Do rioters mainly hit commercial sections

[nathan]

In the history of social unrest and upheavals in America, for example the Watts Riot of 1965, were the rioters mainly targeting and looting business establishments and burning them to the ground? Since stores and shops are usually easy targets for what they can loot. Or they also hit residential houses as a last resort?

I m thinking if they decide to hit homes, the owners will definitely put some form of resistance and rioters will receive a hail of gunfire. Dead bodies will pile up quicker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJUS9aa0Yms

 

[RaceM]

If you are poor, your neighbor doesn't have anything worth stealing. Besides, it's kinda dumb to burn down your own hood, ain't it?

 

[Shadow 7D]

they target more affluent areas CLOSE ENOUGH TO GET CRAP HOME
that said, they tend to burn out THEIR commercial areas...

 

[nathan]

LEt see, Walmarts for foodstuff and what not , Best Buys for the electronics which are easy carry, and bank ATMs? And maybe car and bike shops , sportstores for guns , etc

 

[Texan Scott]

Pretty sure rioters target whatever's flammable or stealable within walking distance of their own low-income housing. This means, generally, their own inner city neighborhoods.

It isn't rational; it's mindless anger and lashing out by people who feel (mistakenly) that they have nothing to lose. I'm sure morning-after rioters' remorse is a killer hangover.

People living a few miles past the end of public transit are probably safe. Looters seem unlikely to spontaneously discover the benefits of suburban carpooling.

 

[Twiki357]

Every riot I've heard about has always been in commercial districts where there was an abundance of stuff for them to steal. Maybe one of these times they will head into beverly hills for some of the movie freaks houses.

 

[Bobson]

Besides, it's kinda dumb to burn down your own hood, ain't it?

It's happened before.

I forget exactly where it took place, but a number of years ago (I wanna say this happened in the 70s, in southern California), a group of racist whites decided to go to a predominantly black neighborhood and just kinda loiter around while yelling obscenities and taunting people who lived in the area. From what I recall, this had been going on for several hours - long enough that police had been called, and long since responded - but the police hadn't done anything about it because nobody had actually committed an act of violence. Long story short, dozens of people who lived in the community got pissed and ended up attacking their neighbors. By the time the whole thing ended, numerous black and hispanic people from the community were hospitalized, and several houses were severely damaged. Not a single antagonist present was attacked. Those who were targeted by the hate speech formed an angry mob and just turned on themselves.

Learned that whole story in my Substantive Criminal Law class. We were discussing the first amendment on a tangent, and this bit of history was used as an example to show that hate sleech is actually protected under the first amendment, unless accompanied or characterized by "fighting words" (which is actually a legal term), or a couple other things I don't specifically recall.

The point is, you can't really describe typical actions for "rioters." Rioters are just groups of people caught up in a mob mentality, and that can include anyone who isn't careful to avoid situations where that potential is there.

 

[Al Thompson]

Not seeing this as being on topic.