Poll: Would You shoot at Protestors?

[Regiment]

Hm. As an officer, it's my duty and responsibility to follow orders, so I suppose I do it. I'd wonder what led to this. Are these peaceful protesters being set upon by a corrupt government? Are these protesters bothering people and refusing to dissipate?

Anyway, it'd be my job, and I'd not be killing anyone, so sure.

 

[Wicky_42]

If I became a police officer I would be prepared to do that.

So yes, I would shoot, considering that its my job and everything...

In the UK at least it's the legal duty of the law enforcement to protect the people's right to protest, not gun them down for 'obstructing traffic'.

If I don't agree with their protest reason, I'd have some fun busting some hippies head!

I'm shocked and disappointed by those who have so little regard for the opinions of others - I would have thought that education these days was better than that.

Yes, I would, because they have violated their right to a peaceful organization. If they are obstructing the normal and safe flow of traffic or infringing on the public well-being, or threatening private property, or the health and safety of the officers, then the protesters need to be controlled.
This is a preventative step to keep the protesters from turning into a full-blown riot. Most municipalities have designated areas where protesters can demonstrate. Usually at a city or county seat. This allows for officers to control the safety of the protesters and the general public, while maintaining the welfare of the municipality and private property.

Erm, actually, as far as th OP says they are the epitome of a peaceful protest. You would SHOOT at people and GAS them for obstructing traffic? That would be your first recourse to 'protect the peace'? What would you do if they were a riot - you've already used the heaviest non-lethal tools in your arsenal against the peaceful chaps. If they start breaking windows and throwing stones you're going to go all lethal on them, bring in the army, snipe them from choppers? Fucking hell, this thread makes me despair for democracy and peaceful, civilised discourse of opinions.

If they were hippies, most likely.

I would challenge the soldier next to me to a hippie shooting contest.

...

Some are protesting War, corrupt Governments, Workers rights.

Were you guys reading the same OP as I was, or did the word 'hippies' switch you over to Fox News/Daily Mail mode, disengage the brain and turn you into a drooling, slavering idiot with no respect for the legal and constitutional rights of others? Seriously, some of the guys here would be rejected on YOUTUBE for being outright intolerants. Protesting against CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS means other people should enjoy shooting you? HTF does that make any sense?

Again, I despair at the half of the people in this thread who think that those exercising their democratic rights deserve nothing but violence and contempt.

 

[quantum mechanic]

I would prefer something a little more...interesting. Like giant water balloons from surrounding rooftops with a slingshot.

That said, no. The protesters have every right to be assembled in public places and there's nothing I should or could do about it.

Edit: ninja'd by previous poster. Dang.

 

[Ham_authority95]

To the OP: judging by the way that this thread is headed, I think it would be wise to change this into the Religion and Politics section.

 

[Wicky_42]

Edit: ninja'd by previous poster. Dang.

Heh, I do what I can - when I post, I try and make it count

 

[Chester41585]

Yes, I would, because they have violated their right to a peaceful organization. If they are obstructing the normal and safe flow of traffic or infringing on the public well-being, or threatening private property, or the health and safety of the officers, then the protesters need to be controlled.
This is a preventative step to keep the protesters from turning into a full-blown riot. Most municipalities have designated areas where protesters can demonstrate. Usually at a city or county seat. This allows for officers to control the safety of the protesters and the general public, while maintaining the welfare of the municipality and private property.

Erm, actually, as far as th OP says they are the epitome of a peaceful protest. You would SHOOT at people and GAS them for obstructing traffic? That would be your first recourse to 'protect the peace'? What would you do if they were a riot - you've already used the heaviest non-lethal tools in your arsenal against the peaceful chaps. If they start breaking windows and throwing stones you're going to go all lethal on them, bring in the army, snipe them from choppers? Fucking hell, this thread makes me despair for democracy and peaceful, civilised discourse of opinions.

The OP failed to specify a peaceful protest. The terminology used was too broad to draw definite conclusions from. I assumed at the point traffic was being blocked, control was needed.

And I'd shoot you first out of spite. Directly in the groin, if I had the chance.
Not my fault your groin got in the way of the rubber baton while I was deploying it at the legs and feet of the demonstrators in order to quickly usher them to a different location. It's assumed that by participating in the demonstration, you were aware of the potential risks involved and also made aware that officers were prepared to use the necessary crowd control devices available to them in order to remove actively or passively resistant offenders from the area.
Of course, emergency medical personnel will be called to provide injured persons with medical treatment.

 

[Comma-Kazie]

Only if they were from Westboro Baptist.

 

[TheJulz]

Only if they were protesting life.

 

[era81]

I'd love to take some shots at those fuckers protesting at servicemen's funerals because the United States are to tolerant of gays.The ones dbrose mentions.

 

[robert022614]

i voted yes purely based on the lack of options i mean what if zombies are protesting humans not letting them eat us??? then i would shoot away.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

If I don't agree with their protest reason, I'd have some fun busting some hippies head!

I'm shocked and disappointed by those who have so little regard for the opinions of others - I would have thought that education these days was better than that.

Were you guys reading the same OP as I was, or did the word 'hippies' switch you over to Fox News/Daily Mail mode, disengage the brain and turn you into a drooling, slavering idiot with no respect for the legal and constitutional rights of others? Seriously, some of the guys here would be rejected on YOUTUBE for being outright intolerants. Protesting against CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS means other people should enjoy shooting you? HTF does that make any sense?

Again, I despair at the half of the people in this thread who think that those exercising their democratic rights deserve nothing but violence and contempt.

Ok I'm seriously sorry if I came of as being intolerant. And just reading what I wrote, what I said DID come off as blatanly intolerant. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone with a poor (VERY poor) choice of words. I should really explain myself better.

I guess what I mean is if I was a police officer or someone in a similar situation and there were people protesting violently then yes I would use force to contain the riot (And note that isn't lethal force. I'm thinking tear gas and rubber bullets). If it were a peaceful protest I would not harm anyone in the crowd, even if ordered too. As I said later in my original post, I would turn on my superiors in a heartbeat if they were ordering me to do something that was against my morals. I know that what I said came off as very intolerant, but I want to stress that I am a tolerant person. I understand that everyone has their own believes and are entitialed to them. I may not agree with someone's beliefs but I will respect theirs so long as they respect mine or the beliefs of others. What my post was meant to convey was the fact that I would use force to protect my beliefs, if need be. Rebel and Patriot are two words for the same type of person. I would consider myself a liberal person and would probably more likely find myself doing the protesting, rather than containing it. I was merely putting my opinion as to what I would do in the hypothetical situation that I was a police officer tasked with containing a protesting crowd. I was trying to state that I would not count out the use of violence as a means of crowd control, and I am aware that in that respect I failed horribly.

Once again I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression or have offended anyone here. It was not my intent to do so.

 

[joshthor]

yes. hippies are smelly.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

If they were hippies, shoot at them
If they were protesters at a soldiers funeral, kill them

 

[Bek359]

Seeing the title of the thread, I was all ready to say "Fuck no!"

But since it's just non-lethal stuff, yeah, I'd go for it. Not to the point of brutality, just within regulations to get the people to GTFO the street.

 

[Krion_Vark]

It completely depends on who it is that is protesting and what they are protesting. If it was the WBC I would in a heartbeat shoot them since they are insane lunatics from the get go. If it was just normal people its a completely different thing. I would like stated above probably use tear gas first and use rubber bullets but thats a last resort I would probably try and get them to leave calmly before threatening bodily harm.

 

[Blimey]

They have the right to protest.

What they don't have the right to do is fuck up everyone else's day.

I would shoot 'em.

 

[Good morning blues]

Is it legal? If I'm joining such a force, I'm only doing so in defense of the constitution, and busting up a protest because it's a protest or because the protestors are lefties is not something I'm going to condone.