Social Question

Aster's avatar

Is using teargas to stop violent protestors who are throwing bricks and burning buildings too aggressive?

Asked by Aster (19874points) 1 month ago

As asked.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Too much too late. It should never come to that. It shouldn’t have to take a riot to get noticed?

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

I mean, why not just take steps to reform the police and to address the issues of excessive force and poor accountability which seems like it might be more effective at stopping this.

YARNLADY's avatar

If the teargas only reaches those few, fine. But what about everybody else?

zenvelo's avatar

Teargas is a chemical weapon that has been banned for warfare by International treaty. It is inhumane and cruel, and never needed.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

A military police state is happening now (DHS) to support the Dictator in Washington DC. His two top picks to head up Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that Congress would not approve are not qualified for their positions and maybe not even to work for the DHS. More muscle for the Dictator.

seawulf575's avatar

My perspective is that rioting is people out of control. Forget any message they might have been trying to make, they are out of control. And it doesn’t stop with throwing bricks and burning buildings. It carries on to assaults, rapes, theft, and even murder. So to me, tear gas is appropriate. These are not rational people. But Gee, I guess we could just send in the social workers. Isn’t that what is wanted?

KNOWITALL's avatar

No, its effective and non-lethal.

Blackberry's avatar

I’d rather they just stop killing unnecessarily and lying and harassing other cops that try to report their sociopathic and dangerous behavior.

seawulf575's avatar

@Aster Careful, you’ll get harassed for using Breitbart as a source! It won’t matter what the story is.

seawulf575's avatar

Just curiosity…how many people in this room have actually been exposed to tear gas? I have, so I know what the effects are. Who else?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 ^^^^^ what does that have to do the abusive DHS methods ?

zenvelo's avatar

I have been exposed to tear gas that was improperly used to disperse a non violent but very vocal crowd that was blocking traffic. It is horrific, and it is lethal.

kritiper's avatar

Not aggressive enough. You give them an inch and they take a mile, so how much more can society stand to lose??
(I was exposed to tear gas in the US Army.)

JLeslie's avatar

I take issue with the term violent protestors. I prefer to call them rioters, criminals, looters, I might be missing a term. There have been some violent protestors in crowds, but from the footage, reporting, and Facebook messaging I’ve seen, a lot of these people are not protesting at all. They don’t give a shit about the issue at hand, they just see opportunity to steal, vandalize, and blame the other political side, like white nationalists smashing windows and then BLM is blamed.

Isn’t there a less caustic method that will get people to scatter or to want to cover their face?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

“Violent protesters” means the Government of TRUMP can use multiple firings of tear gas (might need another Upside down Bible photo-op) also to use snipers with allow 50 caliber guns for sniper shots of media and peaceful protests nor rioters.

They change the verbiage (add gas to fire) to cover the militant police tactics of the DHS !

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie It has to do the original question. To help determine if use of teargas is appropriate, it helps if you have direct knowledge of what tear gas does and what it feels like. To even make the claim of “abusive DHS methods”, you ought to have understand what that abuse looks like, or why it is abusive.

seawulf575's avatar

Also, somethings to consider: Which tear gas is being used? At what concentration or exposure period can tear gas become fatal? Are you in an enclosed space or outside? Everything I can find says that tear gas is an effective riot control substance and that long term effects or death is the exception and not the rule.

https://www.healthline.com/health/tear-gas-effects#seeking-help

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24379300/

Also, there is conversation that the use of tear gas was banned by the military. This is partially true but is also misleading. The 1993 UN Chemical Weapons Convention dealt with all chemical weapons being used for warfare, and warfare only. Tear gas was addressed but was stated that gases used for riot control are not allowed in warfare. It didn’t ban the substance, just the usage to eliminate the wiggle room of using some horrible gas during warfare and claiming it was used for riot control.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75

But here’s a thought! Why are we worrying about people that want to riot, loot, vandalize, assault others, use weapons, rape and kill? Why is there a view point that they are the poor victims in all of this instead of the instigators? If they weren’t completely out of control and threatening society and human life, tear gas would not be used. Let’s get back to the start of all this instead of trying to question the reaction to the crimes.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I’m more interested in how we all see things so incredibly differently, but also see common goals, like ending the violence.

@JLeslie sees legit peaceful protesters and a seperate criminal component requiring controlled response.

Then @Tropical thinks its all about Trump.

@Anef says lets address the root issue and essentially fix the problem. Like @RedDeer.

@kritiper and I appear willing to just end it to save peoples lives. On both sides.

This is why I still come to fluther, it’s fascinating how we each interpret situational politics.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I do think some protestors were “violent.“ People who do believe in the cause, especially in Minnesota that first night. Mostly, I think looters and violence is people who come in to be destructive and steal when they see the opportunity. Nothing is 100%.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

The problem is, when you start off with a peaceful protest, and a handful of people turn violent everyone is targeted when the police react. I was in a riot at a concert in a park, that was started by police reaction to 5 or 6 people, out of a thousand, doing something they weren’t supposed to.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

In other words if you’re able to target just the looters then no. I don’t think it’s too much.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess Sure I agree. Linking up under umbrellas and throwing projectiles should mean you take out the umbrella holders. Instead police were beaten, bleeding and restrained from engaging. How many Chiefs have to resign for some to realize how serious this is for citizens needing actual assistance? Scary.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I have no idea what you just said.

seawulf575's avatar

I think we need to throw bags of fire ants on the rioters and looters next time they start up. That will clear it up quick!

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575

I’m surprised you didn’t advocate Flame-thowers and 50 cal machine guns – - just kill anyone standing.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther