This picture will help make certain London message is lost

[Zax2me]

Whatever message that is, already gone -
Humiliation: A young man is forced to strip to his underpants in the street, having apparently already handed his t-shirt and trainers to a looter. There were unconfirmed reports last night of victims being made to strip in Deptford, south London, and in Birmingham

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024001/UK-riots-2011-London-Birmingham-people-forced-strip-naked-street.html#ixzz1UZIEJVWK

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

2. The kind of crap that happens. When you are legally disarmed. nt

[trumad]

3. Huh?

Are you implying that if England didn't have strict gun laws this would not happen?

[SteveM]

5. Listen carefully...

The riots may have occurred, guns or no. But at least citizens would have a chance to resist attacks by thugs.

[DonRedwood]

6. then the rioters would have guns too....

[SteveM]

10. Perhaps, but if gun laws were so effective, then maybe fewer...

thugs would have them. The point here is that people can better defend themselves.

You may recall the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict, when whole areas of L.A. erupted into violence and arson. Some residences and buildings did NOT burn, and some people in them were not victims: The were armed. And made sure rioters were aware of that.

Peruse the various threads covering the London riots. Some DUers have asked why attacked citizens don't defend themselves. Answer: With what?

[hlthe2b]

13. Guns are really not effective if fire bombs are used...

Ya know?

[SteveM]

16. Tell that to some shop owners who weren't burned out in L.A. nt

[hlthe2b]

18. No correlation whatsoever... Even common sense would tell you so

just more silly gun propaganda.

[Hangingon]

19. A check of history will show you your error.

[hlthe2b]

21. Talk, talk, talk... factless, feckless talk

[SteveM]

22. Description of your own efforts, no?

[SteveM]

20. Correlation? That's your term. I merely reported how some defended themselves.

That's the trouble with "common sense." A lot of it doesn't figure, and even that isn't very common.

[hlthe2b]

24. Like saying because I drove my car, I didn't drown...

The issue was rioters with firebombs. Your statement has no bearing on the issue whatsoever as you present no evidence that they were even at risk--either from being overrun, being targeted for vandalism, or more to the point at risk of firebomb. Just silly propaganda.

[SteveM]

28. No, the issue was and is self-defense...

Do you deny that people's homes were invaded? Do you deny they were attacked on the street?

If you were a Korean (or other) shop owner during the L.A. riots and someone approached with a firebomb (there was a lot of that during that time, heh?), what would you have done?

Propaganda must be stuff that doesn't go your way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. You know this argument is as old as lower taxes

create jobs.

You know there is a society that is even more armed than ours... actually two.

One is Iraq, the other is Afghanistan

I will leave it at that

[SteveM]

17. And not allowing for self-defense is as corrupt a notion as...

assuring peace through rolling over.

And I'll leave it at that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. You think the brits don't allow for self defense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

Where do you think our concept came from?

That is a very silly statement.

Oh and guns did stop the LA Riots...

I mean privately owned guns.



Yep that is a citizen (soldier) protecting his property.

A few more there in that montage



And this is the point, things are far more complex than just that.

[SteveM]

25. "Complexity?" More like intentional confusion...

From your source:

"However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force."

wow. try figuring that out next time your attacked.

This rest of your stuff is a gross distortion, but you know that. The people with guns are LEOs -- same as in G.B. Further, "stopping the riot" is not the issue at hand. The issue was self-defense. And numerous people who lived and owned shops in the riot area were spared attack and destruction by their OWN measures of self-defense. You really can't face that, can you?

So, how would you have defended yourself if some thugs busted into your London flat?

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. That is some nice NRA propaganda right there

from people who were THERE, as in real life LEOs, incidence of people defending their property successfully were really really few.

From the small riot that happened at the same time in San Diego, what stopped it in it's tracks was very muscular response from the local cops.

From the six hour riot in Tijuana where I had EMS command, what stopped it, again was very muscular response from the cops.

Citizens played a very minor role in any of them and in stopping them.

They are a force to be reckoned with... and trust me, I never want to be even in the same city with one again.

BUt you are quoting NRA propaganda.

As to the right to self defense, it goes beyond fire arms.

[SteveM]

29. Nice GOP/Brady stuff right there. Quit attacking by association..

Again, you miss the issue -- rather intentionally. The issue, again, is self-defense. Stopping riots? Play with someone else.

Sounds like you have your guilt-by-association meme down real good. I think you know you can't hack this one, bud.

I doubt if you will answer my questions. What would you have done?

What?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I know LEOS who were there. do you?

Self defense in a riot... that's a nice one. Best tactic is to button in or leave the area. They are a force of nature.

You know REAL as in relatives who were there in LAPD have pointed out that of all the incidents they had of looting and firebombing they had maybe two who successfully drove the rioters away. The rest were lucky to walk away alive.

That is the reality... so you go and try to peddle that somewhere else.

Having a nice .38, the average gun that week... didn't do much.

And yes, you have a right to self defense, it is not exclusively about guns, and they have the same right under british common law.

Oh and those two LEOS are pretty right wing, and Right to Bear arms by the way.

[SteveM]

38. I'll at least answer YOUR question: The thread is about self-defense...

"Button in." And after they pop the buttons off and come in anyway, what would you do?______________

Again, please be advised, this thread is about self-defense. I know you are getting standard gun-control memes in by changing the topic to stopping a riot, but that ain't what it's about. I hope that is clear. Again. The number of incidents is not as important as you think, since it ain't about stopping riots, not military strategies or coercive social control.

Be advised, that I WILL continue to pursue this line of thought, here and elsewhere. Hopefully, you will answer the questions I have proffered, and learn something; like not conflating social policy (or strategy) with the eminently personal self-defense.

BTW, the picture I have a shop-owners on the roof shows a number of semi-auto carbines, and shotguns. 'Guess they don't like your "nice .38" averages.

It is a distortion to say, as I think you are implying, that U.S. citizens have the "same right" under British common law; I mean, what is the flap over the "castle doctrine" vs. "duty to retreat" (in this country) if self-defense is the "same right?" Do you really think someone blowing away a thug who has just busted into your living room has just as much chance of escaping sanction for his/her actions in Britain as, say, in Texas or Florida? Really?

The politics of your LEOs are irrelevant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Oh my...

self defense is quite obvious under common law... isn't it?

That was not your argument.

Have a good day.

Yep, we know lower taxes create more jobs and a well armed population = self defense...

[SteveM]

53. Sorry, you quit making sense some posts back; I was just being Christian about it.

I see you are still straining at gobble-dy-gook logic -- yours, of course.

A nice day to you.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. You could not be more wrong. That National Guardsman is not

a 'Law Enforcement Officer' and in the case of the LA riots, for which I was present as witness for the duration, the 'LEOs' were of no help to the people, the National Guard was. Example: the 'LEOs' were arresting the homeless in droves for 'curfew violations' because they had nowhere to go. The National Guard set up areas and guarded the homeless from the cops, refusing the 'LEOs' entry to alley ways and areas where they hid these people.
I could go on and on. Lots of shops with armed people got burned down, many without them did not. I was there. I saw the Korean shop owners with tons of arms on their roofs, and like millions of my neighbors, saw them as nut jobs who lost our custom for all time, because they were brandishing weapons all day long, a violation of the law, in threatening ways at the anyone who walked or drove down their busy, public streets. When they face no threat at all, they were still brandishing, sometimes in mass. They too were criminal thugs frightening children and treating their shop like a fortress in broad daylight with thousands of calm people trying to go about our lives.
Those bastards were armed hooligans and just the same as those who burned and looted. Brandishing weapons at noon at children is not 'self defense' it is an act of terror.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I know they are not

but finally it was the deployment of the guard, and they were deployed for complex reasons

But the argument is that if CIVILIANS were well armed, a riot would stop on it's tracks...

Alas civilians ARE well armed in the US.

[Hangingon]

30. Koreans did use their weapons to defend property.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?c=1&i=a05_1235367821 Check the vireo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. And they were succesful very few times

per LEOS on the scene.

[Hangingon]

50. I am not trying to put down the riot. That is vigilantism.

I am defending my property. In that, they were successful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Again very few...

[Hangingon]

68. I am not buying your biased assement, but it only takes a few.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Biased, ok

reality has a bias I guess.

Sad

[Hangingon]

77. Refusal to acknowledge actual facts is sad.

Do enjoy your skewed view of the world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. My "skewed" reality comes from the reality

on the ground... from people who, once again, WERE THERE.

