3 ms·

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 pers

by bpt3 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    > 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.

by bpt3 7y ago

KirinDave 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > 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.