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