So as I said, reality has a bias Sad,

[chowder66]

70. Unarmed during the LA Riots

I would have rather taken off my clothes and given them to the guy than have a gun pointed at my head.

I don't own a gun nor do I want to own one.

[xchrom]

8. 'thugs' - disguised speech for people of color who are poor. Nt

[SteveM]

14. No way. That's race card politics. The term originates in India...

And frankly, it is the argot for ANY criminal, esp. one particularly bent on destruction, assault, mayhem and confrontation. "Thug" is an equal opportunity description for some pretty vile folks gone feral.

I will CONTINUE to use the term "THUG" as often as is necessary to identify these skid-marks.

[Demonaut]

35. thugs were those that waylaid travelers in India, the meaning has morphed

don't think those shops were sacrificed to Kali

[SteveM]

47. HA! I understand how things morph....

We had a similar discussion about the metaphor "Tar Baby" a week ago. What a wonderful tale about getting in too deeply, and not being able to extricate yourself; something we should all learn posting in this mess. I still haven't figured out if Toni Morrison, who wrote the novel "Tar Baby" in 1981, was more concerned about the racial image of the tar baby, or about the deeper meaning of the tale; I think it was the latter.

But it took in large measure Walt Disney to "morph" the character into a racist slur, just as he side-swiped biology with "Bambi."

I have always felt if one begins to identify with a term, then let them so identify. To date, "thugs" still incorporates a wide-spectrum of criminals.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. I like it when people know this

Thuggees.

:thumbsup:

[Hangingon]

26. No! There are many people of cover here and in GB who are

not robbing people on the street or setting fire to stores. You should be able to fine Utube video showing some of them with very little trouble.

[xchrom]

36. Sorry but - YES! Especially among white gun owners - they 'love' thug pictures.

His riot - I don't care how many tv's are hauled out - is about race & clas.
Race & class as it exists in England in particular but there are American parallels as well.

[Hangingon]

44. You are playing the race card and it will backfire.

[SteveM]

56. Yet ANOTHER race card. Think you'll get a full house this time?

Given you don't care about "how many tv's are hauled out," could you please tell us what you would do with those rioters who stole the T.V.s? Should they be tried? If convicted, what kind of sentence should they receive? You can answer both in the instance of England, and the United States.

[slackmaster]

62. The looters in England come in all shapes, sizes, and colors (though perhaps one gender)

Oops, there's a female in this one.

[xchrom]

83. I would never make the argument this is more about 'race' excepte

When american 2a fundies start talking about 'thugs' etc - which is the picture that started this.

If you are defending 'thug' - you're a racist.

[slackmaster]

84. Is it racist for me to post pics of white thugs?

Serious question.

[hlthe2b]

4. No... I think this is the picture that loses the majority of sympathy for the wider issues...

Stunning Photo Of Woman Leaping From Burning Building Amid London Riots



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/london-riots-woman-leaps-_n_922399.html#s325691

[SteveM]

58. But....but....what is her race? nt

:silly:

[RebelOne]

74. Does it matter? n/t

[SteveM]

80. Fogot the sarcasm thingy. nt

[sunwyn]

7. What started as a noble demonstration has denigrated into mob violence against alot of people

who are also getting screwed. I will never understand people who destroy their own neighborhoods because they are angry with their governments.

[Obamanaut]

75. or degenerated into mob violence. nt

[Speck Tater]

9. Message? What message? All I see is stupid people destroying their own neighborhoods.

Where's the message in that?

[slackmaster]

45. The message that I get from it is that they are stupid

And like a lot of people in South Central Los Angeles after the 1992 riots, won't have amenities like grocery stores in their neighborhoods for a long time. Some of them won't have a decent place to sleep tonight.

[Speck Tater]

54. The L.A. police used to crassly refer to the riot as "a self-cleaning oven." nt

[War Horse]

11. Please follow the OP's link and scroll down to the video

Made me sick when I saw this earlier...

[Broderick]

39. The young boy beaten

and then robbed.

Awful

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. To paraphrase the comedian, when I'm being robbed and you're standing there with a camera

PUT THE CAMERA DOWN AND FUCKING HELP ME

[-..__...]

