
The business of tear gas - hhs
https://www.axios.com/companies-produce-tear-gas-protests-58051fa3-8ac2-4fa7-817f-8cda0af1a14d.html
======
montecarl
In my city we have seen several peaceful protesters (some quite some distance
away from police) be nearly killed by less lethal ammunition. Being hit in the
head or neck by a rubber bullet will drop a person to the ground unconscious
instantly. This means they can even hit their head again against pavement.
Nobody has died yet, but they are clearly extremely dangerous.

We have also seen the use of tear gas. I don't want the police to hurt anyone,
but I haven't seen any long term damage from its use.

If police are going to use force, from what I have seen, tear gas is less
dangerous. It is still awful. I'd rather it not be used, but I just wanted to
share what I've seen.

~~~
ashtonkem
Police appear to be misusing rubber bullets, possibly on purpose.

Rubber bullets are supposed to be fired at shin height, to achieve the
appropriate mix of pain and risk reduction. They’re not zero risk because of
ricochets, but flat, low trajectories help. It should go without saying that
they should only be used when necessary, but if they must be used there is a
way it should be done.

The number of people being struck in the chest and head by rubber bullets
implies that the cops are aiming for the head, a gross abuse of force if true.

~~~
reaperducer
_Police appear to be misusing rubber bullets, possibly on purpose._

It used to be batons. Then beanbag guns. Then it was tasers. Then rubber
bullets.

Every time the police are given a new tool, it is used to its maximum force,
which is scary considering so many departments are now getting military
equipment without military training in how to use it right.

The politicians who authorize these purchases don't seem to understand that
police are not trained to use minimum force in a life-threatening situation.
The cop shooting a guy in the foot to get him to drop a weapon is just
Hollywood. In real life, cops are trained to shoot for the chest to kill
because in real life when they draw their guns, it's almost always a life-or-
death situation.

Give a cop a "less lethal" weapon, and he still uses it with his shoot-to-kill
training. Police officers aren't soldiers, but we're turning them into
soldiers.

~~~
anamexis
Cops might be _trained_ to only draw their guns in life-or-death situations,
but that certainly isn't the case in real life.

~~~
sky_rw
Important distinction lies between "life-or-death" and "perceived life-or-
death". The leeway given to police over civilians in this matter seems at the
root of a lot of these issues.

------
splitrocket
Tear gas is a chemical weapon and as such is banned in war according to the
Geneva Conventions.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2014/08/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2014/08/14/tear-gas-is-a-chemical-weapon-banned-in-war-but-ferguson-
police-shoot-it-at-protesters/)

~~~
oicu812
The article states, "It also lives in a legal gray zone, due to international
treaties that allow it to be used in domestic law enforcement but not in war."

~~~
geogra4
Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law enforcement
either.

~~~
eitland
Do you have a suggestion for a better way to achieve the same results?

(Of course we can discuss if most of the uses of tear gas are wrong, but lets
for a moment think that we have a moment were we need to chase away a crowd of
evil persons riotong and threatening to kill perfectly innocent children.)

~~~
mdorazio
Did you really just use a “think of the children!” argument to justify tear
gas? Not cool.

To answer your question, basic tactics in crowd control using water cannons
and riot shields with minimal force is plenty to handle crowds when you don’t
deliberately antagonize them to violence.

~~~
eitland
> Did you really just use a “think of the children!” argument to justify tear
> gas? Not cool.

Way to misunderstand and derail an honest opinion in my opinion.

Also I am not playing the "think of the children card", I'm just trying to
create a situation where we can discuss

\- the correct use of force

separate from the issue of

\- if the use of force is correct

Feel free to come up with a better example.

> To answer your question, basic tactics in crowd control using water cannons
> and riot shields with minimal force is plenty to handle crowds when you
> don’t deliberately antagonize them to violence.

Let me explain:

Why I wrote what I wrote: I've been subjected to tear gas while locked in and
unable to escape until allowed (military training). I know very well what tear
gas can feel like: coming out from the bunker I felt I was suffocating but I
did as I was told and ran until it cleared up and lived to tell. Same with
everyone else.

So unlike many (most?) HNers I have actual personal experience with it.

I've also worked with and around some high pressure pump systems (farming) and
seen some demos of firefighting water cannons and my best guess is that water
cannons will be more dangerous _if you use enough force to have the same
effect_. After all, being knocked to the ground is really dangerous if you
don't manage to protect your head.

I'm open to learn though, preferably if someone who actually know what they
are talking about (might very well be you, just explain how you know) will
explain.

