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 take all property rights and freedoms like that -- I think taking to the streets, and even resorting to violence might be necessary (otherwise the powers-that-be have no reason to listen to a bunch of people standing in a street hundreds of miles away).
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-violent protests. The kid is so young he shouldn’t be involved in such violence. I hope he will make a full recovery.
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 force. But what was the alternative to certain carnage? Supplicant carnage? I don’t condone what the Soviets did to their own, but at the same time they had little alternative, though it was due to negligence at the highest office at the time.
This kind of discussion seems to constantly confuse "good" as in "moral", or at least "morally justified" and "good" as in "effective to achieve one's goal".
I believe that while protester's violence may very well be morally justified (I don't have enough data to judge, but I can easily imagine this case), I don't think that it can be effective to achieve protester's political goals. Violent protest is only effective when the violence reaches it's logical conclusion and opposing force simply withdraws or surrenders. As was the case in Ukraine in 2014, or in USSR in 1991, it doesn't even need to be a LOT of violence - just enough for the opposite side to get completely demoralized. But China's police and military are not only numerous, well-trained and well-funded - they're also very highly motivated and believe (I think, mistakenly, but truth of their belief is irrelevant) in their cause.
So, the only way for protesters to succeed is to make China look bad: and generally, peaceful protesters are much more effective at creating positive sentiment than armed ones.
Also, further muddying things, it shows a moltov cocktail nearly miss a cop right afterwards, and a cop tackle and arrest someone who is on the ground trying to attend to the protestor who was shot. It looks like total chaos on both sides and is way more complicated than someone swinging at someone else.
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.
When we are judging individuals, it's important to judge with individual circumstances.
Was THIS protestor being violent? Was THIS police officer justified in firing?
In this case, there is one video that isn't getting much viewership which very clearly shows the protestor who was shot, chasing down and beating a police officer on the ground. The officer that fired was coming to the rescue when the protestor attacked him with a pipe and was shot.
>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?
That's not how it works in several western countries. People can swing, throw rocks, even molotov cocktails at the SWAT teams, and they still don't shoot live rounds back - and it would be a huge political issue if they did...
How many American military personnel would just be OK with being told by the President to take property rights and freedoms like that? Do you think they're mind-controlled idiots? It doesn't just suddenly happen, we don't have a totalitarian mindset, it would have to be very gradual and against people who are demonized as immoral or as a scourge on society, like Mexicans or Jews or liberals or Christians. Even then it's so easy to spread news and there's so many people with guns and easy accessibility that it's just going to happen unless we become a more complacent fascist country.
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 recorded by someone's cellphone and shared instantly with the world. Public acts of violence is a PR nightmare and only fans the flames of dissent.
This event will only harden HKers more. In the short term it might prevent mainstream protesters from taking to the streets out of fear of violence. But it will make the average HKer more resentful of Beijing's long arm and empower radical factions. And there are many ways to weaken a government's control outside of public protest.
EDIT: Protester is in critical condition. He was not killed.
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 having any of it, they drew their guns and shot in the air. There's a difference between an officers' life being in danger, and the officer stupidly putting his life in danger.
Full context is police officers often beat protests during arresting. Sometimes they just fight each other. Anyway, I think the officer have better choices than attempting to kill the kid(shot in chest is obvious willing to kill).
Just like the Yuen Long attack by white shirt triads sparked the current cycle of violence, this will further escalate a dangerous situation. There is a clear difference between fighting with sticks and stones to guns. It is now only a matter of time before somebody shoots a police officer in retaliation and when that happens, violence will spiral out of control.
But isn't it pretty obvious these people are physically attacking armed officers as they are retreating? And they are beating up and kicking another downed officer in the head?
Whilst I might have sympathy for their cause the kid struck an armed officer with a weapon whilst he wielded a gun as his friends beat another armed officer. I have very little sympathy for anyone who makes such poor decisions in a group delerium of impunity.
