UK Riots?

[Lethevich]

It is also interesting how hard this kind of crime is to combat. I saw a video of a shop invasion a week or so ago in the US where 40 people walked in and looted it, expecting to be obscured by the mass many of them did not wear masks to hide from the CCTV. In the same way, few of the looters in the UK appear to have worn gloves. So many of these people will be caught, and the painstaking work it will take to examine CCTV footage and forensic evidence will take resources away from far more deserving cases. Every angle these events can be viewed from reveal one thing: light psychopathy.

Previously this kind of violence was fueled by something vaguely understandable, and so it was directed at certain institutions which could be aticipated and defended. But with this amoral and exclusively self-interested violence, it is so diffuse and a shop can be attacked and emptied within 10 minutes with the most rudimentary of prior-planning, that it cannot be planned against. This is especially the case in the other random cities that looting has sprung up in. I think it's a case of criminally-minded people realising that the state does not have quite the power they thought it did, and so countless people who would never engage in crime usually feel safe to explore this flaw in their minds which allow them to engage in such unabashed destruction.

[Grazioso]

There is an explanation for the emergence of the amoral, even psychopathic behavior exhibited by the anarchic mobs in England (add Greece) and the killings a month ago in Norway (add Caylee Anthony's murder).

It has to do with the downplaying or the outright denial of depravity in human nature. If people don't have any evil inclinations and all that is needed is to satisfy their material wants, then everything should be OK - NOT!

Police do not have to be armed; there doesn't have to be the deterrence of a death penalty; moral absolutes that forbid stealing are replaced with relativism; children do not have to be restrained by parents or whatever substitutes for that in blended or artificially conceived "families". There is no need to destroy a moral compass - to deny its existence is more than enough.

As Aristotle Onassis once said, "The rule is, there are no rules!" Well, the great tycoon was a pretty pathetic sight in his last years propping up his eyelids with toothpicks and mourning the death of his beloved son. 

Culture and history are not what young people have by default, nor is the concept of deferred gratification. But the latter can be taught by degrees, which was standard education in the past. The legacy of generations also carries with it the means needed to protect it, and this sometimes is force, like it or not.

ZB

Amen.

It's telling the first thing some people want to do when an outbreak of mob violence occurs is to theorize about how society let down the mob. A bunch of counterproductive twaddle and coddle that gives people the idea any behavior can be excused by outside forces.

Cameron said the police have been authorized to use whatever means necessary to combat "despicable violence," with the use of plastic bullets permitted and plans in place for water cannon to be available within 24 hours if needed, he said. (Source: CNN.com)

Apparently a government of cowardly, incompetent twits, waiting for days to--gasp--employ water cannons. We wouldn't want to knock a rioter over and get slapped with a slip-and-fall lawsuit! Meanwhile, property damage, theft, and injuries mount while firefighters and police get put into harm's way. 

[Lethevich]

Apparently a government of cowardly, incompetent twits, waiting for days to--gasp--employ water cannons. We wouldn't want to knock a rioter over and get slapped with a slip-and-fall lawsuit! Meanwhile, property damage, theft, and injuries mount while firefighters and police get put into harm's way.

It's not as simple as that - the UK has certain... qualms with water canons and armoured vehicles on the streets and I hoped it would blow over without that. This is an unprecidented situation and I don't blame them for not bringing in borderline military hardware right away.

Edit: intriguingly, coming to the fore in recent news articles is the agreement that the police in Manchester, Birmingham etc are cracking down much more. In London they are being ordered to hold back in some cases to photograph offenders for more solid cases later. It reveals an intriguing point: if the police in London are worried about the legal consequences of arresting rioters, yet the ones elsewhere are banging heads together, this is pretty much shoots down the usual Met "persecution" claims that so often eminate from scumbags.

[Grazioso]

It's not as simple as that - the UK has certain... qualms with water canons and armoured vehicles on the streets and I hoped it would blow over without that. This is an unprecidented situation and I don't blame them for not bringing in borderline military hardware right away.