~~~
anigbrowl
You wrote _a crowd of evil persons [rioting] and threatening to kill perfectly
innocent children.)_ so you cannot say you are not playing the 'think of the
children' card. It really seems like you are just trying to take over control
of the conversation and make it run in the direction of normalizing the use of
force.

 _So unlike many (most?) HNers I have actual personal experience with it._

Why are you assuming HNers are not politically active? I've been tear gassed 6
times since last Friday and this is not my first rodeo. I have a bunch of use
gas grenades sitting on my desk whose manufacturers I'm tracing right now.

Your military training experience is good as far as it goes, and I have heard
similar stores from many police officers, but it seems to me you are
overlooking many factors. You were selected for physical fitness and toughness
before being admitted to military training and you knew that however
unpleasant the experience that it was a controlled setting supervised by
experienced people with full medical facilities and personnel available if
anything went wrong.

Imagine yourself part of a small crowd of people of mixed experience, age,
mobility, and physical health. Some are prepared with masks or respirators,
eye protection, and full-body clothing, others are in casual wear like shorts
and t-shirts. You and they are standing on the sidewalk around an
intersection, occasionally someone shouts an opinion or a few people chant
something but mostly people are quiet. Halfway down each block is a line of
police in riot gear with gas masks. At an order from their sergeant a
grenadier on one street fires two or three small CS gas grenades toward where
the street meets the intersection. People run or walk briskly away from that
line of police and around the corner. Most are OK although a few are not
handling it well and need help breathing or rinsing their eyes. Next the
police farther up that street fire a couple of grenades at the street, causing
the crowd to change direction. Some run across the street, if they can. The
police on the 3rd and 4th streets repeat the process and now about half the
crowd is off the sidewalk and in the intersection. Police throw a larger
combination CS gas grenade into the middle of the intersection which explodes
with a 175 dB bang, a bright flash of light, and a much larger and thicker
cloud of CS gas. While everyone is variously indisposed, the lines of police
move from down each block right up to the intersection, penning the crowd in
from all sides. Than a recorded message is played declaring an illegal
assembly because so many people have departed the sidewalk.

The stated cause for this action was that some minutes earlier, when 2 streets
were still open down to the next intersection, an unknown person drove up to
and through the intersection, dinged another car, and down the street at a
dangerous speed before making a sharp turn and driving away. It's unclear to
me why this was considered the fault of the people standing on the sidewalk.
This happened about 36 hours ago in the Bay Area. Here are two short videos
captured early in the process.

[https://twitter.com/LCRWnews/status/1266987708854923265](https://twitter.com/LCRWnews/status/1266987708854923265)

[https://twitter.com/LCRWnews/status/1266988367905910784](https://twitter.com/LCRWnews/status/1266988367905910784)

You can always make up a scenario where a given approach or tool is the most
economical and appropriate. It's a good diversion from the unpleasant facts of
widespread inappropriate deployment that are happening now.

~~~
eitland
> You wrote a crowd of evil persons [rioting] and threatening to kill
> perfectly innocent children.) so you cannot say you are not playing the
> 'think of the children' card.

It is easy to attack me when you cut away half my words an all the context.

Look at what I am actually writing, and what it is a reply to:

>>> oicu812 3 hours ago | parent | flag | favorite | on: The business of tear
gas

>>> The article states, "It also lives in a legal gray zone, due to
international treaties that allow it to be used in domestic law enforcement
but not in war."

>> geogra4 3 hours ago [–]

>> Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law
enforcement either. reply

> -4 points by eitland 3 hours ago [–]

> Do you have a suggestion for a better way to achieve the same results?

> (Of course we can discuss if most of the uses of tear gas are wrong, but
> lets for a moment think that we have a moment were we need to chase away a
> crowd of evil persons riotong and threatening to kill perfectly innocent
> children.)

Can you see it now?

 _I 'm trying to ask an honest question, if someone has a better solution
instead of using tear gas._

 _To clearify that I don 't want to support the actual use of tear gas in this
situation I'm creating a hypothetical situation where (in the hypothetical
situation) an angry mob of evil people are attacking innocent children._

At _no point_ am I suggesting that you are an evil mob. At no point am I
playing the "think of the children card" but it seems someone managed to post
one comment that derailed the question "what should we use instead of teargas"
into this mess.

>> So unlike many (most?) HNers I have actual personal experience with it.

> Why are you assuming HNers are not politically active? I've been tear gassed
> 6 times since last Friday and this is not my first rodeo. I have a bunch of
> use gas grenades sitting on my desk whose manufacturers I'm tracing right
> now.

Have my respect. I do really respect people who care enough to go out and face
that stuff and I know you are probably angry, but don't be angry with me for
something I didn't write!

Also - and this just feels stupid now - but my actual words still stands and
it is not just based on a technicality:

Most HNers -unlike you- know nothing about CS except what they see on the
news.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm not attacking you, I'm citing what you wrote. Nor did I accuse you of
suggesting I was part of an evil mob. I think you're reacting to feeling
dogpiled on and have got invested in defending a piece of rhetorical ground
that is not worth holding. It happens.

I also think you might be underestimating the breadth of experience on HN,
even if many people choose not to go into detail about their priors.

------
woodruffw
For those curious: there are actual several different gas/powder agents
colloquially referred to as "tear gas".

CS gas[1] is one of the more commonly deployed ones in the United States. At
least one paper[2] associates CS gas with long term heart and lung damage.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas)

[2]:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20653665_Tear_Gas-H...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20653665_Tear_Gas-
Harassing_Agent_or_Toxic_Chemical_Weapon)

