US government uses live ammunition on protestors before end of presidential term?
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'.
