zlacker

[return to "The business of tear gas"]
1. splitr+f5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:25:02
>>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...

◧◩
2. oicu81+A5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:27:03
>>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."
◧◩◪
3. geogra+S5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:28:07
>>oicu81+A5
Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law enforcement either.
◧◩◪◨
4. eitlan+87[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:33:12
>>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.)

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. happyt+Wa[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:49:44
>>eitlan+87
>Do you have a suggestion for a better way

>evil persons rioting and threatening to kill perfectly innocent children

This is a great and important question, and something that deserves way more R&D than it gets currently from the US's leviathan budget, but you should be aware that this lineup of statements is a bog standard bad-faith rhetorical tactic, and may be [mis]interpreted that way (i.e. this is often basically a paraphrase of "if you, Mr. Individual, do not have a solution right now, then you must be OK with the killing of innocent people").

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. splitr+Df[view] [source] 2020-06-02 16:11:16
>>happyt+Wa
The research has been done.

It's largely a solved problem, and has been since the 70's. The cops in the US just don't use those tools and tactics.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-pro...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. treis+8m[view] [source] 2020-06-02 16:45:06
>>splitr+Df
That requires that the protestors want the situation to deescalate as well. When they want to loot and burn buildings it doesn't work. Your options are to let them do that or use violence to stop them.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. currys+3B[view] [source] 2020-06-02 18:02:00
>>treis+8m
This implies that a riot was the intended goal of the protestors. I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure, but I can't imagine militarized police showing up gave the protestors warm and fuzzy feelings. The implied threat of violence amps up adrenaline, and it only takes one person doing something dumb for the police to violently swoop in and for everything to fall apart.

At the very least, there should be a parity in force used. The current police strategy seems to be overwhelming force, which is both not working, and a moral failure in my opinion.

[go to top]