|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
In USA, it's reasonable to assume the looter is armed. In the UK, not so much, but still a concern for approaching officers. And how the looters will react to police force kinda depends on the situation. Where the riots are the result of police brutality, it's probably reasonable to assume the looters are more likely to attack police than comply.
Not that kind of reasonable, but the kind of reasonable that says, "Here are the specific reasons I believed this particular person was not only armed, but had the intent to do immediate harm."
To the latter point, I agree with poopadoop's analysis. The withdrawal of the police and lack of inserting national guard at the time of the fire was to save lives. They could only have made the situation worse on that night, in that moment. It shocked me, and I didn't get it at first, but it was wise. If they started confronting protestors directly, it would have pulled more people into the protest, and ignited the rage at injustice that was simmering just below the surface of the protest.
We would only have lost more lives. As it played out in St Paul, we only lost property. Insured property, at that.
Looting is an inevitable consequence of mob mentality. I haven't kept up with the current psychological stance on mob mentality. What I mean is that once a mob / riot forms, people assume their role in the mob, and will do things that they would never do under other circumstances. Most people will get caught up in the mob, if they're present. It's a human thing, not a criminal thing.
Criminalizing and killing people who are otherwise never going to act in that criminal way is not the best way to deal with it. Sure, it's a perfectly legal way to deal with it, but it misses the spirit of the law, where it relies on the letter of the law.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Regular cops here aren't armed, so they couldn't even carry out such a measure. This would be special units, or military, depending on the gravity of the situation. But of course a policy of shooting looters should only be carried out by authorised personnel, even in USA where all cops are armed. A regular cop should probably not be dealing with potentially dangerous looters, that's the job of riot police and maybe special units.
I can absolutely support the final comment, but I can't support any argument that treats hundreds of people caught up in a moment as though they are armed, dangerous threats to the society. Even the riot police and national guard cannot stoop to rule by terrorism - rule by threat of death without judge or jury.
|
Reply With Quote
