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

#291

Post by rgbrenner » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

Fezzik wrote: post #168

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".

I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion.…

We can't defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan... and that's just the size of Texas. The rocky mountains cover more area than AF; our borders are more porous (the Canadian border is the longest in the world); and our citizens have the most firearms in the world - total or per person (far more than AF or IQ). The US military cant stop insurgents from moving across the border with Pakistan, but they would be able to stop them on a border 4x longer? They can't stop drugs from south america (at the mexican border, or through the gulf of mexico), but they would if it were money or weapons?

I've posted this here before: The US military has an urban warfare document that states the number of troops required to secure N population. It's based on their experience and the experience of others in past wars in holding urban terrain. If you add up all of the military, police, national guard, fbi, etc... you aren't even close to the number the US military says are required to secure the US. Even if they hired millions of people to do so, they would still leave large swaths of the US unsecured (like the rocky mountains) where insurgents could operate.

I don't know why when this is brought up people imagine citizens would stand face to face with the US military. Like they would be so dumb as to stick their face in front of a gun and ask they be shot.

The US military says they can't secure the US from an insurgency. If you think otherwise, I would seriously like to hear what you base that on.

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

#292

Post by amanaplanacanal » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

program_whiz wrote: post #63

mc32 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously this is very complicated. Protesters have rights but so do police officers —we hope both operate within the bounds of the law and then that politicians would do the work for a compromise. But, it becomes really complicated rather fast when rights get eroded. When the Russians were caught unprepared for war, it wasn’t “right” to send their young conscripts to war with antiquated arms against a modernized for…

Yeah, I don't favor violence against anyone. But also have to question the ethics of someone who would join the police force to take the rights of HK citizenry by force. But we need compassion for those officers too, likely they didn't have many options, and dropping party loyalty because you're getting squeemish is a recipe for disappearing or at least a life of poverty and suffering (I'm guessing).

And those people have families too. People are willing to give up a lot to take care of their families. How many of us would do the right thing knowing what might happen to our families? I bet not many.

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

#293

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #173

swarnie_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-American here, i never really understood your second amendment or how you cling to it in the modern age. What are a couple of rednecks with assault rifles (which arguably they shouldn't be able to purchase anyway) going to do against semi-autonomy kill droids being flown from a bunker in the desert?

The historical context is somewhat divorced from the modern interpretation (and in other respects, intimately connected). The thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. Revolution was not what we would call today a grassroots movement. It was based in the pre-existing State-level representative governments. It wasn't a mob of people spontaneously deciding to take to the streets and push the bastards out, it was a functio…

> State of Virginia using its own Army of Virginia to drive out anyone trying to interfere overly much in its business

This didn't go so well for the slave states.

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

#294

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #221

orf wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d think that an armed protest group would mean that the government reacts with _less_ force? Rather than simply deploying an appropriate amount of force to stop them? Because the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA, and there is no way a government would set a precedent that all you need to make it capitulate is wave a gun around. I…

the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA After Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq it literally boggles my mind that anyone still believes that. In fact Afghanistan twice, the Mujaheddin defeated the Soviets the same way.

Well... the mujaheddin had US-supplied shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. That did help them a bit...

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

#295

Post by geggam » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #270

jacobush wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police in Sweden is trained to shoot to maim, but only in somewhat controlled situations, such as someone wielding a knife approaching officers from a distance. First warn verbally, then fire a warning shot, then fire at the legs. When there is no margin left, fire to stop. (Which means in practice, often death.) https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befog...

The distance has to be very great - 21 feet is often quoted as the minimum distance where a gun wins over a knife. And many barrooms are less than that. So in theory its a kind idea. But hardly ever significant in practice?

I would argue a sawed off double barrel 12 gauge with double / triple aught buck would reduce that down to a few feet.

Problem would be how you train people to hold their cool

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

#296

Post by throwaway_law » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

Redoubts wrote: post #268

throwaway_law wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The democratically elected leader was over thrown by the Communist party and the Soviets invaded to support the illegitimate communist government. The US supported the anti-communist opposition, and the Soviets withdrew and Afghanistan returned to democratic elections. Like all things politics, its all how you spin it. Perhaps the real loss was what happened after the US spent over $1T to spread democracy in Afghanis…

> Perhaps the real loss was what happened after the US spent over $1T to spread democracy Yes, this is the event we're talking about. Not the one in the 80s.

Well the Taliban is no longer in power, removing them from power was the purpose of our use of force and military operations in Afghanistan starting in 2001...again when it comes to war "winning" is kind of in the eye of the beholder.

FYI we spent over $1T to spread democracy in Afghanistan pre-2001.

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

#297

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

wbronitsky wrote: post #237

mc32 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it the opposite way, the tanks become a last resort. They have to use hard power rather than alternatives.

And this exchange exposes us to the fallacy of this argument in that it cannot be proved one way or another. One post says the reaction will be one way, the next asserts the opposite, and neither have relevant facts that can support their argument.

One side has Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq as evidence. The other has... what?

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

#298

Post by ChrisLomont » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #263

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 why we have the second amendment. It's not why we have the 2nd Amendment. 2A applies only to militias, and the Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over State militias to suppress insurrections: "The Congress shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1] Further, the Militia Act of 1792 allows the presid…

>2A applies only to militias

This is untrue, and the Supreme Court has ruled several times on it. The states, which mostly modeled their Constitutions on the Federal ones, have a significant majority of them giving the people explicit individual right to bear arms.

Or read the Federalist Papers, or look at common law leading up to the constitution, or realize that the Bill of Rights was added at the states request to protect individual rights, not collective govt sanctioned rights.

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

#299

Post by Legogris » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

UIZealot wrote: post #93

pimmen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protest was about the prospect of losing those rights, starting with being subject to mainland laws through extradition. The protest has then expanded to being against the CCP undermining ”one country, two systems” in general, an example of which would be Gui Minhai who’s serving time for a book he published in Hong Kong. So, I would say the analogy is still apt. The CCP control is being implemented which is what…

> The CCP control is being implemented which is what the protesters are against. Really ? How exactly is it being implemented? EDIT: Down-voters, can you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to bury it with down-votes?

There are several reports of people whom the CCP views as antagonistic having gone missing when flying into or through China. Bookshop owners, political activists and writers, for example.

The strong reaction against the extradition bill comes to a large part out of (reasonable) fear that it will be abused as a tool to get rid of dissidents and pro-independence elements.

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

#300

Post by bhy » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:37 PM UTC

tmux314 wrote: post #42

This is not the first time the HKPF has used overt force on a protester, just the first time it has done so publicly. Several protesters have already been "disappeared", and there are many stories coming out of brutal torture against activists. If Beijing authorities have learned one thing from Tiananmen Square, it's that in the internet age violent suppression must happen in private places, where it cannot be record…

> Several protesters have already been "disappeared", and there are many stories coming out of brutal torture against activists.

Are these backed by evidence, or just rumours? Of course the protestors will blame the police, and the police may blame the protestors too.