Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests • Hacker News Board

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#311

Post by bhy » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

woutr_be wrote: post #128

dx87 wrote: post #6

Not to defend what the police have been doing overall during this protest, but in this specific incident you can see the protestors beating a police officer on the ground, and the protestor who got shot was swinging a metal pipe at the police officer that shot him.

I've been fairly critical of protestors before, but in this instance, you can see the police going in for a fight, already heavily outnumbered. I'm not sure what they expected to happen, but the officer drew his gun almost instantly and shot a high school kid at point blank range. There's been other instances today where police was just looking to fight protestors, and as soon as they realized protestors weren't havi…

Today is China's National Day. That probably heat up the conflict.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#312

Post by camgunz » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #185

woutr_be wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been fairly critical of protestors before, but in this instance, you can see the police going in for a fight, already heavily outnumbered. I'm not sure what they expected to happen, but the officer drew his gun almost instantly and shot a high school kid at point blank range. There's been other instances today where police was just looking to fight protestors, and as soon as they realized protestors weren't havi…

> There's been other instances today where police was just looking to fight protestors And protestors obviously looking to fight police. They swarmed the other officers partner who was being beaten on the ground and he was next. I find it shocking so many people were expecting him to just take it the beating or 'run away' and leave his partner there. There's a very good argument for having police on the streets when…

The protests started out peacefully and stayed peaceful for months, even in the face of state-sponsored gang violence (Yuen Long Station), false arrests, and police brutality. All of these things have rightfully angered the citizens of HK. They have every right to protest their government, especially the CCP, one of the most egregious violators of human rights in the modern era.

They are not just teenagers engaging in random street violence and property destruction. There are people from 12-80 on the street. Professionals, part-timers, students, retirees, everyone. Over a million people turned out last August in one of the largest protest marches in human history.

All the escalation is the result of CCP/HK not providing a political solution. They just send riot police to peaceful protests every weekend, and more violence occurs.

Admittedly it's hard to stay on top of all this stuff. The CCP's propaganda machine is working overtime and here in the West we're not doing a great job sounding the alarm in the press (in fairness, we have our own problems). But it's a serious protest movement fighting as honorably as it can for democracy and human rights, with global, fundamental consequences. We should be backing them 100%.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#313

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

ivanbakel wrote: post #310

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military is made up of Citizen Soldiers. Not clear that 'full dictator mode' would get anywhere.

The US military is made up of professional soldiers. Citizen soldiers are citizens first, and soldiers only when civic duty calls them up.

That's pretty much describing the vast bulk of US military. Citizen Soldiers.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#314

Post by vorpalhex » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

josephdviviano wrote: post #238

bhupy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US (with its support of the military) has been at war in the Middle East for nearly 2 decades now with insurgents. The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.

The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do. The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.

During the cold war, both Russia and the US developed a post-strike strike capability (basically a response if your enemy nukes you first which in turn destroys your enemy). The US called this a 'second strike' capability, and Russia called this the 'deadman's hand'. Most commenters since have simply referred to it as "mutually assured destruction" or MAD.

Here's the thing - from an ethical standpoint, it never makes sense to actually fire it. If you're dead, well, you're dead - there's no sense in murdering millions of citizens of an enemy nation.

At the same time, by its very presence, you've made it very seemingly difficult for your enemy to ever engage in a nuclear first strike because they'd be signing their own death warrant.

Could the US military defeat a bunch of armed citizens? Well, purely by the numbers, probably. It'd be really bad for morale though, and a lot of innocent people would die, and realistically, there's not really much of a country left at that point anymore. Without a check, the Government can do whatever it wants because it always has a cheat card, but with the check, the government has to at least pretend to respect the citizens.

> ...it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#315

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

Redoubts wrote: post #280

maxerickson wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afghanistan is a fool's mission, not a war. If the US had the desire and stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan (gladly we do not), there would not be a lingering quagmire.

I suppose civil wars and internal conflicts have a habit of being much more vicious, so this is something to consider.

The point is that nation building exercises don't demonstrate anything about the capabilities of a modern military. If you are trying to win hearts and minds, you are behaving very differently than if you seek to kill or cow.

Personally, I'd expect the main skirmishes in a US civil war to be factions of the military fighting against each other.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#316

Post by tenaciousDaniel » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

josephdviviano wrote: post #238

bhupy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US (with its support of the military) has been at war in the Middle East for nearly 2 decades now with insurgents. The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.

The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do. The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.

I just don't see any historical evidence that superior weaponry always wins, whereas there are plenty of examples to the contrary. So I don't know why it's a "fact" that the dictator would still win.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#317

Post by MS90 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

jacobush wrote: post #234

MichaelApproved wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. Which police force trains their officers to shoot people in the leg? My understanding is that, if you need to shoot someone, there’s an immediate threat. You shoot for the largest target, so you won’t miss and so you do the most damage. If you aim for the leg, you’re likely to miss. Even if you hit the leg, there’s a femoral artery in there. If you hit that person will bleed out in just a few minutes…

The Swedish police. They are allowed to shoot to kill, but in some circumstances (likely not a riot, but it's a case by case judgement) are instructed to aim for the legs.

This is strange to me. Firstly, because hitting a target with a pistol under high stress can be extremely difficult and legs are smaller than torso, and secondly, because "aiming for the legs" doesn't guarantee that it won't be lethal. If you take a shot to the femoral artery your chances of surviving aren't great. In fact, they're probably worse than taking a shot to the torso.

There was a video going around a few years ago where a policeman shot a robber in the thigh. The round hit his femoral artery and he was dead within five minutes.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#318

Post by thfuran » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

nvahalik wrote: post #18

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

No, we have the second amendment so that Whiskey Rebellions won't get too out of hand, let alone succeed. The militia that the second amendment arms reports to the government and one of its primary objectives is to quell insurrection.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#319

Post by codeddesign » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

josephdviviano wrote: post #238

bhupy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US (with its support of the military) has been at war in the Middle East for nearly 2 decades now with insurgents. The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.

The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do. The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.

Essentially you are saying to sit back and watch because there is nothing you can do about it. The point of the 2nd amendment is that you have the right hold a militia and bear arms against an oppressive government. Whether you will win or not is not the argument, but rather that you have the right to protect and defend yourself as the oppressed. While it’s easy to sit on a couch relaxed and watching the news all while saying “we should get rid of guns”, it’s a lot different story to be in the midst of a contention or oppression.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#320

Post by yonaguska » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #283

josephdviviano wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do. The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.

There's an interesting sci-fi dystopia in there, maybe. Everything up to light machine guns are available with no restrictions to anyone who wants to buy them. The government constantly talks up the sanctity of the right to bear arms, and the importance of being prepared at all times to defend innocents against . The dystopian military enforcers wear bulletproof powered armor, and private ownership of any weapon that…

That's not far off from reality. It's illegal to sell armor piercing ammo, but not illegal to buy it or possess it. And certain municipalities(my own local one) are looking at regulating the sale and possession of body armor. Which to me is more egregious, as body armor is inherently not a weapon. Nor is it a force multiplier against law enforcement, as fully automatic weapons could be construed as. And it has practical uses in the sporting world. I know more than a few people that choose to wear body armor at public ranges as extra insurance against the potential stupidity of those around them.