Poll: Would You shoot at Protestors?

[De Ronneman]

It's non lethal weapons, so, yeah.

If their protest wasn't authorised, if they refuse to disband and cause annoyance/dammage? Fire at will, soldiers.

 

[Daffy F]

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.

I don't mean to be judgmental, but is that your actual opinion?

Ok, ok, some of it is alil extreme and my kinda sick sense of humor, so I appolagise, but yeah, I don't really like protestors, because of that reason, it's also my reason for hating some uni students, its the "holier than thou and I have more life experience because I've never worked and lived of my parents but I've beemn to Uni so I'm right" attiuted some of them have and it seems alot of protestors are uni students, so again, sorry for the tad sick remarks, I'm not being serious .

And to add a more serious answer, yes I still would shoot at Protestors/Rioters, I'm a person who just follows orders, I don't really question, I just do it, it's my job to follow, as at my last place of work put very well, I'm not paid to think, I'm paid to follow.

Oh, good. I agree with your serious answer, but I'm glad you're not a Psychopath.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

I, like my Dad did in the miner's strikes, would do my fucking job. You're being payed for this and if you've had to resort to those measures then you have to do it.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Protesting actually serves a purpose i.e. calling the public's attention to important issues in society.
Rioting is really just a bunch of twats being angry because their footbal-team lost.

If this thread was entitled "Would you shoot at rioters?" then I would probably have voted yes, but since protesting is actually a powerful and important tool for citizens to use against their government, I have to vote no.

The problem is, where does protesting stop and rioting begin? People may not like to hear this, but sometimes, a protest will turn into a riot, and often times the police like to handle a protest and get rid of it before things get broken (This isn't to say your case was like this, but in general).

The way its been described to me by riot trained army members is this: as soon as the protest hinders the public (spilling into the street and blocking traffic, making it physically impossible to use a businesses services, etc.) its considered a building riot and must end (Preferably in a nice way, which is always tried first. Gas grenades are a last resort). And I have to say, I agree with that description.

Now, protest that are contained in a fashion, stay on the streets where it has been deemed appropriate, and keeps out of local businesses hair, I have no problem with, no matter what the protest is about (Well, I may have a problem with it, but I wouldn't do anything about it).

 

[Yumi_and_Erea]

Protesting actually serves a purpose i.e. calling the public's attention to important issues in society.
Rioting is really just a bunch of twats being angry because their footbal-team lost.

If this thread was entitled "Would you shoot at rioters?" then I would probably have voted yes, but since protesting is actually a powerful and important tool for citizens to use against their government, I have to vote no.

The problem is, where does protesting stop and rioting begin? People may not like to hear this, but sometimes, a protest will turn into a riot, and often times the police like to handle a protest and get rid of it before things get broken (This isn't to say your case was like this, but in general).

The way its been described to me by riot trained army members is this: as soon as the protest hinders the public (spilling into the street and blocking traffic, making it physically impossible to use a businesses services, etc.) its considered a building riot and must end (Preferably in a nice way, which is always tried first. Gas grenades are a last resort). And I have to say, I agree with that description.

Now, protest that are contained in a fashion, stay on the streets where it has been deemed appropriate, and keeps out of local businesses hair, I have no problem with, no matter what the protest is about (Well, I may have a problem with it, but I wouldn't do anything about it).

In my experience, something is not a riot unless there is violence or vandalism, and while the law may say otherwise, I believe people have the right to protest whenever, wherever and however they want, as long as those two basic rules are maintained.

But we're from different countries, so we probably have different laws and different points of view on the matter, and comparing on to the other probably won't be that effective. You've definetly given me food for thought though, so thanks for that.

 

[Cookiegerard]

Oh course, if they attacked my troops first, or used violence.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

/snip.

Side note, but isn't it always a great thing to have a political party dedicated to oppression and fascism calling itself 'the party for freedom?' My respect for you, if I could respect a name on the screen, has increased. I guess that means I owe you a cookie or whatever the Internet customs demands?

 

[Yumi_and_Erea]

/snip.

Side note, but isn't it always a great thing to have a political party dedicated to oppression and fascism calling itself 'the party for freedom?' My respect for you, if I could respect a name on the screen, has increased. I guess that means I owe you a cookie or whatever the Internet customs demands?

Thanks, and I agree with how incredibly hypocritical it is for parties to do this.

(Fun note: the most homophobic and anti-gay-rights party in British Columbia is also called the Freedom Party.
Anybody else see a trend here?)

Anyway, thanks for the cookie, though brownies would also have been acceptable.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

No, or at least not without an explanation.

Chains of command are meant to be questioned on items of morality. Not to mention if they're not really hurting anyone, and if things can be deferred.
Things can always be solved non-violently.

Plus the possible loss of my job over it

Many people say its their duty, but do we stop to think that was what ultimately caused World War 2?! A few obviously insane men (with Hitler at the head) were able to go rampage on the entire world because millions of soldiers and civilians just carried orders because thats what their superiors told them to do, and they believed it was their duty and therefore it was right.
Probably that's also an excuse to say, "its orders from superior authority so I don't care if its wrong, or even like someone admitted, maybe its a good opportunity to satisfy your own sadistic psychopathic urges.

