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

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).

You said yourself that the government has all the power, and can simply snuff out any resistence. If that's the case, doesn't that make the protesters assault a senseless assault? What were they trying to accomplish when they were beating the officer?

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.

> 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...

I agree with you. I think the (relatively) success of the movement so far is due to the sheer creative energy of the protester population.

That said I am fine with measured civil disobedience and symbolic destruction of government / quasi-government / tax-payer funded infrastructure when appropriate.

> But another question is, what are the protesters supposed to do?

But another question is, what people in Beijing supposed to do?

Think of that. To many, it's very clear that men in black will not be content even if given suffrage. Then they will want places in legislature, own foreign policy, armed forces, and ultimately sovereignty.

The popular sentiment that it's "poor HK kids" coming out at large out of desperation for their material situation can't hold water. Most of activists are children of very well off people, well educated, with a lot of life experience overseas, who had their future well being secured by their parents. No way they will be appeased with just a carrot.

The Party is well aware of that. There for long been a sentiment that Hongkong is a "trojan horse" the West gave to China, and the current crisis only reinforces this opinion among people in Beijing, and down to junior-mid-level cadres. There is no way the Party will back down.

This mess will take years to settle down in any scenario.

Ah yes, democratic representation and sovereignty. Entirely unthinkable.

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.

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator that just decided they were going to take all property rights and freedoms like that

Do you know anything about China and Hong Kong? What exactly do you think China has done in Hong Kong?

EDIT: Down-voters, can you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to bury it with down-votes?

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).

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator

Not so hard to imagine these days.

> If tanks roll in, there’s no point using violence as they’ll be crushed

There are many impromptu homemade devices that can be used to deter tanks

Surrender? People criticize the French and others prior to WW2, but would it really have been better to fight unprepared and let a few tens or hundreds of thousands die right off the bat? Sometimes the strategic decision is not the emotional one.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." -Wargames

The situation of HK and the rights of the residents have not fundamentally changed since it was ceded to the British in 1842. In fact they have more democratic representation now than during most of their history.

It's far from perfect but it's infinitely better than on the mainland.

Nothing justifies "resorting to violence" in HK today. The violent actions along with anti-Chinese displays are in fact counterproductive because they push the central government to tighten the screw and unite the mainland's public opinion against them.

Many of these protesters have no democratic culture themselves. Anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and an enemy that must be fought by any means.

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 very notion that people want free government and self-determination is a bad thing is why you're being downvoted on an American forum. There is not a lot of support for oppressive governments that commit genocide against religious minorities and put people in prison for political dissidence.

You may be playing devil's advocate for the "party" but it comes too close to sounding like you're defending them.

The full video shows a officer on the ground being beaten with sticks. So it wasn’t just a kid swinging at the officer.

The irony is of course to downvote to hell any dissenting comment in a debate about democratic values and censorship in China...

> Most of activists are children of very well off people

Do you have data or reference to back them? Surely there could be rich kids among the protestors, but is that a majority of them?

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.

HK is just across the river from me, and I lived enough on both sides to know how the social architecture of both countries works

The best proof of what I said is that all convenience stores and seven elevens are fully staffed, and running. Janitors, taxi drivers continue to work like nothing happened.

HK Poly is more or less preserving minimal functioning, but HK University is effectively defunct now. All kinds of banks, business services companies work in severely reduced capacity.

All of well of Hongkoners I know myself either: 1.) ran away to Mainland, 2.) ran away to Vancouver, 3.) are on the streets right now

Against modern tanks, there really aren't. Even military grade explosive mines don't stop a modern tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-IED_equipment#Mine_Res...) - not to mention things that go in the frontline in urban areas like armored bulldozers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_bulldozer)

What I heard is that they only protest on weekends? Are they doing it everyday now?

> All of well of Hongkoners I know myself either: 1.) ran away to Mainland, 2.) ran away to Vancouver, 3.) are on the streets right now

So, among them, what kind runs away, and what kind goes to the street?

There is no irony. I am not calling the authorities to have you and your family beaten and arrested.

A dissenting comment that is wrong is a bad comment and deserves downvoting for being wrong.

I'm not saying it is wrong, but expecting that democracy means all opinions are valid is a very basic misunderstanding. Very basic.

[flagged]

> Nothing justifies "resorting to violence" in HK today

If they're basically going to be steamrolled by a rather unsubtle up-and-coming superpower, perhaps they have no choice. In fact IF violence is all you're left with (and that does seem to be the case as legal recourse is blocked) then violence is necessary.

The CCP is not backing down until it has borged HK.

What's even sadder is that he cites an instance of the government murdering nonviolent protestors as a reason citizens should not have guns.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/11772741326748...

At the very least it does mean not suppressing opinions that you consider 'wrong'.

This is not a discussion on a technical or scientific topic. This is not black and white.

In fact, and since someone mentioned the American nationality of HN, the lack of subtlety and the need to see everything in black and white, right or wrong, is a common 'criticisim', so to speak, about Americans.

The first question. No way to attest that for me, do your guess from other news.

The super rich of HK are surely out, they do so every time when there is trouble. Hongkongers who bought foreign property or passports in past years are certainly moved out by now too.

So, that leaves your typical petit bourgeois behind. Clerks, government workers, part of white collar workforce

What are the specific "actions of the CCP" that have actually occurred to date that supposedly justify violence from the protesters?

> At the very least it does mean not suppressing opinions that you consider 'wrong'.

true!

> This is not black and white.

Potentially true, but I feel you're fogging the issue (something that happens a surprising amount of time in these discussions involving china).

I distinguished between dissenting comments and bad comments. While that's not utterly B/W it's actually pretty clear.

> In fact, and since someone mentioned the American nationality of HN, the lack of subtlety and the need to see everything in black and white, right or wrong, is a common 'criticisim', so to speak, about Americans.

Ah good old racism! And it is racism BTW. Americans are crude, stupid and gunslinging morons. Well, I've met a very few like that, very few indeed.

Can I make some obnoxious and unfair generalisations about the chinese? You're OK with that I take it?

I'm a brit BTW.

I'm getting used to it so I ceased to comment on the main post whatever. People can believe in what they believe in and it's fine for me. You probably should do the same, too.

> There is not a lot of support for oppressive governments that commit genocide against religious minorities and put people in prison for political dissidence.

That's funny, I thought Saudi Arabia was America's close ally. Yuuuge deals on military hardware, great against defenseless Yemeni citizens. Free bone saw with every 10th missile!

Yes, because what idiot would want to reduce America's world-beating 40,000 gun deaths per year?

HK's homicide rate is almost 20 times lower than the USA's. To catch up with the US murder rate, adjusted for population, the HK police will need to kill about another 350 protestors for this year.

The downside of freedom of speech is what one has to read, sometimes..

Are you implying Russia should have surrendered?

The UK would have likely been forced out of the war before the U.S ever got involved. And then you'd give Germany all the resources of Europe to work with for their next war.

Truly, what are you saying.

That insinuation that I'm uneducated addresses none of my points. So how about replying to the given issues.

> warrants the officer acting in self-defense

I question the appropriateness of using a firearm with conventional lethal ammunition.

A rubber bullet in lower body would have had enough stopping power. What happened looks like a blatant violation of any reasonable protocol law enforcement would be supposed to behave in accordance with under the circumstances.

> A rubber bullet in lower body would have had enough stopping power.

No, it wouldn't. I've sustained worse injuries than a rubber bullet and remained fighting.

A bat to the head is a lethal assault. Using a firearm against such an assailant is completely justified.

This has nothing to do with pro / anti CCP feelings. As far as I'm concerned the CCP should be eliminated.

Your assertion is devoid of any reality.

Truth be told, I'm having too much fun calling out bullshit.

You should try to enjoy it too. It gets lonely sometimes :)

> remained fighting

Without interruption? Then I stand corrected.

I imagine the point would be to confound, give the time to extract the officer from immediate danger, not to immobilize the attacker entirely with a rubber bullet.

(And you’re right, I should not have phrased that as an assertion not being an expert in the field.)

Could you imagine what would happen in America if an officer was on the ground being beaten?

There is another angle that shows the cop charging in with a gun drawn before the shot. https://mobile.twitter.com/antielabhk/status/117897105163343...

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.

Imagine for a minute what would happen to protesters in America if they acted like those in Hong Kong. Any amount of guns would have been met with overwhelming force and put down with absolute prejudice.

We even have laws in more than a handful of states that allows people to run over protesters with their cars and enjoy legal protection.

Keep kidding yourself.

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.

Here is that video from BBC Chinese: https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666

Shooting to kill a 16yr old instead of getting beaten up is justified??

Not where I'm from

--

The only way to end such confrontation is simplistically to love your enemy; or at least stop being quite so mean ;)

Edit: I've never been shot or faced those injuries, but I've certainly been in worse situations than that police officer. So just on that basis that I'm judging his actions

Here is a more complete video showing the exact protestor who got shot (with the blue shield) chasing down an officer and then beating him on the ground before attacking the rescuing officer and getting shot.

https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666

Sure, but not in this particular case. The protestor that was shot was caught on the same video chasing down a police officer and beating him before getting shot.

https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666

At least a full clip.

The video shows that the police officer had his handgun drawn before he was hit with the pipe.

Furthermore, the same officer was actually carrying a rubber bullet gun on him at the time.

Why didn't he deploy rubber bullets at a distance, but instead charged in with his handgun drawn?

When people are celebrating the 2nd in this thread, they are talking about if white middle America was the main composition of the protesters . I guarantee you that none of these 2nd amendment lovers would ever support Ferguson protesters arming themselves, much less deploying lethal force against the police.

> instead if getting beaten up

To be fair, the comment you’re responding to is implying worse outcome than getting beaten up, claiming that the kid & his weapon posed lethal danger to an officer who was defenseless on the ground at the moment.

I do agree with the sentiment though

What happened before that one-and-a-half minute video to cause the protesters to chase down the officer?

Tanks are quite vulnerable in urban combat. As the Russians learned at the start of the battle of Grozny: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994–95)

I DO know something about China and Hong Kong, having lived/worked/studied in them, and having half of my family there. And of course, as in any of these things, nuance is the first thing that goes out the window.

First, although Hongkong has been peaceful in the last decades, it has had some pretty severe rioting before, in the 60s and at various other times. But what we see now is a drawn out result of the 1997 hand-over. There are many factors. One is that China (and the colluding business interests) have moved step by step in opposite direction of democracy. Another is more about psychology - Hongkong used to be a star in the region, but it's now in Chinas shadow and more and more dependent on the mainland, even "overrun" in certain ways. So there is a built up frustration in Hongkong around both of these things.

China has not yet brought down the hammer on Hongkong, and they have not removed property rights and the overall freedom. Sadly, these protests are more likely to bring the dictatorship closer. But all revolutions are like that. Almost inevitably they turn violent (on both sides). The government feel the need to push back harder to quell the fire. In any conflict, both sides lose. And yes, almost inevitably

Now, that's the nuance. Then you have the simple fact that China is not a democracy, it's an oppressive surveillance one-party state. All of the democratic world has a certain moral obligation to either attempt to transform or to oppose China. Unfortunately, most have gotten in too deep and have too much to lose on criticising China. Therefore the global response is weak, and large corporations tend to follow the money rather than the principle. This is very sad.

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.

I don't know - but is your question meant for us to prove the innocence of the victim here?

