18 ms·

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 sup

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).

TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
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?
schuke 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > 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-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/world/hong-kong-police-pr...
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    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
  - marvin 7y ago
    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.
  - ummonk 7y ago
    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.
  - kaonashi 7y ago
    Not to mention that the protests were initially peaceful, then they were repeatedly attacked by gangs at the behest of the local authorities.
- baylearn 7y ago
  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.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  > 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
  - Illniyar 7y ago
    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_Resistant_Ambush_Protected_Vehicles 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_bulldozer)
    - read_if_gay_ 7y ago
      What about the IEDs used in the middle east? How hard is it to put one of those together?
- jdsully 7y ago
  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) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994–95)
mc32 7y ago
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.
- program_whiz 7y ago
  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).
  - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    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.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  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
  - ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
    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.
baybal2 7y ago
> 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.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  Ah yes, democratic representation and sovereignty. Entirely unthinkable.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    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.
    - grecy 7y ago
      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.
      - 7y ago
golergka 7y ago
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.
UIZealot 7y ago
> 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?
- ripperdoc 7y ago
  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.
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    > 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.
SuperFerret 7y ago
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator Not so hard to imagine these days.
exabrial 7y ago
Sadly, right now a US presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, is promising to violently remove firearms from law abiding US Citizens.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tkifnn 7y ago
  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/1177274132674883584 https://mobile.twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/11772741326748...
- sho 7y ago
  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.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
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.
- UIZealot 7y ago
  Any time there's an article about China and Hong Kong, people who know nothing about either, besides that China is ruled by the communist party, come out of the woodwork to take a dump on China. People look down on Trump and ridicule him endlessly when he spews bullshit about things he knows nothing about. But if you spew bullshit about China, you get lots of upvotes. And if you dare to speak the truth and the nuances about the situation in Hong Kong, you get downvoted to oblivion. EDIT: Case in point, downvoters! Go ahead, show me you know something about China and Hong Kong.
  - markus_zhang 7y ago
    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.
    - UIZealot 7y ago
      Truth be told, I'm having too much fun calling out bullshit. You should try to enjoy it too. It gets lonely sometimes :)
    - tepidandroid 7y ago
      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.
sergiotapia 7y ago
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator God bless the 2nd amendment dude. This is one of the greatest gifts the founding fathers gave the US.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sixothree 7y ago
  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.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
    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.
philliphaydon 7y ago
The full video shows a officer on the ground being beaten with sticks. So it wasn’t just a kid swinging at the officer.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  Maybe they should start shooting cops now.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sixothree 7y ago
  Could you imagine what would happen in America if an officer was on the ground being beaten?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - acchow 7y ago
    At least a full clip.
  - teekno 7y ago
    Let's not use the American police systems as a measuring stick.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  ...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 https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
goblin89 7y ago
> 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.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > 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.
  - goblin89 7y ago
    > 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.)
  - tsegratis 7y ago
    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
    - goblin89 7y ago
      > 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
humble_engineer 7y ago
He's in literal armor, punching him does nothing.
mattnewton 7y ago
There is another angle that shows the cop charging in with a gun drawn before the shot. https://mobile.twitter.com/antielabhk/status/1178971051633438720?s=09 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.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  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 https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    What happened before that one-and-a-half minute video to cause the protesters to chase down the officer?
    - koheripbal 7y ago
      I don't know - but is your question meant for us to prove the innocence of the victim here?
      - rumanator 7y ago
        > 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.
koheripbal 7y ago
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 https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666
- spacehunt 7y ago
  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?
  - loco5niner 7y ago
    This reminds me of the question: "well, can't the officer just shoot the gun out of his hand or something?"
mav3rick 7y ago
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.
- sandy123 7y ago
  This would work, if they had a leader representing this movement.
- sushid 7y ago
  I understand what you’re saying but the irony here is not lost on me.
- flukus 7y ago
  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.
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    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.
daveheq 7y ago
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.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10753894
- fapjacks 7y ago
  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.
bsder 7y ago
> 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?
coldtea 7y ago
>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...
- easytiger 7y ago
  It was a few cornered officers, one of whom was having his head stamped on. Not even remotely the same thing
jamesb93 7y ago
It's not proportionate to shoot someone for fighting you with their fists.

TheAdamAndChe 7y ago

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?

schuke 7y ago

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 7y ago
> 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-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/world/hong-kong-police-pr...
- koheripbal 7y ago
  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
- marvin 7y ago
  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.
- ummonk 7y ago
  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.
- kaonashi 7y ago
  Not to mention that the protests were initially peaceful, then they were repeatedly attacked by gangs at the behest of the local authorities.
baylearn 7y ago
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.
hanniabu 7y ago
> 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
- Illniyar 7y ago
  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_Resistant_Ambush_Protected_Vehicles 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_bulldozer)
  - read_if_gay_ 7y ago
    What about the IEDs used in the middle east? How hard is it to put one of those together?
jdsully 7y ago
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) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994–95)

mc32 7y ago

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.

program_whiz 7y ago
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).
- amanaplanacanal 7y ago
  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.
djsumdog 7y ago
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
- ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
  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.

baybal2 7y ago

> 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.

fennecfoxen 7y ago
Ah yes, democratic representation and sovereignty. Entirely unthinkable.
- baybal2 7y ago
  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.
  - grecy 7y ago
    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.
    - 7y ago

golergka 7y ago

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.

UIZealot 7y ago

> 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?

ripperdoc 7y ago
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.
- UIZealot 7y ago
  > 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.

SuperFerret 7y ago

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator Not so hard to imagine these days.

exabrial 7y ago

Sadly, right now a US presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, is promising to violently remove firearms from law abiding US Citizens.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tkifnn 7y ago
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/1177274132674883584 https://mobile.twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/11772741326748...
sho 7y ago
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.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

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.

UIZealot 7y ago
Any time there's an article about China and Hong Kong, people who know nothing about either, besides that China is ruled by the communist party, come out of the woodwork to take a dump on China. People look down on Trump and ridicule him endlessly when he spews bullshit about things he knows nothing about. But if you spew bullshit about China, you get lots of upvotes. And if you dare to speak the truth and the nuances about the situation in Hong Kong, you get downvoted to oblivion. EDIT: Case in point, downvoters! Go ahead, show me you know something about China and Hong Kong.
- markus_zhang 7y ago
  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.
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    Truth be told, I'm having too much fun calling out bullshit. You should try to enjoy it too. It gets lonely sometimes :)
  - tepidandroid 7y ago
    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.

sergiotapia 7y ago

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator God bless the 2nd amendment dude. This is one of the greatest gifts the founding fathers gave the US.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sixothree 7y ago
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.
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
  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.

philliphaydon 7y ago

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

almost_usual 7y ago
Maybe they should start shooting cops now.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sixothree 7y ago
Could you imagine what would happen in America if an officer was on the ground being beaten?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- acchow 7y ago
  At least a full clip.
- teekno 7y ago
  Let's not use the American police systems as a measuring stick.
koheripbal 7y ago
...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 https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

goblin89 7y ago

> 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.

mieseratte 7y ago
> 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.
- goblin89 7y ago
  > 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.)
- tsegratis 7y ago
  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
  - goblin89 7y ago
    > 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

humble_engineer 7y ago

He's in literal armor, punching him does nothing.

mattnewton 7y ago

There is another angle that shows the cop charging in with a gun drawn before the shot. https://mobile.twitter.com/antielabhk/status/1178971051633438720?s=09 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.

koheripbal 7y ago
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 https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  What happened before that one-and-a-half minute video to cause the protesters to chase down the officer?
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    I don't know - but is your question meant for us to prove the innocence of the victim here?
    - rumanator 7y ago
      > 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.

koheripbal 7y ago

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

spacehunt 7y ago
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?
- loco5niner 7y ago
  This reminds me of the question: "well, can't the officer just shoot the gun out of his hand or something?"

mav3rick 7y ago

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.

sandy123 7y ago
This would work, if they had a leader representing this movement.
sushid 7y ago
I understand what you’re saying but the irony here is not lost on me.
flukus 7y ago
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.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  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.

daveheq 7y ago

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.

pdkl95 7y ago
> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10753894
fapjacks 7y ago
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.

bsder 7y ago

> 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?

coldtea 7y ago

>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...

easytiger 7y ago
It was a few cornered officers, one of whom was having his head stamped on. Not even remotely the same thing

jamesb93 7y ago

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