this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
98 points (99.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7526 readers
753 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He's gonna be the secdef so this means US soldiers shooting protesters. I'm pretty sure most aren't gonna be into it but you probably won't have to look far too find someone who would.
Sure, but protesters already get shot. Is it somehow worse when the military does it instead of the police?
A bigger deal at least. Cops shoot people every day but the military hasn't gunned down protesters since the 60s.
Yeah, but have you seen cops? They're a paramilitary at this point.
I just don't think there's much of a difference.
The police still shoot with beanbags. Something tells me the national guard is using live ammo in the same scenario.
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.
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.
If military shoots fewer protesters, than that makes it a smaller deal. No?