Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 957 posts

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

#821

Post by yourbandsucks »

dillondoyle wrote: post #802
sbmthakur wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US is an empire. Not based on governmental control, but based on financial control. But people in the US can remove legislatures and the top executive(the President). Do people in China have that option?

This sinister & pervasive line of thought terrifies me. Too many Americans under 40 share similar thoughts: my vote doesn't count, some mysterious corporate/billionaire $$ controls everything so why bother, antipathy etc. It's scary that many actually believe this and thus self-fulfill their prophecy because they don't get involved and don't vote. To further amplify this detrimental affect, there are state-sponsored…

Lying to yourself for the greater good?

I've been involved. Will continue to be. It's still the truth.

Ask yourself, how come when America's chief global rival does bad things, it's cause for condemnation, but America must be protected from criticism?

Nobody cares about Yemen but everyone is very sure Hezbollah are bad guys?

Our system of control is so much more effective than state censorship. And the trains don't even run on time.

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

#822

Post by diminoten »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #750
diminoten wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Right, the states are not the same as the people. The right to bear arms is the right "of the people".

No, it's a right of a "well regulated militia", which was at the time run by the states.

The militia wouldn't have been mentioned if it wasn't relevant, and it's only relevant if it's a limitation to the individual right to bear arms.

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

#823

Post by nkurz »

rolltiide wrote: post #808
nkurz wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your formatting makes it look like you are giving examples of unarmed people who are shot by the police, but your list doesn't reflect this. Here's what I found looking at the first three names: Jeremy Connolly: Armed with a knife. "The KBI says police shot Connolly after they found his 71-year-old grandmother, Linda Kromer, stabbed to death inside his home in the 2000 block of Harold Avenue. Officers heard noises in…

Other perspectives: Police statements are predictably found to change under a thinnest level of scrutiny. “Justifiable” use of force varies from department to department, police force to police force, state by state. It does not mean “the only or best option available” as any less controversial action would be equally as justified. US police, in aggregate, are known to escalate situations into something more dangerou…

Yes, these are all good arguments that should be made. Another good argument (implied by your first) is that historically it hasn't been wise to trust the police when they say that a suspect was armed.

My point though (and I hope yours) is that giving a long list of people killed by the police under the apparent header of "unarmed" is counterproductive if the people who were killed were not in fact unarmed. Misleading approaches like this (unintentional or not) turn off people who would otherwise support your cause.

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

#824

Post by madengr »

mav3rick wrote: post #696
cwkoss wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…

Most people want stricter background checks. If you pass the checks it's fine. No one is taking away your guns.

Why is it that it's always a one-way street WRT to gun laws?

True compromise would be red-flag laws or background checks, in exchange for national CCW, or taking suppressors and short barreled rifles off the NFA list.

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

#825

Post by ummonk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32
schuke wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m from the mainland and totally with HK’s cause. But I do think the violence is at least unnecessary if not detrimental to the movement. If tanks roll in, there’s no point using violence as they’ll be crushed. If they don’t, it seems to me there’s enough space for peaceful protests, which can be even more effectual in many ways. And the people of Hong Kong have shown an incredible amount of creativity in non-violen…

> the violence is at least unnecessary if not detrimental to the movement Judgement is complicated by documented evidence of undercover Hong Kong police dressing up as protesters and acting like belligerent idiots [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/world/hong-kong-police-pr...

Yes, but in this case the kid was engaging directly in violence so unless he himself was an agent provocateur, this particular shooting can’t be blamed on undercover cops.

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

#826

Post by CompanionCuuube »

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

> if you accidentally shoot a person in the dark!

Fourth rule: always identify your target.

Even despite the dark, you can attach a flashlight to your firearm that allows you to quickly identify the target before shooting at it. Most modern guns have that capability.

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

#827

Post by phaus »

coldtea wrote: post #818
pageandrew wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a gun in your house and are responsible with it, nobody will be at risk.

Yeah, sure... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/man-shoots... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nra-employee-shoots-himself_n... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-accidently-shoots-self-wife... (I won't even mention the circular argument in the parent comment)

Gun owners accidentally shooting themselves means there's a 100% chance they were doing something that following the most basic gun safety controls that everyone knows about would make impossible. You can infer from this that those people were not responsible gun owners.

Link 1: Guy said it was unloaded. Gun safety rule #1 is treat every gun likes its loaded and clear every gun when someone hands it to you so you know personally that it is in fact unloaded.

Not doing either of those things is incredibly stupid and irresponsible.

Link 2: "The man was showing his girlfriend that loaded guns are safe when he died" - The guy was playing with a loaded gun. No legitimate gun safety demonstration would claim that a loaded gun is ever safe. That's not responsible gun handling.

Link 3: Doesn't describe the incident in detail but he pointed a loaded gun at a living thing so its gross negligence.

Link 4: Another questionable gun safety demonstration. Once again no detail but he pointed a loaded gun at a person else it would have been physically impossible for a person to get shot.

It is not standard practice to have live rounds around when you are doing a safety demonstration. They make clearly marked training rounds that have no propellant in them for the purpose of demonstrating loading and unloading a firearm. Using live rounds is not justifiable as "responsible" behavior.

Its disingenuous to use examples of people doing incredibly reckless things in order to argue that "responsible gun owners" regularly shoot themselves or others.

Gun handling is like being the only car driving on a road during the day with clear, calm weather, no animals, and no pedestrians around. It makes it so simple that all you have to do is maintain a sane speed and drive between the lines and there's no way you can get into an accident. Handling a gun is always like that unless you're on a battlefield or something. If you follow simple rules its impossible to hurt someone.

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

#828

Post by cwkoss »

nerfhammer wrote: post #790
cwkoss wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the Black Panther Party was formed in 1966 and the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964

Good point! I didn't realize that there are two 'Civil Rights Act's from the 60's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 prohibited school and employment segregation and gave minorities voting rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968 prohibited housing discrimination and criminalized hate crimes

It appears earlier armed defense was carried out by various groups in the Black Power movement, including the Freedom Riders and Black Armed Guard led by Robert F. Williams.

The Black Panthers were ideologically inspired by Williams, but I had conflated earlier action with the later-formed group. Thanks for pointing that out!

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

#829

Post by slavik81 »

thisisnico wrote: post #739
jammygit wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Under Canadian law, pretty much anything that can be used as a weapon is illegal to carry for use as a weapon. If that fight was in a wooded area where carrying bear spray was a reasonable precaution against bears, there would be no crime. The weapon offense was for carrying bear spray with the primary intention of using it on people.

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

#830

Post by MikeHolman »

hokumguru wrote: post #120
empath75 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were armed this would have been over a long time ago. China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes. Once you take up arms against the government that’s not a protest, that’s a civil war.

The world would react quite brutally I imagine to another massacre from China - especially one on this potential scale.

Killing armed rioters would get much less condemnation than killing unarmed protesters.
Post reply on HN