[122025278]

This is how the government dealt with the Gordon Riots in London a couple of hundred years ago: (Unlikely that those are rubber bullets...)



"The army was called out on 7 June and given orders to fire upon groups of four or more who refused to disperse. About 285 people were shot dead, with another 200 wounded. Around 450 of the rioters were arrested. Of those arrested, about twenty or thirty were later tried and executed."

Obviously this would never be acceptable in todays society on the face of it, but what about important targets in London? Buckingham Palace, Downing Street, MI6, Ministry of Defence, Parliament, Bank of England, if there was a concerted and coordinated effort by rioters to attack those buildings in a fashion we saw in the riots last summer, then given that those places are already, in normal circumstances, under armed police protection, then surely there would be justification to open fire?

It's a difficult one, because if the rioters were just intent of causing destruction and posed no threat to anyones life, clearly death is not a fair penalty. I'm not one who believes in the "looters will be shot" American gung ho punishment because I believe only murder (or terrorism) can deserve the death penalty, but yet if you had hoards of people attempting to access those sites surely the police would have no option? They're not just going to sit by and let them waltz into Downing Street or Buckingham Place are they, but then scores would die, it'd resemble the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan.

Thankfully the mob of thugs we saw last summer didn't have the intelligence to contemplate anything like this and were more interesting in pilfering odd trainers from sports shops, but any protest in Central London could rapidly descend into a situation like this. Would the police be justified in killing unarmed protesters?

[SnoochToTheBooch]

would it hell. people getting a bit rowdy, damaging property and nicking stuff doesn't warrant getting shot dead.

[Azog 150]

While i don't condone the gunning down of people en masse, the Gordon Riots were a different kettle of fish as the riots were basically anti-Catholic pogroms, with Parliamentarians directly attacked and many peoples homes burned to the ground.

The Peterloo Massacre would be a more relevant example as that was a peaceful protest with political aims of greater democracy.

[Iqbal007]

Nooooo, not at all, it would justify another reason for more people to come out and it will cause civil issues.....this is not Bahrain where their country is run by a 'Monarch' who does as he pleases....this country is democratic, if such a thing were to happen we would fall through a hole. Which this country shouldn't at all.

[steviemcg]

you'se shot and killed protestors and have done it for years here in ireland and no-one bats an eyelid over in england

[Zeffy]

Yes it would.


The people rioting last Summer were scumbags who would never amount to anything anyway. What would the loss to the world be if the police opened fire?

Plus it would make them think twice about going around looting and robbing again wouldn't it? The riots were motivated entirely by greed and criminal nature. The cops should have shot them.

Incidently, I support the Bahrain governments actions against protestors. If they're causing trouble shoot them.

[steviemcg]

so i got a negative rating for stating historic fact? Get real lol

[Annoying-Mouse]

Does a owner of a knife have the right to stab someone who is causing damage to their property? What about a gun owner and someone causing damage to their property/house (with no intent on killing them and establishes that)? I believe the answer is yes.

Hence, it follows that if rioters are damaging those kind of property than after attempts to stop their rioting they should be shot although with rubber bullets because their less lethal and kinda effective at stopping the rioting, failing that with normal guns. With some of those buildings e.g. MI6 or Bank of England, more force should be used considering their nature and the sensitive information they posses.

[Freiheit]

Wouldn't that escalate the situation and lead to more violence?

[chrisawhitmore]

Lethal force should never be used by police, except to prevent imminent loss of life. In other words, if the rioters were killing/seriously injuring or about to kill or seriously injure, then lethal force is justified (the role of the police being to provide self-defence for those incapable of doing so). Firing on unarmed protesters is wrong, firing on an armed mob is not, though should be done with care to avoid non-combatant casualties.

Riots, however, tend to fall into two main categories: those of criminality and desperation. The London riots were a good example of criminality style rioting, with looting and vandalism as priorities, and little open clashing with police, with many preferring to flee from any police that arrived in force.

Contrast that with the remarkably underpublicised Greek riots, in which protesters held ground against large numbers of riot police, driving them back with petrol bombs, molotov cocktails and thrown bricks. These riots are the more dangerous kind, those born out of desperation at an economic situation which has lead to many facing starvation, and a simultaneous disenfranchisement of all Greeks with the appointment of an EU sponsored unelected president. The combination of adverse conditions and no legitimate means of expressing their disapproval of the Government forced them to direct action, regardless of personal danger, which is the situation in which the riots turn from damaging to dangerous.

[Zoarial]

Not in our current situation, as obviously that would get the country in uproar. Once things get to the same severity as Greece, or maybe worse, then live firearms would probably used as a scare tactic to keep protestors/the population in order. Either that or something similar to the NDAA bill (im pretty sure thats the one im thinking of) in the US that allows the government to brand any civilian a terrorist threat without reason, upon which all their human rights become invalid, which could be achieved by a false flag operation or scare propaganda. It may sound extreme but who knows whose interests the government may be serving in such a situation.

Of course we're not at that point yet so i wouldn't worry about being shot at on a saturday night at 3 in the morning, but i think its a definite possibility for the not invisible future.

Saying all that of course i hope we change our ways by that point and see the path of annihilation we're heading down

[Carecup]

No-no-no-no-oh-dear-god-please-no-why-would-you-even-consider-that-as-a-means-of-dealing-with-peaceful-protestors.

[Snagprophet]

As much as I wish to see those causing havoc and distress for many families and businesses, including the attempted murder of people by setting fire to their homes, shot dead, I'd be satisfied by rubber bullets and water cannons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-revealed.html

If you see the damage that water cannons can do, then maybe people won't go out and commit crimes like attempting to murder people and mass damage property, which is what happened during the riots.

[Greenlaner]

It depends entirely on the individual circumstances. If it is to prevent serious harm or the loss of life of innocent people then i would have no problem with it whatsoever. Likewise i have little problem with a frightened shopkeeper or homeowner shooting or stabbing dead any looters that are trying to break into their property.

[Llamageddon]

Never say never but it would take an incredible justification and I can't personally think of one that would fit whilst the rioters were still technically rioting.

[Aj12]

Depends. If it is general rioting then no. However if the rioters are trying to break into buildings and pose a direct threat to say the nations security or the lives of the people inside then I think they would have the right to shoot but only as very much a last resort and after people have died.

[FrostyLemon]

The only time I can see sense in killing someone is to prevent them from killing someone else, (for example if they have bomb strapped to their chest or they have a gun pointing at someone.) Even then it should be a last resort. I don't believe in executing people for their crimes once they are no longer a threat to society, that's what prison is for.

So in this case, absolutely not. Ending lives for damaged property? Avin a larfff son...

[Bonged.]

lol, from this thread you'd think the riots were just a bunch of disaffected gangstas skipping about tickling OAPs with feather dusters.

[lucaf]

depends on how violent they are being. breaking property, no. if there are mobs attacking people though, it may be necessary, although as a last resort. rubber bullets, tear gas and things should be used first. I wonder if they will ever use those pain projector things I read about...

[democracyforum]

NO !! Syrians are having their legs blown off, their arms, and even being difgured and shot in the face.

Youtube - Worst Crimes Syria, it is shocking, - in fact don't, you will be scarred by those videos for days - they are horrific.