Military hardware is a tank firing HE rounds into a crowd. That's urban warfare. But less-lethal arms (rubber bullets, beanbag projectiles, gas, water cannons, etc.) are standard riot-control measures. I understand that any Western democratic government would and should have major qualms about employing the actual military against its own people. Armies are raised to combat extra-national foes, not shoot the people they're employed to defend.

But "hoping the situation will blow over" is precisely the mindset that allows something like this to flare up and rage unabated. The criminals know that they have a government or society that's timid about stepping in quickly and decisively with overwhelming force, and they're taking advantage of it. What's more important: the shop of a innocent bystander that gets burned to the ground, ruining their family, or the comfort of a violent criminal?

[Lethevich]

But "hoping the situation will blow over" is precisely the mindset that allows something like this to flare up and rage unabated. The criminals know that they have a government or society that's timid about stepping in quickly and decisively with overwhelming force, and they're taking advantage of it. What's more important: the shop of a innocent bystander that gets burned to the ground, ruining their family, or the comfort of a violent criminal?

IMO this is hindsight - I've not heard of anything similar like this happening before happening in a developed country. Riots with ideologies can go on and on and there are existing tactics based on experience with this. But outright looting over an entire week isn't something usually dealt with - even Canada's notoriety for spree riots after hockey matches has proven hard for their police to deal with despite knowing that they are coming, such a thing happening over many days was improbable. Often all it takes is daylight and a cleanup after a major occurance.

I still think that borderline military is a reasonable description for tank-like vehicles, regardless of their non-lethality. It is a POV position, of course. It's bringing standard policing (a guy on foot without a gun talking to people on the street, or interviewing a person in a police station) closer to regimentation and mechanisation. I don't consider such things unneccessary, but simply undesirable. As I said, there are certain potent images which resonate with specifically people from the UK of even armoured police vans (much less water canons) which make these less of a desirable option right from the start than in some other countries.

[kishnevi]

IMO this is hindsight - I've not heard of anything similar like this happening before happening in a developed country. Riots with ideologies can go on and on and there are existing tactics based on experience with this. But outright looting over an entire week isn't something usually dealt with - even Canada's notoriety for spree riots after hockey matches has proven hard for their police to deal with despite knowing that they are coming, such a thing happening over many days was improbable. Often all it takes is daylight and a cleanup after a major occurance.

I still think that borderline military is a reasonable description for tank-like vehicles, regardless of their non-lethality. It is a POV position, of course. It's bringing standard policing (a guy on foot without a gun talking to people on the street, or interviewing a person in a police station) closer to regimentation and mechanisation. I don't consider such things unneccessary, but simply undesirable. As I said, there are certain potent images which resonate with specifically people from the UK of even armoured police vans (much less water canons) which make these less of a desirable option right from the start than in some other countries.

The Rodney King riots are an American parallel (and the various inner city riots of the 60s-80s that preceded it) .  For the benefit of Brits, I should note the difference between here and there.  Inner city shop owners defended their own stores with their own guns, and that was usually an effective deterrent.  In the UK, given some recent cases as reported in the US media, it;s now illegal to defend one's property--house or store or car or whatever--and any attempt to do so, whether with or without a gun, can be prosecuted as a  crime.

there doesn't have to be the deterrence of a death penalty; moral absolutes that forbid stealing are replaced with relativism; children do not have to be restrained by parents or whatever substitutes for that in blended or artificially conceived "families". There is no need to destroy a moral compass - to deny its existence is more than enough.

The social history of Europe for the period 1000-1900 CE should be enough to prove that the death penalty doesn't actually deter anyone; that people steal even when moral absolutes are taught and preached in every public outlet; and that children misbehave when ruled by the rod as much as when ruled without it.

[Lethevich]

The Rodney King riots are an American parallel (and the various inner city riots of the 60s-80s that preceded it) .  For the benefit of Brits, I should note the difference between here and there.  Inner city shop owners defended their own stores with their own guns, and that was usually an effective deterrent.  In the UK, given some recent cases as reported in the US media, it;s now illegal to defend one's property--house or store or car or whatever--and any attempt to do so, whether with or without a gun, can be prosecuted as a  crime.

It's one of those laws that the police get shit for each time it is followed through - in such anarchic conditions owners shouldn't really worry about that unless they do something demonstrably stupid - after all, the evidence will often be recorded on their own CCTV.

[Grazioso]

IMO this is hindsight - I've not heard of anything similar like this happening before happening in a developed country. Riots

Unfortunately, the US has suffered massive, deadly urban riots on multiple occasions: the '67 Detroit riots, the '92 LA riots, etc.

I still think that borderline military is a reasonable description for tank-like vehicles, regardless of their non-lethality. It is a POV position, of course. It's bringing standard policing (a guy on foot without a gun talking to people on the street, or interviewing a person in a police station) closer to regimentation and mechanisation.

And I take your point. Especially after 9/11, the US has seen upsurge in paramilitary-style police units equipped with body armor, automatic assault rifles, (non-lethal) grenades, armored vehicles, etc. And not just SWAT executing high-risk warrants, where the extra gear is necessary for self-defense, but standing around the New York city transit system:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-31/news/27060563_1_anti-terror-penn-station-transit-system

I don't consider such things unneccessary, but simply undesirable. As I said, there are certain potent images which resonate with specifically people from the UK of even armoured police vans (much less water canons) which make these less of a desirable option right from the start than in some other countries.

What's more undesirable here? Hints of a police state, or a state that's temporarily (?) going unpoliced?

[Grazioso]

It's one of those laws that the police get shit for each time it is followed through - in such anarchic conditions owners shouldn't really worry about that unless they do something demonstrably stupid - after all, the evidence will often be recorded on their own CCTV.

I wonder why armored cars and water cannons are frowned upon when Big Brother gets to watch Londoners on telly? You ever read the graphic novel V for Vendetta, written back in the 80's, about a fascist government ruling Britain in the near future? There's an image near the beginning of a CCTV camera with a sign under it "for your protection" 

[Guido]

It is also interesting how hard this kind of crime is to combat. I saw a video of a shop invasion a week or so ago in the US where 40 people walked in and looted it, expecting to be obscured by the mass many of them did not wear masks to hide from the CCTV. In the same way, few of the looters in the UK appear to have worn gloves. So many of these people will be caught, and the painstaking work it will take to examine CCTV footage and forensic evidence will take resources away from far more deserving cases. Every angle these events can be viewed from reveal one thing: light psychopathy.

Forensic evidence, especially finger prints, VERY rarely is of any use.

[Lethevich]

Unfortunately, the US has suffered massive, deadly urban riots on multiple occasions: the '67 Detroit riots, the '92 LA riots, etc.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I mean motiveless rioting. With Rodney King, the police must have realised everything was going to hell in a bad way. It's this "I want free stuff" untied to any ideology or sense of righteousness that I find unique in this case.

What's more undesirable here? Hints of a police state, or a state that's temporarily (?) going unpoliced?

The latter surely, but my view is that the extent of the violence could not have been anticipated. It's definitely time to bring them in now, especially as now everybody knows that the rioters have no justification and so will not object to their presence. But during the first 36 hrs, it simply looked like one of those random flash mob type events which die out. It's the fact that this one hasn't died out that makes it rather unique, especially allied to the emergence of online messaging to coordinate the rioters in was previously uprecidented. When discussed with such a system, it must feel almost like online shopping to some of them.

It's not really a police state that people think about when they see armoured vehicles (that would take some major paranoia), but echoes of an out of control situation that people do not want replicated even if the ground causes in the area the are deployed in are different. There is also something of a distaste for heavy-handed applications of power in the Fascist-era southern-European/arabic manner - if anything CCTV at least keeps things polite and out of the way - rather "British".

I wonder why armored cars and water cannons are frowned upon when Big Brother gets to watch Londoners on telly? You ever read the graphic novel V for Vendetta, written back in the 80's, about a fascist government ruling Britain in the near future? There's an image near the beginning of a CCTV camera with a sign under it "for your protection" 

Pointing out CCTV statistics in London and to a lesser extent the UK has been a much favoured target of the American right (along with the NHS and gun control), but it's not viewed in the same way here as there. While has the potential to be invasive (I'm not so concerned about a random operator seeing me poke my nose when I think nobody is looking) it's also solved countless crimes, and I don't feel much fear for being unable to try to challenge their use when they have been deemed to be utilised inappropriately. So many useful things can be demonised just for the potential of misuse. For genuine systemic fascistic misuse of CCTV to persecute and track everyone en-masse, it would be clear that the government was screwing us far before such a system reached fruition. It's the perception or fear that drives such thoughts, but I have yet to see evidence of such a problem - although I remain aware that such things could happen and will support CCTV use less and less if this appears to be emerging. Essentially: real governments are too mediocre to pull such things off.

Forensic evidence, especially finger prints, VERY rarely is of any use.

I don't have any expertise in the subject, I'm just going by what I read so can't really comment on this. To me it seems clear - if a criminal is caught on a shop's CCTV touching a very specific, out of the way item behind the store's counter, and later their fingerprint is revealed to be there it seems rather open and shut.

Edit: the longer my nails get, the more my typing ability decreases

[Sergeant Rock]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I mean motiveless rioting. With Rodney King...

But didn't the riots begin after a protest against the police shooting of a black man? Would there be any riots without that initial killing and subsequent protest?  I'm not saying the London rioters today are motivated by that, but that it was a catalyst. I think of the Kent State riots in 1970. I wasn't there but my best friend was. While acknowledging that a protest march against the Vietnam War was the cataylst, what he subsequently saw were not anti-establishment, anti-war types rioting but rather frat boys having fun on a destructive rampage through downtown Kent.

Sarge

[Lethevich]

But didn't the riots begin after a protest about the police shooting of a black man? Would there be any riots without that initial killing and subsequent protest?  I'm not saying the London rioters today are motivated by that, but that it was a catalyst. I think of the Kent State riots in 1970. I wasn't there but my best friend was. While acknowledging that a protest march against the Vietnam War was the cataylst, what he subsequently saw were not anti-establishment, anti-war types rioting but rather frat boys having fun on a destructive rampage through downtown Kent.

That is true. In London, if there was an immediate knee-jerk reaction from the black community (and I think it's also an self-conscious 'underclass' thing rather than a race thing) it was swiftly snubbed out. No matter how important the event or cause there will always be people hijacking it for violence, but the lack of even an "excuse" for carrying out the actions in this case is kind of grimly impressive. I'm sure those university kids would all know to bullshit away and blame it on the shootings and "oppression" by the police if they were arrested for rioting, but I'm not sure that the London rioters could even conjur up a fictitious reason given how rubbish the original "spark" was proven to be,

[kishnevi]

Pointing out CCTV statistics in London and to a lesser extent the UK has been a much favoured target of the American right (along with the NHS and gun control), but it's not viewed in the same way here as there. While has the potential to be invasive (I'm not so concerned about a random operator seeing me poke my nose when I think nobody is looking) it's also solved countless crimes, and I don't feel much fear for being unable to try to challenge their use when they have been deemed to be utilised inappropriately. So many useful things can be demonised just for the potential of misuse. For genuine systemic fascistic misuse of CCTV to persecute and track everyone en-masse, it would be clear that the government was screwing us far before such a system reached fruition. It's the perception or fear that drives such thoughts, but I have yet to see evidence of such a problem - although I remain aware that such things could happen and will support CCTV use less and less if this appears to be emerging. Essentially: real governments are too mediocre to pull such things off.

