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.
Topic: Vancouver Riots (Read 2307 times)
