News & Politics

Rant

New UK Anti-Riot Policy - Shoot First, Ask Questions Later

Posted 5 months ago|3 comments|496 views
Burning bus photo. Source: VOA TV
Written by
Next time, rioters in United Kingdom could get a real bullet in the head rather than a rubber one. The British Government now wants its police authorized to fire live ammo and British Army available to replace police in logistical positions "to free police officers for public order duties."

It seems that rubber bullets and water cannons are ineffective in controlling UK rioters. Since UK does not have suffocating machine as a crowd-control weapon available, they plan to resort to firing live ammo as the Final Solution.

Ever since Bloody Sunday massacre in 1972, British Army was rarely used to control the protests and riots. On 30 January 1972, soldiers of the British Army shot twenty-six unarmed civil-rights protesters and bystanders. Lord Saville of Newdigate determined after twelve years of inquiry and research that all of those shot were unarmed, and that the killings were both "unjustified and unjustifiable." Deploying army against civilians can never end any other way.

When Gaddafi allowed his army to shoot the rioters in the streets of Tripoli, we bombed the heck out of the country and allowed those same rioters to execute him as soon as he was captured. Well, is US going to bomb London if British Army does the same thing to British rioters? Somehow, I doubt it...

It seems that a period of honoring liberal and civil values is ending in United Kingdom. Fortunately, UK government managed first to establish tight gun control so there is no fear of retribution by law-abiding citizens. I have to wonder if these new rules of engagement in situations of public violence are not simply a solution that allows government to prevent any organized opposition by the common people.

It is clear that rioters should not be allowed to loot and torch buildings. Still, shouldn't police be already equipped to deal with such situations? Does firing upon unarmed rioters constitute a clear violation of human rights? There are simply too many possibilities for abuse and too many questions without answer here.

Welcome to the UK of 21st century...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
5 months ago: During the Chicago riots of the late 1960's, 5000 regular Army and 6700 Illinois National Guard troops joined 10,500 police, and were given orders to "shoot to kill" any arsonists and "shoot to maim or cripple" any looters or rioters.

Ironically, the 1968 riots pretty much marked the public and private disinvestment in Chicago's economic infrastructure. Businesses fled en masse, industrial jobs were relocated, and the people who rioted were much worse off after it was all cleaned up.

Now that the mindset has been established, and the protesters have been classified as terrorists, the public outrage should be minimal.
5 months ago: Right. The public outrage will be minimal and the media will dutifully repeat that there were no innocent bystanders.

And if any of those terrorists survive being shot, it will be really easy to organize their indefinite imprisonment.
http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/The-America...
5 months ago: Dr,

Bottom line is high tech non lethal measures only encourage protesters to try and see how much "damage" they can take... however the old bullet in the head, is a sure determent against civil disobedience. And like you said there is a double standard the way we "civilized" nations kill our own... and the other "developing" nations dispose of their "trash". If push comes to shove... we will see "shock and awe" here in the West...

"While ballistic crowd dispursment techniques are being laid to rest, there's no shortage of options for authorities to use—horses, pepper spray, tear gas, shields, batons, sound cannons, and more—so, if you choose to protest anywhere around the country, you'd better behave--or beware."
http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/2523...

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.