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

#731

Post by grecy » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #188

fennecfoxen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, democratic representation and sovereignty. Entirely unthinkable.

Imagine yourself a party bureaucrat. Would you do a 100% career ending move? That's why I point to the crisis being irresolvable. No way out of this for both sides.

The king of Botswana did it to himself. (and was then democratically elected as the president)

The General in Nigeria who overthrew the President in a Coup then handed power over to a new democratically elected President a year later.

Yes. Good, honest upstanding men (and women) will destroy their own position and power when it's the right thing to to.

The hard part is finding the Good and honest ones, and I suspect they are very few are far between in the Chinese leadership.

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

#732

Post by nexuist » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #262

nexuist wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this without a revolution. They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050. The people are protesting because they see the writing on the wall and realize independence is fleeting. Without getting into the specifics of Sharia…

> They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050. This is I guess the core of the problem - how is this enforceable? > That being said, there are limits to the tolerance Indeed, there is a wide spectrum of cases where states defied and still defy federal statutes. I picked my example as something that seemed so extreme that it would be hard to tolerate unlike some of the other…

> - is egregiously against the enclosing country's founding principles (the US Constitution vs. whatever China has - absolute CP authority?)

Interestingly enough, the Chinese Constitution at one point arguably endowed even more rights onto the people than the American one:

"Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that 'citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration.'[3] In the 1978 constitution, these rights were guaranteed, but so were the right to strike and the 'four big rights', often called the 'four bigs': to speak out freely, air views fully, hold great debates, and write big-character posters."[1]

Unfortunately that same Constitution also gives the government rights to take away other rights in the name of "protecting the [Communist] state," which is why authoritarian China is the China we know today.

I am not an expert on the Chinese Constitution nor a citizen of Hong Kong, but I think revolutionary HKers can make the argument that they are trying to live up to the original 1982 Constitution put forth before the rise of the CCP, which they may view as a totalitarian takeover of what was once their ideal legal system (since the CCP did not have such total control at the time of their British handoff).

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s...

> Also: Edit: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

Thank you for the response!

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

#733

Post by ixtli » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:23 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #123

ixtli wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From experience, people who are able to live their lives casually collecting weapons here are also able to live pretty disconnected from the reality of these types of situations. We're long, long past a world where a rag tag band of ideologically enfranchised citizens could oppose the police. The fantasy of standing up to The Gubment comes from two things: 1) a rambo fantasy. a serious overestimate of your own skills…

3) a supposition that "if it ever came to that" a meaningful subset of the military and the police would join (and lead) the revolution.

yeah thats basically what i was going for here. ammo-fetishists and people who cant tell the difference between reality and movies are rampant in america, imo.

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

#734

Post by mhroth » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #423

Ancalagon wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you were being funny, but I actually wholly agree with this statement. Every gun owner should have safes/locks for their guns.

I was being serious. I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership. Switzerland is a good model. The NRA loves to point at rates of Swiss gun ownership. If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws I think you’d be okay.

Then the USA should also enact obligatory military service. So that everyone would know how to use those guns. And see them as a grave responsibility, not just a right.

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

#735

Post by sandy123 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

mav3rick wrote: post #694

program_whiz wrote: post #13

Sure, the kid was swinging at the officer, and I suppose that warrants the officer acting in self-defense. But another question is, what are the protesters supposed to do? The government has all the power, and can simply snuff out any resistence. If you just stand in the streets, they really don't care, they are going to take your freedom. Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator that just decided they were going to…

Do you know about Gandhi's nonviolence and civil disobedience movement ? Not saying this is what's required right now. But ultimately it was that that turned the British public opinion and the Crown was forced to withdraw from the colonies.

This would work, if they had a leader representing this movement.

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

#736

Post by bdamm » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:27 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".

