Scotland votes to end exports of tear gas and rubber bullets to the U.S.

[BSM1]

Yeah the paintballs was actually a stellar idea. A bit like the explosive bank dye bag.

The police can mark the real troublemakers and get them placed under arrest.

I thought so, also.

 

[BSM1]

Police tend to spray bullets and gas in the general direction of people they perceive as unruly or behaving improperly. They don't reserve their ministrations to those breaking windows.
They'll also indiscriminately sweep up anyone in the area of a protest and haul them off to jail.

If the police were rendered less able to use violence to restore order, they might be more careful not to cause the disorder in the first place. It's usually the police who escalate confrontations to violence.

Police need to be more concerned with law and less with order. The two things that trigger anger in police are disorderly behavior, like protesting, and disrespect. Not all crowds need to be controlled.

They are not warriors. It's not us vs them. Their job is to protect and serve.

Sooo....you saying that they should not protect and serve the law abiding in our society just to cater to the rioters, looters, and general thugs that we have seen destroying cities over the last few weeks?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Police tend to spray bullets and gas in the general direction of people they perceive as unruly or behaving improperly. They don't reserve their ministrations to those breaking windows.
They'll also indiscriminately sweep up anyone in the area of a protest and haul them off to jail.

If the police were rendered less able to use violence to restore order, they might be more careful not to cause the disorder in the first place. It's usually the police who escalate confrontations to violence.

Police need to be more concerned with law and less with order. The two things that trigger anger in police are disorderly behavior, like protesting, and disrespect. Not all crowds need to be controlled.

They are not warriors. It's not us vs them. Their job is to protect and serve.

I mean...I don't have any issue with what you're saying. Just wondering what point you were trying to make to me?
(Honestly curious if my position on this is unclear, etc)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I wasn't suggesting anything except that rubber bullets are preferable to real bullets.

And real bullets are preferable to tanks.
Sorry, I'm just not really sure why you chipped in on my post then. I'm more than happy to discuss a difference in opinion, but I'm lost as to what discussion you were hoping to elicit, or why you thought I was muddying any waters.

It's no biggie, we can just drop it if you like. I'm just honestly a little baffled where you were headed.

 

[Stevicus]

And real bullets are preferable to tanks.
Sorry, I'm just not really sure why you chipped in on my post then. I'm more than happy to discuss a difference in opinion, but I'm lost as to what discussion you were hoping to elicit, or why you thought I was muddying any waters.

It's no biggie, we can just drop it if you like. I'm just honestly a little baffled where you were headed.

Well, they might use other methods, such as water cannons, dogs - which is what they used back in the 60s, along with tear gas. And there were times when they even used real bullets.

Maybe they could try softer approaches. Like maybe they could play soothing music over a loudspeaker. Some kind of lullaby or relaxation tape. That will make the protesters relaxed and sleepy.

 

[Valjean]

I believe the "castle" doctrine does not, by definition, extend out to a police controlled situation outside your house. Or are you saying that as long as I am within the vicinity of my house, I am free to do as I please?

Yes, as long as you're not otherwise causing problems

Sooo....you saying that they should not protect and serve the law abiding in our society just to cater to the rioters, looters, and general thugs that we have seen destroying cities over the last few weeks?

I'm saying they should arrest the looters and leave the observers, demonstrators and general public alone.
They have not been doing that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the "castle" doctrine does not, by definition, extend out to a police controlled situation outside your house.

You don't consider your porch to be part of your house?

Or are you saying that as long as I am within the vicinity of my house, I am free to do as I please?

I'm saying that you should be free to stand on your own porch without being assaulted.

I'm not personally a fan of castle doctrine, but those who are generally hold the position that if you're assaulted while sitting on your own property, harming nobody, you should have the right to respond with deadly force if you feel the situation warrants it.

... but you feel that police should have the right to assault people on their own property in this situation. Why?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry, I didn't disagree with your post, it just inspired my supplementary rant.
I get carried away sometimes...

Ha! No need to apologise at all. I was just trying to work out if there was some discussion or view you were looking for me to provide. Carry on!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, they might use other methods, such as water cannons, dogs - which is what they used back in the 60s, along with tear gas. And there were times when they even used real bullets.

Sure, they might. If we take away their current methods of response, they will use alternative methods of response. That seems about right. Those methods of response may be 'better' or 'worse' (I put that in quotes, since it would be a somewhat subjective thing in any case).

Maybe they could try softer approaches. Like maybe they could play soothing music over a loudspeaker. Some kind of lullaby or relaxation tape. That will make the protesters relaxed and sleepy.

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be some sort of response to my views, or not. There have been a lot of posts in this thread I've found confusing, to be honest. I am but a simple man, so if you want my opinion on alternative methods, or want me to argue why rubber bullets are a poor response mechanism, just ask me.
My main point here is that WHATEVER method of force is used by Police, it needs to be carefully considered, and used based on clear rules of engagement.
These currently explicitly exclude use of dogs in Washington DC, for example, no matter what the President rambles about.
If you think they are using rubber bullets in an appropriate manner in all cases, we differ on that.

You won't see me defending violent protesters and looters. I haven't done so, and will continue not to. But I do find it funny when there is lipservice paid to using force against protesters (without any nuance). Protesting, and the protection of that would seem to be a fundamental American right. It surprises me how many (and I'm not talking about you here, just generally) are all about Constitutional Rights when it fits to their pre-existing beliefs...and not so much when it doesn't.

Still...for ANYONE in this thread...if you want to ask my opinion on something, just ask me. I'm finding the oblique nature of some posts confusing.

 

[Valjean]

Well, they might use other methods, such as water cannons, dogs - which is what they used back in the 60s, along with tear gas. And there were times when they even used real bullets.

Maybe they could try softer approaches. Like maybe they could play soothing music over a loudspeaker. Some kind of lullaby or relaxation tape. That will make the protesters relaxed and sleepy.

Good idea, but I think Huxley beat you to it. Didn't they spray soma [a sedative], from helicopters, on unruly crowds in Brave New World?
I seem to remember that...

 

[Thief]

They are not warriors. It's not us vs them. Their job is to protect and serve.

hmmmm…...barricades

enforced by human barricades

protect the crowd from itself?

 

[Stevicus]

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be some sort of response to my views, or not.

No, it was just a poor attempt at humor.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, it was just a poor attempt at humor.

No worries. If you can make about a thousand more poor attempts at humour, you'll be getting close to my sorry record.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

hmmmm…...barricades

enforced by human barricades

protect the crowd from itself?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but the police in the UK have certainly been placed in that position a number of times recently, with opposing groups of protesters actively attacking one another.
I have no idea if that's also happened in the US, but I would be surprised if there have been no instances of it.

 

[Thief]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but the police in the UK have certainly been placed in that position a number of times recently, with opposing groups of protesters actively attacking one another.
I have no idea if that's also happened in the US, but I would be surprised if there have been no instances of it.

crowd containment

failure to contain......you get broken windows and fires

rubber bullets would be kind

 

[lewisnotmiller]

crowd containment

failure to contain......you get broken windows and fires

rubber bullets would be kind

Meh, I guess some people are happy with a police state. Not my thing, but to each their own.

 

[Thief]

and some people just shrug off having their property broken and burned

insurance?

 

[metis]

Think maybe they'd give us the highlands for him?

That would be great!!!

BTW, that's where the Celtic side of my family was from. However, I'm only 1/16 Scottish.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That would be great!!!

BTW, that's where the Celtic side of my family was from. However, I'm only 1/16 Scottish.

I'm theoretically Scotch Irish through the Appalachian hillbillies of NC -- the Firefox people. The only benefit I've seen, so far, is that I tolerate bee stings as well as bagpipes, and I have an ear for music. The Scotch-Irish were loved neither in Scotland nor in Ireland, so I'm neither Scottish nor Irish.

 

[metis]

I'm theoretically Scotch Irish through the Appalachian hillbillies of NC -- the Firefox people.

Mine came from Scotland in the earlyb 1700's and settled first in Vermont, moved to NY, and then to Michigan in the early 1800's. Michigan has the 2nd largest number of Scots with N.C. being first.

The only benefit I've seen, so far, is that I tolerate bee stings as well as bagpipes, and I have an ear for music.

I love the pipes to a somewhat limited point, and I've been to a fair number of highland games and dance here in Michigan and Ontario.

The Scotch-Irish were loved neither in Scotland nor in Ireland, so I'm neither Scottish nor Irish.

Most came out of what's now called "Northern Ireland" and were largely Protestant. My Celtic roots are Catholic and were from the area around and on the Isle of Skye-- MacDonald Clan.