Would you like to expain the difference between amateur and other type of rioters?

Have some gone to Uni to learn how to riot properly, was it amateur rioters that were committing arson and potential murder ?

That would be you - as you reply to this will, I predict, perfectly illustrate.


Responses to your drivel don't have to be boring. I can entertain, as well as demolishing you ever decreasing circular non-points. If you don’t like it, then try sensible posts.


You see, it’s just this goldfish-like retention of your own rambling that makes you seem stupid. Your words were
So, you report that the police “said… they didn’t think they could use lethal force”.

So, you SPECIFICALLY suggested that the police were unaware they could use lethal force. And now you have been caught out.


Having already demolished the wider point, I don’t need to do the same to this more restricted “individual police officer” point. However, I’d be interested to know what the difference in this individual’s case actually is, between “being unaware he could use lethal force” (which you say you haven’t suggested) and “didn’t know he could use lethal force”, which were, er, again YOUR words. Oops.



I consider the view that holding the police “responsible” for the riots, and/or claiming that the riots were a “consequence” of that incident, is arrant nonsense. I would bet a lot of money that 99% of the rioters couldn’t even tell you the deceased’s name, and that incident will have played not the slightest part whatsoever in the riots in other cities.

Obviously the initial spark of rioting in Tottenham followed the shooting, but even there I have seen no suggestion that anyone rioted [ibecause of that incident[/i or as some sort of protest at the death of that individual. Of course, there is a massive anti-police feeling in much of UK subculture, and I equally have no doubt that the opportunity to use this as an excuse to have a crack at the police was a major factor.

Do you understand the distinction? Anti-police rioting, of people claiming to be oppressed by the police, as opposed to people who had no issues with the police, but suddenly decided to go on the rampage just because this individual was shot?

The LSE/Guardian analysis of explanations from a large number of convicted rioters themselves. Of those interviewed85% cited anger at policing practices as a key factor
time and again the interviewees, regardless of where they lived, said they felt like they had been taking part in anti-police riots.

Many interviewees described the violence as a chance to get back at the police
"When we came across a police car it felt like we hit the jackpot," one rioter said. "We thought we'd just kind of violate just like they violate us."

85% said policing was an "important" or "very important" factor in why the riots happened.
It was second only to poverty, which saw 86% of rioters class it as one of the main causes. Eighty percent claimed that government policy was an "important" or "very important" factor, while 79% said the same of unemployment.

The interviewees repeatedly expressed frustrations about their daily interactions with the police, saying that they felt hassled, bullied and complaining that they were not treated as equals.
The focus of much resentment was police use of stop and search which was felt to be unfairly targeted and often undertaken in an aggressive and discourteous manner.
Seventy per cent of the rioters said they had been stopped and searched in the last year.
And time and again interviewees described the violence as a chance to get back at the police.
"It was war and for the first time we was in control, like we had the police scared, like there was no more us being scared of the police," one rioter said.
Half of those interviewed were black, but they did not consider the unrest to be "race riots".
Rioters identified a range of political grievances, but at the heart of their complaints was a pervasive sense of injustice.
For some this was economic - the lack of money, jobs or opportunity. For others it was more broadly social - how they felt they were treated compared with others.
Many mentioned the increase in student tuition fees and the scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).'"

If they were riots in the traditional sense you'd have a point, these were just petty criminals doing a bit of robbing, using the "rioting" as an excuse.

There was no particular target, no urge to confront police, in fact they actively avoided confrontation.

So these were ' retail rioters ' then? , well maybe these amateur retail rioters would have had second thoughts if they thought theyd get a baton round in the nuts for their trouble rather than just having the bobbies watching them commit crimes, destroy livelyhoods , burn peoples homes and potentially burn people to death ?

If that is what you want to call them, fine.



Or maybe putting people on the ground would (and did) do the job without resorting to shooting people.

Isn't there numerous videos on youtube of the rioters charing the police and the police having to back off.

Maybe a rubber bullet to the forehead might be a more forceful reminder to behave and provide a cheaper solution than having to employ ever increasing number of policemen on the streets to deal with this kind of filth?

Especially in the current economic climate.

No.

How do you work that out?

How do I work out if I agree with a proposition? It's not hard. I consider it, and the answer is sort of just there.

Try it: do you like spinach?

In Tottehnam, a protest march after the shooting turned violent.

Therefore but for the shooting their would have been no protest march and no violence.

Rubbish. There was a protest of about 100-200 people who marched on the police station. These were not violent rioters but peaceful protesters with direct links to the family of Duggan, who had been shot. They did not start or encourage, much less become involved in, any violence.

An official spokesperson for the family was quoted as saying;


Your attempt at making a link is in fact a grave libel against those people. The rioting that began in Tottenham was not at the police station, nor is there any evidence that it involved any of those protesters.

What you are doing, apart from libelling peaceful protesters, is making a link which really is pure semantics. The situation was simply taken advantage of by those who chose to start looting, and then rapidly inflamed by those who saw criminals "getting away with it" and going on copycat sprees.

If the looted shops had never been built, would they have been looted and burned? No. So did the proprietors of the shops cause the looting and arson by being there? That's about the same level of link as you are trying to make.

Again from what i remember from the news, it was a peaceful protest march up to the police station, when they got there they wanted questions answering, the IPCC had already become involved so they were not allowed to say anything.
It then became a little heated and there were rumours that a woman was assaulted by the police during this heated debate, this was banded about the local neighbourhood, that was the trigger.

It then turned in to a slightly violent protest, then another bunch of local undesireables realised the police were just standing there doing nothing and the looting started

Yes the situation that a large number of people were on the streets who wouldn't normally be there as a result of a protest about a police shooting.