Causes and Effects of the London/England Riots

[Loppan Torkel]

No, what I said was quite clear - that it's not as accountable as people might be led to believe by the description you gave. Now, that being the case, I can see why people might draw parallels between the government causing harm and an angry mob causing harm. It is precisely because some doubt the moral authority/legitimacy that the government commands that leads them to think this way and claim that harm done under the guise of legitimate acts of government is no different from harm done by criminal acts except in name.

This is your view of the rioters?! Sorry, but it's not quite clear to me... Is it an excuse for the rioters who don't see the authority of the government as legitimate?

But, posting a video about shots being fired at the police, you said that the video leads you to the conclusion that "the rioters mostly are made up of political extremists who find purpose in their extremism and pure criminals taking advantage of the situation" and later claimed that your experience interacting with other people substantiates this opinion. I just want to know how your experience substantiates it.

I said what?! "leads me to the conclusion.."
I posted a video of rioters shooting... Some seem to bear firearm and shoot at the police. That's the conclusion I draw.
After that I wrote that I'm still of the opinion, based on what I've read, seen and - yes, my own experiences from other people - that the rioters mainly are made up by political extremists and criminals. Those two groups aren't necessarily the same.

Your video isn't questioned. The weird conclusion you draw is.

It's your conclusions that seem faulty.

 

[Takhisis]

Look again. I've referred to what the rioters did as "criminal acts".

Nice of you to ignore this in your latest post, Loppan Torkel.

 

[aelf]

This is your view of the rioters?! Sorry, but it's not quite clear to me... Is it an excuse for the rioters who don't see the authority of the government as legitimate?

Um, I was talking about why some people don't see those in government who did harmful things as much different from the criminals who did harmful things during the riots. So unless you're suggesting that I'm excusing those in government as well...

I said what?! "leads me to the conclusion.."
I posted a video of rioters shooting... Some seem to bear firearm and shoot at the police. That's the conclusion I draw.
After that I wrote that I'm still of the opinion, based on what I've read, seen and - yes, my own experiences from other people - that the rioters mainly are made up by political extremists and criminals. Those two groups aren't necessarily the same.

Immediately after the video, you said "So, the riots may have been sparked by perceived social injustice, but I'm still of the opinion...". Beginning your sentence with "So" indicates that you're reasoning from what you see in the video. If that's not what you mean, then fair enough. But, in that case, I don't see what you might think the video proves other than the fact that one or two rioters had firearms of sorts. So your claim that this video says something different from the "excusing" videos doesn't really make much sense now.

It's your conclusions that seem faulty.

Eh, I'll let the posts speak for themselves.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Nice of you to ignore this in your latest post, Loppan Torkel.

I posted his referred post.. What relevancy did the missed sentence have? He acknowledge that criminal acts had been done by rioters, but that's a given. I still don't see much of how he sees the rioters.

Um, I was talking about why some people don't see those in government who did harmful things as much different from the criminals who did harmful things during the riots. So unless you're suggesting that I'm excusing those in government as well...

I'd never suggest that you'd excuse any violent acts by law enforcement. It still seems like you're separating the majority of rioters from a small group of criminals doing harmful things. Could you try to specify who those other rioters are and what their motives are.

Immediately after the video, you said "So, the riots may have been sparked by perceived social injustice, but I'm still of the opinion...". Beginning your sentence with "So" indicates that you're reasoning from what you see in the video. If that's not what you mean, then fair enough. But, in that case, I don't see what the video proves other than the fact that one or two rioters had firearms of sorts. So your claim that this video says something different from the "excusing" videos doesn't really make much sense now.

I haven't claimed that this video says anything else than the other reports more than bringing facts from the riots from a different perspective than most other reports in this thread. It's exactly what I said it was, just a snap-shot from one part of the events.

Eh, I'll let the posts speak for themselves.

It's still interesting how people jump to conclusions just by reporting from a different side of things.

 

[aelf]

I still don't see much of how he sees the rioters.

I'd never suggest that you'd excuse any violent acts by law enforcement. It still seems like you're separating the majority of rioters from a small group of criminals doing harmful things. Could you try to specify who those other rioters are and what their motives are.

What? You don't seem to get it. I specifically described the harmful acts of the angry mob as criminal acts. That seems to be what you want to hear. As for the motives of the rioters, I said that it's a complex issue. There's no single cause or motive for the riots; some have to do with legitimate grievances, some only in part and some not at all. Is there something you don't understand? Or is your intention here to make me concede that your point of view is right, whatever that confused thing is?

I haven't claimed that this video says anything else than the other reports more than bringing facts from the riots from a different perspective than most other reports in this thread. It's exactly what I said it was, just a snap-shot from one part of the events.

What's so different about the perspective of the video? Everyone acknowledges that there were riots and not just peaceful protests.

It's still interesting how people jump to conclusions just by reporting from a different side of things.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

What? You don't seem to get it. I specifically described the harmful acts of the angry mob as criminal acts. That seems to be what you want to hear. As for the motives of the rioters, I said that it's a complex issue. There's no single cause or motive for the riots; some have to do with legitimate grievances, some only in part and some not at all. Is there something you don't understand? Or is your intention here to make me concede that your point of view is right, whatever that confused thing is?

My point is that you obviously believe that I'm wrong when I stated my belief that the rioters mostly are made up of political extremists and criminals. I labeled them in general terms, all do not fit in these groups. The question is - since I'm supposedly wrong, what are they? or what are their motives according to you?
You label them rioters, or an angry mob which harmful acts can be labeled as criminal acts. Of course, but it doesn't really tell much of them.
They have legitimate grievances and it's a complex issue... I don't disagree, but since you seem to be of the notion that I'm wrong, it would be interesting to see more substance than this.

What's so different about the perspective of the video? Everyone acknowledges that there were riots and not just peaceful protests.

Just news that put the rioters in worse light.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

I think you understand it. I can't say I can come up with another way of expressing that sentence.

 

[aelf]

My point is that you obviously believe that I'm wrong when I stated my belief that the rioters mostly are made up of political extremists and criminals. I labeled them in general terms, all do not fit in these groups. The question is - since I'm supposedly wrong, what are they? or what are their motives according to you?

I disagree with the idea that the rioters are mostly made up of political extremists. There has been no indication of a coherent political agenda among the rioters. I mean, on your own part, you've shown little willingness so far to acknowledge the socio-political issues related to the riots. So I really struggle to see what kind of political statement you think the rioting constitutes. If they are political extremists, what kind of political extremists are they and what do they want? It seems you have questions to answer about your view of the rioters, not me.

And I still don't get what's so special about your video. Rioters are violent? No, it can't be!

 

[Traitorfish]

This video was released from the riots -

Link to video.
So, the riots may have been sparked by perceived social injustice, but I'm still of the opinion that the rioters mostly are made up of political extremists who find purpose in their extremism and pure criminals taking advantage of the situation.

Would you care to elaborate on that? I mean, presumably if you're going to concoct such a narrative then they have to be extremists about something, rather than just being extreme in general.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I hope it's ok to post reports and videos from "the other perspective". The reporting has a tendency of getting very narrow-minded.

I have no problem with that.

However, the distinction should be made that flare guns are relatively harmless and can be purchased by anybody, at least in this country or I imagine any other where people go boating. Having such devices is even required in many areas of the world.

While aiming and shooting one may be considered to be "firing", the subject bar on the video is highly misleading in this case because of the insinuation that the individual was shooting at the police and a helicopter with a firearm, even though his actual target is not clear at all from the video. He certainly shot the apparent flare gun once, but who can say what his target really was.

But even if it was a firearm instead of a flare gun, i certainly don't think one individual acting in one isolated incident is sufficient justification to condemn all protesters, much less all rioters. I also doubt that other people would have simply stood nearby while he was doing so, because the police would likely fire back if they were actually fired upon.

 

[nonconformist]

It wasn't a "flare gun", nor was he a "political extremist".

I'm quite certain that no "political extremist" in the UK actually owns such a firearm.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Then how do you explain all that smoke when he discharged whatever it was in the video at 1:02? A black powder incredibly large bore pistol from the 1600s, perhaps? It certainly isn't any modern-day pistol. I'm going with flare gun or even a flare pen launcher until actually proven differently, because I think it makes far more sense.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I disagree with the idea that the rioters are mostly made up of political extremists. There has been no indication of a coherent political agenda among the rioters. I mean, on your own part, you've shown little willingness so far to acknowledge the socio-political issues related to the riots. So I really struggle to see what kind of political statement you think the rioting constitutes. If they are political extremists, what kind of political extremists are they and what do they want? It seems you have questions to answer about your view of the rioters, not me.

I'm not unwilling to acknowledge there are socio-political issues related to the riots. I've already explained that there's, in my mind, a mutual responsibility between the individuals in a society and the society as a whole.

I've given you my current belief what persons in general these rioters consist of. I may expand this reasoning when I see some more solid standpoints what persons, in general, you believe these hooded rioters consist of.

And I still don't get what's so special about your video. Rioters are violent? No, it can't be!

As stated several times - Nothing special, just reports of shootings from the riots.

Would you care to elaborate on that? I mean, presumably if you're going to concoct such a narrative then they have to be extremists about something, rather than just being extreme in general.

I can elaborate more, but since I've given my view of the rioters as for now and there aren't any evidence yet for who they are, I'll only end up answering more or less thought out arguments without much more than my own conviction to support it.

Many have written posts showing socio-economical/political explanations to these riots, while not mentioning the rioters. If it's all seen as society's fault, all responsibility, save for a few obvious criminals, are taken away from the rioters. This also means that the socio-economical/political explanations not just are explanations, but also have become excuses for the rioters.

I'd like to hear how you, who explain these riots as based in socio-economic/political issues, see the rioters before I elaborate. It's only fair if the question is to be further discussed.

 

[nonconformist]

Then how do you explain all that smoke when he discharged whatever it was in the video at 1:02? A black powder incredibly large bore pistol from the 1600s, perhaps? It certainly isn't any modern-day pistol. I'm going with flare gun or even a flare pen launcher until actually proven differently, because I think it makes far more sense.

