
Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests - nodea2345
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/dbqgb0/protester_shot_in_chest_by_live_police_round/
======
program_whiz
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).

~~~
schuke
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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _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...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/world/hong-kong-police-
protests.html)

~~~
koheripbal
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](https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666)

------
tmux314
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.

~~~
bhy
> 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.

~~~
Joakal
Rumours mostly. See below for an example.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d0tnei/missing_pe...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d0tnei/missing_people_831_incidents/)

------
dx87
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.

~~~
vnchr
The police are allowed to shoot someone in the leg. Lethal force is not the
only option with a firearm.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Citation needed.

Which police force trains their officers to shoot people in the leg?

My understanding is that, if you need to shoot someone, there’s an immediate
threat. You shoot for the largest target, so you won’t miss and so you do the
most damage.

If you aim for the leg, you’re likely to miss. Even if you hit the leg,
there’s a femoral artery in there. If you hit that person will bleed out in
just a few minutes.

~~~
jacobush
The Swedish police. They are allowed to shoot to kill, but in some
circumstances (likely not a riot, but it's a case by case judgement) are
instructed to aim for the legs.

~~~
MS90
This is strange to me. Firstly, because hitting a target with a pistol under
high stress can be extremely difficult and legs are smaller than torso, and
secondly, because "aiming for the legs" doesn't guarantee that it won't be
lethal. If you take a shot to the femoral artery your chances of surviving
aren't great. In fact, they're probably worse than taking a shot to the torso.

There was a video going around a few years ago where a policeman shot a robber
in the thigh. The round hit his femoral artery and he was dead within five
minutes.

~~~
jacobush
It is kind of strange, but nevertheless, that's how it is. They are supposed
to use the maim option with discretion. And it has caused death several times.

The police used to have smaller caliber pistols, and IIRC they put 14 rounds
in someone leg, which didn't stop him from approaching the policemen doing the
shooting. He still died though! This incident was one reason why they were
later equipped with the more powerful SigSauer for more stopping power.

~~~
MS90
Jeez that's crazy. 14 rounds in a leg...how was that thing even still
attached?

Do the police there have tasers? That could be a good tool for this type of
thing.

~~~
jacobush
Small caliber rounds. Tasers may come in the future. But back when that
incident happened, tasers were not a thing.

Edit: I am torn on tasers. It’s a viable tool. I am just very pessimistic. I
fully expect them to used VERY liberally in all sorts of situations where we
got along very fine without them. It’s yet another way of dehumanising an
encounter

~~~
MS90
Yeah, they do seem like they get used a lot here in the US. That said, I'd
much rather be dehumanized with a taser than with a gun.

~~~
jacobush
Of course!

It's just that I think you will be attacked with a taser instead of being
asked to lie still on the ground until they can handcuff you. Suspect
neutralized. Or tased in the cruiser for being unruly. Except they were just
angry with you. And so on. Unless tasing comes with the kind of paperwork that
comes with discharging a firearm, I think it will be misused _a lot_.

------
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)

------
potatofarmer45
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.

------
nilkn
I prefer not to get major news from Reddit. The New York Times is covering
this in great detail: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/world/asia/china-
national...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/world/asia/china-national-day-
hong-kong-protests.html)

------
easytiger
Obviously China is evil etc etc.

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

~~~
marliechiller
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

~~~
easytiger
Entirely irrelevant as there is a video of the kid hitting a police officer
with his gun drawn. This is entirely self inflicted.

There is no strategic advantage to physically attacking a police officer in
this context. It didn't further a cause in any conflict. If you go and hit
someone with a gun pointed at you it is undeniable that the person acted in
self defence.

I hate to be defending these things, but the hypocrisy and hyperbole are
unhelpful in understanding the truth

~~~
tyingq
The video. Pretty clear he's swinging something that looks like a pipe or a
wooden stick. Not the full context, and I imagine the police have things to
answer for. But swinging a stick/pipe at an armed person isn't wise.

[https://www.facebook.com/hkucampustv/videos/542398913195804/...](https://www.facebook.com/hkucampustv/videos/542398913195804/?v=542398913195804)

------
gwbas1c
Remember the Boston Massacre:

> 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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Contribution_to_American_Revolution)

------
dirkg
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.

~~~
myxozoa
This is a topic of fierce controversy in america, where police shootings often
result in protests

This is an example of the same disconnect you describe in the comment

------
justaguyhere
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?

