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.

>>anigbr+PT
It wasn't excluded. "If an officer wouldn't fire a gun, they shouldn't use tear gas." I was examining the case where a cop could fire their gun, but instead chooses a less-lethal means first because we've given them a continuum of force.

Imagine a scenario where a small group of cops is watching a peaceful rally. You and your family are part of the rally. Now, a subgroup of the people near the rally start to pelt the cops with bricks and rocks. The cops are surrounded and wildly outnumbered. If de-escalation does not immediately work and the cops have a less-lethal means of response, they should use that initially. If you deny them all the less-lethal means, they're going to use lethal means to defend themselves. You and your family are now in the area where copper bullets are flying because you didn't want the cops to have tear gas.

I'm sure being tased sucks. I know tear gas sucks. I'm also pretty sure both suck a lot less than being shot and that the Taser company and police use of tear gas have saved lives.