Poll: Would You shoot at Protestors?

[acosn]

Am I being paid?

Is it my job to suppress a protest?

More importantly-
are they being violent?

If "Yes" is the answer to any of the above than my own answer is yes.

On a more comical level it'd really depend on what they're protesting about. Yeah, you have a right to free speech. Just make sure what you're saying is your own words, and even then not something criminally stupid.

 

[ethaninja]

What numero posto uno said. Start doing what he is told. However, if I was authorised to take lethal action, I would. Or at least shoot real bullets anyway, for legs shots etc.

 

[Super Toast]

Depends on how aggressive they are.. and maybe a wee bit on what they are protesting about, and related to how I feel about being a riot policemen. If it's armed neo-nazis wanting to kick out 90% of the country to live like kings, then I'd sneak some live ammunition in. If they happen to be fairly peaceful protesters hen I'd have to question the motives of the police officer in charge. It's not likely to happen as police officers with power generally don't abuse (some do, but not that many).

Hmm... I've seen you at Planet Express before. What's your name?

OT: Hell yeah I'd do it. If it's not live ammunition I might have even made a game out of it... until they kicked the shit out of me, of course.

 

[Treblaine]

[SNIP]

Sorry, I kinda want to keep redundancy down.

Protests can turn into a riot from my perspective. Thus, from my POV, I saw this scenario being *vaguely* like the very start of the Tienanmen Square incident.

A pity you missed my edit on orders. Though you do have me on the mob mentality bit. Guess that was a poor choice of words. It's more blindly following orders. (Note that me saying that implies that the person "blindly following orders" would object on moral/legal grounds to what they are about to do)

Military/police don't want their men/women "blindly" following orders. Rather they just want them QUICKLY following orders.

Yes, you can oppose orders on moral/legal grounds but you are taking a huge risk as you likely WILL be disciplined and if it was found the order was in good standing you will get punished, could get demoted (huge pay/pension cut) or get sent to a military prison and jeopardise your pension.

As to a Tienanmen Square scenario, sorry but it is utterly futile to leave it down to individual soldiers to know when to disobey an order to prevent crimes like that. Soldiers are above all else loyal, as they should be, as a disloyal and unreliable soldier is just another guy with a gun. They are a danger to everyone they come across. Just ask women of East Congo how safe they feel when a rabble of ill disciplined Congolese Army troopers come to their village...

No, the source of that massacre did not lie in the front lines but with the politicians and military commanders who are ultimately responsible and directly executed the systematic murder of protesters with blatantly disproportionate force. The aim was in no way to preserve any order but summary punishment.

You need to ensure that:
(1) the chain of command is moral, culpable and accountable (democratic representatives also key)
(2) the boots and guns on the ground are loyal and controllable.

The problem in America seem to be more that police officers seem to act on impulse, they take pot shots without orders and people get killed. Most of the disasters in American law enforcement can be traced back to individual officers making impulse decisions. Like firing a tear gas launcher directly at a protester... was he ordered to do that? No, he just thought he'll do that.

Part 1 has been achieved but the boots on the ground are not being controlled.

 

[PinkAngelKitty]

They have a right to peaceful protest. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, you don't have an excuse to fire on them.

 

[Xaryn Mar]

I would rather shoot the officer than the protesters. That is unless they were fascists og nazis.

Then again I would never be part of the police or army and if I were I would quit the job if given such an order.

 

[Treblaine]

EDIT: I almost forgot to chime in on those that blindly follow orders. Anyone remember what most of the Nazi concentration camp personnel gave as an excuse for killing all those they round up? "I was following orders."

Whoohoo! Sure, some may have done it on pain of death (and is sorta understandable), but most didn't even look for an alternate solution (namely fleeing to another country). Kinda like you guys!

It's amazing what people will do to one another just by being told to do so by someone who merely seems like they have authority (see Nuremberg defense and the Milgram experiment).

Comparing rubber bullets to The Holocaust:

You hear that?

That's the sound of a thread dying.

 

[xDarc]

You need to ensure that:
(1) the chain of command is moral, culpable and accountable (democratic representatives also key)
(2) the boots and guns on the ground are loyal and controllable.

It's simplistic, but I don't believe any of that is possible. Ever. In any large organization, it only takes one individual somewhere along the line to fuck the whole thing up. I was in the army briefly. Plenty of shady motherfuckers abound.

One of my drill sergeants interrogated me once. He thought I was an undercover internal affairs agent. It was priceless.

"I don't know what you're talking about." I'd said.
"That's what you would say." He said.

He went on informing me of all the various laws and codes I would be in breach of if I did not reveal myself as a CID agent.

I wasn't CID. I just didn't like him choking out kids in front of me and had told him to knock it the fuck off on more than one occasion. The last straw was when one private busted another private's ear drum after kicking him in the head after he was down. They had been fighting.

The drill sergeant told the guy with the blown ear drum that he fell down.

I happened to run into a colonel and told him all about it. I was out of the army the next day. The private insisted he fell.

Fuck it. Glad I didn't stay. Then 9/11 happened. Double glad.

 

[o_O]

Oh... Bah. You're taking this from a whole different angle than I am.

I'm not speaking of military disobedience. Military is usually deployed when serious shit goes down. Disobedience of orders then is a *whole* different can of worms I'd like to leave sealed.

This is a police force I'm thinking that is responding to the scenario of what I'm imagining. And when I said *vaguely* (note vaguely) like Tiannamen, I'm thinking in my hypothetical scenario that people are on a fairly orderly/peaceful protest. You know, like how it was in April. Mine deviates when the local law enforcement collectively lost it's mind and decided to break up something that's been going on for naught a day or two. I'm going worst case 'cuz I'm like that. >_>

I'm also taking the angle that the OP is presenting this more as a moral dilemma 'cuz I think that's more interesting to think about. Do you follow orders on the justification that people are just clogging up streets to go all rubber bullet/tear gas on them, or oppose on the ground that it's a peaceful protest on an important issue that most look on favorably. I'd also like to mention again that you'd be part of a police force, *NOT* the military. 'Bout the only repercussions you face is being fired/barred from being an officer, not court marshaled which is *much* more serious.

EDIT: and to 2 posts above;
God forbid the intention was a pretty good example, not to mention is known by many. After all, where else is the "I was following orders" justification more widely known? You got better? I'd love to hear.

EDIT EDIT: Know what? Ya wanna take something like that literally, like I'm implying you're killing people with rubber bullets, or as bad as a murderer? Then I see my words are gonna either:
1) Become twisted by you more and more as this goes on
2) Be misinterpreted even further by you, leading me to try to clarify all the time

In which case I give the hell up explaining my thought process on this thread. Apathy grips me once more. You win. I am wrong. Whatever is the best thing to say in this situation that I am the loser. Long as this thing between us is dead.

 

[Kamunt]

If by "shoot" you mean "point your gun slightly above the heads of all the protesters and shoot", then yes, I'd shoot without hesitation!

 

[Keepitclean]

Yes, under those circumstances I would shoot at the protestors. Why? Because that was my orders. If I were to get a job as riot control I would sign up knowing what I would have to do.

I don't feel the protestors deserve to be shot at under the circumstances listed by the OP, but orders are orders.

 

[v3n0mat3]

Unless they were overstepping their right to protest (i.e. BECOMING AN ANGRY MOB) then hell yeah. Otherwise, no. I will damn my job for their rights.

*EDIT* What I mean is; holding up traffic isn't necessarily considered inciting a riot. If they were tipping cars, destroying public property, endangering others, etc. then yes, I would.

*EDIT* *EDIT* BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL

 

[Mcface]

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?

Ever hear of the "thank god for IEDS" "thank god for dead soldiers" and "god hates fags" group?
Yeah, I would shoot them reguardless of my service.

If you feel so strongly about something, you should be willing to fight for that.

 

[Mcface]

No.

I would--CLOTHESLINE ALL OF THEM,AND LEAVE THEM BROKEN ON THE STREET WHICH IS NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT I WILL DO TO YOU AT WRESTLEMANIA, HULK HOGAN!

WIN.

also, i imagined an entire line of riot cops holding hands and cloths lining a bunch of protesters, it HAS to happen now.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I recall that the army told us, explicitly, that if we were ever given an order to shoot at an unarmed person we were supposed to disobey. No matter who gave the order or why.
Rubber bullets can kill too, especially if fired into a crowd that is likely to panic when they hear the sound of gunfire and realize that it is aimed at them.

The only time it can be justified (as in the Gothenburg Riots) is when theres a significant risk of severe injury or death present for the police (or otherwise) who are meant to keep order, such as by someone hurling cobblestones towards you. That is when you should open fire, to protect your own life or that of your comrades.

Protesting is a way to express yourself and is protected under the freedom of speech. By opening fire on protestors that aren't aggressive, you are effectively promoting authoritarian ideals over democratic.

So no, I would not pull the trigger unless my life was at a direct risk.

 

[Ldude893]

I try to miss my marks. I'm forced to do my job, but they can't make me do a good job at it.

 

[blindthrall]

It does depend what they're protesting and how they're doing it though. For the right cause I might join them. If it were a bunch of Tea Partiers, I would aim for their teabags. If it were the Westboro Baptist Church, I would aim for the head. Of course, regardless of the group, as soon as I see a Molotov cocktail get lit, I say release the hounds!

As for the whole hippie question, remember lots of hippies are chicks. Stoner chicks who hate bras. Still feel like pulling that trigger, Rambo? It may be sexist, but I don't think I could shoot a woman unless she was pointing a gun at me, even if they are just rubber bullets.

Why don't we just do what normal police do and taser everybody? It doesn't hurt nearly as bad as a rubber bullet, which is still traveling as fast as a regular bullet, or tear gas, which can fuck up your lungs for days.

This is how shit like Kent State happens.

 

[JokerCrowe]

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

It is an order. You do it.

Yeah... You could probably lose your job if you didn't...
(and in today's market...)

 

[Angerwing]

If it was necessary to shoot them. If the commanding officer was just being a douche, I would probably abstain. If the protesters were turning into rioters, I wouldn't really have any qualms about opening up with non-lethal force. I've played paintball, and I'm telling you, the fun part isn't when you get shot.

So if the protesters were (in my opinion) deserving of it due to their actions, I would not have any problem with shooting them with rubber bullets.