...and the extended version of that video shows how the protesters chased down that officer first, tackled him, and beat him on the ground (including the exact protester that was shot).

Full video: https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666

GP is clearly talking about France, not Russia.

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.

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

I'm not even talking about leaders on the level politburo, there is no chance they will move. People who reach this level are pretty much robots after 40+ year careers in the party.

People on level municipalities, and provinces may show some rare signs of common sense from time to time, but them moment any of them (yes, even a provincial governor) will rise a hand, they will instantly be politically terminated.

And you have a system where tops are incapable of integrating any input for plainly neurological-biological reasons, and anybody with a shade of influence on them is super duper afraid of getting politically railroaded by both higher ups, and peers contending for promotion.

This is modern China for you.

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.

Such is the distinction between what is good in a utilitarian sense and what is good in an ethical sense.

Blind and dogmatic utilitarianism says "it's in the politician's best interest to suppress the citizenry". Ethics says "it's in the people's interest for the politician to be nice to them".

This always happens. It's the most effective way to create the illusion of legitimacy for using violence to kill peaceful protest. The French police have been doing it for ages.

Yup, I've given up ages ago. When confirmation bias has hit supercritical level like it has here, there's nothing anyone can say anymore that will change the minds of those holding the consensus opinion.

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator that just decided they were going to take all property rights and freedoms like that

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?

>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...

It's the worst part of the Internet: there is really no real listening to the other side. Everybody gets an opinion and the most important thing for him on something not really in his field(s) is, get his opinion out!

I think the HN's algorithm also contribute to the problem: the fastest and most upvoted response leads the discussion, and normally not the most valuable.

It was a few cornered officers, one of whom was having his head stamped on. Not even remotely the same thing

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.

This reminds me of the question: "well, can't the officer just shoot the gun out of his hand or something?"

> Surrender?

Well, as a person of Russian descent I can say fk you with such offers. The Nazis had pretty clear goals for Slavic people. Hitler gave pretty clear picture in Mein Kampf what he planned for East territories, and there were no plans for anybody but Germans.

Here what Nazis did on occupied territories with people who "surrendered"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostarbeiter

> How many American military personnel would just be OK with being told by the President to take property rights and freedoms like that?

We actually have some data about that. See this[1] comment for excerpts from a survey of "300 US Marine Corps soldiers". Short version of the results: 61.66% would not fire on US citizens if given the (illegal) order "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.", with 16% of respondents using very heavy pencil marks or writing comments in the margin for that answer.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10753894

> but is your question meant for us to prove the innocence of the victim here?

You argued that an incomplete video may convey a different story than what has been presented, but the best you could do to support your claim was presenting your own incomplete video.

If you care for the truth instead of forcing an agenda them the problems caused by selective editing don't cease to exist if you're the one doing the selective editing.

> The irony is of course to downvote to hell any dissenting comment in a debate about democratic values and censorship in China...

Please don't confuse PR posts conducted by China's 50 cent army lauding absurdities such as the virtues of a totalitarian regime as "dissenting comment".

The bias you're talking about is real, in my observation, but you can't counteract it by ranting and breaking the site guidelines, let alone baiting others into downvoting you. It's a direct consequence of HN's demographics, which are overwhelmingly Western, and there's no way to change it other than slowly and patiently, by adding good information.

Of course it's frustrating to encounter inflammatory comments that are based in ignorance. But if you respond like this, you feed those comments and give them greater credibility, while discrediting the very side you're trying to defend.

If you know more, then a better way is to share some of what you know so that others can learn. In any case, if you post here, please stick to the site rules regardless of how wrong or ignorant other commenters are or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It takes one blow from a bat to the head to die. Yours is asking someone to risk death death, not a beating.

Were it simple fists I’d wonder what lack of training these officers have. Weapons are another matter.

