If tear gas is so bad that it can’t be used in warfare, why the fuck are cops allowed to use it on civilians?
It's not "so bad", it's "bad enough to be mistaken for something more deadly, and to launch something more deadly in retaliation".
Because the Geneva convention doesn't apply to cops.
I'd just like to take a moment to observe that it's a war crime to use CS in war, but perfectly acceptable to use on civilians. Maybe we should re-evaluate crowd control tactics.
As we learned this decade war crimes are just war suggestions anyway
As far as I understand it, this is due to fears of escalation rather than any acute effect of the gas itself. Someone gets hit with CS gas, they don’t know what it is right away, and they retaliate with lethal chemical weapons. Nonlethal chemical agents just increase the chance for confusion on the battlefield so they banned chemical agents altogether, including harassing agents like CS.
Along similar lines though, the rules of engagement for soldiers are way more stringent than the rules of engagement for police (do they even have any in the US?). I consider this much more egregious than tear gas regulations. Tear gas isn’t fun but it’s survivable. Bullets on the other hand, not so much.
Someone gets hit with CS gas, they don’t know what it is right away, and they retaliate with lethal chemical weapons.
Uhhh, this implies that infantry on the ground are equipped with like sarin dispensers just ready to go at all times.
Yeah, fair enough, it would be odd for immediate retaliation. However, let me present another scenario. Imagine harassing agents are permitted to be used in war. How long do you think it would take the war industry to develop significantly worse harassing agents than CS, and how much lawyering would end up happening to argue a certain chemical weapon is actually a harassing agent and not something that’s banned? Now that retaliation scenario isn’t that far out of the picture. Force A gets hit with some super harassing agent bordering (or actually) lethal chemical weapons, force B retaliates with mustard gas.
It’s easier to just ban them all.
While that may be true, I believe that citizens should be treated at least on par with service members. If tear gas is banned in war, it should be banned as a crowd suppressant
The regulation regarding harassing agents is not about treating service members a certain way, it’s about avoiding escalation to lethal chemical warfare. The risk of a civilian escalating to mustard gas or nerve gas after getting hit with CS is very low.
A better example for what you’re talking about would be hollow point bullets. 100% war crime to use because of its effects on the body, never saw one the whole time I was in the Army, yet it’s the type of bullet used by police nearly everywhere. It’s also what most home defense ammunition is.
You reminded me that one time we almost got killer/severely injured in a protest by a stun grenade.
This happened almost same time I saw some news of Israel killing protestors with tear gas grenades, as it fell into their head and skull, inducing lethal damage.
Anyway, I was with a friend and a bunch of people. Everything was peaceful and then, bam, out of nowhere it went to shit. We were used to it, but that time the tear gas was so bad that the neutralizer we brought was doing nothing. We were covered with a wall (bad idea, but we were panicking badly), and I wasn't able to breath, so I wanted us to run away from there. I told him to let's just run certain way, and I was so full of adrenaline and ready to run, but he stopped me. 1 second later, a stun grenade fell from the sky just 1 m away of us, in the direction I wanted us to run; no doubt it would have hit me in the head.
After that I just took his hand and we ran away, not able to see nor breath. Me holding his hand was a huge saver for both of us, as we could, more or less, guide each other. We ran some 20-30 m and just fell to the ground, but in a somewhat safe place. We crawled some 10 m more and just rest there. It took us some solid 15 minutes to catch our breath. Never said a word to my family.
Fun times.
Rozo, if you ever read this: queso.
War crimes are mutually agreed by close to parity powers. Crowd control isn’t. One group decides what is acceptable and what isn’t. I would be surprised if any government allow citizens the right to use CS gas on their police force.
They aren’t going to reevaluate crowd control tactics because the crowd don’t have the power to force a change.
No biggie. I've been on the receiving end of cs grenades more than a few times. In Canada.
Funny that chemical weapons are only a war crime when used in times of war, but my own government has and does use it at leisure.
Just put it over there with the rest of the war crimes.
KnOwN aS “CS”
I’m not sure if I’m just too ‘murica-brained, but it seems absolutely absurd to me to refer to pepper spray as some mythical scary thing. I actually prefer the use of pepper spray when controlling others with force because the alternative is bullets and those are soooo much worse.
CS gas is not the same as pepper spray.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/