-2 votes

How to Deal With Rioters

Someday a real rain will wash all the scum off these streets. - Travis Bickle

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362973/Protests-eru...

IMO, anyone engaged in rioting, violence or destruction of property should be shot on sight by the authorities. The mobs would disperse in short order. You can't arrest them all.

Violent mobs are the antithesis of liberty. When the law cowers before violent mobs, that order which is the basis of all liberty is lost.

If we continue down this road of allowing violent mobs of criminals and thugs to terrorize law biding individuals, we will end up with the opposite of liberty, which is in fact anarchy.

It is the worst of both worlds. Deliberate non enforcement of the law. Allowing criminals to destroy property and injure innocent people. And worst of all, if private individuals organize to restore order and disperse these violent mobs, since the "authorities" won't do so, guess what? The "authorities" would then go after these private citizens as "vigilantes." The government will not permit any competition in doing the jobs it refuses to do.

This is what the late Sam Francis Called "Anarcho-Tyranny." The use of the state to harass and terrorize the law-biding: fines, regulations, taxes, etc., while allowing actual criminals to prey on those same law biding citizens.

It is enforced anarchy, as private citizens who attempt to establish order will be hounded, harassed and persecuted for acting in self defense or trying to defend their communities. Zimmerman comes to mind as an example of that.

Looking at the pictures of the mobs now forming around the country to engage in lawless violence, and watching the government focus its energy not on quelling the mobs but on bringing further charges against an innocent man, brings home the true nature of our government.

In a word, anarcho-tyranny. Enforced disorder. Managed chaos.

Fostering as much social disintegration and conflict as possible to make themselves, the state, seem all the more indispensable. Rather than enforcing law and order the government we have today is in fact a parasite upon disorder, which it fosters as a matter of policy.

Do you see the future that is coming, DP? Should make you shudder.

Further reading from a similar perspective:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mi...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No, really?

I thought the best way to deal with rioters is fly over with a drone and drop spliffs, twinkies, and doritos on them.

that could work. or job

that could work. or job applications. might scatter.

LOL

Come on.. job applications? On second thought, that might be the solution, they might implode on contact.

For anyone that didn't know

For anyone that didn't know yet... Don't throw scraps under the bridge or it'll keep coming back.

oh my goodness

BILL3, is this the kind of stuff you are into?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

hey, is this the kinda thing

hey, is this the kinda thing you're into, dipshyt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Deaths_a...

By May 16, 1992, 51 men and 7 women were dead because of the riots and the Los Angeles Coroner's Office listed 50 of the 58 people dead as homicide victims.[92] Forty-one of the victims were shot to death, seven were killed in traffic accidents, four died in fires, three were beaten to death, two were fatally stabbed, and one died of a heart attack.[92]

some things deserve seriousness. your belated attempts to be funny don't seem to have the discretion or maturity to know the difference. and you try too hard.

carry on.

why didn't you include the preceding sentence?

"On May 3, 1992, The Supreme Court extended the charging defendants' 48-hour deadline to 96 hours. That day, 6,345 people were arrested and 44 dead bodies were still being identified by the coroner using fingerprints, driver's license, or dental records."

But why bother with all those arrests, when you can just mow down the crowd and save yourself the trouble, right?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

because the preceding

because the preceding sentence had no relevance to the point.

glad to see you're a big proponent of mass round ups and arrests lol. meanwhile, almost no one was convicted of anything, and the majority were just caught and released. meanwhile, 58 innocents were allowed to be killed by an act of deliberate state sanctioned anarchy...

its interesting to watch you defend the rights of criminals in one thread, while in another thread you defend the right to allow your children to starve.

bat. shyt. crazy.

Yeah BILL3, go start shooting into crowds....

Mass murder. That's how the state should operate.

You betcha. That'll make everything all better.

dude, purple font ruins it.

dude, purple font ruins it. you're pandering to your audience, and don't respect their intelligence enough to let them figure it out. lose the ghey font.

Shot on sight ...

Without due process? Okay.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just well-informed

with respect, due process is

with respect, due process is something that applies to an apprehended criminal. if a mob is killing passerbys and you can't go in and arrest someone because its too dangerous, you have to put down the riot. hopefully it does not come to that, but that is the appropriate response to minimize loss of innocent life.

Key words

"if a mob is killing passerbys ". Then of course there is no due process. Hardly the same thing as destruction of property.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just well-informed

"IMO, anyone engaged in

"IMO, anyone engaged in rioting, violence or destruction of property should be shot on sight by the authorities. The mobs would disperse in short order. You can't arrest them all."

I recall reading something very damn similar from someone who opposed Occupy Wall Street, and then from some people opposing Liberty rallies.

not sure what you read but

not sure what you read but you seem to be confused. rioting, violence, and destruction of property is not the same as sitting around a park because you have too much money or no job.

Yeah, that's what OWS was about:

people with "too much money or no job."

If you consider that as being "informed" about current events, I'll pass on taking your advice on dealing with race riots. Just because people are pissed off is no reason to kill them.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

well standing around a park

well standing around a park all day for whatever reason implies plenty of money, or no job.

you seem to be confusing "being pissed" with "attacking people and destroying property." they are obviously different concepts, so it makes one scratch ones head to figure how you could confuse them.

I don't confuse them, I see how one is correlated to the other

Be upset at the media that led you to believe that Trayvon Martin was a victim. I was upset when I found out the truth too. I was myself pissed that "another black teen was shot" by what looked like racial profiling by a vigilante. But then you see the evidence. The broken nose, the wounds on the back of the head, an eye-witness, evidence gathered at the scene which saw it as an act of self defence. Then you have Mr and Mrs Martin giving sketchy testimony while the prosecution has their whistle blown on withholding evidence.

And now I sit here seeing it (it's not easy but at least I'm trying) from the other side.

A man approached and confronted a teen (for whatever reason) and this teen decided it was the appropriate thing to do to strike this man in the face. Then the teen jumps on him and proceeds to punch him in the face while the back of his head gets equally beaten to the concrete (at this point I would be in fear for my life). The man calls out for help (rather than reaching for his gun). The teen sees the weapon and makes an attempt to seize it. The man fears for his life, reached for his weapon and fires a shot.

We could go on, but that's where this really ends. It ends at the tragic death of a young teen who acted with intent to cause great harm or even kill another man who rightfully defended himself and sadly it cost a young man his own life.

That's according to the evidence and verdict anyway. I'm just upset someone died. Period. Black, white, brown or yellow, I mourn all deaths equally.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

R u for real?

This seems like a troll post, but are you serious in saying that people that destroy property should be shot on sight? Heck I hope not, that means the guy sidewalk chalking in front of BOA should be killed in your mind.

i am serious that people

i am serious that people involved in a violent mob or riot which is attacking people or destroying property should be put down with force, yes. it's not as bad as you think. a mob is made up of cowards impelled by a feeling of being able to abuse and rob weak and defenseless people. a few shots and it would disperse,. less people would end up being harmed than allowing it to continue. and in contrast to allowing it to continue, the only people hurt/killed would be the scum, not innocent law biding people.

Got it

So if I chalk a sidewalk or break a window, I should die for it. Oooookay then.

no, if you break a window you

no, if you break a window you should be arrested.

if you participate in a violent riot attacking people and destroying property, armed force is justified.

there's quite a difference. it's possible to arrest one person. a lawless mob harming people needs to be put down.

it seems you would just let them tucker themselves out after destroying property and lives.

Glad it's not like that

If I'm at a protest carrying my sign, and the protest escalates into a violent riot even tho I'm no lt participating in the violence, I don't think people should gun me down. It's a slippery slope and a more dangerous situation. If you look in other scenarios, LEO killing people during riots invites more violence, and it snowballs into a possible civil war.

I thought you were done

With all this anarcho-bashing?

Guess that was just another misstatement from old BILL3, who is quickly finding himself in "What did Granpa say THIS time" territory.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

you seem to be confusing the

you seem to be confusing the concept of state imposed crime and disorder ("anarcho-tyranny")with the entirely unrelated topic of anarchocap theory because of the root word. which indicates to me that you just skim over posts until a big word trips you up and your eyes glaze over.

Yes. Growing up as triplets was a riot. And so much more!

Triplets Still going strong: (L-R) Eric, Audrey and Alan are now among the country's oldest triplets. Objects may appear smaller in photographs.

BABIES

"Sufficient unto the day is one baby. As long as you are in your right mind don't you ever pray for twins. Twins amount to a permanent riot; and there ain't any real difference between triplets and a insurrection." - Mark Twain, The Babies speech 1879

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Heh. My second favorite

Heh. My second favorite author, and fav fiction author. I thought you were dead.

Librarians file my work under "fiction" & "non-fiction"


Seems a flip of a coin. Library stacks of "truth" might appear. Reports of the demise of truth is an exaggeration.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

yes mark, but as a master of

yes mark, but as a master of the English language, you should understand that when saying "you are my favorite fiction author," i mean that of all the authors of fiction, you are my favorite. it does not imply that you only wrote fiction in your glorious career. as anyone knows, you wrote autobiography and extensive travel literature. i realize its been a long timer since you've used a pen, but that's no excuse for such an error.