Riots - What to do?

[ctdonath]

The term is "disparity of force". Man vs. woman, young vs. old, many vs. few, healthy vs. handicapped - all cases where there is a serious difference in physical ability, so much so that the latter can be killed by the former without tools, and thus the latter is legally allowed to take up arms.

The fine-line problem in this thread is whether the mob invading your home/store is after your goods or after you.

[Karsten]

EDITED to suit Erick
Karsten

[Edited by Karsten on 01-27-2001 at 02:43 AM]

[LoneStranger]

I find concept that property should be abandoned to criminals interesting.
Let's see, I trade my life for that property but I decide to do the trade in eight hour increments. During those eight hours I allow various amounts of abuse to come my way. Then I can have various types of property in my possesion through legal transactions with others.
The criminal decides that he wishes to acquire my property in one fell swoop and not be concerned about the cost to my life of his actions.
When someone makes a statement like "Your property is not as valuable as the criminals life!" are they not claiming that the criminals life is of more value than yours?? Shouldn't these people be asked why they value a criminal more than they value a lawabiding peaceful citizen?
If someone should come up with an answer I'd like to hear it.

[Karsten]

Edited to suit Erick

[Edited by Karsten on 01-27-2001 at 02:43 AM]

[4V50 Gary]

In the past, there were no police departments and the idea of a police department was viewed suspicously as an "army of occupation" by many. Since the Sheriff and his deputies were few and far between, it behooved citizens to help one another in times of need; which they did. Gradually, with time and the growth of cities, police departments were formed and gain acceptance. With it, the concept of self reliance to dependence on the police gained acceptability. Indeed, it is almost automatic that a crime is not "our" problem but that of the police.

Back in the '30s, one old cop was asked whether he carried a gun to protect himself. His response was, "No, I carry a gun to assist the citizenry in protecting themselves." His viewpoint, which should be taught today, is that the police are here to help, but that the primary responsibility of self defense remains with the individual. This applies to assisting others too. How our perspectives have changed and not necessarily for the better. "Call the police!" Guess what? They're handling other calls and there's a staff shortage today because a bunch are sitting around court giving testimony.

Is there a solution? While I do not advocate vigilantism, I do advocate for change. Acceptance of responsibility for self defense must be fostered. But change in attitude must not be restricted to the citizenry alone. It must also be applied to the police too. The police are not exclusively responsible for defending society but like that cop of the '30s, are there to help the citizens in protecting themselves. Towards this means, victim disarmament (anti-Second Amendment) must cease and the issuance of CCWs must be liberalized. To keep the citizenry disarmed is to disempower them and increase their vulnerability. Criminals prey upon the weak, not the strong. With the proper balance between the rights and responsibility of the individual citizen restored, and any police administrative reluctance regarding CCWs redressed, this can be a safer society.

[SDforce]

Karsten,

What are you doing to people that would cause for you to get a death threat... or death threats (since you had to change you AOL and cell phone accounts so many times)? In all fairness to you (since I don't know you or your current situation) you could be living in a city with a bunch of bad cops, but at the same time, the cause AND solution to a problem usually lies in oneself... and not on the shoulders of a peace officer.

Try walking in the shoes of a cop and living in his/her world for a while. Just like your job, it's not easy. Just like you do at your job, they work hard at theirs. The system isn't perfect, but I'm sure everyone that's a part of it is trying their best to make it work... just like you're doing your best at your job. Can't always make everyone happy... but I'm sure they're trying... just like how you try to please all of your clients. I'm sure you know that you can't please everyone.

Go on a ride along... volunteer... find out the inner workings of your local agency. Maybe you'll find what you're looking for then.

-SDforce

[ctdonath]

LoneStranger-
For a more detailed review of that line of reasoning, read Just Money?. They're not stealing money - they're stealing part of my life.

[iso1]

Art Eatman summed up the above blather very nicely:
"I spent part of my life acquiring that (money; property). Nobody has the right to say that my life is worthless or meaningless, or to steal part of that life."

Excellent. That is EXACTLY how I feel. And I don't make $20/hr. So, I have to give up even MORE of my life just to survive, much less acquire luxuries.....


And that explains why I WILL protect my property/life.

[Skorzeny]

Look, I completely agree with the argument that when someone steals from me, he steals a portion of my life, period. Thus, I am completely within my right to defend that portion of my life, period.

Now, that is a principle by which I live. However, it is a principle, not a dogma. Meaning, I am willing to bend it for a greater good (the survival of my beloved family), particularly when the tactical analysis of the situation calls for a retreat.

