2011 Riots police study - Police massively outnumbered feared for their life
58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36587952]They were also deployed to Kent State and look what happened.[/QUOTE]
They were also deployed to Little Rock and look what happened.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/101st_Airborne_at_Little_Rock_Central_High.jpg/640px-101st_Airborne_at_Little_Rock_Central_High.jpg[/img]
Military forces can be wielded effectively for riot control and general policing purposes. The trick is to know when you actually [i]need[/i] to use them.
[QUOTE=SataniX;36587980]I had figured Occupy Oakland was going to end up as that; but it all seemed to peter out.[/QUOTE]
Oakland was a powder keg after they busted into city hall and smashed the place up. I too thought it was going to devolve into a riot of epic proportions.
I've seen some footage of riots, where the only force sent to counter a gang of 20-ish hooligans with pipes and 2x4s were 5 cops in basic riot gear.
Seriously UK, what the shit
[QUOTE=znk666;36587939]I still do not understand what was/were the cause/s of these riots.[/QUOTE]
basically a lot of pent-up anger at authority figures came to a head.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;36588049]basically a lot of pent-up anger at authority figures came to a head.[/QUOTE]
And emerged as, as one journalist succinctly described it, "shopping with violence"? This wasn't some desperate protest against an oppressive society - this was thuggery and looting. Ordinary people simply turned into thieves; plenty of the offenders later arrested hadn't "slipped through the cracks" of failed British social order, but were ordinary people who decided to take things without paying. It may be argued that the entire thing stemmed from the shooting of Mark Duggan (?), but that was merely a catalyst, and it cannot be said that the riots were based on "justice for Mark". If we are to "listen to the rioters" in order to prevent these sorts of riots, then the first thing we should do is abolish trade, private property and the rule of law.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36588039]I've seen some footage of riots, where the only force sent to counter a gang of 20-ish hooligans with pipes and 2x4s were 5 cops in basic riot gear.
Seriously UK, what the shit[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows all you need is a stiff upper lip and you can accomplish anything.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36579492]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]
We have public order unit in our army, they are regularly sent to Kosovo to help police out in riots and such. There's a difference between a soldier with a baton and shield and a rifle. Sending a soldier into an unarmed crowd with a rifle is bad news.
The above picture of bloody Sunday is a good example of what happens when you send in an armed force, although it is an extraordinary case as the group of soldiers themselves were malevolent and intent on causing harm with the slightest provocation.
Dunno about the UK military, but in Finland our military police units are trained to deal with, among other things, riots. Never been used to actually quell civil disorder; it's generally a just-in-case measure and iirc their main task in such events is to protect military installations from rioters rather than going out into the city to quell them.
My dad used to support south african police in riots during apartheid when he was in the south africa n army and he said they were mainly there for show and fear to support the police. However the police back then were ruthless as fuck and replaced their rubber bullets with massive batterys and beat the fuck out of everyone they questioned according to my dad who saw it all first hand.
I'm pretty sure Infantry Battalions in the British Army are now given at least rudimentary Public Order training, similar to the police. So even then, a military presence does not mean firearms against civilians.
Also the British police's public order tactics tend not to make use of rubber bullets and "aggressive" tactics, due to the fact it causes escalation of violence. They use more containment or "kettling" as its known as, and may lunge into the crowd to try and take ringleaders away.
But because they were so outnumbered and there was a lot of confusion, they were unable to use those tactics effectively.
[QUOTE=smurfy;36579156]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[/QUOTE]
It's been stated multiple times that Water Cannons wouldn't work because they're used for area denial and seeing how the crows were constantly mobile the van would have to driving all over to even have a chance of being effective.
I read that the police could have in theory used live bullets against the rioters, because they were posing a threat of life to police and civilians
[QUOTE=gman003-main;36579310]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. P[B]eople don't riot for shits and giggles[/B] - 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]
I were 100% behind you until this comment.
People in our riots DID riot for shits and giggles, because most of them were fucking idiots who were proven to hardly even know what they were rioting for, and infact even turned on the weaker and innocent members of society to mug them.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDDijdp9o2Y[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IooR-PA6jms[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gex_ya4-Oo&feature=related[/media]
None of them had a fucking clue ([B]or rather most of them[/B]). They all had different excuses for the riots that they were all repeatedly telling each other in their own circle of friends/gangs. British people LOVE a bandwagon and this is a violent and pathetic testimony to that.
It all started out as a legitimate protest but eventually turned into all the scumbags coming out and getting a new tv and some nice shoes init bruv.
Some people tried to start a riot near where I live by setting fire to a bin outside a pub, but they just got the shit beaten out of them by the people in the pub.
The London riots made my blood boil. Especially since the police were only equipped with shields and batons.
This makes me feel better though:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJkAo5f8mo4&list=FLJcqxSd8OqLjdUOdSPNj4wA&index=2&feature=plpp_video&bpctr=1341250337&skipcontrinter=1[/media]
Jesus Christ, I can't even imagine what its like with just a thin shield protecting you from hundreds of pissed people.
