Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:48 pm
SmokeyTA
Club Owner
Joined: May 24 2006 Posts: 22777
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:That would be you - as you reply to this will, I predict, perfectly illustrate.
Responses to your drivel don't have to be boring. I can entertain, as well as demolishing you ever decreasing circular non-points. If you don’t like it, then try sensible posts.
Are you going to try and do this then or just stick with what surely must be a willful misunderstanding and failed attempts at humer?
Quote:You see, it’s just this goldfish-like retention of your own rambling that makes you seem stupid. Your words were: So, you report that the police “said… they didn’t think they could use lethal force”.
So, you SPECIFICALLY suggested that the police were unaware they could use lethal force. And now you have been caught out.
Someone doesnt seem to understand what the word IF means. i.e IF they didnt think they couldnt use lethal force it was because they were mistaken, because they could use whatever force was necessary to save lives. Of course IF they knew they could use lethal force but chose not to because the situation didnt warrant it then that is a different matter. However neither of these IF scenarios affect the fact they could use it.
Quote:Having already demolished the wider point, I don’t need to do the same to this more restricted “individual police officer” point. However, I’d be interested to know what the difference in this individual’s case actually is, between “being unaware he could use lethal force” (which you say you haven’t suggested) and “didn’t know he could use lethal force”, which were, er, again YOUR words. Oops.
It seems because of your lack of understand of the word IF, and the reason it was used, it has sent you on a strange wild goose chase.
Quote:I consider the view that holding the police “responsible” for the riots, and/or claiming that the riots were a “consequence” of that incident, is arrant nonsense. I would bet a lot of money that 99% of the rioters couldn’t even tell you the deceased’s name, and that incident will have played not the slightest part whatsoever in the riots in other cities.
Obviously the initial spark of rioting in Tottenham followed the shooting, but even there I have seen no suggestion that anyone rioted because of that incident or as some sort of protest at the death of that individual. Of course, there is a massive anti-police feeling in much of UK subculture, and I equally have no doubt that the opportunity to use this as an excuse to have a crack at the police was a major factor.
Do you understand the distinction? Anti-police rioting, of people claiming to be oppressed by the police, as opposed to people who had no issues with the police, but suddenly decided to go on the rampage just because this individual was shot?
The LSE/Guardian analysis of explanations from a large number of convicted rioters themselves. Of those interviewed: Do you know how many said the shooting of that individual caused them to riot? Try “none”.
I think AJW has conclusively proved what 'arrant nonsense' you have put here.
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:43 pm
Cronus
Club Coach
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
Ajw71 wrote:But for the shooting their would not have been a protest and but for the protest their would not have been a 16 year old girl to push / attack at that time.
Causation is not the same as linked events. This is the part you don't seem to understand.
Of course the protest was because of the shooting, but a copper did not hit a girl with a shield because of the shooting. Of course, she was there because of the shooting, but he hit her because she threw a stone. He didn't think "we shot Mark Duggan earlier, therefore I'll belt this girl", he thought "she's throwing stuff at me, therefore I'll give her a shove".
"They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London"
See it's their for you to see. 'Anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan triggered initial disturbances'
But for the police shooting Mark Duggan their would not have been a riot in Tottenham.
Erm, yes, that's exactly what I said. No-one is saying the initial trouble in Tottenham wasn't linked to the shooting, or indeed that anger and confusion over the shooting wasn't the trigger that caused crowds to gather and some disturbances, but it certainly wasn't the cause of the wider lootings and riots. The initial protest march in Tottenham was, of course, caused by reaction to the shooting. Actual violence, it seems, started as a result of a rumour of police assault on a teenage girl. Further violence spread as people perceived a loss of control by the police.
I can also find statements in articles (the same article we've both quoted, in fact): " "Didn't you see the girl getting roughed by the Feds, man? Come on.", as well as "Others present said the spark for the rioting was a specific incident involving a 16-year-old woman, who stepped forward to confront police around 8.30pm."
Those people of course were there because of the shooting. But it did not turn violent BECAUSE of the shooting. It turned violent. it seems, because of the rumour of an assault.
Let's look at some actual reports into the disturbances, not a survey commissioned by a newspaper, and you'll find many reasons for the trouble - primarily opportunism based on a weak police reaction:
Home Office: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 "Even in Tottenham, it is not clear that the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan were the only influences at play. In other locations, the link to the original trigger is even more tenuous and provides no explanation for what went on." "There is also anecdotal evidence that some people became involved in the disorder because they saw the police standing by and not arresting anyone, or because there were no police present at all. This was the view of the young people we spoke to at Feltham Young Offenders Institution"
UK Riots Executive Summary (an independent body) "The vast majority of people we spoke to believed that the sole trigger for disturbances in their areas was the perception that the police could not contain the scale of rioting in Tottenham and then across London." "Rioters believed they would be able to loot and damage without being challenged by the police. In the hardest hit areas, they were correct" "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas." "It seems clear that the spread of rioting was helped both by televised images of police watching people cause damage and looting at will"
And don't edit articles to suit your agenda. What the article actually says is:
Quote:Although rioters expressed a mix of opinions about the disorder, many of those involved said they felt like they were participating in explicitly anti-police riots. They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London.
So, "policing" was in fact the most significant cause.
I'll say it again. Causation is not the same as a series of linked events. Yes, initially, a small number were in situ because of the shooting. The subsequent violence did not start because of the shooting, but because of events that occurred while crowds were gathered in relation to the shooting. The wider trouble across London and England was barely even linked to the shooting.
Ajw71 wrote:But for the shooting their would not have been a protest and but for the protest their would not have been a 16 year old girl to push / attack at that time.
Causation is not the same as linked events. This is the part you don't seem to understand.
Of course the protest was because of the shooting, but a copper did not hit a girl with a shield because of the shooting. Of course, she was there because of the shooting, but he hit her because she threw a stone. He didn't think "we shot Mark Duggan earlier, therefore I'll belt this girl", he thought "she's throwing stuff at me, therefore I'll give her a shove".
"They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London"
See it's their for you to see. 'Anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan triggered initial disturbances'
But for the police shooting Mark Duggan their would not have been a riot in Tottenham.
Erm, yes, that's exactly what I said. No-one is saying the initial trouble in Tottenham wasn't linked to the shooting, or indeed that anger and confusion over the shooting wasn't the trigger that caused crowds to gather and some disturbances, but it certainly wasn't the cause of the wider lootings and riots. The initial protest march in Tottenham was, of course, caused by reaction to the shooting. Actual violence, it seems, started as a result of a rumour of police assault on a teenage girl. Further violence spread as people perceived a loss of control by the police.
I can also find statements in articles (the same article we've both quoted, in fact): " "Didn't you see the girl getting roughed by the Feds, man? Come on.", as well as "Others present said the spark for the rioting was a specific incident involving a 16-year-old woman, who stepped forward to confront police around 8.30pm."
Those people of course were there because of the shooting. But it did not turn violent BECAUSE of the shooting. It turned violent. it seems, because of the rumour of an assault.
Let's look at some actual reports into the disturbances, not a survey commissioned by a newspaper, and you'll find many reasons for the trouble - primarily opportunism based on a weak police reaction:
Home Office: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 "Even in Tottenham, it is not clear that the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan were the only influences at play. In other locations, the link to the original trigger is even more tenuous and provides no explanation for what went on." "There is also anecdotal evidence that some people became involved in the disorder because they saw the police standing by and not arresting anyone, or because there were no police present at all. This was the view of the young people we spoke to at Feltham Young Offenders Institution"
UK Riots Executive Summary (an independent body) "The vast majority of people we spoke to believed that the sole trigger for disturbances in their areas was the perception that the police could not contain the scale of rioting in Tottenham and then across London." "Rioters believed they would be able to loot and damage without being challenged by the police. In the hardest hit areas, they were correct" "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas." "It seems clear that the spread of rioting was helped both by televised images of police watching people cause damage and looting at will"
And don't edit articles to suit your agenda. What the article actually says is:
Quote:Although rioters expressed a mix of opinions about the disorder, many of those involved said they felt like they were participating in explicitly anti-police riots. They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London.
So, "policing" was in fact the most significant cause.
I'll say it again. Causation is not the same as a series of linked events. Yes, initially, a small number were in situ because of the shooting. The subsequent violence did not start because of the shooting, but because of events that occurred while crowds were gathered in relation to the shooting. The wider trouble across London and England was barely even linked to the shooting.
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:05 pm
Stand-Offish
Club Coach
Joined: Feb 18 2006 Posts: 18610 Location: Somewhere in Bonny Donny (Twinned with Krakatoa in 1883).
Ajw71 wrote:LSE-Guardian Study....
"They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots,and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London"
Now let FA come on and try and argue otherwise....
He's preparing his case even as we type.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:11 pm
Ajw71
Player Coach
Joined: Feb 23 2006 Posts: 1978
Cronus wrote:Causation is not the same as linked events. This is the part you don't seem to understand.
Of course the protest was because of the shooting, but a copper did not hit a girl with a shield because of the shooting. Of course, she was there because of the shooting, but he hit her because she threw a stone. He didn't think "we shot Mark Duggan earlier, therefore I'll belt this girl", he thought "she's throwing stuff at me, therefore I'll give her a shove".
Erm, yes, that's exactly what I said. No-one is saying the initial trouble in Tottenham wasn't linked to the shooting, or indeed that anger and confusion over the shooting wasn't the trigger that caused crowds to gather and some disturbances, but it certainly wasn't the cause of the wider lootings and riots. The initial protest march in Tottenham was, of course, caused by reaction to the shooting. Actual violence, it seems, started as a result of a rumour of police assault on a teenage girl. Further violence spread as people perceived a loss of control by the police.
I can also find statements in articles (the same article we've both quoted, in fact): " "Didn't you see the girl getting roughed by the Feds, man? Come on.", as well as "Others present said the spark for the rioting was a specific incident involving a 16-year-old woman, who stepped forward to confront police around 8.30pm."
Those people of course were there because of the shooting. But it did not turn violent BECAUSE of the shooting. It turned violent. it seems, because of the rumour of an assault.
Let's look at some actual reports into the disturbances, not a survey commissioned by a newspaper, and you'll find many reasons for the trouble - primarily opportunism based on a weak police reaction:
Home Office: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 "Even in Tottenham, it is not clear that the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan were the only influences at play. In other locations, the link to the original trigger is even more tenuous and provides no explanation for what went on." "There is also anecdotal evidence that some people became involved in the disorder because they saw the police standing by and not arresting anyone, or because there were no police present at all. This was the view of the young people we spoke to at Feltham Young Offenders Institution"
UK Riots Executive Summary (an independent body) "The vast majority of people we spoke to believed that the sole trigger for disturbances in their areas was the perception that the police could not contain the scale of rioting in Tottenham and then across London." "Rioters believed they would be able to loot and damage without being challenged by the police. In the hardest hit areas, they were correct" "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas." "It seems clear that the spread of rioting was helped both by televised images of police watching people cause damage and looting at will"
And don't edit articles to suit your agenda. What the article actually says is: So, "policing" was in fact the most significant cause.
I'll say it again. Causation is not the same as a series of linked events. Yes, initially, a small number were in situ because of the shooting. The subsequent violence did not start because of the shooting, but because of events that occurred while crowds were gathered in relation to the shooting. The wider trouble across London and England was barely even linked to the shooting.
So you agree then that if Duggan hadn't of been shot their wouldn't have been a riot?
Cronus wrote:Causation is not the same as linked events. This is the part you don't seem to understand.
Of course the protest was because of the shooting, but a copper did not hit a girl with a shield because of the shooting. Of course, she was there because of the shooting, but he hit her because she threw a stone. He didn't think "we shot Mark Duggan earlier, therefore I'll belt this girl", he thought "she's throwing stuff at me, therefore I'll give her a shove".
Erm, yes, that's exactly what I said. No-one is saying the initial trouble in Tottenham wasn't linked to the shooting, or indeed that anger and confusion over the shooting wasn't the trigger that caused crowds to gather and some disturbances, but it certainly wasn't the cause of the wider lootings and riots. The initial protest march in Tottenham was, of course, caused by reaction to the shooting. Actual violence, it seems, started as a result of a rumour of police assault on a teenage girl. Further violence spread as people perceived a loss of control by the police.
I can also find statements in articles (the same article we've both quoted, in fact): " "Didn't you see the girl getting roughed by the Feds, man? Come on.", as well as "Others present said the spark for the rioting was a specific incident involving a 16-year-old woman, who stepped forward to confront police around 8.30pm."
Those people of course were there because of the shooting. But it did not turn violent BECAUSE of the shooting. It turned violent. it seems, because of the rumour of an assault.
Let's look at some actual reports into the disturbances, not a survey commissioned by a newspaper, and you'll find many reasons for the trouble - primarily opportunism based on a weak police reaction:
Home Office: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 "Even in Tottenham, it is not clear that the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan were the only influences at play. In other locations, the link to the original trigger is even more tenuous and provides no explanation for what went on." "There is also anecdotal evidence that some people became involved in the disorder because they saw the police standing by and not arresting anyone, or because there were no police present at all. This was the view of the young people we spoke to at Feltham Young Offenders Institution"
UK Riots Executive Summary (an independent body) "The vast majority of people we spoke to believed that the sole trigger for disturbances in their areas was the perception that the police could not contain the scale of rioting in Tottenham and then across London." "Rioters believed they would be able to loot and damage without being challenged by the police. In the hardest hit areas, they were correct" "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas." "It seems clear that the spread of rioting was helped both by televised images of police watching people cause damage and looting at will"
And don't edit articles to suit your agenda. What the article actually says is: So, "policing" was in fact the most significant cause.
I'll say it again. Causation is not the same as a series of linked events. Yes, initially, a small number were in situ because of the shooting. The subsequent violence did not start because of the shooting, but because of events that occurred while crowds were gathered in relation to the shooting. The wider trouble across London and England was barely even linked to the shooting.
So you agree then that if Duggan hadn't of been shot their wouldn't have been a riot?
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:16 pm
Ajw71
Player Coach
Joined: Feb 23 2006 Posts: 1978
Stand-Offish wrote:He's preparing his case even as we type.
Let him...
He tells porkies.
Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The LSE/Guardian analysis of explanations from a large number of convicted rioters themselves. Of those interviewed: Do you know how many said the shooting of that individual caused them to riot? Try “none”.
Wonder if Cronus will have a word for 'twisting articles to suit agendas'. I guess it's probably ok when it's their 'side' doing the twisting.
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:46 pm
Stand-Offish
Club Coach
Joined: Feb 18 2006 Posts: 18610 Location: Somewhere in Bonny Donny (Twinned with Krakatoa in 1883).
Ajw71 wrote:Let him...
He tells porkies.
Wonder if Cronus will have a word for 'twisting articles to suit agendas'. I guess it's probably ok when it's their 'side' doing the twisting.
If you look at your bargraph, you will see that the SAME people gave a variety of things that they thought were a cause (a factor might be a better word). It's a fair old list as well. it's clear that the Duggan thing wasn't THE cause (as in singular). It was a factor.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:48 pm
Cronus
Club Coach
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
Ajw71 wrote:So you agree then that if Duggan hadn't of been shot their wouldn't have been a riot?
There wouldn't have been a protest march.
It was a contributory factor to the initial subsequent trouble, but had little directly to do with the looting even in Tottenham later that night. It had very little to do with the violence that spread throughout London and even less nationwide.
And if it hadn't been the Duggan shooting, another incident would have been the trigger. Note - the trigger, not the cause.
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:53 pm
Cronus
Club Coach
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
Ajw71 wrote:
There was no other incident, it was a shooting.
The Duggan shooting 'triggered' (set off; initiated) the rioting.
So but for the shooting there wouldn't have been a riot.
(I'm just talking about Tottenham here. Not other parts of the UK)
The shooting did not initiate any rioting, it initiated a protest match and angry response. An incident at the protest gathering initiated some violence. The weak police response caused others to see an opportunity for looting and rioting. It's what's known as a chain of events rather than direct causality.
A causes B; B causes C; C causes D. That does not mean A caused D, or even necessarily C, despite being linked. Please try and understand that.
To say that without the shooting there would have been NO riots is to say there were no other reasons people rioted, which is clearly not true. The main cause of the initial violence -underlying anger against the police - would have been triggered by another event. That it was the shooting of Mark Duggan is largely irrelevant.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 147 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
