Lethal Force To Stop Riots, How Is This Not Mandatory?

With the riots going on and the police saying they're "thinking" of using rubber bullets in cases like these why doesn't anyone smarten up and just use live rounds?

I have no idea why people get to riot and the prevailing concern is "don't let anyone rioting get hurt"

They're criminals, when a riot breaks out there should be lethal force used to stop it quickly, let's see how rioters stand strong when a few rows of them fall from a hail of gunshots. Think anyone is going to continue to riot? No way.

How is lethal force not mandatory? How do these rioters get treated like they're an endangered species?

Lethal force for rioters, Yes or no?

While I think those thugs need to have the crap beat out of them I don't think gunning them all down is the best idea.

Wait wait wait, are the British not even using non-lethal rounds like tear gas, tasers, or rubber bullets? Please someone tell me I misread this, because that's insane. If it was in the US, this would be under control in a couple hours. MetallicaKings

Killing them doesn't seem necissary if non lethal means work just as well. If it got to the point where rioters were killing people and burning down city blocks, then maybe. Dead rioters look bad on the news as well, but if they didn't want to get hurt, than they shouldn't be rioting.

hold on, hold on. wait..... werent the riots sparked by some police using lethal force on a man? and thats what got everyone so butt hurt in the first place? if so. how would lethal force help at all.

Wait wait wait, are the British not even using non-lethal rounds like tear gas, tasers, or rubber bullets? Please someone tell me I misread this, because that's insane. If it was in the US, this would be under control in a couple hours. MetallicaKings

And no to lethal force for riots...

What's with Americans and guns? It's the same everywhere I look online.

Lethel force is a last resort.

Wait wait wait, are the British not even using non-lethal rounds like tear gas, tasers, or rubber bullets? Please someone tell me I misread this, because that's insane. If it was in the US, this would be under control in a couple hours. MetallicaKings

As far as i know rubber bullets have now been authorised.

As far as i know rubber bullets have now been authorised.

Dan_Lero

What's with Americans and guns? It's the same everywhere I look online.

Lethel force is a last resort.

AnnoyedDragon

For a bunch of people who believe so fervently in democracy and a free society y'all seem very eager to give the Government permission to shoot you first and then ask questions later :?

In amongst these riots there are innocent people fleeing their homes, escaping businesses and places of work, attempting to leave dangerous neighbourhoods. But hey, open fire on all the crowds, the rioters:innocent people killed ratio will be significant high enough for the innocent deaths to not really matter :roll:

For a bunch of people who believe so fervently in democracy and a free society y'all seem very eager to give the Government permission to shoot you first and then ask questions later :?

In amongst these riots there are innocent people fleeing their homes, escaping businesses and places of work, attempting to leave dangerous neighbourhoods. But hey, open fire on all the crowds, the rioters:innocent people killed ratio will be significant high enough for the innocent deaths to not really matter :roll:

MissLibrarian

For a bunch of people who believe so fervently in democracy and a free society y'all seem very eager to give the Government permission to shoot you first and then ask questions later :?

In amongst these riots there are innocent people fleeing their homes, escaping businesses and places of work, attempting to leave dangerous neighbourhoods. But hey, open fire on all the crowds, the rioters:innocent people killed ratio will be significant high enough for the innocent deaths to not really matter :roll:

There are cases in the U.S. when armed forces have opened fire on protestors and rioters, like the 1967 Detroit riot. However, if you think that's bad, look at some reports from countries in Africa, the Middle East, and China. I would include North Korea, but they don't communicate much with the outside world. It's a big Disney World with Kim Jong-il as Mickey Mouse. Only much worse.BranKetra

If the police had guns, and the protesters had guns, all we would get is a load of dead people and nothing resolved. So I don't get this mentality that guns are a cure all. It's about public order, and the public aren't going to get behind the police if they kill a load of their children (most of the protesters are youths).

One person has died during these riots, only one, and it was of course caused by a bloody gun.

Lethal force will only be used when absolutely necessary.

when things get out of hand yes, when you're life is in danger yes

Agreed. Of course the solution to riots that are the result of police needlessly shooting a person is more needless police shootings. That's just common sense.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]There are cases in the U.S. when armed forces have opened fire on protestors and rioters, like the 1967 Detroit riot. However, if you think that's bad, look at some reports from countries in Africa, the Middle East, and China. I would include North Korea, but they don't communicate much with the outside world. It's a big Disney World with Kim Jong-il as Mickey Mouse. Only much worse.AnnoyedDragon

If the police had guns, and the protesters had guns, all we would get is a load of dead people and nothing resolved. So I don't get this mentality that guns are a cure all. It's about public order, and the public aren't going to get behind the police if they kill a load of their children (most of the protesters are youths).

