this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026
511 points (97.9% liked)
Videos
18881 readers
805 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] β¦" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The student picked up a stun grenade that had been thrown and it exploded in their hand.
He was 15.
And
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9zrdmxp4vy6o
If he didn't pick it up or catch it, how did it blow his hand off?
Have you considered a career in journalism?
By exploding near or on his hand, numbnut. This isn't rocket science. Maybe stop making excuses for violence
Yeah that's the cops' version. The students around said that they didn't pick it up.
Also, even if they did... Are you saying that a kid was at fault for picking up explosives thrown at them? That the only problem in the story, is that he grabbed it, otherwise everything else was fine?
What the fuck.
I completely agree that explosives should not be used against protestors.
Still, I fail to see how a stun grenade can blow your hand off if it's not in your hand.
That's because you think a stun grenade's only job is that it stuns, just like that.
It's a grenade. It explodes. That's how it can blow off a hand if it hits one.
if they did pick it up, why so?, this is not fucking COD where you just throw back granades, at most daring you should kick them, always run from them instead
It's a kid. Do you really expect a kid to know what to do when having grenades thrown at them?
They are already fucking smarter than most of the population that just sits on their assss waiting for the world to collapse, but on top of that you expect them to have a proper rational immediate reaction when faced with military equipment?
Also, I repeat: the idea that the kid grabbed the grenade is the cops' version, which can safely be assumed to be a lie (we're talking about french cops, who rape a guy that they arrested in their car with their baton, enough to cause internal damage, and their version is that he fell on it. And yes, nothing happened to the cops), so it's extremely moronic to even debate about the rightfulness of grabbing a grenade in this situation, since it just plays in the narrative of the fascists that try to shut down the protests by all means.
Yup, agreed, same French cops that:
Our (french) police intitutions are authoritarian, lethally violent, lying. Our ministers too, since they publicly defend and encourage these intitutions crimes.
I mean yes, the cops lie a lot, but if the kid didn't have the grenade in his hand, it seems implausible for it to have blown his hand off.
Students around testified that the grenade landed in his hand. Also, it doesn't matter whether he grabbed it or not.
I'm not sure they are saying it's fine otherwise. But that aside I wonder what would be an outcry if the grenade got back to the police and blown near some cop
The same police already sued the government a few days ago, accusing it of endangering them by giving them confusing orders against the terrifying hordes of evil, violent, uncontrollable kids.
So yeah, if a cop got injured like that they would already be taking out the tanks in the street at this point.
And then they get shocked when things get more violent, yet they're the ones setting the tone.
So, a cop threw a stun grenade that blew off a student's hand. Ergo, a cop blew off a student's hand.
That's a misrepresentation.
Whether or not you want to hold the cop responsible is irrelevant.
"a cop blew off a students hand" is intentionally omitting critical information.
Was the stun grenade required?
If it was not thrown, would it have been there for someone to pick up in an attempt to throw it and protect those around them?
They could...like...just pay teachers more. No stun grenades needed to be used on unarmed civilians.
Yeah I'm sure the cop thought "I wouldn't have to do this shit if they payed teachers more" right before he threw the grenade.
That's not what I'm saying. The cop didn't give a shit. He was just taking orders.
"They" are the people in power.
"just taking orders"
So, yeah. Cop blew off a kid's hand. Someone not-a-cop would take responsibility for this. I'll leave the nuance to the lawyers.
None of that is relevant to the question of whether the statement "a cop blew off a students hand" accurately describes the event.
You're very obviously omitting key details with intent to mislead and it just undermines your position.
I'm literally adding details.
You're obfuscating and attempting to only follow a very direct throughline. I'm saying to hold the further removed layers accountable.
What you're doing is essentially saying that the actions and choices of the wealthy elites and legislators is not violence on us simply because they didn't pull the trigger themselves.
Wage theft is violence. Healthcare denials are violence. Excessive police force is absolutely violence. And it all could've been avoided.
So yes, the officer that threw the grenade is responsible. The chief of police who ordered them to carry such excessive force for unarmed civilians is responsible. The administration of the school who steal wages, overcharge students, and diminish their educations to turn a larger profit are responsible. The legislators and executives who refuse to protect the people and bend to the whims of the wealthy and allow the situation to continue while they often collect more wealth themselves are responsible.
So, kindly, stfu if you're blaming a person trying to protect others for the insurmountable harm the system puts us all through. Wake the fuck up. The people you're defending would just as easily throw stun grenades your way without a second thought.
Oh please. I'm not defending anyone. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your statement.
This kind of hyperbole might impress 16 year olds but in political discourse you just seem like an idiot.
If instead the person had jumped on the stun grenade to protect others, would you still have a problem with people saying "a cop blew out a students stomach" not be accurate enough for you?
Theyre functionally the same thing. The cop is the reason why the student is now maimed. Saying that's inaccurate only makes you look like you're defending their actions, and are instead blaming the victim.
Suppose a cop tripped over a students water bottle, hit his head on the ground and died. Did the student murder that cop?
Sure, if the student intended to harm the cop, and slipped it directly under his foot when he went to step. That would be a fair equivalent, and I would say yeah, the student is in the wrong.
You can't throw something intended to harm others, and then cry fowl. The cop is the reason that students hand is gone. No clue why you would say otherwise, except tovictim blame.
Its interesting you consider the students intention.
What do you suppose was the cop's intention?
Hyperbole? It's our lived reality. Policy choices literally kill us, my friends and family are struggling to put food on the table after working hard their entire lives. What kind of elitist "political discourse" bs is this? You have no response, you can't refute it, and instead try to insultand call it absurd. I'd say the rise of the far right is absurd. It doesn't mean it's not happening all around the world currently.
I'm wasting my time. Someone so propagandized will continue to ignore the harm in front of them and dismiss the actions taken by those fighting for others and lift up those fighting for the state.
Describing the occurrence as a cop blowing a students hand off is absolutely hyperbole. Are you really going to pretend that's an objective description of what happened?
Cops shouldn't have access to anything that could potentially blow off a person's hand, especially not a thing made to be used in public.
Again, that's irrelevant.
I don't really disagree, this is not a conversation about how police should be armed.
If you're trying to describe the event, "a cop blew off a students hand" is very obviously a misrepresentation.
You're welcome to make a case that the cop shouldn't have been there or shouldn't have been armed, but "a cop blew off a students hand" does not describe what happened.
I threw a molotov at you, and you didn't get out of the way correctly. You being on fire is your fault.
Get fucked.
Well, my being on fire would certainly be my fault if I had tried to pick up the fire.
If a guy sets a building on fire, and a fireman goes inside to save someone but then dies in the flames, you couldn't say that the first guy burned a fireman alive.