Could Poverty, Income Inequalities in US Lead to UK-Like Riots?
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 03:18
VIEWED: 3100
PAGE 2 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:They defended their property, and their livelihood.
You do realize that in the US you can't use lethal force to defend property. You can only use lethal force when you or others lives are at risk.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act
Title 18, §505. Use of Force in Self-Protection.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.—The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force. —
(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:
(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or
(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.
(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) Use of confinement as protective force. — The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.
Title 18, §506. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons.
(
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I stand corrected.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In Florida if two people steal my car and I shoot one of them, the surviving thief could be charged with their accomplice's murder and I would be within my legal rights.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
In Florida if two people steal my car and I shoot one of them, the surviving thief could be charged with their accomplice's murder and I would be within my legal rights.
That's pretty cool, really.
For once, Florida gets something right.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Gawd, Wulf, you are so ignorant and say such stupid thing that it's hard NOT to believe you're Raptor's sickpuppy!
The only places where UK-like riots could happen (for longer than a day) are in places like Chicago, NY, California, and Mass.
Typical liberal strongholds that have high unemployment, low morality, and gun control.
We won't have riots in Northern California. What are you going to come up with when we don't? I'm sure you'll have forgotten by then and find something else stupid to say which makes you think you're intelligent and have a grasp on reality. We might well have PROTESTS, especially over in Berserkeley, but not riots.
It would be so lovely if you could see people as people, and not entire states as bastions of one political party or the other. I guess you're just not capable of conceiving of such a possibility, which is part of wht makes you so ridiculous.
Just FYI: As of February of this year, DC, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, New Jersey all rank above California in being liberal according to Gallup ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/146348/Mississippi-Rates-Conservative-Rates
-States.aspx). We're not even in the top ten.
California ranks below Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alaska, Florida and Maine in divorce rate. Nevada has worse unemployment than we do. In California, there are 5 major restrictions on handguns; Colorado has 7, Connecticut 5, New York 7, Texas and Utah 4. Obviously gun restrictions are much more complex than that, and for a number of states, it's text, not table, but that gives you an idea ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_United_States_(by_stat
e). I'm not going to spend the time reading or finding more than that, given your mentality, but hey, it looks like "morally" we're doing pretty good (as divorce is the only measure I can think of), we're doing better than Nevada on unemployment and we have less gun control than Colorado and New York (and possibly other states, if I bothered to read further).
I realize this won't stop your blathering about California, but those are the FACTS!
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't see where the wulfenwhiner gets off complaining about a "police state" that him and his completely enabled, first by not having the guts to stand up and say no, and second by deliberate enablement so long as the right victims were on the wrong end of the bayonet - so forgive me for not being particularly sympathetic to any of his whinin about those bayonets being potentially pointed at him.
That said...
Many large cities in america right now are a goddamn powder keg waiting to happen, and it's got shit to do with left-right politics so much as downright class warfare and corporate exploitation helped along by government in a pretty bi-partisan fashion.
Now, Michigan and Texas, surely are the kinda places where it's prettymuch legal to shoot dead someone on your property who's an imminent threat, which to me makes a whole lot more sense than any other way particularly cause I am usually in a damn wheelchair and my residence has only one entry/exit, so what the hell am I gonna do, run away ? yeeeahhh right.
Sorry, I just don't see "Lay down and die" an appropriate defense strategy - although I am also well aware that even the most clear-cut, fully justifiable shooting will result in a curb stomping, weapon confiscation and about thirty grand in legal bills, which I find every bit as ludicrous as the idea I should just lay down and die rather than shoot some nimrod crashing my door with evil intent.
But that's a side issue, really it is.
Thing here is, there is, and always has been, particularly since 1984, a "plan on the shelf" for using the excuse of civil unrest to perform a coup d'etat, a fascist takeover - you can thank ollie north for that one(1) since he helped write it, or rather, re-write it out of the original plans penned by scoop jackson(2), which were seized and retroactively classified.(3)
Although not after some folk had read them and made copies - what has been seen cannot be unseen.
