Poll: Would You shoot at Protestors?
- Thread starter heyheysg
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well look, you made it pretty clear in your OP we're using non-lethal munitions, so in most cases, I'm good to go. I mean, blasting a peaceful mass sit-in or something isn't really on my list of things to do today, but if the crowd is violent, looting, or looking to cause some serious damage- "Sarge? Can I fire the Tear-Gas Canister launcher next? Just once? Please?"
I mean, it's our duty to serve and protect the populace, and that includes the people who are out there, scared and confused and possibly about to get pulled into a conflict they don't want a part in, but that also includes the people right in front of you who are getting their self-defense in ahead of time, so we just knock 'em out and give them time to cool off, doing them a favor really, keeping things from escalating further and most importantly keeping the peace.
I mean, it's our duty to serve and protect the populace, and that includes the people who are out there, scared and confused and possibly about to get pulled into a conflict they don't want a part in, but that also includes the people right in front of you who are getting their self-defense in ahead of time, so we just knock 'em out and give them time to cool off, doing them a favor really, keeping things from escalating further and most importantly keeping the peace.
If they're disturbing the peace and causing unrest, then yes I would especially if ordered by a commanding officer.
There are worse things that could happen than rubber bullets.
There are worse things that could happen than rubber bullets.
Assuming that there is valid reason for rubber bullets, tear gas, etc. Yes. The protestors should know what they can and can't do and there has likely been a verbal warning or two from the police force by the time violence is considered.
However, if it's just the commanding officer saying "Lol, lets go shoot sum hippies" then I'd refuse to follow orders.
However, if it's just the commanding officer saying "Lol, lets go shoot sum hippies" then I'd refuse to follow orders.
First thing to remember is: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NON-LETHAL!
The real term is: LESS-LETHAL.
The term non-lethal was given to weapons by people whom wanted to justify the use of weapons outside of the, at the time, normal boundaries of said weapons. The real purpose of these weapons was to give law enforcement a means to defend themselves in a way that might not kill the suspect or innocent bystanders. They where only meant to be used in situations where the only other option would be lethal force, aka situations where you normally would shoot someone dead if you didn't have these tools available to you.
Then some arse-holes slapped non-lethal on these weapons and volla... the era of police using these weapons as 'compliance tools.' Even putting aside the fact these weapons are still LETHAL one has to wonder if we really want police officers who enjoy the over use of said weapons? As if torturing someone to make them comply to a command, legal or otherwise, should ever be a justified excuse.
So no, I would never obey such a command. It is in fact why I didn't become a police officer. I would never be comfortable breaching the very fundamental core of the law just to uphold said law... seems very hypocritical to me. Too honest to be a cop, how sad is that?
I put most of the yes answers here as general anonymous 'I will never have to back-up my dick waving' bullshit expected from a bunch of youngings behind a computer screen. Sadly though far too many cops are treating law enforcement as if it was another branch of the military. This para-military thinking in and out of the police force is just dangerous and it is getting worse. That word we mistake for irony, even the military doesn't take 'I was following orders' as a excuse for breaking the law.
Oh, and yes, shooting on protectors is greatly illegal. The police should be held to a higher standard when it comes to punishing breaches of the law. Not this bullshit 'breaking the law to serve it' crap we are seeing more of.
The real term is: LESS-LETHAL.
The term non-lethal was given to weapons by people whom wanted to justify the use of weapons outside of the, at the time, normal boundaries of said weapons. The real purpose of these weapons was to give law enforcement a means to defend themselves in a way that might not kill the suspect or innocent bystanders. They where only meant to be used in situations where the only other option would be lethal force, aka situations where you normally would shoot someone dead if you didn't have these tools available to you.
Then some arse-holes slapped non-lethal on these weapons and volla... the era of police using these weapons as 'compliance tools.' Even putting aside the fact these weapons are still LETHAL one has to wonder if we really want police officers who enjoy the over use of said weapons? As if torturing someone to make them comply to a command, legal or otherwise, should ever be a justified excuse.
So no, I would never obey such a command. It is in fact why I didn't become a police officer. I would never be comfortable breaching the very fundamental core of the law just to uphold said law... seems very hypocritical to me. Too honest to be a cop, how sad is that?
I put most of the yes answers here as general anonymous 'I will never have to back-up my dick waving' bullshit expected from a bunch of youngings behind a computer screen. Sadly though far too many cops are treating law enforcement as if it was another branch of the military. This para-military thinking in and out of the police force is just dangerous and it is getting worse. That word we mistake for irony, even the military doesn't take 'I was following orders' as a excuse for breaking the law.
Oh, and yes, shooting on protectors is greatly illegal. The police should be held to a higher standard when it comes to punishing breaches of the law. Not this bullshit 'breaking the law to serve it' crap we are seeing more of.
I would disperse the mob if need be but I would not endeavor to actually kill or permanantly injure them. If push came to shove however, I would certainly not hesitate to shoot in defense of myself or those under my protection.
Notice how the OP specified protest. Not riot. Big difference there, though I doubt many comprehend that after reading this thread.
So tell me, why are you using riot dispersing techniques on as-of-now peaceful protesters. After all, "jamming traffic" could be something like a freaking march (guess the US shoulda deployed full riot control tactics on all those tea partiers in Washington DC, clogging up the roads like that). Not to mention that the OP says that they are protesting corrupt gov't or wars, things usually looked on as being a damn good thing to protest against. Or in the case of working rights, protesting for.
I'd also like to call attention to how protests disperse in a non-destructive manner, given time. It's riots that turn ugly. Though there is nothing you can do to stop what looks like will be unnecessary force from being applied given the situation the OP gives us, you could, oh, I dunno, not participate in the mob mentality of shooting the shit out of a bunch of people doing nothing more than blocking roads (rubber bullets or no).
Thank god I read this as a bunch of idiots trying to be all "kewel and edgy" like Kollega says, otherwise I'd have more to quote for me being a misanthrope.
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).
So tell me, why are you using riot dispersing techniques on as-of-now peaceful protesters. After all, "jamming traffic" could be something like a freaking march (guess the US shoulda deployed full riot control tactics on all those tea partiers in Washington DC, clogging up the roads like that). Not to mention that the OP says that they are protesting corrupt gov't or wars, things usually looked on as being a damn good thing to protest against. Or in the case of working rights, protesting for.
I'd also like to call attention to how protests disperse in a non-destructive manner, given time. It's riots that turn ugly. Though there is nothing you can do to stop what looks like will be unnecessary force from being applied given the situation the OP gives us, you could, oh, I dunno, not participate in the mob mentality of shooting the shit out of a bunch of people doing nothing more than blocking roads (rubber bullets or no).
Thank god I read this as a bunch of idiots trying to be all "kewel and edgy" like Kollega says, otherwise I'd have more to quote for me being a misanthrope.
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).
Rubber bullets. I assume that these are those things like beanbag rounds, hurt like hell but non-lethal? Sure, I'd do my duty as a hypothetical law enforcer.
I mean if I had joined the army/police I would have known and been fully prepared to use physical force to maintain law and order.
There is a fine line between a protest and a riot, and that is for my commanding officer to make the call on, not me. Mobs are dangerous things.
I mean if I had joined the army/police I would have known and been fully prepared to use physical force to maintain law and order.
There is a fine line between a protest and a riot, and that is for my commanding officer to make the call on, not me. Mobs are dangerous things.