To add anecdote to the data in a sibling comment, I was in the infantry for many years, deployed many times, saw lots of combat. The US government would have a big problem on its hands if any part of it ordered the US military to take property and/or shoot American citizens: Almost no one I ever met would follow those orders. It is a not-uncommon topic of conversation in the grand tradition of military "what if" games. But this is sort of to be expected: Civil wars are extraordinarily messy and complicated, and history bears out that no state goes into this kind of conflict with its military intact. In fact many times it's the kind of thing which triggers the civil war or coups d'etat: The army gets wind of some "unconscionable actions" by the government's ruling party, and some populist general rounds up a few of his most trustworthy subordinates, and seizes power. This is the story of human state failure.

I understand what you’re saying but the irony here is not lost on me.

I was baiting for good information, not downvotes.

My apologies if it came out wrong.

> China has not yet brought down the hammer on Hongkong, and they have not removed property rights and the overall freedom.

Thank you!

> Sadly, these protests are more likely to bring the dictatorship closer.

That's my fear as well. I'm all for peaceful protests, but I'm afraid the violent protesters are signing the death wish of freedom in Hong Kong.

> Then you have the simple fact that China is not a democracy, it's an oppressive surveillance one-party state.

(I'll ignore the "oppressive surveillance" you snuck in there, as that's not an exclusive to China, and many democracies are much further along in that regard.)

And that makes China automatically bad...how? China has on balance done less evil and more good than most of the democracies of the world. Can we be honest with ourselves and keep an open mind?

> All of the democratic world has a certain moral obligation to either attempt to transform or to oppose China.

China certainly should be kept in check by fellow world powers. But let's not get carried away with mindless ideology and dogma.

Civil disobedience worked because it became unprofitable for Britain to stay in the short to medium term, for China it's a territorial claim and they're happy to wait out any lost profits.

Gandhi's first stint at civil disobedience also landed him in jail for 6 years and there was a lot of violence that also played it's role in Indian independence.

Even with an Afghanistan style insurrection it's hard to see China bleeding enough money to give in, so I'm not sure violent means are much of an answer either.

What about the IEDs used in the middle east? How hard is it to put one of those together?

Let's not use the American police systems as a measuring stick.

Please stop assuming that any comment that does not share your opinion on China is fake.

Ah. The way to get good information is to post some yourself, and to do it in a way that communicates neutrality and openness to other points of view.

If you post in the flamewar style, everyone's going to just go rigid and fire on all cylinders. This mechanism works the same way regardless of what the topic is, and regardless of whose position is right or wrong.

Not to mention that the protests were initially peaceful, then they were repeatedly attacked by gangs at the behest of the local authorities.

It's not proportionate to shoot someone for fighting you with their fists.

What about aiming not in the chest at least? Would a bullet in a foot have enough stopping power, without being so short of lethal outcome?

> Would a bullet in a foot have enough stopping power, without being so short of lethal outcome?

Not reliably, which is why every organization that carries and trains with guns trains center of mass shots except for specialized marksmen training for specialized circumstances, who tend to train harder but even more lethal shots.

When you are using a gun, the choices for reliable stopping are nearly identical to those for maximum fatality. If you aren't justified in killing someone, you have no business firing a gun at them, and if you are justified in firing a gun at someone, aiming anywhere in the limbs doesn't make it nonlethal, it just raises the risk to yourself and bystanders by making the outcome less certain.

We've banned this account for trolling. Doing this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thanks @goblin89, you are right

Sorry @mieseratte, what you say is true. I exaggerated. Looking at the videos now though the boy was armed with a swimming float as a shield and a relatively thin white (plastic??) pole. It's true that that could still cause a lot of damage

But I wasn't there, and if someone is facing a baseball bat (and others in the crowd had hammers) to the head then you are right, that is a different ball game to what I was hoping for

The public opinion completely turned on the British because of Gandhi and that movement. Colonization was seen for what it was...slavery. Having a whole other continent to supply and feed your country was never unprofitable.