Death of Chow Tsz-lok

After doxxing efforts by protesters to target police, private details of a police officer's wedding in Tseung Kwan O on 3 November 2019 were leaked and calls were made to crash the event, which would eventually lead to an overnight confrontation between police and protesters.[5] Around 16:00 on that day, the police were dispersing protesters who were disrupting the wedding held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Kowloon East.[6] About two hours later, the riot police arrived near the hotel.[6] The police said that security footage showed that Chow had departed from his home in Tseung Kwan O at 23:54.[2] Hereafter, around 00:20 on 4 November, a large gathering comprising over 100 protesters, with some creating roadblocks, had formed at the junction of Tong Ming Street and Tong Chun Street.[6]

Early 4 November, Chow sustained severe head injuries due to a fall from the third to the second storey inside the Sheung Tak car park in Tseung Kwan O.[2][7] It was near an area of confrontation between protesters and police.[2][7][8]

Map displaying the whereabouts of Chow Tsz-lok before the incident

The CCTV footage showed that Chow was wandering alone inside the car park and on a connecting footbridge from 0:26 to 01:02, which is when he was walking upwards to the third floor, the last moment captured on camera before the fall.[2][9] In the time frame reconstructed from the footage, Chow was located in the Beverly Garden shopping centre at 00:19 and 00:23, on the connecting footbridge at 00:26 as he entered the car park, in the car park at 00:38, 00:44, 00:45, 00:47 and 00:49, on the same footbridge again from 01:00 to 01:01 as he walked towards Beverly Garden and then returned to the car park, and in the car park again at 01:02.[10] The fall itself was not captured in the footage due to the operational camera rotations and parked vehicles blocking the view.[2][11]

The police said that they deployed tear gas in the area near the car park from 00:41 to 00:57.[6] As reported in the Time magazine, it was initially unclear whether or not the tear gas, fired near the car park where protesters and officers clashed, had played a role in Chow's fall.[12] The Seattle Post-Intelligencer said that television footage showed police firing tear gas at the building "minutes earlier" from when Chow fell.[13] The location where the police fired tear gas was reported as the junction of Tong Ming Street and Tong Chun Street along the area adjacent to the western side of the car park, which is on the opposite side of the building and about 120 metres (parallel to the building) to 160 metres (from the junction) away from the spot where Chow fell.[6][7] In The New York Times, citing the security footage released by the building owner Link REIT, it was reported that there was no police presence or significant amounts of tear gas inside the car park in the moments before Chow fell.[14]

The police stated that officers conducted a dispersal operation in the building late Sunday, which happened before Chow arrived there, and a second operation that happened after Chow was found unconscious.[13] They were there from 23:06 until 23:20 for the first operation.[2] For the second operation, the police entered the building again at 01:05 from the ground floor to disperse protesters who had been throwing objects towards officers on the street from above.[2][6] The CCTV footage showed that the police entered the building at the time.[15] They also said that there were no police officers inside the building when Chow was walking around there.[7] The police concluded their dispersal operation in the car park at 01:25 and in the nearby area around the Sheung Tak car park at 01:45.[6] In a police briefing on 5 November, the Kowloon East Superintendent Wu Ka-yan said that Chow may have thought that there was a ledge below the third-floor wall, which led to his fall of four metres towards the second floor when he climbed over the wall.[6]

There were several people, including those in black clothing and firefighters, inside the car park at the time.[6] The firefighters arrived at the car park at 00:55 in response to a call about a fire.[10] At 01:05, they were informed by a passerby about Chow's fall onto the second floor.[2] The firefighters requested an ambulance at 01:11 as they were providing aid to Chow.[6] At 01:15, as seen in CCTV footage, over 20 police officers arrived at the spot where Chow had fallen and left about a minute later.[6] Suzette Foo, the Senior Superintendent (Operations) of Kowloon East, said that their officers learned about Chow's injuries when they reached the second floor as they gradually moved from the ground floor upwards.[16] She said that the firefighters told the police that they could handle the incident and did not require their help.[16] The police dispersed the people near the scene, in which they pointed crowd control weapons at the protesters, but left the first-aiders alone to provide care.[16]

The Hong Kong Fire Services Department gave the following account: At 01:11, ambulance A344 from the Po Lam district received an emergency call from firefighters and was dispatched for Chow at the second floor of the Sheung Tak car park.[17] They arrived via Po Shun Road at Tong Ming Street, but they could not proceed further as they were held up by a queue of vehicles including double-decker buses and private cars.[17] They then drove through the intersection towards the Sheung Tak Estate.[17] At 01:20, they arrived near the Kwong Ying House of the Kwong Ming Court, where the way was blocked by private cars and fire engines.[17] The ambulance personnel disembarked and walked to the scene with their equipment, arriving at their destination at 01:30, while their vehicle remained on the nearby road.[17] The ambulance left with Chow for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at 01:41 and arrived at the hospital's Accident and Emergency Department at 01:59.[17]

Leung Kwok-lai, the Fire Services Department Assistant Chief Ambulance Officer (Kowloon East), said that the ambulance assigned to Chow did not come in contact with the police that were on duty.[10][14][18] He also stated that there were five ambulances deployed for various incidents in the area around that time: ambulance A344 assigned to Chow, two other ambulances handling other persons, and the remaining two ambulances which did not handle any patients.[10]

The Fire Services Department said that it took 19 minutes for paramedics to arrive at the scene and that this was due to traffic congestion near the car park; this was seven minutes more than the 12-minute service pledge for emergencies.[11] The police said that roadblocks set up by protesters had prevented vehicles from passing.[7] Protesters maintain that the police blocked the ambulance from reaching Chow,[12] which the police called false and groundless.[19] In an email to HKUST staff and students pledging to take up the matter with police and demand clarification, HKUST president Wei Shyy said: "We saw the footage of ambulances being blocked by police cars and the paramedics walking to the scene, causing a delay of 20 minutes in the rescue operation of our student."[20] However, it was ascertained that the disseminated footage actually depicted ambulance A346, which was assigned to a person with shortness of breath and back pain who would decline ambulance services; the personnel encountered an ongoing police dispersal operation against protesters, where tear gas was used, and waited in the ambulance for safety.[18]

Chow remained hospitalised in a critical condition with a severe brain injury at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital from early 4 November until his death due to a cardiac arrest at 08:09 on 8 November.[11] The hospital referred the case to the Coroner's Court.[2]

The police stated that they would carry out an in-depth investigation, recommend an inquest into the death, and submit a report to the coroner.[19]

After reviewing footage from over 30 cameras provided by the building owner Link REIT, investigators ruled that Chow could not have been pushed by police officers as the police entered the car park after the estimated time frame of his fall, could not have been hit by beanbags or rubber bullets shot by the police as the distance was too great to reach him, and could not have fallen due to tear gas as no person in the area was affected and no smoke filled the area.[6] However, the cause for the fall could not be determined from the footage.[6] The police said that they would seek security footage from nearby buildings.[6]

It was reported that Chow had a fractured right pelvis from likely a lateral compression, a torn internal iliac artery, a fractured skull base, bleeding in mainly the right half of the brain, and an intra-abdominal hemorrhage.[21] He had no obvious injuries to his hands and feet, nor had he been shot with bullets or was he bruised from a beating.[21] The toxicology results only showed drugs administered after his admission to the hospital.[21]

Chow Tak-ming, the father, said that Chow Tsz-lok left their flat at around 23:40 on 3 November 2019.[28] He asked Chow why he was going out so late at night, but Chow did not respond, and told him to be careful.[28] He recalled that Chow was almost fully dressed in black, including a black top, deep-grey shorts, black running shoes, a black cap, and a dark backpack.[29]

Around 2 AM, Chow's secondary schoolmates came to the family's door and informed the parents about his fall, so they hurried to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital where they found Chow unconscious.[29]

The court heard that the second floor had four pavements separated by short concrete walls from the parking spaces, but that the third floor had a different layout as the walls were taller and there was no pavement behind the walls.[30]

Chow Tak-ming, the father, showed the route that they usually used inside the building on a model.[31] He remarked that Chow fell in a location that was seldomly used by their family.[31]

Senior Detective Constable Lam Chi-keung said that anyone who was unfamiliar with the car park's design could easily be misled into thinking that the upper floor was structured like the lower floor, especially if they accessed the higher floor via the vehicle lane, which Chow did.[30] He theorized that Chow might have leapt over the concrete wall on the third floor under the misconception that he would land on a path behind the wall rather than fall four metres down to the level below.[30]

The messages that Chow made in online group chats on Telegram revealed that Chow was at the car park to watch the protest.[32] One of Chow's messages was "[I'm] at the car park just to watch the show. [I] brought nothing."[32] Another of his messages showed that he was "getting the popcorn."[33] His final message was "[I] also went down to give something to others."[32]

Constable Chau Cho-yiu, from the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau, testified that he discovered the login credentials of Chow's iPad after inspecting browser records in Chow's desktop computer, which was not password-protected.[32] He stated that he was unable to retrieve the contents of Chow's iPhone, which Chow used to communicate with others that night, after failed attempts to unlock it.[32] Senior Detective Constable Lam Chi-keung stated that they were unable to identify the other Telegram users involved, because they could not contact the users via Chow's iPad due to concerns over data loss if the device was connected to the internet.[32] Magistrate Ko Wai-hung urged the people who communicated with Chow on Telegram that night to come forward and provide information to the inquiry.[32]

Chow Tak-ming, the father, said that he messaged Chow via WhatsApp at 00:46 to say that police had fired tear gas, after which Chow replied two minutes later to tell his father to close the windows.[29] This was the last message that Chow sent to his family,[29] but Chow was last seen online at 01:00 on WhatsApp.[31][27]

The Coroner's Court heard that protesters assembled near the Sheung Tak Estate car park and barricaded roads overnight between 3 and 4 November 2019, following online calls to gather outside a nearby hotel, where a police officer held a wedding banquet.[29]

Senior Inspector Wong Ka-lun, who led one of the police teams, said he and his team were tasked to conduct a sweep inside the car park, because black-clad protesters were hurling glass bottles and traffic cones at officers.[34] Barrister Flora Cheng (Cheng Suk-yee), representing Chow's family, said that he should have realised the need to remove obstacles on the road when he found out that Chow was injured, so that Chow could have been transferred to the hospital quickly.[34] Wong responded that he did not consider clearing the protesters' roadblocks outside the building first, because he had higher considerations in mind as his job was to clear the threat that the violent protesters posed, so that the paramedics could continue treating the injured person, and firefighters and paramedics could have been assaulted if this danger was not cleared first.[34] He described the scene, stating that "My team members went to ask what had happened and whether they needed help. The firefighters said they had enough people to handle and needed no help from us, while the volunteers told us not to disturb and leave."[35] He said that they did not obstruct or harass firefighters or paramedics or get in touch with the injured person during the sweep.[35] Senior Inspector Kwok Chun-hei, who led the other police team, said that they were not informed about Chow's fall when they were dispersing protesters outside the car park.[35] Both police inspectors Wong and Kwok stated that no officers came in contact with Chow or gave chase to anybody during the incident.[35]

Station Sergeant Lam Wah-ping, who led the police reinforcement, said that he and about 30 colleagues went to offer emergency support to two other teams of officers during the protest in Tseung Kwan O, but had not entered the car park or any other building.[36] He stated that the East Kowloon District police command post had not received information about the incident involving Chow.[36] He said that officers passed by the Sheung Tak Estate car park's ground entrance and reached the T-intersection, about 80 metres north of the junction between Tong Ming Street and Tong Chun Street, at 00:58, and that protesters had reoccupied the roads and were throwing objects at officers by the time that the police was about to retreat at 01:27.[36]

Lai Wai-kit, a firefighter who administered first aid to Chow, revealed that anti-government protesters had unintentionally delayed their arrival by blocking a road leading to Chow's location.[37] News footage played in court showed that two fire engines could not reach the car park due to a roadblock at the junction of Tong Ming Street and Tong Chun Street.[37] Lai described that a large amount of protesters had gathered at that position, adding that he knew that the obstruction was not intentional, but answered in the affirmative that protesters had indeed caused obstruction to the firefighters.[37] He explained that his fire engine had to make a U-turn, because the road to the car park was obstructed with bricks, traffic cones, and railings.[37] He stated that a man inside the car park told him that a person had fallen from a height and that police officers had not obstructed treatment to Chow during their sweep of the car park.[37]

Cheng Kwun-ming, a senior ambulanceman and the team leader for ambulance A344 assigned to Chow, said that he had asked the team to drive another route to the parking lot due to a traffic jam on Tong Ming Street, but that they were blocked by an illegally-parked vehicle at the Kwong Ying House and thus walked over 100 metres into the parking lot with the stretcher.[38] He said that they could have reached the scene faster if there had been no cars blocking the road and that they could go to the injured person earlier without protective equipment if there was no conflict at the scene.[38] He responded in the affirmative that they could have arrived ten minutes earlier if there was no traffic jam on Tong Ming Street and they could have driven straight.[38]

Cheng explained that, after they arrived at the Kwong Ying House, the team members got out to inspect and reported about the vehicle in front of them, so he thought about it and decided that they should walk to the parking lot.[38] He said that he did not smell tear gas and did not see the police nearby when they arrived at the Kwong Ying House.[38] He agreed that the place was not dangerous, but noted that he could not observe the entire environment at the time.[38]

The CCTV footage at the Kwong Ying House showed that ambulance A344 was parked for seven minutes and 56 seconds before the paramedics pushed the stretcher to the parking lot.[38] Cheng explained that they needed to understand what happened at the scene, contact the firefighters, assess how to get to the parking lot, get the equipment, and so on when he was asked what they were doing in this period.[38] He said that the whole process was necessary when he was asked whether the duration could be shortened.[38]

Mung Wai-kit (Ricky Mung), a Tseung Kwan O resident, said that he found Chow at around 01:03.[39] He described that Chow had fallen flat on the ground with his knees slightly bent, and that Chow had put his hands beneath his waist and thighs in a position that gave him the impression that Chow tried to stand up.[39] He stated that he did not see anyone chasing others, hear strange sounds, or notice any pungent smells such as that of tear gas.[39] Photographs and videos by Mung showed that Chow was first tended by two firefighters shortly after the discovery and that several first aid volunteers offered assistance about 10 minutes later.[39] Mung said that over 20 riot police officers subsequently walked past during their sweep of the car park.[39] He added that some of the officers came forward and yelled at the crowd surrounding Chow, but then shortly left thereafter.[39] One of Mung's videos, as indicated by the timestamp, showed that paramedics from the Fire Services Department arrived at 01:29.[39]

Tsui Ka-long, a Tseung Kwan O resident, said that he looked down from the third floor to see Chow lying in a pool of blood, so he started running and yelling to get first aid.[40] He answered that it was unlikely that Chow lost his balance after leaning over the concrete wall, explaining that he himself would not have lost his balance as most parts of his body would be below the edge of the concrete wall even if he stood on tiptoes.[40] Mok Hon-pan, another Tseung Kwan O resident, said that he did not see any tear gas smoke or detect any irritating smell around the area.[40] He stated that police officers were shining flashlights at the building from the adjacent street during the time shortly before Chow was found.[40]

A volunteer responder who assisted at the scene, said that the riot police did not behaviorally hinder the rescue, but had asked the volunteers to leave.[25] However, he changed his statement, saying that he was not sure if the police had asked them to leave, after a representative for the police questioned him on how he could tell who said this.[25]

A 17-years-old volunteer responder—who was certified in first aid, applied his training to check on the injured, and accompanied the injured in the ambulance to the hospital—said that the riot police spoke to the firefighters and ambulancemen at the scene.[25] He added that neighbors were asking the police to leave, while the police did not move forward and did not obstruct the first aid.[25]

Leung Tsz-hang (Ray Leung), a medical doctor who treated Chow, said that he would not rule out the possibility that Chow was thrown off the car park while unconscious, based on the lack of bruises on the hands expected from a person reacting to a fall by placing his hands against the ground, but that the reason for the possible unconsciousness was unclear.[41] He pointed out that Chow had no arm fractures, which suggested that Chow was unable to reflexively extend his arms for protection during the fall.[42] He said that the injuries were likely caused by a collision of great force such as falling from height,[42] but also deemed that the injuries could either be from that or an assault.[41] He added that there was no signs indicating that Chow inhaled tear gas or was hit by bullets.[41][42] He found the scenario that Chow lost his balance and could not react in time by using his hands unlikely.[41]

Beh Swan-lip (Philip Beh), a forensic doctor who observed the autopsy, said that Chow did have palm bruises, even though the hospital report did not state any injuries to the palm, but that the ICU doctors may not have looked at it as the injuries were small, non-fatal, and non-important.[43] The expert witness Kong Kam-fu (James Kong), an orthopedic doctor, commented about the bruises on both palms, surmising that it may have been caused by Chow lifting himself up with his left or both hands on the edge, rather than with his right hand alone, and falling to the side if he jumped with his left hand on the edge.[44]

Mak Hoi-kwan (Calvin Mak), a Queen Elizabeth Hospital neurosurgeon who operated on Chow, estimated that Chow had a probability of 85 percent to die within two weeks based on the CT scans taken half an hour after Chow reached the hospital.[45] He added that Chow had a 90 percent chance to become vegetative or remain in a deep coma permanently if he did survive.[45] He also said that, for Chow's condition, it would not have made a difference if Chow had arrived sooner in the hospital, because the chance of death would have remained the same.[45] He believes that all the injuries were caused by the fall, because Chow might not have enough time to react to protect himself even if he was conscious, based on the fall duration of less than one second over a height of 4.3 metres that was earlier determined by the court.[45] He said that he could not determine that Chow was harmed or unconscious before the fall.[45]

The expert witness Kong Kam-fu (James Kong), an orthopedic doctor, stated that Chow most probably fell from a height by accident, rather than being attacked and thrown off the wall.[46][44] He said that Chow landed with the right side of his head first and that his left brain was bruised by the counter-impact force, similar to what happened with the chest and pelvic injuries.[44] He said that the injuries did not look like that from an attack, there was no DNA from other people under the fingernail, and there was no evidence that Chow was attacked.[44] He also explained that Chow was unlikely to be thrown based on the horizontal distance of 1.3 metres between Chow and the wall.[46] He further explained that Chow's fall from the height of 4.3 meters took around 0.93 seconds based on his calculations and that people's perception reaction time is about 0.5 to 0.7 seconds, meaning that Chow did not have sufficient time to react to the fall by protecting himself.[46][44] He added that the 0.7-second perception reaction time is based on results from laboratory experiments, but that this is in reality more than one second for the average person.[44]

The expert witness Tse Man-li, a clinical toxicologist, concluded that Chow's death is not related to intoxication by tear gas fired by police.[47] He stated that Chow's medical report did not record any signs of exposure to tear gas, such as at the nose or eyes.[48] He noted that medical workers would have been affected as well if Chow was tear gassed, but no medical workers had noticed this during the rescue and thus the odds of Chow being tear gassed is slim.[48] He said there was no trace of pepper spray or cyanide, a chemical found in tear gas, found in the blood and body fluid samples taken during the hospitalization and autopsy.[48] A juror asked whether tear gas could have reach the destination due to the wind or could have filled out the third floor within one minute, but Tse responded that the tear gas was not affected by wind based on the footage showing the smoke rising upwards and that it is unlikely to diffuse at such a speed.[48]

Detective Senior Constable Ngai Kwun-kit, who was tasked with reviewing security footage, said that the fall might have occurred at 01:01:47 due to an abnormal change in the light around the area where Chow was found.[49] He posited that a sudden flash, seen in the footage, was caused by light reflected from Chow as he fell down, but Magistrate Ko Wai-hung remarked that it was too early to confirm whether the flash could indicate the exact timing of Chow's fall.[50] Ngai stated that Chow was alone and not followed by anyone in the footage.[50][49] Later, newly-unearthed footage from a security camera installed at the Kwong Ming Court, a residential complex near the car park, showed a shadow identified as belonging to Chow as it descended.[51] The moment was timestamped at 00:51:37 in the video, but Ko remarked that this was not the real time.[51] He added that forensic experts had to ascertain the precise time and landing point of the fall based on the footage.[51] The forensic experts, as later stated by coroner officer Yip Chi-hong (Timmy Yip), determined the time of the fall as 01:01:48 based on the new footage, similar to the conclusion of the investigators into the footage at the car park.[30] Ko later stated that he indeed believes that the flash captured in the footage indicated the moment when Chow fell and that the time of the footage matched the other evidence.[26]

Kwok Ka-kei, a forensic doctor who performed the autopsy, stated that she found no signs that Chow was shot, burnt, or assaulted on the body.[45] She also found no traces of tear gas or pepper spray.[45] She believes that the cause of death was the head injury.[27] She explained that Chow had a brain coup injury on the right side and a brain contrecoup injury on the left side, determined to be caused by a moving head hitting on a hard and non-deformed surface, such as by falling from a height and hitting the right side of the head against the ground.[27] She stated that the injuries to the chest and pelvis could have occurred under the same circumstances, and that they were consistent with injuries caused by falling from the third floor to the second floor of the parking lot.[27] She further explained that there was no injury that pointed to an attack, whereas cases of killings would have shown a skull recess caused by the weapon and no contrecoup injury.[27] She stated that the injuries would have to be serious for Chow to be beaten unconscious, which would have left traces of the murder weapon, but there was no sight of injuries caused by an attack.[25]

Beh Swan-lip (Philip Beh), a forensic doctor who was appointed by Chow's parents and watched the autopsy, agreed that Chow's injuries could not be caused by anything other than falling.[27] He believes that the fatal injuries were located at the head and brain.[25] He stated that the injuries were concentrated at the right side of the body, adding that the right side of the head and pelvic bone was severely hit.[43] He reported that the injuries do not appear to be caused by a murder weapon.[43] He added that the skull would be broken if the head was attacked by a hammer or stick.[27] He also added that an indistinguishable lineair fracture could have formed if the flat part of a brick was used to hit the head, but that this would have needed planning to get these injuries to overlap with the fall injuries.[27] He deemed the possibility of overlapping injuries by an attack to be low.[25]

Cheng Yuk-ki, a senior government chemist in charge of forensic analysis, believes that Chow's fall was accidental, rather than that Chow was attacked and thrown off the wall.[52] He was involved in mapping out the interior of the car park for stereoscopic animation in virtual reality for the court, as jury visits to the site was avoided due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[53] He explained that the layout of the second and third floor is similar, which may have caused the confusion that the wall on the third floor was the same as the wall on the second floor, that is, connected to a sidewalk.[52] He remarked that the surveillance footage showed that other people also had tried to cross the same wall in other locations, but that they found that there was no pedestrian path behind the wall and that nothing had happened.[25]

