Rioting in the USA and Brixton
Lord Limbic
at the shooting of a black man or thugs using the shooting as an excuse to riot and attack whites? is it a
mixture of both?
These American race riots appear to follow a familiar pattern: The police hurt or kill a black man. There is a
protest. The black 'protesters' start attacking white passers-by and motorists (women included), the police
flood the streets. The protesters spend several days burning down their own neighbourhoods and looting local
stores. The rioting stops when the National Guard steps in. The Federal government rushes huge amounts of money
through emergency budgets to 'rebuild' the areas.
As this week is the 20th anniversary of our very own Brixton riots of 1981, perhaps some of you can explain a
few things:
Firstly,
It seems the black community - both here and in the USA - appear to be more prone to civil disturbances than
other minorities or whites. Is this true and if so why is this?
Is the threat of rioting an acceptable political weapon ( used both here and the USA for example, to argue for
more leniency from the police)?
Secondly,
Sociologists say there are essentially three political schools of thought on riots and rioting: The
'conservative' , 'liberal' and the 'radical' perspectives.
The conservative perspective states that riots are rare and needless. They are conducted by riff-raff - the
most worthless sections of society. Rioters are criminals motivated by bloodlust and greed - 'not a cry for
help but a cry for loot' . This perspective focuses on individual wilful behaviour and the weakness and
gullibility of people and holds that 'crowd behaviour' turns ordinarily sane citizens into barbarians. Social
disorganisation caused by immigration or upheaval is blamed for making riots easier to start.
There is some emphasis of race, with immigrant being blamed for not respecting law and order (e.g. Peter Emery
MP "The vast majority of people expect the precepts of anglo-saxon behaviour and of law and order to be
maintained. These standards must be maintained, despite what other ethnic minorities want."). Another view
representing this perspective is that of Kenneth Oxford, Chief Constable of Merseyside during on the Toxteth
riots of 1985 when he a "This is not a racial issue as such. It is exclusively a crowd of black hooligans
intent on making life unbearable and indulging in criminal activities". Another aspect of this perspective is
the idea of moral decline and degeneracy being a contributing factor. Lack of respect for law & order -
attributed to parents (especially 1960s parents) and teachers (especially 'trendy teachers') is seen a major
causative factor. This view also encompasses the 'conspiracy theory' view that riots are engineered by
extremists and subversives.
The liberal perspective sees riots are inevitable in certain circumstances. It concentrate on 'basic flaws' in
society - social injustice; inadequate institutions; unfair distribution of resources and power as explanations
for riots. Riots are a consequence of 'perceived injustice'. "It is not what a man outwardly has or wants that
constitutes the happiness or misery of him .. it is the feeling of injustice which is insupportable to all men"
Carlyle. Factors leading to this perceived injustice include racial discrimination; increased
policing/repression; improper police conduct and perceived injustice in the courts.
The radical perspective sees
It see riots as rational, purposeful actions by those excluded from power. Like liberals, riots are a
consequence of 'perceived injustice'. Riots are considered legitimate & effective method of protest by
disadvantaged groups - 'collective bargaining by riot'. It also see riots as dramatic warning signals to
society.*
It seems all riot hot spots seem to have a similar cocktail of ingredients: unemployment, deprivation , racial
disadvantage & discrimination (perceived), political exclusion and police 'provocation'. As the Scarman Report
into the Brixton Riots said - "Racial disadvantage is a fact of current British life. It was, I am equally
sure, a significant factor in the causation of the Brixton disorders..." .
How do the members of this forum see urban riots? Riff-raff, 'liberal' or conservative?
Regards
Lord Limbic
*The above was summarised(ish) from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/303/303Riots.html
Col
"Lord Limbic" <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b9i38$8cqpr$1...@ID-58787.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>
> How do the members of this forum see urban riots? Riff-raff, 'liberal' or
conservative?
>
I see them as a combination of liberal and riff-raff.
Riots seems to start with a genuine grievence against the establishment,
then spiral out of control as the criminal element takes advantage of the
situation. I think the 1981 Toxteth riot started with with the arrest of a black
man over a relitively innocuous offence.
Col
--
You say I have lost my belief in the politicians
They all seem like gameshow hosts to me.
rifleman1
poor , run down coucil estate in the North East , crime was there but it was
trivial, we would never have rioted because the destruction would have been
to what little resources we had and would have achieved nowt, The
mainreasons for the ethnics to riot is to gain material wealth via looting.
They rioters should be arrested made to clean up the mess to others peoples
property then forced to live in the deriliction they caused to there own
residences and neighbourhoods. If that dont work and they are of immigrant
stcok then de nationalise them and send em packing.
Flashy
then talk about getting 'respect'. Yeah, right, not in this lifetime !
Flashy
Flashy
[ DeepFix ] wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:06:40 +0100, "Lord Limbic"
><limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>How do the members of this forum see urban riots? Riff-raff, 'liberal' or
conservative?
>
>Oh you forgot the fourth category, Police Riot, whereby a peaceful
>demonstration is surrounded by aggressive tooled up police hooligans
>and squeezed into an ever decreasing area. Any attempt at self defence
>by the crowd, fearing crushing, is seen as a justifiable reason for
>the police to attack them more vigorously.
>
>Add agent provocateurs whether police or army, throwing traffic cones
>at their colleagues and you've got a nice little 'riot' for the Sunday
>papers.
>
>Consume. Be silent. Diet.
>--
>DeepFix www.synthetic.org.uk ICQ #31621818
>
>"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
rifleman1
think apartheid may have something going for it. R
Lord Limbic
"[ DeepFix ]" <dee...@synthetic.spam.org.uk> wrote in message
news:p5pgdtcmkc1b2is0c...@4ax.com...
>
Oops.... your right. Did you notice that *all* the riot scenarios or 'perspectives' include police action as a
vital ingredient?
Regards
Lord Limbic
Gatsha Buthelezi
news:p5pgdtcmkc1b2is0c...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:06:40 +0100, "Lord Limbic"
> <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
conservative?
>
> demonstration is surrounded by aggressive tooled up police hooligans
> and squeezed into an ever decreasing area. Any attempt at self defence
> by the crowd, fearing crushing, is seen as a justifiable reason for
> the police to attack them more vigorously.
My experience of a police riot:
I was at the demonstration in Euston against privatisation of the London
Underground. About one thousand people turned up and several speeches were
made, all directly against privatisation of the health service, transport,
etc. It was just a month or so after the Paddington disaster, so it was a
pretty poignant issue. Also, it was held on the same day as the march
against the WTO in Seattle. After the speeches, people began to disburse,
only to find the entire station was surrounded by police and we couldn't
leave. I stood around near the police front-line and after a while a dozen
or so punk-types started throwing bottles at the police. We were then
charged at and ran. It was quite a frightening situation as there were few
places to run to. When the police withdrew their lines after their various
charges they left behind a fair number of injured people. One man had a
broken collar bone and I was trying to get him to the ambulance, but the
police told me to '**** off'. One woman was laying on the ground with a
broken leg and I found out later that she was a Daily Mail journalist. It
was a scene of carnage. About six men with balaclavas on set light to an
unmarked police surveillance van which had been abandoned. There were quite
a few demonstrators trying to stop them, but they were pushed away and
thumped. I eventually got to speak to a more senior officer and showed her
my press card and managed to get away. Those left behind were forced to have
their photos taken, their details taken, etc, even if they had not taken
part in the original bottle throwing and there was no proof that they were
violent.
I have seen other rather disturbing acts of violence by the police which are
overly heavily handed and inflame people's feelings.
> Add agent provocateurs whether police or army, throwing traffic cones
> at their colleagues and you've got a nice little 'riot' for the Sunday
> papers.
I think this might be true, although there is no doubt in my mind that there
are some thugs who go along to a demonstration for a fight, just like
football hooligans. Just because there are a tiny minority of violent idiots
in a demo does not mean that all those who attend for genuine reasons are
violent - football has a small militia of hooligans who destroy the game.
gaz
"[ DeepFix ]" <dee...@synthetic.spam.org.uk> wrote in message
news:p5pgdtcmkc1b2is0c...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:06:40 +0100, "Lord Limbic"
> <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
conservative?
>
> demonstration is surrounded by aggressive tooled up police hooligans
> and squeezed into an ever decreasing area. Any attempt at self defence
> by the crowd, fearing crushing, is seen as a justifiable reason for
> the police to attack them more vigorously.
>
> at their colleagues and you've got a nice little 'riot' for the Sunday
> papers.
Any examples of such a riot?
Gaz
Trampus
along with a cigarette lighter could prove more useful than a press card,
allegedly.!¬
The air freshener could disperse the smell of fear and you could always
light your cigarettes.
Lets see a press card do any of those things.?
"Gatsha Buthelezi" <gat...@globalisation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9baphj$7cq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Lord Limbic
"Gatsha Buthelezi" <gat...@globalisation.org.uk> wrote in message news:9baphj$7cq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> news:p5pgdtcmkc1b2is0c...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:06:40 +0100, "Lord Limbic"
> > <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >How do the members of this forum see urban riots? Riff-raff, 'liberal' or
> conservative?
> >
> > Oh you forgot the fourth category, Police Riot, whereby a peaceful
> > demonstration is surrounded by aggressive tooled up police hooligans
> > and squeezed into an ever decreasing area. Any attempt at self defence
> > by the crowd, fearing crushing, is seen as a justifiable reason for
> > the police to attack them more vigorously.
>
> My experience of a police riot:
Gatsha, haven't you seen any township action? 13-year-old's with Molotov's throwing under covering fire from
AK-47's. The cops here don't even use the old favourite of the South African Police - a 40mm baton round
replaced by an alkaline battery and fired out of a blooper grenade launcher....tended to imbed shards of tin in
the victim as well as splash them with corrosive alkaline solution. Necklacing, Molotov's, AK's, R4's...boy
those were the days.....
Those were riots...these folks, hopefully, will never see them here.
Regards
Lord Limbic
Gatsha Buthelezi
news:422C6.3416$xA.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> I am not a racist, I do not believe in racial violence, I am begining to
> think apartheid may have something going for it. R
Of course, apartheid was not racist and did not involve violence! Get real!
You are really starting to sound absurd. When blacks refused to carry the
passes issued by their National Party oppressors, they were beaten or
murdered - shored up by computer systems built by IBM. Meanwhile, blacks
were confined to ghettoes when they weren't made to produce the diamonds for
the Western wedding rings which kept violent minority rule afloat. Anyway,
rifleman, your 'freedom and liberty' credentials are betrayed by an
underlying tawdry fascist mentality.
