15 ms·

The business of tear gas

216 points by hhs 6y ago

splitrocket 6y ago
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/2014/08/14/tear-gas-is-a-chemical-weapon-banned-in-war-but-ferguson-police-shoot-it-at-protesters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/1...
- oicu812 6y ago
  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."
  - geogra4 6y ago
    Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law enforcement either.
    - monoclechris 6y ago
      Do you have a better solution? Perhaps you should bring it to market.
      - freen 6y ago
        Protest de-escalation has been a solved problem since 1970. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-protesters-and-police-safer-heres-why-departments-respond-with-force-anyway/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-pro...
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - jorge-d 6y ago
        Not shooting anything at all might be a good start
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        monoclechris 6y ago
        I, too, want to live in a world where everyone is nice to each other.
        ohlookabird 6y ago
        Well, then look at how other countries are doing it. The US is really bad with policing.
        jjeaff 6y ago
        I don't disagree, but I'm not sure if any of these other countries have quite so many criminals and organized crime that are also armed to the teeth. If the cops stopped carrying weapons, would the criminals stop as well?
      - blueline 6y ago
        you think that police misuse of force is due to a lack of better alternatives?
        monoclechris 6y ago
        When you have violent mobs committing arson and vandalism I think bringing out the tear gas is reasonable and not a misuse of force.
        klyrs 6y ago
        Sure, violent mobs. But last night they used it to disperse a peaceful crowd so that trump could get his picture taken across the street they were occupying. Sounds like an egregious use of force to me.
        jschwartzi 6y ago
        The problem here is that the police are failing to distinguish between groups peacefully protesting and groups who are tearing things up. They're rounding up all the protestors. The police have a responsibility to distinguish targets. Their job is to police, not to suppress. Even in the middle of a peaceful protest they should be making an effort to police the protest by differentiating between people maintaining civil order and people who are not. They should not arrest or attack anyone who is maintaining civil order. I think the biggest issue with police forces is that they're all basically trained to treat all situations with equal gravity. They fear for their lives even when it is not warranted. And because of that they respond more like a military force, with a level of violence out of all proportion to the situation. The police are a bigger deterrent to peaceful protest in this country than any politician, and they have been since they came into existence.
        diag 6y ago
        You're ignoring the fact that crowds of nonviolent protestors are being sprayed and gassed without any provocation. The cops are being blatantly abusive in their application.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
      - ohlookabird 6y ago
        There are so many countries around the world that do fine without the violence, brutality and military gear the US forces use. I could not imagine images like the ones I see now in the US in countries like Germany, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, … All use better tactics and seem to be able to handle even large crowds without shooting and explosives. They normally try to DE-escalate (unlike in the US). But if I read the basic police training in the US is 6 month or less and even hair cutters need more training, this ship seems to have sailed until better training is in place. I am really shocked about what is going on in the US.
        kolanos 6y ago
        Noticed you left France out. Europe is always better, as long as you're selective.
        bathtub365 6y ago
        The person you responded do didn’t mention Europe.
        julienfr112 6y ago
        Well, no "gillet jaune" died : https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2018/12/21/gilets-jaunes-neuf-morts-depuis-le-debut-du-mouvement_5400762_3224.html https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2018/12/21/gilets-jau... (read the article : no death are linked to fight)
        ohlookabird 6y ago
        Not on purpose. I didn't mean to provide a full list, but only a few examples that I feel I can speak about. To be fair, there is a stereotype about French police being more violent than others. But still, I wouldn't expect that they would shoot rubber bullets into people's faces on purpose and hunt down press like in the US.
        bigfudge 6y ago
        The French only did that in Algeria (like the UK did it to the Irish). We're mostly more civilised closer to home. I guess the othering of black Americans means most US cops don't really feel like they are firing on their 'own' people.
    - eitland 6y ago
      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.)
      - mdorazio 6y ago
        Did you really just use a “think of the children!” argument to justify tear gas? Not cool. To answer your question, basic tactics in crowd control using water cannons and riot shields with minimal force is plenty to handle crowds when you don’t deliberately antagonize them to violence.
        eitland 6y ago
        > Did you really just use a “think of the children!” argument to justify tear gas? Not cool. Way to misunderstand and derail an honest opinion in my opinion. Also I am not playing the "think of the children card", I'm just trying to create a situation where we can discuss - the correct use of force separate from the issue of - if the use of force is correct Feel free to come up with a better example. > To answer your question, basic tactics in crowd control using water cannons and riot shields with minimal force is plenty to handle crowds when you don’t deliberately antagonize them to violence. Let me explain: Why I wrote what I wrote: I've been subjected to tear gas while locked in and unable to escape until allowed (military training). I know very well what tear gas can feel like: coming out from the bunker I felt I was suffocating but I did as I was told and ran until it cleared up and lived to tell. Same with everyone else. So unlike many (most?) HNers I have actual personal experience with it. I've also worked with and around some high pressure pump systems (farming) and seen some demos of firefighting water cannons and my best guess is that water cannons will be more dangerous if you use enough force to have the same effect. After all, being knocked to the ground is really dangerous if you don't manage to protect your head. I'm open to learn though, preferably if someone who actually know what they are talking about (might very well be you, just explain how you know) will explain.
        6y ago
    - smileysteve 6y ago
      Bullets are the same way though; Full metal jackets are required for war, while law enforcement use bullets for stopping power. One way the U.S. could reduce gun deaths would be to require full metal jacket ammunition; It decreases the likelihood of death for any given hit; (though increases ricochets and likelihood of stray bullets)(also increases price of every bullet sold)
      - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
        You forgot to mention that the hollow points law enforcement use are banned internationally per the Hague convention.
        gregimba 6y ago
        Yes, but US didn't sign the portion of the Hague convention that bans the use of hollow point ammunition and the US military adopted hollow point ammunition with the M-17 and M-18 handguns.
      - panopticon 6y ago
        Hollow points are primarily used by the police for their penetration (or lack thereof)—not their stopping power. As you note in your parenthetical, this would entirely negate that. That being said, there has been a lot of evidence that shows that HP rounds penetrate further than conventional wisdom would expect, and it likely gives LEOs a false sense of security when firing in an apartment complex or into crowds.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Hollow points are primarily used by the police for their penetration (or lack thereof)—not their stopping power I suspect that this is more true of the public justification for their use than the motivation (not saying it's not part of both, though.) Politically, “it reduces risk of accidental injury to bystanders” is probably more palatable, especially to the factions most likely to object to police-preferred gear, etc., than “it makes the injuries to the people we target more grievous”.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Someone should declare war and call in the UN blue hats.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    It shocks the conscience that the US police regularly use equipment and tactics that would be a war crime in foreign countries.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      If you think that tear gas isn't being used in foreign countries, then you haven't watched television news in the last 40 years.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        You’re not being as witty as you think you are. My point wasn’t “it doesn’t happen”, my point was “it’s a war crime”. The fact that what is a war crime is policy for domestic policing is what I’m angry about.
    - herewulf 6y ago
      Not really. CS is banned by a technicality. An irritant gas is hard to distinguish from a lethal one and easily swapped if chemical delivery systems are already present on the battlefield. CS is quite useless against a conventional force because all modern armies are equipped with protective masks in case the other side does use chemical or biological weapons.
montecarl 6y ago
In my city we have seen several peaceful protesters (some quite some distance away from police) be nearly killed by less lethal ammunition. Being hit in the head or neck by a rubber bullet will drop a person to the ground unconscious instantly. This means they can even hit their head again against pavement. Nobody has died yet, but they are clearly extremely dangerous. We have also seen the use of tear gas. I don't want the police to hurt anyone, but I haven't seen any long term damage from its use. If police are going to use force, from what I have seen, tear gas is less dangerous. It is still awful. I'd rather it not be used, but I just wanted to share what I've seen.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Police appear to be misusing rubber bullets, possibly on purpose. Rubber bullets are supposed to be fired at shin height, to achieve the appropriate mix of pain and risk reduction. They’re not zero risk because of ricochets, but flat, low trajectories help. It should go without saying that they should only be used when necessary, but if they must be used there is a way it should be done. The number of people being struck in the chest and head by rubber bullets implies that the cops are aiming for the head, a gross abuse of force if true.
  - brenden2 6y ago
    There are multiple videos of cops aiming and firing directly at the face and head, sometimes only a few feet away. It's terrifying and disheartening.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      I feel like rubber bullets should be serialized, so you can know who fired it. It shouldn’t be too hard, they’re both extremely large and consumed in relatively small quantities.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        It seems like the last point is sadly becoming less and less true.
woodruffw 6y ago
For those curious: there are actual several different gas/powder agents colloquially referred to as "tear gas". CS gas[1] is one of the more commonly deployed ones in the United States. At least one paper[2] associates CS gas with long term heart and lung damage. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20653665_Tear_Gas-Harassing_Agent_or_Toxic_Chemical_Weapon https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20653665_Tear_Gas-H...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- reaperducer 6y ago
  At least one paper[2] associates CS gas with long term heart and lung damage. So the cops will get theirs... in 20 years or so.
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    That paper's already 30 years old, unfortunately. We can't even hold law enforcement accountable for well-attested acts of brutality currently; it looks like we're a while off from holding them accountable for slowly poisoning people.
creaghpatr 6y ago
>U.S. forces yesterday used tear gas on peaceful protesters outside the White House gates, prior to a declared curfew, clearing a path for President Trump to visit a riot-damaged church for a photo opportunity. Tear gas was not used on that occasion, those were smoke canisters. It was false reporting at the time. https://twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/1267791336146636800?s=20 https://twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/126779133614663680...
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  Tear gas was used. Reporters [1] on the scene and protesters that were there can confirm. The US Park Police is lying. [1] https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1267824405876359173 https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1267824405876359173
  - creaghpatr 6y ago
    Your source provides zero evidence that the US Park Police is lying. It's an important distinction.
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      A first hand account from a reputable reporter who worked as marine security doesn't count as evidence? Really? Okay then, what would count as evidence in your world? Since apparently veterans actually being there doesn't count. They're either lying or they're sorely mistaken.
      - iso1631 6y ago
        There has been a lot of effort put into demonising the media over the last 5-10 years. Lügenpresse was used heavily in the 30s to attack enemnies of the party.
        fzeroracer 6y ago
        Not just that, but there's been a lot of demonizing of any objective fact that goes against whatever narrative they're following. I'm starting to feel like even if you prove something was objectively wrong, that's still not enough to convince people even here on HN.
sneak 6y ago
Looks like the PE owner of one of the manufacturers took their website down. Here's the info on who's behind it: Michael A. Monteleone - Managing Partner James J. Cesare - Managing Partner https://web.archive.org/web/20191019002207/http://www.pointlookoutcapital.com/partners.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20191019002207/http://www.pointl... Per the article, most of their portfolio are companies that sell stuff to cops: https://web.archive.org/web/20191019002212/http://www.pointlookoutcapital.com/portfolio.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20191019002212/http://www.pointl...
jeffdavis 6y ago
Let's say that there was the "perfect" non-lethal weapon. Kind of like a phaser from Star Trek set to "stun" mode. Would that be a good thing? I imagine there would be a lot of cases where they just stun everyone because, why not? For that matter, maybe just implant everyone with a lights-out switch.
- afandian 6y ago
  I know your comment was flippant but it demonstrates really constrained thinking. I don't know the path to get there but there are plenty of societies with better mental and democratic health than the US. It is possible to have a society that doesn't allow police to routinely kill people.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  Falling from standing height is really dangerous, especially for people of full adult height (acceleration due to gravity is worse the higher your head is, and your head's the main concern—it's part of why toddlers can fall over all day, even on somewhat hard surfaces, and unless they hit just wrong they'll be OK). "Stun" that immediately dropped people would still kill and cripple sometimes. [EDIT] especially in Star Trek where the stun sometimes tosses people off their feet, too, quite a few of those people/aliens would end up dead or requiring a visit to the med bay, IRL.
coronadisaster 6y ago
I need some tear gas, and a mask https://www.amazon.com/WHYIT-Ventilative-Biochemical-Respirator-Agricultural/dp/B086VHYJJY/ https://www.amazon.com/WHYIT-Ventilative-Biochemical-Respira... where is a good tear gas source?
grendelt 6y ago
Also interesting... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/tear-gas-hong-kong-made-in-usa https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/tear-gas-...
swhnorton 6y ago
https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/triple-chaser https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/triple-chase...
nsxwolf 6y ago
What's the correct way to control a violent crowd? Anything besides "solve all the world's problems so no one is angry"?
- zwass 6y ago
  Do not escalate the crowd to violence. See yesterday's https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-protesters-and-police-safer-heres-why-departments-respond-with-force-anyway/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-pro....
  - nsxwolf 6y ago
    Let's say de-escalation fails. Then what?
    - zwass 6y ago
      It's possible tear gas may be a reasonable choice under extreme circumstances. Please take a look at the linked article (and HN comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741) and note that the Federal "Kerner Commission, which was formed in 1967 to specifically investigate urban riots, found that police action was pivotal in starting half of the 24 riots the commission studied in detail." Today we can see ample evidence of police escalating use-of-force (rubber bullets, tear gas, batons, etc.) on peaceful protesters.
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      Develop longstanding community relations as other western countries do so that you can exercise the tools of trust and patience. When a mob of over a thousand develops there might be something really wrong. If de-escalation fails with a large crowd in an urban setting and both sides presume violence with guns, how are police supposed to maintain control? Military tactics?
      - rlucas 6y ago
        De-escalation begins at home, my friend. When a group of over a thousand develops, that is something right because they are citizens calling for the righting of some wrongs. A "mob" is something else, and calling a thousand in the street a "mob" absent an existing violent action is itself an escalatory rhetorical step. In none of the instant cases (the last four days of nationwide protests focused on or around BLM-esque causes) has it been correct for "both sides [to] presume violence with guns." Only the state agents could reasonably be presumed to have and use firearms. These protesters are not shooting at cops. There is no valid presumption there.
NonEUCitizen 6y ago
Since there are many Californians on HN, how about getting tear gas banned in California via a California Ballot Proposition?

216 points by hhs 6y ago

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/2014/08/14/tear-gas-is-a-chemical-weapon-banned-in-war-but-ferguson-police-shoot-it-at-protesters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/1...

oicu812 6y ago
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."
- geogra4 6y ago
  Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law enforcement either.
  - monoclechris 6y ago
    Do you have a better solution? Perhaps you should bring it to market.
    - freen 6y ago
      Protest de-escalation has been a solved problem since 1970. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-protesters-and-police-safer-heres-why-departments-respond-with-force-anyway/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-pro...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - jorge-d 6y ago
      Not shooting anything at all might be a good start
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - monoclechris 6y ago
        I, too, want to live in a world where everyone is nice to each other.
        ohlookabird 6y ago
        Well, then look at how other countries are doing it. The US is really bad with policing.
        jjeaff 6y ago
        I don't disagree, but I'm not sure if any of these other countries have quite so many criminals and organized crime that are also armed to the teeth. If the cops stopped carrying weapons, would the criminals stop as well?
    - blueline 6y ago
      you think that police misuse of force is due to a lack of better alternatives?
      - monoclechris 6y ago
        When you have violent mobs committing arson and vandalism I think bringing out the tear gas is reasonable and not a misuse of force.
        klyrs 6y ago
        Sure, violent mobs. But last night they used it to disperse a peaceful crowd so that trump could get his picture taken across the street they were occupying. Sounds like an egregious use of force to me.
        jschwartzi 6y ago
        The problem here is that the police are failing to distinguish between groups peacefully protesting and groups who are tearing things up. They're rounding up all the protestors. The police have a responsibility to distinguish targets. Their job is to police, not to suppress. Even in the middle of a peaceful protest they should be making an effort to police the protest by differentiating between people maintaining civil order and people who are not. They should not arrest or attack anyone who is maintaining civil order. I think the biggest issue with police forces is that they're all basically trained to treat all situations with equal gravity. They fear for their lives even when it is not warranted. And because of that they respond more like a military force, with a level of violence out of all proportion to the situation. The police are a bigger deterrent to peaceful protest in this country than any politician, and they have been since they came into existence.
        diag 6y ago
        You're ignoring the fact that crowds of nonviolent protestors are being sprayed and gassed without any provocation. The cops are being blatantly abusive in their application.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
    - ohlookabird 6y ago
      There are so many countries around the world that do fine without the violence, brutality and military gear the US forces use. I could not imagine images like the ones I see now in the US in countries like Germany, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, … All use better tactics and seem to be able to handle even large crowds without shooting and explosives. They normally try to DE-escalate (unlike in the US). But if I read the basic police training in the US is 6 month or less and even hair cutters need more training, this ship seems to have sailed until better training is in place. I am really shocked about what is going on in the US.
      - kolanos 6y ago
        Noticed you left France out. Europe is always better, as long as you're selective.
        bathtub365 6y ago
        The person you responded do didn’t mention Europe.
        julienfr112 6y ago
        Well, no "gillet jaune" died : https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2018/12/21/gilets-jaunes-neuf-morts-depuis-le-debut-du-mouvement_5400762_3224.html https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2018/12/21/gilets-jau... (read the article : no death are linked to fight)
        ohlookabird 6y ago
        Not on purpose. I didn't mean to provide a full list, but only a few examples that I feel I can speak about. To be fair, there is a stereotype about French police being more violent than others. But still, I wouldn't expect that they would shoot rubber bullets into people's faces on purpose and hunt down press like in the US.
        bigfudge 6y ago
        The French only did that in Algeria (like the UK did it to the Irish). We're mostly more civilised closer to home. I guess the othering of black Americans means most US cops don't really feel like they are firing on their 'own' people.
  - eitland 6y ago
    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.)
    - mdorazio 6y ago
      Did you really just use a “think of the children!” argument to justify tear gas? Not cool. To answer your question, basic tactics in crowd control using water cannons and riot shields with minimal force is plenty to handle crowds when you don’t deliberately antagonize them to violence.
      - eitland 6y ago
        > Did you really just use a “think of the children!” argument to justify tear gas? Not cool. Way to misunderstand and derail an honest opinion in my opinion. Also I am not playing the "think of the children card", I'm just trying to create a situation where we can discuss - the correct use of force separate from the issue of - if the use of force is correct Feel free to come up with a better example. > To answer your question, basic tactics in crowd control using water cannons and riot shields with minimal force is plenty to handle crowds when you don’t deliberately antagonize them to violence. Let me explain: Why I wrote what I wrote: I've been subjected to tear gas while locked in and unable to escape until allowed (military training). I know very well what tear gas can feel like: coming out from the bunker I felt I was suffocating but I did as I was told and ran until it cleared up and lived to tell. Same with everyone else. So unlike many (most?) HNers I have actual personal experience with it. I've also worked with and around some high pressure pump systems (farming) and seen some demos of firefighting water cannons and my best guess is that water cannons will be more dangerous if you use enough force to have the same effect. After all, being knocked to the ground is really dangerous if you don't manage to protect your head. I'm open to learn though, preferably if someone who actually know what they are talking about (might very well be you, just explain how you know) will explain.
        6y ago
  - smileysteve 6y ago
    Bullets are the same way though; Full metal jackets are required for war, while law enforcement use bullets for stopping power. One way the U.S. could reduce gun deaths would be to require full metal jacket ammunition; It decreases the likelihood of death for any given hit; (though increases ricochets and likelihood of stray bullets)(also increases price of every bullet sold)
    - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
      You forgot to mention that the hollow points law enforcement use are banned internationally per the Hague convention.
      - gregimba 6y ago
        Yes, but US didn't sign the portion of the Hague convention that bans the use of hollow point ammunition and the US military adopted hollow point ammunition with the M-17 and M-18 handguns.
    - panopticon 6y ago
      Hollow points are primarily used by the police for their penetration (or lack thereof)—not their stopping power. As you note in your parenthetical, this would entirely negate that. That being said, there has been a lot of evidence that shows that HP rounds penetrate further than conventional wisdom would expect, and it likely gives LEOs a false sense of security when firing in an apartment complex or into crowds.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Hollow points are primarily used by the police for their penetration (or lack thereof)—not their stopping power I suspect that this is more true of the public justification for their use than the motivation (not saying it's not part of both, though.) Politically, “it reduces risk of accidental injury to bystanders” is probably more palatable, especially to the factions most likely to object to police-preferred gear, etc., than “it makes the injuries to the people we target more grievous”.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Someone should declare war and call in the UN blue hats.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It shocks the conscience that the US police regularly use equipment and tactics that would be a war crime in foreign countries.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    If you think that tear gas isn't being used in foreign countries, then you haven't watched television news in the last 40 years.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You’re not being as witty as you think you are. My point wasn’t “it doesn’t happen”, my point was “it’s a war crime”. The fact that what is a war crime is policy for domestic policing is what I’m angry about.
  - herewulf 6y ago
    Not really. CS is banned by a technicality. An irritant gas is hard to distinguish from a lethal one and easily swapped if chemical delivery systems are already present on the battlefield. CS is quite useless against a conventional force because all modern armies are equipped with protective masks in case the other side does use chemical or biological weapons.

montecarl 6y ago

In my city we have seen several peaceful protesters (some quite some distance away from police) be nearly killed by less lethal ammunition. Being hit in the head or neck by a rubber bullet will drop a person to the ground unconscious instantly. This means they can even hit their head again against pavement. Nobody has died yet, but they are clearly extremely dangerous. We have also seen the use of tear gas. I don't want the police to hurt anyone, but I haven't seen any long term damage from its use. If police are going to use force, from what I have seen, tear gas is less dangerous. It is still awful. I'd rather it not be used, but I just wanted to share what I've seen.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Police appear to be misusing rubber bullets, possibly on purpose. Rubber bullets are supposed to be fired at shin height, to achieve the appropriate mix of pain and risk reduction. They’re not zero risk because of ricochets, but flat, low trajectories help. It should go without saying that they should only be used when necessary, but if they must be used there is a way it should be done. The number of people being struck in the chest and head by rubber bullets implies that the cops are aiming for the head, a gross abuse of force if true.
- brenden2 6y ago
  There are multiple videos of cops aiming and firing directly at the face and head, sometimes only a few feet away. It's terrifying and disheartening.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I feel like rubber bullets should be serialized, so you can know who fired it. It shouldn’t be too hard, they’re both extremely large and consumed in relatively small quantities.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      It seems like the last point is sadly becoming less and less true.

woodruffw 6y ago

For those curious: there are actual several different gas/powder agents colloquially referred to as "tear gas". CS gas[1] is one of the more commonly deployed ones in the United States. At least one paper[2] associates CS gas with long term heart and lung damage. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20653665_Tear_Gas-Harassing_Agent_or_Toxic_Chemical_Weapon https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20653665_Tear_Gas-H...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
reaperducer 6y ago
At least one paper[2] associates CS gas with long term heart and lung damage. So the cops will get theirs... in 20 years or so.
- woodruffw 6y ago
  That paper's already 30 years old, unfortunately. We can't even hold law enforcement accountable for well-attested acts of brutality currently; it looks like we're a while off from holding them accountable for slowly poisoning people.

creaghpatr 6y ago

>U.S. forces yesterday used tear gas on peaceful protesters outside the White House gates, prior to a declared curfew, clearing a path for President Trump to visit a riot-damaged church for a photo opportunity. Tear gas was not used on that occasion, those were smoke canisters. It was false reporting at the time. https://twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/1267791336146636800?s=20 https://twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/126779133614663680...

fzeroracer 6y ago
Tear gas was used. Reporters [1] on the scene and protesters that were there can confirm. The US Park Police is lying. [1] https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1267824405876359173 https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1267824405876359173
- creaghpatr 6y ago
  Your source provides zero evidence that the US Park Police is lying. It's an important distinction.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    A first hand account from a reputable reporter who worked as marine security doesn't count as evidence? Really? Okay then, what would count as evidence in your world? Since apparently veterans actually being there doesn't count. They're either lying or they're sorely mistaken.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      There has been a lot of effort put into demonising the media over the last 5-10 years. Lügenpresse was used heavily in the 30s to attack enemnies of the party.
      - fzeroracer 6y ago
        Not just that, but there's been a lot of demonizing of any objective fact that goes against whatever narrative they're following. I'm starting to feel like even if you prove something was objectively wrong, that's still not enough to convince people even here on HN.

