chasfm11 wrote:Fox News is reporting on air this morning that last night some communities were banding together to protect themselves when the police could not. They showed a brief clip a of a guy who said that the looters were not going to wreck his community.
The report also said that citizens were banding together to protect houses of worship. Apparently stores are not the only targets.
Apparently, the police are afraid that the citizens are beat up on any rioters they catch and further inflame the situation. I guess it is better to just the looters have their way than to make them mad.
Well, the government has said that they only police by "consent," so since the criminals haven't consented to being policed, what can the poor government do? It seems obvious to me that at the national level a decision has been made to let the riots run their course. The government either lacks the will to restore order, or the desire to do so --I'd guess a mixture of both. I do think there is a faction within the government that sees the riots as serving their agenda.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
Beiruty wrote:Can the shop owner sue the goverment for failure to defend their properties? Or, who is going to pay for the damages and lost live-long family business?
That's a VERY interesting question. I have no idea how it works overseas, but I'm pretty sure all of my various insurance policies specifically exclude damages caused by riots, war and civil unrest. If my property gets damaged or destroyed in a riot, the insurance won't pay. I really hope these business owners in London are compensated better than I would be.
"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." -- Teddy Roosevelt
In light of the lack of police assistance in this situtaion. I think I will set aside a bit of cash next pay period to buy some additional bullets. Not that I think that it is coming here soon, but if it does I wish to be prepared.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
Saw a Ron Paul interview this morning on CNBC. The topic was financials , monetary policy, etc. (commentators looking for the quick fix).
He referenced to the London riots as a precursor to the reaction to the sea change we are seeing as sovereign nations (specifically their central banks) fail to come to grips with their inability to support a socialistic form of government......his solution would be to 'let it go' aka, let the market work it out. He predicts the longer they put it off the worse it will get.
Not something that the institutional financial crowd can visualize, I think, because of the violence that will follow.
What's my point? Well, if a country such as the UK can have social break down in West London, why can't we have it here in our stable conservative communities? Its inevitable. Can you imagine riots in Frisco or Katy? Try to.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." George Orwell 1903-1950
...home invasions are on the rise, so are armed robberies, theft of A/C units, cars....
...but in Texas, so are the numbers of folks being shot for all of the above...people are gettin' tired of it at a rate pretty close to the rate of increase...
Mail Online
By Max Hastings
Last updated at 12:49 PM on 10th August 2011
This has ultimately been sanctioned by Parliament, which refuses to accept, for instance, that children are more likely to prosper with two parents than with one, and that the dependency culture is a tragedy for those who receive something for nothing.
It is amazing to me how may places like Detroit here in the US and London in the UK have done the same things and achieved the same results. It is a failed experiment to undermine the family but many of have just not figured it out yet and the riots and decay are a result.
Making people dependent on the government is good for elections (sometimes) and bad for society.
Riotors here in the America and especially in the south have a problem that the British rioters don't have. We are not as well trained to run away and not defend ourselves. In fact many of us are quite the opposite. You notice that the riots that have happened here, have happened in places where gun ownership is highly regulated (detroit, chicago...etc). Especially in TX you riot there you are likely to get shot! And then the police will show up not with rubber bullets but with tear gas bombs, horses, and batons. Yeah--ouchie!
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
mamabearCali wrote:Riotors here in the America and especially in the south have a problem that the British rioters don't have. We are not as well trained to run away and not defend ourselves. In fact many of us are quite the opposite. You notice that the riots that have happened here, have happened in places where gun ownership is highly regulated (detroit, chicago...etc). Especially in TX you riot there you are likely to get shot! And then the police will show up not with rubber bullets but with tear gas bombs, horses, and batons. Yeah--ouchie!
Well, a better recent example of what to expect in apocalypse USA style would have to be New Orleans. Even the military was afraid to enter the city for days and days. It was as if all their helecopters were broken. Only the coast guard was there and only to rescue. Rescue at the hospitals was brought to a halt by the random shooting and looting.
