Vancouver Riots

[TheJord]

I just wrote about Wednesday night in my blog - 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.

[Gate Troll]

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/

[FM]

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).

[Kenddrick]

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.

[TheJord]

I really hope you guys are joking about using lethal force.

[FM]

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.

[TheJord]

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.

[FM]

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.

[TheJord]

I think there is a wild difference between armed drug dealers, and drunken mobs.

[macheteman]

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?

[SomeRandomDude]

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.

[Gate Troll]

Just use tear gas and a paintball cannon. After all, dead Canucks can't do community service now can they?

[FM]

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.

[Gil-Estel]

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.

[macheteman]

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?"