Edit: If anyone downvoting would care to offer another option, that would be appreciated
One is, what it the police officer right there and then supposed to do? Police forces across the world have faced similarly violent protests, and even riots while managing not to shoot anybody. It's part of their job. Police in the UK in riot situations aren't even armed with firearms. Pretty much the only situations in which UK police ever get issued firearms is when facing similarly armed criminals. If they are getting themselves in situations, against protesters not armed with guns, where they feel the need to shoot their way out, they have badly screwed up.
Secondly, HK police routinely assault and very severely beat even non-violent protesters. They have frequently provoked and incited violence. This isn't an isolated example of defensive violence by peace keeping law officers. This is a further escalation to potentially lethal violence by a hostile force that has repeatedly upped the scale of violence in HK.
i think i saw yesterday though that the Government there is infiltrating the protest groups with agent provocateurs so i dont know what to believe anymore
> The Boston Massacre is considered one of the most significant events that turned colonial sentiment against King George III and British Parliamentary authority. John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on March 5, 1770, and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations (Massacre Day) to encourage public sentiment toward independence. Christopher Monk was the boy who was wounded in the attack and died in 1780, and his memory was honored as a reminder of British hostility.
Ah yes, if Chinese police did it, its barbaric. US cops do far worse on a daily basis and are worshiped as heroes and literally get away with murder without so much as a charge.
Saw some of the videos and reports, it is awful. One thing I don't understand - these cops are also from HK, correct? The protestors are fighting for the cops rights too, correct? If that is true, what is going on in the mind of a cop who is beating an unarmed protestor?
Vice News was doing, IMO, some of the best coverage of the situation in Hong Kong. Sadly, it seems the new AT&T leadership at HBO decided to make their mark and didn’t renew their contract.
Serious question: Why aren't more from the police protesting as well, and supporting their citizens?
I expect it is from fear of the government? What would they do to police unwilling to perform their duty?
I wonder, because you have to assume some percentage of the police is in agreement with the protestors.
Or maybe it is because right now, no matter what their opinion is, the need for order and police is greater than ever.
No idea what their pay structure is like, but if they're getting paid overtime they're creating a direct cost for the government and making a profit at the same time. Their protest can be as simple as turning up and doing a half-assed job.
What is the protestors' end game here? Hasn't the extradition bill been killed? What do they need to end the protests and return to normal? I am genuinely curious.
[+] [-] program_whiz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schuke|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|6 years ago|reply
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 force. But what was the alternative to certain carnage? Supplicant carnage? I don’t condone what the Soviets did to their own, but at the same time they had little alternative, though it was due to negligence at the highest office at the time.
[+] [-] philliphaydon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golergka|6 years ago|reply
I believe that while protester's violence may very well be morally justified (I don't have enough data to judge, but I can easily imagine this case), I don't think that it can be effective to achieve protester's political goals. Violent protest is only effective when the violence reaches it's logical conclusion and opposing force simply withdraws or surrenders. As was the case in Ukraine in 2014, or in USSR in 1991, it doesn't even need to be a LOT of violence - just enough for the opposite side to get completely demoralized. But China's police and military are not only numerous, well-trained and well-funded - they're also very highly motivated and believe (I think, mistakenly, but truth of their belief is irrelevant) in their cause.
So, the only way for protesters to succeed is to make China look bad: and generally, peaceful protesters are much more effective at creating positive sentiment than armed ones.
[+] [-] mattnewton|6 years ago|reply
Also, further muddying things, it shows a moltov cocktail nearly miss a cop right afterwards, and a cop tackle and arrest someone who is on the ground trying to attend to the protestor who was shot. It looks like total chaos on both sides and is way more complicated than someone swinging at someone else.
[+] [-] mav3rick|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koheripbal|6 years ago|reply
Was THIS protestor being violent? Was THIS police officer justified in firing?
