3 ms·

How does what you're saying make any sense to you? Using non-lethal weapons like tear gas is not a lower standard of morality. Nor is using bullets that are le

How does what you're saying make any sense to you? Using non-lethal weapons like tear gas is not a lower standard of morality. Nor is using bullets that are less likely to pass through the intended target or the surroundings. Military personnel are not actually held to a very low standard -- much lower than police -- when they are fighting unlawful combatants like citizens, because people who are not fighting as military personnel enjoy no or almost no protections under the laws of war. Trying to draw a parallel here with the laws of war is silly.

falcolas 6y ago
None of these are non-lethal. They're less lethal. They still kill people. They still maim people. But since many people share your view - that they're non-lethal and thus morally superior - these less lethal means are used frequently, and often inappropriately, when the use of force is not justified. The parallel is clear: government funded and backed forces equipped with military gear, using military-developed weapons (chemical, sound, light, physical); some of which are restricted by international convention during war. And there will be no trials to hold people accountable for mis-using these weapons; as pointed out in the article, the government is actively blocking such attempts.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  Invoking the laws of war with reference to Portland doesn't make any sense unless you really believe that Antifa and BLM fall under the category of enemy combatants, which would mean that the government funded and backed forces were authorized to shoot them on sight. It's not because there is tear gas that police are sent to disperse crowds. Without tear gas, they'd use some other non-lethal implement authorized for that purpose. Authorizing non-lethal force to disperse crowds is not holding police to a lower moral standard than that to which the military is held. In fact, the military has the same kind of authorizations for dealing with (a) rebellious troops in its own ranks, (b) prisoners of war and (c) civilians in occupied territory. That is why the DoD does research on these incapacitating weapons. It's military forces that are held to police standards when these weapons are used, not the other way around.

falcolas 6y ago

None of these are non-lethal. They're less lethal. They still kill people. They still maim people. But since many people share your view - that they're non-lethal and thus morally superior - these less lethal means are used frequently, and often inappropriately, when the use of force is not justified. The parallel is clear: government funded and backed forces equipped with military gear, using military-developed weapons (chemical, sound, light, physical); some of which are restricted by international convention during war. And there will be no trials to hold people accountable for mis-using these weapons; as pointed out in the article, the government is actively blocking such attempts.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
Invoking the laws of war with reference to Portland doesn't make any sense unless you really believe that Antifa and BLM fall under the category of enemy combatants, which would mean that the government funded and backed forces were authorized to shoot them on sight. It's not because there is tear gas that police are sent to disperse crowds. Without tear gas, they'd use some other non-lethal implement authorized for that purpose. Authorizing non-lethal force to disperse crowds is not holding police to a lower moral standard than that to which the military is held. In fact, the military has the same kind of authorizations for dealing with (a) rebellious troops in its own ranks, (b) prisoners of war and (c) civilians in occupied territory. That is why the DoD does research on these incapacitating weapons. It's military forces that are held to police standards when these weapons are used, not the other way around.