One person has died during these riots, only one, and it was of course caused by a bloody gun.

Lethal force will only be used when absolutely necessary.

I think they would use the army, instead of police.

but ya, if this riot drags on even more, than I would argue there should be use.

Silly Brit, YOU CAN'T MAKE AN OMELET WITHOUT SHOOTING A FEW CIVILIANS ^_^xaos

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

There are cases in the U.S. when armed forces have opened fire on protestors and rioters, like the 1967 Detroit riot. However, if you think that's bad, look at some reports from countries in Africa, the Middle East, and China. I would include North Korea, but they don't communicate much with the outside world. It's a big Disney World with Kim Jong-il as Mickey Mouse. Only much worse.BranKetra

If the police had guns, and the protesters had guns, all we would get is a load of dead people and nothing resolved. So I don't get this mentality that guns are a cure all. It's about public order, and the public aren't going to get behind the police if they kill a load of their children (most of the protesters are youths).

One person has died during these riots, only one, and it was of course caused by a bloody gun.

Lethal force will only be used when absolutely necessary.

I think they would use the army, instead of police.

but ya, if this riot drags on even more, than I would argue there should be use.

I think they would use the army, instead of police.

but ya, if this riot drags on even more, than I would argue there should be use.

gamer-adam1

i heard that the police in london dont even carry guns? WTF is wrong with them.campzor

With the riots going on and the police saying they're "thinking" of using rubber bullets in cases like these why doesn't anyone smarten up and just use live rounds?

I have no idea why people get to riot and the prevailing concern is "don't let anyone rioting get hurt"

They're criminals, when a riot breaks out there should be lethal force used to stop it quickly, let's see how rioters stand strong when a few rows of them fall from a hail of gunshots. Think anyone is going to continue to riot? No way.

How is lethal force not mandatory? How do these rioters get treated like they're an endangered species?

Lethal force for rioters, Yes or no?

Jaysonguy

i always wonder why people just go adn give their precious insights on topics when being completely ignorant or even stoping to think about the consecuences of what they are saying

Why do you need lethal force when you can just do a scissor kick to the back of the head?

i heard that the police in london dont even carry guns? WTF is wrong with them.campzor

I'd argue it speaks better of a police force if they can keep the peace without having to carry a tool for killing.

To do so would be political suicide here in the West. Besides, shooting a few rounds into crowds didn't seem to work so well for Libya and Egypt. :lol: :roll:

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]There are cases in the U.S. when armed forces have opened fire on protestors and rioters, like the 1967 Detroit riot. However, if you think that's bad, look at some reports from countries in Africa, the Middle East, and China. I would include North Korea, but they don't communicate much with the outside world. It's a big Disney World with Kim Jong-il as Mickey Mouse. Only much worse.AnnoyedDragon

If the police had guns, and the protesters had guns, all we would get is a load of dead people and nothing resolved. So I don't get this mentality that guns are a cure all. It's about public order, and the public aren't going to get behind the police if they kill a load of their children (most of the protesters are youths).

One person has died during these riots, only one, and it was of course caused by a bloody gun.

Lethal force will only be used when absolutely necessary.

i think non lethal force would be a good start with lethal means being used only as a last resort. surprisingly, the police getting attacked with debris and retreating does not seem to have quelled the riots. i guess the rioters they will wear themselves out in a few days after another hundred million dollars worth of damage is done. mustn't hurt the rioters, they are people too.

i heard that the police in london dont even carry guns? WTF is wrong with them.campzor

If people carry guns around all the time, people are going to feel threatened with you around them, and will be more likely to be violent in a paranoid sense of defence

i think non lethal force would be a good start with lethal means being used only as a last resort. surprisingly, the police getting attacked with debris and retreating does not seem to have quelled the riots. i guess the rioters they will wear themselves out in a few days after another hundred million dollars worth of damage is done. mustn't hurt the rioters, they are people too.

ItalStallion777

[QUOTE="campzor"]i heard that the police in london dont even carry guns? WTF is wrong with them.AnnoyedDragon

I'd argue it speaks better of a police force if they can keep the peace without having to carry a tool for killing.

[QUOTE="campzor"]i heard that the police in london dont even carry guns? WTF is wrong with them.BuryMe

If people carry guns around all the time, people are going to feel threatened with you around them, and will be more likely to be violent in a paranoid sense of defence

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="campzor"]i heard that the police in london dont even carry guns? WTF is wrong with them.campzor

I'd argue it speaks better of a police force if they can keep the peace without having to carry a tool for killing.

Shooting on civilians is horrible, plus its a pr nightmare.

Its called tear gas, use it

So if someone robs a bank and resist arrest it's ok for cops to use leathal force.

But if there is a large group of people robbing everything in sight and resisting arrest the cops can only stand there and watch.