I think that one resolute person with a firearm could have ended the recent London riots in minutes. Unfortunately, British authorities seem to favor the thugs and would have tried to prosecute lawful self-defense…hence the disclaimer.
Update: a good article on this topic.
I heard someone in San Angelo once use the phrase “One Ranger, One Riot” to describe how one person can stop things before they get out of hand.
England created this powder keg by denying liberty.
As opposed to the brutal and unlawful actions of the Canadian Mounties, when they charged peaceful unarmed marchers during the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.
“Troubled by the growing number of protestors and fearing violence, Mayor Gray called in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police who rode in on horseback charging into the crowd of strikers, beating them with clubs and firing weapons.[1] This violent action resulted in many people injured, numerous arrests and the death of two strikers.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike#Violence
The current British rioters were not going after anyone who could be plausibly called a culprit of whatever oppression they were suffering. These people went after their neighbors and (at least in the US), arson of an occupied structure as well as assault, battery and robbery are all forcible felonies eligible for deadly force in defense.
Correct. I think the original rioters probably had a real reason to riot. The problem was when the others joined in, and began looting and burning for its own sake. It was just stealing and destroying things. Hardly a political act.
Pingback: Volk On Freedom | Western Rifle Shooters Association
I think the original rioters probably had a real reason to riot.
The original cause is described here – the shooting by police of a suspected felon during his arrest.