Or are these cops from mainland China?

~~~
0x262d
cops are trained to view their own population as hostile everywhere

------
tehjoker
This is bad, but the US should not intervene. Never have I ever seen an
"intervention" help. If you can name one I'd love to hear it.

------
doomleika
Longer context
[https://twitter.com/ezracheungtoto/status/117901890027863244...](https://twitter.com/ezracheungtoto/status/1179018900278632448)

------
gdubs
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.

------
jonasft
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.

~~~
flukus
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.

------
factsaresacred
I respect the bravery of the protesters but in certain cases the violence is
getting out of hand. An example from today:
[https://twitter.com/FxLowe/status/1179019436923056128](https://twitter.com/FxLowe/status/1179019436923056128)

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.

------
systematical
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.

~~~
ptx
The five demands:

1\. Withdraw the bill - which finally did happen, after much stalling.

2\. Independent investigation of the police intervention.

3\. Not classifying the mostly peaceful protests as riots.

4\. Release of the many arrested protesters. (Who could face very long prison
sentences because of previous point.)

5\. Democratic elections of the HK government - which seems wildly optimistic
but is apparently in the HK constitution.

~~~
systematical
Thank you

------
azemzaj
Here is the full video from BBC for context
[https://youtu.be/Q0AiW_qMTt8](https://youtu.be/Q0AiW_qMTt8)

------
loquor
This might sound alarmist, but do you think China is the biggest upcoming
global problem after climate change? For two reasons:

1\. China has a totalitarian ruling system. They intend to realize George
Orwell's 1984.

2\. Present-day China essentially has no ethics. Take the US in comparison. No
matter how perverse the people in power become and even if they do messed up
things, the US has some founding morals and principles they do not forget.
China, in comparison, systematically rooted out these values since the Great
Leap Forward. The happenings at Hong Kong and Xinjiang epitomize that.

I do think China's expansionist policy bodes poorly for all of humanity.

~~~
baddox
What policies does China have which are expansionist?

~~~
bdamm
The belt and road initiative is fascinating, including their cultivation of
Africa. The scheme where they lend poor nations money to build ports and then
when the port authority fails to fulfill the repayments, they simply take over
the port and basically establish a Chinese base is rather diabolical. From a
business perspective it is brilliant but it does seem rather obviously
predatory. I consider that expansionist. Did America do the same with Panama,
did UK do the same with Gibraltar? There are some parallels.

~~~
braindead_in
Yanis Varoufakis has an interesting take on Chinese economic imperialism.
According to him, the Chinese are a benevolent imprealist, trying to achieve
the same dominance but with loans rather than guns.

~~~
YayamiOmate
It's interesting to consider it benevolent from his perspective, since he
called German financial institutions malevolent when it played out very
similar in Greece. Except geopolitical influence expansion was not a main
goal.

Maybe he said something like "it looks like benevolent, because they use
finance instead of guns" or that compared to using military force it's
relatively benevolent, but after watching some of his talks, I highly doubt
he'd call it a generous ethical policy.

~~~
hobofan
Is Varoufakis someone that should generally be taken that seriously? The last
time I heard about him was during the election for the European Parliament,
where he was pushing DiEM25, which seemes like a rather idealistic (in the
unrealistic sense) movement full of attention-hungry personalities.

------
nvahalik
> 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".

~~~
Fezzik
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. I truly do not get it.

~~~
bhupy
The US (with its support of the military) has been at war in the Middle East
for nearly 2 decades now with insurgents.

The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war,
it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to
be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check
in and of itself.

~~~
josephdviviano
The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would
live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do.

The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and
rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator,
the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and
oppress one another.

~~~
daenz
>The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and
rifles, not computer-guided missiles.

Let me make sure I understand your basic premise: the ability to defend
yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government
developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns?

Aside from being completely contrary to the American spirit of defending
yourself from tyranny, it's based on the bogus premise that the advanced
military technology can be used effectively against its own people. Where is
the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Into every rural
home and every urban apartment window of everyone they suspect has guns, with
thousands of civilian collateral casualties? Are tanks and fighter jets going
to roll in and level entire economic hubs like cities? Are they going to
destroy their own infrastructure? Are you envisioning "the rebellion" would
set up a nice neat base in some remote location for the military to aim its
tech at? Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow
orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? How long before regional
coups? How big do you think the US military is, relative to the armed civilian
population? You are also aware that soldiers and police wear recognizable
uniforms, while "the rebellion" doesn't?

I don't think you've thought this through.

~~~
coryfklein
> Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?"

Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm
sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners.

> Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure?

The infrastructure is the exact kind of ground that can be held much more
securely against pistols and rifles using the U.S.'s advanced weaponry.

> Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to
> destroy its own hometowns and families?

See the Arab Spring for reference on this one

> How long before regional coups?

