I have been following the protests in Hong Kong eagerly, and I support their cause.

A recent event occurred where a protestor, who was attacking a cop with what looks like a steel bar, was shot by said cop. This is currently blowing up on the internet with the usual accusations of tyranny and violent behavior by the Hong Kong police.

See for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/ or


I have seen several politicians tweet about this event too.

Why is this considered such a big deal? It seems to me logical that if you attack an armed police-officer with a steel bar, .... you're gonna get shot.

Here's a video of the event. https://streamable.com/2hei6

In fact, it is even clear from this video that the officer shot as a reaction to his arm being hit by the steel pipe.

Why is this considered such a big deal? Had it happened anywhere else in the world, it would've been completely acceptable behavior by the cop. So what is the difference when the cop happened to be a HK police officer?

  • 1
    Welcome to Politics SE! It appears that this question is not as much a good-faith attempt to learn about policy, process and personalities, as it is an attempt to debate the shooting of a protester in Hong Kong. Please take the tour and visit the help center to learn about what kinds of questions are on-topic here, and if you can edit your question to make it on-topic, then please do so. Thank you.
    – Joe C
    Oct 1 '19 at 19:46

Police shooting suspects is newsworthy in the US too. Of course there are so many of those events over there that national media has to be selective. (But they do hit the local news at least. Here's an Oklahoma example, listing shootings by police in the state.) If a similar event to the HK one were to happen at a, say, anti-Trump protest, you can be sure it will be in the national US media and echoed world-wide.

This is not national news, but The Sacramento Bee has an article titled "Trump protester hit in groin with pepper ball sues Arizona cops: ‘It was humiliating’ ". So even that is newsworthy in relation to anti-Trump/political protests. Actually the media in the UK reported even the original event (before the lawsuit), so it was newsworthy outside of the US too, despite the non-lethal nature.


It matters on a number of level.

  1. Police shooting is generally considered news.
  2. Up to this point, no one has been shot by a live round since protest began a few months ago in Hong Kong.
  3. Today is the day the CCP celebrates its 70th anniversary.
  4. There is a video of the shooting.
  5. This is how revolutions start. Doesn't matter what the justification is.

Boston Tea Party

Second Guangzhou Uprising

Storming of the Bastille

Mao famously said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Would be an amazing symmetry should the CCP lose power from a barrel of a gun on their birthday.

A BETTER question would have been, why even let the Hong Kong police bring guns to such tense situations? Does Xi really want to leave the fate of his regime, his party and his family to the action of a random low level employee? Why take that chance?

  • ""A BETTER question would have been, why even let the Hong Kong police bring guns to such tense situations?"" .... uhmm, maybe because protestors are literally running around attacking them with steel pipes and molotovs? not hard to figure that one out mate...
    – fewfw
    Oct 1 '19 at 23:07
  • @fewfw: it is a seemingly logical point, but an unwise one. 1. The police got along fine without firing live rounds for months. 2. From that lone shot fired, it was clear that it was not on the order of Xi (otherwise, hundreds would have been shot). But in such situations, the responsibility for the action of any lone officer flows all the way to the top. 3. Does Xi really want to place his political and personal future, in the hands of some scared armed men in a tense situation? This is why it was unwise to send out armed police... Oct 2 '19 at 14:44
  • Only hundreds? Yeah...per day, maybe.
    – acpilot
    Oct 2 '19 at 19:40
  • @acpilot: that's what I said.. had the officer had the order to shoot.. hundreds would have been shot that day... therefore the officer shot out of fear or cowardice, or trigger happiness. Whatever the case, it was not the wishes of the central authority. Therefore, if Xi were smart, he would have disallowed guns to prevent unintended shootings.. But Xi has displayed very very little wisdom or intelligence. Oct 2 '19 at 20:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .