Hacker News Reader

Comment by terakilobyte | Hacker News Reader

As a veteran this hits me particularly hard. This kind of force goes beyond most uses of force I personally used in Afghanistan and Iraq, actual fighting being the exception. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’d be brought up on charges if we treated nonviolent people the way these videos portray.

View on HN

It's unbelievable - you'd absolutely be brought up on charges if you used tear gas, which is clearly prohibited during war.

Hundreds of tear gas canisters got fired off at US citizens by police last night, though.

Insane.

Sounds like a good way to get looters to disperse without further violence. What am I missing?

> “Tear gas is considered a riot control agent because the effects dissipate a short time after exposure,’’ said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. “But even though the effects of tear gas wear off, its symptoms are harsh and terrifying, including severe eye irritations and difficulty breathing.

> “The United States may justify firing tear gas [...] as legal, but the decision to use an indiscriminate, psychologically terrifying toxic chemical was excessive and certainly immoral."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/27/tear-gas-forb...

The acoup blog has an amazingly detailed post on chemical weapons and the reasons behind their disuse today:

https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

TLDR: They hit you just as hard as they hit the enemy and they are wildly unpredictable.

> ...if we treated nonviolent people the way these videos portray.

A lot of the videos portray violent rioters/looters. A lot of the ones of the police are ambiguous because they don't show what behavior warranted the police reaction.

I've also seen a lot of videos of peaceful protests with police walking/talking/marching with the protesters.

We do justice a disservice when we lump everyone and every precinct together.

https://streamable.com/u2jzoo

I don't think the core sentiment of these protests is "literally every cop is evil".

Rather, the repeatedly demonstrated fact that the system is willing to protect the "bad apples" (read: outright thugs) corrupts the entire policing system and undermines its legitimacy, regardless of how many benign officers there are.

https://imgur.com/gallery/iFMweYc

> A lot of the videos portray violent rioters/looters.

I've yet to see an instance of this that wasn't precipitated by cops showing up in ironman armor to a peaceful protest and firing on people with all sorts of military-police toys.

The violent instigators are the cops, across America. Even Target came out and said "whatever, our shit's insured, this problem with the cops needs to be solved."

Here's just one example: https://www.whec.com/rochester-new-york-news/rpd-asking-for-...

Animals.

Animals? Lemme guess, thin blue line, thugs, etc?

How about credit where credit is due - systemic police racism, and when that was protested, insane amounts of police brutality.

All people had to do was not be racist.

I'm talking about the video I linked. Did you watch it?

The looters in this video are acting like animals.

More links to the same incident: https://twitter.com/PatrolRpd/status/1267202275895803904 https://streamable.com/ibwexe?fbclid=IwAR3Kmn22FzFgxAHTxNfiu...

I've only ever heard protesters described as "animals" by people that are also happy to throw around the word "thug" and smugly pretend both aren't racist dogwhistles.

You are attempting to put a positive spin on their behavior by calling them protesters.

No. They are rioters and looters, and guilty of aggravated battery.

This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with behavior.

The Geneva Convention permits the use of tear gas for non military crowd control purposes. It's use is simply prohibited for military purposes. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/aug/26/facebook-p...

You provide a link that directly contradicts your claim.

First of all, the Geneva Conventions (plural) are about treatment of prisoners of war, not agents or munitions used.

Your given link refers to the Chemical Weapons convention, but its scope is specific to wartime use between combatants.

The Hague convention has munitions provisions, but the USA is not a signatory.

There are multiple Geneva Conventions, true. One of them deals with POWs. Other Conventions deal with other war-related topics. If you want to be technical about it, the one prohibiting the use of gas is formally known as the Geneva Protocol.

I linked to the CWC because that is the relevant international convention allowing for the use of tear gas in non-military contexts. IOW, the GP creates the ban, but the CWC provides an exception.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com