United States | News & Politics

7386 readers

301 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

101

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Pick for Defense Secretary, Won’t Say If He’d Refuse Order to Shoot Protesters (truthout.org)

submitted 3 days ago by Garibaldee@lemm.ee to c/usa@lemmy.ml

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but protesters already get shot. Is it somehow worse when the military does it instead of the police?

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

A bigger deal at least. Cops shoot people every day but the military hasn't gunned down protesters since the 60s.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, but have you seen cops? They're a paramilitary at this point.

I just don't think there's much of a difference.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The police still shoot with beanbags. Something tells me the national guard is using live ammo in the same scenario.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think they'll have the same beanbags, rubber bullets, tear gas, and pepper ball ammunition as police. Deploying the military to fire live ammunition on protesters is a good way to turn a mass protest into a mass uprising. Why would they bother? It'd make more sense to use the same less-than-lethal rounds and let the protests fizzle out like usual.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Well if the George floyd protests are any indication, I didn't see no less lethal on the guard.

At the same time, nobody fucked with them from what I saw, so that's good I guess.

[–] mukt@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

If military shoots fewer protesters, than that makes it a smaller deal. No?