The Dutch police unions want to ban Rotterdam's football team, Feyenoord, from hosting home matches. At the weekend, police officers resorted to pulling out their pistols to push back rioting supporters who were attempting to storm the club's office building.
Spokespeople for the unions said the police won't tolerate any repetition of the incident. Should another violent confrontation between hooligans and police occur, local authorities should ban Feyenoord home matches, the unions said.
The club itself also wants to stop the rioters. Rotterdam supporters are massively signing an internet petition condemning the hooliganism. Feyenoord's supporters club says the violence is "the utmost idiocy".
(df/ab/rk/imm)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Email this Video
Printer-friendly version
Maybe parts of Rotterdam need to get shot to peices as long as the police do it, based on the activities of the football hooligans there. In Europe they don't play games when the police have to subdue a violent crowd.The police are experts and will do what the situation requires. If guns are drawn upon the protesters then things had to quite bad, especially when the police union called for a ban on home games. In this course of action I support the police.
"If guns are drawn upon the protesters then things had to quite bad, especially when the police union called for a ban on home games. In this course of action I support the police."...Response: In Syria guns are drawn by the police to quail the riots. They did it because the government thought things were quite bad. No, the police were wrong to draw guns on it's citizens. If a citizen doesn't have right to protect his or life, then the police surely don't have the right to kill it's citizens because things appear to be bad. They could have controlled the situation without guns. They know it, too. They were not prepared for the riot. I have served as an officer in a couple of riots and I know for a fact that there are plenty of less-than-lethal-weapons that will stop the riots. The police should never kill another human unless there is an immediate threat of losing one's life or the life of another. They screwed-up!
The police officer is issued a firearm to uphold the law and keep the peace. His first shot is in the air to warn rioters, the second if needed is to wound, the third (and this drastic)is to kill. The average citizen would not be armed to the extent of breaking up a threating mob, that is the role of the police. The sling-ball you speak of sounds like a weapon which distributes its discharge in a random fashion with no control over where it may hit the body, innocent bystander or guilty party. Everyone says that Harry Callahan is a mainiac with his variety of weaponry, but it his superiors who are the crazies. Give me a big man who can contol the recoil of a big sidearm anyday!!
"His first shot is in the air to warn rioters, the second if needed is to wound, the third (and this drastic)is to kill."...Never shoot in the air as a warning. You are endagering others by doing so. Never shoot to wound, especially during a riot. If you are not an expert and you miss, you then take the chance of shooting an innocent person. If you must shoot, shoot towards center mass in order to stop the person. You are not trying to kill them and that should not be your intention. In this situation, they, the police, did not need to draw-down on the rioters. They had access to an abundance of less-than-lethal weapons to quail a riot. The police were not prepared.
This should only be done if the police are seriously outnumbered and no reinforcement can reach them fast enough. A gun can be drawn to fire one round in the air as a warning to the rioters to cease and dispearse peacefully, then to level their weapons straight at the ringleaders to breakup the crowds. In such a situation the police are caught off guard with less-than-lethal weapons and must tactically improvise with what they have at hand during the crisis.
David, what goes up into the air has to come down somewhere. David, you stated "This should only be done if the police are seriously outnumbered and no reinforcement can reach them fast enough."...Question: If a police officer can draw a gun and shoot a person to defend his life, don't you think a private citizen should also have right to draw a gun and shoot someone who is trying to kill him? Why shouldn't a person who is outnumbered and no police reinforcement to save him not be allowed to live just like a police officer? In this this situation you have police drawing guns on it's citizens and running them down with horses. Less- than-lethal weapons, such as sting-ball grenades, would have put the rioters, who came into contact with the rubber pellets, on the ground long enough for special teams to subdue them with restraints. They need to practice riot control and not drawdown on the citizens with lethal weapons.
@Hirem, yes here in Holland they will shoot when they are threatend too much. Police shot someone in riots just like this a year ago.
Were you really going to shoot the rioters? Drawing your pistols as a deterrrent is not very wise. Why did the government need to draw pistols on it's citizens? Did the rioters have weapons on them and tried to use them against the police? What would have happened if you would have killed several of the rioters and they were not armed? You need to use less-than-lethal weapons on your citizens during riots. There are plenty on the market. One such weapon is the sting-ball grenade. They use them in prisons to quail riots. They eject rubber pellets. Don't draw your pistols on your citizens and become a police state like Libya and Syria.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.