder.
That said, the UK does not have 'Free Speech'
Actually we do. It isn't written down on a piece of parchment which is venerated as a holy text, so its a bit confusing for Americans to understand.
This article is yet another chance for the US /. readers to go "OMG TEH UK IZ AN POLICE STATE" to make themselves feel better about their own sinking ship. This is the internet version of rearranging the deck chars.
There is nothing politically orientated about the UK riots, its literally just idiots doing whatever they think they can get away with.
"You're right, they are just rioting for the fuck of it. The question is, how did these people get into a position where this was considered OK? Because of the lack of education, jobs and social stability for many of these kids. It's not what they think they're rioting for - which I'd say is for the thrill of it, because they are bored, because they want to get in a ruckus and they want to loot for free stuff - it's what got them to this point. And what got them here was the lack of investment (both in money and education) in the lower/working classes in the UK."
"Just because you do not recognise your actions as political, it doesn't mean they're not political."
(Thanks to the original unknown author.)
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
And I am really, really glad that we don't live in a world where you have any power. At least, I hope we don't.
You're safe. I neither have a path to acquire power nor a desire to achieve it. I am quite possibly the least ambitious man on the planet. The most I'm likely to do is vote in an election here and there. That doesn't happen often, because I don't believe in "lesser of two evils" and will only vote if I find a candidate I believe is a good choice, not merely the best available choice. When I do vote, it's most likely somebody who has no chance of winning because, as you've probably surmised, my opinions are not mainstream.
I have no problem with any of that. I'm not bitter, I'm a believer in democracy. I may not agree with what others believe our society should be like, but apart from voicing my opinion, I believe it's fair that most people get to live in the society they want.
And if you don't hire a killer then she won't either.
Yeah, but to me the important question is who did the direct harmful action. I don't disagree that we're all safer in your world, I disagree on whether it is valid to increase our safety by punishing someone for an action (in this case, the murder), that somebody else committed. If you offer me money to kill someone, I'll refuse and nobody gets hurt. If I have that power, seems to me that the responsibility for the action is solely mine.
They are trash. Destroy them and anyone who supports them. Enough with the kid gloves treatment. Anyone who thinks riot for its own sake is fun deserves to be given a Reginald Denny beatdown as a lesson.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
And yes, I'm aware that inciting violence is a crime in the US as well. I believe it shouldn't be. I sure as hell am not going to commit violence because someone else is telling me to go do it, and if I can behave responsibly despite the incitement of others I don't think they can be held responsible for my actions.
If you were to hire someone to kill another person, you would not be charged with murder, you would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. In other words, it's not the violence (which the 'hirer' did not commit) that gets you in trouble; it's the intent. Similarly, when people incite violence, they (conceptually) are punished for their intent to cause violence, regardless of the means.
Well, the police shot and killed a person the police say was an armed drug dealer. Whether true or not, public reaction will have a lot to do with the reputation of the police among the public.
Yes, I'm sure the Police have a horrible reputation among people who burn, steal and murder at the earliest invitation.
There was no point, just a question mark.
This is the UK police service's latest tactic: quietly observe as teenage thugs burn down peoples' homes and businesses, beat people to death, and loot main shopping streets, and then afterwards, spring into action and arrest people who submitted text to Facebook. Fantastic job they're doing, the streets seem safer already!
Actions and choices have *CONSEQUENCES*!?!?!?
The riots aren't about ideology or protests.
I don't think that the rioters all have the same idea as to why they're doing it, either. There might be some who are doing it for exactly those reasons. Who knows? I don't think that you or I can say what they are thinking.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you want to engage in lazy regurgitation of quote-mining, sure. Otherwise, if you think for a second that they don't actually summarise their entire position on those three words, you'll figure out they mean "really inflammatory, inaccurate messages which could very plausibly lead to property damage and even assault", then it starts to make sense.
But I guess it's just more fun to engage in knee-jerk-reactionary masturbation than think.
The majority of people who were hurt (financially or physically) in the riots are not rich. They're not powerful. They don't hold the paranoid-conspiratorial controls in their hands. This is just the government (or, more accurately Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service) actually cracking down on behaviour which has incited, or has the real possibility of inciting, others to break the laws in very measurable, harmful ways.
So yes, posting inaccurate information is a jailable offence in the UK, if the information is so inflammatory and inaccurate that it incites criminal behaviour. Just as it is in the US. Or anywhere else in the civilised world, come to think of it.
You were saying?
I don't disagree that we're all safer in your world, I disagree on whether it is valid to increase our safety by punishing someone for an action (in this case, the murder), that somebody else committed.
They're punished for the action they committed not for what someone else did but for hiring an assassin. In your world if you're rich or powerful and immoral and can find someone who feels they have nothing to lose and is immoral then you can do pretty much anything - have your wife or your mistress or a complete stranger killed - and then openly say so because hey, all you did was promise the guy a million dollars to do it. Where's the harm in that?
President Nixon, did you actually carry out the break-in yourself? No? Well, no problem then, abuse your power all you like, it's other people doing the work, right? Osama bin Laden, did you fly the plane yourself? No? Well, off you go then, go ahead and find some more lackeys.
Your world has no consequences for anyone who can find others to do their dirty work, because you're not willing to hold BOTH parties responsible for their part in it.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Christ, you're really banging the moral relativism drum today aren't you? :P
I suppose so. But it looks like there's quite a few people who not only just believe in absolute morals, but think that their existence has been proven beyond a doubt.
I will argue that looting is bad regardless of one's morals, since condemnation is built into the meaning of the word.
Well, there appears to be multiple definitions of looting, and I don't see where they have the word "bad" or anything similar in them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Indemnity is granted, but the one hour dispersal period is mandated in the text of the Act: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/rtact10h.htm . One hour is more than enough time for these looters to grab and run. Thus the Riot Act won't solve anything: it just delays action until it's too late to act. A Sacking Act that gave police blanket and permanent authority to use force to stop obvious acts of looting and arson, or that even commanded the police to keep the city from being sacked rather than hanging back and standing around half a block away waiting to get hit with bricks, would be more helpful, because it wouldn't have an hour-long getaway period.
It was fine when the protesters were in Egypt and other countries. Notice how the story has changed when free speech is exercised in a "free" country?
In Egypt people organized peaceful demonstrations and demanded basic human rights. In England people broke into electronic stores and stole Playstation 3s before burning the place down.
And in the UK you'll go to jail for it.. that's why these riots have been going on for *days*. In other countries the rioters would have dispersed after the first two or three were shot dead.
How we know is more important than what we know.
they are the cool kids, the trash talking telling their boss to take a hike, how they pulled one over on "that cop", got Best Buy/Wal-Mart to take stuff back they broke on purpose, rage against the machine, stand up to the man, going to vote for so and so, am so into that, and so on.
In the end they never leave their keyboard because, well its late, its raining, its cold, its too hot, my tummy hurts, have to be at work in fifteen minutes, mom will get mad, etc.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Apart from all the CCTV images the police have released to the public for information on the subjects. Apart from those, right? They *are* going after the rioters - they're also going after those who certainly didn't help the situation.
rubber bullets? you haven't been paying attention to Oakland CA...
They do just sit there, right up until someone "breaks the ice" by evacuating. Someone such as the joker that yelled fire.
I think it is, yes. The problem is that I don't believe in universal morals.
Then you're a fucking retard.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It has actually happened. That's why it was used as an example in an unrelated legal ruling.
Since it has happened, it must be within the realm of possibility.
It's more likely to be due to an inflated sense of entitlement. AFAIK several of the thugs that have been caught have jobs and do OK for themselves. They just figured they'd merge into the crowd, smash some poor sods car up and then go nick an xbox for fun. This is just about people deciding that they deserve a new X, Y and Z, no-matter the cost to the persons life they walk over to get it. Scumbags.
I'd argue it doesn't matter if one or two people stealing TVs actually think they are taking a principled stand on something and they're morally justified. Such people are not the majority, and they're deluded anyway. The riots are about greed. If you have a problem with that generalization, why exactly?
If you don't get to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre then I don't think you get to shout "burn down the theatre" to a willing crowd.
For what it's worth it is illegal to incite a riot in both the US and the UK. I do not see anything special in the means of communication.
You're thinking of lead bullets. The BART incident was not with rubber bullets, and the daily shootings there are also not rubber bullets. Riots in Oakland like the type that were happening in London would not involve rubber bullets, there would be real bullets on both sides.
I'd argue it doesn't matter if one or two people stealing TVs actually think they are taking a principled stand on something and they're morally justified.
Not all of them were looting and destroying things, correct? And whether or not they are morally justified is, in my opinion, subjective.
Such people are not the majority
And?
and they're deluded anyway.
I don't think that's a very good argument.
If you have a problem with that generalization, why exactly?
Because if not all of them are doing it for the reasons that you stated, then your generalization would be incorrect.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
How do you feel about entrapment ?
Your world has no consequences for anyone who can find others to do their dirty work, because you're not willing to hold BOTH parties responsible for their part in it.
They're punished for the action they committed not for what someone else did but for hiring an assassin. In your world if you're rich or powerful and immoral and can find someone who feels they have nothing to lose and is immoral then you can do pretty much anything - have your wife or your mistress or a complete stranger killed - and then openly say so because hey, all you did was promise the guy a million dollars to do it. Where's the harm in that?
In my world there's a difference between saying you'll pay a million dollars for a guy to kill someone and actually paying him. Money exchanges hands, that's fulfillment of a contract, not just speech. That's like my boss paying me to code. He pays me for a service, I give him something for his money. In this world people would soon catch on to the fact that they'll never be paid for the deed, unless the powerful rich guy is willing to risk getting caught. This is functionally no different then your world.
President Nixon, did you actually carry out the break-in yourself? No? Well, no problem then, abuse your power all you like, it's other people doing the work, right?
Nixon resigned because people were pissed off and didn't think his actions were moral. He was never convicted of any crime, and was pardoned before such a thing could happen. Once again, not functionally different.
Osama bin Laden, did you fly the plane yourself? No? Well, off you go then, go ahead and find some more lackeys.
Osama bin Laden was not a citizen who was being tried for breaking any laws. The same rules don't apply in military engagements. It's the reason why such things as collateral damage where innocent people get killed can be allowed to happen. Basically, if Congress decides to declare war (or apparently if the President decides to, which is a different discussion altogether), we can send our military to do damage, and it's as simple as that. In this case we're worried about the threat he poses, not about whether or not we're violating his rights. Whether this is fair is yet another discussion.
I think it is, yes. The problem is that I don't believe in universal morals.
Then you're a fucking retard.
Maybe one of us is, but let's think this through. On the one hand, I bet that for any issue that you believe depends on universal morality, I can come up with an example of a group of people that take the opposite position you do. On the other hand, can you come up with a counter-argument or are insults all you can think of?
You don't need to prove the link before doing the arrest, you only need to prove it to get the conviction. If on the surface the messages appear to encourage the violence then that should be enough to be cause for further investigation and detaining the poster.
If they torch my house with me in it, it's lawful for me to use ball ammo to stop them.
If your house is already on fire, it is unlawful for you to shot at random brown peoples that happen to be nearby when you rush out. Since when you become judge, jury and executioner? Fuck off!
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
Black people gotta lot a problems
But they don't mind throwing a brick
White people go to school
Where they teach you how to be thick
An' everybody's doing
Just what they're told to
An' nobody wants
To go to jail!
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
All the power's in the hands
Of people rich enough to buy it
While we walk the street
Too chicken to even try it
Everybody's doing
Just what they're told to
Nobody wants
To go to jail!
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
Are you taking over
or are you taking orders?
Are you going backwards
Or are you going forwards?
How do you feel about entrapment ?
I might need some clarification, in the form of a scenario. It's hard to get a good definition of what constitutes entrapment, because people have weird misconceptions like, "if you ask if the person is a cop, he must answer yes." I think I understand where you're going with that question, comparing the police involvement with incitement, so I'll try to answer it.
As I understand the concept of entrapment, it's when you cause someone to commit an action they would not otherwise do without the police involvement. Depending on how you define "involvement", I either think it's bullshit, or a valid concept.
If it's true that if I ask to buy drugs from a police officer who looks like he might be dealing drugs, that's not entrapment, but it is entrapment if the officer asks me whether I want to buy some drugs and I answer yes, then I think entrapment is bullshit. I see no difference between either case. I understand the reasoning is that the entrapped person could go their entire life without anyone ever offering to sell them drugs, and they'd never commit the crime. That said, the same could be said for the cop that looks like he might selling drugs. Maybe the person would never come across someone who looks like they're selling drugs if the cop hadn't been there.
If, on the other hand, it's only entrapment if there's coercion involved ("buy these drugs from me, or I'll kill your dog"), then yes, it's a valid check on the police. It's possible the dude would not buy the drugs if he were not under duress.
For the record, I don't think drugs should be illegal (you should have the right to do whatever you want with your life, it only becomes a problem when you put other people in danger...driving under the influence of drugs should be illegal because of the risks to others), but the above scenario was the best I could come up with.
Do you think it's a valid concept ? Ie: can it be used as a defense ?
Now that's rather interesting. How do you reconcile making DUI illegal with your strong belief that only actions which actually cause harm should be illegal ?
Then you're a fucking retard.
History and different cultures would say he's right. Maybe you don't know what universal means.
I wasn't aware you could do any of that through Facebook. I'm thinking we should just ban Facebook altogether if it's that dangerous.
The way law generally works, more than one person can be fully responsible for a single crime. We can hold everyone culpable in a bank robbery guilty of murder for one elderly security guard who has a heart attack, including the guy who was 'just' driving the getaway car, for just one example. There are usually particular reasons and limitations on how the law works for such cases of multiple blame.* I'm not clear just where you are advocating redrawing those lines. For example, if several people fired firearms at the same person, would you prosecute an actual murder charge only against the one that actually hit their target, or perhaps the one who hit nearest a normally lethal zone? Do you see the others as still guilty of attempted murder since they did each do some actual act, or does the fact that the victim didn't get 'attempted murdered' but actually murdered mean the other acts don't matter?
* For your example, the law doesn't want to argue a lot of internal, subjective, state of mind issues, so whether the hit man would have been fully inclined to kill the victim just for a cash offer or had to be persuaded by various other arguments offered by the person soliciting the hit is something the law wants to avoid getting too deep into. Overlapping, shared responsibility means a judge or prosecutor can spend less time bring state of mind related issues before the jury. Prove that both people had, at some points, intent for a particular person to die, and the intent was accomplished by both of them taking actions (such as one telling the other one where a good spot to catch the victim alone was, not just the one action of, say, pulling a trigger), and you don't have to spend days debating just how cold blooded each person was, whether either of them might have changed their mind if things had been just a little bit different, and other intangible or speculative issues that might be presented if blame for a single act is a fixed value that has to be awarded to just one, or even if it's allowed to be divided between everyone involved.
Who is John Cabal?
Speech that advocates specific criminal acts that endanger people or property is not and should not be protected by law.
Saying "burn baby burn" is free speech
saying "lets go steal some stuff from the grocery store tonight" is not
Interestingly sales at retailers on black Friday are okay.
I am in no way, shape or form condoning the looters or their actions. What they did was despicable. I am just curious: how will a judge ascertain whether the "information" was "inaccurate", particularly if the "information" are accusations of wrongdoing allegedly perpetrated by the government, which the government vehemently denies?
"Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
You fail to appreciate that most of what keeps humans as well-behaved as most are is FEAR of punishment.
Act out in ape society and you can get bitten. Humans are no different. If you want to keep apes in line, have sharp teeth and the willingness to use them.
Those yobs are like jock-worshipping, prosperous "sports rioters" in the US who destroy and loot because their team of cattle won or lost a silly game. The way to deal with brutes is to break them, so break them and do not stop until the enemy either submits or dies.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I disagree with the hired killer not getting charged, but giving someone incentives to break the law is a crime, telling someone to break the law with no incentive certainly shouldn't be, because the action is then entirely on the head of whoever is blindly following orders for no reason.
I was nearly shot by UK police. For wearing a long black coat in an off-licence, and then removing it a little hastily when challenged by two armed policemen. The copper who nearly snuffed me let me sit in the back of the car while I got over the shock and told me he nearly pulled the trigger.
Trust me, you can be shot by the UK police without even having a gun on you.
Not that I'm criticising, I couldn't do their job. But they need to do it properly.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
It's more than that. The rioters are the first generation of young people to come of age after the News of the World inspired pedophile hysteria campaign, which made every adult in the western world afraid of children.
All these young people have ever known from adults is a cold apprehension. Even their teachers are afraid to discipline them or be too friendly. Hearing of millionare undergraduates and Olympic representatives taking part in the riots, I wonder if part of the cause of these riots is an entire generation of Social Genies, with the riots being some demented form of collective attention seeking.
I still think that the main cause is the public following the example from the top, but as the list of those accused becomes ever more bizzare, I can't help but wonder if these spontaneous riots are some form of emergent social response by an ostracised generation? How did these young people become feral anyway?
May the Maths Be with you!
because under the influence of alchohol / drugs you're not of sound mind to make the decision to drive or put people in a risk scenario for your own benifit, (it doesn't even have to be about how the drugs affect your performance or in what way they interact with you, you're just not of sound mind to legally accept the responsibility of driving a car, so legally you shouldn't) also the final human in the link is the dude who drove drunk, where as the final link in the chain in the previous example is the actual contract killer (the dude who would have been charged, and don't get me wrong, i disagree with the husband being innocent, but both examples are hardly mutually exclusive.).
specific laws governing the license to use government / publicly funded property can be valid while blanket laws about "hate" communication or incitement shouldn't.
The question is, how did these people get into a position where this was considered OK? Because of the lack of education, jobs and social stability for many of these kids.
No. Lots of them are, but not all, and that's not the cause. Laura Johnson is the posh-grammar-school-and-Exeter daughter of a wealthy businessman. There are others, too.
The first thing that they really do all have in common is that they're all kids. Don't dismiss that: it's been true since ancient Greece that kids do stupid, violent things in groups—the drunk youth after symposia would roam the streets of Athens looking to get into fights; the mutilation of the Herms was the biggest act of young vandalism of all ancient history. The "Angry Youth" of 1968 or 2011 or any other time is never an innovation; the difference is the pretense under which youth exerts violence in testing its limits: sometimes it's "philosophy," sometimes "politics," sometimes "religion," sometimes "greed." The London looters certainly had greed going for them, and some of them seem to have believed they were taking back something owed them (see the entitlement comment above). But these are all adopted reasons that serve to cover the historical truth that youth wants to test its power and often does so in mindblowingly dumb ways.
The other major thing going on is a newfound and uncomplicated organizational competence, quickly discovered in the wake of the first riots over Duggan. The poor among the looters especially seem to have been gang members or affiliates, and they now have fairly secure electronic communications (Blackberry) that let them coordinate a flash mob—ensuring that overwhelming numbers arrive at a point simultaneously to loot and escape, thuggery updated to the era of shock-and-awe. They're also sharing this information with other gangs and descending together on areas that often aren't home-turf to any of the gangs involved, which increases the numbers of looters available for a raid. Thus the kids can arrive along multiple vectors in overwhelming numbers, loot, and often disperse in multiple directions before the police can respond with adequate force to arrest them—and the kids know it. That gives them a sense of impunity, which feeds the testing of limits.
inciting a riot is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. inciting a riot is like yelling "everyone should run out the emergency exit right now, make sure you clog it up and get some people good and trampled.".
aka.. not actually comparable
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence.
As in: 'Uncle Sam Wants You' (to be all you can be and kill people)?
If your premise is correct, then why doesn't this organized theft happen all of the time? And why only in London?
This whole entitlement thing is just head-in-the-sand thinking. The enfranchised always have some reason to poo-poo the motivations of the disenfranchised. But watch it, because when you do that too much you end disenfranchised yourself with extreme prejudice.
no betting! given that you are a fucking retard, it is universally immoral to gamble with you.
help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
True, Yelling "fire" in a theatre is creating a volatile and dangerous situation, encouraging rioting simply validates a criminals behaviour to himself and perhaps his immediate peers.
in this instance, yelling "fire" would be the government / who ever* is at fault for creating the volatile situation in the first place, the "inciting the riot" is similar to the patron who points to the fire exit and creates a rush of bodies that causes the actual damage.
*the individuals that started the actual rioting? I'm not trying to blame the government.*
Also, shouting false warnings lowers the impact of real warnings, thus could lead to even more deaths if permitted.
or maybe less, as people would be less likely to panic and just think their way out the situation. If you don't think your in danger until you are out of the theater while its burning down then the organized movement is probably much safer, even if its a little slower. Or maybe people just need to stop accepting everything that passes through their ears as gospel from sources without authority?
Shut up. Seriously. You obviously want to bang your drum and whinge about the Tea Party but is it really relevant to this discussion? The "rich and powerful" didn't incite the rioters to burn down their own communities. The fucknuts kicking in windows and stealing TVs and trainers weren't fighting a class war. If you think they were you should take your head out of your arse before you suffocate.
A police spokesperson stated that given the heightened level of fear and the continued threat of violence what was considered "reasonable" use of force (the amount of force you're legally allowed to use in self-defence) would also be increased. Which I took to mean: If you have a gang of 5-10 youths trying to kick your door in, or break in through your window and you ding a couple with your cricket bat, you're more likely to get off than you would under normal circumstances.
you're going to need a lot of bullets, because if they weren't after you then, they will be after you now.
No. A "chav" (or in Scotland, a "ned") is more like redneck. If they have the designer gear and the latest trainers (sneakers) it's because they stole them or bought them on a credit card that will never be paid off. If they have a job it's normally something low-paid and unskilled.
Exactly. Of course there are police on the streets. There are also dedicated police officers whose job is to coordinate police on the streets and to look at the overall intelligence picture to see where the next riot might spring up. Anyone who's saying that they're not doing their jobs by investigating Facebook/BlackBerry Messaging/Twitter leads has no fucking clue how these riots were organised and how the rioters were able to die back and re-emerge like the filthy cockroaches they are.
Facts. They are arresting people who were actually at the riots and committing crimes. Is it wrong to also follow other leads to apprehend others? The rioters used Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry Messaging to organise themselves. Fact. The police are investigating social networks to try and track down the looters and rioters.
The police should be out on the street beating and arresting the scum who are torching houses and looting businesses, of course that might be dangerous so they'd better not. Pathetic.
They are out arresting people, idiot. Do you have absolutely no knowledge of how the police operate? Pathetic.
It's an absolute shame neither article provides a sample of the alleged offenses. Given the large numbers of looters who seem to think that consumption of consumer goods is a right (at the very least, the mainstream narrative has followed this portrayal), it is hard to sympathize with these folks. Regardless of this, simply stating "FREE TVs AT X & Y" or "LARGE MEETING OF TRUE PATRIOTS AT STATION X. FIGHT THE POWER! THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT!" should not be deemed criminal speech. Likewise, the creation of a Facebook group in support of those folks (even one in which criminal speech is taking place) should also be protected.
Now, if their speech did seek to incite imminent lawlessness, such as "MEET UP AT X & Y TONIGHT SO WE CAN SET THE STORE ON FIRE!" then go ahead and nab them. But let's not be so quick to pass judgment until we see the evidence behind the allegations.
And we have allowed the people in power, both corporate and government, to no longer have a FEAR of punishment.
Bankers loot a country. They make horrible business decisions and then demand that the government bail them out by cutting social programs. So welfare for those that are "too big to fail" but none for people.
You know where there are no riots? Iceland. They told those bankers, "sorry, but you got yourself into this all on your own, so fuck off". And you know what? The sun still rose the next day, or at least I think it did, depending on which season it is up in Iceland. But either way, people got up, ate breakfast, and life went on. Bankers holding their dicks instead of money from peoples' pockets.
You're goddamn right there's anger. Even unfocused anger. Uninformed anger. But sometimes you have to work with the anger you've got. I'm sure there was a lot of pearl-clutching and tsk-tsk-ing among the powerful and rich during the French Revolution, too. What is it that the tea party likes to say? That line about watering the tree of freedom with the blood of tyrants? Well, in 2011, the notion that people, from the middle class on down, just have it too damn good so they need a little misery. A little less health care. A little less education. A little more work. A little less retirement. We've bought this because there's a huge marketing campaign to sell these ridiculous notions. Governments print money to take care of the rich and powerful, to save "markets" but if a 65 year old thinks it's time to retire, well they've just got it too damn good. Fuck that.-
You are welcome on my lawn.
yes there is, when you have got nothing to lose then that's all the justification you personally need.
Civilized society is everything but civil, It's an attempt to curb animalistic desire with rules to gain a productive output with the reward of the desire being fulfilled at the end and punishment of removing the reward or increasing the desires. Without that reward, where is the incentive to follow the rules? you can hardly blame animals for being animals. humans don't have the desire "to do the right thing" any more than a wolf has in not getting into a fight with the alpha male. we just like to trick ourselves into thinking we are moralistic creatures not anamalistic creatures.
we look into the situation and say "its because they are scum", when its more accurate to say the reason others haven't joined in is because we are simply in a situation where rioting is not a Net gain exercise.
If i have no food then you can bet I'd justify stealing, burning and killing pretty easily if it means i get fed.
hell, countries justify this all the time?! what do you think an army is for? its a collection of well paid thugs who specialise in arson, robbery and murder. justified for "the greater good" and by that, they mean "our greater good, not yours". how is that any different from a gang forming for arson, robbery and murder for their own benefit?
Can you come back and try saying that again when you're not high? Thanks.
I never said or implied anything of the sort. However, if they were to assault or menace me such that I were in legitimate fear for my safety I certainly would be legally entitled to shoot them on my property.
I said NOTHING about "brown peoples". DO YOU THINK I WOULD TOLERATE BEING ATTACKED BY WHITES? If so, why? I value me more than shiteaters of any race.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Absolutely spot on. Could not agree more.
I'd support execution for economic crimes because of the immense damage they do. Any fraud or theft over a million bucks should carry a public death sentence, Chinese style. It's "economic treason", which unlike crimes of passion, capital punishment would deter.
Bernie Madoff wouldn't be so smug if he and his cohorts were marched into a stadium and shot. I'd volunteer for the firing squad lottery.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Threaten to cut off social services to rioters and see how things change. This is already under discussion.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Erh... that didn't happen yet?
But ... how do you plan to identify them, so you cut off social service to the right people? And, if you can identify them, why not jail them for rioting?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This would be the same hysteria that mandates that, when I take a photo of my daughter playing in the park, I have to be careful not to get any strangers' kids in the shots, lest the parents start looking at me askance and asking why I'm photographing their child (because he happened to be behind my child in line for the slippery-dip, right).
Shit, I've actually had people approach me during outings with my daughter and ask me what I was doing, taking photos of a little girl. I finally quit being nice about it, and started replying with "Maybe she keeps calling me 'Daddy' because I am? Yes, she is my kid. Yes, in addition to being a sticky-beak, you are also a complete mongchop. Now bugger off and mind your own before I feed you this camera."
My personal irritation aside, I find your theory interesting.
There was a similar wave of hysteria in the US back in the 80s and 90s (as I was working in the news media at the time, I got to read all the Associated Press feeds about the McMartin trial as they came in over the wire, and there were lots and lots of them.), BTW.
I suspect at least some of the effects are not unlike what you describe.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
In my world there's a difference between saying you'll pay a million dollars for a guy to kill someone and actually paying him.
That's nice, so in your world WHAT is the difference between those two? Your previous position
was I am fully in favor of prosecuting only the hired killer, and not the guy who hired him.. I think you're sort of hinting now that if the police catch the guy doing the hiring after he's paid up then maybe he could be prosecuted after all but not if he hasn't paid yet - but you haven't actually said that. Could you state what your current position actually is on the criminality or otherwise of hiring killers?
Osama bin Laden was not a citizen who was being tried for breaking any laws. The same rules don't apply in military engagements. It's the reason why such things as collateral damage where innocent people get killed can be allowed to happen.
Crap. You can't really have this much difficulty considering the implications of your opinions. Suppose that someone who is an American citizen, living in America, does exactly the same thing as Osama bin Laden. Do you think he should be able to be tried for his crimes or do you think it's okay as long as someone else did the actual killing? Or are you now of the opinion that money probably actually changed hands in which case he could be tried but if it didn't then no? Or do you think he can't be tried because it would be somehow wrong (?) to put him on trial for what you see as being other people's actions but that the military could be sent in to shoot him untried because then you can apply a different test?
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Why should he even get a round off?
He didn't instantly surrender and was armed. As in the US, every scumbags supportive criminal family caterwauls when they get capped.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Basically, if Congress decides to declare war (or apparently if the President decides to, which is a different discussion altogether), we can send our military to do damage, and it's as simple as that. In this case we're worried about the threat he poses, not about whether or not we're violating his rights. Whether this is fair is yet another discussion.
I'll stop responding after this but I'll add this note on the final part of your comment - this isn't about "we" and whether it's "fair" isn't another discussion. The question is exactly about whether you (in 'your world') feel that it is wrong to hold him responsible for actions actually carried out by others but actively instigated by him.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Your comment is very close to inciting violence.
What would TOTALLY rock would be if you went back to 1997 and persuaded your mom to have an abortion.
I looted a corpse and got 20 Silver and a Bastard Sword of Badassery
Ban MMOs. Looting is bad.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Fox News is already in the works to excuse beating down the poor if any riot here. They are really playing this "entitlement" card hard. There is no shame in these people at Fox News. They let the rich skate with tax cuts and tax loopholes. They let multinational corporations skip out on taxes, but they all want to squeeze the poor to middle class even harder.
The propaganda machine is running full steam and full press. They will stir up violence here, I will bet money on it. They stirred that one idiot to shoot that little girl and congresswoman. They weren't even trying, wait until they kick it into high gear.
Tent cities of poor people are springing up around the country. Wait until the "authorities" start sending in shock troops to get rid of them. Tent cities will be targets of violence. This has no happy ending to it. Civil War is coming I am afraid. It's all a tinder box on a mountain of leaking gas cans. Ponder this;
These tent cities will increase. This will NOT pass muster with "the authorities". They will send in our huffy, over bearing, know it all, god of all, cops to roust some people out. This will turn violent. Women and children will get hurt or killed, then cops will get slaughtered. The crowds will followed them back to where they came from and hold responsible who sent them. This will be violent as well. This will in turn panic other authorities and it all explodes into chaos. The word will get out how the cops are rousting, hurting and killing even women and kids and people will flip the fuck out.
It will be war in the fucking streets. You will not be able to shop, if utilities stay on it will be a miracle. Fires will be rampaging, because there will not even be close to enough people to fight them. Especially in the cities, the fires will be unbelievable. People will flood out of the cities, thinking they will just make it in the countryside. It will turn into a slaughter fest in the countrysides as they take to TAKING what they find and need.
You have to consider how fragile our country is. When the electricity stops, and the trucks stop bringing the food, life as we know it is over. We are NOT equipped to sustain ourselves. Law? We will see just how fragile that whole concept is, especially with this many people involved.
On the other hand, this is pretty exciting. Let's say it all goes to shit. Think of it like a zombie movie, but the zombies are starving people. All of those people from the cities as they spread out across the land, trying to find anything to eat. They will consume like a locust and destroy the ability of the country to produce in their fight to survive. I don't suggest a stand up fight, but instead hiding, and hope they have ate the dogs, so a starving dog doesn't smell you out and lead them to you.
Anyway, I digress. The rich have drawn a line in the sand. They think they have the power politically, and if we don't burn them all out of office in 2012, I doubt we will see the end of it. We can feel it coming in our bones, some of us. It's been a long time coming, but its about to knock the door down. Are you ready? I don't think any of us are for what we are about to see.
Take the Red Pill.
"They shot and killed an armed drug dealer."
Who, according to at least one eye witness was on the ground and restrained.
Stop being silly. Seeking to understand why something has occurred is not the same as condoning that thing. The knee-jerk reaction of holding your hands over your ears and simply denouncing anyone who seeks to understand the event as being "on the side of the criminals" is ridiculously childish, prima facie incorrect and detrimental in the short and long term.
Thought thinks itself.
President bush did you only lie to every one about the weapons of mass destruction and not actually invade iraq your self. "Yes" worked for him.
Looting shops and setting fire to them is unethical, regardless of morality.
Morals.. Relative.. Ethics.. Not so much.
Considering the coverage due to Riot/Civil Unrest is an optional (and expensive) extra, most don't have it. So it's all shouldered by the shop keepers.
This will definitely put many out of business, lowering jobs available in the area and making life harder for the poorest.
It hurts everyone.
The richest get irritated, the poorest get screwed.
What a strange story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_response_vehicle
Why were you challenged?
You do know that if police point a firearm at you - it has to be justified exactly the same as discharging it.
I say they should have shot you for talking nonsense, your story is full of holes. Even a 7 year old retarded kid would have some questions.
They're doing things like sending someone that happened to be passing a store that had been looted and stole a £3.50 pack of bottled water to jail for 4 months. They don't care whether they're actually getting the hardcore rioters, they just want to find someone - anyone - to make an example of!
Well, aside from all the looting and vandalism in Egypt which for some odd reason didn't get quite so widely reported. (A whole bunch of irreplacable historic artifacts got trashed, for a start.)
Why should that man NOT go to jail? It doesn't matter how much the goods were worth, it matters much more that he observed that the shop was being looted, and crossed the threshold into the shop anyway. It doesn't really matter what he exited with.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Dude, honestly. If you hire someone to kill your wife, you deserve to go to jail for a long time.
Paying to have someone killed is at least as bad as doing the killing yourself. Both you and your hired killer get put away, any other outcome is quite frankly completely bonkers.
Like the poster further above, the rioters I saw on TV looked mostly like chavs. And try telling the poor dark shopowners why they are now out of business because some unaccountable mob burned and/or looted their meager store. And insurance won't cover these sorts of events, if they even have insurance.
Don't be such a twat.
I don't know whether the man they shot was a drug dealer or not (my cousin who lives in the area says he was known as one locally, but this is not a fact). I don't know whether he threatened police with his firearm* or not. What has been stated as fact so far is that there is no forensic evidence to suggest he fired his pistol. The bullet that lodged in the radio of one of the arresting officers was a type issued to police, and was most likely fired by another of the arresting officers.
My opinion is that the arresting officers (who were armed, and if they were armed UK police that means they were a. armed with effective and highly lethal firearms and b. wearing suitable protective gear) could, and indeed should have arrested him, not fatally shot him. Then he would be sitting in a prison cell right now. Riots could possibly have been avoided (this is not to say that they wouldn't have happened at another time, of course, since this event was merely a catalyst).
Instead, they reacted in hysterical fashion, a police officer got shot and it set off the chain of events we have seen in the last week.
WHY are the UK armed police, who are a specially trained force, not trained better? Why do they react so badly? Why are they not trained in using appropriate levels of force?
* For people who care, his firearm has been stated to be a BBM Bruni self-loading pistol, converted to fire live ammunition. I'm guessing this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQf6MSvOSLs
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
The gp's thesis is rather untested; I'm willing to believe it has contributed. Another contribution is probably made by American hip-hop culture which seems to glorify anything which is anti-establishment...the same establishment that provides schools, health care, and all those other services of which young people generally have no appreciation. The philosophy that is promoted by that one does not get ahead by hard work and education. Rather, it promotes the idea that one gets ahead because of luck or by taking "it" from someone else, and that someone else or entity is more responsible for someone's lot in life rather than their own moxie. It is a self-defeating philosophy for any large group to believe.
Argh.
I've started with facts and then moved straight on to stating my opinion. I do not know that they reacted in a hysterical fashion. I don't know what happened. However, I *infer* that they reacted in a hysterical fashion from the known facts that the victim did not fire his weapon, and an officer shot another officer.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Since a judge is very likely to be a great deal smarter than you, I'm sure he (or she) will be perfectly able to figure it out.
I suspect we have a budding new Utilitarian here, only he doesn't know it yet. Welcome to the club.
It doesn't really need to provide links to the actual crimes. All it needs to is show that some people will not get away with it to make it stop. It will be months if not years before its all worked out in the courts and crap, but by then, the riots would have likely stopped and this is largely what it's intent is about.
Most people who commit a crime, would not have committed that crime if the likely hood of them getting caught was real in their mind. This is what these arrests are designed to do. They could parade actors in front of news cameras showing them getting busted for taking part in the riots and looting and it would have the same effects.
This is coming from the same police force who shot and killed unarmed Irish protesters claiming they had guns, shot a "Asian" (Middle Eastern) guy multiple times in the head claiming he had wires sticking out of his clothes.
Like this you mean?
Which I took to mean: If you have a gang of 5-10 youths trying to kick your door in, or break in through your window and you ding a couple with your cricket bat, you're more likely to get off than you would under normal circumstances.
Is the UK really so messed up that this wouldn't be considered completely justified under normal circumstances? What would the cops expect you to do? Open the door and invite them in for tea and crumpets?
I'm not sure how "reasonable use of force" could ever change for the average citizen. It changes for soldiers in a war zone, sure, because we tend to have the ability to kill people from far away, so in an environment full of hostiles "reasonable" might mean "shoot anything that moves", while under normal circumstances it's "shoot anything that shoots at you". I'm just having a hard time seeing how it could change for civilians in a country where nobody is supposed to have weapons in the first place.
It's not just the families - all the cop-haters start spewing their vitriol because no "pigs" got killed. Trolls like him don't deserve a response.
FTFY. No such animal as the middle class right now. There's working class that don't, and those that do, and then the rich. Nothing in the middle.