sneak 6y ago

Looks like the PE owner of one of the manufacturers took their website down. Here's the info on who's behind it: Michael A. Monteleone - Managing Partner James J. Cesare - Managing Partner https://web.archive.org/web/20191019002207/http://www.pointlookoutcapital.com/partners.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20191019002207/http://www.pointl... Per the article, most of their portfolio are companies that sell stuff to cops: https://web.archive.org/web/20191019002212/http://www.pointlookoutcapital.com/portfolio.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20191019002212/http://www.pointl...

jeffdavis 6y ago

Let's say that there was the "perfect" non-lethal weapon. Kind of like a phaser from Star Trek set to "stun" mode. Would that be a good thing? I imagine there would be a lot of cases where they just stun everyone because, why not? For that matter, maybe just implant everyone with a lights-out switch.

afandian 6y ago
I know your comment was flippant but it demonstrates really constrained thinking. I don't know the path to get there but there are plenty of societies with better mental and democratic health than the US. It is possible to have a society that doesn't allow police to routinely kill people.
karatestomp 6y ago
Falling from standing height is really dangerous, especially for people of full adult height (acceleration due to gravity is worse the higher your head is, and your head's the main concern—it's part of why toddlers can fall over all day, even on somewhat hard surfaces, and unless they hit just wrong they'll be OK). "Stun" that immediately dropped people would still kill and cripple sometimes. [EDIT] especially in Star Trek where the stun sometimes tosses people off their feet, too, quite a few of those people/aliens would end up dead or requiring a visit to the med bay, IRL.

coronadisaster 6y ago

I need some tear gas, and a mask https://www.amazon.com/WHYIT-Ventilative-Biochemical-Respirator-Agricultural/dp/B086VHYJJY/ https://www.amazon.com/WHYIT-Ventilative-Biochemical-Respira... where is a good tear gas source?

grendelt 6y ago

Also interesting... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/tear-gas-hong-kong-made-in-usa https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/tear-gas-...

swhnorton 6y ago

https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/triple-chaser https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/triple-chase...

nsxwolf 6y ago

What's the correct way to control a violent crowd? Anything besides "solve all the world's problems so no one is angry"?

zwass 6y ago
Do not escalate the crowd to violence. See yesterday's https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-protesters-and-police-safer-heres-why-departments-respond-with-force-anyway/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-pro....
- nsxwolf 6y ago
  Let's say de-escalation fails. Then what?
  - zwass 6y ago
    It's possible tear gas may be a reasonable choice under extreme circumstances. Please take a look at the linked article (and HN comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741) and note that the Federal "Kerner Commission, which was formed in 1967 to specifically investigate urban riots, found that police action was pivotal in starting half of the 24 riots the commission studied in detail." Today we can see ample evidence of police escalating use-of-force (rubber bullets, tear gas, batons, etc.) on peaceful protesters.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    Develop longstanding community relations as other western countries do so that you can exercise the tools of trust and patience. When a mob of over a thousand develops there might be something really wrong. If de-escalation fails with a large crowd in an urban setting and both sides presume violence with guns, how are police supposed to maintain control? Military tactics?
    - rlucas 6y ago
      De-escalation begins at home, my friend. When a group of over a thousand develops, that is something right because they are citizens calling for the righting of some wrongs. A "mob" is something else, and calling a thousand in the street a "mob" absent an existing violent action is itself an escalatory rhetorical step. In none of the instant cases (the last four days of nationwide protests focused on or around BLM-esque causes) has it been correct for "both sides [to] presume violence with guns." Only the state agents could reasonably be presumed to have and use firearms. These protesters are not shooting at cops. There is no valid presumption there.

NonEUCitizen 6y ago

Since there are many Californians on HN, how about getting tear gas banned in California via a California Ballot Proposition?