I'm sure a civilian populace will experience war fatigue waaay before a
trained, well paid, well fed military.

You're coming up with a hypothetical scenario where it's the entire US
government against the entire populace. In the real world it doesn't happen
that way - the populace is divided between the rebels and the government
supporters.

Besides, look at today's political climate: most of the gun owners are the
one's backing our most authoritarian leader! If, somehow, we were to slide
into dictatorship you can be sure the leader would make whatever promises
necessary to get the gun toters on his/her side.

~~~
CapricornNoble
>>>Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm
sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners.

Why would you draw that conclusion, when pretty much every available case
study (re: drone strikes and terrorism) clearly shows otherwise?

>>>Besides, look at today's political climate: most of the gun owners are the
one's backing our most authoritarian leader!

Is he really our most authoritarian? How authoritarian would you rank him
compared to Obama, the first President to order a drone strike to kill an
American citizen without due process? [1]

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-
Awlaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

~~~
coryfklein
> when pretty much every available case study (re: drone strikes and
> terrorism) clearly shows otherwise?

I'm pretty sure I read those case studies differently than you do. Why, do you
suppose, the military continues to make drone strikes if they are ineffective?

> How authoritarian would you rank [Trump] compared to Obama

Waaaaay more authoritarian. By his own admission, even. Trump praises,
celebrates, and socializes with dictators on a much greater scale than Obama.

And if the single largest signal you're drawing from Anwar al-Awlaki's killing
is that Obama is authoritarian, then I think you need to step back and examine
that situation more broadly.

------
phragg
watch out sam altman might remove this for being too relevant in important
political climate and not relevant in some softbank funded unicorn....

------
grugq
This should be put in some context.

Today is the anniversary of China as a communist country. The Hong Kong
marchers were all wearing black today as a sign of mourning. That is why the
kids are dressed in black (so please, no black bloc/antifa comments.)

The police have been particularly aggressive towards protestors and
journalists. They deliberately shoot tear gas at journalist "clusters"
(presumably to prevent documentation of police actions?) They have shot
multiple people with "rubber bullets" and they beat people with batons. The
first people to use shields and clubs at the protests? The police.

Besides the state authorized use of violence, there is also the use of non-
state assets. The authorities have encouraged the triads to assault
protestors. The police stand back and allow this to happen, probably because a
picture of civilians beating people is a less polarizing image than police
beating protestors.

# the shooting

From the videos it is clear that there was an officer on the ground and he was
being assaulted. He is wearing protective equipment. When police beat
protestors with batons the protestors do not have the benefit of riot gear.

The officer who shot the 17yr kid should not have had his service weapon
drawn, and should not have had his finger on the trigger. When a cop points a
gun, finger on trigger, at someone the only party responsible for that
shooting is the cop.

The "descent into violence" narrative adopted by the Western media is
completely missing the nuance of the protests. Most of the "violence" by
protestors is property damage. It is seldom violence against a person.

~~~
khuey
They've been wearing black for the five months or whatever that this has been
going on.

~~~
grugq
This is not supported by the evidence. They wear street clothes. Look at any
pictures or videos, you'll see that they're wearing normal clothes of all
colors.

~~~
khuey
"Thousands Wear Black, Rally to Demand Hong Kong Leader Goes" June 16, 2019
[https://www.voanews.com/east-asia/thousands-wear-black-
rally...](https://www.voanews.com/east-asia/thousands-wear-black-rally-demand-
hong-kong-leader-goes)

"Protesters filled Hong Kong International airport two weeks ago. Many wore
black, the unofficial uniform of these demonstrations." August 26, 2019
[https://www.vox.com/world/2019/8/22/20804294/hong-kong-
prote...](https://www.vox.com/world/2019/8/22/20804294/hong-kong-
protests-9-questions)

"pro-democracy demonstrators gathered, clad in black and wearing masks"
September 14, 2019 [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/14/hong-
kong-15th...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/14/hong-kong-15th-
week-of-mass-protests)

------
peter_retief
[https://twitter.com/Piet00065526/status/1179025357959237639/...](https://twitter.com/Piet00065526/status/1179025357959237639/photo/1)

------
znpy
I'm still thrilled at how hypocritically calm the US are about this whole
topic and China in general. They're always ready to "export democracy" except
when the receiver would be some kind of business partner (or lacks natural oil
sources).

So, how long until the US at least express an opinion on the matter?

------
foobarian
Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please -
unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of
this without a revolution.

Thought experiment: if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted
themselves Sharia law in violation of federal articles, how cavalier would the
federal government / the rest of the populous be in tolerating this?

~~~
nexuist
> Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please -
> unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side
> of this without a revolution.

They gave it back _with the condition_ that HK would remain quasi-independent
until 2050. The people are protesting because they see the writing on the wall
and realize independence is fleeting.

Without getting into the specifics of Sharia law, I think we can reduce your
next question to "how cavalier would the federal government / the rest of the
populous be in tolerating a state or city that violates federal law?"

* Northern states endured slavery for dozens of years while passing their own laws that criminalized slavery, allowed slaves to buy their own freedom, etc. (however the South responded by passing a federal law that required Northern states to capture escaped slaves and bring them back, one of the precursors to the Civil War and the only time the system totally failed)

* Prohibition failed so hard the Fed actually gave up and nixed it from the Constitution

* More than 30 states have decriminalized marijuana going totally against the DEA, a federal agency with certain powers defined by federal law

* Many cities are "sanctuary cities" which means they refuse to cooperate with ICE and DHS, again federal agencies

* Some states, especially Southern ones, routinely encode new strategies into law to bypass Roe v. Wade, which was a decision made by the third branch of federal government, the Supreme Court

* Upon the passage of the ACA ("Obamacare"), multiple states immediately sued the federal government and refused to implement sections of the law

While these actions certainly cause tensions between individual states and the
Fed as a whole, the Union still holds together due to of the lack of
authoritarianism. Because of the decentralized nature of Western power (as
implemented via federalism and other strategies), it is impossible for one
figurehead or political party to dictate what happens in every corner of the
country. Entire legislatures can be overturned by citizens who wish to ignore
the federal government's worst wishes. This is a feature - not a bug.

That being said, there are limits to the tolerance, and breaking the
Constitution is one of them. Would people support a state ignoring the Bill of
Rights? No, absolutely not. But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry
aren't trying to take away others' rights; they're trying to give themselves
more. Would Americans support a state that fights for _more_ rights for the
people? I suppose it's subjective, but I would say yes, yes they would support
a state that aims to give more freedom to the people. That difference is
crucial.

>if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted themselves Sharia
law

This question hinges on the premise that a majority of people in a Western
democracy would decide to willingly give up their rights to the state in
recognition of a greater power. Are there groups like this? Certainly -
evangelicals, Wahhabists, etc. Do they make up a majority? I really doubt it.
I am hard pressed to think of any situations in history where any large mass
of people have decided to replace their democratic freedoms with a
dictatorship or theocracy. Authoritarianism is usually a result of a violent
takeover, hence why most dictators live and die by their armies and not their
citizens. So the question is a false premise in my eyes - why would any
majority vote their right to vote away?

~~~
foobarian
> They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent
> until 2050.

This is I guess the core of the problem - how is this enforceable?

> That being said, there are limits to the tolerance

Indeed, there is a wide spectrum of cases where states defied and still defy
federal statutes. I picked my example as something that seemed so extreme that
it would be hard to tolerate unlike some of the other examples you mentioned.

> But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry aren't trying to take away
> others' rights; they're trying to give themselves more.

My analogy breaks down at that level of detail, yes. My goal for that analogy
was to describe something that:

\- a minority of the population desires (RI vs. HK)

\- is egregiously against the enclosing country's founding principles (the US
Constitution vs. whatever China has - absolute CP authority?)

I was not trying to match the direction of more freedoms or less freedoms or
what have you.

Bottom line, and I am not condoning this - I used the word "unfortunately" \-
but I don't see much stopping China from pulling a Crimea here.

Also: Edit: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

~~~
nexuist
> \- is egregiously against the enclosing country's founding principles (the
> US Constitution vs. whatever China has - absolute CP authority?)

Interestingly enough, the Chinese Constitution at one point arguably endowed
even more rights onto the people than the American one:

"Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that 'citizens of the
People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly,
of association, of procession, and of demonstration.'[3] In the 1978
constitution, these rights were guaranteed, but so were the right to strike
and the 'four big rights', often called the 'four bigs': to speak out freely,
air views fully, hold great debates, and write big-character posters."[1]

Unfortunately that same Constitution also gives the government rights to take
away other rights in the name of "protecting the [Communist] state," which is
why authoritarian China is the China we know today.

I am not an expert on the Chinese Constitution nor a citizen of Hong Kong, but
I think revolutionary HKers can make the argument that they are trying to live
up to the original 1982 Constitution put forth before the rise of the CCP,
which they may view as a totalitarian takeover of what was once their ideal
legal system (since the CCP did not have such total control at the time of
their British handoff).

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#1982_Constitution)

> Also: Edit: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

Thank you for the response!

