Tottenham Riot

[daisya]

Just watching Sky news atm and seeing the aftermath of rioting tonight, has anyone else seen it?

[Philtaz]

daisya,

You are correct, reports are stating just that. I did say earlier in this thread that there was the possibility of it being a round from a police firearm, hence the need for an IPCC report, as is customary.

The recovery of an illegal firearm from the scene is still highly relevant though.

[jno]

Kromovaracun, I think there's quite a widespread perception that the police will kill you for carrying a table leg or for being a Brazilian electrician or just for walking home past a demo, and will always get away with it. This does tend to prejudice people against them, rightly or wrongly.

[Jemisa]

I heard there were a relatively small crowd of protesters, Evidently rioters & looters were summoned on the internet & the main probs were caused by outsiders who follow this sort of occasion at any given time & location.
There's a whole network of them.
I hope peace reigns there soon.

jem

[Kromovaracun]

@jno: I understand that - I even think there's some truth in it. I'm just a bit angered that people commenting on this see the words 'police shooting controversy' and immediately take a side - no evidence, no information, no nothing. That kind of thinking , I'm sorry to say, is stupid - plain and simple. There is no other word for it. If that's the attitude people take towards the world it makes me seriously question how workable having a universal democracy even is.

[DrFilth]

Kromovaracun class the >> police shooting controversy << as the match you will find the fuse has taken a lot longer to make

[Kromovaracun]

Yes, you're probably right - I'm sure the riots are happening for far more reasons than the Duggan shooting. But I'm more interested in the people commenting on it and wilfully failing to do so intelligently.

[jno]

it could be wrong, Kromovaracun, but that's what prejudice is: it enables you to make snap judgements. If your prejudice is based on sufficient previous experience, it's not necessarily irrational, let alone wrong. That's why I cited previous incidents that might have led people automatically to suspect the police version of anything.

[Kromovaracun]

Jno: With respect, you don't seem to think that I understand the origin of the prejudice, which I'm pretty sure I do (though obviously if I don't then I'd appreciate correction): people can see instances in the past where the police have deployed violence against people disproportionately and unjustly, and are thus suspicious of them. That's not really something I have a problem with.

What I have a problem with is people (and, yes, some ABers) who appear to shamelessly take on that suspicion and from it immediately pick a side in any controversy involving the police before any facts have even become apparent. And then think they're being really savvy. Even the most basic, fundamental, back-of-the-mind rational instinct should take issue with thinking like that. It is simply stupid - a word which I hate using, but I just can't think of anything else which describes it.

Personally I would much, much rather attempt to make a judgement intelligently and be wrong than make a stupid one and happen to be right.

[jno]

well, I guess the options are (a) vent now or (b) withhold judgement until the facts are known. The latter is sensible; but we live in an I-want-it-now society, and facilities like AB exist so people can get things off their chests immediately. That they may do so without the sort of reflection expected of a jury in court is just one of the risks.

As I said, a judgement may be instant and it may be ill-informed - and yet it may still be right.

[Kromovaracun]

People on AB are members of society. They are also voters. People (quite rightly) interpret events like these riots to inform how they see the world in a wider sense - this will ultimately affect how they vote, and by extension the direction our political society takes. That's why I'm making the point I'm trying to make. I think it's hugely damaging for people to make badly-informed judgements and even moreso for them to be proud of it.

[jno]

my hope would be that if people's initial responses do turn out to be wrong, they'll learn from it, even if they don't admit it in public. For instance the coverage of the supposed killer of Milly Dowler (was it?) prompted a lot of agreement here, on the grounds that you could see he was evil etc. It turned out to be someone else; newspapers were fined for contempt; and, hopefully, some ABers will see the perils of rushing to judgment. If they don't I will be happy to remind them. But I think, and hope, that it is recognised that rushing to judgement on websites is at best an interim measure until the facts are known.

[Kromovaracun]

Y'know, I'd like to think so. But sometimes I really wonder. I wonder if people just prefer to feel like they're right regardless of if they are. I know I've been guilty of it myself in the past, and I wonder if people do learn - and the rush to judgement in the Jo Yeates murder case, as you point out, was committed by society at large and not just ABers - but it's an excellent example of why you shouldn't do it in the first place. The thinking behind it was incredibly stupid - and was committed by lots of otherwise intelligent people. I remember at a family gathering shortly after New Year's Day I was the only person at the table who expressed scepticism about Jeffries as a suspect and was warned about the perils of 'not trusting my instincts' or 'common sense' by otherwise articulate and intelligent family members.

Why not just kick the habit? Why not take advantage of the opportuntiies the internet offers for spreading critical thinking and improving our first response to events? To be quite honest with you, I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing with me about. I remember thinking at election time last year that I could see very similar, prejudice-lead attitudes over extremely complicated matters of policy. That strikes me as a perfectly valid thing to challenge.