
Hong Kong Police Shoot a Protester, 18, with a Live Bullet for the First Time - smacktoward
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/world/asia/hong-kong-police-shooting-national-day.html
======
noego
> _In the video, the protester who was shot is first seen joining a black-clad
> mob of people who chase a riot officer and tackle him to the ground. They
> kick him and beat him with what appear to be metal pipes._

> _At one point, the protester approaches a second police officer who is
> standing nearby with a handgun drawn. Just after the protester hits the
> officer with the pipe, the officer fires at the man at point-blank range._

I'm just as pro-democracy as the next guy, but I can hardly fault a police
officer for shooting someone in the shoulder when they are being hit with a
metal pipe.

I hope the pro-democracy movement in HK returns to its origins of peaceful
demonstrations. I don't think its good for the movement's long-term
sustainability to turn violent.

~~~
traderjane
What is the end game to your advice? China can successfully plant saboteurs
into the movement and will win that game. The only people watching HK with
sympathy are outsiders, and any intervention must be weighed against war.

We already have mass persecution if ethnic Muslims in China with reports of
organ harvesting. The world (who?) isn’t going to war with China over
something like that.

------
vnchr
Closeup video of the shooting:
[https://streamable.com/2hei6](https://streamable.com/2hei6)

Longer video of the shooting:
[https://streamable.com/qtyii](https://streamable.com/qtyii)

------
supernova87a
As saddened I am by this, I would like to point out, though, that the protest
movement has quickly become just like Occupy, where there are now significant
pockets of people taking advantage of the movement to simply cause chaos and
unrest unrelated to advocating responsibly for change.

Perhaps they have some remotely legitimate grievance, but more so they're bent
on taking advantage of the situation to break windows, hurl petrol bombs, etc.
because they're "young and restless".

It is difficult for the police and government to distinguish which is which
until every Saturday night when the "action" erupts. How is a movement to
handle these types of actors in their midst?

------
focom
Hope this will change the perception of the behavior of mainland china over
HK. Wish them to succeed in being a democratic island.

~~~
eugeniub
It's not an island.

~~~
KirinDave
I'm morbidly fascinated by what you thought you meant to say here.

~~~
pricees
I am going to reach and say that the poster means to describe Hong Kong as
Kowloon & Hong Kong Island. I have never been there, I am just here to try
clarifying.

~~~
pwinnski
I've been there a few times. My fiancee was born and raised on Hong Kong.

It's true that the protests also involve the Kowloon side, and even the New
Territories, but it's also perfectly reasonable to refer to Hong Kong as an
island, because everything else isn't actually Hong Kong proper.

------
kace91
This piece of news isn't really visible, to the degree I think it should (at
least in my country).

I worry that, if the Chinese government feels that their escalation isn't
causing much noise on the international stage, they'll take that as an ok sign
to continue...

~~~
bpt3
It seems to be getting a lot of attention outside of China.

I think the shooting will be seen as completely justified since the police
officer was under attack and appeared to use non-lethal force to defend
himself, so China won't see much of a negative response from other nations.

~~~
KirinDave
I think citizens in nations like the US who generally support police violence
at scale will probably think like you do and suggest an agent of a government
that is effectively foreign to Hong Kong was "defending himself" while
attempting to disperse a group of protesters advocating for self rule at the
behest of aforementioned government.

~~~
bpt3
I'm going to ignore the implied insults in your response and clarify my
position, which I don't think is controversial or held only by citizens of
nations that you believe "generally support police violence at scale": Any
person (or other living being for that matter) that is being hit with a pipe
by an attacker has the right to defend themselves from that person.

~~~
KirinDave
I just don't see how you can map someone trying to break up a pro democracy
demonstration as an innocent trying to protect themselves from an attack. He's
a civil officer armed with lethal force. The protesters had blunt objects.

If you enter into a conflict bearing deadly force you either must be prepared
to kill or withdraw your presence. It is not some accident that the police
officer was there.

