• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Use of tear gas is not allowed by military .. yet police still use it

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Over-penetration can be a real concern in a self-defense situation, but apparently isn't in a military situation?

Uh, no. Not at the time the convention banned dum-dum bullets and so forth. On the battlefields of WWI and WWII, if you perforated your target, there were just more bad guys beyond him.

Of course, those were the days when a .30-06 ball round was likely to perforate. Those cartridges were designed for the long distances possible on European battlefields. Not like the little 5.56 NATO used today.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Uh, no. Not at the time the convention banned dum-dum bullets and so forth. On the battlefields of WWI and WWII, if you perforated your target, there were just more bad guys beyond him.

I guess someone missed my sarcasm. Obviously during WW I over-penetration was not a concern on the battle field. Obviously, today, as the military so often engages a small number of insurgents or terrorists within a much larger group of innocent civilians, over-penetration is a concern.

Dum dums were banned. But tumbling .223 designed with the specific hope to wound rather than kill, thus removing someone from combat and tying up resources to transport and care for him are not banned.

Which brings us back to the crux of my post which someone seemed to miss in an effort to try to find some non-material error in the post:

What is or isn't banned in the Geneva Convention has a lot less to do with what is logically "humane" than it does with what happened to be negotiated at various times and the relative strength of the parties negotiating.

So to compare what the Geneva Convention does or doesn't permit to what is or isn't permitted in civilian police work is foolish. It may make for a nice anti-police sound bite to the ignorant, emotional, or un-informed. But it is really not relevant.

More importantly than any lack of logic on what the Convention bans or permits, is the fundamental difference between warfare and police work. The Geneva Convention requires recognizable uniforms be worn. It requires an officer corp that directs the actions of enlisted members. It doesn't require due process before shooting an enemy soldier dead on sight. There is no requirement to provide a trial to hold an enemy soldier when captured.

Warfare is fundamentally different than police work. It is the reason we get rightly concerned when our police agencies and officers get "militarized." To quote Limbaugh, militaries are intended to kill people and break things. Police, OTOH, are supposed to keep the peace (peace officers), investigate crimes, make arrests, and bring suspects to the courts to be tried.

Charles
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Search your state laws ... betcha using tear gas against a LEO is a crime.

Tear gas is a known teratogen ... and has been labeled as a chemical agent.

Should not be used by anyone in the manner that it is used to quell public disturbances.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Search your state laws ... betcha using tear gas against a LEO is a crime.

Tear gas is a known teratogen ... and has been labeled as a chemical agent.

Should not be used by anyone in the manner that it is used to quell public disturbances.

Drinking water is a chemical agent...
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Search your state laws ... betcha using tear gas against a LEO is a crime.

Using anything against an LEO as a weapon is a crime.


Tear gas is a known teratogen ... and has been labeled as a chemical agent.

Should not be used by anyone in the manner that it is used to quell public disturbances.

And exactly what should be used to quell public disturbances? You're all in favor of shooting people for non-violent simple trespass in outdoor areas. Are you suggesting that deadly force be used to quell public disturbances? Cause, you know, shooting mom dead and having the unborn child die as a result is far less offensive than the small risk of fetal deformity from mom being exposed to tear gas.

Maybe you favor water cannons or dogs?

Maybe letting riots run their course and burn down cities killing innocent persons?

Or do you suppose this is Canada where a polite and quiet request not to riot will stop a riot?

Give it up. You started this thread drawing an irrelevant comparison between military matters and civilian police work. Now you are bringing up fetal deformity?

Does the term "moving goal post" mean anything to you? You are engaged in it.

Charles
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Using anything against an LEO as a weapon is a crime.




And exactly what should be used to quell public disturbances? You're all in favor of shooting people for non-violent simple trespass in outdoor areas. Are you suggesting that deadly force be used to quell public disturbances? Cause, you know, shooting mom dead and having the unborn child die as a result is far less offensive than the small risk of fetal deformity from mom being exposed to tear gas.

Maybe you favor water cannons or dogs?

Maybe letting riots run their course and burn down cities killing innocent persons?

Or do you suppose this is Canada where a polite and quiet request not to riot will stop a riot?

Give it up. You started this thread drawing an irrelevant comparison between military matters and civilian police work. Now you are bringing up fetal deformity?

Does the term "moving goal post" mean anything to you? You are engaged in it.

Charles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYjcNR7W-Ow

Just sing a song? ^^ Have any facts to support that the majority of tear gas use is to stop actual riots? I'm guessing many times its just to suppress people's right to assemble.

If one guy is getting out of line in a crowd of 10,000,000 , would you approve of using teratogenic chemical agents to disperse? I doubt it; yet must there must be some line that must be crossed between you think its not OK and where it is OK.

My line is an easy one to understand...at no time should such dangerous agents be used. Rules to have any meaning must be clear and non-mistakable...otherwise that line will be crossed if not so. You can search the web for pics of the effects of such teratogens ... nasty business.

It should be mentioned that there is no true way for the use of tear gas to be controlled as far as individual exposures in the affected areas...many people have been seriously injured from such use and is well documented. Don't expect cops to understand, they are mostly high school graduates. And to note: they wear protective gear when using such agents--this would likely be required per OSHA...that should speak enough to this issue.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
If one guy is getting out of line in a crowd of 10,000,000 , would you approve of using teratogenic chemical agents to disperse? I doubt it; yet must there must be some line that must be crossed between you think its not OK and where it is OK.

How often has tear gas been used because 1 guy in a crowd of 10 million got rowdy? Hyperbole much?

How often is tear gas used when gatherings were clearly peaceful?

My line is an easy one to understand...at no time should such dangerous agents be used. Rules to have any meaning must be clear and non-mistakable...otherwise that line will be crossed if not so. You can search the web for pics of the effects of such teratogens ... nasty business.

So women jogging should not be allowed to CS or tear spray as a defense tool against assault?

Web pictures are nice. Point me to the ones showing effects from one time exposure while participating in a riot. Maybe riots should have the same warnings for pregnant women as do cigs and booze.

If you want to abolish the use of such agents, start your thread honestly, using relevant information. Your comparison of military to police was and is irrelevant. Now you're crying about effects on unborn babies. What comes next?

It should be mentioned that there is no true way for the use of tear gas to be controlled as far as individual exposures in the affected areas...many people have been seriously injured from such use and is well documented. Don't expect cops to understand, they are mostly high school graduates. And to note: they wear protective gear when using such agents--this would likely be required per OSHA...that should speak enough to this issue.

Cop bashing as you insult their ability to understand when it is or is not appropriate to use tear gas?

The fact that cops wear protective gear speaks to the fact they understand the stuff is dangerous.

I'll ask you the same question I ask the anarchists who attack our form of government:

What is your preferred alternative?

Do you suggest that riots be allowed to run their course?

Do you prefer water cannons, batons and billy clubs, rubber bullets? Attack dogs? Charging horses? Tasers? Maybe just Gatling guns or fragmentation grenades?

I have no doubt that police have sometimes used tear gas when they should not have. What percentage of use have been unwarranted? Documentation is appreciated.

Charles
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Using anything against an LEO as a weapon is a crime.

snipp...

Charles

once again, your story line is just not quite true mate, let's once again clear up your statement's misrepresentation as citizens in the Hoosier state can defend themselves, w/o retreat and using up to deadly force against the kind LE servants:
IN CODE Section 35-41-3-2 sec 2a: quote
quote ...it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.  By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion....

(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 (added for clarity: Federal agents) or IC 35-31.5-2-185 (added for clarity: Law enforcement).
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.  However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force;  and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
unquote http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-41-3-2.html

the statute goes on to describe vehicle intrusions by servants...

ipse
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
<snip>



Cop bashing as you insult their ability to understand when it is or is not appropriate to use tear gas?



Charles

I don't think that cops make the policy relating to the use of chemical agents ... the .govs do as a whole ... so I'm not bashing cops.

I prefer .govs not to use chemical agents against citizens. There are alternatives to chemical and biological agents (if wanting to look at alternatives like pain-causing devices that are in development that you can seek out on the web)....if you want to discuss these then you should start a thread concerning these alternatives.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
So women jogging should not be allowed to CS or tear spray as a defense tool against assault?

<snip>
Charles

Hmmm..so if you were on a jury where a woman used CS and caused a child to be born deformed .. would you find for the plaintiff in such a case? Against the woman who caused this ? Against the manufacturer of the agent? Against the retailer that sold it?

Chemical and biological agents should not be used for self defense. I can make VX nerve gas ... can I use this for self defense? I don't think so.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Hmmm..so if you were on a jury where a woman used CS and caused a child to be born deformed .. would you find for the plaintiff in such a case? Against the woman who caused this ? Against the manufacturer of the agent? Against the retailer that sold it?

Chemical and biological agents should not be used for self defense. I can make VX nerve gas ... can I use this for self defense? I don't think so.

What exactly are the increased risks from one-time exposure to CS or tear gas, McBeth? How do they compare to the risks of birth defects that the State of California "knows" to be caused by exposure to gasoline fumes as you pump your own gas?

There is at least one hair growth medication for men that causes severe birth defects if a pregnant woman so much as touches a broken pill once. How does one time exposure to low levels of CS or tear gas compare in terms of risk of birth defects?

Come on, give some solid numbers. I searched and can't find any. All I find are a bunch of anarchist/protest/pacifist sites that make vague claims and offer advice on how to mitigate the discomfort effects of tear gas. Interestingly, none of these sites offer as advice, "Don't engage in riots."

I found one site on military women who breastfeed.


JP-8, Lead and Tear Gas are the three main hazardous materials that many military personnel are exposed to on a regular basis, and the three for which there is some published information available as to the safety of exposure while breastfeeding and/or expressing breastmilk.
....
Tear gas or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, is used primarily for training purposes in the military and police forces. Of the three hazardous materials listed, it is the most often asked about and the least likely to cause any problems with breastfeeding or pumped breastmilk. ...

I'm thinking you are full of crap and grossly exaggerating the risks of birth defects from rare exposure to tear or CS gas. Now, if pregnant women are routinely engaging in riots such that they are getting a lot of tear gas exposure, I'm going to guess that there are other, much higher risks to their unborn baby including physical injury or death.

I don't know how often pregnant women engage in the kind of violent crime such that they are likely to be sprayed by someone acting in self-defense. But I know that bullet holes center of mass cause all kinds of problems to any unborn babies being carried near that center of mass.

The guy who makes light of human death ("target practice" or "close range target practice") who thinks the law should allow shooting non-violent, outdoor simple trespassers on sight, is all kinds of worried about CS or tear gas?!?!?!?

Give it up. Stop hanging out at riots, stop giving cops reason to deploy CS gas against you. I'm very sorry if your mother's conduct caused you to be exposed to excessive amounts of CS/tear gas in utero. But it might explain a lot.

You're not convincing anyone.

Charles
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Neither should guns, knives, fists, nor anything else that causes harm.

Simply say, "Please don't do that." :rolleyes:

Or....OR just shower them with stickers ! Hooray!

sticker,375x360.u1.png
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
What exactly are the increased risks from one-time exposure to CS or tear gas, McBeth? <snip>

Give it up. Stop hanging out at riots, stop giving cops reason to deploy CS gas against you. I'm very sorry if your mother's conduct caused you to be exposed to excessive amounts of CS/tear gas in utero. But it might explain a lot.

You're not convincing anyone.

Charles


I am not your teacher; your attitude makes it zero probability that I would assist you in understanding either. Stay ignorant.:p Get all your info off the web and remain ignorant.

And attacking one's mother? What are you five years old? I'll bet my mom can beat up your mom! :p
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I am not your teacher; your attitude makes it zero probability that I would assist you in understanding either. Stay ignorant.:p Get all your info off the web and remain ignorant.

And attacking one's mother? What are you five years old? I'll bet my mom can beat up your mom! :p

You're not anyone's teacher --Mod removed personal insult--

You make empty amd emotional laden claims about tear gas causing birth defects and when you're unable to provide any data on the level of risk you try to claim it is because I'm not worthy to receive such information from your divinely inspired mind. You're as pathetic and feeble at defending your position as is the anarchist.

It wasn't your mother I was dissing. That you missed that makes my point that much more valid.

Tear gas exposure to mom is less hazardous to nursing babies than jet fuel or lead.

Give it up. Your intellectually vacant emotional appeals are not cutting it. They are exposing some rank hypocrisy.

Charles
 
Last edited by a moderator:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
You're not anyone's teacher because you're full of crap.

You make empty amd emotional laden claims about tear gas causing birth defects and when you're unable to provide any data on the level of risk you try to claim it is because I'm not worthy to receive such information from your divinely inspired mind. You're as pathetic and feeble at defending your position as is the anarchist.

It wasn't your mother I was dissing. That you missed that makes my point that much more valid.

Tear gas exposure to mom is less hazardous to nursing babies than jet fuel or lead.

Give it up. Your intellectually vacant emotional appeals are not cutting it. They are exposing some rank hypocrisy.

Charles


Charles I think you have outted yourself ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top