Hong Kong Police Shot a Protester at Point-Blank Range, Here’s What Happened | Visual Investigations

Hong Kong Police Shot a Protester at Point-Blank Range, Here’s What Happened | Visual Investigations

Articles Blog


This is the moment a Hong Kong
police officer shot an antigovernment protester. [gunshot] It marks a major escalation: The first time an officer
fired a live round at a demonstrator since protests began
almost four months ago. The scene was chaotic and captured on camera
from various angles. We analyzed the footage to
paint a comprehensive picture of what exactly happened. Let’s take a closer look:
It’s China’s National Day. Hong Kong is engulfed
in protests. In the
Tsuen Wan neighborhood, a group
of 15 protesters approach officers
in riot gear. They start chasing
and attacking one of the officers with
umbrellas and what appear to be metal rods. The officer falls to the ground and protesters
continue to beat him. We see one man
swinging a hammer, and another person is
holding a wrench. Police deploy tear gas. From this angle, we see an officer
running up to the chaos with his revolver
already drawn. A shot rings out. [gunshot] Here is the scene
from another angle. We see the protester
who’s about to get shot. He’s carrying a blue shield. The officer shoots
him just as he’s swinging a metal rod at him. He stumbles and falls over
the officer on the ground. The group scatters. One protester attempts
to help the victim. He is tackled to the
ground by another officer. A person dressed in black,
who appears to be a protester, throws a Molotov cocktail
at the officers from afar and then flees. We see at least
two officers have their guns drawn. Another one holds
a pepper-spray can threatening those nearby. Only now does the officer
who shot the protester put his gun away. Note that he also carries
nonlethal weapons. He’s holding a shotgun,
which is likely loaded with rubber bullets, and has pepper spray
in his holster. The protester who was
shot remains on the ground, seemingly conscious. We don’t see any
of the officers provide first aid
at this point. According to U.N.
basic principles, officers should
only use firearms under imminent threat
of death or serious injury, and they need to give a
clear warning of their intent to use a gun. The officer in
the video does not appear to warn the protesters
that he is going to shoot. Police said that
one protester had tried to stab the
officer on the ground with a sharp object and that
police had warned protesters to stop. They defended their officer’s
decision to use live fire. Police said that the
18-year-old protester was shot near
his left shoulder and was taken to the hospital. The incident marks a clear
escalation in police response to the protests and
is sure to fuel more unrest among the people of Hong Kong.

100 thoughts on “Hong Kong Police Shot a Protester at Point-Blank Range, Here’s What Happened | Visual Investigations”

  1. The New York Times is biased against the Hong Kong police. Colour me surprised.

    Attacking a police with a metal rod, yet being surprised when you get shot. You want to get shot with non-lethal weapons? When don't you use a pool noodle instead of a metal rod?

  2. I'm not sure why the police don't just st and back. These people are desperate. This is turning into a war. They shoukd just stand back and let them wear themselves out.

  3. Ah, the ol' "speed up footage of the rod connecting with the officer's arm to delegitimize his act of self defense" good one.

  4. They attack with deadly blunt weapon dude and the policeman is alone, even police use handgun they use it necessary

  5. HKGESTAPO POLICE IS THE RUNNING DOG OF THE CHINAZI CCP!
    XINJIANG 2 millions civilians were deatained and being tortured!
    Yet the WORLD STILLS LETTING CHINAZI CCP GET AWAY WITH THEIR CRIMES!

  6. Hate to say it but that appears to be a legit shot. If your colleague is surrounded and beaten like that. Then one of them comes at you close range swinging. First instinct to use the revolver in hand rather than switch to the non-lethal ones seem rational.

  7. I support freedom of Hong Kong but this is a pretty clear case of self defense. Don't swing hammers if you cant take the a hit.

  8. I think if this happens in the US, the rioters, not protesters as used by the reporter, have long been shot not only once but rounds. The worst thing is this reporter is so ignorant and knows nothing about gun using by the US police when they run into this kind of situation happened in Hong Kong. Or maybe she knows but quote something else deliberately in order to bias TV viewers. American politicians and media are well known for double standard.

  9. I could have shot 5 fleeing Rioters on their butt if I am the Police.
    And if rubber bullets, I would aim to the head.
    Lucky protesters, the Police are from Hong Kong.

  10. I think violence with the protestors may be staged, or rent a protester. I remember hearing about the same thing in the Bahrani revolution, done simply to make the protesters look bad.

  11. For all y’all saying that American police would do the same thing, I’d like to inform you that American police for many years now have adopted a defensive strategy when it comes to riots. Because they aren’t aggressive like the HK police, and they usually are separating two opposing groups that are fighting each other, an American officer would never be separated like that.

  12. Wow, amazed at how the New York Times can spin footage like this to police violence. If this is in U.S., all those attackers will be dead, and the police who shoot them will walk away with a pat on the shoulder.

  13. Don't really see the problem. Violence begets violence. Once you start trying to harm people, don't be surprised when you get harmed.

  14. The Rioters you call protesters are under threat of an authoritarian system and want to be freed and have been pushed to violence but I do not agree with beating a man mercilessly. Though many HK police do it to rioters/protesters, they should not stoop to HK police standards of signaling out and attacking people. But of course this is their freedom they're fighting for so I cannot judge too harshly.

  15. You find another excuse: shot riots carrying hammer, wretch and Molotov without using unlethal weapon first. Impressive

  16. That officer saved his fellow officer from being murdered by the mob… and that shot was well placed because, all of China's military and police are highly trained in CQB…

  17. I am an American and on the side of the police who shot the protester. Between life and death, it were within seconds. so no time for the warning before shooting. Those protesters who used hammers and metal sticks to hurt others were criminals by default.

