Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
DTNC Vicious
Site Admin
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:48 am
Location: North of the Wall
Contact:

Postby DTNC Vicious » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:06 pm

I can see some of your points, but to say Gaddafi had "flaws" is ridiculous, i have flaws....Gaddafi had little boys tortured to death, i would say thats a little more then a flaw.
-Vic
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:49 am

Remember back when the riots were going on and I said that I wouldn't be opposed to the police shooting them?

Well...
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:54 am

That's insane, first of all, if there are riots I doubt you are a sleep in your house, second of all, if the police sees it happening I'm sure they can alert the residents in time to evacuate.
Third of all, police will shoot arsonists that set on fire properties that are not linked people's homes.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:23 pm

Jordy... wrote:Third of all, police will shoot arsonists that set on fire properties that are not linked people's homes.


While that wouldn't really bother me, I agree that it's not an ideal situation. Instead, they ought to let the property owners have guns and let them shoot the arsonists that are trying to torch their place. That way the police can worry about other things, like looters and such.
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:42 pm

Feud wrote:Remember back when the riots were going on and I said that I wouldn't be opposed to the police shooting them?

Well...


As I said before, considering the whole thing started with the police having shot and killed someone followed by conflicting reports, alleged tempering of the scene, and reports that the police shoved a minor during a peaceful march held in response of the killing, the shooting of yet more people would only have made things worse.

The problem during the riots wasn't that the police didn't have enough powers but rather that they didn't get involved. They had orders to hold back and observe, even while property was damaged and people were attacked. There is also the matter that their communications network failed resulting in them using personal phones to keep in touch and thus meaning they were unable to get to the scenes of the worse trouble soon enough.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.
Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:53 pm

It's also an English tradition whenever the Tories get elected to have riots.
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:54 pm

Feud wrote:
Jordy... wrote:Third of all, police will shoot arsonists that set on fire properties that are not linked people's homes.


While that wouldn't really bother me, I agree that it's not an ideal situation. Instead, they ought to let the property owners have guns and let them shoot the arsonists that are trying to torch their place. That way the police can worry about other things, like looters and such.


A number of shots were fired at the police, a man shot in Croydon, and 3 people were killed in a hit and run when protecting their property so I don't see how greater access to guns would have helped things. It would just have escalated the lengths some looters would have gone. It would also mean that more of the looters would have had access to guns with an increased risk of overzealous vigilantism.
Last edited by Montyphy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.

Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:56 pm

As I said at the time, I realize that shooting the rioters would likely not be the wisest course of action. I'm just saying that I personally wouldn't have an issue if that were the course they took. And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:59 pm

Feud wrote:And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.

I really don't want to get in this argument again, but I still find this way of thinking incredibly disturbing.
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:00 pm

Feud wrote:And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.


I could possibly understand if the person's or their family's life was being seriously threatened but the value a business or property is nothing compared to that of a life, even if the person in question is a looter/arsonist/criminal.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.

Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:08 pm

Montyphy wrote:
Feud wrote:And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.


I could possibly understand if the person's or their family's life was being seriously threatened but the value a business or property is nothing compared to that of a life, even if the person in question is a looter/arsonist/criminal.


The value of a life is percious, yes. But trying to set buildings on fire endangers the lives of countless others, and threatens the life of the very community itself. It threatens the life, health and future of those who depend upon that business, both directly and indirectly. It contributes to and encourages the general anarchy of a riot, and the associated dangers to both lives, property, and public order that such bring. There's risk of it spreading and taking out a city block or two, and it places those who have to put it out in significant danger as well.

Certainly, it is preferable to stop the person without shooting them if possible. But in a riotous situation, where the police are either unable or unwilling to do so, I think that the property owner should at least have the option. It's unreasonable to expect them to restrain and detain the person(s) by hand, as that puts everyone (especially the innocent) at significantly greater risk of injury or death, and I find it appalling to think that they should be expected to just sit back and watch.
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:49 pm

Xocrates wrote:
Feud wrote:And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.

I really don't want to get in this argument again, but I still find this way of thinking incredibly disturbing.


We always seem to agree don't we?! :D

Life is invaluable, materials are not. If someone is setting fire near your home just get out and away, then insurance will pay out. No need to shoot anyone. You ever think that these looters are not out to get innocent people, but rather are having fun/angry/troubled or whatever? Responding with brute violence seems the worse answer there is to such problems.
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:01 pm

Feud wrote:But trying to set buildings on fire endangers the lives of countless others, and threatens the life of the very community itself.


So in your opinion arson should be a capital offence? To add a little perspective, there wasn't a single death as a result of the fires.

Feud wrote:It threatens the life, health and future of those who depend upon that business, both directly and indirectly.


Which is why we have the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 which grants compensation from the police for the loss and damage of property and its contents during a riot.

Feud wrote:It contributes to and encourages the general anarchy of a riot, and the associated dangers to both lives, property, and public order that such bring. There's risk of it spreading and taking out a city block or two, and it places those who have to put it out in significant danger as well.


That in no way justifies lethal force, especially from people taking the law into their own hand and when there are non-lethal alternatives.

Feud wrote:But in a riotous situation, where the police are either unable or unwilling to do so, I think that the property owner should at least have the option.


Unwilling? The UK hasn't exactly had an unturbulent past and this is what we pay and train our police to handle. Otherwise why have a police force in the first place? If they did what they were suppose to do it would have been resolved a lot faster and most likely wouldn't have happened either. Instead they cocked up then spent almost 3 days doing very little enforcement of any kind in the hope that things would calm itself down and that they would be able to catch the perpetrators at later dates.

Feud wrote:It's unreasonable to expect them to restrain and detain the person(s) by hand, as that puts everyone (especially the innocent) at significantly greater risk of injury or death


So because you can't detain them you should just kill them instead? :/ Anyway, I thought we were talking about defending a property? Detaining and restraining is going beyond just defending, and just defending is exactly what hundreds of people successfully did and all without using lethal force.

Feud wrote:and I find it appalling to think that they should be expected to just sit back and watch.


So in your opinion you only see two options, lethal force or sit back and watch? :/
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Jordy... wrote:You ever think that these looters are not out to get innocent people, but rather are having fun/angry/troubled or whatever?


Yes, actually. Everything I said was with the assumption that such were their motives.

Montyphy wrote:So in your opinion arson should be a capital offence? But to put things into a little perspective, there wasn't a single death as a result of the fires.


That depends on the situation, I can think of a few cases where the answer might be "yes" but generally such would involve arson being a means by which a larger crime would have occured and so I don't know that I would rightly say that I'd consider arson a capital crime. My comments though weren't in regard to post incident judicial punishment, but rather acceptable options in the immediate situation. For example, say a person were to threaten you with a gun, and you (in defense) killed them. They didn't actually kill you, or perhaps even attempt to shoot you, and so if they had lived they might not have gotten a capital punsihment. But, your actions and the consequence of their deaths are still justified, because they happened during the incident to prevent a potential larger harm. That's the difference between what I said and your comparison to a capital offense, I'm not talking about reasoned mediation while the person is locked in a cell under guard, I'm talking about defense in the moment the crime is being committed.

As for there not being any deaths by fire, that's wonderful! That doesn't mean that the arsonists weren't recklessly endangering scores of lives, it just means that those people were fortunate enough to survive.

Montyphy wrote:Which is why we have the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 which grants compensation from the police for the loss and damage of property and its contents during a riot.


And if they are shot, England has great medical care for all, right? Of course, that's a silly statement to make, because simply having access to medical care doesn't mean that the immediate and long term effects of injury are suddenly undone. It just means that if harm is caused, that one aspect is somewhat offset.

That law doesn't bring back a lost life, that doesn't compensate for shattered dreams, stress realted health issues, etc. And I doubt that it covers the increase in insurance costs, economic downturn to the local economy, and subsequent impact on other businesses. While it might pay the physical monetary costs of the fire, the actual cost to the lives of the people involved and the community is far greater than money.

Montyphy wrote:
Feud wrote:It contributes to and encourages the general anarchy of a riot, and the associated dangers to both lives, property, and public order that such bring. There's risk of it spreading and taking out a city block or two, and it places those who have to put it out in significant danger as well.


That in no way justifies lethal force, especially from people taking the law into their own hand and when there are non-lethal alternatives.


I disagree. (Also, "non-lethal" alternatives are limited to asking them to stop. Once physical force is used, whether by means of hands, a stick, pepper spray, tazers, or a gun, there is no such things as "non-lethal". All are potentially lethal, it's just a matter of degrees.)

Montyphy wrote:
Feud wrote:But in a riotous situation, where the police are either unable or unwilling to do so, I think that the property owner should at least have the option.


Unwilling? The UK hasn't exactly had an unturbulent past and this is what we pay and train our police to handle. Otherwise why have a police force in the first place? If they did what they were suppose to do it would have been resolved a lot faster and most likely wouldn't have happened either. Instead they cocked up then spent almost 3 days doing very little enforcement of any kind in the hope that things would calm itself down and that they would be able to catch the perpetrators at later dates.


You seem to be agreeing with my point. The London police, in some instances, were either unable or unwilling to supress the riots. Whether such was out of fear of escalation, litigation, or hopes that it would calm itself down, they weren't acting. I'm all for letting the police do the work. But if the police are unwilling or unable to act, then the duty of preservation of life, property, and community is in the hands of the people.

Montyphy wrote:So because you can't detain them you should just kill them instead? :/ Anyway, I thought we were talking about defending a property? Detaining and restraining is going beyond just defending, and just defending is exactly what hundreds of people successfully did and all without using lethal force.

So in your opinion you only see two options, lethal force or sit back and watch? :/


You can try to scare off the arsonist, and maybe you can. Then what? They set a fire somewhere else, perhaps where people are less able to defend themselves? Maybe down the street, and hope that the wind is blowing the other direction?

And your choice is a false one, I didn't say the only two options are to kill them or watch. I said that it is preferable to stop them without shooting them, but that in an extreme situation the option to use a firearm should be availble. And that's what I meant, that there are other outcomes other than shooting them that would be preferable, but that such an option shouldn't be excluded if those other options aren't possible or are unreasonable to expect.


*************

Also: Hobbit!
User avatar
DTNC Vicious
Site Admin
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:48 am
Location: North of the Wall
Contact:

Postby DTNC Vicious » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:49 pm

Just saw the new Dark Knight rises trailer, was anyone else shocked to see the flying tumbler?
-Vic

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests