12 ms·

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/t

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.

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.