4 ms·

Seattle also banned chemical weapons, but unfortunately the mayor sued to allow their use. Because Seattle's police dept was under a consent decree, any changes

Seattle also banned chemical weapons, but unfortunately the mayor sued to allow their use. Because Seattle's police dept was under a consent decree, any changes to tactics and weapons needed to be approved by the judge who is monitoring the dept. The judge felt the Seattle police might actually get significantly more violent if they couldn't use chemical weapons and indiscriminate projectiles on non violent protestors.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Setting aside the actual subject at hand, I actually think this is a much better process. Like or dislike the result, it actually flowed through the proper political and judicial channels in order to achieve a result. This seems much safer than (what seems to me) a total disconnect between the political and police apparatus in some cities, where the cops just ignore what they’re told to do.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Oh, for sure. As much as I'd love to see them totally ban the use, it seems like every step was fairly reasonable. City Council enacts a law, Mayor (who cannot veto it because the council will override it) works with the police to push back, judge examines it and says that the court will have to evaluate the legality of the law in light of the consent decree on the police department.
antifa-sux 6y ago
Seattle is dealing with a low grade left wing insurgency[0], just like Portland, which is intentionally starting fights with police, night after night, destroying private property, and occasionally killing someone, like Aaron Jay Danielson, or the two children killed by Antifa-BLM "security" in CHAZ/CHOP. So the judge is right, but it has to do with the ongoing violent insurgency, not law abiding Americans peacefully exercising their rights. The only nonviolent protestors I've seen getting gassed are the ones giving direct cover to a Black Bloc. [0] A report by Rutgers explaining the extent of the insurgency and its tactics and ideology https://ncri.io/reports/network-enabled-anarchy/ https://ncri.io/reports/network-enabled-anarchy/
throwawaysea 6y ago
Calling tear gas a “chemical weapon” is a rhetorical exaggeration that conjures up comparisons to actually lethal chemical weapons like nerve gas. The two are not the same. The 1925 Geneva protocol has exceptions for riot control agents to be used in various circumstances specifically because its wording is otherwise overly broad. Tear gas is a non lethal tool to bring crowds under control. The alternative is to let crime happen or to put both the police and criminals at greater risk. In case of Seattle’s attempt at banning use of tear gas, the federal judge also didn’t say “the police might get significantly more violent”. Do you have a source on that, because it feels like editorializing. From https://crosscut.com/2020/07/judge-blocks-seattles-ban-tear-gas-other-crowd-control-weapons https://crosscut.com/2020/07/judge-blocks-seattles-ban-tear-... > The DOJ argued that implementing a ban on tear gas and other crowd control weapons, which the Seattle City Council passed in June, would result in “irreparable harm resulting from officer confusion and the inability to modulate force or de-escalate situations in which force may be needed.” > "The issuance of this immediate change, without time for additional direction or training, is likely to result in officer confusion," he wrote.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- klyrs 6y ago
  > Calling tear gas a “chemical weapon” is a rhetorical exaggeration that conjures up comparisons to actually lethal chemical weapons like nerve gas. Tear gas is, categorically, a chemical weapon. Just as rubber bullets are projectile weapons. You can call it a "less lethal chemical weapon" if you like, but it's no less a chemical weapon.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Tear gas is absolutely a chemical weapon. It's use is not allowed in war. It can be lethal, and can cause significant harm to people sensitive to it. Sure, it's a milder chemical weapon than, say, nerve gas but it is absolutely a chemical weapon.
  - onecommentman 6y ago
nikkwong 6y ago
Do you think the judge's case is not plausible? Cops are not superheroes, they're simply (often undertrained) civilians who happen to be wearing a uniform. They want to go home, too. Without teargas what type enforcement mechanism are they expected to use against an increasingly belligerent public? My guess is that it won't be their batons or bare fists; it will probably be their guns, which increases tensions on both sides.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Setting aside the actual subject at hand, I actually think this is a much better process. Like or dislike the result, it actually flowed through the proper political and judicial channels in order to achieve a result. This seems much safer than (what seems to me) a total disconnect between the political and police apparatus in some cities, where the cops just ignore what they’re told to do.

Pfhreak 6y ago
Oh, for sure. As much as I'd love to see them totally ban the use, it seems like every step was fairly reasonable. City Council enacts a law, Mayor (who cannot veto it because the council will override it) works with the police to push back, judge examines it and says that the court will have to evaluate the legality of the law in light of the consent decree on the police department.

antifa-sux 6y ago

Seattle is dealing with a low grade left wing insurgency[0], just like Portland, which is intentionally starting fights with police, night after night, destroying private property, and occasionally killing someone, like Aaron Jay Danielson, or the two children killed by Antifa-BLM "security" in CHAZ/CHOP. So the judge is right, but it has to do with the ongoing violent insurgency, not law abiding Americans peacefully exercising their rights. The only nonviolent protestors I've seen getting gassed are the ones giving direct cover to a Black Bloc. [0] A report by Rutgers explaining the extent of the insurgency and its tactics and ideology https://ncri.io/reports/network-enabled-anarchy/ https://ncri.io/reports/network-enabled-anarchy/

throwawaysea 6y ago

Calling tear gas a “chemical weapon” is a rhetorical exaggeration that conjures up comparisons to actually lethal chemical weapons like nerve gas. The two are not the same. The 1925 Geneva protocol has exceptions for riot control agents to be used in various circumstances specifically because its wording is otherwise overly broad. Tear gas is a non lethal tool to bring crowds under control. The alternative is to let crime happen or to put both the police and criminals at greater risk. In case of Seattle’s attempt at banning use of tear gas, the federal judge also didn’t say “the police might get significantly more violent”. Do you have a source on that, because it feels like editorializing. From https://crosscut.com/2020/07/judge-blocks-seattles-ban-tear-gas-other-crowd-control-weapons https://crosscut.com/2020/07/judge-blocks-seattles-ban-tear-... > The DOJ argued that implementing a ban on tear gas and other crowd control weapons, which the Seattle City Council passed in June, would result in “irreparable harm resulting from officer confusion and the inability to modulate force or de-escalate situations in which force may be needed.” > "The issuance of this immediate change, without time for additional direction or training, is likely to result in officer confusion," he wrote.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 6y ago
> Calling tear gas a “chemical weapon” is a rhetorical exaggeration that conjures up comparisons to actually lethal chemical weapons like nerve gas. Tear gas is, categorically, a chemical weapon. Just as rubber bullets are projectile weapons. You can call it a "less lethal chemical weapon" if you like, but it's no less a chemical weapon.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Tear gas is absolutely a chemical weapon. It's use is not allowed in war. It can be lethal, and can cause significant harm to people sensitive to it. Sure, it's a milder chemical weapon than, say, nerve gas but it is absolutely a chemical weapon.
- onecommentman 6y ago

nikkwong 6y ago

Do you think the judge's case is not plausible? Cops are not superheroes, they're simply (often undertrained) civilians who happen to be wearing a uniform. They want to go home, too. Without teargas what type enforcement mechanism are they expected to use against an increasingly belligerent public? My guess is that it won't be their batons or bare fists; it will probably be their guns, which increases tensions on both sides.