This is silly, guns can't protect the population against the modern government. It would start by running a disinformation campaign to turn citizens against each other, then would purge large swaths of the resisting power structure using slaughterbot-type approaches. Areas of significant political resistance would be wiped out using chemical weapons, or even nuclear weapons. The weapons of the U.S. Military turned against the population of the U.S. would be efficiently horrific at reducing resistance. Oh, you think the U.S. Military wouldn't do that? Nazi Germany is calling and they want their history lesson back.

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

#737

Post by munk-a » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:28 PM UTC

dmurray wrote: post #688

munk-a wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even worst tyranny has some public support usually. Tyranny always has public support. The evil wizard lord of a kingdom scenario has never and will never occur in reality - someone despised by everyone cannot come into power... That doesn't mean the tyrant has the majority of public support, but I'd find it hard to believe any tyrant has less than 30% when coming to power.

Someone despised by everyone can come into power when they are born into it. King John of England is a common example, though I don't know how historically accurate. That said, your point is important and something many people don't seem to understand: those foreign leaders we in the West like to describe as tyrants, dictators, despots, strongmen, etc, are generally at least popular at home, and often adored.

I don't really accept King John as a counter example. I'd revise my statement above to clarify that only someone with popular support can usurp power - unpopular monarchy can inherit power either because (1) the monarchy as an institution is more regarded than individual monarchs (2) once seizing power a tyrant can usually reduce their popular support and retain that power - the same holds for institutions of power, so the monarchy might not be popular but enough power is gained from and invested in it's continuance that no one wants it to go away[1]. John also may have been a desirable monarch because he was initially a useful idiot and managed to ride luck to transform that initial investiture of some power into a stronger reign.

Lastly, popular support is from the factions, not the people - in medieval europe most of the people had no factional representation politically, all the power had been entirely concentrated in the various estates.

1. See Lord Vetinari in like every discworld book ever.

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

#738

Post by diminoten » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:28 PM UTC

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #670

diminoten wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second amendment was nothing then like it is today; until 2008 it has been interpreted to mean the states have a right to raise a militia, not as an individual mandate to possess firearms.

That is not true, although there is a DailyKos article that says that. Whatever rights they wanted to give the states in the Constitution, they gave to "the states". The right to bear arms was specifically given to "the people", to prevent disarmament.

The states are not the same as the people. You literally notice what you wrote is different in the two sets of quotes you have here, right?

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

#739

Post by thisisnico » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:28 PM UTC

jammygit wrote: post #700

cwkoss wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Similarly, most people who live in rural areas also have a need for guns to protect themselves adequately - from animals as well as malicious people - as police and other state protection can be an hour or more away when they try to respond rapidly. I prefer to focus on the Black Panthers use case because there is an interesting cognitive dissonance in the modern left in that anti-racism and gun control are…

As a Canadian, I’m always confused at how safe Americans think a gun makes them when in the woods. Guns are not a good defence against many wild animals. Get some bear spray, it is dramatically more effective and will not kill somebody as easily if you accidentally shoot a person in the dark! Point taken about the civil rights marches though

I have witnessed a teen use bear spray in a fight that took place outside of tim hortons between 20 teens and an (Not naming) Food delivery service driver in their mid 40's. The guy was screaming on the floor for an hour. The Police considered it as a weapon.

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

#740

Post by coryfklein » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:31 PM UTC

CharlesColeman wrote: post #646

coryfklein wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners. > Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? The infrastructure is the exact kind of ground that can be held much more securely against pistols and rifles using the U.S.'s advanced weaponry. > Do you th…

> Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners. By deterrence, did you actually mean motivation? Killing someone's family and friends often radicalizes them, and I would say it very rarely pacifies them. I mean look at the example of the HK protests: the police didn't stop them by kicking some people's teeth in [1], they actual…

No. I believe that the sum total effect would be deterrence - sure some would radicalize and may throw themselves suicidally against the regime, but I believe the majority would give way to their desire for self preservation.

Why does the USA order strikes on terrorist targets, knowing full well there will be blowback? Because, on the whole, the strategy works.