Resolves yes if the executive branch instructs (or endorses) the use of actual bullets to deal with protests or unrest that are politically motivated, and it occurs.
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/02/mark-esper-book-trump-protesters
This is an example of maybe a prelude to that.
Does not resolve yes if the use of live fire is a rogue officer and not a result of executive branch instructions.
Does not resolve yes if it's just a shootout with a criminal that happens to be in the same area.
Does not resolve yes if they are instructed to but don't.
It has to be deliberate use of live fire to suppress or stop political unrest/protest.
I think I'll just resolve it to a poll if there is ambiguity because there are a lot of murky and somewhat contradicting situations but I think overall it resolves yes if troops are deployed with the expectation that people could be shot with live bullets.
tl;dr: 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 and it happens, or if there is an expectation but it doesn't actually happen, or if there is no expectation and it doesn't happen, then it resolves no.
Update 2025-06-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that for the market to resolve YES, the event must be an escalation of the conflict.
The following scenarios, even if involving executive branch instruction, would not lead to a YES resolution:
A one-off response to being fired upon.
Use of live fire deemed necessary self-defense for the life of an officer.
A shootout (e.g., Waco-like) that is limited to specifically shooting back at an armed group of protestors, provided it does not escalate to a broader case of deliberately shooting unarmed protestors to quell unrest.
Update 2025-06-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has specified that the Ashli Babbitt shooting on January 6, 2021, would not count towards a YES resolution. This example is provided to help clarify the type of event or situation that the market is intended to cover, particularly in contrast to scenarios involving perceived self-defense or isolated incidents not representing a broader escalation to quell unrest by deliberately shooting unarmed protestors.
Update 2025-06-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has specified that the Kent State Massacre, under the circumstances described by a user (specifically, 'no evidence of the orders coming from higher up the chain'), would not count towards a YES resolution. This is because it would be considered a 'clear case of rogue officers'.
1,000People are also trading
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.
@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 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.