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
As I've written to mdorazio I've actually had the full tear gas experience: locked in a cramped bunker, unable to escape, forced to try to talk in a thick fog of it until officers were happy.

I'd rather take that again than a good number of other unpleasant experiences.

Mentioned it in the same sentence as the use of actual guns seems to indicate that you either talk about a different kind of tear gas or that you don't know what you are talking about at all.