alan said:
No doubt the French have done the right thing, a couple of times, when it was in their personal interest.Boogyman said:
Plus the rattlesnake will leave you alone and mind its own business.swampsniper said:
HankB said:Boogeyman, are you saying today's rioters have more intestinal fortitude than yesterday's?
[/B]
silverlance said:
Right, and the riots would stop FASTER! (It wasn't Mayor Daley's "shoot" orders that stopped the rioting, it was the widespread public announcement that stopped the rioting.)Boogeyman said:
Thank you - by injecting race into the argument (read prior posts - you did, I didn't) you've tacitly admitted your own position is untenable.
I think he's actually correct here, except I'd change his "maybe" to a "certainly."
Well, having actually lived through the Detroit riots, my recollection is of anything but "restrained, French-style police work." I hoist the B.S. flag on that one. The police were simply overwhelmed by the fast outbreak of the rioting and were spread very thin (there was also a bit of bad leadership involved.) As for Chicago -- boy, everybody always quotes that Daley order. The rioting ran its course, but there's been evidence that some of the heavy-handed tactics of the CPD actually created more violent resistence from the beginning.
So Hank, you don't think once every gangbanger and other miscreant in your city wouldn't see this as open season on cops and civilians? Look what happened in L.A. -- once the images got on the tube, it created MORE rioting. Those who would riot -- these days -- are not gonna be deterred by hearing that LE will shoot them. They know better, anyway. Look at today's p.c. climate with regard to restraining LE during civil disturbances. To the contrary, it'll inspire resistence -- and thoughts of post-riot lawsuits against the cities and the LE agencies.
There is a BIG difference between rioting and protesting. Violent rioting should be met with violence, though cities are not always equipped to do so.Boogyman said:
Bluntly, you're wrong. (I lived there at the time.) It DID stop the rioting - especially the arson - almost immediately. Detroit burned, Chicago didn't. Maybe you're confusing the MLK riots with the '68 Democratic National Convention, which was a whole different kettle of worms.Old Dog said:
BUT NOT IN KOREATOWN! The Koreans, once they started resisting, pretty much saved the balance of their neighborhood. LA got out of hand because Darryl Gates' LAPD was basically GONE. Oh, they may have been standing around, watching - I remember seeing video of a bunch of LA's finest just watching a Sears store being looted - but they let it go on far too long. And LA's mayor, rather than taking care of business, was appearing on TV talk shows like Letterman (or was it Leno?) mouthing politically correct pablum.Old Dog said:
And this informed opinion would be based on how much time you've actually spent in France and how many French people with whom you've actually engaged in political and philosophical discussion?
Could be, Hank ... but I still believe that those who would riot today (in our country) are a new breed, and would not, will not, be deterred by agressive law enforcement tactics.
Yes, and the lesson is clear. Criminals are more deterred by citizens willing to use deadly force that by law enforcement ... And, the rioting became confined to the ... other minority neighborhoods, became more "black on black" and the LAPD merely sat back and watched the community self-destruct.
My point is, again, those who would riot seem much more willing to do battle against law enforcement than an armed citizenry. In L.A., the rioters destroyed their own neighborhoods despite police presence; when confronted by rifle and shotgun toting business owners, the rioters collectively seemed to instinctively understand the rules of engagement ... had turned on them.
MTMilitiaman said:
Duncaninfrance said:
MTMilitiaman said:
