That's not accurate either. It's a story that's still developing, but as near as I can tell the sequence of events is something like: Plainclothes officer approaches a protest in a private car....
That's not accurate either. It's a story that's still developing, but as near as I can tell the sequence of events is something like:
Plainclothes officer approaches a protest in a private car.
Protesters accuse the driver of "bumping" into someone and surround the car.
The officer gets out and (in some order) shoots the 14-year-old in the thigh and is beaten by protesters.
A molotov cocktail is thrown at the officer (after he shot the kid) and the officer drops his gun while fleeing the fire. (And recovered his gun shortly after, pushing away a protester who had picked it up.)
The officer calls on his phone for help and is hit with another molotov cocktail landing at his feet. (He ran away and his shoe was on fire for a second or two.)
The current headline makes it sound like the officer shot someone who set him on fire which, as near as I can tell, is completely false. The shooting happened before the molotovs were thrown and (if you want to get picky) the officer was never exactly "lit on fire", at least not in the sense that one would think after reading that. I don't mean to be harsh on a good faith effort to accurately say what happened but like the last shooting there will be a lot of debate and misinformation to try to argue the officer was justified in his actions, and it's worth being as accurate as possible.
In the second video you posted someone posted this video which is supposedly what led up to the shot. Lead up video Of course I've reached the point that I don't know what to believe anymore.
In the second video you posted someone posted this video which is supposedly what led up to the shot. Lead up video
Of course I've reached the point that I don't know what to believe anymore.
Yeah, it's really hard to keep track of what's happening and sort through all the news items, rumours, misinformation, etc. And, even if we knew exactly what happened, how do we sort out the...
Yeah, it's really hard to keep track of what's happening and sort through all the news items, rumours, misinformation, etc. And, even if we knew exactly what happened, how do we sort out the morality of some situations? It's easy to find lots of commenters saying this shooting is justified under certain assumptions of the officer being attacked by a mob but then we have to ask, what other options did he have? What was he doing there in the first place, and what was he trying to do? What attempts at deescalation were there before the shooting? Was there an option to stay in his car or just leave, and if so, why did he confront the group of protesters alone? Or, taking a step further back, what's even the morality of remaining in the HKPF and trying to stop the protesters at all?
Like anyone else here I want to try to check my own biases and try to look past my own snap conclusions. I mean, obviously I support the goals of the protesters and support the protesters themselves over the police; one is a group of people fighting for their most basic rights, and the other is the increasingly brutal tool of violent oppression used by an authoritarian state trying to assert itself. But, that doesn't mean one side is always good and the other side is always bad. Still, though. It's a cop shooting a young teenager, barely more than a child, in an effort to bring a modern day colony to heel as they fight for a degree of self-determination. I don't have to fully embrace the actions of each and every protester to condemn the actions and motives of this one officer.
There's nothing to really disagree with in your comment. I posted the video in response to your third bullet point in order to clear up the "in some order." I think it's important when trying to...
There's nothing to really disagree with in your comment. I posted the video in response to your third bullet point in order to clear up the "in some order." I think it's important when trying to piece together events we didn't partake in, that we include all the information we have even when some of that information doesn't necessarily fit the narrative we want (I'm not implying you purposely omitted anything).
My comment, "I don't even know what to believe anymore," probably needed more information. I'll start with your comments. We don't know why that officer was there, or why he was there alone. At this point anyone can say anything, I will never know. Regarding the video itself, I am losing trust in the things I see that I did not witness.
I think the people of Hong Kong, or anyone for that matter, should not be oppressed by an authoritarian government. It's painful to see so many people across the world still lacking in that regard.
That's not accurate either. It's a story that's still developing, but as near as I can tell the sequence of events is something like:
The current headline makes it sound like the officer shot someone who set him on fire which, as near as I can tell, is completely false. The shooting happened before the molotovs were thrown and (if you want to get picky) the officer was never exactly "lit on fire", at least not in the sense that one would think after reading that. I don't mean to be harsh on a good faith effort to accurately say what happened but like the last shooting there will be a lot of debate and misinformation to try to argue the officer was justified in his actions, and it's worth being as accurate as possible.
Sources:
Article, Video of molotov 1, Video of molotov 2
In the second video you posted someone posted this video which is supposedly what led up to the shot.
Lead up video
Of course I've reached the point that I don't know what to believe anymore.
Yeah, it's really hard to keep track of what's happening and sort through all the news items, rumours, misinformation, etc. And, even if we knew exactly what happened, how do we sort out the morality of some situations? It's easy to find lots of commenters saying this shooting is justified under certain assumptions of the officer being attacked by a mob but then we have to ask, what other options did he have? What was he doing there in the first place, and what was he trying to do? What attempts at deescalation were there before the shooting? Was there an option to stay in his car or just leave, and if so, why did he confront the group of protesters alone? Or, taking a step further back, what's even the morality of remaining in the HKPF and trying to stop the protesters at all?
Like anyone else here I want to try to check my own biases and try to look past my own snap conclusions. I mean, obviously I support the goals of the protesters and support the protesters themselves over the police; one is a group of people fighting for their most basic rights, and the other is the increasingly brutal tool of violent oppression used by an authoritarian state trying to assert itself. But, that doesn't mean one side is always good and the other side is always bad. Still, though. It's a cop shooting a young teenager, barely more than a child, in an effort to bring a modern day colony to heel as they fight for a degree of self-determination. I don't have to fully embrace the actions of each and every protester to condemn the actions and motives of this one officer.
There's nothing to really disagree with in your comment. I posted the video in response to your third bullet point in order to clear up the "in some order." I think it's important when trying to piece together events we didn't partake in, that we include all the information we have even when some of that information doesn't necessarily fit the narrative we want (I'm not implying you purposely omitted anything).
My comment, "I don't even know what to believe anymore," probably needed more information. I'll start with your comments. We don't know why that officer was there, or why he was there alone. At this point anyone can say anything, I will never know. Regarding the video itself, I am losing trust in the things I see that I did not witness.
I think the people of Hong Kong, or anyone for that matter, should not be oppressed by an authoritarian government. It's painful to see so many people across the world still lacking in that regard.
I tried basing it on the title/info from the article that @Sahasrahla linked, how's that?