• 2011 Riots police study - Police massively outnumbered feared for their life
    58 replies, posted
[B]An in-depth study into the experiences of police officers caught up in last summer's riots reveals that they were woefully outnumbered, leaving many in fear of their lives. [/B]In London they were so stretched that some [B]volunteer police without riot training or gear joined the front line[/B].But radio problems meant riot police from other areas were held back and not deployed to deal with the violence. Some 130 officers police took part in the LSE-Guardian newspaper study. The BBC's Newsnight programme has had exclusive access to the results of the study, [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/series/reading-the-riots"]Reading the Riots.[/URL] It involved interviews, most of them conducted anonymously, with officers of every rank who were deployed during the unrest in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Salford and Liverpool. Their accounts reveal that: - Officers on the front line, who were often outnumbered and under-equipped, [B]feared that they would be killed[/B]. Senior officers were [B] astonished that no police died [/B]during the unrest - Officers of all ranks were shocked and surprised by the extent and nature of violence directed at them, as well as the speed with which it escalated, with many describing it as the greatest physical and psychological challenge of their careers - There were particular problems in London, where the system of "mutual aid" between forces failed to bolster the available resources at a critical time, with the [B]Metropolitan Police not activating the national alarm system to call for more resources until the third and final day of the riots[/B] - Numbers were so stretched in London that volunteer special constables and British Transport Police with no riot equipment or training were used on the front line - Once officers from other forces did arrive, many were not allowed to deploy to the front line because their radio systems were not compatible with those used by the Metropolitan Police, preventing them from being deployed to outbreaks of violence [B]Many officers from all ranks expect a repeat of the riots and are concerned that they may not have the resources to cope with future unrest on such a scale.[/B] The riots broke out in Tottenham, north London, on 6 August, two days after the fatal shooting by police of 29-year-old Mark Duggan, and subsequently spread to other parts of the capital and other English cities. [B]Four consecutive nights of looting and arson left five people dead and led to more than 4,000 suspects being arrested.[/B] In the aftermath of the violence [B]police were accused of standing back, allowing rioters to think they could act with impunity, and thereby encouraging further unrest in other areas[/B]. But officers interviewed for the study said their tactics were misunderstood and that in the face of severe danger they were concentrating on what mattered most - safety. In Tottenham the outnumbered and under-equipped police on the ground when the violence broke out [B]had to face a barrage of bricks, Molotov cocktails and other weapons for two hours[/B] before back-up arrived. "We did everything that we possibly could with the resources that we had to try and protect life as well as property, but at some point I had to make the difficult decision it was life - it was always going to be life above property," Chief Inspector Ade Adelekan, who was in charge on the ground, told BBC Newsnight. [B]Officers interviewed in the study reported seeing rioters armed with machetes and said that they were convinced that given the chance the rioters would kill them.[/B] Inspector Andre Ramsey, who led the police who reinforced the Tottenham officers, said his biggest fear had been of having a police officer separated from his or her colleagues, "and if that had happened, I have absolutely no doubt that there could have been loss of life". The senior officers interviewed for the study, in particular in the Metropolitan Police, accept they struggled to deploy sufficient numbers of officers to contain the violence during all three days of rioting in London. [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57152000/jpg/_57152795_jex_1255506_de27-1.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18653530[/url]
If the police were that outnumbered and overwhelmed, wouldn't it be best to simply send in the Armed Forces?
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36579125]If the police were that outnumbered and overwhelmed, wouldn't it be best to simply send in the Armed Forces?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that would just cause even more panic, chaos and casualties.
That's what happens when you try to tackle a riot without LRADs, water cannons, tear gas or well, any sort of riot equipment at all beyond a shield and helmet Not blaming the police of course, it was the government's decision I believe. And I guess it paid off in the end when they were able to shut down the riots without any of that stuff and thus look pro, but they ran the risk of getting people killed. There were a lot of people calling for the army to be deployed and although that might have been a little extreme, it was incredibly dumb to not do anything at all, not even give the police the shit they needed. What could the police do? Jackshit, all they could do was stand behind their shields and hope the crowd had a change of heart I dunno if it was because we genuinely [I]didn't have[/I] the equipment (and tbh it probably was, because it's never ever usually needed), but if that's the case we need to sort it out. Plus they definitely have that shit in Northern Ireland so we could have nicked some of theirs
Seeing armed forces would make people panic, fear for their own lives, and get ready to kill others to defend their own.
governments *sane governments* only send them in when absolutely necessary. If they did it on a whim they'd feel animosity towards them. I mean, how are your feelings towards police? I think they are great men and women but I obviously am a little anxious around them.
