zlacker

>>hhs+(OP)
Tear gas is a chemical weapon and as such is banned in war according to the Geneva Conventions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/1...

>>splitr+f5
The article states, "It also lives in a legal gray zone, due to international treaties that allow it to be used in domestic law enforcement but not in war."

>>oicu81+A5
Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law enforcement either.

>>geogra+S5
Do you have a suggestion for a better way to achieve the same results?

(Of course we can discuss if most of the uses of tear gas are wrong, but lets for a moment think that we have a moment were we need to chase away a crowd of evil persons riotong and threatening to kill perfectly innocent children.)

>>eitlan+87
That's kind of a strawman.

But, we have de-escalation tactics, riot shields, smoke canisters, and literally guns.

If an officer wouldn't fire a gun, I think he shouldn't use tear gas.

>>pionar+b9
When considering a use-of-force continuum, I'd sure rather have a family member or myself be tear-gassed than shot. If you take an intermediate level away, sure you get fewer people tear-gassed, but I think you replace some of them with people being shot.

>>sokolo+5a
But that is based on the assumption that force is the correct choice in the first place. Having more options on how to apply force avoids the fact that the correct choice is to de-escalate.

>>MereIn+Zd
It's almost always to de-escalate. But only almost.

I'm willing to grant the police the power to appropriately use force and give them the broadest spectrum of options to match to the need. That's not dependent on them showing for a whole year with no force that they've thought about what they did wrong so far.