One can suggest to read a bit on Kolberg moral development theory.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

The problem is, where does protesting stop and rioting begin? People may not like to hear this, but sometimes, a protest will turn into a riot, and often times the police like to handle a protest and get rid of it before things get broken (This isn't to say your case was like this, but in general).

The way its been described to me by riot trained army members is this: as soon as the protest hinders the public (spilling into the street and blocking traffic, making it physically impossible to use a businesses services, etc.) its considered a building riot and must end (Preferably in a nice way, which is always tried first. Gas grenades are a last resort). And I have to say, I agree with that description.

Now, protest that are contained in a fashion, stay on the streets where it has been deemed appropriate, and keeps out of local businesses hair, I have no problem with, no matter what the protest is about (Well, I may have a problem with it, but I wouldn't do anything about it).

The problem is also what are we protesting for?! What if the protesters are protesting against a rise of 50% on taxes?! That happened in Portugal in 1994! And the cops did the most violent charge over the protesters since the dictatorship ended in the 70s. Result?! The Prime Minister resigned both from office and from his own party, and because many of the protesters were even middle and high ranked officers from the military a good amount of the cops ended up (not in a legal way I am afraid thou) fired or demoted and one of them that had the bad luck to charge over a Navy officer and be recognised was beat almost to dead by a group of marines in a club.
A massive scandal and protests related to that remained for several months. And obviously the government with its majority in parliament lost massively on the elections that were due to the end of that year.

In the end even a revolution or coup can be justified. I think the question many people is also posing here is not only obedience or avoid trouble to the average citizen but if you understand or agree with the protesters, with what is bringing them to the streets and if you are able to make a decision based on that and if the counter-measures are appropriate.

I don't know from which country each person posting here comes, might be useful to understand the answers too. In Portugal protests are usually made with a notice in advance and usually also the authorities themselves reserve a space or even close areas, roads, avenues, parks or whatever fits the protest proposal and the amount of people expected to attend. Obviously police and even military might be deployed to the area, but no confrontation develops.

 

[Ih8pkmn]

Oops, thought this was what WOULD you shoot at protestors. my bad. (facepalm)

No.

 

[DracoSuave]

If you're an american, your entire country exists SOLELY because of political protest. You also have written the right to protest the government in your constitution. Not only do you have the right to free speech, you have the right to bear arms against an injust government and form a militia.

So, if you answered 'Yes I would' for -any reason-, and you are an American, you fail history.


I'm Canadian, mind you. But we're generally cool with protesters up here, because how else do problems get solved other than by people pointing them out?

Is it a national past time of Canadians to lecture Americans on what constitutes proper citizenship of their own damn country?

Nope.

I just find the 'I'd shoot all the liberals' and 'I'd shoot all the conservatives' attitudes (that have been growing as of late in American political debate) of a lot of the people in this thread absolutely revolting given that your country's freedom of speech is one that blood was shed over.

As a citizen who values free speech, and free political affiliation, I find it a disgrace when people disregard that essential right when it comes to those that disagree with them, especially in a country where men gave their lives to protect and institute that central human right.

And as a human with the right of free speech, who values that right, I will say what pleases me in defense of that right. Americans who value free speech should do no less.

And if you do, please understand, that I respect you for it.

 

[AWDMANOUT]

Sure.

I'd say a good 5% of the time they're protesting about something I care about (or something that even matters on that note).

They other 95%, they're just annoying.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I don't know from which country each person posting here comes, might be useful to understand the answers too. In Portugal protests are usually made with a notice in advance and usually also the authorities themselves reserve a space or even close areas, roads, avenues, parks or whatever fits the protest proposal and the amount of people expected to attend. Obviously police and even military might be deployed to the area, but no confrontation develops.

Its the same way in the United States, basically. And if a protest has been registered, than it likely wont affect the public in a negative way (Sure, traffic will probably get messed up, but if the authorities know in advance, they can set up detours to smooth things over). Things like this are clear cut... the problem is when protesting isn't registered (In which case, you have to start doing the sometimes heavy handed math as to if its legal or not).

As for revolutions or coups, well, when you mention that, the rules change and things get really icky.

 

[Kinguendo]

Can you read? Because you are demonstrating on evidence of this from what you keep saying. Read the words I wrote down and comment back ok!

The problem you are having is that I can read... and that I remember what you said more than one comment ago. Thats why you have already lost and are now just flogging a dead horse.

You said bullets so I talked about bullets... if Hitler didnt kill himself then someone else would have... thats as far as this goes unless you have changed your mind and are now saying that the death of Hitler was a bad thing.

 

[Vredesbyrd67]

It depends on the situation, as always; what are they protesting? Are they full of shit, or do they have credibility? Do I agree with them? Are they doing more damage than the cause they are protesting for is worth?

