The rioting in England, a foreshadow of what's to come here?

[Bad324]

its now just a bunch of criminals out of control. Shoot first and ask questions later. This world is full of pussies

[Strictly Street]

We are not alone in thinking that something is going on.

Pollster: Americans Are “Pre-Revolutionary”

http://www.infowars.com/pollster-americans-are-pre-revolutionary/

I'm not saying this guy is right or wrong. But I am pointing out that he is getting media attention with a straight face. People are reading it so they must be thinking things along these lines themselves.

[Scruit]

I totally agree that it was a bunch of bottom feeders but the riots were about the verdict and not the video. It was about fourteen months from the video to the verdict, if the video upset the dumbfucks so much they had plenty of time to burn the town down in that time.

Itr wasn't just the video, and it wasn't just the verdict - it was the apparent disparity between the video and the verdict. If the video didn't exist then would the riots have happened on the verdicts alone? I don't think so. The video made is very clear that those police officers were beating the ever-lovin' tar out of that guy, and that nothing he could have done while running from them could have justified that. Visuals are powerful - that video was much more powerful than any eyewitness report could have been.

[Scruit]

its now just a bunch of criminals out of control. Shoot first and ask questions later. This world is full of pussies

The house of commons is full of them, for sure. Grow a pair and stop these criminals.

[redkow97]

I don't see the london shooting as evidence of a tyrannical government.

I don't either. That's why I said this was the reasoning behind the SECONDARY principle of the 2nd Amendment; the ability to defend your property when the police cannot.

[Uncle Punk]

Itr wasn't just the video, and it wasn't just the verdict - it was the apparent disparity between the video and the verdict. If the video didn't exist then would the riots have happened on the verdicts alone? I don't think so. The video made is very clear that those police officers were beating the ever-lovin' tar out of that guy, and that nothing he could have done while running from them could have justified that. Visuals are powerful - that video was much more powerful than any eyewitness report could have been.

There was no disparity between the video and the verdict. The officers were not guilty of what they were charged with. Had the prosecutors charged them with the proper charges a conviction would have been easy. They decided to make a name for themselves and over prosecute them; their incompetence came at a great cost. Had the officers been found guilty of any charges the riots wouldn't have happened.

[Scruit]

I don't either. That's why I said this was the reasoning behind the SECONDARY principle of the 2nd Amendment; the ability to defend your property when the police cannot.

Hey, LISTEN... It's not MY fault that I read your note too quickly to fully understand it and therefore responded with a something that's half-cocked and irrelevant IS IT???

[obesityrules]

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/Forced-strip-naked-street-Shocking-scenes-rioters-steal-clothes-rifle-bags-people-make-way-home.html

[Uncle Punk]

Open carry would have prevented this.

[shittygsxr]

Why the fuck are white people always rioting and fucking shit up?

[redkow97]

Why the fuck are white people always rioting and fucking shit up?

if you believe the guy they interviewed, it's because they don't have jobs.

I think the more accurate answer is, "because daddy didn't smack them enough to learn any respect for their fellow human beings."

[redkow97]

Hey, LISTEN... It's not MY fault that I read your note too quickly to fully understand it and therefore responded with a something that's half-cocked and irrelevant IS IT???

(nice save )

[Scruit]

There was no disparity between the video and the verdict. The officers were not guilty of what they were charged with. Had the prosecutors charged them with the proper charges a conviction would have been easy. They decided to make a name for themselves and over prosecute them; their incompetence came at a great cost. Had the officers been found guilty of any charges the riots wouldn't have happened.

We're not talking about law or logic here, we're talking about stupid people sitting at home watching the video on the TV and hearing "not guilty". They don't care about who was charged with what, and was it an appropriate charge - all the know is "beating video" plus "not guilty" equals "gotta tear sh!t up". There is no reasoning with that kind of mentality. Definitely - a guilty verdict would has kept those idiots happy regardless of what the charges were. They could have been found guilty of simple assault and people owudl be happy, or they could have been found not guilty of genocide and there would have been riots.

The news media sensationalizes the video, sensationalizes the "not guilty" verdict and suddenly we have a destroyed neighborhood.

[Casper]

Totally disagree. When anything gets out of sync, these animals riot. Hurricane!! Let's steal and burn shit! America's rebellion won't be me shooting at 20 year-old Marines. It will be me protecting my home from those who would threaten.

The armed forces took an oath to protect this country and it's people. Our soldiers are true Americans, Patriots. The vast majority of them, even if ordered to do so by the President himself, would never turn against American civilians. If/when anything happens here stateside, it'll be a civil war over entitlements and taxes.

[Casper]

Open carry would have prevented this.

Yup.

[Cheech]

You got it backwards. This is just the UK's LA riots. The difference is that in the LA riots were prompted by footage that was difficult to refute at the time whereas the shooting in the UK could go either way. Bear in mind that the average Brit is very anti-gun and the idea of the police using a gun against a citizen is always widely condemned regardless of the specifics of the situation. Any exhonoration of the police officer is considered an irrelevance that is probably not even going to be reported.

Yeah, they'll give the police guns, expect them shoot bad guys then the politicians will hang, draw and quarter them publicly to appease the voters - even if the shoot was justified.

But the rioting here is nothing to do with the shooting. It's just a bunch of criminals who are using safety-in-numbers to get what they want. It happens the world over, has happened for ever and will continue to happen. This is not a 'sign of the times', this is just criminals taking advantage.

I'm for a much stronger response from the police. The British government doesn't want to appear like they are cracking down like in Tiannemen Square, but if the alternative is to sit by and watch the criminals then that's no bloody good either.

I have no problem with water cannons to disperse crowds that are not using weapons or threatening anyone's safety, and baton rounds as needed to preserve safety.

But at the end of the day what are they doing? They are destroying their own towns, their own stores and their own communities. And they they will expect the taxpayer to build them up again, to re-stock the shops they looted.

Marshall law, man. If a shopkeeper wants to stand guard in his shop with an AR15 then I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. You're ruin a man's livelihood because you want to use a police incident as an excuse to get a new TV? If I owned a store in that area I'd be moving the merchandise out.

You've had me right up to this point. LA riot semantics aside (UP's right, by the way), martial law is the imposition of military rule. Although DHS now has a combat brigade on-call (wtf), you'll be hard-pressed to deploy military forces in a LEO capacity in the face of Posse Comitatus. All that being said, it has fuck-all to do with a hypothetical person defending his shop/property with the appropriate amount of force in accordance with the local laws. The only problem there is with endurance, once you make the decision to start shooting you better be ready for the angry herd.

[Casper]

You've had me right up to this point. LA riot semantics aside (UP's right, by the way), martial law is the imposition of military rule. Although DHS now has a combat brigade on-call (wtf), you'll be hard-pressed to deploy military forces in a LEO capacity in the face of Posse Comitatus. All that being said, it has fuck-all to do with a hypothetical person defending his shop/property with the appropriate amount of force in accordance with the local laws. The only problem there is with endurance, once you make the decision to start shooting you better be ready for the angry herd.

IE: Make sure you have plenty of ammo.

[Uncle Punk]

The armed forces took an oath to protect this country and it's people. Our soldiers are true Americans, Patriots. The vast majority of them, even if ordered to do so by the President himself, would never turn against American civilians. If/when anything happens here stateside, it'll be a civil war over entitlements and taxes.

Not so fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

[Casper]

Not so fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Different circumstances. Regardless, if something like that were to happen now, it'd be an all out civil war.

[Uncle Punk]

Different circumstances. Regardless, if something like that were to happen now, it'd be an all out civil war.

We'll see I suppose but I doubt it. Civil War is a brutal answer and something most don't have the stomach for. It may be time for one but it will be tragic if it happens. Maybe we have gone too long without one and the folks involved with the Bonus Army had enough memory of the devastation from our first one about 70 years prior to their incident.

[SpeedTriple44444]

What's going on in England is just a foreshadowing of what is to come here. Consider this quote from the article:

"It's very sad to see ... But kids have got no work, no future and the cuts have made it worse". Can you see the trend?

When there are more people consuming than those producing, and those producing decide it's not worth it any more to produce for those who refuse to get off their lazy asses, and the government is not able to borrow money any more to pacify those that think they are entitled, it's gonna get friggin' ugly really quick. And that's the true end result of the socialist agenda and class warfare promoted by our Pres and his moronic followers.

Ayn Rand was right. Just wait until those of us left with a work ethic "go Galt". I hope you have your guns ready, because those that feel they are entitled to your hard earned money aren't going to have any respect for your property when they aren't getting fed.

[Scruit]

You've had me right up to this point. LA riot semantics aside (UP's right, by the way), martial law is the imposition of military rule. Although DHS now has a combat brigade on-call (wtf), you'll be hard-pressed to deploy military forces in a LEO capacity in the face of Posse Comitatus. All that being said, it has fuck-all to do with a hypothetical person defending his shop/property with the appropriate amount of force in accordance with the local laws. The only problem there is with endurance, once you make the decision to start shooting you better be ready for the angry herd.

My bad -Marshall Law is the wrong term. I mean people should be able to grab a gun and defend their livelihoods against looters without fear of prosecution.

And yeah, lots of ammo. But how many people are going to descend? After a while they will have to climb over the bodies.

[Cheech]

My bad -Marshall Law is the wrong term. I mean people should be able to grab a gun and defend their livelihoods against looters without fear of prosecution.

And yeah, lots of ammo. But how many people are going to descend? After a while they will have to climb over the bodies.

And the hypothetical shooter would either be going to jail or will be getting the death penalty. Although there is admittedly no precedent (that comes to mind) for this, I can't imagine castle doctrine applies wholesale to a mob of people, much less if you've caused so much carnage as to create a wall of bodies.

[Scruit]

And the hypothetical shooter would either be going to jail or will be getting the death penalty. Although there is admittedly no precedent (that comes to mind) for this, I can't imagine castle doctrine applies wholesale to a mob of people, much less if you've caused so much carnage as to create a wall of bodies.

I believe that in a looting situation you should be able to defend your livelihood. If, while defending your livelihood, your personal safety is in jeapordy then you should be able to defend youself. Bodies make great sandbags with which to fortify your position.

Otherwise what do we do? Stand back and let mobs sack whole cities? If it is this easy, they'll do it again.

[Scruit]

I can't imagine castle doctrine applies wholesale to a mob of people

Castle doctrine applies to the shooter, not the attacker or attackers. If the shooter is in his home or place of business and his life is threatened then he can defend his life. There is no bag limit.