  18. A witch told me there is a plan for every witch in the world to take over the world and first you will see lots of pro test around the world then earth quakes and volcanic eruptions then major storms!?!?!?

  19. Wait and see what happens if the Democrats make a unlawful impeachment against Trump… Every day the left are getting more and more chaotic! I remember when we built buildings for all of them to hang out in…

  20. Oh ya police officers had every right to use lethal force once the pipes, hammers came out. So what’s the problem???

  21. Of course he ain’t going to give a warning
    Lol Chinese cops in gear like that are going to get itchy trigger fingers and will want to shoot somebody at some point
    He saw his opportunity and he took it

  22. The police officer’s colleague was being beaten with hammers, metal rods, and pipe wrenches. I definitely think lethal force is justified, especially since these police officers have been dealing with this kind of crap for months. Hong Kong police unfortunately appear to be literally in the crossfire of a political battle.

    I think Hong Kong should retain its independence/freedom from China, but demonstrators can’t go around beating up police officers and throwing Molotov cocktails at them.

  23. Listen I completly understand why they are protesting, and I support that, but they were attacking an officer. What did they expect. This wasn't a Kent State or Tianneman Square.

  24. :if u didn't hit the police first then u wouldn't be shot. well if the police didn't hurt the majority of protesters with out weapon. if the police didn't pick on innocent students. if the government had revoke the bill. if u live here. if u hear news from various medias. everyone be so subjective without realizing it, including me

  25. I love how they make a big deal because its china in any country if your swinging metal pipes and hammers at police you will get shot this should be common sense by now

  26. This is blatant biased reporting. A police officer was brutally attacked by the rioters! His life was in danger. A colleague who came to his rescue was attacked by the rioter with a METAL ROD before he fired a shot at him. Go watch CNA for an unbiased reporting. The reporting was presented FACTUALLY.

  27. @1:34 "one protester attempts to help the victim"

    correction: one protestor attempts to loot the victim's weapon

    NYT stop glorifying violent protestors. Both the police and protestors have violent extremists. They are the problem. Nobody should die during protests.

  28. Police: *Sees man literally swinging metal rod at his arm"
    Police: "I am going to shoot you"
    Police: Gets hit by metal rod

    Well done, New York Times.

  29. What would happen if it was National Guards the shot that young man is it any different from the police officer who shot the young man who's in the right and who's in the wrong.

    The police officer life is in danger he could have been the one laying on the ground burned up bleeding to death from pipes under the umbrellas.

    Which is a violent Act.

    Meaning you was up to no good when you swing at the officer with a pipe under the umbrella your intention was to hurt him to stop them regardless how the protesters are thinking…

    If your mother was shopping and supermarket and a man slapped her in the face and snatch her pocketbook and ran are you going to allow that person to get away violence by conflicting harm on your mother no in your right mind you going to go after that person and when you catch up to that person why are you going to do it shake hands and have a cup of tea know you going to swing you're going to fight for what right that you believe in.

    Muhammad Ali didn't win the fight by singing.

    He wanted to fight by swinging.

    So what does that tell you an eye for an eye.

    If the protesters would not have a pipe under the umbrella or axle violin by throwing a cocktail at the police officer which is an act of violence that can result in to murder.

    What was in your heart or in the conscience of your mind you was out to protest but at the same time if you're not being heard the way you want to be heard can you out to do damage ruin property and conflict harm on another human being was trying to keep the peace and maintain the peace So you go against goodness with the attentions of Darkness not because you want to think in a dog mentality but anything that wants to destroy the living is a person who's being control by the demon of God's perfect angel but you don't see it that way and you will never see it that way because you're not in the light you in the dark fighting for what's right fighting for justice we just cannot fight Justice with darkness in order to fight.

    You need to come into the terms of light in order to receive the respect then you surely deserve but by conflicting harm on another human being is trying to keep the peace it is not quote for so you must pay the price for your action the officer may seem to be wrong for shooting the young man but the officer is following his guideline if your life is threatened and there's no other way to comprehend the perpetrator and you must stop them with Force.

    Those with pipes Under the Umbrella was using Force.

    And that is a weapon a pipe in your hands swinging at 80 miles per hour into a police officer's head or chest is considered a bullet.

    And a police officer with a gun with live ammo may not solve the problem but it can stop the situation of becoming worse upon other offices so the officer had the right decision in a Split Second he had to do was right to serve his country and to serve the people in this country that mean peace and unity when you come flick harm on another human being you're not about Unity you not about reasons you not about nothing at all only of what you believe in in your intentions to force your voice to be heard but you going wrong about it so in this case it is what it is no one should be hurt no one should be shot no one should be killed.

    It had to be done in order for the officer to save his life and other offices life and also pedestrians life that's in the mix not all protesters were thinking the same but they were all in the wave of Destruction

  30. As usual, this is shoddy journalism designed to discredit foreign law enforcement of enemy states.
    How much did the US pay you New York Times or did they give you special concessions instead?

  31. It's a plastic rod. Not metal rod.
    A metal rod with pointed edge was later planted next to the victim.
    There was another video that showed this clearly.

  32. The police were completely justified to fire live rounds, the protesters were at fault there, the policeman was doing his job.

  33. If such assault at police in my country, all attackers would be shot live bullets. HKG police just shot one bullet, so kind.

  34. It’s pretty basic knowledge.. if you don’t want to get shot don’t swing metal pipes,hammers, wrench’s at people. People seem to forget that these police are also humans and are fearing for they lives

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *