3 ms·

No its specifically about field commanders. When a field commander sees gas they respond with gas because the taboo has been broken and they may have insufficie

by bbatha 6y ago

No its specifically about field commanders. When a field commander sees gas they respond with gas because the taboo has been broken and they may have insufficient data to know that its less-than-lethal. Protesters are not armed with WMDs that they can radio in before the smoke clears. It can certainly escalate a situation but its unlikely to break the WMD taboo which is what the treaty cares about.

Balgair 6y ago
Escalation is still an issue with protests. Police respond with tear gas, protestors respond with bleach (like in Austin). Police respond with rubber bullets, protestors respond with bricks. Police respond with batons, protestors respond with baseball bats. Etc. Eventually, this tit-for-tat ends up with lead bullets and dead people. Tactics like those used in Denver, ones of deescalation, have been far more successful in keeping protests calm, coordinated, and predictable: https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/04/denver-george-floyd-protest-arrests/ https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/04/denver-george-floyd-prote...
- brokenkebab 6y ago
  This sounds like a claim that wars happen because of weapons. Protesters, and police sometimes have incompatible goals (say crowd wants to block traffic somewhere, and police ordered to prevent it), and the conflict is inevitable in such circumstances. It's a little naïve to claim that it would not happen if one, or even both sides would come unprepared for violence. Deescalation is preferred way, but it works as much as either protesters would be ready to back off (and some protesters may see it as a surrender), or political power giving orders to police is ready to let protesters get what they want (and it's not always possible for them for variety of reasons). Also, ability to show force often plays a role in deescalation strategies.
scarface74 6y ago
Unpopular opinion. Maybe they should. Would police have acted as aggressively if the protestors took advantage of open carry laws like in Michigan?

by bbatha 6y ago

Balgair 6y ago

Escalation is still an issue with protests. Police respond with tear gas, protestors respond with bleach (like in Austin). Police respond with rubber bullets, protestors respond with bricks. Police respond with batons, protestors respond with baseball bats. Etc. Eventually, this tit-for-tat ends up with lead bullets and dead people. Tactics like those used in Denver, ones of deescalation, have been far more successful in keeping protests calm, coordinated, and predictable: https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/04/denver-george-floyd-protest-arrests/ https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/04/denver-george-floyd-prote...

brokenkebab 6y ago
This sounds like a claim that wars happen because of weapons. Protesters, and police sometimes have incompatible goals (say crowd wants to block traffic somewhere, and police ordered to prevent it), and the conflict is inevitable in such circumstances. It's a little naïve to claim that it would not happen if one, or even both sides would come unprepared for violence. Deescalation is preferred way, but it works as much as either protesters would be ready to back off (and some protesters may see it as a surrender), or political power giving orders to police is ready to let protesters get what they want (and it's not always possible for them for variety of reasons). Also, ability to show force often plays a role in deescalation strategies.

scarface74 6y ago

Unpopular opinion. Maybe they should. Would police have acted as aggressively if the protestors took advantage of open carry laws like in Michigan?