In this case, there is one video that isn't getting much viewership which very clearly shows the protestor who was shot, chasing down and beating a police officer on the ground. The officer that fired was coming to the rescue when the protestor attacked him with a pipe and was shot.
Here is that video from BBC Chinese: https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666
[+] [-] coldtea|6 years ago|reply
That's not how it works in several western countries. People can swing, throw rocks, even molotov cocktails at the SWAT teams, and they still don't shoot live rounds back - and it would be a huge political issue if they did...
[+] [-] jamesb93|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsder|6 years ago|reply
He wouldn't be in power long because the economy would shut down and the US cities are extremely dependent upon a functioning economy.
And say California and Texas don't go along--now what? That's more than 50% of your military.
This is similar to Syria. Sure, Assad is still in power, but what's left of the country?
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] daveheq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] humble_engineer|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tmux314|6 years ago|reply
This event will only harden HKers more. In the short term it might prevent mainstream protesters from taking to the streets out of fear of violence. But it will make the average HKer more resentful of Beijing's long arm and empower radical factions. And there are many ways to weaken a government's control outside of public protest.
EDIT: Protester is in critical condition. He was not killed.
[+] [-] bhy|6 years ago|reply
Are these backed by evidence, or just rumours? Of course the protestors will blame the police, and the police may blame the protestors too.
[+] [-] radmarshallb|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dx87|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woutr_be|6 years ago|reply
There's been other instances today where police was just looking to fight protestors, and as soon as they realized protestors weren't having any of it, they drew their guns and shot in the air. There's a difference between an officers' life being in danger, and the officer stupidly putting his life in danger.
[+] [-] sigzero|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vnchr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodea2345|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlevental|6 years ago|reply
shows cop ran into the crowd and had a clear exit path (not necessary to shoot to remain safe)
[+] [-] vnchr|6 years ago|reply
Longer video of the shooting: https://streamable.com/qtyii
[+] [-] potatofarmer45|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nilkn|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easytiger|6 years ago|reply
But isn't it pretty obvious these people are physically attacking armed officers as they are retreating? And they are beating up and kicking another downed officer in the head?
Whilst I might have sympathy for their cause the kid struck an armed officer with a weapon whilst he wielded a gun as his friends beat another armed officer. I have very little sympathy for anyone who makes such poor decisions in a group delerium of impunity.
Edit: If anyone downvoting would care to offer another option, that would be appreciated
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
Good grief. Would you please review the site guidelines and take care to edit such flamebait out of your posts to HN?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] simonh|6 years ago|reply
One is, what it the police officer right there and then supposed to do? Police forces across the world have faced similarly violent protests, and even riots while managing not to shoot anybody. It's part of their job. Police in the UK in riot situations aren't even armed with firearms. Pretty much the only situations in which UK police ever get issued firearms is when facing similarly armed criminals. If they are getting themselves in situations, against protesters not armed with guns, where they feel the need to shoot their way out, they have badly screwed up.
Secondly, HK police routinely assault and very severely beat even non-violent protesters. They have frequently provoked and incited violence. This isn't an isolated example of defensive violence by peace keeping law officers. This is a further escalation to potentially lethal violence by a hostile force that has repeatedly upped the scale of violence in HK.
[+] [-] marliechiller|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|6 years ago|reply
> The Boston Massacre is considered one of the most significant events that turned colonial sentiment against King George III and British Parliamentary authority. John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on March 5, 1770, and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations (Massacre Day) to encourage public sentiment toward independence. Christopher Monk was the boy who was wounded in the attack and died in 1780, and his memory was honored as a reminder of British hostility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Contribution_t...
[+] [-] dirkg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] justaguyhere|6 years ago|reply
Or are these cops from mainland China?
[+] [-] tehjoker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doomleika|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdubs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] factsaresacred|6 years ago|reply
You can't mob the guys with guns. Not in HK, not in the West, not anywhere.
There's a complete breakdown of trust on both sides so likely a long time before this defuses.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jonasft|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flukus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] systematical|6 years ago|reply