Anyhow, there's folks in our government just waiting for the excuse, and I can even tell you how that would go.
Either via provacateurs, or just by the fact that our infrastructure itself in most cities is hanging on by a goddamn thread already (at any one time in detroit, there's a couple thousand folk without power, y'all have heard my rants at DTE about that shit), sufficient damage will be done to "justify" shutting off power, water, sewage - and they'll spin it as either a punitive measure or protective depending on what they think they can get away with.
You've NO IDEA how fast that can go badly, medieval siege conditions in an urban environment against folk totally unequipped or prepared to handle it(4) - which leads to excuse sufficient to send in the Dirty Third, which is as you know on homeland security civil unrest pacification duty(5) complete with new APCs and prefab prisons courtesy of KBR/Haliburton(6).
I mean, these preparations haven't even been particularly secret, as I have pointed out each and every one as it happens - but Detroit won't go down so easily, remeber that we've been working our asses off getting urban agriculture up and running, against severe resistance from the Monsanto cronies of the DNR, and the city government, and in our own ways preparing to lessen the blow of infrastructure failure by weather, natural disaster, or intentional shutoff, for a while now, cause only a fool wouldn't see it coming by now - all it waits is the opportunity, and one good spark to set those powder kegs off... I had begun to worry that certain events in the Wisconsin mess mighta done it, thanks be the WI Natty Guard told Walker to piss up a rope that day, and I was even more so over the recall and obvious fuckery in the eight district, which if it comes out via private investigation, still might happen.
But anyhow, the powers that be WANT riots and disorder, some of them are gleefully rubbing their hands together in anticipation even now, at the fruition of plans laid down over the past thirty years to end this farcical charade of democracy and pull the mask off once and for all.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The only places where UK-like riots could happen (for longer than a day) are in places like Chicago, NY, California, and Mass.
Typical liberal strongholds that have high unemployment, low morality, and gun control.
Just in case, tho...
Clean your gun, make sure you have plenty of ammo, food, water, and a secure location.
You mean a secure location from which to riot, right?
After all, you're the one constantly calling for armed revolution. Are you saying it's impossible now, except for the places where the "liberals" might do it?
How odd a stance for you to take. And odder still that you think your beloved "tea party values" are a sign of "low morality".
You are one strange little dude, Wulfboy.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
By morality I meant this: "I don't think its wrong to burn and loot so long as I get mine". Morality DOES play a big role in riots. Do I burn and loot a store, hurt or kill someone, so I can get something that I want (not need)?
But again I point out that you have, on numerous occasions, lobbied for hunting and killing people - the President, Nancy Pelosi, ALL "libs/progs", etc. - just so you can get something you want (a more fascist right-wing militaristic nationalist government), not something you NEED.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
Again.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Same sort of things happened during Katrina.
You want to get out? Sure, just come by the friendly gas-station and pay 20 bucks a gallon....
then there was the "mayor", using the cops to disarm people. EXACTLY when they NEEDED to be armed...INSTEAD of helping folks evacuate.
I agree. Its scary.
Yet, whenever liberals get out of control, when the cancer of their beliefs begin to rage.. there are always those who stand against the darkness.
You mean like the five New Orleans cops just convicted of shooting and killing those unarmed "liberals" for being so out of control in wanting to get out of a flooded New Orleans?
Yeah, they really showed those danged "liberals", didn't they?
Quote:
Tho I am hopeful that this may always be true, I know it takes simple people willing to fight.
Well, you are nothing if not simple, Wulfie. Willing to fight? Not so much.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hell, in Texas I can blow someone away just for tagging my property (vandalism IS covered by our Castle Doctrine). Or even my neighbor's property, if they've asked me to keep an eye on the place.
'Course, thanks to the legislature, I can also carry my guns on any college campus now - but they will NOT let me carry them into the legislature or the governor's office.
Wonder what they're scared of...
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME