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
When considering a use-of-force continuum, I'd sure rather have a family member or myself be tear-gassed than shot. If you take an intermediate level away, sure you get fewer people tear-gassed, but I think you replace some of them with people being shot.

>>sokolo+5a
It seems you went from tear gas to live fire without considering other options like firing over the head of a crowd, or using riot shields and batons to push people, or any of many other options. It seems to me that quite a few people just want to endorse whatever the police are doing and just attach some half-baked rationalization to it like 'do you prefer to be murdered.'

>>anigbr+mP
Just to be clear, I was responding to content which said "If an officer wouldn't fire a gun, I think he shouldn't use tear gas."

>>sokolo+vR
Yes, but you brought the option of being shot back in after it had been excluded, which makes no sense to me.