The whole thing was a fucking mess.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;36579143]I'm pretty sure that would just cause even more panic, chaos and casualties.[/QUOTE] I'm almost sure that most would come to their senses when they were faced with a force of lethally armed men, even if the force was there for show in reality. It's better than doing nothing for the safety of the public and then getting berated for it, and possibly facing injury and death too.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36579125]If the police were that outnumbered and overwhelmed, wouldn't it be best to simply send in the Armed Forces?[/QUOTE] Deploying the military against its own citizens is a brute force solution that encourages more rioting until the rioters are fully subdued, and rarely ends well politically.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36579125]If the police were that outnumbered and overwhelmed, wouldn't it be best to simply send in the Armed Forces?[/QUOTE] That's what they were talking about in the days after the initial outbreaks of riots, but it calmed down a bit before that was needed. I can't help but find it a little bit funny though. Time and time again the police reaction to protests has been questionable to say the least with deaths, brain haemorrhages and a woman being dragged along by her hair not-so-shining examples of this but when they were faced with an actual wide scale violent threat they weren't so quick to act tough. I'm not saying that all police are that brutal and I'm not necessarily saying it was their fault, as the article points out they were outnumbered and facing possible fatalities at some points, and they should have had the backup they needed far earlier than it came but it's their [I]job[/I] to deal with this sort of stuff and I saw them sitting around watching it all unfold more than I saw any reaction. I can't be the only one who thought that this (initial) inaction put civilians at wider risk.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36579125]If the police were that outnumbered and overwhelmed, wouldn't it be best to simply send in the Armed Forces?[/QUOTE] According to the BBC, the government didn't because of reputation. No British government has every sent in the armed forces so for the conservatives to be the first after just one year in power would look very bad. It would also make the police and the government look weak, having to use the army to control their own citizens.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36579125]If the police were that outnumbered and overwhelmed, wouldn't it be best to simply send in the Armed Forces?[/QUOTE] There's a million reasons why not: 1) Don't know about UK, but many countries (including the US) the military cannot, legally, be deployed on their own territory (except, obviously, in case of invasion or actual revolt; and the US has an exception for state militias). 2) The Army? Trained to kill. Armed to kill. They aren't expected to know how to enforce any laws, and they are not equipped to contain a riot. You only send in the Army against a riot when you want a bloodbath (or, at least, expect that it can't make it any worse). 3) That's escalation. You send in the military, you make the rioters think they have *reason* to be rioting. It's like cornering a scared animal - they'd honestly prefer to run, but if they think they have no other choice, they *WILL* attack, in force. You want to stop the riots from happening again? LISTEN TO THEM. People don't riot for shits and giggles - they do that when they have legitimate grievances that have not been responded to when they attempted peaceful resolutions. LISTEN to why they were rioting, and MAKE CHANGES.
[QUOTE=matt.ant;36579289]According to the BBC, the government didn't because of reputation. No British government has every sent in the armed forces so for the conservatives to be the first after just one year in power would look very bad. It would also make the police and the government look weak, having to use the army to control their own citizens.[/QUOTE] Also 2011 was the year of the Arab Spring, when Britain was all about condemning Libya and Syria and others for turning the army on their own citizens. Even though it's obviously a different situation, they would have looked like twats if they had sent in the army after that
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36579125]If the police were that outnumbered and overwhelmed, wouldn't it be best to simply send in the Armed Forces?[/QUOTE] Yeah, the Middle East did a great job subduing their population!!
[QUOTE=catbarf;36579231]Deploying the military against its own citizens is a brute force solution that encourages more rioting until the rioters are fully subdued, and rarely ends well politically.[/QUOTE] But during the LA riots, the national guard got hold of the situation.