Scenes where it's just like, 10-15 police officers on a road against crowds of people. Christ, I'm shocked that some of the police didn't crack and end up killing people
The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Protest_and_unrest"]Death of Mark Duggan[/URL] on 4 August 2011 was the main issue since there was a lot of misinformation about his cause of death.
The Police didn’t go to the family right away and left them in the dark which made them protest.
The demonstrators wanted information from police about the circumstances of Duggan's death.
Basically the police responded strongly to a 16-year-old girl who was protesting at the police station and threw a missile at them.
This was the trigger which led to the so call riots.
The first day of riot was understandable; police were unprepared which lead younger teens, adult idiots to believe they could get away with looting.
So the other days of riots were not people rioting over the teenager death, but used it as an excuse to commit crimes for their own self gain.
It’s mainly our culture to blame, we can’t discipline the young because of laws and rules so they’re think that they can do anything and get away with it.
I hated the London riots, I was at Ealing at the time of the riots and [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025079/LONDON-RIOTS-Ealing-hero-Richard-Mannington-Bowes-dies.html"]Richard Bowes[/URL] died because he confronted the yobs.
Idiots the lot of them.
I like to compare the london riots with the Battle of Thermoplyae.
The similarities are actually surprising.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36597575]I like to compare the london riots with the Battle of Thermoplyae.
The similarities are actually surprising.[/QUOTE]
Riot police often use tactics similar to the phalanx. The whole overlapping shields and all that jazz.
Only the police were stretched so thin during the London riots they normally only had enough men to make a thin line across the road and hope their presence was enough to make the looters run away.
I know the US military has riot police units, but those are rarely used.
[QUOTE=Carne;36591861]The London riots made my blood boil. Especially since the police were only equipped with shields and batons.
This makes me feel better though:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJkAo5f8mo4&list=FLJcqxSd8OqLjdUOdSPNj4wA&index=2&feature=plpp_video&bpctr=1341250337&skipcontrinter=1[/media][/QUOTE]
Those moronic idiots who destroy and loot entirely for their own personal gain disgust me.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;36579310]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]
"Legitimate grievances"
Didn't one guy get shot after killing someone else or something like that? Yeah, that sound like grounds to burn down buildings!
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;36591260]None of them had a fucking clue ([B]or rather most of them[/B]). They all had different excuses for the riots that they were all repeatedly telling each other in their own circle of friends/gangs. British people LOVE a bandwagon and this is a violent and pathetic testimony to that.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I remember one guy was spouting Bolshevik slogans during the whole thing, ranting about how the masses were rising up to throw off the yoke of capitalist oppression.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;36599797]
Didn't one guy get shot after killing someone else or something like that?[/QUOTE]
"or something like that?"
you should probably at least google it before you decide to spout something off about it, Mark Duggan didn't kill anyone.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;36599797]"Legitimate grievances"
Didn't one guy get shot after killing someone else or something like that? Yeah, that sound like grounds to burn down buildings![/QUOTE]
It originally started after a young man was shot by police after firing at officers. A large peaceful protest took place the day after, they said they wanted 'justice' for the guy who got shot (even though he shot a police officer but whatever. Basically some people got bored and started throwing stuff and burning cars.
Eventually it snowballed into mass looting as all the scummy degenerates realised there weren't enough police to protect every shop in London and boom everythings gone to shit.
Then it stopped becuase it rained one night and no one wants to riot in the rain. That gave the police time to get backup in and everything was brought under control.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14436499[/url] timeline of the riot.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;36600053]It originally started after a young man was shot by police after firing at officers.[/QUOTE]
nope
[quote]Initially, a spokesman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is reported to have stated that they "understand the officer was shot first before the male was shot."[5][6] A bullet was found embedded in a radio worn by a policeman,[7] but initial ballistics tests on the projectile indicate it was a "jacketed round", a police issue bullet fired from a Heckler & Koch MP5 semi-automatic carbine, as used by the police.[3][/quote]
get educated
Yep found it.
KFOR, US army and national guard riot control pretty much.
[IMG]http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.79664.1273638905!/image/1856109671.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_490/1856109671.jpg[/IMG]
If only the Riot Police didn't just make a wall with their shields, a Turtle Esque form of shieldwall would be quite effective at moving people around.
[img]http://peterwilsonministries.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Roman-Shields..jpg[/img]
Like this
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36588352]And emerged as, as one journalist succinctly described it, "shopping with violence"? This wasn't some desperate protest against an oppressive society - this was thuggery and looting. Ordinary people simply turned into thieves; plenty of the offenders later arrested hadn't "slipped through the cracks" of failed British social order, but were ordinary people who decided to take things without paying. It may be argued that the entire thing stemmed from the shooting of Mark Duggan (?), but that was merely a catalyst, and it cannot be said that the riots were based on "justice for Mark". If we are to "listen to the rioters" in order to prevent these sorts of riots, then the first thing we should do is abolish trade, private property and the rule of law.[/QUOTE]
congrats on having a basic grasp on how riots work
the riots didn't start because people said "hey lets fuckin steal shit", they started as a revolt against a system that had failed to work how it was supposed to. when riots start and there is a sense of lawlessness, 9/10 rioters will end up running about stealing things, but that doesn't change the fact that the riot started, and revolved around, mark duggan.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.