Poll: Would You shoot at Protestors?

[DefunctTheory]

While I wouldn't like it (advocate for peaceful resolve a.k.a. you'd prolly call me a hippy) I just got orders from the top ... while I'm not sure on the legalities of the situation I am quite sure I can get into some deep caa-caa for disobeying a superior officer. However I would never join the army or any sort of law enforcement branch for that reason and a few more.

Both police and soldiers can be taken to trial for following illegal orders, and both have the option to refuse the order. It goes like this.

Illegal order is given.
Ask for order to be repeated.
Illegal order is given again.
Deny order. If possible, report as soon as you can.

 

[Necromancer1991]

Wouldn't I shoot AT protesters, but shooting in their general direction is fine as far as I'm concerned, just aim for the feet

 

[Blasphemous Rex]

As long as the bullets are rubber.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Yes, because it's my job. Would I feel RIGHT about doing it? probably not, unless they where either a) violent or b) Directly affecting the bystanders negatively. Like if they walked out in a huge group onto the freeway and stopped people from getting by or something.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Well, it is non-leathal ammo...

 

[Boba Frag]

I'm actually kind of disgusted that legitimate peaceful protest seems to mean "riot" to the majority of the people who voted...

Perhaps they think Arab means terrorist as well.

Am I right in thinking that the majority of them have never even seen a protest, never mind a riot.

 

[Madkipz]

Your taking it slightly out of context, feminists and socialism is good in small dosage but us in the west have gone overboard, too much socialism promotes a corrupt government and allows scum to infiltrate society because everyone are special right? Just face it, the right side is right.

You and me are not going to get along. So let me just give you a piece of advice that will keep our soon-to-be-legendary debates friendly and on-topic rather than personal and hurtful:

Do Not, under any circumstance, Force Your Beliefs On Others

I'm fine with your pro-right ideals and I accept that freedom of speech allows you to say what you think, but don't assume that means you can tell other people that, and I quote, to "Just face it, the right side it right"

If we're going to start with stuff like that, I could say "remember, when the chips are down, only the left is left", but I won't, because I'm not here to force or advertise, I'm here to debate.

So bash socialism all you want, but accept the flak

Im not being personal, im attacking socialism, not you or any poster present but if i could force others to believe as me i would. Because thats what being right is all about. YOu cant theoretically do the same because the left side is feministic in origin. Your moral code dictates that i am entiteled to express my own oppinion just like you would have to say muslim extremists are entiteled theirs.

After all who are you to say what people cant do? Who are you to judge their actions?

and thats why socialism is inherently flawed, by degrading your own set of morals and accepting that these people have a right to the same privileges as you your ignoring that our ancestors suffered greatly to bring us to this point in time and they did so at the expense others.

Feminism has stopped this trend, and now we suffer cultural backlash because of it. In chase you havent noticed, the west is stagnating and relying on china to support itself. Why? My own conclution was simple. Our balls shrunk. Obama? hes just the beginning. Pretty soon every country will be like Norway and we will have world peace because everyone wont be able to afford to go to war anymore, Hell even russia relies on other countries for all its wheels to turn smoothly and then what happens?

A countrys people are dying of starvation? LET THEM. Because western aid will only worsen the long therm effects, crippling their local farmers and empowering the people already in power.

but thats a discussion for another time and frankly, a discussion on this board is unlikely to change anyones mind, because theirs is most likely already made up, like scientolololigists you will stubbornly refuse to face reality content to live in your dreamworld while we die of overpopulation and debt like a cancer patient long overdue.

 

[Superbeast]

I'm with Jinx_Dragon, Furburt and Wicky_42 and whoever else has said "no".

According to the parameters outlined in the OP, the protest may be annoying and disruptive, but it's not being violent.

Opening fire on such a crowd would be a violation of the Police's own regulations on crowd control, so I'd refuse the order then get in contact with my Superior Officer's Superior - or if that fails and they try to fire me, get hold of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and hand everything over to them - as well as go to court on the grounds of unfair dismissal.

Basically, by following the order I'd be breaking the law. Therefore I'd refuse to follow it, and should there be any repercussions (getting fired etc.) then I have the full weight of the legal system on my side, not on the side of the police. Were anyone to die, and I had fired, then I would be liable for prosecution of murder/manslaughter/grievous bodily harm.

Naturally, if the protest was turning violent, or into a riot, then the stakes change. Since our coppers aren't often equipped with firearms anyway, it would be more an up-close and personal baton-fest. Much less chance of people dying, or getting seriously injured, and you can actually try to arrest the trouble-makers instead of shooting everyone in the vicinity. Were it a situation where we were actually deployed with non-lethal firearms, then I'd imagine things were going seriously wrong so yes, I would fire (these situations tend to involve the rioters having previously seriously harmed/killed police officers or members of the public - batons are used for pretty much everything else). But these aren't the situations that are outlined in the OP.

Everyone who says "Yeah, shoot the hippies/feminists/socialists" is clearly missing the point. They aren't the only people that protest. I am neither of those 3, and yet I took part in an anti-war demonstration in this country (UK)...wow, a fair few years ago now (you know, before we actually went to war). If someone shot upon the crowd, on the grounds that "it was being annoying/HIPPIES!" then you can bet your arse that I'd sue them/the force into oblivion and get the highest ranking member of the force (or even the Chief Commissioner) fired.

Take a look at what has happened in the UK - we have had several innocent people (within protests that were heating up) get killed with just batons, never mind rubber bullets and gas. We've had the police "kettling" protesters (forcing a larger number into a small space and agitating them with shield-walls and dogs) with the sole intent of turning the protesters violent so they can beat them up, and the coppers themselves hiding their collar-numbers (an illegal practice) as they knew their actions would have consequences.

Rubber bullets may be designated "non lethal", but they aren't - it's still a solid object travelling at around 100m/s towards someone. They break bones, and can be fatal if you hit the spine/head/chest. As brought up in post #247:

A studies on the British Journal of Surgery, by one R. Millar for those interesting in hunting more information down, focused on the use of rubber ammo. They found that 1 in 100 people are KILLED by using these weapons. Roughly 1 in 5 of people fired on will be permanently crippled or disfigured by this type of ammo. Almost half of the people fired on will need hospitalisation....

As for "aiming at the feet" - that's really difficult to do in the real-world (like "hit them in the arm" with live ammo) and you can still kill with it - the pressure of the impact can cause arteries to depress, inducing heart failure - or even rupture said arteries. Hitting the soft, fleshy parts is bad too because of internal trauma. Sure, they won't break the skin - but they still hit with a fast amount of force, and quite often (with live ammo) it's the force that kills, not the actual hole (though the nature of a normal bullet means more force-transfer, but the point is rubber bullets are not exactly "harmless" and can seriously fuck you up).


Very depressed at the amount of gung-ho people on this forum. Even if it is "anonymous dick-waving" it still saddens me that people honestly think it's funny to say that they'd go around shooting someone because "they were ordered to" and "they were annoyed".

At least there's people like the 3 I outlined at the start of the post. Makes me realise this place isn't totally full of amoral people.

 

[Kie]

I'd quote Madkipz but I'm not entirely sure how to do it without it coming as one big mass of text (Help on this please). However I felt like adding my own opinion into it, as wrong as it could potentially be, because you're pretty much saying socialism is wrong and saying anyone who agrees with it isn't facing reality. I could just as equally say capitalism and the right wings are wrong because a few people can stomp on all the people below them and make money for themselves and then blow that money on ridiculous things which are, guess what, owned by other rich companies. This could eventually just lead to companies having all the money and not bothering to put anything back into society. However you know what? I'm taking it to extreme and I could very well be wrong, I could very well be wrong about everything I just said and Capitalism could work perfectly. That's the same with what you said, Socialism has flaws and taken to the extreme may cause long term problems but just as easily you could also be wrong and it could cause a lot of good. Hence why some people try to take the best of both. You may say I'm just escaping reality but hey, I'd prefer to escape reality and be open minded about it.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Hell yes! Buggers are in my way, they deserve to die!

Wow. You sound like that guy who walked into a gunshop to buy a sniper rifle to 'pwn some noobs'. Please tell me you are joking and/or have no intention of ever being in a position of power...

Of course I was joking. I'm not going to shoot people just because they get in my way. I can't comprehend the level of stupidity in your statement...

Well that's good to know. Though given some of the posts on here, yours really didn't look out out of place. Which just goes to show the sorry state of things. Though I did check your profile and saw that you were 1) British, 2) a student and 3) mentioned that people often don't get your jokes. So that gave me hope.

Wait, unless you WERE being serious and your reply was sarcastic... damn, now I'm getting paranoid lol

The reply wasn't sarcastic. Also, the sorry state of things is a partial judgement of me via my nationality and my level of education - not the sense of humour of people on this site.

Oooh, attacks. No, the sorry state of things is people's apparent attitude towards protesters and their willingness to inflict injury on others just because someone said to. Humour and judgements don't come into it.

As I said, it was a joke... black humour, I suppose.

This argument is pointless, goodbye.

 

[Uncreation]

Let's say you joined the Police/Army and called out to face the mob of the day.

Some are protesting War, corrupt Governments, Workers rights.

So they're basically sitting there jamming up traffic, reducing tourism.

Your commanding officer orders you to start throwing tear gas and shoot rubber bullets and those hippies.

What do you do and why?

No. I would definitely not shoot. Especially since in this case they are peaceful. I am a bit surprised that so many people voted yes, but i guess it's just an effect of the "internet though guy" syndrome.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It depends.

If they really need to protest, I'll leave them alone.

If they're over-entitled old white people that just spout whatever lies they memorize off of fox news, I'll shoot.

 

[Blazing Steel]

Yes. If they really want to prove that they believe in what they're protesting then they should be prepared for this kind of thing.

Hemp Shield anyone?

 

[Hattman]

This topic is disgusting. The right to protest is a vital part of our democratic system that so many died to protect.


Shame on every last one of you who said yes.

This.

Protestors=Peaceully walking around with signs against war,corruption and such.
Rioters=Tips cars and destroys things.

Now as a police officer I would without a doubt open fire against rioting people.
But against people who want a war to end or stop the bribed politicans? Seriously,anyone who said yes on this must seriously rethink. Even with rubber bullets and tear gas,the protestors wil gain sympathy and that might lead to a riot.
So,no. I would rather be morally right and out of work then knowing that I fired against someone who loved peace so much that they joined a protest.

 

[thylasos]

Of course not. What happened to the right to protest? The Terrorism Act and the exclusion zone outisde Westminster. I hope to hell they're both abolished.

 

[rekabdarb]

depends on the content of the protest, but probably

 

[GreatVladmir]

I "accidently" load live ammo and "accidently" switch to full auto & spray the protestors.

Seriously, I hate protestors, when ever there is a protest & a news channel interviews some of the protestors, it is always some pc, up there own arse middle-class twat, who I would love to see shot to death on live TV by the Royal Army, never have I seen in these protest decent people.

 

[Some_Jackass]

You ask this question as if protestors are real people...

This poll does remind me of Bobby Jay from "Thank You For Smoking"

 

[StarCecil]

Yes, you shoot. It's not a choice. He didn't say "shoot if you feel like it". He said "Fire on them". It doesn't matter if I like it or not. I shoot.