We object to it first because of the principle of the thing--the government shouldn't have the capacity to know everything--and second because of the possibilities of misuse.  Not so much by some totalitarian Big Brother government as by local authorities who find it a convenient tool to exert authority over local residents.  Hah,  Ms. Lethe,  we see you leaving too many garbage bags out for the trash removal in the morning--you're fined. You know you can't walk your dog before 6 AM on this street--you're fined.  That window needs fixing.  You have one week to do so or you're fined.   Here in the US, "red light" cameras have turned into an lucrative source of traffic fines without actually reducing accidents (their official purpose).

[Lethevich]

We object to it first because of the principle of the thing--the government shouldn't have the capacity to know everything--and second because of the possibilities of misuse.  Not so much by some totalitarian Big Brother government as by local authorities who find it a convenient tool to exert authority over local residents.  Hah,  Ms. Lethe,  we see you leaving too many garbage bags out for the trash removal in the morning--you're fined. You know you can't walk your dog before 6 AM on this street--you're fined.  That window needs fixing.  You have one week to do so or you're fined.   Here in the US, "red light" cameras have turned into an lucrative source of traffic fines without actually reducing accidents (their official purpose).

I agree that would suck - although if it was pushing people so hard, they would rebel. They have already done this here with traffic cameras being used to raise money by local government in petty ways. The way I see CCTV is it's the thing that makes me feel safe when walking through the town centre at pub closing times. I know that even if I am assaulted there is a chance that the person will be able to be identified.

Edit:

http://www.youtube.com/v/0cbVW_QS2eE

[zamyrabyrd]

The social history of Europe for the period 1000-1900 CE should be enough to prove that the death penalty doesn't actually deter anyone; that people steal even when moral absolutes are taught and preached in every public outlet; and that children misbehave when ruled by the rod as much as when ruled without it.

Well, some periods were safer than others. Stealing and murder can happen but when there are consequences and penalities they happen less.

ZB

[Grazioso]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I mean motiveless rioting. With Rodney King, the police must have realised everything was going to hell in a bad way. It's this "I want free stuff" untied to any ideology or sense of righteousness that I find unique in this case.

I understand that it may not have been predicted or predictable, but my point is that once the SHTF and authorities understand the scope and danger of what's happening, they're obligated to act swiftly and decisively to prevent further harm to the innocent--whatever the root impetus or lack thereof behind the rioting. If the guilty get harmed in the ensuing melees, it's unfortunate, but they brought it on themselves by deciding it would be fun to attack cops, burn their own cities, and rob stores.

[Lethevich]

Note: the PM has offered water canons within 24 hours notice, but as of yet no police force have requested one. I now know why (in part) - apparently this would be the first time one has ever been used on a crowd in Britain.

People are already being swiftly tried, essentially named and shamed. A good policy, as it helps to expose the mediocrity and fragility behind these actions - everyday "nice" people. Hopefully it will strike a chord.

[Grazioso]

Note: the PM has offered water canons within 24 hours notice, but as of yet no police force have requested one. I now know why (in part) - apparently this would be the first time one has ever been used on a crowd in Britain.

I think "band of violent criminals, thieves, and arsonists" would be a more accurate description. It's not a peaceful protest march the government is considering dispersing.

People are already being swiftly tried, essentially named and shamed. A good policy, as it helps to expose the mediocrity and fragility behind these actions - everyday "nice" people. Hopefully it will strike a chord.

They ought to be dragged through the streets in some form of public humiliation, in addition to standard fines or jail time.

[Herman]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I mean motiveless rioting. With Rodney King, the police must have realised everything was going to hell in a bad way. It's this "I want free stuff" untied to any ideology or sense of righteousness that I find unique in this case.

yes, but that is your personal take on this, and you seem to need it badly, considering the massive number of posts you're writing about this.

the way people need to talk about "scum", "psychopaths" and how unfortunate it is they can't be shot at may also be viewed as evidence that there is such a dire need in today's society for clearcut winners and losers and never the twain shall meet. These losers / looters are aware of this too, and, even though it's stupid and self-defeating, it's part of the reason why they behave the way they do now  -  is my guess.

I'm not defending it.