Though props to Fairfax for seeking indictments and for releasing the footage in the face of Park Police silence.
Very weird case
Which is why Fairfax appears to be pushing for indictments. Regardless of whether Bijan was guilty of anything, we'll never know because he was robbed of both his right to due process as well as his life.
They want to say it was just smoke grenades and pepper balls... Which the CDC defines as "tear gas".
The CDC defines chloroacetophenone (CN) as tear gas https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750...
Pepper balls contain oleoresin capsicum (OC) which is different in terms of its chemical composition but produces similar symptoms.
Depending on your definition, it may or may not be the same thing because "tear gas" is an unscientific term.
> Riot control agents (sometimes referred to as “tear gas”) are chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function by causing irritation to the eyes, mouth, throat, lungs, and skin.
I think we all agree that "gas/chemicals that cause tears" is "tear gas". Anyone saying that tear gas was not used is splitting hairs and their motivations should be questioned. This is not the time to be "technically correct" when police are using things like this on peaceful protesters.
By that standard, it's tear gas.
The question is: who will police the police? They can't be trusted to police themselves as we're seeing.
Concept of punishment - in the USA punishment is most often about vengeance, retribution and restitution. It's why victims families can watch the criminal get executed when on death row. In many other countries and the UK there is no death penalty, and punishment is more about the deprivation of liberty of the criminal and less or not at all about restitution of the victim. Victims in the UK don't really get much of a look in outside of a victim statement in court after sentencing. Criminals are prosecuted by the Crown and not on behalf of the victim. In the USA it's common for civil cases to be used to get more restitution against criminals. A stronger example would be looking at Scandinavian countries and their approach to prison and punishment and rehabilitation.
Police self defence - in the USA, the police are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves and their buddies against danger, which explains the more liberal use of guns. Literally "shoot first and ask questions later" is allowed if the officer feels their life is in danger. But mainly the protection of the police is the most important thing, above the protection of the public. In the UK and someplaces elsewhere, the police consider pro-active self defence as not automatically allowed. They will often not engage and retreat and get backup in numbers if under danger. They do not rank self protection as the most important thing.
That's extremely common in the US as well
UK police aren't armed, which means that they are well trained in de-escalation because it's the main thing that's protecting them.
One of the biggest worries of introducing tasers is that it diminishes that aspect. Why try to calm someone down if you can reach for your taser instead.
In the US they reach for a handgun instead.
Disarm the police. That might require disarming the population too.
So step 1 is ban the guns.
Which tragically means the USA will likely stay at step 0 for a very long time, because it seems the second amendment is held to a higher regard than the first.
I totally agree -- As long as I am last in line to turn in my gun. And many civilian and government gun owners agree with me. Remember that the military has guns too, which shoot just as straight domestically and abroad, so we also need to disarm the army, which requires disarming all foreign nations. Now what? I think we'll need a Paxos or Raft cluster or something.
This "tear gas" argument is a red herring meant to distract from the real issue. And the media is falling for it.