It seems to be getting a lot of attention outside of China.

I think the shooting will be seen as completely justified since the police officer was under attack and appeared to use non-lethal force to defend himself, so China won't see much of a negative response from other nations.

I'm going to ignore the implied insults in your response and clarify my position, which I don't think is controversial or held only by citizens of nations that you believe "generally support police violence at scale": Any person (or other living being for that matter) that is being hit with a pipe by an attacker has the right to defend themselves from that person.

I just don't see how you can map someone trying to break up a pro democracy demonstration as an innocent trying to protect themselves from an attack. He's a civil officer armed with lethal force. The protesters had blunt objects.

If you enter into a conflict bearing deadly force you either must be prepared to kill or withdraw your presence. It is not some accident that the police officer was there.

True, the policeman wasn't there by accident. His presence was premediated. By China.

There was an understanding - One Country, Two Systems. China abrogated that understanding by 1) creating a legislature that was no longer responsive to residents, triggering the Umbrella movement and 2) unilaterally attempting to impose an extradition treaty.

If China respected that (documented) understanding then most likely this massive fracas would not have happened. First they took over the legislature, and then they went for the justice system. Hong Kong thought they would retain their justice system through 2047, and that expectation was rudely dismissed.

So here we are, with police gunning down a high school student. There were better ways to deal with this situation, but Beijing became arrogant and tried to rush the calendar. End result is the need for a police state to prop up a stalemate of their own creation. The kids who would suffer most under this oppression are desperately trying to find a way out, as peacefully as possible, but JFK had it right; those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

Yes, he's a civil officer armed with lethal force. He presumably was prepared to kill or withdraw, but managed to prevent himself from being killed by the person hitting him with a pipe or the firebomb that went off shortly after he shot the person hitting him with a pipe, it doesn't look like the person with the pipe was fatally wounded, and the group of people in the area who appeared to be making efforts to injure people and destroy property were dispersed.

I assume you would prefer that this officer was not there in the first place, and Hong Kong was under the control of leaders that were selected in free, fair elections. Me too!

However, the original point I made was that this officer handled the situation in a way that is unlikely to generate much, if any, outrage from the international community or additional sympathy for Hong Kong protesters. Nothing you've said at any point in this discussion has seriously addressed this point, let alone refuted it, so this is probably my last comment in this thread, since you seem to be much more interested in posting rhetoric than having a conversation.

What I'm saying is they ought to be outraged, but we're so used to police violence that when we see a police officer choose to shoot a young person instead of leave the area, folks hem and haw and say, "Well they did have a pipe."

For what it's worth, I am saying you're right. But I also think that non-violent protests only rarely accomplish much of anything on their own when it comes to government change. Folks talk about a moral high ground in these cases, but I think its important to note that the status quo ultimately benefits the aggressors in cases like these.

You can call this rhetoric if you like. I think it's odd you're asking me to provide an address to a point I ultimately agree with? Folks who like police violence will like police violence. You can tell they like police violence because when presented with clear cases of police violence, they make excuses.

I can't help but point out a perfect example of why I don't think you're interested in an actual discussion: The person with the pipe didn't just have a pipe, he initiated the interaction by hitting the officer with it. If the person with the pipe was just walking down the street, or even waving it in a menacing fashion, and the officer fired, this would be a very different situation.

If you genuinely don't see the difference between your description and what was captured in the video, it's not possible to have a rational discussion about this. If you do, you're being disingenuous at best, and it's also probably not possible to have a rational discussion about this.

> he initiated the violence by hitting the officer with it, and the officer responded.

Alternative perspective: the officer initiated violence by being there threatening a crowd advocating for the right to self determination. He came with lethal armament with the obvious goal of dispersing the gathering. That's why he was there, and the video shows it.

You see militarized police as normal, so this doesn't shock you. I refuse to accept that.

You can accuse me of acting in bad faith but I don't see how I could be more honest about my intentions or characterizations. You aren't even really refuting them, it seems you agree that militarized police presence should be normalized in our considerations. I'm not so sure. No good comes of it.