Contrary to a half-baked warrior-prince fantasy some folks might have (sure, every man dreams of laying down some major "smack" against the evil ones), defending a store with 2-3 other family members while 50 or even 100 armed looters come at you is NOT a winning proposition.

The question on whether it is moral or not is already decided. The real practical question is: is it "the hill" you want to die on? Or risk the lives of your children?

We, humans, are resilient creatures. Even when we "lose it all," if we have each other (meaning family and friends), it is possible to re-build. That is not the case if you, your beloved wife and children are all dead. Does that mean I do not believe in self-defense? Of course I believe in self-defense! But what it means is that, given the choice between "retreat" that will increase the odd of my family's survival and "fight" that will diminish it, I will always choose the former. I will only fight if there is no other alternative. This isn't from some bunny-hugging feeling about the criminals, but rather from cold, calculating analysis about the odds of survival.

Skorzeny

[Chocolate_Hostage]

First I'd like to say howdy its my first post! Now to get busy. I like what "Art Eatman" said, everyword!! Criminals are slime from the petty shoplifter to mass murderer. I have no remorse. Only thing I could add would be the use of a "drop gun" if you chose to use deadly force and the perp was unarmed. It may sound wierd but the first time I ever heard of this was in Police Academy. I like to fell out of the chair when the instructor told the class what it was. If the police use them why cant you? Welcome to the real world! -C.H.

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

I'll second what LoneRanger and ctdonath said. The thief isn't just stealing your money, he is stealing the hours out of your life that you worked to pay for what was stolen. It isn't "just property"- that property is a represetation of your achievements in life, and a representation of your values. In stealing from you, It is as though the thief is saying, "You exist to serve me!" This view is no different from any tyrant in history. Theft is an attack upon your values, upon your liberty, and upon your person, and therefore should be dealt with as such.

[Spectre]

No "warrior prince" am I. If I retreat before an encroaching mob, though, how many others will suffer whatever fate the mob means for me? How many of the mob is willing to die to make off with my earthly possessions? How am I to "know" that simple breaking and "peaceful" entering is all on their mind?

I think an approaching mob might be one of the few times I could feel a warning shot is in order- after which, I firmly believe I would fire upon any individual in the group who continued to advance in my direction. Molon Labe, indeed!

[AAChang]

Personally, I think that just a show of force would be enough to deter most looters, such as standing outside with a shotgun, but my question is, if that doesn't stop them, and you can't shoot them, are you legally allowed to beat the F@&K out of them instead?

[CSOs ROCK]

Remind me NEVER to piss any of you guys off!!!

WOW!

[Karsten]

Edited to suit Erick

[Edited by Karsten on 01-27-2001 at 02:44 AM]

[Skorzeny]

Thankfully, I have not been in a riot in this country. However, during my extended travels and residence in other countries, I have been in the midst of several riots (both economic and political in nature), and that experience prompted me to do some research on riots, particularly about the LA riots.

The nature of mass psychology of mobs being what it is, it is very unpredictable to determine what the mob will or will not do if confronted by active resistance. The outcome really depends on many factors, including how organized each side is (both "attack" and "defense"), how they are armed, the nature of the "triggering" events, presence (or lack of) "leaders" among the rioters, etc. etc.

During my foreign stays, I have observed a riot during which a couple hundred riot police/military officers (armed with tear gas and rubber bullets) were overwhelmed by several hundred rioters armed with nothing but a few molotov cocktails and sticks in what can only be described as a "bloodlust." On the other side of the scale, I have also seen hundreds of rioters "quelled" by a dozen police officers in another incident.

What I am getting at is that mass psychology of a mob is a highly unpredictable thing. You cannot ALWAYS count on a few warning shots or "I am taking the first ten of you with me" attitude to save the day. Sometimes it works and cowers the looters/rioters into retreat or dispersion. Other times, it may incite them into a frenzy of "revenge" particularly during "race" riots.

Again, would you be willing to take that chance and put your family in the midst of all that chatoic violence in order to save your property, particularly when it is possible to evacuate the area? Some of you may be, and I do wish you and your families luck, but I am not. My family is the most important thing to me in the world. I've given up ridiculously generous employment opportunities to be together with my family. I personally am willing to lose my belongings many times over and start again if it means that the chance of my family survival will increase several orders of magnitude during bouts of chaotic violence.

I suppose that, in the end, we all have to make those choices and live (or die) with the consequences.

Skorzeny

[CSOs ROCK]

Skorzeny -

A very eloquent response. I'm glad to see there are still people out there with strong ties to their families. You have my respect, sir.

[Spectre]

wow! great post, Skorzeny.

[Watchman]

There IS an option to shooting people charging thru your door.

You dont really want to stack em up do you ? Too many legall issues to deal with.

However...you cant just let the punks have run of the place either.

The option is rubber buck shot. Hurts like heck, and will deter most people. When they are shot with it , it leaves big blue bruises all over them. If they persist, you can legally say that you used a less than lethal detterant, and you did all you could do to prevent harm. Just be advised that at less than 20 feet , it could still be lethal.

Police have been using it with very good results. It takes the fight right out of people, and they live to apologize for their temporary stupidity.

I dare say if you got charged by punks and you delieved a few rounds of rubber buck shot to them, you would never see them again and there would be NO legal issues to deal with by anti-gun laywers. Its a win -win situation.

[HankB]

Skorzeny wrote:

. . . Korean-American shopkeepers (sometimes an entire family of them) attempted to defend the stores with firearms, but were overpowered or forced to retreat and abandon the premises...

An organized horde of determined aggressors CAN overrun a few armed people. But against an unorganized rabble of looters, I find it hard to accept that an entire family of armed & determined shop owners would be forced to retreat. Unless they were NOT all well armed, or NOT really determined, and hoped a mere "show of force" would scare the rioters off...and the mob picked up on that. At the very least, I'd think a fusillade of gunfire would leave the first wave or two "stacked up" just inside the door..but I never heard of this happening.

Which leads to my next question, for those of you living in California: According to the media, around 60 people died in LA's Rodney King riots. But I've NEVER seen any demographics on the victims. Were they mostly innocuous victims like Reginald Denney, or were they mostly rioters who picked on the wrong victim? What percentage of the deceased had prior convictions?

[CSOs ROCK]

I never thought of using rubber shot.
An excellent suggestion. I guess I need to go get a shotgun, huh?

[Skorzeny]

CSOs Rock and Spectre:

Thank you for the compliments. Not to be off topic, but I think that too many people put careers and money ahead of what's really important - wife (or husband) and children - and do not realize that, at the end, the only thing you really have is the love of your family. Personally, I don't intend to let that slip through in pursuit of money (don't get me wrong, I like the things that money can buy just as much as the next person).

I hear people often talking about "making up time later." I don't believe in that. Time lost is time lost and cannot be "made up" later. I don't intend to lose time with my family. So I am willing to give up lucrative jobs in return. If that means I have a less expensive car or a smaller house, so be it.

HankB:

In many cases, riots are not monolithic in nature. Meaning, they are not always made up of mindless, violent looters OR highly organized groups.

Usually, it is a mix of the two. There are well-organized cells with various agenda during riots (with motives ranging from killing cops and firefighters to attacking ethnic rivals or scapegoats). Layered around them is usually the mass of opportunistic looters and thugs, who are simply along for the ride to steal TVs and shoes.

Also, looters (whether of the first or second variety) do not always line up and charge into the store like so many mindless zombies in video games. With only 4 or 5 to defend a store in a highly exposed area, 10-20 armed thugs among 100-200 looters can easily overwhelm even the most determined defenders. In the case of the Korean-American family I tangentially discussed earlier, most members of the family were hurt from gunfire and had to retreat (together, of course). The store was then looted and burned.

BTW, from some grapevine, I heard a rumor that the Korean-American merchants in the hard-hit areas (those who remained, that is) have surreptiously organized for area defense and prepared contingency plans, which include positioning earthmoving equipment to block vehicle traffic along major avenues into their areas and stationing volunteer teams of snipers to block foot traffic.

It could just be a rumor, but if true, it does sound like they learned some lessons - mainly that active and organized defense by the whole neighborhood is better than disorganized groups fighting on their own in each block. Certainly some of the merchants I spoke to pointedly told me about their determination not to be "the shield for wealthy white neighborhoods."

Lastly, I found out that the Korean-American community in LA have made a concerted effort to reach out to the African-Americans in the area "in an effort to bridge the ethnic chasm and bring understanding between the two groups."

Certainly worthy efforts, though the effectiveness remains to be seen.

Skorzeny

[CSOs ROCK]

My dad's store was one of those looted.

I know nothing of a "deal" or "pact" to protect fellow businesses. He would share that type of info too.

Then again... I don't know of many other Korean businesses around my dad's store.