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.

>>eitlan+oj
Experiencing tear gas doesn't come without long term effects on health. There are also many varieties available, but CS is pretty rough and the most common form used in the US.