~~~
reaperducer
_At least one paper[2] associates CS gas with long term heart and lung
damage._

So the cops will get theirs... in 20 years or so.

~~~
woodruffw
That paper's already 30 years old, unfortunately. We can't even hold law
enforcement accountable for well-attested acts of brutality currently; it
looks like we're a while off from holding them accountable for slowly
poisoning people.

------
NonEUCitizen
Since there are many Californians on HN, how about getting tear gas banned in
California via a California Ballot Proposition?

------
swhnorton
[https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/triple-
chase...](https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/triple-chaser)

------
jeffdavis
Let's say that there was the "perfect" non-lethal weapon. Kind of like a
phaser from Star Trek set to "stun" mode.

Would that be a good thing? I imagine there would be a lot of cases where they
just stun everyone because, why not?

For that matter, maybe just implant everyone with a lights-out switch.

~~~
karatestomp
Falling from standing height is really dangerous, especially for people of
full adult height (acceleration due to gravity is worse the higher your head
is, and your head's the main concern—it's part of why toddlers can fall over
all day, even on somewhat hard surfaces, and unless they hit _just_ wrong
they'll be OK). "Stun" that immediately dropped people would still kill and
cripple sometimes.

[EDIT] especially in Star Trek where the stun sometimes tosses people off
their feet, too, quite a few of those people/aliens would end up dead or
requiring a visit to the med bay, IRL.

------
grendelt
Also interesting... [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/tear-
gas-...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/tear-gas-hong-
kong-made-in-usa)

------
nsxwolf
What's the correct way to control a violent crowd? Anything besides "solve all
the world's problems so no one is angry"?

~~~
zwass
Do not escalate the crowd to violence. See yesterday's
[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-
pro...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-protesters-
and-police-safer-heres-why-departments-respond-with-force-anyway/).

~~~
nsxwolf
Let's say de-escalation fails. Then what?

~~~
threatofrain
Develop longstanding community relations as other western countries do so that
you can exercise the tools of trust and patience. When a mob of over a
thousand develops there might be something really wrong.

If de-escalation fails with a large crowd in an urban setting and both sides
presume violence with guns, how are police supposed to maintain control?
Military tactics?

~~~
rlucas
De-escalation begins at home, my friend. When a group of over a thousand
develops, that is something _right_ because they are citizens calling for the
righting of some wrongs. A "mob" is something else, and calling a thousand in
the street a "mob" absent an existing violent action is itself an escalatory
rhetorical step.

In none of the instant cases (the last four days of nationwide protests
focused on or around BLM-esque causes) has it been correct for "both sides
[to] presume violence with guns." Only the state agents could reasonably be
presumed to have and use firearms. These protesters are not shooting at cops.
There is no valid presumption there.

~~~
jpxw
Cops have been shot and at least four are in hospital as we speak right now.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkY2tDQeGY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkY2tDQeGY)

~~~
minikites
How many innocent people have been shot by cops?

------
coronadisaster
I need some tear gas, and a mask [https://www.amazon.com/WHYIT-Ventilative-
Biochemical-Respira...](https://www.amazon.com/WHYIT-Ventilative-Biochemical-
Respirator-Agricultural/dp/B086VHYJJY/)

where is a good tear gas source?

