andygardener Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 No I'm not. I think if people are smashing things up then let them get on with it. Record them, prosecute them. Let them wreck their own futures. But shooting no. If you had framed the question around baton round usage when people are seriously endangering life then I would have agreed with you 100%. You have to be very careful when you use this type of language. I think the routine use of baton rounds for simply damaging property would be an absolute disaster. That's very generous with other peoples stuff. If people try and smash/burn my property then i will shoot them (obviously with sufficient warning etc). So why should the police not take the same steps to protect the property of citizens who for whatever reason do not own firearms? You seem to be on the side of the "right" to loot and burn but against decent people defending their homes if they can or relying on the police if they cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 its amazing on here innit, things never change the usual protestors are scum type remarks even before the day Who said they were scum ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I admit you make some valid points and I would not condone "routine" use against rioters. I think when they start setting fire to property then I would consider using baton rounds, although probably not the big ones we used in Northern Ireland, maybe rubber buckshot fired from shotguns. No chance of you going soppy in your old age then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Yeah, welcome back! Were have you been hiding? He ran out of big issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 No chance of you going soppy in your old age then... Buckshot is soppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 That's very generous with other peoples stuff. If people try and smash/burn my property then i will shoot them (obviously with sufficient warning etc). So why should the police not take the same steps to protect the property of citizens who for whatever reason do not own firearms? You seem to be on the side of the "right" to loot and burn but against decent people defending their homes if they can or relying on the police if they cannot. If somebody smashes your stuff up then take your own chances with what you do in response and you live with the consequences. But you can't have police shooting people for damaging property. Baton rounds can kill and maim and they should be used in only extreme circumstances. Using them to protect property that should be insured anyway would be a complete disaster and the start of an incredibly slippery downward slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 If somebody smashes your stuff up then take your own chances with what you do in response and you live with the consequences. But you can't have police shooting people for damaging property. Baton rounds can kill and maim and they should be used in only extreme circumstances. Using them to protect property that should be insured anyway would be a complete disaster and the start of an incredibly slippery downward slope. Well if you look at the reponse of those affected by the riots you are totally out of step with their opinion. We the people pay the police to ensure public order and prevent criminal damage to our property. If we need to get violent ourselves then we will to defend what is ours but by and large the police are there to get stuck in first so we don't have to take the law into our own hands. They should use whatever force is needed to ensure no damage occurs, including batton rounds. No violence at all would be needed by anyone if "protestors" didn't engage in violent criminal damage in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 its amazing on here innit, things never change the usual protestors are scum type remarks even before the day Eyup Mel - good to see you back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Well if you look at the reponse of those affected by the riots you are totally out of step with their opinion. We the people pay the police to ensure public order and prevent criminal damage to our property. If we need to get violent ourselves then we will to defend what is ours but by and large the police are there to get stuck in first so we don't have to take the law into our own hands. They should use whatever force is needed to ensure no damage occurs, including batton rounds. No violence at all would be needed by anyone if "protestors" didn't engage in violent criminal damage in the first place. The bit you seem to be missing is we have laws to deal with all the things you describe. I'll repeat it again - baton rounds are for use in only extreme circumstances. We are not paying the police to shoot people who damage property - as much as you might think that it is just not the case. And long may it continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Our children will be protesting about student debts and their futures tomorrow. Our government arm the Met with rubber bullets. Democracy Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.