~~~
bpt3
Yes, he's a civil officer armed with lethal force. He presumably was prepared
to kill or withdraw, but managed to prevent himself from being killed by the
person hitting him with a pipe or the firebomb that went off shortly after he
shot the person hitting him with a pipe, it doesn't look like the person with
the pipe was fatally wounded, and the group of people in the area who appeared
to be making efforts to injure people and destroy property were dispersed.

I assume you would prefer that this officer was not there in the first place,
and Hong Kong was under the control of leaders that were selected in free,
fair elections. Me too!

However, the original point I made was that this officer handled the situation
in a way that is unlikely to generate much, if any, outrage from the
international community or additional sympathy for Hong Kong protesters.
Nothing you've said at any point in this discussion has seriously addressed
this point, let alone refuted it, so this is probably my last comment in this
thread, since you seem to be much more interested in posting rhetoric than
having a conversation.

~~~
KirinDave
What I'm saying is they ought to be outraged, but we're so used to police
violence that when we see a police officer choose to shoot a young person
instead of leave the area, folks hem and haw and say, "Well they did have a
pipe."

For what it's worth, I am saying you're right. But I also think that non-
violent protests only rarely accomplish much of anything on their own when it
comes to government change. Folks talk about a moral high ground in these
cases, but I think its important to note that the status quo ultimately
benefits the aggressors in cases like these.

You can call this rhetoric if you like. I think it's odd you're asking me to
provide an address to a point I ultimately agree with? Folks who like police
violence will like police violence. You can tell they like police violence
because when presented with clear cases of police violence, they make excuses.

~~~
bpt3
I can't help but point out a perfect example of why I don't think you're
interested in an actual discussion: The person with the pipe didn't just have
a pipe, he initiated the interaction by hitting the officer with it. If the
person with the pipe was just walking down the street, or even waving it in a
menacing fashion, and the officer fired, this would be a very different
situation.

If you genuinely don't see the difference between your description and what
was captured in the video, it's not possible to have a rational discussion
about this. If you do, you're being disingenuous at best, and it's also
probably not possible to have a rational discussion about this.

~~~
KirinDave
> he initiated the violence by hitting the officer with it, and the officer
> responded.

Alternative perspective: the officer initiated violence by being there
threatening a crowd advocating for the right to self determination. He came
with lethal armament with the obvious goal of dispersing the gathering. That's
why he was there, and the video shows it.

You see militarized police as normal, so this doesn't shock you. I refuse to
accept that.

You can accuse me of acting in bad faith but I don't see how I could be more
honest about my intentions or characterizations. You aren't even really
refuting them, it seems you agree that militarized police presence should be
normalized in our considerations. I'm not so sure. No good comes of it.

------
ngcc_hk
there is no jusificafion to use gun as argued by an open letter of the Public
Doctor Association.

Use of gun by the police is a right that need support of the community via law
and court. If you can shoot people like that (and not just him there are
several other shooting), you have to ask why people has to accept you to have
gun. We do not have. Do we trust the system the police will investigate the
case of their own kind? If not, should we go to jungle law. Unjust shooting
and police violence in many places (like USA and uk) lead to real riot. The
system may break down. I hope the police and the government understand how
serious the situation could develop.

More importantly it is human rights ignored by the police. Just watch a video
of police holding a video camera on a market asking everyone to look at the
camera. Then saying you are all rubbish. Another one is about cursing of
reporter and if you not go they said they will shoot you like the Indonesian
reporter.

There are million coming out yesterday. They should just we go. It is always
peaceful if the Police do not overreact. they did.

There is no excuse. Fighting yes but gun shoot no. If the police do not want
chaos and even revenge, have to walk back to what they do just 6 months ago.
If not, I am afraid I would advice none if you to Hong Kong.

Three finger up : if we are burnt, you will burn with us ... is not just a
slogan of a movie. It has been used by the protestor from day one.

Good luck. God bless Hong Kong. We are all Human. We are not cockroaches.

