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
What do you do if you have a crowd of police threatening to kill perfectly innocent children?

(Or at least use excessive force without regard for the presence of children: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-georgia-cops-critically-... )

>>pjc50+hh
Not what I'm asking.

I'm trying to discuss the correct use of force, not if the force is being used correctly.

I can often admit that what I wrote can be misunderstood but you and mdorazio seems to ho out of your way to misunderstand me.

Why?

>>eitlan+8i
> I'm trying to discuss the correct use of force, not if the force is being used correctly.

This sounds like a distinction without a difference?

>>pjc50+vI
Absolutely not:

one is the question: if there exist a situation where the use of force is good, is teargas/cs gas a good way to apply that force instead of water cannons/ shields and sticks/etc?

This is the question I tried to ask before getting downvoted heavily.

The other question is if it is correct to use force.

(Or based on the amount of downvotes and weird answers I have got it seems more like some people think I support police brutality while other think I use the "think of the children"-argument.)