You don't use the military because one of the reasons the Police were created was so that governments didn't have to use the military to put down riots.
We wouldn't even be talking about sending in the army if the police had been properly equipped
[QUOTE=shian;36579350]But during the LA riots, the national guard got hold of the situation.[/QUOTE] The LA Riots were MUCH bigger than the London riots. Think "ten times bigger". Further, the National Guard is not exactly a military force. They're technically a state militia, and act more like a paramilitary - most of their actual operations are disaster relief, but they do have a history of (and training/equipment for) quelling riots.
Soldiers make crap policemen. We all know this already. [img]http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bloody-sunday-massacre-derry-ireland-1972-2.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=smurfy;36579401]We wouldn't even be talking about sending in the army if the police had been properly equipped[/QUOTE] The problem wasn't equipment. The police were arguably heavier-armed than they should have been. And it was not manpower - remember, rioters will *always* outnumber the police by a huge amount. That's what makes it a riot. The problem was that the system is fundamentally broken. In most democratic societies, when there is a social problem, it's resolved peacefully. The media brings attention to it, and the political process comes up with a good solution (usually a compromise), which is put into effect. Riots happen when that system fails. When the media fails to bring attention to actual problems, or when the government ignores them. In most of the places affected by the Arab Spring, it was the government blatantly ignoring the problems. In the US, both seem to be happening - I fully expect another LA-size riot within the next few years. In the UK, I don't know about the government, but I do know the media is not doing it's job properly. Between the government itself hijacking the media for it's own ends, or the business behind the media twisting the news for it's own ends, the fundamental feedback cycle has been disrupted.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;36579349]Yeah, the Middle East did a great job subduing their population!![/QUOTE] Bahrain sure did.
[QUOTE=shian;36579350]But during the LA riots, the national guard got hold of the situation.[/QUOTE] The British public are not, in general, very heavily armed. Deploying armed forces against an unarmed riot/ protest would be a very heavy handed measure that would overstep the line.
The entire power of the police force is the uniform. Take away that and you suddenly have a group of people holding sticks. That's what happened here, and is why riot police should always be equipped with more than a shield and a baton; especially so when the people who they are fighting to subdue (in this case a bunch of pissed off chavs) are actively attacking them.
Trouble is if the police went in and tried to fight back, if they gave any rioter a serious or even minor injury then they knew that person would probably sue for police brutality and sell their story to the media like 'SHOCK POLICE BEATING: my brush with death'. The police knew this which was why they were so hesitant to make any kind of aggressive move.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;36579674]Trouble is if the police went in and tried to fight back, if they gave any rioter a serious or even minor injury then they knew that person would probably sue for police brutality and sell their story to the media like 'SHOCK POLICE BEATING: my brush with death'. The police knew this which was why they were so hesitant to make any kind of aggressive move.[/QUOTE] I'd much rather have this situation than the blatant abuses of power you can see in other police forces globally.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;36579143]I'm pretty sure that would just cause even more panic, chaos and casualties.[/QUOTE] More casualties definitely, but at the time everyone was acting like they'd already called in the army so I doubt there'd be much more panic.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;36579674]Trouble is if the police went in and tried to fight back, if they gave any rioter a serious or even minor injury then they knew that person would probably sue for police brutality and sell their story to the media like 'SHOCK POLICE BEATING: my brush with death'. The police knew this which was why they were so hesitant to make any kind of aggressive move.[/QUOTE] They probably couldn't because they are attacking riot police and therefore are part of the riot and the police are allowed to use force to subdue them. Also they're chavs so they aren't going to have enough money to hire a decent lawyer.
I still do not understand what was/were the cause/s of these riots.
[QUOTE=shian;36579350]But during the LA riots, the national guard got hold of the situation.[/QUOTE] They were also deployed to Kent State and look what happened.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;36579536]In the US, both seem to be happening - I fully expect another LA-size riot within the next few years. [/QUOTE] I had figured Occupy Oakland was going to end up as that; but it all seemed to peter out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.