(Or at least use excessive force without regard for the presence of children: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-georgia-cops-critically-... )
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?
They should have their weapons and equipment taken away, like in most civilized countries.
The answer to your reframing seems likely to be that tear gas is better than rubber bullets, and that some sort of violence would be needed in order to stop the initial persistent violence.
Something else that's key, IMO, to the underlying situation is the rule of law; that those at any political level committing crimes need swift, visible, justice to demonstrate democracy is being adhered to. It should be much harder for a person in a position of power to avoid a prosecution and loss of power ... the ease with which that is happening for some at the highest echelons of power, to me, shows that the system is corrupt and demonstrates that justice will not be delivered for us plebs. Why then submit to that system, when those in power do not.
This sounds like a distinction without a difference?
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.)