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
Let's look at an unstated major premise here: That it's imperative to achieve the result in question.

Given that the result is, among other things, to escalate the situation and increase civil unrest, it's hard for me to see your argument even that far. This is, at best, a smart way to achieve a stupid result.

That's assuming that that's what the government was looking to achieve in the first place. If they were hoping to calm things down and restore order, then it's just stupid through and through.

>>mumble+L9
>> 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.

> Let's look at an unstated major premise here: That it's imperative to achieve the result in question.

I tried really hard to create the perfect hypothetical situation to discuss the correct use of force instead of discussing if the use of force is correct.

I failed pretty badly it seems and this time jnlike a number of other times I can't see why.

At least you were polite, have my upvote :-)