Is this the new talking-point of the idiots? I only ask because I hadn't heard it before, and two of you spouting it in the same thread is unlikely to be a coincidence. It must be fresh out of the propaganda-mill.
what do you think an army is for? its a collection of well paid thugs who specialise in arson, robbery and murder.
Yep. In other news, physicists are all a bunch of crazy geniuses specializing in eeevil plots and doomsday weapons.
I was just trying to be funny, since about 4 up the thread there was some talk about the rich defending their interests. Fail :(
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Argh.
I've started with facts and then moved straight on to stating my opinion. I do not know that they reacted in a hysterical fashion. I don't know what happened. However, I *infer* that they reacted in a hysterical fashion from the known facts that the victim did not fire his weapon, and an officer shot another officer.
Thank you. It's rare to see someone actually correcting themselves in an attempt to be rational. You've just restored my faith in humanity!
That said, your inferences are a little premature. AFAIK no officer was shot - the bullet lodged in his radio. This suggests it may well have been a ricochet - it happens. Or it may have been the suspect after all - there's no reason why he couldn't have gotten his hands on "ammunition of the type usually issued to police". Jumping to conclusions at this point is foolish. Why not wait for the police report?
Also, while it's possible that they may have been able to apprehend him without killing him, why would you expect them to take that kind of risk? If someone points a weapon at me and I believe he intends to use it, I am going to shoot him. I'm not going to argue, negotiate, or practice my ninja-skills; I'm going to shoot him in the head, and then shoot his body if it's still twitching. Anyone who faults me for that is a fool. If you personally have no survival instinct, that's your problem - I like being alive! Yes, police, fire fighters, soldiers, etc. are expected to place their lives in danger in order to do their jobs, but "be suicidal" is not part of the job description. There's a difference between calculated risks and just being stupid.
Since a judge is very likely to be a great deal smarter than you
Obviously you haven't met many of them. Why, just this morning I was reading about one of these smart guys who know better than us.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So your suggestion is ? The reality is simple : the rich are paid from the profit of companies, the "poor" and everyone else generally is paid as a cost center.
So why don't we compare actual profit margins of average companies ? 1-3% (granted, banks have more, but even there 10% is truly exceptional). So companies create value, and they pass 99% of that to raw materials, one of which is labour. Even the worst of the worst, companies like ExxonMobil have profit margins just above 1%. Most of the economy runs on those very low profit margins. Most companies are not Google or Apple.
So let's suppose we put in a 100% tax (and as most people already don't pay taxes, the tax is effectively mostly paid by very rich people (at least richer than me). But suppose we go all Soviet/Nat. Socialist on "the rich", kill them and take all their money. What have we just "conquered" from the "dishonest/polluting/evil" rich ? Just enough to give Americans a ~2% wage increase. After that, it's all gone. If you're one of the "let's have no borders" socialists, it's much worse than that.
And of course, this is assuming that such a thing is possible without destroying the economy. People invent, work and take risks to get rich. Take away the incentive, and you take away the product. So this will not happen without causing a huge disaster.
So can you please get some perspective ? I must say I don't really have an opinion on whether taking down "the rich" is just or not, but the always implied message of propagandists like yourself is flat-out wrong : there is no money to be had from the rich for the noble proletariat. You can't take their money and redivide it, because that would simply not work, it's too little money. And given the disadvantages of taking down "the rich", which boils down to the destruction of the companies they own, it will in reality be a serious, serious pay cut.
So can you please modify your tone ? I don't really care if it's just or wrong to redistribute money. But let's please stop the charade : if we do that, maybe there is some short term satisfaction there, but no money, and extremely likely a disaster will follow.
I worked for a relatively smaller bank at the time.. 54 billion ish. This part: "then demand that the government bail them out " may be accurate for a few, but the 1.4 billion we were given was not welcome, but actually forced down our throat. Then we were required to loan that money out (not hoard the cash). JP Morgan, when they paid thier stimulus back, they paid it back including the profits they made from loaning out that cash.
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is still against the law.
Actually, its not. Its perfectly legal to do exactly that. You can not be arrested or punished for doing so. You can, however, be held accountable for possible damages and and injury inflicted on the general public as they reacted to hearing such a proclamation. There is a difference.
Having said that, you are absolutely right in that we have NEVER had the freedom to say anything we want. Contrary to a massive ignorance, the first amendment was never intended to allow people to say anything and everything on their mind. Along these lines, verbally threatening someone has never been deemed protected speech. Neither is publicly lying about someone.
The intent of the first amendment is to protect the pen from the state and to allow for revolution, rather than john q to incite general riots or defame someone's character and/or business.
You know, the white folks in those pictures after Katrina had not been observed looting what they had from a store. The blacks had. There was a reason other than racism to use different terms.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
How do you think the Tea Party started? How many Tea Partiers do you think know what the TARP program or the debt ceiling really mean? All they know that they believe the blacks and mexicans are getting something that they're not getting. One of the most "conservative" states is Texas, that has a $27 billion budget deficit and takes more Federal taxpayer money than almost any other state, yet they're mad at "big government's wasteful ways". They're a welfare state that hates the Welfare State.
That seems a little bit like a strawman argument. I'm neither a Republican, nor a Tea Party member, but I do hope the tea party succeeds in getting the Federal budget balanced and that has *nothing* to do with "blacks and mexicans". Also, you neglected to mention that Texas also *pays* more Federal Texas than just about any other state. I found some numbers from 2005 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html) and according to those numbers Texas recieved $0.94 for every dollar they paid in Taxes. Not exactly a welfare state, is it?
I mean, think about it. You have no outlook in life, you have no hope for progress, no hope to better your lot, and the "threat" you're facing is jail time? Compared to having what you else never will have?
Agreed.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose"
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Why is it necessary to kill anyone? Why not just actually recover the money? I guess we'd have to go after those offshore banks in Panama.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's the "divide and conquer" strategy that the "rich and powerful" use.
Pit one economically disadvantaged group against another. It's being done here in the States and in many European countries. It's something that the political elite in Africa and parts of Asia have done for centuries. It's not new at all.
How do you think the Tea Party started? How many Tea Partiers do you think know what the TARP program or the debt ceiling really mean? All they know that they believe the blacks and mexicans are getting something that they're not getting. One of the most "conservative" states is Texas, that has a $27 billion budget deficit and takes more Federal taxpayer money than almost any other state, yet they're mad at "big government's wasteful ways". They're a welfare state that hates the Welfare State.
You better believe that the people who own private prison corporations are praying that we get London-style riots over here. Every time they see an arrest they're thinking "ka-ching!"
You make it sound like the rich and powerful orchestrated the rioting/looting in the UK. It had nothing to do with the rich and powerful. It was mindless, thrill-seeking criminals who took advantage of a peaceful protest and turned it ugly. And you know nothing of the tea party movement.
In that case of the young girl's suicide, it was a grown woman who was acting on the things she already knew the girl was struggling with. Her parents did what they could to try to keep her off the internet and away from it, but she got online anyway.
The woman posed for months as a young boy to spark a fake relationship and then used that to abuse an emotional young girl. Yes she did have an issue with depression to begin with, but it is entirely unfair to say her parents or the school system did not already know and attempt to help her. It was a vile, cruel and completely malicious woman who came up with her sick plot to lead that poor girl on for months, only to turn and tell her she didn't deserve to live. That poor girl thought she had a little boyfriend who cared about her and talked with her when she wanted company. I don't believe you were completely informed on that particular situation. Mind, I'm not inherently at odds with your stance on the topic at hand, but in that situation it was simply not the same.
The man was ill, and never claimed Fox News motivated him. Besides, are you one of the folks who really think violent movies and games make people kill?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Do you think it's a valid concept ? Ie: can it be used as a defense ?
As I tried to explain in my earlier post, I don't fully understand what is considered entrapment and what isn't. If you do a search online, you find a lot of confused people who makes claims based on a lack of understanding as well. Depending on the definition of entrapment, it's either a valid defense, or it isn't. Look at the two cases that I provided (one of which involved coercion, and the other didn't) to get an idea, or supply me with a scenario of your own and I'll tell whether I think it's a valid defense or not.
Now that's rather interesting. How do you reconcile making DUI illegal with your strong belief that only actions which actually cause harm should be illegal ?
It's a question of who holds the responsibility for the harmful action. If I incite people to violence, everyone listening to my speech has the option of either go hurt somebody else or not, so they should hold sole responsibility for their actions. If I drive drunk, I'm not giving any potential victim the option of either getting into an accident or not.
On the other hand, this is pretty exciting.
No offence, but you're a fucking weirdo.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
the 1.4 billion we were given was not welcome, but actually forced down our throat. Then we were required to loan that money out
* breaks out the world's smallest violin *
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Crap. You can't really have this much difficulty considering the implications of your opinions. Suppose that someone who is an American citizen, living in America, does exactly the same thing as Osama bin Laden. Do you think he should be able to be tried for his crimes or do you think it's okay as long as someone else did the actual killing?
I don't think it would be "ok", as in morally ok. I'm not advocating hurting people here, directly or indirectly. Honestly, your scenario is very emotional, and I do find it difficult to reason through it. In attempting to leave emotion out of it, and to just think through this in a logically consistent manner, I have to say that if you were not directly involved in killing people, and if everyone else who was directly involved could have made a conscious choice to not kill those people, then they should be the only ones to hold responsibility for the action.
Or are you now of the opinion that money probably actually changed hands in which case he could be tried but if it didn't then no?
You have good points, and my position was indeed inconsistent. Alright, paying someone to perform an illegal action is no different than asking somebody to perform an illegal action, in that in either case you're not actually performing the action. Forced to make that choice, I'd rather make it legal for people to hire criminals than making it illegal to incite others to criminal activity via speech. In the end, the responsibility should lie on the shoulders of the person who performed the action, and nobody else.
Or do you think he can't be tried because it would be somehow wrong (?) to put him on trial for what you see as being other people's actions but that the military could be sent in to shoot him untried because then you can apply a different test?
No, I don't believe the military or any other branch of government should have the right to do anything to any citizen or legal resident without trial.
I'll stop responding after this but I'll add this note on the final part of your comment - this isn't about "we" and whether it's "fair" isn't another discussion. The question is exactly about whether you (in 'your world') feel that it is wrong to hold him responsible for actions actually carried out by others but actively instigated by him.
The reason it's a separate discussion is because we'd now have to go into my beliefs about "right" and "wrong"
I don't believe in absolute morals. I think the default state is that anyone can do anything they want. I'm not a religious man, and I believe we're just animals. Killing each other is, from a personal perspective, horrifying. From a universal perspective, no different than a lion killing another lion.
We are, however, social animals, so we have preservation instincts. We are also intelligent enough to realize that if we just allow the stronger to go and take whatever they want, then we'll spend all our time defending our life and property. For this reason, and for this reason only, we create a society that agrees killing is wrong, and agrees on rights of property. People inside this society agree to not kill each other, not to steal from one another, and any other laws they think would make for a better society. Anyone breaks those rules, we have the means to enforce it: no person is strong enough to fight against the entire society.
When we deal with people who have formed different societies based on different rules, they haven't agreed to our rules, and we haven't agreed to theirs. So the rules that apply to your society don't apply when you deal with them. Therefore you need a military, to prevent other societies from trying to enforce their rules on you. When they do something that harms your society, you have no right to try them according to your rules, they're not members of your society. You might, however, be strong enough to do something else about it.
Are you sure it wasn't their insurance companies?
The taxpayer foots the bill for riots in the UK.
Only if the victims aren't insured, as I understand it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We do still have a legal system inthe UK, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these messages were directly provocative. They can't (yet) put someone in jail simply for writing "let's all go looting for the lulz" in their bedrooms.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's wasn't a very nice "present"The rules and regulations sent the compliance folks into a tizy. The loan officers were baffled trying to make sense of all the new rules. Making front page of local newspapers that were less than flattering. It was a nightmare. Even worse than that was trying to pay it back. Sorry, no process in place for that, please continue with all the new regulations and we'll get back to you next year.
Um, I would like to apologize for most of my previous posts as well.
And in the UK you'll go to jail for it.. that's why these riots have been going on for *days*. In other countries the rioters would have dispersed after the first two or three were shot dead.
Utter bollocks, typical of the US posters here who seem to think that the only means of self defence is a gun, and that somehow without firearms you aren't allowed any other means of self defence.. If you have a goup of people wih dogs, baseball bats and boots, they're going to be able to make most rioters think again.
Oh, and it wouldn't just be the honest homeowners and shopkeepers that were armed, would it? So far, there have only been a couple of instances of guns being involved (e.g. the apparently gang related shooting in Croydon at the weekend). A least it's not turned into a full-pitched armed uprising here.
And the riots have not been "going on for days" as you suggest, there have been individual areas that have flared up and died down within a day
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You have always been allowed to defend yourself, In the situation of a group of youths trying to break in to your house, you can do whatever is reasonable to protect yourself and your proerty. Just because you can't mow them down with a machine gun doesn't mean you jus have to stand there and do nothing.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
a country where nobody is supposed to have weapons in the first place.
weapons != firearms
Cricket bats, hatchets, baseball bats, kitchen knives, cast iron saucepans, large dogs, stout wooden sticks, spades, iron bars, pickaxes, metal chairs and many other things can be used as weapons.
At least in the UK it's unlikely the rioters will have firearms.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Another contribution is probably made by American hip-hop culture which seems to glorify anything which is anti-establishment
No, that's just normal youthful rebelliousness. We learned it from you guys a few generations ago.
The problem is in scale and in debt ownership.
Most of Iceland debt was/is owned by overseas companies. So Icelanders themselves were not directly affected by this. They were affected by the collapse of their lucrative banking industry, however, which was more than enough. In the US case most of the debt is owned by Americans themselves. So a bank failures would hurt Americans themselves mostly. And that's not good for us all.
Mind you, I'm not against punishing banks for their behavior. They should have been nationalized and their management should have been fired (preferably into the Sun using a cannon).
A quick google, and I find that the $27B is over two years.
I also find that the week after it was identified, the Tx legislature got to work reducing that deficit. Supposedly, they cut $31B from their budget over the next two years....
On the other hand, there's California....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Um, don't know why I posted the other reply, maybe to annoy you. Modded you up, posts were informative.
Typical profit margin for a company is around 15%-20%. A company with profit margin of 1-3% is unusual, not impossible, certainly, but unusual.
Then the next issue is the distribution of income. Ok, your company might expend 99% of its income on labor cost. But if uses 90% of its income to pay to one top manager and 9% for everyone else then we have a problem.
And that's actually what happens right now - the gap between lowest paid and highest paid workers widens with almost lightspeed.
Why not wait for the police report?
I assume b/c these people don't trust the police to actually report the truth if that truth reflects negatively on the officers involved. I don't know enough about the culture of London PD to say whether that mistrust is justified or not.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
I assume b/c these people don't trust the police to actually report the truth if that truth reflects negatively on the officers involved.
So then why bother discussing specifics? Just say "I hate cops" and leave it at that. If you're just going to assume they're always doing the wrong thing, then the details of any particular incident are completely irrelevant. May as well just assume that they've killed 20,000 innocent people this year, and covered it up.
Notwithstanding ...
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
There is a very large distance between assuming cops are basically legally sanctioned murderers and not trusting cops to effectively police themselves when one of their coworkers and friends screws up. Maybe London PD can be trusted to do so, maybe they can't. But it seems to me that some people feel they can't.
Of course, there will always be those that don't trust the police, no matter how honest and transparent they are. Just as there will always be those that implicitly trust the police, no matter how corrupt they are.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
What would the cops expect you to do? Open the door and invite them in for tea and crumpets?
Short answer: "Yes."
they didnt point the gun for TALKING, moron, read well before you post. he was stopped for something else, then hastily attempted to remove his coat.
Read radical news here
"Possession of an Offensive Weapon
Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. (Archbold, 24.106a)
The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use". The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury (24-115 Archbold).
Lord Lane, CJ. in R v Simpson (C), (78 Cr.App.R.115), identified three categories of offensive weapons:
those made for causing injury to the person i.e. offensive per se. For examples of weapons that are offensive per se, see Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, (Stones 8-22745) and case law decisions. (Archbold 24-116). The Criminal Justice Act (1988) (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008 came into force on 6th April 2008 with the effect that a sword with a curved blade of 50cm or more (samurai sword), has been added to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988;
those adapted for such a purpose;
those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person.
In the first two categories, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse."
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO POSSESS ANY WEAPON IN THE UK. If you pick up any object and use it to intentionally injure someone, you are guilty of carrying an Offensive Weapon. If questioned by police, and you indicate that under dire circumstances you MIGHT intentionally injure someone with it, you can be arrested. This has happened.
Since you made this post, if you ever carry "Cricket bats, hatchets, baseball bats, kitchen knives, cast iron saucepans, large dogs, stout wooden sticks, spades, iron bars, pickaxes, metal chairs and many other things" in the UK, you are immediately guilty of this offence, as you have stated intent to use them to cause injury.
Sure, you'll probably never actually run afoul of this, because they probably won't be able to trace this Slashdot post to your physical person. And to be fair, a lot of people with legit reasons to carry tools have been arrested but subsequently released with (or without) great apology from police and/or judges. But don't kid yourself about your ability to legally go armed in the UK...
THERE WAS NO GUN INVOLVED IN THE SCENE. it was planted later. moron. read first. i dont know why you are even using two eyes and a brain if you are not going to read before you form an opinion.
Read radical news here
yet you both graced me with your responses, havent you. thank you for the honor you bestowed on me !!! world is not the same anymore !!
now, go back to your boot-licking. chop chop.
Read radical news here
I do so love feeding trolls so here goes. Ahem...
The gun was planted you say? How intriguing! I assume you have some evidence to back up your wild (and libellous) claim? Something that overrides the statement from a local, and those of friends where they state that he carried a gun for "protection"? No? Ah well, hopefully no-one in the police reads that and presses charges.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Well, if we're just talking about accepted standards and such, you'd have a point. Must people do probably find it "bad." However, he just said that it was "bad."
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Oh dear, we can't have any bankers in a "tizzy" now can we?
Did the "compliance folks" have to retire to their fainting couches?
Brother, people are hurting out there, and banks have been getting away with murder. And it all can be traced to 2004 when the capitalization and reserve requirements were shrunk down to the point where banks can basically not have anything in the vaults and still play like high rollers in Vegas.
Oh, how were the "compliance folks" doing in 2003 - 2005 when they were loaning money to anyone on just a signature because it was so profitable to just bundle those bad loans and sell them to investment banks? I bet they weren't in a "tizzy" back then.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What are you looking at, 1963 profit statements?
Average corporate profits are at least in the 15-20% range or the Board of Directors shits themselves. We have seen year after year of all-time record corporate profits, while they're laying off workers and squeezing people to work longer, harder hours with fewer benefits and less pay.
There's not a company in the world that expends 99% of its income on labor cost.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Uhm, 1-3% margin is possible for a company with big trade volumes. But as I've said, it's definitely unusual.
And my company with 99% labor cost was just an exaggerated example. I actually completely agree with you :)
Are you suggesting we kill everyone who works for Goldman Sachs and maybe 80% of the people who work on Wall Street (including IT departments)? Isn't that a little bit extreme?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you have any idea how much higher that is than most states?
In most states, their Federal taxes go to fund what the Federal government does, like the military, border enforcement, FBI, etc. But Texas, for some reason, is considered exempt from having to contribute more than six cents of every dollar it pays in taxes to the Federal government. And even with all that income, they have among the worst education systems, the worst public safety and health systems, the worst water systems, the worst environmental record, and the biggest proportion of jobs that are minimum wage.
Texas is a failed state.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You do realize that, whether we agree that huge companies have 1-3% or 15-20% doesn't really matter for the point made, right ? 20% profit added to govt's coffers is not nearly enough to solve our social problems, and the destruction that measure will cause will far exceed 20% of the economy.
So whether you're right ... or I'm right, the point remains : taking the money of the bankers will bring nothing but destruction for barely any reward. Stop claiming it somehow will (because you're being rather disingenuous about this, you're in essence claiming that because a tiny number is off by an order of magnitude, yet still quite tiny, and this somehow makes a large difference to the larger point. It doesn't)
(the number I think you should take is total corporate profit/GDP which is definitely not 15%)
Nope. You're missing one fact - the distribution of labor costs.
Taking money from bankers in the form of nationalizing the biggest banks, I think, will bring eventual stability. Banks don't _need_ to be innovative and flexible. So why not just make the biggest banks to be state-run?
No, all are to blame. The roiters are to blame. The inciters are to blame. That's how morality works, there's no such thing as blame shifting.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I have one question : how will that work ? Can you explain how & why that would influence the majority of society and why that would be a good/bad thing ?
Here's what will happen, according to me : nationalizing the biggest banks, if effective, meaning it will really control lending will switch the economy to the communist model : capital only available under control of the government system.
Banks need to invest in risky ventures and they need to do this out of profit motive. This is close to the basis of capitalism. Obviously this can only be done by banks not controlled by the state which may go bankrupt (and must be allowed to go bankrupt). The only alternative to profit motive is political motive and this will, again, bring us back to the failed communist history.
Doing this will obviously massively widen the gap between rich and poor, to levels that are currently only seen in socialist or dictatorial states like North Korea or Middle eastern states.
yup
Killing big banks won't kill lending because:
1) Classical banking does not require anything innovative. You simply give out loans using funds from deposits. It's simple, it works.
2) Banks certainly don't NEED to invest in anything risky. Usually banks require collateral to back the loan applications.
3) There are more than enough entities ready to invest in risky ventures.
4) Small and medium-sized banks with properly regulated leverage are perfectly OK.
Doing all that won't have any big effect on income distribution gap. However, it can help to make the economy more stable.
1) Classical banking does not require anything innovative. You simply give out loans using funds from deposits. It's simple, it works.
Of course not, that's because the innovation and risk is not in the loan itself, but WHO you lend to. Give this power to the politicians and the banking system crashes because we "lent" 10*GDP to the solar panel installation company run by the president's nephew. You see the problem ?
Oh let me guess : you will make legislation immune to this problem, right ? Again : how would that work ?
2) Banks certainly don't NEED to invest in anything risky. Usually banks require collateral to back the loan applications.
Euhm ... are you sure about this ? Because it sure seems to me that just about every venture I know of depends on banks to run (either direct loans with wildly insufficient collateral, or "leasing" equipment).
3) There are more than enough entities ready to invest in risky ventures.
Right. Go read hacker news and double check this claim.
4) Small and medium-sized banks with properly regulated leverage are perfectly OK.
I kinda to agree with this, but the way to get this done is to let big banks fail. Of course, that means a lot of people will lose their savings.
The fact that you think the Egypt protests were more peaceful than what is going on in the UK exemplifies my point perfectly. There was no shortage of looting and property damage in Egypt.
So you think that to burn down a city full of innocent people, steal from innocent people, terrify innocent people, killing innocent people is in some way shape or form justified because you "suspect" an innocent man was killed?
Where did you get all that from? I just pointed out that if the shooting was unjustified then the victim was innocent regardless of his other sins.
FRA: STFU GTFO
It doesn't really matter. If someone induces someone else to commit a crime for any reason, is that fact of inducement a defense ?
But DUI without causing an accident isn't a harmful action.
How do you use Facebook in a violent way? Posting to Facebook is non-violent, even if the person reading it goes out and performs violence.
Learn to love Alaska
Someone saying "touch his nose" apparently is responsible for anyone that touches your nose for some unspecified future time. How does that work? You do realize that the instigator doesn't actually touch your nose, the contact was made by someone else who is a responsible adult. Why are you not holding them responsible for swinging their fist?
Learn to love Alaska
Because that requires more work. They never go after the little guy, it's too much work and doesn't generate headlines.
Learn to love Alaska
Why not, would stop them doing it again.
Do you have any idea how much higher that is than most states?
Yes, yes I do. If you'd clicked on the link I provided in my post you would also because it lists it all out for every single state. Apparently 34 states receive more than $0.94 for every dollar paid in taxes. In fact, 33 states receive a dollar or more for every dollar paid in taxes. Once again, this was my source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
Do you have any idea how much higher that is than most states?
Yes, yes I do. If you'd clicked on the link I provided in my post you would also because it lists it all out for every single state. Apparently 34 states receive more than $0.94 for every dollar paid in taxes. In fact, 33 states receive a dollar or more for every dollar paid in taxes. Once again, this was my source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html Also, you said that Texas has "the worst education systems". According to a 2009 US News ranking of the Best High Schools by state Texas ranked 14th. I found that here: http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2009/12/09/americas-best-high-schools-state-by-state-statistics Is anything you say accurate?
Thanks, the ricochet option hadn't occurred to me. It's certainly a possibility.
I doubt he managed to load his gun with police standard ammunition. It's a converted starter pistol. I highly doubt those rounds would even fit in its chamber (although I'm not a firearms expert by any means).
And maybe I have an over-romanticised idea of what competent policing should be like, gleaned by watching too many films, or reading too many books, but honestly, if there's more than one of you, you are heavily armed, wearing protective gear, and you're facing down a drug dealer with a gun, I honestly believe you should be able to apprehend that man without shooting him dead. If firearms officers are allowed to unload on anyone when they "believe" there is a thread to life, that basically equates on them unloading on anyone. Such as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/13/ukguns.hughmuir">Men carrying table legs</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes">Brazillian electricians</a>.
One day that could be me, or someone important to me.
In addition to that self serving reasoning, I also think the interests of justice and the public are better served by trying that man, in court, and sending him to prison.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Notice how the top of the list (the states receiving the most money from taxpayers is heavily weighted toward Republican states and the bottom is heavily weighted toward Democratic states? In fact, the top ten welfare states are all Republican states. Those states that have Republican governors who are crowing about having "balanced budgets"? They're balancing their budgets on the back of Federal taxpayers.
Now who's the "tax and spend" party?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Who pays the subsequent increased insurance costs? People foolish enough to try to open a business to serve the neighborhoods of Tottenham, Clapham, Hackney etc.
That sounds like a universal morality. Perhaps my morality allows me to intervene on what people do in their bedrooms. On what moral basis do you challenge my morality?
Are you trying to weasel out of any moral commitments by excluding from "morality" those rights and obligations you care about? A morality by any other name...
You fail to appreciate that most of what keeps humans as well-behaved as most are is FEAR of punishment.
Act out in ape society and you can get bitten. Humans are no different.
The way to deal with brutes is to break them, so break them and do not stop until the enemy either submits or dies.
Thanks for a good example of somebody who got it compleley wrong.
Actually, most of what keeps humans as well-behaved is our natural evolutionary programming to cooperate. Communities in which people ignored social rules didn't survive, while communities in which people did cooperate survived. Cooperation evolved through both cultural and genetic evolution.
People have a strong sense of fairness programmed by evolution. They want people in their community to be fair, and they'll punish people who are unfair -- even if it costs them something to punish those who are unfair.
This has been proven by experimental economics. Look up "Evolution of cooperation" on Wikipedia. They use games based on Prisoner's Dilemma. For example, researchers take a group of six people. They give each subject $10. They set up a game in which they can all contribute $10 to a pot, the researchers contribute another $5, and divide the pot among each of the subjects.
If everybody cooperates and contributes $10, they all come out ahead -- they divide $65 among themselves. But if one person defects, and keeps his $10 out of the pot,they divide $55 among themselves, the one who defected comes out ahead, and everybody who cooperated comes out behind. Cooperation breaks down, everybody keeps their $10, and they're all worse off that they would have been if they cooperated.
Then the researchers set up the game so subjects could *punish* people who defect and freeload. Each subject could pay $1 to take $2 away from the defector.
The researchers found that subjects usually spend their own money to punish people who defect. The defectors start cooperating, everybody contributes money to the pot, they get $65, and come out ahead.
People have a strong sense of fairness programmed by evolution. They want people in their community to be fair, and they'll punish people who are unfair -- even if it costs them more money.
The important message, according to the researchers, is that under these conditions, people want fairness more than they want money. There are good evolutionary reasons why this is true. Von Mises was wrong.
This makes sense in explaining why the lower classes, and even the middle classes, engage in destructive riots like this.
They may feel that society is being unfair to them, so they should be unfair to society in return.
Why shouldn't they use senseless violence against people who have been unfair to them, torment them and exploit them?
After all, *you* want to use senseless violence against *them*.
I don't know, on the basis of scientific evidence, whether this is true, but I think it's a reasonable hypothesis that we should examine on the basis of factual evidence. Sociologists have demonstrated it for race riots in the U.S. It's as good an explanation as the "simply criminal hoodlums" argument.
I agree with you too, but some companies, such as supermarkets, do have profit margins of about 1% on sales. For publicly traded companies, you can look up their financial statements online. In fact, I recommend it. It's very educational.
I doubt he managed to load his gun with police standard ammunition. It's a converted starter pistol.
It depends on the caliber. To be fair, I didn't even consider that, however, after a quick check, it turns out that starter pistols come in quite a large range. Police pistols are usually either 9mm or .40 caliber; starter pistols are available in both of these calibers, so there's no reason he couldn't load it "police standard ammunition".
On the other hand, given the evidence available so far, I'd have to say it's more likely that the bullet really was fired from a police sidearm. Just pointing out that there is another possibility.
And maybe I have an over-romanticised idea of what competent policing should be like, gleaned by watching too many films, or reading too many books, but honestly, if there's more than one of you, you are heavily armed, wearing protective gear, and you're facing down a drug dealer with a gun, I honestly believe you should be able to apprehend that man without shooting him dead.
Most of the time you can. That doesn't change the fact that once in a while there's going to be a situation where you can't. It's selection bias - you might have 99 arrests where the guy is apprehended fine, and 1 where you can't, but which one do you think will make the headlines?
If firearms officers are allowed to unload on anyone when they "believe" there is a thread to life, that basically equates on them unloading on anyone.
It has to be a reasonable belief. There's a big difference between "I shot him because I thought he might have a gun" and "I shot him because he was pointing a gun at my head". The former is completely unjustified, the latter is not. In between, there's all kinds of questionable situation where the officer is in the position of having to weigh the risk to his own life versus his responsibility to use minimal force. Sometimes they make the right decision, sometimes they don't - obviously they need to be held responsible when they screw up, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt where possible, and be more lenient if it was a case of bad judgement vs. malicious intent.
In addition to that self serving reasoning, I also think the interests of justice and the public are better served by trying that man, in court, and sending him to prison.
On that we agree completely, but having dead police officers isn't in the interest of justice and the public, either. It's a fine line sometimes.
tl;dr: the notwithstanding clause is hard to use - a good litigator would probably still find the courts enforcing the rights in question, and using it "for real" is (in most cases unnecessarily) politically risky.
You are referring to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That section [a] does not apply to the whole Charter (only to ss 2 and 7-15, although admittedly s 2(b) is the relevant freedom of expression clause, as noted in your parent article); [b] must be enacted by primary legislation; [c] that primary legislation must use specific wording ("declaration") explicitly invoking s 33; [d] the declaration expires no later than five years from its coming into force (and may expire sooner for several reasons, on the other hand further primary legislation can reset the expiration date); [e] the declaration is only valid under an appropriate Head of Power (i.e. it must conform with the ordinary Division of Powers, etc.).
The usual impediments to passing primary legislation apply, and in most of the legislatures, and in the federal Parliament, internal rules and general practice require a Royal Recommendation for legislation including a s.33 declaration -- that is, a government minister (or equivalent) must introduce the legislation with the backing of the cabinet (formally the Governor General in Council per 13 of the Consolidated Constitution Acts 1867-1982, or the provincial equivalents).
The use of the declaration does not shield the Act using it from the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) which also has protections for freedom of expression; a remedy exists in the courts until and unless Parliament amends that Act. There may also be remedies for certain infringements under other statutes, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977). Several provinces have similar "ordinary" legislation which are still in force and which offer various different protections for freedom of expression including remedies for interference by the provincial legislature or executive. Again these are not as entrenched as the Charter, but they also survive any use of s. 33 of the Charter, and most would have to be outright amended by the legislature, and brought into force *first*.
There are also much older protections for some forms of expression in force today in Canada; the Constitution as a whole has been found by the Supreme Court (and this is not surprising or controversial) to include the 19th or 20th century versions of such things as the English Bill of Rights (1689), or the Act of Settlement (1701), and the Quebec Act (1774), all of which may provide a cause of action even in the absence of the Charter protections and its modern statutory predecessors federally and provincially.
International obligations exist under treaty (and enabling or derivative statutes and regulations) that allow the courts to assess liability against the government for breaches of various rights of expression. Changing these would require primary legislation and may also require some advance notification to the other contracting parties.
Finally, there remain common law protections for freedom of expression related to concepts such as quiet enjoyment and public nuisance; people will generally resort to statutes which were written with the then state of case law in mind because they are simpler, more codified, and thus easier to deal with in litigation. However, even in the absence of statutory protections for various forms of freedom of expression, a good litigator is likely able to build a case that may persuade a Canadian judge to provide a requested remedy for some breach by the government. Indeed, this approach was very common prior to codified claims and grants of right, and did not entirely go away afterwards. There is no practical way for a government to avoid the possibility of courts finding against them for breaches of rights (even of uncodified ones) without destroying the independence of the judiciary.
The use of s 33 therefore [a] may not work with respect to shieldin
You fail to appreciate that most of what keeps humans as well-behaved as most are is FEAR of punishment.
That's just a half truth, it only works to a certain point. Once you put people in a crappy enough situation there will be a point where the difference between being punished or not becomes pretty slim. And at some point you even reach the point where people (feel they) got nothing to loose. I'm pretty sure you can measure the 'wellfare' of the poorest people in a country by looking at the severity of the punishments imposed on crimes. Just think of it, if you got a fine life your not going to risk getting jailed for a week for stealing a TV set. But if your life is crap anyway being jailed might just mean you won't have to worry about getting food on the table for a while. In that case you'll probably take the risk anyway.
I'll leave it to the reader to judge the state of a country when a 4 years sentence is whats needed to stop people from posting stupid stuff on facebook...
It is educational indeed. Just don't forget to track down what the 'costs' are. It's trivial to get your profit margin down to 1% in the books, all you have to do is spend enough money. Raise the bonuses of the big shots, keep buying assets as a way to 'store' the profit, place big orders with your wife's 'consulting' company, etc.
But I'll grant you there are still companies which simply make a sufficient profit without trying to rip everybody off. The thing is we consider a company to be successful when is has huge profits, not when it manages to provide a decent stable income to a lot of people for decades in a row. But frankly, making an outrageous profit in at the expense of others isn't that hard. Building a company which lasts a century is far more impressive.
We have never had complete freedom to say whatever we want. Threatening someone with bodily harm is still against the law. Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is still against the law.
Actually 'Freedom of speech' is probably the wrong name for it, I keep getting the impressing the term tricks people into think they can say whatever they want. In Dutch it's called 'Vrijheid van meningsuiting' which literally translates to 'Freedom to express your opinion'. To me that seems to cover what it should entail, nobody should be able to prevent you from telling the world what your opinion of something is. However that freedom only applies when you actually have an opinion and are able to express it.
Unfortunately those companies that lasted decades by serving the public and society didn't survive the free market competition and corporate reorganization starting with the Reagan era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_labs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_street_journal
That's part of what I mean. If they are old enough to defeat your efforts to stop them, then a simple bureaucratic ban is not going to work. Instead, they should be granted the Internet access they desire and then given the proper supervision and guidance to ensure that they are mature enough to handle it. Don't just tell them "no internet for you" because that's a challenge. Instead, teach them that there are dangers, teach them what those dangers are, and teach them how to avoid them. The fact that anyone can lie and say they are anyone else to gain confidence is just one of them.
I think that kind of deception is an inherent weakness in the idea of forming serious, involved emotional relationships with people you will never see face-to-face. Even if the person is exactly who they claim to be, this is a mistake and it cannot end well. It's just the kind of thing that parents, schools, and other authorities and role models should be helping the kid to guard against. Again, this is one of the dangers she should have been taught about and equipped to handle, something no simple ban would ever accomplish.
If you actually quantified the effort involved in each, you would find that world-proofing the child is far easier than child-proofing the entire world and stopping every last person who might ever do anything malicious. Just like securing a system is much, much easier than catching every last black-hat who might break into an insecure system.
If she wants company and understanding so badly that she's trying to obtain it from random strangers, it's time to take a hard look at why those needs aren't being met by her friends and family. The failure to find it there is the only reason she was so vulnerable. It is better to address this root of the problem than to try and prevent every last unknown (until after it happens) person and event that could maliciously exploit it.
I am informed about it. What did you suppose reiterating it was going to do? Shock me with a terrible emotional weight that then causes me to abandon solid principle out of some misguided sense of guilt?
What you describe only reinforces the truth of what I am saying. The more horrible this particular event was, the more important it is to take solid, reasonable, well-founded steps to understand how it was possible and how to equip young people to deal with the world the way it truly is: full of petty, malicious, stupid people. Then perhaps we can get one baby step closer to changing that.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
We will have to agree to disagree on this subject. There is only so much "world-proofing" one can do to a young kid. How is a parent supposed to know a neighbor they knew very well, and who had been over for dinners and barbeques is going to pose as a young boy to talk with your child for months? How is a teacher at a school supposed to know there might be a student with a malicious adult neighbor who might do the same thing? She was already an emotionally unstable girl. They were aware of it and did their best to cope with what they thought the problem was. "Reiterating" the issue wasn't meant to accomplish anything but to offer more information to someone who spoke as if they weren't aware of all of the details. I realize this is slashdot but not everyone is posting a disgreeing response to slight your intelligence. The condescending response was unnecessarily rude.