Possible yes signal, though I think the latter 2 would count as a no resolution.

Damn based on the clarified criteria I think this is going to be NO

ooo good one

@strutheo ok but this could use some better criteria

Presumably there are already standing instructions to use live fire in certain circumstances?

Obvious example is if a protester fires at police, but there may be thresholds below that. Eg bricks being thrown, a police officer being surrounded and beaten, protesters open-carrying, etc.

How will you distinguish between a ‘rogue officer’ and this sort of action?

@OP I would say it counts if it's done as an escalation of the conflict, so if it was done as a one off in response to being fired at, or as necessary self defense of the life of an officer, it wouldn't count.

Even if it's a shootout between protestors and government officials like waco or something, as long as it was specifically shooting back at that group and it doesn't escalate to a broader case of deliberately shooting unarmed protestors to quell unrest, then it wouldn't count.

Admittedly this is a pretty murky concept and historically misunderstandings in this regard have led to huge escalations but I think given the level of scrutiny and availability of cameras, it should be possible to determine the specifics of an event like this even if it takes a couple of days for the information to get out.

@Damin I think that you’re setting yourself up for a real headache by defining this according to who ‘escalated’ and whether the live fire extends beyond the ‘deserving’.

Would the shooting of that lady on capital hill count?

@OP It's not trivial to capture in words, but I do think there is a distinct a type of event/situation I'm getting at by attempting to restrict the yes outcomes this way which you hopefully understand.

Maybe I'll just pull a Potter Stewart, though hopefully not.

If you're referring to the Ashli Babitt case, I would not count that.

@Damin would the Kent State Massacre count? The Guard reported fearing for their lives, and were acquitted. There was no evidence of the orders coming from higher up the chain.

@OP It seems like a clear case of rogue officers so no.

@Damin wait what...

you should just resolve YES if any live ammo is used , and kent state should absolutely count imo

@strutheo Ok tbh I think I used a poor title because my initial description included, and still includes:

Resolves yes if the executive branch instructs the use of actual bullets to deal with protests or unrest that are politically motivated, and it occurs.

this seems like this scenario a bit

https://manifold.markets/UnspecifiedPerson/market-resolution-will-bob-eat-a-po

what would you suggest I change; I'm inexperienced at creating markets

@Damin can always NA this one and remake it, i'll repost it so ppl see after

@Damin yeah titles are very tricky, its an art lol

assume that people go off the title as literally as possible, and then check the description if they remember when the market gets dramatic

@Damin The problem is that, short of an outright public announcement of an intent to use live ammo on peaceful protesters, you’ll have a tough time resolving that resolution in a way that’s satisfactory.

The order may well be given in secret. It’ll only come out after a lengthy inquiry.

The order may be informal and not explicit.

The order may leverage existing permissions to shoot when in fear of one’s own life. I hear MS-13 is waving Mexican flags in the protests, and the skies are black with tossed bricks, etc. Our boys in blue are just meeting that force appropriately, and of course have the executive’s backing when making those split second decisions.

Keep in mind, even in the case of the Tiananmen Square massacre, a number of police and military were lynched prior to the army being sent in to maintain order.

Is it ‘political’ to use live fire to stop people burning down a police station? What about to enforce a curfew?

If there is a shooting, it will instantly become a culture war issue. There will be no shortage of people saying it was the protesters’ fault and business as usual for the police. The victims will be demonised. Simultaneously, the shooters will be deemed to be both justified and to be acting entirely independently from state orders.

Perhaps the criteria should be "will Trump publicly endorse the use of live ammunition on protesters prior to the actual use of live ammunition on protesters"?

@OP Ok yeah those are good points it's the type of thing where it's possible to evaluate. I kind of started this market with the idea of the situation that could have occurred as described in the axios article as an unambiguous yes and worked from there, but even then, the info only came out 2 years after the administration ended in a book deal.

I think I'll just resolve it to a poll tbh.

@OP my intent is basically, If officials are deployed with the expectation that they really could end up shooting unarmed protestors with live bullets, and it happens, then it resolves yes. If there is no expectation, or if it doesn't actually happen, then it resolves no. I think it should be reasonably obvious if there was an expectation of violence or not, with a poll to capture that idea against.