The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: TheJord on June 20, 2011, 01:03:21 PM
-
I just wrote about Wednesday night in my blog - jordanlsparks.blogspot.com (http://jordanlsparks.blogspot.com)
Did anyone watch what happened? As a local I was appaled by what I saw. Football hooligans from back home aren't this bad.
-
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2011/06/17/canadian-stereotypes-circa-2011/
Yeah, read all about it from my favorite cartoonist.
Here's pics:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/16/photos-riots-fire-destruction-after-vancouvers-loss/
-
Wow. Just... wow. Over a hockey game? Really? And don't get me started on "it's not a hockey game, it's the F-ing Stanley Cup!!!11!!1!!!ONE!!!!ELEVEN!!!!" thing, it's just a ridiculous argument when THIS is the result. I think the government should've authorized the use of lethal force and that it SHOULD have been enforced, there are a LOT of ways to get a message across to a team, thrashing a city is not one of them. Also, lighting POLICE CARS on fire is NOT cool, and SHOULD be met with deadly force if necessary, it IS a severe crime (and lighting cars on fire in general is, the dangers involved are absurd to evne consider). Also, how many people got injured during these? Yeah, way to send a message, good job. For much less than that (thrashing the Stadium, actually), a brazillian Soccer team was forbidden (yes, the team IS held accountable competition-wise) to play in their own stadium for almost a year, and risked being banned from nationals altogether, which SHOULD be considered (although, truth be told, we have 3-4 championships a year a team can participate in, so even if they're banned from the biggest one, they still get play time, not sure it'd work with hockey).
-
What these people need is some good old style RUC constabulatory. Oh how fast and easily would the Police Service of Northern Ireland handle this. Felipe is right. Lethal force has to be, and must be authorized. Time to flex the muscle and bring out big toys.
-
I really hope you guys are joking about using lethal force.
-
I'm actually not, though I did give my reasons for it, and I think it IS justified. As I said, lighting a police car on fire is NOT conceivable as a "manifest", and it should be met with the associated consequences to preserve Public Order and prevent other innocent people from getting hurt in the aftermath of those hooligans' vandalism.
I think I should add, though, to prevent confusion, that I think the local government should allow the use of lethal force to RESPOND to the criminal activities taking place. Not that police officers should run down the street playing bull's eye with whoever is on their path.
-
This is not Syria, Egypt, Libya, Somalia etc
There is a reason that the police do not meet this level of violence with force, because it would become the main cause of the escalation, not the prevention, of more violence.
-
I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. You see, I'm originally from Rio which, if you know anything about geography and social studies at all, has a terrible problem with Drug Lords. Terrible. Escalation has been the smallest of our problems in the past 20 or so years. Drugdealers in slums here have had access to armor-piercing rounds, assault rifles, sub-machine guns and grenades for the better part of a decade, and still, they carried those ostensively in the slums to repress the population, but seldom used them. Even when confronting the police, you simply woulnd't see a grenade being tossed against them. Them, a while back, the authorities decided they had enough (there were other things involved, but just to give the short version) and sent the marines and the army up the slums alongside the Police's Elite Squad, to smoke out the druglords once and for all. It took 2 days, and the slums were clear. They didn't kill them, they arrested a ton of people, but they did respond with deadly force whenever they were met with resistance (and resistance in this clase includev molotovs, blunt-weapon assaults or gunshots, you name it) and they DID kill some people (wounded a lot more, though it's fair game in my opinion if it makes you not kill them). You mgiht say "It's not the same", to which I'll point out my previous arguments, lighting cars on fire is a crime. A severe, violent crime that exposes a whole heaping lot of people to the dangers inherent, not just the jackasses that did it. So no, it's not the same, but also not that different situation-wise. You had a mob perpetrating crimes abusing their sheer numbers, thinking it was ok to go around stealing, vandalizing and exposing regular law-abiding citizens to dangerous situations, this does allow use of lethal force in response, to help protect those people.
And it wouldn't make it Syria or anything.
-
I think there is a wild difference between armed drug dealers, and drunken mobs.
-
agreed. i think in a situation where people have worked themselves up to that state of violence by the energy of the moment and the energy of those around them, NON-lethal force can and HAS been very effective in dissipating the violence.
that is not to say there are not times where lethal force is necessary, but if you start killing people in the streets, where do you stop that power? what stops the police from opening fire on a kid busting a shop window?
-
I think there is a wild difference between armed drug dealers, and drunken mobs.
This. Also, there is a wild difference between Canada and Brazil. In Canada and the United States, it takes much less force to restore order than it would if something similar were to happen in Brazil. I think we saw that when the riots died out in couple days.
Same reason why the Wisconsin riots didn't turn into Egypt or Tunisia, even after death threats to legislators.
-
Just use tear gas and a paintball cannon. After all, dead Canucks can't do community service now can they?
-
This. Also, there is a wild difference between Canada and Brazil. In Canada and the United States, it takes much less force to restore order than it would if something similar were to happen in Brazil.
I'm sorry, and this is based on... what? Btw, I took the liberty of highlighting something that caught my eye. There's a wild difference between Canada and the US, in case you're not aware, in terms of being civilized, contained and having a low crime rate, they really don't belong together in a comparison like this.
Also, it seems like saying it 2 times would be enough, but maybe 3rd time is the charm (sorry, leokula, but this time it's necessary): I'M NOT SAYING THE POLICE SHOULD OPEN FIRE ON CIVILIANS, #$&*@! it, is that so hard to understand? All I said is that, when things start going down the path of violence, the kind of violence that can harm a lot of people, the yes, in this case, and this case alone, lethal response should be alowed. Because when you reach this stage, I'm sorry, but the difference between a drunken, angry mob armed with blunt and sharp objects and an armed drug dealer is negligent. They're both armed, dangerous and comitting crimes which may expose civilized, law-abiding people to being hurt. But anyway, I think I'll drop out of the discussion, I already gave my opinion on the subject (which I think I made clear enough now, finally) and did not see any that could change mine, so as to take it into account, all that has been said here I agree 100% on (except the post I quoted here), I was just trying to explain that it's not the situation in casu.
-
Ah FM, for sake of argument, please join a bit longer. Who is going to be responsible for using lethal force? The man who pulled the trigger, or his boss? Who is to make the decision to allow the use of lethal force? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (just love latin verses) Who is watching the watchmen? Can the persons entrusted with power be trusted? We have had the situation here in the Netherlands where a cop was murdered by a refugee who was about to be expelled from the Netherlands. Luckily this rarely happens. The whole country was in shock and it came quite close, since it was a colleague of my brother. When I spoke my brother about it, he said to me, that if he and other, more experienced colleagues were present, the killer wouldn't have survived. Sentiment is wrong accuser in my opinion, at least the sentiment that rises in an instant. Don't get me wrong about opposing to dangers and dangerous situations, but I think anyone, especially government should be reluctant to use excessive force.
-
thats my favorite latin expression. quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
sometimes i just say it to my friends for no reason. i usually translate it: "who guards the guards?"
-
I think that had the Vancouver Police Department started using excessive or lethal force, they would be more vilified than the rioters.
The protection of property does not warrant deadly force. Civil protection, as in the protection of the ability of the public to remain in the public, also does not warrant deadly force.
If the rioters had guns, different story, but I still think its hard to scale the violence and say "at this point, we get lethal".
-
I'm sorry, and this is based on... what?
Observations on Brazil come from you....
Drugdealers in slums here have had access to armor-piercing rounds, assault rifles, sub-machine guns and grenades for the better part of a decade, and still, they carried those ostensively in the slums to repress the population, but seldom used them. Even when confronting the police, you simply woulnd't see a grenade being tossed against them. Them, a while back, the authorities decided they had enough (there were other things involved, but just to give the short version) and sent the marines and the army up the slums alongside the Police's Elite Squad, to smoke out the druglords once and for all. It took 2 days, and the slums were clear. They didn't kill them, they arrested a ton of people, but they did respond with deadly force whenever they were met with resistance (and resistance in this clase includev molotovs, blunt-weapon assaults or gunshots, you name it) and they DID kill some people (wounded a lot more, though it's fair game in my opinion if it makes you not kill them).
Observations on Canada and the United States come from living in one and having visited the other.
Now that that's out of the way...
Yes, Canada and the United States are very similar (at least Southern Canada, where I've been, and where the riots were occurring). I was specifically referring to western liberal democratic governmental systems, general principles of law and order and accepted parameters under which society functions.
In Brazil, as noted, you have powerful, militant, armed sects that are openly flaunting governmental control. The government has to assert its control in order to maintain law and order.
In Canada, its generally respected, there's been a culture which has long established the government as legitimate. It no longer needs lethal action to establish its legitimacy. It can maintain peace without lethal force, so it shouldn't use lethal force.
-
Now I have to agree, you've expressed your points fairly enough.
The thing is, from a more practical point of view, Canada, as a "non-violent" country in its core, using lethal force would be "bad for business", I think. Problem is, angry mobs spiral out of control too quickly, and as I said, lighting cars filled with gasoline on fire is not entirely that safe, property issue aside. Of course, it's not like I'd be there and go "hey, I pay my taxes, so I want to be able to take a walk even though the world is falling apart, so, hey, police officers, shoot them down!" But a lot of people would be taking said walks, as it's customary, with Canada, again, being a non-violent country in its nature. I also agree they'd be villified more if they did open fire, even if only on special cases, since people will always side with peers, and in the majority of the cases, that'd mean "not being the authorities". On the other hand, I think law enforcement is not to be concerned by this, their job is to be neutral, not to think about what others will think of them for it. I work with criminal law, and I'll illustrate my point of view with an example: a while ago, he had an evangelic priest being accused of 2 accounts of rape - a 16-year old and a 12-year old. Every hearing we had was a nightmare, the churchees would all come down to the Court House wearing shirts, saying their prayers and asking for the priest to be release, holding hands and making a praying circle around the whole Court House. They were strictly pacific, but it did a strong showing on local television and such, and the public system was as villified as possible, to the extent of sunday's cult on said church being about asking God to save the innocent priest and punishing the wicked legal workers that had him incarcerated, and all. Talk about villifying. The Public Prosecutor went beyond his mind to do what was best during the investigation, and actually found 2 more accounts of rape, with the same modus operandi, in close towns that were going to be closed down due to lack of evidence. He got the victims to talk about it, found out they described the same person, the same car (into where he dragged them), the same story, and thus had the lawsuits reunited. The priest's attorney, the day they'd do the final hearing, with the procedure for recognition by the victims, went as far as to have the priest grow a beard, shave his head, dress in clothes less formal than he usually did and change shirts between each victim leaving the room and the other coming in, and the 4 of them still pointed him out with no doubt, even the 12-year old, and he was found guilty and sentenced to some good 40 or 50 years in prison. So yeah, as law enforcement goes, I think neutrality surpasses public opinion if confronted.
Of course, I think it's important to mention that things like the use of lethal force have rules and regulations, it does not mean shooting a kid smashing a shop's window or shooting someone lighting a car on fire in the back of their heads. No. Lethal force does not mean they should kill people, it just means they can, if necessary, and that they now have access to real bullets, for instance. Rubber bullets might go a long way, but they won't stop an alcohol-filled angry person - or just an angry enough person, adrenalyne does wonders in the brink of action, believe me - and when you are finally able to do it, it might be too late, they may have smashed a kid on the head with a mannequin for wearing the colors (not even the jersey, I've seen that happen, the guy didn't even care about the sport in question at the time, he was just wearing a blue shirt and the winning team wore blue/white) of the opposing team, for instance. I don't know, I might be wrong, and they might have had access to lethal force and simply not used it for lack of need, though what I basically mean by my argument is that, if they did need to use it, I wouldn't be so fast as to side against them.
-
Forgot to mention, but about quis custodiet ipsos custodes, it's kind of a circular logic, since it'll always be a valid question, since you will always have to cap the ascenscion at some point, at which they'll ask that question. Cute for classroom discussion, but in reality, it simply must be capped at some point, and we have to just take it and pray that we did the best job possible in placing those on the highest position there in the first place, so they'll do a good job, bearing with the fact that the answer to the latin motto will have to be "no one" at some point.
-
Independent third party watchdog organizations with merely altruistic concerns and no thought of remuneration.
Or, the freemasons. If you're into that stuff.
-
Ok, so now the freemason's are the ones who'll watch over everyone? And who'll watch over them?
-
bob marley. :up:
-
He'd be too stoned to watch anybody. :P
-
Ok, so now the freemason's are the ones who'll watch over everyone? And who'll watch over them?
:o Nobody watches the freemasons. Nobody.
-
Cute for classroom discussion, but in reality, it simply must be capped at some point, and we have to just take it and pray that we did the best job possible in placing those on the highest position there in the first place,
For classroom discussion? It is imho the most vital question for any organisation, countries and companies a like. It sharpens the debate about responsibility. Can we be sure that those entrusted with great powers, can be held responsible for the use those powers? This is not an easy task, but especially when it comes to making decisions about lifes of others it should always be taken in consideration. Not to keep the debate going circulair, but because you should not take it for granted
-
Or you can make the debate go circular. A government governs the people from whence it draws its consent. Who watches the government? The people. Who watches the people? The government. And thus traditional societal standards hold. It works that way.
-
Ok, so now the freemason's are the ones who'll watch over everyone? And who'll watch over them?
Theodore Roosevelt.
-
Go ahead, hack my posts why don't you?
-
That's what they want you to think...
-
Ok, so I guess we've settled that the Freemasons from Canada stopped a massacre from happeing with the rioters because they did not let lethal force be used by the government, is that it? o.O
-
i'm betting bob marley has a better shot at calming a riot than Canadian Freemasons...
-
The Canadian Freemasons are a front organization.
-
For the Canadian Illuminatti? And who would those be? Jim Carrey and Avril Lavigne (shooting in the dark, not sure they're both canadian)?
-
ITS THE ESKIMOS I TELL YOU!
-
ITS THE ESKIMOS I TELL YOU!
Actually, It's the polar bears.
-
ITS THE ESKIMOS I TELL YOU!
Actually, It's the polar bears.
And the whole drama about polarbears going extinct isn't due to global warming, but an attempt of the New World Order to undermine the Illuminati
-
ITS THE ESKIMOS I TELL YOU!
Actually, It's the polar bears.
And the whole drama about polarbears going extinct isn't due to global warming, but an attempt of the New World Order to undermine the Illuminati
So does that make the Illuminati the Old World Order?
Anyway, I'm confused. I always thought the Illuminati was a Bavarian drinking club founded in the late 18th century.
-
There is so little you know
-
Yeah, people had been drinking for a long time before that... and will continue to long after we're gone.
-
More specifically, the Bavarians have been drinking for a long time before that....
...a long time.
Though not as long as the Irish. Ya know, the Irish would have taken over the world had God not invented alcohol.
-
But would we like them as much? :P
-
Yes. You would. You would have no choice.