Two Uighurs were shot dead by Chinese policemen today in Urumqi, according to the BBC. Another man was injured in the shooting. A spokesmen for the Chinese government claims that the shooting occurred as a result of the policemen trying to prevent the three Uighurs from attacking a fourth Uighur. The governent comments allege that the Uighurs were carrying what the BBC labels as “long knives and clubs” and that the police fired warning shots, which the men ignored.
Is it normal for the police to fire warning shots of live ammunition inside of a city? Moreover, why are the Chinese police not equipped with less-lethal weapons as means of detainment, such as Tasers?
Update: The Jakarta Post reports disconcerting details about the events:
Photos taken at the time show one policeman raising his rifle to strike a man. Beaten, the man in a blue shirt with blood on his right leg lay on the ground. Police formed a ring around him, pointing their guns up at surrounding buildings.
If what the Daily Mail reports is true, then it sounds possible that these men were shot at point blank range.
Police said the three men attacked them when they tried to pull them off a fourth Uighur, whom they had attacked with knives and rods. (Emphasis added)
One witness, Zhang Ming, a construction worker at a building site near the incident, said he saw three men with knives come out of a mosque and attack a group of paramilitary police standing in a cluster along the road. Riot police then chased them, beat them and fired shots, he said. (Emphasis added)
If this claim is true, and that the men were armed when exiting the mosques, then we can only expect more crackdowns on Islamic institutions in Urumqi and the whole of Xinjiang. Unfortunately, this man’s statement is impossible to verify, and given the current situation, there are numerous reasons why such a statement could be fabricated for propaganda purposes, or distorted for international media consumption.
Comments 3
while, here’s the more detailed report on that story, if you can read it.
乌市警方击毙两凶徒细节：暴徒持刀闯入清真寺
http://news.backchina.com/2009/7/14/gb2312_48870.html
乌市警方击毙两凶徒细节：暴徒持刀闯入清真寺
本文网址：http://news.backchina.com/2009/7/14/gb2312_48870.html
清真寺的伊玛目（领拜人）和被追杀的维吾尔族保安14日讲述了周一乌鲁木齐解放南路发生的暴力事件经过。他们说，当时3名暴力分子干扰清真寺礼拜活动，在举刀企图挟持教民未果后，又追杀教民和保安，幸被警察果断制止。
新华社报道，他们说，当时暴力分子举着写有“真主至大”经文的绿色旗子，大喊“圣战！圣战！这就是维吾尔人的旗帜，愿意跟我们的就一起走”，企图挟持教民上街。
乌鲁木齐警方已经披露，这3名暴徒有两人被依法击毙，一人被击伤。被追杀的保安所幸安然无恙。
记者14日来到这座位于解放南路附近的清真寺，见到了目击这起事件过程的伊玛目和被追杀的保安。出于安全的考虑，他们要求不透露清真寺和自己的名字。
这位伊玛目回忆说：事情发生在13日中午2点半至3点之间，当时他正带领约150名教民做礼拜，有一名30多岁的维吾尔族男子站起来走到台前要抢伊玛目的话筒，伊玛目说“你不能打扰我们做礼拜”，制止了他。
没过几分钟，这名男子又站起来打断伊玛目，举起一面写有“真主至大”经文的绿色旗子，大喊“圣战！圣战！这就是维吾尔人的旗帜，愿意跟我们的就一起走”，欲煽动教民上街。
伊玛目当时决定立即结束礼拜，并说：我们绝对不跟你走，你出去。教民们也没人愿意跟他走，并要求把他赶出去。
这时，那名男子和身后的两名维吾尔族人抽出三把长刀，目击者说有半米多长，一人一把，欲挟持众人。寺里的保安人员上前制止暴力分子，教民们惊慌四散。3名暴徒举刀追赶保安和教民。
其中一名维吾尔族保安被两名暴力分子追赶。这名保安在拐进附近一条小巷时，正遇到巡逻的警察，立即上前报告说清真寺有3名暴徒。
警察立即上前处置，遭犯罪嫌疑人持刀反抗。警察鸣枪示警无效后，依法开枪，击毙2名犯罪嫌疑人、击伤1名犯罪嫌疑人。
这名被追杀的40岁左右的维吾尔族保安说，他当时想把暴徒引开，以免他们残害教民。他透露，自己在寺里工作6年了，以前是田径运动员，跑得快，所以不怕。
“感谢民警及时赶到，救了我和大家的命。”他说。
目击此次事件的伊玛目对暴力分子的举动感到气愤，指出他们的行为是“对真主的不尊”。他还说，自己从没见过这3个人，听口音不像是乌鲁木齐本地人。
乌鲁木齐警方说，暴徒在追赶中还砍伤了1名维吾尔族群众。目前，受伤的暴徒正在医院救治。此案仍在进一步调查之中。
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 1:31 am ¶There was a National Geographic reporter? photographer? who took pictures of men with the machetes charging the police in Urumqi. Apparently they were screaming “Allah Akbar.” I believe this is the same incident described in the Jakarta Post and later filmed and posted on your site. He then relayed the story to one of my foreign friends at a hostel in Urumqi and showed him the photographs. I guess this will be confirmed if NG decides to print the photos or not!
Posted 29 Jul 2009 at 3:35 pm ¶You might want to take a look at use of deadly force policy by US police. Taser is used to subdude *unarmed* suspects.
When confronted with deadly force like men charging with multple mechetes, you really think it’s reasonable to ask the police to whip out taser with probes on short wires, or requiring physical contact?
Anyway, you’ve posted the video, people can see for themselves.
Posted 08 Aug 2009 at 6:43 am ¶Post a Comment