Portland, Seattle, and Denver ban the use of tear gas against protestors

Full title : Portland is the latest city to suspend the use of tear gas on protesters

Denver and Seattle have made the same decision about the use of tear gas or flash bang grenades. It would appear to me that the government officials in some cities are wanting the police to go toe to toe with some of the more radical property destroying elements in these protest.

It is hard to believe that city officials and governors actually want to see their cities and businesses burned to the ground but, here you go. I guess any means necessary to throw the blame on Washington and the administration, cops, society, or whatever the latest bitch is ?

I never link CNN to any article so if this is fake news blame them and not me please. I already feel dirty by just reading anything posted by them..

(CNN)Police in Portland, Oregon, won't use tear gas to disperse crowds, becoming the latest city to order the tactical change amid the ongoing nationwide protests against police brutality.

American Civil Liberties Union Oregon sends a letter

"Using tear gas and other chemical weapons that attack respiratory systems, cause coughing and make it hard to breathe in response to protests about the longstanding racial injustices in our communities is excessive and morally repugnant," the letter said.

www.cnn.com...

Trump will be fuming 😉

hes going to order the shooting soon...like he promised...

Oh well...back to rubber bullets and batons.

a reply to: 727Sky

do it like the argentines in the 70s! lock them up, let them disappear! and if anyone is allowed to demonstrate at all, then against abortion! pro-life! but only if it fits into your agenda, right?

a reply to: 727Sky

Using tear gas and other chemical weapons that attack respiratory systems, cause coughing and make it hard to breathe in response to protests about the longstanding racial injustices in our communities is excessive and morally repugnant," the letter said.

Nowi f you want to protest againt anything we deem not in our intrest like gun rights or the lock down all force will be used to stop such actions.

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: 727Sky

do it like the argentines in the 70s! lock them up, let them disappear! and if anyone is allowed to demonstrate at all, then against abortion! pro-life! but only if it fits into your agenda, right?

when was pro life gatherings met with tear gas, or not allowed to March?
killing a man is not the same as abortion. that defense wouldn't fly in court would it?
no don't do like the Argentinians did ..let's leave that in the past

Tear gas is a chemical weapon,
In 1925 the Geneva Convention. Classed tear gas as a Chemical warfare agent and banned for use during wartime.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: 727Sky

do it like the argentines in the 70s! lock them up, let them disappear! and if anyone is allowed to demonstrate at all, then against abortion! pro-life! but only if it fits into your agenda, right?

when was pro life gatherings met with tear gas, or not allowed to March?

good question! or if nazis march or any overweight gun nuts or people don't like foreigners... no gas in sight! sorry but i think we are talking at cross purposes. my mistake. greetings from the beautiful starnbergersee in bavaria!

OK then, how about laughing gas? Itching powder? Trained skunk? No?

a reply to: 727Sky

Tear gas, chemical agents, bullets - things that should not be used on peaceful protesters who don't attend protests with weaponry.

Tear gas, chemical agents, bullets - things that can be used to take out enemy rioters and looters who attend protests with weaponry.

#ChangeMyMind

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
OK then, how about laughing gas? Itching powder? Trained skunk? No?

apnews.com...

SEATTLE — Police used flash bang devices and pepper spray to disperse a crowd of protesters in Seattle on Saturday night, the ninth consecutive day of George Floyd protests in the city.

The mayhem in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood followed a large, peaceful demonstration earlier in the day with medical workers demonstrating against racism and police brutality. It also came a day after Mayor Jenny Durkan and Police Chief Carmen Best imposed a 30-day moratorium on the department’s use of one kind of tear gas.

KING-TV reports that a small group of protesters started throwing objects at officers about 7:30 p.m. on Saturday. Police ordered the crowd to move, then used incendiary devices.

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: 727Sky

do it like the argentines in the 70s! lock them up, let them disappear! and if anyone is allowed to demonstrate at all, then against abortion! pro-life! but only if it fits into your agenda, right?

You done with the ranting and raving [snip].

first we NEVER have done in the 70s or even in the 60 50 40 "lock peole up , let them disappear" when they protested..with maybe a rare exception but not as major universal thing in the usa

you post that as first part of your comment and expect to be taken as anything other than a fool?

second... you (as in most cases of liberal causes/debates) try to use two different words/concepts as same thing..

there is LEGAL AND PEACEFUL protests ..
then there is ILLEGAL PROTESTS, RIOTS, LOOTING, AND VIOLENCE...

if your legally and peacefully protesting then there is no problem and IF cops cross the line they are BREAKING THE LAW..


But if you choose to loot, use violence, and ILLEGALLY PROTEST then they can use LEGAL FORCE (like tear gas) to ENFORCE THE LAW...

BTW your right to protest DOES NOT LET YOU stop people who want to go about their business , go into businesses, and/or drive down a road.

that is ILLEGAL and no matter how "peaceful" you protest you are NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO.

Your first amendment rights to protest DO NOT ALLOW you to protest anywhere you want, anytime you want, and no one is required to listen to a thing you have to say...


Scrounger

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, tear gas is a banned substance in the Geneva Convention. Police in this country are using a chemical weapon that not even the military will employ in a time of war. And on their own citizens no less. In fact, a young girl passed away a few days ago after having an asthmatic reaction to tear gas.

Banning the use of tear gas is a good thing and should be done across the board.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, tear gas is a banned substance in the Geneva Convention. Police in this country are using a chemical weapon that not even the military will employ in a time of war. And on their own citizens no less. In fact, a young girl passed away a few days ago after having an asthmatic reaction to tear gas.

Banning the use of tear gas is a good thing and should be done across the board.

first you ignore that tear gas, pepper gas, pepper spray and other riot control agents/devices are used ONLY (yes there is a very rare time it isnt and that is illegal) when the protests turn ILLEGAL...

yes if one doesnt follow a LEGAL order to disperse or blocks a roadway it is ILLEGAL ACTION..

yes some are vulnerable to said agents but how is that the police fault?

the biggest problem with your logic is two fold....

one... if you dont illegally protest , riot, loot, ect you wont have to face this...if you do or stay in a situation that is ITS YOUR FAULT to whatever happens.

two (and the biggest problem)... the police use such agents to gain compliance, stop violence , protect the INNOCENT public and in essence UPHOLD THE LAW that uses THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO GAIN COMPLIANCE.

this is to protect the police AND YES EVEN THE LAWBREAKERS..

if you deny this the police options are limited to PHYSICAL FORCE and (I hope this never is needed) and lethal force.

the first WILL NOT IF result in MORE INJURIES AND DEATH to BOTH POLICE AND LAWBREAKERS.

is that what you want?

if it is then buddy STRAP ON A BADGE AND PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH...

scrounger

a reply to: 727Sky

A choice not to use tear gas is a choice to have their city burnt to the ground.

Yeah, that's not absolutely fallacious at all.

Glad to see some cities at least virtue signalling and backing away from going full police state.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: 727Sky

A choice not to use tear gas is a choice to have their city burnt to the ground.

Yeah, that's not absolutely fallacious at all.

Glad to see some cities at least virtue signalling and backing away from going full police state.

ok then what do you o expert on riot control tactics do you think the police can / should do?

at the best of times the police are gonna be OUTNUMBERED.. sometimes 10 or more to one.

how do you expect them to STOP people should they ILLEGALLY PROTEST, riot, damage property, loot, hurt others, ect?

i love when you and others comment but give NO ALTERNATIVES ...

i suspect its because when they are exposed to the light of truth/facts they will crumble like a vampire in the sun..

along with most wont even apply much less work for the police....

what is truly "fallacious" in your argument is you dont seem to care about the INNOCENT THAT HAVE already lost property, jobs, and been hurt and are in danger of this happening to them

I bet in truth the nanosecond after if (and i hope it NEVER DOES) IT HAPPENS TO YOU you be screaming bloody murder "where were the police to protect me and stop this"


scrounger

one thing I do notice is people keep bringing up arguments about the geneva convention that "this is illegal in war"..

well sunshine(s) two things..

one .. READ THE DAMN LIMITATIONS... it is not to be used in a BATTLEFIELD situation.. it is LEGAL HOWEVER in riot control .

two.. the rules of war are different than the rules in civilians...
under the rules of war if someone is the "enemy" and they wearing uniforms you can SHOOT THEM WITHOUT WARNING.

so by your logic of trying to use the rules of war in this case. if a gang banger wearing colors (a uniform) that we are at "war with" (they do carry guns and threaten people) you can shoot gang banger(s) without warning..

notice how your using the geneva convention works against you?

three..... we have LAWS (just like the geneva convention is a law) AGAINST ILLEGALLY protest (be peaceful or not), riots, looting, ect...

so what do you propose to those that ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW?

btw THE CAUSE IS IRRELIVANT.. no "cause" justifies breaking the law and harming others....

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Your post conflates a great many issues.

I'm ignoring the blatant appeals to emotion.

I said I'm glad to see some cities backing away from police state tactics.

You're trying to conflate that into my saying that the use of force to maintain the public peace is never justified.

That's not what I said.

My first recommendation to prevent civil uprising would be for the police to stop executing citizens in the streets.

a reply to: 727Sky

I don't know why no one flies one of those fire control aircraft over the crowds and douse them with that orange retardant. They'd all look like the President before he goes on TV.

Wouldn't that be a riot? Man I crack myself up thinking about crazy responses to the sheer idiocy our society is turning itself into.

a reply to: 727Sky

Who's words are these ?

You really have to hand it to some populations... When they get pissed the do more than just complain

There yours actually. As found here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...