this post was submitted on 07 May 2024

249 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19103 readers

3478 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

249

What Rubber Bullets Can Do to the Human Body - The “less lethal” weapons were used against student protesters at UCLA. (slate.com)

submitted 6 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240507032256/https://slate.com/technology/2024/05/rubber-bullets-blind-kill-trama-ucla-protest.html

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world 50 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They’re a part of the rapidly expanding world of so-called less lethal weapons, named such as they are because they are ostensibly less likely to send you to the ancestors when used against you. These weapons come in many different varieties, ranging from “smaller” 9 mm rounds designed to be fired at a person’s legs or torso, to the much bigger, pop-can-sized 40 mm rounds that are designed to be “skip fired” by ricocheting off pavement or other hard surfaces towards their target (police historically do not do this, and simply fire at the target).

I do not for one second buy that they were "designed" to be bounced off the ground. It's an idiotic concept from the get-go: it's hard enough to aim a conventional firearm. Expecting any kind of accuracy from a ricochet fired by an untrained and easily frightened moron is a fever dream. Fucking no one expected rubber bullets to be bounced into people's legs; it was always an excuse for pigs to shoot into crowds. The casualties are a feature, not a bug.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Bouncing off the ground serves two plausible purposes. One is good and one is bad.

It discourages aiming at specific body parts. Sure, the risk is still there, but officers who shoot at the ground are not able to intentionally aim for people's faces and bouncing off the ground means it is good for scaring crowds with less lethality than regular bullets. This is a good purpose, because it discourages intentionally targeting people and body locations.

Second, it gives police a cover to say they weren't targeting anyone in particular. If multiple cops shoot in the direction of someone in particular they can still effectively aim, but legally they can use it as an excuse. This is a bad reason that encourages overuse.

Both are far less important than the real problem which is using rubber bullets in situations where they wouldn't normally need live ammunition. Rubber bullets are supposed to be an alternative to shooting someone with bullets. They are not supposed to be tools to encourage compliance any more than tasers, which are also less lethal and not non-lethal.

[–] cannibalkitteh@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 6 months ago

And most importantly, it dodges any corporate liability, the company providing the ammo can say it wasn't used as directed, and police can fall back on qualified immunity, and provide a vague statement about additional training.

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Land of the free eh?

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

No, this is the home of the brave part. Note how the protests do not stop.

[+] dsemy@lemm.ee -45 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They should also [protest] without fear of being hit with a speeding, possibly mostly metal projectile in the process. Even if a student throws something themselves, they are not launching a water bottle from a device meant to inflict pain.

These college students are accusing their government of comitting war crimes. If they truly want to see change, they need to accept that such a government will likely use violence to supress them - if they're not willing to get hurt for their cause, they shouldn't be protesting.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

While i agree that they shouldnt be surprised, i think they have every right to be outraged. Are you just going to silently accept any and everything just because its "the norm"?

I was watching the polices storming of the UCLA camp live and i think they overall did a decent job keeping violence to a minimum.(just that part not what came before and after) The rubber bullets were used for a relatively short time to establish an entry point into the camp after which they mostly used sheer numbers to slowly clear out the protest giving people chances to leave at any point.

Im still pissed they were even ordered to clear out the camp in the first place but i also appreciate them not beating the shit out of kids indiscriminately.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Of course they should be outraged, if you go and protest you obviously don't just silently accept stuff because it's "the norm".

Edit: My point is, they should be afraid when they go to protest, because it is clearly dangerous to do in the U.S. But if they truly believe in their cause, they should overcome that fear and protest anyway.

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

People should only protest if they're willing to be injured? What the fuck?

[+] dsemy@lemm.ee -7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If your government is violent and you're protesting it, what are you expecting to happen?

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So, only young, fit, able bodied people should protest? 🙄

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee -4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Edit: I wrote a bit of a long reply, but it was completely blank after posting. Basically I pointed out that being young, fit and able bodied doesn't protect you from rubber bullets, so I don't see where you got that at all

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So nobody should go to protests? You said that nobody should go to protests if they don't want to get hurt. I just named the demographic who is most able to survive physical harm.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago

I don't understand what's so confusing about what I wrote.

If you don't want to get hurt you shouldn't protest a violent government. If you still want to protest, you should be aware that you are putting yourself in danger.

It doesn't matter if you're 5, 15 or 50 years old, if you're very strong or very weak, a cop can still kill you with a rubber bullet.

I'm not saying nobody should protest, I'm just saying it's delusional to assume you will be safe when protesting a violent government.