22 ms·

I'm afraid that's not even close to an accurate comparison. Indeed I find it entirely disingenuous. There are plenty of armed officers in the UK for a start, I

I'm afraid that's not even close to an accurate comparison. Indeed I find it entirely disingenuous. There are plenty of armed officers in the UK for a start, I see them most days. Riot police in the UK are supported by authorized firearms officers in most cases. Secondly most world police forces have weapons, and the citizenry in those countries are aware of that. At the end of the day, a small group of officers were being attacked by a larger group of people. An officer is on the ground being kicked as violently and as brutally as possible. Another officer is being attacked despite warning use of his weapon and I'm afraid seems well within his rights to protect himself here, with unfortunate outcomes. You cannot excuse the role of the protesters in provoking this action.

simonh 7y ago
Police officers on diplomatic protection, airport security, etc are usually armed, and there may well be armed officers available in riot situations, but they are backup not front line. I said myself it’s not the same elsewhere, many other police services are armed but even so using live ammunition against protesters is unacceptable anywhere. I agree the protesters know what they are doing, but just as I cannot deny their role, equally can you really deny the role the HK police have played in deliberately provoking and escalating the violence? Do you think that is acceptable?
- easytiger 7y ago
  > Do you think that is acceptable? I think it irrelevant. You don't hit a guy with a gun pointed at you with a pipe and expect not to be shot. The wider situation is not relevant unless the chap wanted to be shot. > but they are backup not front line. Also incorrect. I see armed patrols every day
  - simonh 7y ago
    Having a gun and pointing it at people does not give anyone the right to shoot them. That last comment was referring specifically to police in riot situation.
    - easytiger 7y ago
      > Having a gun and pointing it at people does not give anyone the right to shoot them. It's pretty clear at this point you have no desire to engage in a rational discussion. Are you telling me you would go up to someone with a gun drawn and physically attack them, whilst your friends are brutally beating his colleague 1meter away, and assume you would be under no threat of being shot?

simonh 7y ago

Police officers on diplomatic protection, airport security, etc are usually armed, and there may well be armed officers available in riot situations, but they are backup not front line. I said myself it’s not the same elsewhere, many other police services are armed but even so using live ammunition against protesters is unacceptable anywhere. I agree the protesters know what they are doing, but just as I cannot deny their role, equally can you really deny the role the HK police have played in deliberately provoking and escalating the violence? Do you think that is acceptable?

easytiger 7y ago
> Do you think that is acceptable? I think it irrelevant. You don't hit a guy with a gun pointed at you with a pipe and expect not to be shot. The wider situation is not relevant unless the chap wanted to be shot. > but they are backup not front line. Also incorrect. I see armed patrols every day
- simonh 7y ago
  Having a gun and pointing it at people does not give anyone the right to shoot them. That last comment was referring specifically to police in riot situation.
  - easytiger 7y ago
    > Having a gun and pointing it at people does not give anyone the right to shoot them. It's pretty clear at this point you have no desire to engage in a rational discussion. Are you telling me you would go up to someone with a gun drawn and physically attack them, whilst your friends are brutally beating his colleague 1meter away, and assume you would be under no threat of being shot?