GSR, and hot gas?

If it were a flare gun, then:

A) the projectile would be readily visible
B)The police would say so
c)it would be obvious on the video when a flare is glowing on the floor


Link to video.

Unless this happens to be a flare gun?

 

[Formaldehyde]

GSR, and hot gas?

If it were a flare gun, then:

A) the projectile would be readily visible
B)The police would say so
c)it would be obvious on the video when a flare is glowing on the floor


Link to video.

Unless this happens to be a flare gun?

That was nowhere near as much smoke. And the M1911 is the worst-case example of the amount of smoke a firearm makes due to the size of the cartridge and that it uses the older technology gunpowder. The newer cartridges make hardly any smoke at all.

And no, the projectile is not visible from a flare gun nor is it readily visible. But there is a decent amount of smoke which comes out of the barrel when fired, as was the case in the above video.


Link to video.

Where in this video is there any statement by the police of this incident? It has no sound.

The video only shows a few feet in front of him, so it is impossible to say whether there was a flare or not.

 

[nonconformist]

It's the UK, so it's likely to be a converted replica or a zip gun.

Flare guns in the UK are brightly coloured, plastic, and almost as hard to obtain as a real firearm, because of their ease in conversion.

It would be stupid for the Balla to be packing a lfare gun, and fire it at police, because he'd be charged with carrying a deadly weapon (it would be regarded as a live firearm), and I doubt the Brummie Boys get a lot of risspec' for flare guns.

It has no sound?

Correct.

But then again, you know, I've read the reports and seen the press released about this incident.

The police are currently looking for an indictment of Attempted Murder, which they wouldn't do with a flare gun.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Flare guns in the UK are brightly coloured, plastic, and almost as hard to obtain as a real firearm, because of their ease in conversion.

None of which is really evident from this video taken at night, or in the case of the IR helicopter footage in black-and-white. And not all flare guns and pen launchers are bright colors, nor are they all made of plastic. But most are these days so people with flare guns don't get shot by cops.

It would be stupid for the Balla to be packing a lfare gun, and fire it at police, because he'd be charged with carrying a deadly weapon (it would be regarded as a live firearm), and I doubt the Brummie Boys get a lot of risspec' for flare guns.

As opposed to a "zip gun" or "converted replica"? Isn't this how the rioting actually started?

It has no sound?

No, the Youtube video has no sound.

But then again, you know, I've read the reports and seen the press released about this incident.

The police are currently looking for an indictment of Attempted Murder, which they wouldn't do with a flare gun.

Have they been posted in this forum? I don't even know where this incident took place. But I guess it is possible that a homemade firearm could make that amount of excessive smoke if it was an extremely large caliber and the person used way too much black gunpowder.

 

[nonconformist]

None of which is really evident from this video taken at night, or in the case of the IR helicopter footage in black-and-white. And not all flare guns and pen launchers are bright colors, nor are they all made of plastic. But most are these days so people with flare guns don't get shot by cops.

In Britain they are. NEXT

As opposed to a "zip gun" or "converted replica"? Isn't this how the rioting actually started?

Ritoing started because people started looting shops etc. NEXT

No, the Youtube video has no sound.

Yeah, it's called "sarcasm"

Have they been posted in this forum? I don't even know where this incident took place. But I guess it is possible that a homemade weapon could make that amount of excessive smoke if the person used way too much black gunpowder.

I'm not gonna do your job for you.

You sit there and make completely silly and ignorant statements, without having so much the courtesy to check the background to the incident out.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In Britain they are. NEXT

Once again, they are now. I am sure there are plenty of black flare guns and pen launchers still around.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Drop it. It's irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

I can elaborate more, but since I've given my view of the rioters as for now and there aren't any evidence yet for who they are, I'll only end up answering more or less thought out arguments without much more than my own conviction to support it.

Even if you don't have solid evidence, you can surely at least outline your thinking? You're presumably basing this on something more than reds-under-the-bed paranoia, and if you're going to voice contentious opinions like this, then I'd say that you have a responsibility to either substantiate or retract them.

Many have written posts showing socio-economical/political explanations to these riots, while not mentioning the rioters. If it's all seen as society's fault, all responsibility, save for a few obvious criminals, are taken away from the rioters. This also means that the socio-economical/political explanations not just are explanations, but also have become excuses for the rioters.

I think you're confusing your own inferences with the posters' intents. Nobody that I've seen here seems to be apologising for those present who were engaged in simple criminality.

I'd like to hear how you, who explain these riots as based in socio-economic/political issues, see the rioters before I elaborate. It's only fair if the question is to be further discussed.

As a heterogeneous collection of individuals motivated by. About the most I could say is that some of them were venting a (in itself entirely reasonable, in my opinion) anger and frustration with the police, some just trashing things because they're just jerks like that, and some engaging in opportunistic looting because hey, free stuff, but even that means over-generalising a bit.

(And I wouldn't say that the riots were "based in socio-economic/political issues", but that they embody among other things a number of socio-economic and political factors. Things are rarely that straightforward.)