There was a fear and a great hesitation in controlling civil disobedience. Why would we expect any different response today?
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." George Orwell 1903-1950
They interviewed a police chief in the London area. He said he wouldn't order the water cannon on the rioters, because if someone was injured, that decision would be unfavorably reviewed afterwards.
Just because the rioting is dieing down, I don't believe the rioters have learned anything negative from their experiences. I suspect they have enjoyed and profited from it. So I suspect we will see more of it in the future.
Watched the noon news today and they showed the prime minister talking about how they were going to get tough and fight back--with rubber bullets and water cannons--whoopeee! They need to break out the real stuff and stop this nonsense now. So many have lost all they have, the damage has got to be in the billions of dollars.
They interviewed a couple of the rioters--they said nothing they could do to them. Wrong!!!
They did show where some neighborhoods were organizing to protect the neighborhoods--good for them!
"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"
Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
Beiruty wrote:Can the shop owner sue the goverment for failure to defend their properties? Or, who is going to pay for the damages and lost live-long family business?
That's a VERY interesting question. I have no idea how it works overseas, but I'm pretty sure all of my various insurance policies specifically exclude damages caused by riots, war and civil unrest. If my property gets damaged or destroyed in a riot, the insurance won't pay. I really hope these business owners in London are compensated better than I would be.
You have to understand that in unarmed societies like Virginia Tech, the UK, the Nanny government responsible for failing to protect must pay
See:
By Rosie Murray-West, Deputy Personal Finance Editor
12:04PM BST 09 Aug 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... olice.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
UK riots:insurers 'will pay claims then recover money from the police'
Britain’s police forces could face a bill for tens of millions of pounds from insurance companies because property was damaged in the rioting while the “police effectively failed to keep law and order”.
Beiruty wrote:Can the shop owner sue the goverment for failure to defend their properties? Or, who is going to pay for the damages and lost live-long family business?
That's a VERY interesting question. I have no idea how it works overseas, but I'm pretty sure all of my various insurance policies specifically exclude damages caused by riots, war and civil unrest. If my property gets damaged or destroyed in a riot, the insurance won't pay. I really hope these business owners in London are compensated better than I would be.
You have to understand that in unarmed societies like Virginia Tech, the UK, the Nanny government responsible for failing to protect must pay
See:
By Rosie Murray-West, Deputy Personal Finance Editor
12:04PM BST 09 Aug 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... olice.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
UK riots:insurers 'will pay claims then recover money from the police'
Britain’s police forces could face a bill for tens of millions of pounds from insurance companies because property was damaged in the rioting while the “police effectively failed to keep law and order”.
The UK government reimbursement provision that provides reimbursement for protective failures has no parallel in the U.S.
Our courts at all levels have repeatedly held that the police have only a general obligation to protect the public, and have no obligation at all to protect any individual from harm. That's why no matter how much crime occurs, you won't see a successful police liability lawsuit here unless there's some other complicating factor at work.
The only exception is if the police agree to provide special protection to someone and harm comes to them. That's why police agencies won't agree to provide protection for people under threat and tell folks to call when the threat is actually on the doorstep.
Excaliber
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
philip964 wrote:They interviewed a police chief in the London area. He said he wouldn't order the water cannon on the rioters, because if someone was injured, that decision would be unfavorably reviewed afterwards.
Just because the rioting is dieing down, I don't believe the rioters have learned anything negative from their experiences. I suspect they have enjoyed and profited from it. So I suspect we will see more of it in the future.
Sounds like decades of namby-pamby policies have conditioned the police quite thoroughly. The powers that be *ought* to look at the level of second-guessing of the police if they want a different outcome in the future
[/Captain Obvious]
I'll quit carrying a gun when they make murder and armed robbery illegal
Houston Technology Consulting
soup-to-nuts IT infrastructure design, deployment, and support for SMBs
One of the groups protecting their places of worship and neighborhoods are the shiks. I wish them all the luck in the world in doing some skull cracking. Shiks are good people.