Simply put, if I agreed philosophically with the "hippies", I wouldn't hesitate to throw down my gun and walk away. I've done things like that before, I can do them again.

Most likely I would side with them. There're a few instances, though, where I'd gleefully fire my (rubber) bullets into a crowd of protesters. For example, the fuckwits that protest at the funerals of war veterans. Even though the Iraq war is based on a lie, that doesn't give you the right to dishonor a person who honestly thought they were sacrificing their life for a good cause, especially at their own fucking funeral.

Honestly, opinions like this are almost as disturbing as 'open fire, who cares.'

But thankfully, the people who answered like this are not a police officer.

As far as you know.



Also, I'm not condoning vigilantism or murder. Notice I said (rubber) bullets. As in, they hurt like hell, but are designed to be non-lethal. Also realize that in the scenario that I was responding to was, "if you were a member of a government anti-riot squad" yadda yadda yadda. Also realize that you're defending people who believe it's okay to spit on the grave of a man who's just been killed in front of their grieving family. Maybe I should've been more specific: the Christian radicals who protest funerals. You know, the ones who would imprison homosexuals and Muslims for no reason besides their sexual orientation and belief system.

And if you think I'm just another gun-happy Conservative, consider this: Sarah Palin is made of dooky.

Would a true Conservative have been able to bring themselves to say that? I think not.

 

[DefunctTheory]

As far as you know.



Also, I'm not condoning vigilantism or murder. Notice I said (rubber) bullets. As in, they hurt like hell, but are designed to be non-lethal. Also realize that in the scenario that I was responding to was, "if you were a member of a government anti-riot squad" yadda yadda yadda. Also realize that you're defending people who believe it's okay to spit on the grave of a man who's just been killed in front of their grieving family. Maybe I should've been more specific: the Christian radicals who protest funerals. You know, the ones who would imprison homosexuals and Muslims for no reason besides their sexual orientation and belief system.

And if you think I'm just another gun-happy Conservative, consider this: Sarah Palin is made of dooky.

Would a true Conservative have been able to bring themselves to say that? I think not.

You would make a choice to fire based on your support, or lack there of, of the protester's opinion, rather than on the lawfulness of their actions. This would be a disturbing quality for a police officer.

 

[Vredesbyrd67]

As far as you know.



Also, I'm not condoning vigilantism or murder. Notice I said (rubber) bullets. As in, they hurt like hell, but are designed to be non-lethal. Also realize that in the scenario that I was responding to was, "if you were a member of a government anti-riot squad" yadda yadda yadda. Also realize that you're defending people who believe it's okay to spit on the grave of a man who's just been killed in front of their grieving family. Maybe I should've been more specific: the Christian radicals who protest funerals. You know, the ones who would imprison homosexuals and Muslims for no reason besides their sexual orientation and belief system.

And if you think I'm just another gun-happy Conservative, consider this: Sarah Palin is made of dooky.

Would a true Conservative have been able to bring themselves to say that? I think not.

You would make a choice to fire based on your support, or lack there of, of the protester's opinion, rather than on the lawfulness of their actions. This would be a disturbing quality for a police officer.

Woah, woah, woah, señor. You're assuming quite a lot here.

The question stated, "if you were ordered to do so." It also specifies that the scenario is that you're a cop equipped with RIOT GEAR. Generally, riot gear isn't dished out unless there's a legitimate threat to public safety. In other words, I wouldn't even have a gun with rubber bullets unless they started doing shit like throwing rocks and feces at funeral attendees.

Also, keep in mind that I also said I would question if the protesters were doing more harm than their cause was worth. If they were just using nonviolent protest to make a valid point or reverse a congressional decision that they didn't agree with, I would sooner throw down my gun and be dishonorably discharged than fire into an unarmed, passive-aggressive crowd of protesters.

Also, I think I should say this again, because you don't seem to grasp some of the "subtleties" of my previous statement:

RUBBER bullets. RUBBER bullets. RUBBER bullets. RUBBER bullets. RUBBER bullets.

 

[SimuLord]

Start throwing tear gas and shooting rubber bullets (and then only if they wouldn't let me shoot lead bullets.)

Where's the fun in joining law enforcement if you don't get to ruin people's shit? I'm Chaotic Neutral. I sure as fuck don't care about being all Boy Scout about it. I probably joined something like an army purely for my own sociopathic ends.

Try saying that again when you actually take several rubber bullets to the gut, like I did.
You won't be able to, what with all the coughing up blood and bruises the size of baseballs and whatnot.

Sociopathic power-fantasies are all well and good until one day you're on the wrong side of them.
I would never shoot someone with a rubber bullet because I actually know what it feels like to get hit by one and don't wish it on anybody else.

Don't go saying that you would do this or do that until you actually know what's it like to be on the recieving end.

Easy there, Smacky. Taking sociopathic Internet Tough Guys seriously when they're cracking jokes could do to your mental health what those rubber bullets did to your gut.