33. Thug piece of shit needs a police baton across his teeth.

[slackmaster]

40. Here's the one that really tugged at my heart strings

This one as well.



And this one.

[SteveM]

60. Oh, that is ripe! nt

[HipChick]

41. How valid is the pic? My cousin in UK were saying that people were staging photo's and posting them

on various sites, just to get interviewed by reports. Other people were posting fake photoshopped pics of buildings on fire, The London Eye for one, Big Ben..etc..It's getting hard to know what's real and being faked at this point. Also the Daily Mail is a hard RW paper....

[SteveM]

66. I sympathize: what's real or what's faked....

best looked at in terms of commentary on the nature of the rioters who want (1) celebrity, (2) cultural recognition, (3) we wanna be like you too.

Remember: Rodney King's attackers were acquitted by a jury who watched a video long before PhotoShop had spread its flatulence.

[JanMichael]

43. I watched the video of the poor kid that was looted by a group of 10-15 people.

What struck me is that the asshole rightwing has been screaming about non-whites doing this and yet the apparent two main guys were white. With others it looked about 70% white.

[HipChick]

46. It's all races...all youths...its not a black on white thing

unless you want to believe the media

[JanMichael]

51. I know. That's what I thought I said. nt.

[Imajika]

48. If the guy could have open carried, that would never have happened to him..

And if he could have conceal carried, that mugger would have been in for a nasty surprise.

Either way, the victim would have kept his clothes.

Sorry, I prefer not to hope the police happen along to help me. Fortunately I live in a state where I can legally conceal carry and if that SOB had tried to take my clothes I'd have shot him without thinking twice about it.

[SteveM]

63. I would prefer that he fill his britches and run off...

What some folks don't want to see in all this is the vast difference between self-defense by an individual and his family, and whether or not this is somehow a "good thing" as a matter of social policy or some such.

When someone is attacking you, defend yourself. It doesn't matter if the cause was the best thing since sliced bread: Your life is threatened.

[fascisthunter]

52. I See anger coming out not only this way

but many others... ignore it all, or judge as you wish, but expect more.

PS - this is BEYOND politics, wake up!

[SteveM]

65. Well, you might expect...

the right of people to keep and bear arms may be (once again) extended to everyday law-abiding citizens.

BTW, if the powers that be are that bad, that repressive, that authoritarian, why would anyone be for gun-control? Keyboard revolutionaries seem not really to believe in the reality of their own speech when they flick the remote from revolutionary riots to yet another discussion of how that same GOVERNMENT should control guns. Cognitive dissonance of the highest odor.

[War Horse]

55. Any political meaning is long lost

the majority of looters aren't politically minded at all, their mind sets are probably closer to that of an Ayn Rand character than that of MLK.

[crazyjoe]

57. I'm still wondering what this guy wants with the other guys dirty underwear?

[readmoreoften]

59. Yes, by all means let's post pictures demonizing black people.

Edited to clarify.

[War Horse]

64. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me

Please read this thread an look at the pics floating around - to me, at least, this is about human behaviour.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

67. We can't post pics of criminals who happen to be black?

[slackmaster]

69. You can, but you'll be accused of racism every time

That's why I post mostly pics of white looters.

[cali]

72. Not only is that dogshit kneejerk charge fo racism in all situations

where a black person is doing something wrong, stupid, it's also condescending as all fucking hell. And it really disgusts me.

[readmoreoften]

73. Not if it's a bullishit political move to discredit the actions of a mass of people.

Posting a pic of a drag queen intimidating a young man in the context of an uprising would also be scummy. So would a picture of a woman beating a man during a slutwalk. The political motivations in this case are even openly stated.

[joshcryer]

81. I think post #4 is more effective at that.

But the BBC is covering this epically, and it's impossible for me, a far left fringe anarchist, to sympathize with these rioters. As soon as you attack others of your class (the proletariat) you are a fucking scumbag asshole evil motherfucker with no political critique worthy of consideration at all.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

82. The person in the picture is discrediting his movement.

What does the poor guy he's robbing have to do with his situation?

[Nye Bevan]

71. Heh. Very subtle.

You get to call attention to the race of the criminal (which the OP did not even mention) while accusing somebody *else* of being a racist.

Ingenious.

[joshcryer]

79. I had a similar feeling, wtf.

Kudos to others here avoiding the race gambit.