Gatsha Buthelezi
> Gatsha, haven't you seen any township action?
No, I haven't.
> 13-year-old's with Molotov's throwing under covering fire from
> AK-47's. The cops here don't even use the old favourite of the South
African Police - a 40mm baton round
> replaced by an alkaline battery and fired out of a blooper grenade
launcher....tended to imbed shards of tin in
> the victim as well as splash them with corrosive alkaline solution.
Necklacing, Molotov's, AK's, R4's...boy
> those were the days.....
>
> Those were riots...these folks, hopefully, will never see them here.
Let's hope not.
Steve Frazer
> It seems the black community - both here and in the USA - appear to be
more prone to civil disturbances than
> other minorities or whites. Is this true and if so why is this?
It seems so does it? How many riots have we had in this country? Why do you
think that blacks are more prone to civil disturbance? The 'black' riot you
mention was 20 years ago. What of the Poll Tax riots, animal rights
protests, anti-abortionists, etc? Why are you trying to equate the
situation in Cincinnati with the UK when the circumstances are so very
different?
--
Steve
"Pity the man who knows his insignificance,
Pity the man who doesn't"
http://members.nbci.com/steve_frazer/
Maria
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Gatsha Buthelezi" <gat...@globalisation.org.uk> wrote in message news:9baphj$7cq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> [ DeepFix ] <dee...@synthetic.spam.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:p5pgdtcmkc1b2is0c...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:06:40 +0100, "Lord Limbic"
>> > <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >How do the members of this forum see urban riots? Riff-raff, 'liberal' or
>> conservative?
>> >
>> > Oh you forgot the fourth category, Police Riot, whereby a peaceful
>> > demonstration is surrounded by aggressive tooled up police hooligans
>> > and squeezed into an ever decreasing area. Any attempt at self defence
>> > by the crowd, fearing crushing, is seen as a justifiable reason for
>> > the police to attack them more vigorously.
>>
>> My experience of a police riot:
>
>Gatsha, haven't you seen any township action? 13-year-old's with Molotov's throwing under covering fire from
>AK-47's. The cops here don't even use the old favourite of the South African Police - a 40mm baton round
>replaced by an alkaline battery and fired out of a blooper grenade launcher....tended to imbed shards of tin in
>the victim as well as splash them with corrosive alkaline solution. Necklacing, Molotov's, AK's, R4's...boy
>those were the days.....
>
>Those were riots...these folks, hopefully, will never see them here.
Who was the target of the rioters?
>
>
Maria
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As this week is the 20th anniversary of our very own Brixton riots of 1981
Can I just point out here that many of the widespread riots of the
early '80s seem to be remembered as 'race riots'; I lived in Bedford
at the time, and although there is a large black contingency in
Bedford, the rioters and looters were mixed if not predominantly white
(and AFAIK were certainly not fighting one another....brothers in arms
when it comes to busting windows and nicking tellies).
I don't know about other cities.
Maria
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"[ DeepFix ]" <dee...@synthetic.spam.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:p5pgdtcmkc1b2is0c...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:06:40 +0100, "Lord Limbic"
>> <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How do the members of this forum see urban riots? Riff-raff, 'liberal' or conservative?
>>
>> Oh you forgot the fourth category, Police Riot,
>
>Oops.... your right. Did you notice that *all* the riot scenarios or 'perspectives' include police action as a
>vital ingredient?
That suggests to me that riot is a statement of protest/outrage since
the necessary ingredient (an audience/target, in the form of the
police) is present.
It rather reminds me of a child that throws tantrums but only when it
knows that someone is watching, otherwise, why bother?
rifleman1
> rifleman1 <rifl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:422C6.3416$xA.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > I am not a racist, I do not believe in racial violence, I am begining to
> > think apartheid may have something going for it. R
>
> Of course, apartheid was not racist and did not involve violence!
Proper apartheid is simply the segrigation of different cultures, races or
tribes, violence is not needed.The south African system was a bit flawed.
Get real!
> You are really starting to sound absurd. When blacks refused to carry the
> passes issued by their National Party oppressors, they were beaten or
> murdered - shored up by computer systems built by IBM.
Whats wrong with obeying the law of the land, you have attacked me for
wanting to go against it in the UK, is it different when its in your
interests to break the law, if the broke the law the got fair punishment by
african standards.
Since the wonderful Negros gained independence is South africa and Rhodesia
and in every other ex colony the blacks have resorted to simple tribal
uncivilised caveman type behavoir attacking the few whites daft enough to
stay their to support the economy,Being a dumb fool I can see that no matter
who does what or who is in chagre you will blame your former masters
for the state of your home continent.
Your race may be genetically similar to ours but your intelects are still to
primative for civilised behavoir.
Meanwhile, blacks
> were confined to ghettoes when they weren't made to produce the diamonds
for
> the Western wedding rings which kept violent minority rule afloat.
They are no good for anything else, simply to badly educated and mentally
incapable of being anything more than peasants, Any african who does gain
enough inteligence to crawl out of the gutter uses that small amount of
knowledge to run away from his home country and come and scrounge of us.
No body forced them to work there, they could hasve done what they always do
which is to live like animals in mud huts, whilst the rest of the world
became civilised.
Anyway,
> rifleman, your 'freedom and liberty' credentials are betrayed by an
> underlying tawdry fascist mentality.
Freedom and Liberty are for people who work for it, not standing around
waiting for it as a gift.
>
> One of the last posts that came in before I dropped you.
Maria
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>With reference to the recent rioting in Cincinnati, are the riots there an understandable outpouring of anger
>at the shooting of a black man or thugs using the shooting as an excuse to riot and attack whites? is it a
>mixture of both?
Rioting is a backlash against the establishment; population, material
wealth and control thereof etc. I'm sure some people probaby get off
on it.
>
>These American race riots appear to follow a familiar pattern: The police hurt or kill a black man.
In Cincinatti, 15 black men since 1995.
>There is a
>protest. The black 'protesters' start attacking white passers-by and motorists (women included), the police
>flood the streets. The protesters spend several days burning down their own neighbourhoods and looting local
>stores. The rioting stops when the National Guard steps in. The Federal government rushes huge amounts of money
>through emergency budgets to 'rebuild' the areas.
>
>As this week is the 20th anniversary of our very own Brixton riots of 1981, perhaps some of you can explain a
>few things:
>
>Firstly,
>
>It seems the black community - both here and in the USA - appear to be more prone to civil disturbances than
>other minorities or whites. Is this true and if so why is this?
Perhaps they really are subject to a greater proportion of civil
rights abuses and injustices?
Perhaps white people are more benign and able/prepared to accept/live
with civil rights abuses? (The latter certainly seems that way in
Britain)
Perhaps back people have longer memories?
>Is the threat of rioting an acceptable political weapon ( used both here and the USA for example, to argue for
>more leniency from the police)?
What else is there for a population that does not seem to have much of
a political voice in the US?
Perhaps in the end it depends on motivation; certainly white people
seem able to inflict serious damage when they are so motivated to do
so (see Global Economics riots and football riots).
See below for recent rioting in Switzerland.
Maria
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Lord Limbic <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9b9i38$8cqpr$1...@ID-58787.news.dfncis.de...
>> It seems the black community - both here and in the USA - appear to be
>more prone to civil disturbances than
>> other minorities or whites. Is this true and if so why is this?
>
>It seems so does it? How many riots have we had in this country? Why do you
>think that blacks are more prone to civil disturbance? The 'black' riot you
>mention was 20 years ago. What of the Poll Tax riots, animal rights
>protests, anti-abortionists, etc? Why are you trying to equate the
>situation in Cincinnati with the UK when the circumstances are so very
>different?
I have some sympathy with this view; the man shot dead in Cincinatti
was guilty of driving without a licence. This kind of thing does not
tend to happen here, the worst thing seems to be the death of blacks
in custody in this country, but then nothing much can be proven.
Carl
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
news:3ad9723e...@news.ntlworld.com...
>The worst thing seems to be the death of blacks
> in custody in this country, but then nothing much can be proven.
This happens to white people too. Should there be a massive outcry/riot when
this happens to white people too? If not, why not?
I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in my
body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing that
happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin. Frankly,
it's offensive and wrong.
OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are often
suspected earlier.
I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even if
that is not the manner they were written in.
Carl
Maria
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>news:3ad9723e...@news.ntlworld.com...
>>The worst thing seems to be the death of blacks
>> in custody in this country, but then nothing much can be proven.
>
>
>This happens to white people too. Should there be a massive outcry/riot when
>this happens to white people too? If not, why not?
Of course there should.
Here's one about a man who was shot by police because they thought a
table leg was a shotgun: dunno what colour he was.
Here's another, but I don't suppose anyone card because he was a
bombing suspect;
Here's one about an Algerian in Paris:
Here's one about a soldier who pointed an air rifle at police and was
shot:
Yes it happens; you tell me why white people take it lying down?
Perhaps they thought that they deserved what they got in some way.
Isn't one British view that there is 'no smoke without fire'?
But the suggestion that white people don't riot is not true; they just
*seem* to be motivated by other things, at least in this country. OTOH
if you go to the Electronic Telegraph web site and search for 'riot',
you will find several instances of white people rioting.
>I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in my
>body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing that
>happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin. Frankly,
>it's offensive and wrong.
The problem is that a lot of what happens to a black person *is* on
account of the colour of their skin.
Why do people keep trying to deny this?
>OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
>proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are often
>suspected earlier.
I disagree; I don't know where you get your figures from, but I've
read people saying that since the number of blacks in prison is a
greater proportion of the general population than the number of whites
in prison, they must be committing a greater proportion of the crime.
Not so, if they are more likely to be caught, brought to trial, given
a custodial sentence, etc etc. The number of people in prison does not
equal the number of people who have committed a crime.
>I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even if
>that is not the manner they were written in.
No; I would like to know however, why *you* think unjustified white
killings *should* have no fuss made about them.
Steve Frazer
news:9bbtgt$qg3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
> I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in my
> body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing that
> happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin.
Frankly,
> it's offensive and wrong.
> OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
> proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
often
> suspected earlier.
It would help if you quoted the statistics accurately then........... the
recorded crime levels for blacks are higher proportionally than the number
of blacks in society, not that they commit a higher proportion of crime than
whites. A big difference. Whites commit many many crimes than non-whites
simply because there are so many more whites than non-whites. Asians and
Chinese people have less recorded crime than the % population would indicate
as 'normal'.
Then ask yourself dozens of questions as to why crime is and isn't recorded,
why blacks commit less burglaries, etc. It is so much more complicaetd than
'race'. Most crimes are by young men and drugs are a factor in a great
number of crimes. This is more important than 'race'.
> I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even
if
> that is not the manner they were written in.
Just be more accurate in your presentation of 'statistics'.
Gatsha Buthelezi
>
> "Gatsha Buthelezi" <gat...@globalisation.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:9basj8$fi0$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > rifleman1 <rifl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:422C6.3416$xA.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > > I am not a racist, I do not believe in racial violence, I am begining
to
> > > think apartheid may have something going for it. R
> >
> > Of course, apartheid was not racist and did not involve violence!
>
> Proper apartheid is simply the segrigation of different cultures, races or
> tribes, violence is not needed.The south African system was a bit flawed.
Apartheid was a policy invented and implemented in South Africa - it is an
Afrikaans word. Now it is used to represent any system where one group has
less rights than another - the Deep South of the US, Northern Ireland under
the Stormont regime, Israel/Palestine, Tibet, etc, etc.
> Get real!
> > You are really starting to sound absurd. When blacks refused to carry
the
> > passes issued by their National Party oppressors, they were beaten or
> > murdered - shored up by computer systems built by IBM.
>
> Whats wrong with obeying the law of the land, you have attacked me for
> wanting to go against it in the UK, is it different when its in your
> interests to break the law, if the broke the law the got fair punishment
by
> african standards.
It was resisted because the law was being dictated by a racial minority and
it was an injust law. The movement that advocated the refusal to carry
passes was begun by Mohandas Ghandi when he was a South African lawyer. It
was a method of passive resistance that was met with brutal violence.
Anybody who justifies it is a fascist.
> Since the wonderful Negros gained independence is South africa and
Rhodesia
> and in every other ex colony the blacks have resorted to simple tribal
> uncivilised caveman type behavoir attacking the few whites daft enough to
> stay their to support the economy
You know nothing about Africa apart from the crap you read in the Sun.
> Your race may be genetically similar to ours but your intelects are still
to
> primative for civilised behavoir.
You are a racist bigot and I am glad that the end of your commission meant
there was one less fascist in the British Army.
Xavier
Maria <pl...@plonk.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3ad9723e...@news.ntlworld.com...
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:19:18 +0100, "Steve Frazer"
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >Lord Limbic <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9b9i38$8cqpr$1...@ID-58787.news.dfncis.de...
> >> It seems the black community - both here and in the USA - appear to be
> >more prone to civil disturbances than
> >> other minorities or whites. Is this true and if so why is this?
> >
> >It seems so does it? How many riots have we had in this country? Why do
you
> >think that blacks are more prone to civil disturbance? The 'black' riot
you
> >mention was 20 years ago. What of the Poll Tax riots, animal rights
> >protests, anti-abortionists, etc? Why are you trying to equate the
> >situation in Cincinnati with the UK when the circumstances are so very
> >different?
>
> I have some sympathy with this view; the man shot dead in Cincinatti
> was guilty of driving without a licence.
Are you trying to say this is a evil crime that deserves this punishment.?
Xavier.
rifleman1
> Lord Limbic <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Gatsha, haven't you seen any township action?
>
> No, I haven't.
>
of going home and sorting out his own.
Maria
wrote:
>
>Maria <pl...@plonk.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
>3ad9723e...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:19:18 +0100, "Steve Frazer"
>> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Lord Limbic <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9b9i38$8cqpr$1...@ID-58787.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> It seems the black community - both here and in the USA - appear to be
>> >more prone to civil disturbances than
>> >> other minorities or whites. Is this true and if so why is this?
>> >
>> >It seems so does it? How many riots have we had in this country? Why do
>you
>> >think that blacks are more prone to civil disturbance? The 'black' riot
>you
>> >mention was 20 years ago. What of the Poll Tax riots, animal rights
>> >protests, anti-abortionists, etc? Why are you trying to equate the
>> >situation in Cincinnati with the UK when the circumstances are so very
>> >different?
>>
>> I have some sympathy with this view; the man shot dead in Cincinatti
>> was guilty of driving without a licence.
>
>Are you trying to say this is a evil crime that deserves this punishment.?
>
Sorry...I do not believe that any driving offence warrants being shot,
particularly if the person is unarmed.
Xavier
Carl <*@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
9bbtgt$qg3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
> news:3ad9723e...@news.ntlworld.com...
> >The worst thing seems to be the death of blacks
> > in custody in this country, but then nothing much can be proven.
>
>
> This happens to white people too. Should there be a massive outcry/riot
when
> this happens to white people too? If not, why not?
> I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in my
> body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing that
> happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin.
Agreed
Frankly,
> it's offensive and wrong.
> OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
> proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
often
> suspected earlier.
This may be cuz the wealth and education STATISTICS do show that blacks have
lower proportion of education and wealth.That would explain why they are
often overreacting the way they do. Does it?
> I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even
if
> that is not the manner they were written in.
Not by me at least.
Xavier.
>
> Carl
>
>
Xavier
Cuz even if some times it does,it does not mean allways, and they do use
every single opportunity to victimize them selves.That's what take them
credibility away.Note, I do not say it never happends, but I have proff that
avery single action a white takes against an other non white is used by them
to obtain benefices regardless of the motive.I have posted this proff I had
about it in this news group."not all presents are guilty, but not all guilty
are present".
This sentence counts for anybody.
>
> >OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
> >proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
often
> >suspected earlier.
>
> I disagree; I don't know where you get your figures from, but I've
> read people saying that since the number of blacks in prison is a
> greater proportion of the general population than the number of whites
> in prison, they must be committing a greater proportion of the crime.
> Not so, if they are more likely to be caught, brought to trial, given
> a custodial sentence, etc etc. The number of people in prison does not
> equal the number of people who have committed a crime.
A percentage does not clear nothing at all.The 100% of nothing is
nothing.The 1 % of 100 is 1.What counts is the number from witch the
percentage is taken.But the reason of it does not reside in the collour of
the people, A wealthy educated Black wont go to riot with he's other
collored fellows does he?
Xavier.
rifleman1
>
> I have some sympathy with this view; the man shot dead in Cincinatti
> was guilty of driving without a licence. This kind of thing does not
> tend to happen here, the worst thing seems to be the death of blacks
> in custody in this country, but then nothing much can be proven.
Horse Radishes, The cops recently hot a chap walking down the street going
about his lawful business ,he had in his possession a chair leg in a carrier
bag that he had just had repaired.
There are dozens of instances of the cops shooting if not killing outright
many innocent people, remember Stephan ??????? who looked similar to a
wanted terrorist, the police shot him to pieces as he sat in his girlfriends
mini, they then tried to frame him. British cops get away with murder at an
astounding rate.
rifleman1
.
> OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
> proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
often
> suspected earlier.
> I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even
if
> that is not the manner they were written in.
>
> Carl
>
people. Rifleman
Cliff Morrison
Aye well, lucky for him he wasn't in posession of a table leg as well.
rifleman1
blacks into the police forces in the US but its seen by many african
americans as selling out to the brotherhood ?, btw 5 of the black chaps shot
in the ohio area were shot by black cops, that gets neatly forgotten though.
Xavier
I was kind of shocked when i readed it cuz it seemed to me like you have
some simpathy with the punishment as well.
Glad to know you haven't.
Trampus
You have obviously never worked many hours overtime to buy yourself a nice
car, as against many old jalopies.
Then woken up to find your chained gates , bolt cutter opened, the loud
speaker on the alarm filled with expanding foam, the steering wheel cut and
your steering wheel car theft arm removed after being wagged from side to
side to break the steering wheel lock.
The car then taken and JOY ridden until it ran out of fuel, the radio
snatched and the car set on fire.
If you could have seen the look of utter despair upon his face, shooting
would have been too good a sentence.
Strangely this story has an extremely good ending.
Three years after this car theft, the name of the perpetrator became known
to my son.
He vowed to maim the bastard and it took a great deal of patience and
moralising before I could talk him out of it.
About a week later,the bastard burgled a near neighbour's home and was
disturbed, he had already opened another window to provide another avenue of
escape should he need it, and so it proved to be.
He jumped a mere eight feet from the window onto a lawned plot, straight
onto the upturned spikes of a rake, both feet spiked instantly, the shock
proved too much and he suffered a heart attack.
The paramedics saved his life, unfortunately, and he eventually recovered.
The problem he has now is that he can barely walk more than a few
feet(he!he!), in saving his life, the hospital missed out his foot problem
and parts of his feet had to be removed subsequently.
He is about five eight and used to wear size eighties, now he wears size
five's, narrow fit.
Carl
> Of course there should.
No, there should be an investigation and people should accept the results.
<SNIP EXAMPLES>
> Yes it happens; you tell me why white people take it lying down?
White people don't assume everyone is out to get them because they are
white.
I don't see 'not rioting' as 'taking it lying down'. People who riot (IMO)
are scum. They should be punnished. They destroy people's property, loot,
harm innocent people. They're animals. I don't care what colour they are, if
they riot, they are scum.
> Perhaps they thought that they deserved what they got in some way.
> Isn't one British view that there is 'no smoke without fire'?
I agree with that. Usually, there is no smoke without fire.
> But the suggestion that white people don't riot is not true;
I never said that.
> they just
> *seem* to be motivated by other things,
Well, i'd say that we don't argue that everyone is out to get us because of
our appearence.
>at least in this country. OTOH
> if you go to the Electronic Telegraph web site and search for 'riot',
> you will find several instances of white people rioting.
Again, i never said white people DON'T riot. The issue is that black people
often make race an issue when it isnt.
> >I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in my
> >body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing
that
> >happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin.
Frankly,
> >it's offensive and wrong.
>
> The problem is that a lot of what happens to a black person *is* on
> account of the colour of their skin.
Absolute rubbish. It could be many things, just the same as when something
happens to a white person: they could 'look' at someone the wrong way, be
wearing designer stuff, carrying a mobile etc - i'm certainly not condoning
any of this, i'm simply saying that less people are racist than black people
make out.
> Why do people keep trying to deny this?
Because it isnt the case.
> >OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
> >proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
often
> >suspected earlier.
>
> I disagree; I don't know where you get your figures from,
The home office periodically release such info.
> but I've
> read people saying that since the number of blacks in prison is a
> greater proportion of the general population than the number of whites
> in prison, they must be committing a greater proportion of the crime.
> Not so, if they are more likely to be caught, brought to trial, given
> a custodial sentence, etc etc. The number of people in prison does not
> equal the number of people who have committed a crime.
No. There are a small amount of blacks, they commit a higher percentage of
crime than the same amount of white people. This is indicated in all the
figures and in my experiences. I'm not saying white people don't commit
crime - i know lots of scum who are white and commit crime.
> >I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even
if
> >that is not the manner they were written in.
>
> No; I would like to know however, why *you* think unjustified white
> killings *should* have no fuss made about them.
Because there has been no time for an investigation.
Becuase, no matter what, rioting is wrong.
People jumping to conclusions is wrong.
Carl
Carl
"Steve Frazer" <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:9bc182$8hoj6$1...@ID-19581.news.dfncis.de...
> It would help if you quoted the statistics accurately then........... the
> recorded crime levels for blacks are higher proportionally than the number
> of blacks in society, not that they commit a higher proportion of crime
than
> whites. A big difference. Whites commit many many crimes than non-whites
> simply because there are so many more whites than non-whites. Asians and
> Chinese people have less recorded crime than the % population would
indicate
> as 'normal'.
Appologies ;o) I didn't have the figures to hand. Yes, the figures you are
talking to are the same ones i was referring to.
> Then ask yourself dozens of questions as to why crime is and isn't
recorded,
> why blacks commit less burglaries, etc. It is so much more complicaetd
than
> 'race'. Most crimes are by young men and drugs are a factor in a great
> number of crimes. This is more important than 'race'.
Yes, i know.
> > I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even
> if
> > that is not the manner they were written in.
>
> Just be more accurate in your presentation of 'statistics'.
Yes, sir! ;o)
Carl
Carl
> > Yes Sir, you are a racist for simply raising the issue according to some
> people.
Then those people are self-righteous bigots.
Carl
Carl
"Xavier" <xav...@rendo.dekooi.nl> wrote in message
news:9bc1nt$19v$1...@reservenews.dekooi.nl...
> Are you trying to say this is a evil crime that deserves this punishment.?
Hang on, we still don't have all the facts. For all we know, one of those
officers could have thought his or someone else's life was in danger. In
which case he acted correctly and should recieve a commendation.
OTOH, this *COULD* be race related, and the officer could have acted
illegally, if so, he should face the full penalty of the law.
Carl
Carl
> Sorry...I do not believe that any driving offence warrants being shot,
Depends. If someone attempted to run someone else over (for example), then
an officer would quite right to shoot the driver. We don't know all of the
facts yet, you can't jump to conclusions.
> particularly if the person is unarmed.
How would the officer *KNOW* this person was unarmed? This has to be
considered. Did the officer think there was a risk to himself or someone
else? If so, he had to act.
As i've said in previous posts, if it was race related etc, the officer
deserves a harsh sentance (perhaps death?). Until all the facts are known,
please don't make assumptions like the idiots in cinncinati.
Carl
Carl
"Trampus" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9bc4eu$8p186$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de...
> You have obviously never worked many hours overtime to buy yourself a nice
> car, as against many old jalopies.
> Then woken up to find your chained gates , bolt cutter opened, the loud
> speaker on the alarm filled with expanding foam, the steering wheel cut
and
> your steering wheel car theft arm removed after being wagged from side to
> side to break the steering wheel lock.
> The car then taken and JOY ridden until it ran out of fuel, the radio
> snatched and the car set on fire.
I haven't, i've had the odd window broken etc, i know how frustrating it is.
> If you could have seen the look of utter despair upon his face, shooting
> would have been too good a sentence.
>
> Strangely this story has an extremely good ending.
> Three years after this car theft, the name of the perpetrator became known
> to my son.
> He vowed to maim the bastard and it took a great deal of patience and
> moralising before I could talk him out of it.
I'd have found it difficult to stop myself - of course i would have 'cos i'm
a rational human but these scum do deserve whatever happens to them.
> About a week later,the bastard burgled a near neighbour's home and was
> disturbed, he had already opened another window to provide another avenue
of
> escape should he need it, and so it proved to be.
> He jumped a mere eight feet from the window onto a lawned plot, straight
> onto the upturned spikes of a rake, both feet spiked instantly, the shock
> proved too much and he suffered a heart attack.
> The paramedics saved his life, unfortunately, and he eventually recovered.
> The problem he has now is that he can barely walk more than a few
> feet(he!he!), in saving his life, the hospital missed out his foot problem
> and parts of his feet had to be removed subsequently.
Excellent. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. The only sad bit:
Our taxes went into saving and repairing his life.
We probably pay this shit disability allowances..
..he's probably got a car on motability and gets everything free..(makes
your blood boil)
Carl
rifleman1
coffee shop one morning , he was looking at a story of how three young men
had been killed in a stolen toyota Landcruiser, and said what a tragic
waste, I said cinically " What the damage to the motor ?
No he replied it was a 7 seater if god had been kind we could have got rid
of seven of em in one go.
Xavier
to the case it self..She has all ready pointed she didn't meaned it that
way.
Xavier.
> Carl
>
>
Maria
Yes you're right. I admit that my original perception was flawed; I
truly believed that these things do not happen here, until I started
in this thread and read all those reports which I posted earlier
(including the incident that you mention).
So where *is* the outrage? Where are the threads in uk.politics.misc
entitled 'Cop shoots innocent man carrying table leg'?
Perhaps the reason why no-one has made a fuss is because like me,
their perception was that it doesn't happen here (because nobody ever
mentions it...)
Maria
See my reply to rifleman.
Carl
> Yes i know that.I was refearing to the sentence wroted by Marie rather
that
> to the case it self..She has all ready pointed she didn't meaned it that
> way.
Thought so ;o)
Carl
Carl
> Yes you're right. I admit that my original perception was flawed; I
> truly believed that these things do not happen here, until I started
> in this thread and read all those reports which I posted earlier
> (including the incident that you mention).
>
> So where *is* the outrage? Where are the threads in uk.politics.misc
> entitled 'Cop shoots innocent man carrying table leg'?
>
> Perhaps the reason why no-one has made a fuss is because like me,
> their perception was that it doesn't happen here (because nobody ever
> mentions it...)
C'mon. A table leg, in a bag, would easily look like a shotgun. If he was
confronted and acted unusually, it's to be expected i'm afraid. The police
arent going to risk their lives or those of the public.
It seems this was a tragic accident which couldn't really have been
prevented.
Carl
Maria
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>news:3ad98b9c...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>> Sorry...I do not believe that any driving offence warrants being shot,
>
>Depends. If someone attempted to run someone else over (for example), then
>an officer would quite right to shoot the driver. We don't know all of the
>facts yet, you can't jump to conclusions.
http://www.cincinnatipolice.org/press/2001/200135.pdf
#35 - 04/10/01 Contact Person:
Kathy A. Tscheiner Lt. Roger Wolf
Public Information Office Criminal Investigation Section
352-6465
For Immediate Release
WITNESSES TO SHOOTING SOUGHT
The Cincinnati Police Division is requesting witnesses to the April 7
shooting
of Timothy Thomas at 13 th and Republic Streets to contact the
Cincinnati Police
Division Homicide Unit on 352-6465 or 352-3542.
Mr. Thomas was recognized by Cincinnati Police Officers as a person
wanted
for 14 traffic and misdemeanor capiases. After a foot pursuit ending
at 1230 Republic
Street Officer Steven Roach confronted Mr. Thomas and the officer
fired one shot.
Mr. Thomas was pronounced dead at University Hospital. The Cincinnati
Police
Division Homicide Unit is conducting the investigation and is
requesting anyone with
information to call.
###END###
Col. Thomas H. Streicher, Jr.
Police Chief Public Information Office
352-3515
-------------------------------------------
I believe one of the other 'misdemeanors' was that he was not wearing
a seat belt...
>
>> particularly if the person is unarmed.
>
>How would the officer *KNOW* this person was unarmed? This has to be
>considered. Did the officer think there was a risk to himself or someone
>else? If so, he had to act.
Well yes...that is how the police have got off with most incidents in
this country.
Somebody somewhere has to start asking if the fear of them being armed
was reasonable.
Why would an armed man run away from a police officer, and why would
he believe that being armed was necessary if all he had done was drive
without a license?
>As i've said in previous posts, if it was race related etc, the officer
>deserves a harsh sentance (perhaps death?). Until all the facts are known,
>please don't make assumptions like the idiots in cinncinati.
>
Why does the murder being 'race related' deserve a harsh sentence?
Harsher than if say, the copper was just an arsehole that liked
shooting people?
Maria
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>news:3ad97c04...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>> Of course there should.
>
>No, there should be an investigation and people should accept the results.
>
><SNIP EXAMPLES>
How far will you take this acceptance? How far will you take it if it
seems that the court always finds in favour of the police person?
>> Yes it happens; you tell me why white people take it lying down?
>
>White people don't assume everyone is out to get them because they are
>white.
Ot looks like they are beginning to judging by some posts in this
newsgroup...
In any case, why should they take it lying down, whatever colour they
are?
>I don't see 'not rioting' as 'taking it lying down'. People who riot (IMO)
>are scum. They should be punnished. They destroy people's property, loot,
>harm innocent people. They're animals. I don't care what colour they are, if
>they riot, they are scum.
So in your nice neat world of lornorder, everybody just capitulates to
any old law that is imposed, or anyh unlawful behaviour that occurs,
however oppressive it is, and that's ok yah?
>
>> Perhaps they thought that they deserved what they got in some way.
>> Isn't one British view that there is 'no smoke without fire'?
>
>I agree with that. Usually, there is no smoke without fire.
There you go then.
Some people do get what they deserve...
>> But the suggestion that white people don't riot is not true;
>
>I never said that.
>
>> they just
>> *seem* to be motivated by other things,
>
>Well, i'd say that we don't argue that everyone is out to get us because of
>our appearence.
Not even in South Africa?
>>at least in this country. OTOH
>> if you go to the Electronic Telegraph web site and search for 'riot',
>> you will find several instances of white people rioting.
>
>Again, i never said white people DON'T riot. The issue is that black people
>often make race an issue when it isnt.
1. How is objecting to a possibly unlawful killing of a citizen a
'race issue'? just because the people who rioted appear to be black?
(I don't know if they all were or not...)
Does it help to know that 40% of Cincinatti is black therefore the
likelyhood of the rioters being black is possibly higher than usual?
2. How do you know that this isn't a genuine race issue?
>> >I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in my
>> >body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing
>that
>> >happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin.
>Frankly,
>> >it's offensive and wrong.
>>
>> The problem is that a lot of what happens to a black person *is* on
>> account of the colour of their skin.
>
>Absolute rubbish. It could be many things, just the same as when something
>happens to a white person: they could 'look' at someone the wrong way, be
>wearing designer stuff, carrying a mobile etc - i'm certainly not condoning
>any of this, i'm simply saying that less people are racist than black people
>make out.
It could be many things, but it often isn't.
You don't have to be a genius to work that out; just read or listen to
peoples opinions of blacks.
>> Why do people keep trying to deny this?
>
>Because it isnt the case.
>
>> >OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
>> >proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
>often
>> >suspected earlier.
>>
>> I disagree; I don't know where you get your figures from,
>
>The home office periodically release such info.
>
>> but I've
>> read people saying that since the number of blacks in prison is a
>> greater proportion of the general population than the number of whites
>> in prison, they must be committing a greater proportion of the crime.
>> Not so, if they are more likely to be caught, brought to trial, given
>> a custodial sentence, etc etc. The number of people in prison does not
>> equal the number of people who have committed a crime.
>
>No. There are a small amount of blacks, they commit a higher percentage of
>crime than the same amount of white people. This is indicated in all the
>figures and in my experiences. I'm not saying white people don't commit
>crime - i know lots of scum who are white and commit crime.
Please could you post the figures you are referring to, or give a URL
where I might see what you mean?
>
>> >I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even
>if
>> >that is not the manner they were written in.
>>
>> No; I would like to know however, why *you* think unjustified white
>> killings *should* have no fuss made about them.
>
>Because there has been no time for an investigation.
There has been time for investigation in many cases; the police have
been cleared.
>Becuase, no matter what, rioting is wrong.
Yussir.
>
>People jumping to conclusions is wrong.
And you haven't done this at all have you?
After all, there is not smoke without fire, is there?
Maria
Sorry but this is not a driving offence, as is driving without a
licence and not wearing a seatbelt.
Maria
Don't see that it's being forgotten.
Maybe the 'race' riots aren't 'race' riots at all (as people keep
neatly labelling them, but 'corrupt policeforce' riots.
Maria
It looks like some agree you.
ET 05/12/2000
Police who shot unarmed man escape charges
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
TWO police marksmen who shot and killed a man wrongly believed to
have a shotgun in a bag will not face criminal charges, the Crown
Prosecution announced yesterday.
Harry Stanley, 46, was shot 100 yards from his home in Hackney, east
London, last September. The officers were told, after a 999 call from
a man who saw Mr Stanley in a pub, that he was carrying a sawn-off
shotgun wrapped in a carrier bag. The plastic bag in fact contained a
wooden table leg, which had been repaired by his brother. The officers
challenged Mr Stanley, a painter and decorator originally from
Glasgow, after he left the pub, and he was then shot in the head and
hand.
The CPS said yesterday that following a review of the case the two
officers would not face criminal charges. "Following a 999 emergency
call, the officers believed Mr Stanley was carrying a sawn-off shotgun
wrapped in a carrier bag. It is an established principle of English
law that when a man honestly believes he is facing an immediate risk
of suffering serious injury, even if that belief is mistaken, he is
entitled to use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend
himself.
"The CPS took into account the evidence of eye-witnesses and the
opinions of medical and forensic experts in deciding whether there was
sufficient evidence. The CPS considered whether the officers' response
was commensurate with the degree of risk which they honestly believed
had been created by the threatened attack they believed they were
under."
The inquest into Mr Stanley's death is now expected to be resumed and
the decision will be reconsidered if any fresh evidence emerges. His
widow, Irene, said: "I'm absolutely devastated but I half expected it.
I have lost half my life, so have my children and my grandchildren
while those officers go back home at night to their families. I will
not give up and will continue to fight for justice because I feel they
have got away with it."
The family's solicitor, Daniel Machover, said they would be
considering seeking a judicial review of the decision.
Maria
>
>Excellent. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. The only sad bit:
>Our taxes went into saving and repairing his life.
>We probably pay this shit disability allowances..
>..he's probably got a car on motability and gets everything free..(makes
>your blood boil)
Who needs racism anyway?
Xavier
>
> "Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
> news:3ad98b9c...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
> > Sorry...I do not believe that any driving offence warrants being shot,
>
> Depends. If someone attempted to run someone else over (for example),
then
> an officer would quite right to shoot the driver. We don't know all of the
> facts yet, you can't jump to conclusions.
>
> > particularly if the person is unarmed.
>
> How would the officer *KNOW* this person was unarmed? This has to be
> considered.
The guy running away did not even try to arm the police officer.He simply
run away.That's how the police officer should had know he was unarmed.And if
he doesn't, that does not mean he have the right to shot him.I can't shot
you and later excuse it saying "how could I possibly know you didn't wanted
to piss on my car." just to make it more stupid.Police should not shot
people that have not tryed to hurt them previously, or have the intention to
do so.Having a gun in the hand can be considered as having the intention to
hurt, running away doesn't.
Did the officer think there was a risk to himself or someone
> else? If so, he had to act.
Nope. He shooted him cuz he was getting away.
> As i've said in previous posts, if it was race related etc, the officer
> deserves a harsh sentance (perhaps death?). Until all the facts are known,
> please don't make assumptions like the idiots in cinncinati.
I'm not saying this is a proved case of racisme.But it sounds like.Would the
police officer had shot him if he was a white guy? I don't know but does it
hapends some times? If it does we should be looking for other answers.
Xavier.
> Carl
>
>
Maria
>". It is an established principle of English
>law that when a man honestly believes he is facing an immediate risk
>of suffering serious injury, even if that belief is mistaken, he is
>entitled to use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend
>himself!.
Shame then that this chap did not have any means to defend himself
except a table leg, which isn't much good at a distance...
Carl
> So in your nice neat world of lornorder, everybody just capitulates to
> any old law that is imposed, or anyh unlawful behaviour that occurs,
> however oppressive it is, and that's ok yah?
Which oppresive law are you referring to? AFAIAC, the only oppresive laws in
this country are related to one's right to privacy (RIP bill etc).
Carl
Carl
> >Well, i'd say that we don't argue that everyone is out to get us because
of
> >our appearence.
>
> Not even in South Africa?
FFS. Look, apartheid is dead. It's the past.
+ This is great britain, not south africa.
Are you telling me that we are oppresing people in the uk because of laws in
south africa which have been illegal for 10 years?
Carl
Carl
> Who needs racism anyway?
No-one. I despise racism. However, why was that comment relevant to the post
you quoted?
Carl
Carl
> The guy running away did not even try to arm the police officer.He simply
> run away.That's how the police officer should had know he was unarmed.
How do you know that?
Do you and the idiots in this group really think someone is really going to
shoot an unarmed man for no reason when he know's the consequences would be
as sevre as they are?
Also, if he was running away, how come he was shot in the chest?
Carl
Carl
> It looks like some agree you.
Some people really are anti-police when they aren't in a position to know
all the facts.
I was playing devil's advocate, i didnt read any of the links etc.
Your attitude seems to be to immediatley dismiss the police regardless of
the situation. It's that kind of attitude i'm referring to throughout this
thread.
I personally find it offensive that people expect all police officers to be
racist, gun-toting idiots- they're not. I'm sure a minority will be. You
can't tar everyone with the same brush.
Carl
Carl
Just read this sentance:
"honestly believes he is facing an immediate risk"
Carl
Carl
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:38:54 +0100, "Carl" <*@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ad97c04...@news.ntlworld.com...
> >
> >> Of course there should.
> >
> >No, there should be an investigation and people should accept the
results.
> >
> ><SNIP EXAMPLES>
>
>
> How far will you take this acceptance? How far will you take it if it
> seems that the court always finds in favour of the police person?
No they don't. They simply judge right and wrong. How do you expect justice
to be carried out? Lynch mob?
> In any case, why should they take it lying down, whatever colour they
> are?
I'm not advocating any such thing. I'm simply saying that people who break
the laws deserve to be punnished. Regardless.
> >I don't see 'not rioting' as 'taking it lying down'. People who riot
(IMO)
> >are scum. They should be punnished. They destroy people's property, loot,
> >harm innocent people. They're animals. I don't care what colour they are,
if
> >they riot, they are scum.
>
> So in your nice neat world of lornorder, everybody just capitulates to
> any old law that is imposed, or anyh unlawful behaviour that occurs,
> however oppressive it is, and that's ok yah?
Answered in previous post.
> >> Perhaps they thought that they deserved what they got in some way.
> >> Isn't one British view that there is 'no smoke without fire'?
> >
> >I agree with that. Usually, there is no smoke without fire.
>
> There you go then.
> Some people do get what they deserve...
Indeed.
> >> But the suggestion that white people don't riot is not true;
> >
> >I never said that.
> >
> >> they just
> >> *seem* to be motivated by other things,
> >
> >Well, i'd say that we don't argue that everyone is out to get us because
of
> >our appearence.
>
> Not even in South Africa?
Again, answered in previous post.
> >>at least in this country. OTOH
> >> if you go to the Electronic Telegraph web site and search for 'riot',
> >> you will find several instances of white people rioting.
> >
> >Again, i never said white people DON'T riot. The issue is that black
people
> >often make race an issue when it isnt.
>
> 1. How is objecting to a possibly unlawful killing of a citizen a
> 'race issue'? just because the people who rioted appear to be black?
Because the people who were rioting made it a race issue. It *WAS* white
cop's against black rioters. Go and see ANY footage, news report or
statements - they'll all verify this.
> (I don't know if they all were or not...)
> Does it help to know that 40% of Cincinatti is black therefore the
> likelyhood of the rioters being black is possibly higher than usual?
Is it?
> 2. How do you know that this isn't a genuine race issue?
It may well be, as i've said in MANY posts in this thread: no one in this
forum today is in any position to say what happend and why. I'm not jumping
to conclusions -unlike some.
> >> >I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in
my
> >> >body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing
> >that
> >> >happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin.
> >Frankly,
> >> >it's offensive and wrong.
> >>
> >> The problem is that a lot of what happens to a black person *is* on
> >> account of the colour of their skin.
> >
> >Absolute rubbish. It could be many things, just the same as when
something
> >happens to a white person: they could 'look' at someone the wrong way, be
> >wearing designer stuff, carrying a mobile etc - i'm certainly not
condoning
> >any of this, i'm simply saying that less people are racist than black
people
> >make out.
>
> It could be many things, but it often isn't.
> You don't have to be a genius to work that out; just read or listen to
> peoples opinions of blacks.
Or whites. However, when we discuss issues like this, we are often branded
as Racist, facist or xenophobic.
> >> Why do people keep trying to deny this?
> >
> >Because it isnt the case.
> >
> >> >OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
> >> >proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
> >often
> >> >suspected earlier.
> >>
> >> I disagree; I don't know where you get your figures from,
> >
> >The home office periodically release such info.
> >
> >> but I've
> >> read people saying that since the number of blacks in prison is a
> >> greater proportion of the general population than the number of whites
> >> in prison, they must be committing a greater proportion of the crime.
> >> Not so, if they are more likely to be caught, brought to trial, given
> >> a custodial sentence, etc etc. The number of people in prison does not
> >> equal the number of people who have committed a crime.
> >
> >No. There are a small amount of blacks, they commit a higher percentage
of
> >crime than the same amount of white people. This is indicated in all the
> >figures and in my experiences. I'm not saying white people don't commit
> >crime - i know lots of scum who are white and commit crime.
>
> Please could you post the figures you are referring to, or give a URL
> where I might see what you mean?
I cant do that. The existence of such figures has been verified by another
poster in this thread, at this point, i cant find them.
> >> >I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points
even
> >if
> >> >that is not the manner they were written in.
> >>
> >> No; I would like to know however, why *you* think unjustified white
> >> killings *should* have no fuss made about them.
> >
> >Because there has been no time for an investigation.
>
> There has been time for investigation in many cases; the police have
> been cleared.
What? Are you talking about this case or some 'other' case(S)?
> >Becuase, no matter what, rioting is wrong.
>
> Yussir.
>
> >
> >People jumping to conclusions is wrong.
>
> And you haven't done this at all have you?
No. Read ALL of my posts. Don't jump to conclusions yourself - as i've
said - i dont know wether this is a legitimate shooting by a police officer
carrying out his duty or something else entirely.
> After all, there is not smoke without fire, is there?
Usually, no.
Carl
Maria
"After a foot pursuit ending
at 1230 Republic
Street Officer Steven Roach confronted Mr. Thomas and the officer
fired one shot."
[Cincinatti police]
Maria
I expect the man with the table leg honestly believed he was facing an
immediate risk. What could *he* do about it?
Maria
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>news:3ad99fbd...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>> It looks like some agree you.
>
>Some people really are anti-police when they aren't in a position to know
>all the facts.
>
>I was playing devil's advocate, i didnt read any of the links etc.
>
>Your attitude seems to be to immediatley dismiss the police regardless of
>the situation.
Your attitude seems to be to immediately dismiss the victim regardless
of the situation.
>It's that kind of attitude i'm referring to throughout this
>thread.
>I personally find it offensive that people expect all police officers to be
>racist, gun-toting idiots- they're not. I'm sure a minority will be.
Do you consider the latter acceptable?
>You
>can't tar everyone with the same brush.
I believe that such incidents should be investigated.
I find it hard to believe that the police are *always* in the right
and in a country such as this, where the police are armed and the
population are not, it is especially important to see to injustices,
however few there might be.
Anyone know of any police that have been found guilty of unlawful
killing in Britain?
How many in the US?
Thanks.
J. Lee
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is the threat of rioting an acceptable political weapon ( used both here and
> the USA for example, to argue for
> more leniency from the police)?
Rioting may be a reaction against percieved police oppression, but
rarely used (as a threat) to argue a political case, unacceptable
though it may be.
> Secondly,
>
> Sociologists say there are essentially three political schools of thought on
> riots and rioting: The
> 'conservative' , 'liberal' and the 'radical' perspectives.
>
> The conservative perspective states that riots are rare and needless. They
> are conducted by riff-raff - the
> most worthless sections of society. Rioters are criminals motivated by
> bloodlust and greed - 'not a cry for
> help but a cry for loot' . This perspective focuses on individual wilful
> behaviour and the weakness and
> gullibility of people and holds that 'crowd behaviour' turns ordinarily sane
> citizens into barbarians. Social
> disorganisation caused by immigration or upheaval is blamed for making riots
> easier to start.
> There is some emphasis of race, with immigrant being blamed for not
> respecting law and order (e.g. Peter Emery
> MP "The vast majority of people expect the precepts of anglo-saxon behaviour
> and of law and order to be
> maintained. These standards must be maintained, despite what other ethnic
> minorities want.").
Pre-1960's golden age? - nah. Conservative perspective isn't really
favoured by 18th/19th century political events - large scale riots were
quite commonplace, even though the establishment led response at that
time was frequently much harsher - check out
http://www.idler.co.uk/html/library/riots3.html. Combined with the
point Maria made - specifically that some labelled 'race' riots did in
fact involve a mixture of ethnicities (in Brixton during the 80's
merely having a home address in that area left job applicants turned
down by potential employers), it is strange to alledge any ethnic group
is inherently predisposed to rioting without first considering social
discrimination. Immediate financial gain ie looting was virtually
non-existent hence not the root cause during the 17/1800's, and AFAIK
is not today a major factor in instigation unless post 1960 riots are
seen in a completely different light, even when looting occurs - it is
not the sole action taken nor a significant factor alongside general
confrontation with authorities and/or vandalism in general.
Ok, a violent outpouring is perhaps not the best way to deal with
social issues (if you take the liberal/conservative viewpoint), but
where are the alternatives? - poor access to a government which does
not care, poor funding for DIY projects in a population that is pretty
insular at the best of times. Grievences build up, and with little
opportunity to vent them constructively, violence results.
J Lee
Carl
> I expect the man with the table leg honestly believed he was facing an
> immediate risk. What could *he* do about it?
Armed police in this country do not just 'shoot on sight', they'd shout a
warning and some instructions. I feel that if he'd followed these, he'd be
alive.
Carl
Carl
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:39:49 +0100, "Carl" <*@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ad99fbd...@news.ntlworld.com...
> >
> >> It looks like some agree you.
> >
> >Some people really are anti-police when they aren't in a position to know
> >all the facts.
> >
> >I was playing devil's advocate, i didnt read any of the links etc.
> >
> >Your attitude seems to be to immediatley dismiss the police regardless of
> >the situation.
>
> Your attitude seems to be to immediately dismiss the victim regardless
> of the situation.
No it isnt. I look at things logically, seems some people are incapable of
doing this. I give the other side of the arguement - why should it be one
sided? Why should everyone think of the police as an easy target?
> >It's that kind of attitude i'm referring to throughout this
> >thread.
> >I personally find it offensive that people expect all police officers to
be
> >racist, gun-toting idiots- they're not. I'm sure a minority will be.
>
> Do you consider the latter acceptable?
Of course i dont. These people should be sacked and if poss, prosecuted.
> >You
> >can't tar everyone with the same brush.
>
> I believe that such incidents should be investigated.
As do i.
> I find it hard to believe that the police are *always* in the right
> and in a country such as this, where the police are armed and the
> population are not, it is especially important to see to injustices,
> however few there might be.
Couldn't agree more. I cant give any examples but i'm sure i recall hearing
of prosecutions of police for this kind of thing. It is rare because i
guess, a lot of the time, they thought there *WAS* a risk.
> Anyone know of any police that have been found guilty of unlawful
> killing in Britain?
Nope.
> How many in the US?
Nope
Carl
Lord Limbic
"Steve Frazer" <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:9bbp7t$8kt47$1...@ID-19581.news.dfncis.de...
> Lord Limbic <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9b9i38$8cqpr$1...@ID-58787.news.dfncis.de...
> more prone to civil disturbances than
> > other minorities or whites. Is this true and if so why is this?
>
> It seems so does it?
It does.
> How many riots have we had in this country?
I do not know - do you? Remember to start counting from 1955....
>Why do you
> think that blacks are more prone to civil disturbance?
Black civil leaders threaten the police that rioting will erupt if the police do not follow their
directives.[ see
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/top_story.html?in_review_id=332746&in_review_text_id=275785 ] The
police police black areas in a special non-confrontational manner. There is a long history of black areas in
the UK erupting in riots.
>The 'black' riot you
> mention was 20 years ago.
Because it is probably the most famous...there are many others
Brixton (1981, 1995)
Toxteth (1995)
Broadwater Farm (1985)
Bristol - St Pauls (several)
Nottinghill Hill 1976 - 1994(?)
Nottingham (1958) and others
Leeds (1995)
Bradford (1995)
The list goes on..if anyone wishes to research it. You might want to start at the 1919 race riots.
>What of the Poll Tax riots, animal rights
> protests, anti-abortionists, etc?
What of them?
> Why are you trying to equate the
> situation in Cincinnati with the UK when the circumstances are so very
> different?
Are they? Apart from the police being armed how are the circumstances so very different?
Regards
Lord Limbic
Lord Limbic
"Steve Frazer" <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:9bc182$8hoj6$1...@ID-19581.news.dfncis.de...
> Carl <*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9bbtgt$qg3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
> > I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in my
> > body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing that
> > happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin.
> Frankly,
> > it's offensive and wrong.
> > proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
> often
> > suspected earlier.
>
What statistics? Care to post them?
>the
> recorded crime levels for blacks are higher proportionally than the number
> of blacks in society,
That is exactly what he said.
>not that they commit a higher proportion of crime than
> whites. A big difference.
Err...Steve, I hate to break this to you, but this statement is so flawed as to be meaningless. Black commit
proportionally more crimes than white - you have just said it yourself.
>Whites commit many many crimes than non-whites
> simply because there are so many more whites than non-whites.
ROFL!!!! Of course! But if you compare two groups - to discover which is better or worse - you do so by
adjusting their results by their representation.
Let me give you an easy example:
30 Russians and 5 Swedes are in a log cabin eating pies. Over a period of a week we discover the Russians eat
130 pies and the Swedes eat 54. Knowing only this we could surmise that - The Russians eat more pies than the
Swedes. The Russians are better faster pie eaters/greedier hungrier pie eaters.
But wait! These damned statistics are lying!!! We need to introduce a lost ingredient - proportionality.
When we consider that 30 Russians ate 130 pies we see that each Russian ate on average 4.33 pies. When we
consider that 5 Swedes ate 54 pies we see that each Swede ate on average 10.8 pies.
Now we see that the Swedes are in fact better faster pie eater/greedier hungrier pie eaters. If Pie consumption
is a problem we know we should concentrate on the Swedes more than the Russians.
The wonder of statistics.....
>Asians and
> Chinese people have less recorded crime than the % population would indicate
> as 'normal'.
So blacks are abnormally high and Asians and Chinese abnormally low.
>
> Then ask yourself dozens of questions as to why crime is and isn't recorded,
> why blacks commit less burglaries, etc. It is so much more complicaetd than
> 'race'. Most crimes are by young men and drugs are a factor in a great
> number of crimes. This is more important than 'race'.
You are completely right. This could all be down to the black population having more young men etc etc.
>
> > I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even
> if
> > that is not the manner they were written in.
>
> Just be more accurate in your presentation of 'statistics'.
He was more accurate than you and grasped them better.
<sarcastic mode> Well done for turning a thread about riots into a thread about blacks and crime - what are you
a racist? </sarcastic mode>
Regards
Lord Limbic
J. Lee
rifleman1 <rifl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> To be brief i suport the conservative view point, having grown up in a very
> poor , run down coucil estate in the North East , crime was there but it was
> trivial, we would never have rioted because the destruction would have been
> to what little resources we had and would have achieved nowt, The
> mainreasons for the ethnics to riot is to gain material wealth via looting.
One year sampled in the early 90's (think it was 93), during which 14
riots were recorded on various council estates, 13 of those involved
white participants.
Were "immigrants" in your opinion the cause of large-scale riots during
18th/19th centuries - which BTW occured at a rate of one every three
years? (approximately)
> They rioters should be arrested made to clean up the mess to others peoples
> property then forced to live in the deriliction they caused to there own
> residences and neighbourhoods. If that dont work and they are of immigrant
> stcok then de nationalise them
Like erm privatise? What about those of non "immigrant stock"? Why not
privatise everyone?
> and send em packing.
To where exactly?
J Lee
Lord Limbic
"Carl" <*@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9bc4sv$3rd$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "Steve Frazer" <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:9bc182$8hoj6$1...@ID-19581.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > recorded crime levels for blacks are higher proportionally than the number
> than whites.
Bwaaa ha ha ha ha - look up the word 'proportion'.
A big difference. Whites commit many many crimes than non-whites
> > simply because there are so many more whites than non-whites. Asians and
> > Chinese people have less recorded crime than the % population would
> indicate
> > as 'normal'.
>
> Appologies ;o) I didn't have the figures to hand. Yes, the figures you are
> talking to are the same ones i was referring to.
What figures? Please share them with me?
>
> > Then ask yourself dozens of questions as to why crime is and isn't
> recorded,
Give me some reasons why.
> why blacks commit less burglaries,
I presume you have some evidence for this (that whites commit more/black commit less). In short back up the
assumptions in this question with some facts.
>etc. It is so much more complicaetd
> than
> > 'race'. Most crimes are by young men and drugs are a factor in a great
> > number of crimes. This is more important than 'race'.
>
> Yes, i know.
I agree.
>
> > > I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points even
> > if
> > > that is not the manner they were written in.
> >
> > Just be more accurate in your presentation of 'statistics'.
>
> Yes, sir! ;o)
Pussy. Not much of a fight in you... : )
Regards
Lord Limbic
rifleman1
legislation,
rifleman1
>
> I'm not saying this is a proved case of racisme.But it sounds like.Would
the
> police officer had shot him if he was a white guy? I don't know but does
it
> hapends some times? If it does we should be looking for other answers.
>
> Xavier.
>
> > Carl
> >
> >
Would the cop have shot him if both had ben black, yes in at least 5 of the
shootings in cincinatti , but that fact gets forgotten>
Carl
"rifleman1" <rifl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:RXjC6.5872$cf5.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Which oppresive law are you referring to? AFAIAC, the only oppresive
laws
> in
> > this country are related to one's right to privacy (RIP bill etc).
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
Rip act, - Privacy
gun laws et al - agree- they've gone WAY too far
council tax legislation, - Have i missed something with this?
E mail monitoring - Privacy.
Carl
rifleman1
The type of corrupt force I think you may be implying to tend to be in the
old south, not exclusively but most times, chances are its a stressed out
with gang warfare and driveby shooting type of police force, Cincinatti has
had more than its fair share of troubles over the last few years.
>
Carl
> Would the cop have shot him if both had ben black, yes in at least 5 of
the
> shootings in cincinatti , but that fact gets forgotten>
It certainly does. I think the black commnuity are becoming very racist
towards the white members of society.
Carl
PS: - You didn't snip that very carefully, looked like I'd said those
things.
rifleman1
Maria
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Frazer" <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:9bc182$8hoj6$1...@ID-19581.news.dfncis.de...
>> Carl <*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:9bbtgt$qg3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
>> > I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in my
>> > body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing that
>> > happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin.
>> Frankly,
>> > it's offensive and wrong.
>> > OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
>> > proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
>> often
>> > suspected earlier.
>>
>> It would help if you quoted the statistics accurately then...........
>
>What statistics? Care to post them?
>
>>the
>> recorded crime levels for blacks are higher proportionally than the number
>> of blacks in society,
>
>That is exactly what he said.
>
>
>>not that they commit a higher proportion of crime than
>> whites. A big difference.
>
>Err...Steve, I hate to break this to you, but this statement is so flawed as to be meaningless. Black commit
>proportionally more crimes than white - you have just said it yourself.
Please could you tell me exactly where this stat can be found? Thanks.
>
>>Whites commit many many crimes than non-whites
>> simply because there are so many more whites than non-whites.
>
>ROFL!!!! Of course! But if you compare two groups - to discover which is better or worse - you do so by
>adjusting their results by their representation.
>
>Let me give you an easy example:
>
>30 Russians and 5 Swedes are in a log cabin eating pies. Over a period of a week we discover the Russians eat
>130 pies and the Swedes eat 54. Knowing only this we could surmise that - The Russians eat more pies than the
>Swedes. The Russians are better faster pie eaters/greedier hungrier pie eaters.
>
>But wait! These damned statistics are lying!!! We need to introduce a lost ingredient - proportionality.
>
>When we consider that 30 Russians ate 130 pies we see that each Russian ate on average 4.33 pies. When we
>consider that 5 Swedes ate 54 pies we see that each Swede ate on average 10.8 pies.
>
>Now we see that the Swedes are in fact better faster pie eater/greedier hungrier pie eaters. If Pie consumption
>is a problem we know we should concentrate on the Swedes more than the Russians.
>
>The wonder of statistics.....
Problem...to know the number of pies that have been eaten (by
whoever), you need to know how many pies were there in the first
place...
>
Carl
> Sorry , you are not the first chap who I have upset by poor snipping. R
You haven't upset me ;o)
I can see you are someone who can actually think - that impresses me...
Carl
Lord Limbic
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message news:3ad9d1fa...@news.ntlworld.com...
As you can see 16 lines above, I have asked for the statistics Mr Fraser and Carl are referring to.
>
> >
> >>Whites commit many many crimes than non-whites
> >> simply because there are so many more whites than non-whites.
> >
> >ROFL!!!! Of course! But if you compare two groups - to discover which is better or worse - you do so by
> >adjusting their results by their representation.
> >
> >Let me give you an easy example:
> >
> >30 Russians and 5 Swedes are in a log cabin eating pies. Over a period of a week we discover the Russians
eat
> >130 pies and the Swedes eat 54. Knowing only this we could surmise that - The Russians eat more pies than
the
> >Swedes. The Russians are better faster pie eaters/greedier hungrier pie eaters.
> >
> >But wait! These damned statistics are lying!!! We need to introduce a lost ingredient - proportionality.
> >
> >When we consider that 30 Russians ate 130 pies we see that each Russian ate on average 4.33 pies. When we
> >consider that 5 Swedes ate 54 pies we see that each Swede ate on average 10.8 pies.
> >
> >Now we see that the Swedes are in fact better faster pie eater/greedier hungrier pie eaters. If Pie
consumption
> >is a problem we know we should concentrate on the Swedes more than the Russians.
> >
> >The wonder of statistics.....
>
>
> Problem...to know the number of pies that have been eaten (by
> whoever), you need to know how many pies were there in the first
> place...
That is why we have the British Crime Survey and police statistics.
Regards
Lord Limbic
Maria
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>news:3ad99cc6...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>> >Well, i'd say that we don't argue that everyone is out to get us because
>of
>> >our appearence.
>>
>> Not even in South Africa?
>
>FFS. Look, apartheid is dead. It's the past.
If you say so.
>+ This is great britain, not south africa.
>
>Are you telling me that we are oppresing people in the uk because of laws in
>south africa which have been illegal for 10 years?
No, I was drawing a parallel. But since you mention it, since when has
making something against the law a non-occurrance?
Maria
>
>Because the people who were rioting made it a race issue. It *WAS* white
>cop's against black rioters. Go and see ANY footage, news report or
>statements - they'll all verify this.
I do not dispute that; but it's circumstantial evidence. The police
being white and the rioters being black does not mean that this *is* a
racial issue any more than an argument betweena black and a white
neighbour is a racial issue.
>> (I don't know if they all were or not...)
>> Does it help to know that 40% of Cincinatti is black therefore the
>> likelyhood of the rioters being black is possibly higher than usual?
>
>Is it?
>
>> 2. How do you know that this isn't a genuine race issue?
>
>It may well be, as i've said in MANY posts in this thread: no one in this
>forum today is in any position to say what happend and why. I'm not jumping
>to conclusions -unlike some.
Sorry; you seemed to be.
>> >> >I have friends from all over the world and don't have a racist bone in
>my
>> >> >body, however, i'm SICK of black people claiming that every bad thing
>> >that
>> >> >happens to a 'black' person is because of the colour of their skin.
>> >Frankly,
>> >> >it's offensive and wrong.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is that a lot of what happens to a black person *is* on
>> >> account of the colour of their skin.
>> >
>> >Absolute rubbish. It could be many things, just the same as when
>something
>> >happens to a white person: they could 'look' at someone the wrong way, be
>> >wearing designer stuff, carrying a mobile etc - i'm certainly not
>condoning
>> >any of this, i'm simply saying that less people are racist than black
>people
>> >make out.
>>
>> It could be many things, but it often isn't.
>> You don't have to be a genius to work that out; just read or listen to
>> peoples opinions of blacks.
>
>
>Or whites. However, when we discuss issues like this, we are often branded
>as Racist, facist or xenophobic.
To say that blacks are subhuman on account of their skin colour is IMO
racist. Some comments deserve such judgement.
>> >> Why do people keep trying to deny this?
>> >
>> >Because it isnt the case.
>> >
>> >> >OTOH, crime STATISTICS do show that black people DO commit a higher
>> >> >proportion of crime than white people, that would explain why they are
>> >often
>> >> >suspected earlier.
>> >>
>> >> I disagree; I don't know where you get your figures from,
>> >
>> >The home office periodically release such info.
>> >
>> >> but I've
>> >> read people saying that since the number of blacks in prison is a
>> >> greater proportion of the general population than the number of whites
>> >> in prison, they must be committing a greater proportion of the crime.
>> >> Not so, if they are more likely to be caught, brought to trial, given
>> >> a custodial sentence, etc etc. The number of people in prison does not
>> >> equal the number of people who have committed a crime.
>> >
>> >No. There are a small amount of blacks, they commit a higher percentage
>of
>> >crime than the same amount of white people. This is indicated in all the
>> >figures and in my experiences. I'm not saying white people don't commit
>> >crime - i know lots of scum who are white and commit crime.
>>
>> Please could you post the figures you are referring to, or give a URL
>> where I might see what you mean?
>
>
>I cant do that. The existence of such figures has been verified by another
>poster in this thread, at this point, i cant find them.
ok.
>> >> >I guess i will be branded racist/facist for presenting these points
>even
>> >if
>> >> >that is not the manner they were written in.
>> >>
>> >> No; I would like to know however, why *you* think unjustified white
>> >> killings *should* have no fuss made about them.
>> >
>> >Because there has been no time for an investigation.
>>
>> There has been time for investigation in many cases; the police have
>> been cleared.
>
>What? Are you talking about this case or some 'other' case(S)?
Sorry...in other cases. I am happy to be corrected.
I see that the Cincinatti plice are making some attempt to investigate
(in that they are calling for witnesses to the shooting). How far that
gets I wait and see,
Maria
The former tells us how many crimes a selection of 40,000 people say
took place, and the latter tells us how many crimes were reported.
Neither can tell us exactly how many crimes took place.
Carl
> No, I was drawing a parallel. But since you mention it, since when has
> making something against the law a non-occurrance?
You really are an annoyinh idiot arent you?
The end of apartheid is an occurence.
So is my killfiling you.
Carl
Carl
> To say that blacks are subhuman on account of their skin colour is IMO
> racist. Some comments deserve such judgement.
You really are avoiding the issues here.
They are 'subhuman' due to their actions - rioting etc, not because of their
skin colour.
Carl
Marie
Steve Frazer wrote:
> Lord Limbic <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9b9i38$8cqpr$1...@ID-58787.news.dfncis.de...
> > It seems the black community - both here and in the USA - appear to be
> more prone to civil disturbances than
> > other minorities or whites. Is this true and if so why is this?
>
> It seems so does it? How many riots have we had in this country? Why do you
> think that blacks are more prone to civil disturbance? The 'black' riot you
> mention was 20 years ago. What of the Poll Tax riots, animal rights
> protests, anti-abortionists, etc? Why are you trying to equate the
> situation in Cincinnati with the UK when the circumstances are so very
> different?
What about the anti capitalist riots in Washington, Seattle and Prague?
They occurred fairly recently and I don't think that they were composed mostly
of black people.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~RIE~*~&~*~BELLA~*~THE~*~CAT~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Marie
Carl wrote:
You're kill filing her b/c she is disagreeing with you?
Political debate is the raison d'etre of this newsgroup
Live with it!
--
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~RIE~*~&~*~BELLA~*~THE~*~CAT~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Maria
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>news:3ad9d489...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>> No, I was drawing a parallel. But since you mention it, since when has
>> making something against the law a non-occurrance?
>
>You really are an annoyinh idiot arent you?
Probably.
>The end of apartheid is an occurence.
Legislated apartheid.
>So is my killfiling you.
Oh. Tara then.
Maria
Their being labelled 'subhuman' long predates modern rioting.
Maria
wrote:
>I've mentioned it many times
Sorry, I might have missed it (especially if it was a g*n thread), and
I've not been here that much...
>. I've also had quite an argument with a
>couple of alleged cops who drifted into UK.Legal. It took over a year
>for the CPS to decide to keep it out of court but the family have
>chased the decision through the courts and (I think) got it reversed.
Thanks for the info.
Maria
rifleman1
> >
> >> I expect the man with the table leg honestly believed he was facing an
> >> immediate risk. What could *he* do about it?
The chap was walking home, after picking up his repaired chr leg and having
stopped off for a pint.
> >
> >Armed police in this country do not just 'shoot on sight', they'd shout a
> >warning and some instructions.
According to witnesses the police shouted one challenge in the general
direction of this chap who was walking away from them, He had no reason to
believe he was being challenged.
>
> Which isn't a lot of good if the one who is being shouted at is a
> middleaged man who is hard of hearing.
>
> > I feel that if he'd followed these, he'd be
> >alive.
Why should someone going about there lawful busines in britain expect to be
challenged by armed police, after all the police along with the do gooders
outlawed the public use of guns, so their is obviously no risk to the cops.
>
> If the police hadn't shot him he would still be alive. If the way the
> police acted left them with litle choice but to shoot then they may be
> at fault even if they believed their lives were at risk. I would not
> like to prejudge the case.
That is pathetic,
>
> Fortunately the family have obtained a verdict from a court which
> should put the officers on trial and a jury can decide the facts.
> Something which should have been done automatically in a case like
> this. Unless you would like a civil servant to prejudge every
> potential case of murder where the state is involved?
>
>
> --
Lord Limbic
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message news:3ad9e7e...@news.ntlworld.com...
Do we really need to know? An approximation will suffice for most purposes - including rough pie counting.
Regards
Lord Limbic
rifleman1
politicians and the judicery to get away with police murders.
They will look at the case then say " it is not in the public interest to
procede with this case) Just watch, they do it every time, the cops involved
will either be moved, retrained, or retired. But believe me they will get
away with it.
I had a long honest and frank discussion with a senior police officer years
ago about the now discredited and disbanded west midland serious crime
squad. He said if the had killed the people they framed and set up instead
of just framing them they would have got away with it..
We have just had an instance of police tactics again this week when they
burst into a 12 yr olds kids birthday party armed to the teeth and arrest
the poor frigtened child for firing a pellet gun ( Pressy) in his back
garden.
A police spokesman said they had set procedures to follow, common sense is
not part of the said procedures.
I was taught to respect cops and go to them if you are in need of help, I
now tell my son to be afraid of cops and to stay away from them.
Sean
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:37:03 +0100, "Carl" <*@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Xavier" <xav...@rendo.dekooi.nl> wrote in message
> >news:9bc7ik$5ll$1...@reservenews.dekooi.nl...
> >
> >> The guy running away did not even try to arm the police officer.He simply
> >> run away.That's how the police officer should had know he was unarmed.
> >
> >
> >How do you know that?
> >Do you and the idiots in this group really think someone is really going to
> >shoot an unarmed man for no reason when he know's the consequences would be
> >as sevre as they are?
> >Also, if he was running away, how come he was shot in the chest?
>
> "After a foot pursuit ending
> at 1230 Republic
> Street Officer Steven Roach confronted Mr. Thomas and the officer
> fired one shot."
>
> [Cincinatti police]
Try reading
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/shooting_protest_010414.html
No great details seem available but it seems the officer thought the man was
reaching for a gun ("reaching into his waistband" according to one article) and
shot him once, hitting him in the chest. The risk of someone pulling a gun on a
police officer is very real and they have to bear in mind that someone could be
armed. Apparently of the 15 black men killed since 1995 (Cincinnati has a
population of 1.5m I believe) 10 either shot or pointed ther guns at the
police.
Sean
rifleman1
"Sean" Unfortunately there are people who honestly believe that a cops
should never be allowed to fire the first shot, for any reason, because in
their eyes its not self defence or prevently someone else getting shot
because the crime never happened, We came across them in Ulster, people who
believed it was totally wrong under any circumstance for us squaddies to
open fire first, even if a gunman was aiming at you or your colleages.
I think there will be some folk like that on this NG, they cetainly do not
believe in preemptive self defence, they believe you must must assaulted ,
raped or mugged first before you can react.
R
Marie
Sean wrote:
> Maria wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:37:03 +0100, "Carl" <*@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
> No great details seem available but it seems the officer thought the man was
> reaching for a gun ("reaching into his waistband" according to one article) and
> shot him once, hitting him in the chest. The risk of someone pulling a gun on a
> police officer is very real and they have to bear in mind that someone could be
> armed. Apparently of the 15 black men killed since 1995 (Cincinnati has a
> population of 1.5m I believe) 10 either shot or pointed ther guns at the
> police.
>
> Sean
There seems to be a lack of willingness to even attempt to empathize with police
officers and the increasingly difficult environment they are forced to work in.
They are not sufficiently appreciated and are regarded as fascists. No wonder
there is a recruitment crisis. In another thread someone suggested the
reintroduction of national service. Maybe we should force every adult citizen to
serve in the police force for a year so they can see what it is really like. (in
the same way that prominent citizens used to be obliged to serve time as a J.P.).
--
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~RIE~*~&~*~BELLA~*~THE~*~CAT~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Maria
wrote:
Fair comment; I would like to say though that if a person running away
from the police on account of driving offences feels it necessary to
pull a gun on the police person, then the situation in that place must
be extremely desperate...why would a person do that unless they were
seriously afraid?
Maria
wrote:
>No great details seem available but it seems the officer thought the man was
>reaching for a gun ("reaching into his waistband" according to one article)
PS; that's also an easy defence to use if everyone is inclined to
believe the police office on account of other incidents where the
black person *has* been armed; especially if there are no witnesses.
> and
>shot him once, hitting him in the chest.
Shooting to kill then, presumably...