Cheng said that he conducted an on-site experiment to test the hypothesis that the flash on the footage at 1:01:47 indicated the moment of Chow's fall, an experiment that resulted in a similar flash in live footage when a dummy was being thrown from the third to the second floor.[27][54] He concluded that the flash on the footage was indeed caused by Chow's fall.[27] He stated that the footage of the flash and the footage of the shadow falling appeared to show the same moment.[54]

Cheng stated that Chow was last captured on footage at 01:01:39 while walking from the second floor to the third floor along the ramp.[27] He said that it is possible, based on Chow's walking pace, that Chow had walked 15 metres from the place where he was last captured on camera at 01:01:39 to the 1.2-metre-high wall where he fell eight seconds later.[54] He added that no one else had been captured by cameras on the third floor for seven seconds before the incident.[25] When asked whether Chow could have been attacked within the eight seconds, Cheng stated that there is no evidence that supports such a hypothesis.[52][54] He explained that it is difficult for someone who wants to ambush Chow to hide from being captured by the cameras as the cameras rotate randomly, adding that the culprit would have to calculate the exact time of Chow walking up to the third floor and complete the whole attack within eight seconds, which is difficult to accomplish.[52] He believes that it is impossible that someone could have attacked, lifted, and thrown Chow over the wall within the eight seconds.[27]

The Coroner's Court inquest concluded with an open verdict, as the jury was unable to make a determination about the death in the case.[55][56][57] This was reached by a four to one majority.[56][57] In addition, they agreed that the cause of death was the head injury due to a fall from a height.[57] Magistrate Ko Wai-hung remarked that they almost arrived at the truth, which would have surfaced if the security camera had moved up or moved at a slower speed.[56][58]

During his summary statement, Ko reminded the jury to determine the cause of death based on the evidence presented during the inquest and not be influenced by reports in the media.[59] He said that there was no evidence to suggest that Chow had taken part in the protest that night,[55][56] that there was no evidence to suggest that Chow was affected by tear gas fired by police over 130 metres away from the fall,[55][56] that the security footage at the car park showed Chow acting alone,[55] and that there was no sign that police officers had come into contact with Chow.[55]

Ko instructed that, if the jury ruled that Chow was unlawfully killed, it must be proven without reasonable doubt and with no other reasonable way to explain Chow's fall.[60][61] He stated that the jury could exclude the possibility that Chow was pushed over the wall, as Chow would have fallen with the top of the head landing first if he was pushed, but the medical findings showed that Chow's injuries was centred on the right parts of the body and thus does not support that theory.[62] He added that Chow did not have injures consistent with a fall from an upside-down position due to a push.[59] He also said that Chow could not have been easily pushed, based on his height, over the 1.2-metre-high wall.[59] Instead, he pointed to the testimony by the forensic doctor Beh that the only possible situation for an unlawful killing was that Chow's head must be struck by a brick or another hard object and that Chow was then thrown from the third floor, while the location of the injuries from the attack coincided with the injuries caused by the right side of Chow's head hitting the ground, but he also noted the lack of blood stains on the third floor.[61] He stated that they could consider whether an assailant could have acted within the limited time and could have avoided capture by CCTV cameras.[61] He also referred to the testimony by the orthopedic doctor Kong that Chow had a time of only 0.23 seconds to respond to the fall and said that they could think about what response could be made by Chow within 0.23 seconds.[59] Secondly, he instructed that the jury could rule that Chow fell to his death by accident if they found it to be relatively likely.[60][61] Finally, he stated that the jury should consider delivering an open verdict if they failed to arrive at one of these two conclusions.[60]

Ko had asked the jury to think about whether it was enough that the relevant management agency had posted warning signs to dissuade people from climbing on the third floor.[61] The jury recommended that, in the car park, the revolving security cameras should be replaced with stationary cameras and that railings should be installed on the edge of the third floor to minimize the risk of an accident.[56]

On 8 November 2019, the Hong Kong government expressed "great sorrow and regret" over Chow's death and extended sympathies to his family, and added that a "comprehensive investigation to find out what happened" was already under way.[12]

A memorial for Chow in Tamar Park on 9 November

The death of Chow sparked heightened anger among protesters,[7][13] repeated calls for revenge by protesters,[63][64] and the escalation of protester violence.[20] As part of the ongoing polarising disinformation, unsubstantiated claims about the police's role in the death of Chow began spreading widely among protesters and subsequently the public[65] – in particular, allegations that Chow had been chased and even pushed by the police, and that police blocked an ambulance from reaching him.[65]

During a 6 November forum at HKUST to discuss Chow's incident, a student from the Chinese mainland was assaulted, including repeatedly hit on the head, by a crowd of protesters.[19][66] HKUST president Wei Shyy denounced those responsible for the violence and those who aided or abetted the attack.[19][67]

On 8 November, many people queued at the place where Chow had fallen to participate in a memorial, placing offerings of flowers, candles, and paper cranes.[13] About a thousand protesters marched in the central business district; they chanted anti-police slogans and shouted at the police, including calling them "murderers".[13] In several locations around Hong Kong, protesters blocked roads, lit fires, and vandalised Mass Transit Railway stations, while the police responded with tear gas.[13] A graduation ceremony at HKUST on that day was cut short when masked students dressed in black took the stage and turned it into a memorial service for Chow.[13]

A vigil was held the next day in Tamar Park, with organisers claiming an attendance of 100,000, while police put that figure at 7,500.[68]

On 11 November, sparked by Chow's death, student protesters marched to the residence of HKUST president Shyy and called on him to "condemn police violence"; they daubed graffiti and vandalised the residence and also vandalised a Starbucks café and Bank of China branch on campus; classes at HKUST were cancelled for repairs after mass vandalism on the campus.[19]

The death of Chow ignited an escalation of violent protests, initiating the so-called "Blossom Everywhere" campaign from 11 November onward in which protesters established roadblocks, disrupted train services, and vandalised public spaces across the city that would ultimately lead to conflicts where a protester was shot in Sai Wan Ho, a man was doused and set on fire in Ma On Shan, and an elderly man was killed after he was hit with a brick in Sheung Shui, eventually culminating into large-scale police sieges on university campuses, such as at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, where the protesters had retreated to serve as their bases of operation.[69]

In a "citizen's press conference" held by protesters following the news of Chow's death, demonstrators said: "In this tragic moment, we plead to all to bear in heart and mind who the real culprits behind Tsz-lok’s death were. His fall was not an unfortunate accident. It was an intentional manslaughter executed by tyranny and the police force."[70]

Man-Kei Tam, the director of Amnesty International Hong Kong, called for an independent and urgent investigation into the events leading to Chow's fall, including into the allegations that the police delayed the ambulance.[71] The activist Joshua Wong said that Chow's death made the demand for an independent investigation into police conduct even more crucial, stating that "Reforming the Hong Kong police force has become a big demand in the society,"[13][72] and asserted that "Obviously, the Hong Kong police force has to be accountable for Chow's death."[72] The Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor observed the absence of trust between police and the public and thus urged the coroner to "proactively investigate, and take additional measures to ensure the credibility of the investigation."[2]

In an open letter, HKUST president Wei Shyy called for a thorough and independent investigation into Chow's death, and a clarification from all parties and especially the police to the cause of the ambulance delay.[14][19] The provisional president of the HKUST student union, Lai Wai-chun, said that he hoped that the university authorities could investigate the reasons for Chow's death and the alleged delay in emergency medical personnel reaching Chow.[12] The police responded to Shyy's open letter, stating the following points: the Regional Crime Unit of Kowloon East was investigating the case and would do so in depth; the police had recommended a death inquest and would submit a death investigation report to the coroner; the Fire Services Department clarified that the ambulance had no interaction with police officers at the scene, but was obstructed by buses and private cars and not by police vehicles.[73]